Justice Watch Discussion Board "THE CASE AGAINST THE RAMSEYS IS GONE" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... THE CASE AGAINST THE RAMSEYS IS GONE, Morgan, 08:06:01, 7/17/2000 ST, ericasf, 08:13:16, 7/17/2000, (#1) I have , Holly, 08:22:47, 7/17/2000, (#2) Secret life, ericasf, 08:29:08, 7/17/2000, (#3) It's time for this thread!, mary99, 09:15:42, 7/17/2000, (#4) mary99, Holly, 09:37:17, 7/17/2000, (#5) I Second Holly's Excellent to your post,, Mary 99, doc, 22:10:03, 7/17/2000, (#78) confused, freebird, 09:38:11, 7/17/2000, (#6) BRAVO, MY FRIENDS!!!!!, Ginja, 10:10:05, 7/17/2000, (#7) it would be helpful to know, Edie Pratt, 10:17:48, 7/17/2000, (#8) Ginja, Raisedinboulder, 11:06:54, 7/17/2000, (#15) I'm with you, Ginja., sds, 10:29:20, 7/17/2000, (#9) Right on target, Ginja!, mary99, 10:45:45, 7/17/2000, (#12) Ginja, Ruthee, 11:16:56, 7/17/2000, (#17) Ruthee, Sylvia, 11:57:21, 7/17/2000, (#25) Thank, you, Ruthie, Lacey, 11:28:28, 7/17/2000, (#21) This really will be, Watching you, 11:36:04, 7/17/2000, (#22) Lacey and WY, Ruthee, 11:57:24, 7/17/2000, (#26) Useless information, Cutter, 10:36:14, 7/17/2000, (#10) the stand, mame, 10:39:49, 7/17/2000, (#11) just exactly WHAT, Edie Pratt, 10:51:21, 7/17/2000, (#13) My opinion, ericasf, 10:59:39, 7/17/2000, (#14) I find the MW angle, Seeker, 11:44:46, 7/17/2000, (#23) Seeker, ericasf, 12:25:35, 7/17/2000, (#31) Straight from the horse's mouth, ericasf, 11:12:40, 7/17/2000, (#16) Monster Conspiracy?, shadow, 11:17:28, 7/17/2000, (#18) Shadow,, ericasf, 11:22:32, 7/17/2000, (#20) framed? LOL, Edie Pratt, 11:21:29, 7/17/2000, (#19) Not ignoring you, Ruthee!, Ginja, 12:03:59, 7/17/2000, (#27) Seeker, Morgan, 11:52:56, 7/17/2000, (#24) This whole thing, darby, 12:41:55, 7/17/2000, (#34) I don't know who's right., gaiabetsy, 12:32:20, 7/17/2000, (#32) Steve Thomas, mame, 12:15:27, 7/17/2000, (#29) Morgan, Seeker, 12:11:43, 7/17/2000, (#28) Mame, freebird, 12:37:19, 7/17/2000, (#33) 64 counts..., mame, 12:25:18, 7/17/2000, (#30) MW , fly, 13:34:21, 7/17/2000, (#39) Ginja and Mame, hareen, 13:02:04, 7/17/2000, (#36) Yes, but, Seeker, 12:48:47, 7/17/2000, (#35) mame..., shadow, 13:05:26, 7/17/2000, (#37) Ruthee and others, chebrock, 13:36:01, 7/17/2000, (#40) Shadow, guess I am out as well, Sylvia, 13:28:31, 7/17/2000, (#38) Oh, dear me, Sylvia,, gaiabetsy, 13:39:55, 7/17/2000, (#41) gaiabetsy sometimes that happens, Sylvia, 13:45:32, 7/17/2000, (#42) For the life of me, momo, 14:21:47, 7/17/2000, (#45) Sylvia,, gaiabetsy, 14:01:42, 7/17/2000, (#43) gaiabetsy , , Sylvia, 14:11:04, 7/17/2000, (#44) birds of a feather?, Edie Pratt, 14:54:41, 7/17/2000, (#46) Shouting from rooftops and all that, canadiana, 16:02:33, 7/17/2000, (#49) Hareen, Ginja, 16:00:12, 7/17/2000, (#48) fly, mame, 15:52:17, 7/17/2000, (#47) Responding to Ruthee's earlier post, Ginja, 18:07:12, 7/17/2000, (#58) I'm not Fly, Real Stormy, 16:09:23, 7/17/2000, (#50) There is, ericasf, 16:10:26, 7/17/2000, (#51) Ugh, Abra, 16:16:37, 7/17/2000, (#53) well, mame, 16:14:21, 7/17/2000, (#52) Abra, mame, 16:20:41, 7/17/2000, (#54) I do hope, darby, 17:29:53, 7/17/2000, (#56) Mame, Real Stormy, 17:15:13, 7/17/2000, (#55) real stormy, mame, 17:37:33, 7/17/2000, (#57) Here is an example, Morgan, 18:15:43, 7/17/2000, (#59) If anyone is keeping track, pinker, 19:04:00, 7/17/2000, (#60) but, isn't the bottom line, Edie Pratt, 19:18:51, 7/17/2000, (#63) Question regarding FW as a witness, ericasf, 05:56:20, 7/18/2000, (#85) What did FW witness? , pinker, 19:28:58, 7/17/2000, (#65) Pinker, momo, 19:15:25, 7/17/2000, (#62) momo, pinker, 19:35:27, 7/17/2000, (#66) Morgan, Denver, 19:15:20, 7/17/2000, (#61) Denver, Morgan, 19:24:44, 7/17/2000, (#64) Ginja, canadiana, 20:23:48, 7/17/2000, (#68) Morgan, Denver, 20:13:08, 7/17/2000, (#67) MW is a Ruse, straykat2, 20:56:43, 7/17/2000, (#72) straykat, ericasf, 05:58:32, 7/18/2000, (#86) straykat2, Morgan, 21:14:24, 7/17/2000, (#75) Denver, Morgan, 20:41:01, 7/17/2000, (#69) Pure Ramsey Propaganda, chebrock, 20:47:34, 7/17/2000, (#70) Cheb, ericasf, 06:05:27, 7/18/2000, (#87) Chebrock, Morgan, 21:04:25, 7/17/2000, (#73) chebrock, mame, 20:55:21, 7/17/2000, (#71) Grow A Brain, Folks!, straykat2, 21:13:28, 7/17/2000, (#74) Straykat, ericasf, 06:07:20, 7/18/2000, (#88) straykat2, darby, 22:42:30, 7/17/2000, (#80) If it is true, dawn, 21:49:27, 7/17/2000, (#77) Morgan, why couldn't a prosecutor>>, ayelean, 21:42:29, 7/17/2000, (#76) "Meet Mame", Orsen, 22:24:48, 7/17/2000, (#79) JfJBR is the bottom line, mary99, 01:36:38, 7/18/2000, (#81) Hey Mary,, Orsen, 02:54:19, 7/18/2000, (#83) Orsen, ericasf, 06:09:35, 7/18/2000, (#89) mary99, rico, 02:47:14, 7/18/2000, (#82) Mary99, I love your posts>>, ayelean, 05:40:35, 7/18/2000, (#84) Did PR stage it?, mary99, 09:03:02, 7/18/2000, (#91) Allegations and Inaccuracies, Lacey, 08:38:22, 7/18/2000, (#90) Hey, who made you the expert?, mary99, 09:11:10, 7/18/2000, (#92) mary99, canadiana, 21:36:26, 7/18/2000, (#93) well, she does, mame, 22:08:06, 7/18/2000, (#94) Mary99>>, ayelean, 22:45:29, 7/18/2000, (#96) >>Ayelean, mary99, 23:07:35, 7/18/2000, (#97) Mame, mary99, 22:28:36, 7/18/2000, (#95) Mary99, ericasf, 06:07:54, 7/19/2000, (#99) TBNT, Lacey, 05:38:53, 7/19/2000, (#98) Lacey, ericasf, 06:09:30, 7/19/2000, (#100) what "war stories", Mary99?, Edie Pratt, 10:33:00, 7/19/2000, (#101) LOL, I guess your non-answer, Edie Pratt, 11:02:35, 7/19/2000, (#102) Edie , mary99, 15:21:49, 7/19/2000, (#103) edie, v_p, 15:34:31, 7/19/2000, (#104) Edie, I hear ya>>, ayelean, 19:00:51, 7/19/2000, (#105) ................................................................... "THE CASE AGAINST THE RAMSEYS IS GONE" Posted by Morgan on 08:06:01 7/17/2000 The information that MW has brought forward will be used by any competent defense lawyer to create reasonable doubt if the Ramseys are ever brought to trial for the murder of JonBenet. The BPD's lame investigation into MW's claims, and subsequent decision to ignore her and hope she will go away, proves that, rather than learn from their misstakes, the BPD just keep getting stoopider. In fact, as things stand now, the BPD will remain the standard for stoopidity to which all other small-time, ego-driven police departments can aspire to. According to MW, both Fleet white Sr. and Jr. have participated in a pedophile ring for decades. JonBenet spent the last hours of her life in the company of some members of this group. No jury would fail to connect these two events. A California prosecutor found MW credible enough to bring 64 charges of sexual assault and related offences against sex ring member, Macky Boykin. The failure to thoroughly investigate MW's claims could be the death knell for the Mike Kane--Steve Thomas Patsy-did-it criminal case. I have to wonder about the motives of Steve Thomas. He gives John a free ticket and ignores the majority opinion of experts as to the cause of JonBenet's vaginal injuries. He casts aside professional ethics by writing a book that reveals confidential investigative information from an ongoing case. In fact, ST finds fault only with the DA's office and ignores the failures and incompetence of the BPD. He pushes Fleet White's agenda way past the point of objectivity. Did ST become the unwitting pawn of a powerful and experienced manipulator? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "ST" Posted by ericasf on 08:13:16 7/17/2000 I was wondering the same thing about ST. I don't understand how he could be so defensive about Fleet White. Especially with the allegations that MW has brought forward. I mean, we all have defended him as a great investigator even though he had never worked a homocide before and we all stated how unbiased he was and that he was just working from the evidence. But is that really the truth? Because if that was the case then why is he so "high" on FW? Like the FBI agent said on Saturday that a witness is not deemed unreliable until their claim has been investigated...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I have " Posted by Holly on 08:22:47 7/17/2000 wondered about White's value as a witness since the MW stuff surfaced. The trick for a clever defense attorney would be to convince a judge to allow that testimony. And it is certainly possible that a shrewd person could construct events to accomplish goals. I have no problem with Patsy as perp if that is where the evidence leads. If it leads to someone else, so be it. That's fine too. ST sought to expose reality as he sees it. But behind it is his absolute devotion to FW as hero, a concept cultivated by FW, that is either genuine or bogus. If he is a hero, then why did Beckner describe White as morally empty? Thomas' book was unprofessional, but I truly think he had good intentions, is a good cop and a good person. My hunch is White wanted to be compromised as a witness. That could be a serious blow to the prosecution of this homicide. I just doubt he wanted that possibility to develop while at the same time exposing his secret life -- if there is one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Secret life" Posted by ericasf on 08:29:08 7/17/2000 Is right! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "It's time for this thread!" Posted by mary99 on 09:15:42 7/17/2000 Fleet White just can't be the so-called star witness for the prosecution if he's a sexual abuser of little girls. The comment by Mark Beckner that Fleet White is 'morally empty' is not consistent with praise for a so-called star witness's 'hero' status. Read between the lines of the BPD press release at the conclusion of the MW investigation: the Ramseys aren't in a sex ring and Fleet White didn't kill JBR. It's what's left unsaid that tells the story. It's no accident that the sentence was carefully split into two separate clauses and no accident that if both negatives applied to either the Ramseys or the Whites, it would have been worded differently. By turning the case over to the FBI and making that carefully worded statement, in addition to the previous statement that White is 'morally empty', it's clear that Fleet White just isn't the hero so many thought he was, nor is he the star witness the BPD positioned him to be. The way I see it, the only way to ever make the case against the Ramseys in court is to enlarge the umbrella of suspicion to include those members of a so-called sex ring, and thoroughly investigate those activites to find the Ramsey link if there is one. Since the Ramseys behavior and conflicting statements leave no doubt in most people's minds they are hiding something, there must be a connection between what Fleet White Sr and Jr were doing to MW and what happened to JBR. It's also quite possible that there was no intruder, but someone other than Patsy or John Ramsey killed JBR. Someone they let into their home, or someone who took JonBenet out of their home with their knowledge and consent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "mary99" Posted by Holly on 09:37:17 7/17/2000 Excellent post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "I Second Holly's Excellent to your post,, Mary 99" Posted by doc on 22:10:03 7/17/2000 This is the who and why! I pray that the what, when, where,and how will surface. JFJB! The Atlanta jw doc [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "confused" Posted by freebird on 09:38:11 7/17/2000 I'm confused of this whole thing.How would MB being convicted of sexual abuse charges on one female make him a pediphile ring leader. Men can and do abuse women every day doesnt make them a "ring leader' was he convicted of abusing anyone else? Was anything found on fleet??? if not how can he be discredited? does fleet have to prove he has not been part of a 'ped ring' or do the authorities need to have some evidence? How could Fleet be a star witness to anything unless he was present? frankly I don't see the Ramseys guilty because of anything Fleet said or did. The Ramseys have led me there along with the evidence and lack of evidence. Put them in front of a jury and lets just see if their defence attornys (do they even have one anymore?)could prove reasonable doubt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "BRAVO, MY FRIENDS!!!!!" Posted by Ginja on 10:10:05 7/17/2000 Let's get this case back on track! To hell with this nonsense of Fleet White being a hero; or Steve Thomas is a hero and one helluva fine whistleblower; or that the DA is scum. What is it going to take to get people to open their eyes and see what's going on!!! Scratching the surface, what do we have here? 1. The Fleet's...Sr. and Jr...BOTH "morally empty" and sexually deviant. (a) FW Jr.'s a staunch supporter of Thomas and Eller; (b) He was the last to see JBR alive; he was with JR when she was "found" dead in the basement; (c) He's got Steve Thomas in his back pocket (or maybe vice versa); (d) Not only has MW pointed her finger at Jr. as being one of her abusers (as his father before him), but at other known abusers who were visiting with the White Jr.'s family during the holidays and had access to the Ramseys. 2. A rogue cop who's intentions MAY have been on the right track in the beginning, but a whistleblower he ain't! When you blow whistles, you get action, and the only action I'm seeing is his making a buck or more off a young child's homicide...a homicide he abandoned. (a) His "hypothetical" bedwetting rage scenario has as many holes in it as the intruder theory; (b) He completely ignores the fact this child was sexually abused (I don't see where he ties it in at all into his 'hypothetical'); (c) Either he's in Fleet Jr.'s back pocket, or vice versa; (d) He insists John Ramsey is innocent and had nothing to do with this crime; (e) He insists that the investigation has been hampered and ruined by the DA. (f) He filed unwarranted and uncorroborated reports with Eller which resulted in the "real" lead detectives being pulled from the case (and with the two of them taken off, he moved up the ladder with Trujillo to fill the empty spots). (e) He was loyal to John Eller. 3. John Eller. Hmmmmmm....what did Hunter tell Shapiro to look at in Eller's background? Didn't that have something to do with 'deviant' sexual behavior? Oh yeah...it's about time we got this case back on track! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "it would be helpful to know" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:17:48 7/17/2000 just HOW helpful FW was to ST, eh? What did he whisper in ST's ear, that won ST over? I agree Morgan and Ginja, ST is a stinker for writing that book, it did NOTHING to further the case. I only wonder, if his hypothesis were true, would we know it when we heard it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Ginja" Posted by Raisedinboulder on 11:06:54 7/17/2000 Your absolutely right about just scratching the surface. 1. From what I understand, from the first week, ST perdetermined HIS destiny in this case my making a particular statement of "This was going to be THE most important case of his career." 2. It appears, he immediately began undermining his sergeant and anyone else who stood in his way. ST relationship with Eller began after JBR's death. 3. Eller Interal Affairs Panel was under the control of Koby. There's more to this than anyone knows, I'm sure. 4. It was a know fact that Eller had a real resentment with Mason prior to this case because Mason was chosen over Eller to attend the FBI National Academy in Quantico earlier in that year. 5. ST is not a hero, he is a whistleblower and IMHO he didn't start this after his book was released. Your description of ST being a rogue cop is very good. Your right, it is good to see this case back on track. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "I'm with you, Ginja." Posted by sds on 10:29:20 7/17/2000 Fleet White was there every step of the way with John Ramsey that morning. He was JR's shadow when the body was found. I don't think any of this was coincidental. And ST ignoring jbr's vaginal injuries is absurd. How could he overlook the chronic sexual abuse that was going on with jbr, even in the writing of his own book? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Right on target, Ginja!" Posted by mary99 on 10:45:45 7/17/2000 Ginja, JW has always set the standard (when we're not kidding around!) for objectivity when it comes to the Ramseys. Now we need to focus on how Thomas, Eller and White have pushed their own agendas and let's try to figure out what each had to gain by doing so. If White has/had connections in the BPD, my guess is that Eller and Thomas served that purpose until their departure. Thomas left when it became clear he couldn't influence the direction of the investigation from the inside any longer. Eller left when his glaring mistakes were intolerable to the majority of officers under his command. White wrote numerous letters railing against the DA, who didn't move fast enough on Thomas's Patsy-did-it-over-bedwetting theory. Hunter plodded along, stretching out the waiting game and thus trying Fleet White's patience. Hunter always thought that porn, sexual abuse and more than one perp were behind the murder; everything Thomas stayed clear of in his theory. Dare I say that like the Ramseys, where Steve Thomas points is the opposite of the truth? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Ginja" Posted by Ruthee on 11:16:56 7/17/2000 I didn't attend the latest JW get together, but I suspect that Jane Doe was discussed. What may have been learned there or said there is unknown to me, but I suspect this subject re-surfaces due to that meeting. Personally, I believe Steve Thomas to be an honest and truthful man. I've never placed him in the "hero" class. Fleet White is still a mystery to me. I can't understand why he did not speak out after Jane Doe surfaced. He seemed to have no trouble contacting the highest public official who would lend an ear. As far as Hunter being scum, I believe he is incompetent and has been a manifestation of the Peter Principle since his election to the office he holds. I've mentioned before that I don't know what morally empty means. I still can't figure out why Beckner made that statement and has since ignored White. If anybody knows what that may mean, I wish they'd tell me. I've never heard any statement by anyone other than a forum opinion that Fleet White Jr. or Sr. was sexually deviant. The only thing that I know is that Boykin was convicted of sex charges involving Jane Doe. It seems to me that that's the one fact that we have to work with in this whole scenario. I don't understand what being a staunch supporter of Thomas and Eller has to do with anything involving the murder of JonBenet. I believe Susan Stine was the last non family member to see JonBenet alive. I've seen nothing to the contrary thus far. Is it your opinion that Fleet White is lying along with John Ramsey about the chain of events when they both went to the basement? Fleet White may have Steve Thomas in his back pocket, but I've not seen anything in print where White even mentions Thomas' name. I may be missing something, but can you show me a quote where Jane Doe says that Fleet White Sr. and Jr. abused her? Is there a quote anywhere from any of the investigators regarding this matter that indicates she said that? I have no idea who these "other known abusers" are who visited the White's home on Christmas Day. Do you know who they are? A rogue cop??? Hunter was kind enough to make the statement that there was nothing in Thomas' book that was not already available to the Ramseys. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what he said. If someone resigns from the FBI and writes a book of critizism, it's ok. For some reason Thomas is a rogue cop. I don't believe Thomas abandoned the homicide investigation. I believe he was locked out. I disagree with Thomas regarding the involvement of John Ramsey in the murder. That doesn't mean that I believe that John Ramsey and Fleet White have him in their back pocket. You chastise others for calling Hunter scum and then turn right around and accuse him of feeding information to Shapiro regarding Eller's "deviant" behaviour. Do you have any idea of what behaviour that might be? Can you lead me to the unwarranted and uncorroborated reports that were filed by Thomas? I'd be happy to get back on track, but so far I have no information available to me to consider. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Ruthee" Posted by Sylvia on 11:57:21 7/17/2000 >Personally, I believe Steve Thomas to be >an honest and truthful man. >I've never placed him in the >"hero" class. Same opinion. >Fleet White is still a mystery to >me. I can't understand why >he did not speak out after >Jane Doe surfaced. He seemed >to have no trouble contacting the >highest public official who would lend >an ear. To me he is also still a mystery, however I can find anything against this man except for the fact that he stopped cooperating with the BPD when he was refused the same priveledges as the Ramsey's. In my opinion, stupid of him! >As far as Hunter being scum, I >believe he is incompetent and has >been a manifestation of the Peter >Principle since his election to the >office he holds. Totally incompetent and therefor he's trashing everyone who has something on him. A lot of people wrote books, only Hunter decided that only ST's book was picking on the bones, strange to say at least. >I've mentioned before that I don't know >what morally empty means. I >still can't figure out why Beckner >made that statement and has since >ignored White. If anybody knows >what that may mean, I wish >they'd tell me. Also do not understand that statement as it was about seeing the previous interview given by him, now White was morally empty for that, but the Ramseys aren't? >I don't understand what being a staunch >supporter of Thomas and Eller has >to do with anything involving the >murder of JonBenet. I don't recall that Eller was voted away by his detectives, Koby was though. >I believe Susan Stine was the last >non family member to see JonBenet >alive. I've seen nothing to >the contrary thus far. Is >it your opinion that Fleet White >is lying along with John Ramsey >about the chain of events when >they both went to the basement? Two things are possible: White is afraid he will be framed for the murder by the Ramseys as he did confront them with no cooperating with the BPD. Or White is still covering up for Ramsey in that case please check my post "perjury of not?" >Fleet White may have Steve Thomas in >his back pocket, but I've not >seen anything in print where White >even mentions Thomas' name. Don't think that, what on earth would he have on him, never heard Steve Thomas was a corrupt cop. Only heard he was decorated several times. >I may be missing something, but can >you show me a quote where >Jane Doe says that Fleet White >Sr. and Jr. abused her? >Is there a quote anywhere from >any of the investigators regarding this >matter that indicates she said that? Have to agree with you on this again. Also do not know anything about this. >I have no idea who these "other >known abusers" are who visited the >White's home on Christmas Day. Do >you know who they are? A mystery to me! >A rogue cop??? Hunter was kind enough >to make the statement that there >was nothing in Thomas' book that >was not already available to the >Ramseys. I don't know if >that's true or not, but that's >what he said. >If someone resigns from the FBI and >writes a book of critizism, it's >ok. For some reason Thomas >is a rogue cop. Think I already answered that above somewhere. >I don't believe Thomas abandoned the homicide >investigation. I believe he was >locked out. Thought so as well as he was being blocked in every way possible by Hunter & Co. Also MrCary agrees with Thomas on him being blocked. >I disagree with Thomas regarding the involvement >of John Ramsey in the murder. > That doesn't mean that I >believe that John Ramsey and Fleet >White have him in their back >pocket. Agree with you on that one as well. >You chastise others for calling Hunter scum >and then turn right around and >accuse him of feeding information to >Shapiro regarding Eller's "deviant" behaviour. Do >you have any idea of what >behaviour that might be? Never heard anything was deviant in Ellers behavior and Steve Thomas stated that Shapiro couldn't find a thing, although he and many others tried to find something. Guess I am on the same line with you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Thank, you, Ruthie" Posted by Lacey on 11:28:28 7/17/2000 For telling it like it is. Calmly and rationally. This is what I suspected was going on at the get-together.. clearly their prerogative, of course. And now we have arrived at an all-out foaming at the mouth freaking Fleet et al feeding frenzy! Their posts couldn't possibly be any more inaccurate. Especially Ginja's. Well, y'all carry on Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "This really will be" Posted by Watching you on 11:36:04 7/17/2000 my one and only post on this subject, since I've said it all before. Ruthie, you stole the thoughts from my head. Lacey, great minds and all, you know. Shadow, you forgot the one-eyed purple people eater, shame on you. Carry on. I'll be back when the feeding frenzy ends - oh those get-togethers.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Lacey and WY" Posted by Ruthee on 11:57:24 7/17/2000 I would have loved to have been there to meet and talk with everyone. My only problem with this discussion is that I don't have available to me the information that may have been discussed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Useless information" Posted by Cutter on 10:36:14 7/17/2000 And just how would this MW information be used? Would the defense attorneys bring it forth to imply that Fleet White Jr. possibly snuck into the Ramsey home and killed JBR while molesting her? OR, would the attorney for the prosecution bring out the MW info in at attempt to show that JR was involved with his good buddy Fleet in molesting JBR which caused her death? I don't think either side would bring up the MW story for the simple reason that there is a risk of alienating a jury by presenting evidence that is so lame it makes your case look week. Either side would have no problem making MW and her revelations look like opportunistic fiction from some "fruit loop", regardless of what her past history is. The woman never mentioned anything about FW or anything related to this case until AFTER the murder occurred, even her Therapist confirms that. The BPD interviewed her twice and found none of her information credible to the case. Even Mr. "I see things other don't" Smit couldn't find anything from the MW to capitalize on with his usual spin. If he had, you better believe the Rams would have been waving a flag and holding press conferences. Thomas isn't being fooled by Fleet White, he just looks at the evidence and sees nothing that proves anyone except the 4 members of the Ramsey family were in the house that night. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "the stand" Posted by mame on 10:39:49 7/17/2000 i've asked lawyers, prosecutors and wise folks this very question..... i'm told across the board... if anyone takes the stand and everything is not known about that person, his or her family, their dark side, their demons...i'm told it would take exactly two questions to bring down the curtain on justice. but, what are we worried about? there will be no show...no curtain...no stand..... it's too damn bad! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "just exactly WHAT" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:51:21 7/17/2000 is FW's "theory", anyhow? Seems he's the only player in this macabre murder that hasn't spouted a theory, that we've heard of, anyway. I did not read ST's book, so perhaps one of you that did, could tell me if FW's words are quoted, or if he had input of any sort? I'm suddenly very interested in knowing WHO FW thinks done it. Or, if he pointed fingers at all? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "My opinion" Posted by ericasf on 10:59:39 7/17/2000 As far as Steve Thomas goes, I think that he is a good cop all in all but was biased and inexperienced as well. I personally think that the Ramseys had something to do with it but the more and more I learn, the more and more I think there are more sinister happenings in this case. I think JBR's death is just one entity of a corrupt way of living. Deviants if you will. And money talks a lot. I personally think that there is a lot of money being spread around. I can't understand for the life of me when there are people (such as the FBI) stating the rules of witnesses to be protected that every rule has been broken when it comes to this case. I just don't get it. Can we start a thread on all of the instances of corruption that has happened from the getgo of this case? Not opinion but facts of corruption. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "I find the MW angle" Posted by Seeker on 11:44:46 7/17/2000 to be not worth the time it takes to say, unsubstantiated. Many of her allegations against others are unsubstatiated, non verifiable, and outright false. She DID NOT bring charges against Mackay Boykin. She was 17 at the time she stated she brought charges and sucessfully prosecuted him. She was a MINOR at the time (she's my age) and therefor could NOT bring charges. Who actually brought the charges, what exactly were they, and where are the court documents? Morgan, where did you get this info, "A California prosecutor found MW credible enough to bring 64 charges of sexual assault and related offences against sex ring member, Macky Boykin." This was during the heyday of the media frenzy blitz against child sexual abuse and I've never heard of it, yet the McMartin case was nationally reported! Why wasn't this "kiddie sex/porn ring" as well? Probably because it didn't exist. One person abusing a child does not a ring make. In other words, please give us verifiable evidence that her claims are valid. I have my serious doubts about her "memories". They can be faulty and some people who suffer abuse confuse fantasy with reality. MW's abuser's know who she is, so why all the secrecy about her identity to the rest of the world? What's she so afraid of? If her abusers know her and know where to find her what's the difference if we know? My personal belief is that this woman was paid a lot of money, or something, to bring her story out to provide reasonable doubt about whether the Ramsey's killed their daughter, JonBenet. I just don't believe her allegations involving Fleet White (he seems to want the Ramsey's prosecuted), the fact that her mother (who was not there) says she knows who killed JonBenet (hearsay). She waited over 3 years? Come on! Think, why wait so long when she could have done this years ago, quickly, and quietly? She could have walked into the BPD while Steve Thomas was still there, without announcing her intentions beforehand. She could have just walked in and said she wanted to speak to someone, that she had information that may be important in the case. I personally don't buy her "stories" of a child sex ring. Many will disagree with me, but the fact that she seems to be afraid of everyone, but her abusers (who know who she is and have her real name) throws me. If I were in her position, the more people who know my name, and those of my abusers/harassers would be beneficial. Especially if something happened to me (disappeared, or murdered) and it was in the news, people would know who to go after. Bring it into the light and let the cockaroaches scatter. Why let them continue on as if nothing happend and have a seemingly normal, good life if they ruined hers? I just don't buy it. I do agree that the Ramsey's wouldn't go to court due to the fact that EVERYONE knows they killed that baby and there would be no way that any court could find an impartial jury at this point. Again, just my feelings on this whole MW angle. It's so bogus (to me). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Seeker" Posted by ericasf on 12:25:35 7/17/2000 I have to agree with what Morgan was saying just for the simple fact that you are basing your "assumptions" on something that you are saying is fact but in actuality, you have the facts all mixed up. How can you make assumptions on wrong information? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Straight from the horse's mouth" Posted by ericasf on 11:18:44 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:18:44, 7/17/2000 VICTIM WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Federal crime victims and witnesses are entitled to certain rights. These rights are set forth in the Victim Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Section 10606(b) which states, "A crime victim has the following rights: to be treated with fairness and with respect, dignity and privacy; to be reasonably protected from the accused offender; to be notified of court proceedings; to be present at all public proceedings related to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony; to confer with an attorney for the Government in the case; to restitution; and to information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment and release of the offender; Victims who are children, or victims of sex offenses, domestic violence, or telemarketing crimes, have additional rights. The Victim Witness Assistance Program is designed to provide information about and referral to emergency medical and social services for the innocent victims (and their family members) of federal violations. As Federal law enforcement professionals, the employees of the FBI are concerned about the problems experienced by victims and witnesses of crime. A Federal investigation can be complex and lengthy. It may involve several agencies, both Federal and local. Many victims will have questions and the Victim Witness Assistance Program exists to help provide the answers. Under Federal law, a victim (upon request) will be kept informed of the status of the case during the investigation. The FBI Victim Witness Specialist will also provide information regarding harassment and/or threats, financial help, assist with employers and creditors, and will advise of an arrest in the case. However, concurrently, we need cooperation throughout the investigation and any other proceedings. The Victim Witness Specialist is the principle contact during this segment of the criminal justice process. Victim-Witness Assistance is an essential part of FBI investigations because of the need to assist those persons who have suffered loss resulting from the commission of a federal crime. Assistance is provided to victims/witnesses whose cases have not yet reached indictment but need to be informed about essential issues such as filing deadlines for crime victim compensation claims. Contact your FBI Victim/Witness Specialist for further information. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Monster Conspiracy?" Posted by shadow on 11:17:28 7/17/2000 Wow - the FWs, ST, the BPD, Hunter & the DA's Office, Haddon & Co., a democrat and a republican governor, the FBI, Justice Dept., and the news media all working together in a giant conspiracy to cover up a vast sex ring that was involved in the death of JBR. Makes one wonder if the Ramseys weren't framed after all... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Shadow," Posted by ericasf on 11:22:32 7/17/2000 A bit of sarcasm? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "framed? LOL" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:21:29 7/17/2000 maybe the saying is true; "You're judged by the company you keep." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Not ignoring you, Ruthee!" Posted by Ginja on 12:03:59 7/17/2000 But I'm stuck on something at the office right now and can't go through your post and answer all questions -- or show you where the answers are -- right this moment. Will probably get to it a bit tonite after work if you can hang on that long! :-) There were several points I made that I've made for quite some time and I've explained over and over. But there's a major problem going on right now and that is, the forum's split in half...those who worship Thomas, those who see him for the real human he is. We all make mistakes, Ruthee, and Thomas has made plenty. But those who worship him refuse to see how he's merely a human who makes mistakes like the rest of us. When someone like myself tries to show how he's erred, I'm chastised (as clearly evidenced not only by Lacy's post above but by her thread this weekend on whistleblowers). We've pretty much got the same problem as with the others I noted in my original post. Perfect example is Hunter. Over and over again I've tried to explain the labyrinth we're all trying to get through to get a "real" handle on how Hunter's handled this case. And again, people don't want to listen. Instead, I'm the one who's chastised. I'm the one who's called narrow-sighted, when it's my so-called accusers who are opinionated and have already made up their minds. If I'm narrow-sighted as regards Hunter, it's only in that I'm looking at his actions and his behavior as regards this case. I don't give a hoot of his history or what he's done in the past. If we're going to look at his past under the microscope and take everything he's said and done into consideration -- and ignore what he's actually done and said in this case -- then I propose we'd better start doing the same for all the other characters involved -- and that includes Thomas! The BPD wasn't Thomas' first job, nor was it his second. A lot of people have history...let's not be ignorant and look at only one person. There is no way we can venture down the path of truth when that road is continually blocked by the blinded! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Seeker" Posted by Morgan on 11:52:56 7/17/2000 you don't deserve your name. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "This whole thing" Posted by darby on 12:45:45 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:45:45, 7/17/2000 drives me to distraction whenever I think about it. We all need specifics and nobody will give us those. The BPD said that no evidence can be found that links MW claims to the JonBenet case. Yet we hear that the BPD has turned over information to the FBI from MW pertaining to a child sex ring. That's all we hear. Nothing further. When? What? Who? Where? Poster A.K., who claims alleged inside info that would prove MW wrong and exonerate FW, refuses to share such findings, and instead speaks of such things as bears (or was it snakes?) and a supposed has-been "blue-eyed actress". Nothing further. Other posters--lake, Spade and dis_man/Rascal to name a few--have claimed inside information on various issues that may or may not involve MW or the Whites. The posters speak in parables or analogies that seem to ultimately lead nowhere. Questions are left unanswered, and no further information is provided when requested. And yes, MW might be 100% right, but there has been no public briefing on exactly what she is right about. We have heard no specifics about her actual abusers or what they did or when they did it. We've heard that lots and lots of compelling information has been documented prior to the JBR murder, but then we're left hanging. We're not privy to what happened, and we're not even clear about who did what, or when. People like Mary Bienkowski and Lee Hill, who presumably know all of the specifics, have said that there might be a MW-JBR connection, but then they mysteriously disappear without a followup. Nothing further, not even a promise of more information at a later date. FW sits back and says nothing. Sure, it's his prerogative to keep mum, but maybe he could do himself and his family (not to mention me) a favor by saying something--ANYTHING--as to why he thinks his father's grand-goddaughter has gotten all riled up about the White family and/or their associates. I don't know how any of us can make a judgment one way or the other regarding MW with the information at hand. We just don't know right now. And it seems we may never know. THIS WHOLE THING MAKES ME MAD!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "I don't know who's right." Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:32:20 7/17/2000 or wrong when it comes to summing up the FW, ST argument, but I had a jolt of intuition about these two from the start. Yes, you can call me prejudiced and quite neurotic/psychotic for honoring my feelings, but I gotta say, they're never been wrong for me - that is when I follow what I feel. Too often, I let other's opinions and strengths get in my way. Not this time. That's the beauty of the internet, isn't it? Whatcha gonna do if I disagree with you? To me ST is certainly human and for sure one could dredge up lots of mistakes he's made both in his private life and professional. (I picture any lawyer for the Rams that gets ahold of ST just "Mark Furmaning" him to death.) Same with Fleet White. Look, Fleet was a good friend of the Rams. I believe he saw a lot happening in that family during the course of his friendship with them. I think he and his wife chose to overlook and ignore some rather questionable behavior and warning signs. I think the Whites weren't alone in that type of behavior. It happens all the time among friends of one sort or another. Where the split came between John R. and Fleet was after the discovery of the body. Fleet then realized a bunch of things he'd been avoiding looking at. I also suspect it's even possible he agreed to a coverup (to a small extent) but when he saw how fast and far it went, he renigged and tried to help the police. As for Steve Thomas, the guy ain't no better than the average Joe Blow who gets caught up in a whirlwind. I definitely think he has a better handle on this case than we do because he's been privy to all the evidence and goings-on. I believe he's also after money, especially after he was run out of the BPD. He has a lot of scores to settle. It's a little hard to give affirmation to the idea he "made up" the Patsy did it and John helped scenario in toto. Nope, that's going a little too far. After all, he has his reputation to consider as a former law officer. Nobody wants to burn bridges if they can help it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Steve Thomas" Posted by mame on 12:16:48 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:16:48, 7/17/2000 I don't personally think there are even a handful of people involved in this case who seek the kind of justice, Steve Thomas seeks. He is, in my opinion an outstanding human. I was totally against his book before I read it. However, I now believe it is the finest book in telling the dark side of seeking justice in the Ramsey case. Thomas confirmed what Plasket and I had reported for months. I don't think we can refer to Thomas as a retired FBI agent just writing a book. He published the book as the former lead detective in a case that was still open. That's a far cry from any old retired FBI, cop, etc. However, in the end I believe Thomas did more good that bad. He realized, as we should, the slim chance of this case being prosecuted. He must have felt a need to write a history that would help prevent INJUSTICE from happenning to another little girl. No, I don't agree with all that Thomas alleges. But, who cares. It's o.k. to disagree. It's not o.k. to shut out info from little people who come forward with information that deserves attention. I ask those who ask for more information to support Bridget's theory, to come forward with information showing a full and complete investigation took place. When someone can prove beyond a doubt that my public officials did such an investigation,I will walk away. Only then will I give up a hope that this is fully investigated. Oh by the way, the records in the Boykin case are sealed because MW was a minor. The case can only be released by her. She signed releases for the cops and fbi. She also offered over and over to take a lie detector test. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Morgan" Posted by Seeker on 15:34:38 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:34:38, 7/17/2000 Since I have to work a full time job and have a business of my own, I don't have time to follow this case as closely as some others. :) I also don't often get the time, or chance to read every little snippet concerning this case. If you would be so kind as to provide me a link to the article that states Boykin was convicted on 64 counts I would appreciate it. Edited to add: Morgan, why would you say I don't deserve my name? Because I "seek" verifiable, substatiated facts and proof instead of just believing what's being told to me? Hmmmm? Like most prosecuters (worth a damn) do, I require proof before I blindly believe in something's/someone's validity. The "burden of proof" is on MW (IMHO). Just so you know, Morgan's are my favorite breed of horse! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Mame" Posted by freebird on 12:37:19 7/17/2000 I totally agree with you about Steve Thomas, actually I bump him up to hero status. Until something comes out and is proven against ST then I have no reason to not believe that he did what he thought was the right thing to do. Sometimes taking your ball and going home is the only way to not continue 'accepting' inappropriate or immoral behavior. I'm not at all surprised that MW allegations were not investigated nor that it seems to work for the Ramseys. I guess until her story is checked out we will never know for sure. Must be getting pretty crowded under that umbrella by now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "64 counts..." Posted by mame on 12:26:36 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:26:36, 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:26:01, 7/17/2000 from Steve Jackson's article in Westword: "Still, it doesn't prove anything regarding JonBenét's death. They're just tantalizing pieces of an unsolved puzzle, especially in light of recent information that's made headlines -- after The Witness came forward. The Ramseys contend in their new book, The Death of Innocence, that the police need to look at their innermost circle of friends. Also, investigator Lou Smit, a legendary homicide detective who was hired by Hunter but quit because he felt the Boulder police were too focused on the Ramseys, recently said he believes that an intruder entered the house, and noted that JonBenét had stun-gun marks on her. And, as everyone knows, JonBenét was found with a garrote around her neck and a piece of cord tied around one of her wrists. The most convincing piece of the puzzle is that when The Witness claimed to have been sexually assaulted once before, she told the truth. Boykin was subsequently charged with 64 counts of sexual assault, kidnapping and various other related crimes. He was allowed to plead guilty to four counts and served only ten months. Two days after he was released from prison, he showed up at the doorstep of The Witness, who had moved out of state and was supposedly in protective custody -- but her own family had told him where to find her. She was seventeen, and her torment by Boykin and others, she says, continued for nearly twenty years" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "MW " Posted by fly on 13:34:21 7/17/2000 darby has it right: we can't come to any definite conclusions about MW because we have essentially no firm information. I keep thinking that will change - that those top-notch investigative reporters who supposedly were working on a major MW story will actually publish something - but that hasn't come to pass yet. At this point, I seriously doubt that it ever will. A few weeks ago I posted a link to a LovelyPigeon post on another forum that supposedly provided information about the Boykin case. It was ignored. I don't know whether LP's post was accurate, but it supposedly was based - at least in part - on court records (provided by some source uncredited in that post). LP posted that of the 64 dates on which MB allegedly sexually abused MW, an examination of various records (e.g., work records) showed that MB could not have had contact with MW on any but those 4 dates named in the charges that he later pled to. IF LP's information is correct, is MW a liar making false charges, or is the lack of validity of all but a few of the charges due to honest errors regarding dates? No real way to know, of course. However, it doesn't help MW's credibility, IMO. mame - I assume that you are basing your judgement on the claim by MW that not every single person she mentioned was interviewed by BPD. Although I have no knowledge of how BPD structured their investigation of MW's claims, I'd guess that they'd address the lynch-pin issues and witnesses first - to see if there was any possibility of her claims being true. If there's nothing to support those central, key claims, how far do you need to go to conclude there's nothing to the charges? Probably through another level or two of issues or people, but if the results continue to be negative, probably not to the very end of the list. So, without knowing what BPD actually did and what they actually found out, charges that their investigation was significantly faulty are pretty questionable. If MW (and you, mame) think the BPD investigation was inadequate, I think it equally appropriate to ask her/you to provide proof that the investigation did not cover truly pivotal issues or people - at least if her story is to be given credence in the face of BPD's dismissal of it's relevance. Like shadow, I ask that any new, pertinent information about the MW case discussed at the recent gathering be posted so that those of us who did not attend can be brought up to speed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Ginja and Mame" Posted by hareen on 13:02:04 7/17/2000 Ginja, maybe my memory is faulty (quite possible!), but I thought in the past you hadn't put much stock in what MW said and generally steered clear of these threads. Did you learn something this weekend that changed your mind? Mame, is the investigative reporter still investigating? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Yes, but" Posted by Seeker on 16:43:45 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:43:45, 7/17/2000 that seems to contradict what she said, doesn't it? She said she brought charges and sucessfully prosecuted him WHEN SHE WAS 17. Not that he showed up on her doorstep when she was 17. How long from the time "she" brought charges did it take to go to trial? How long was the trial? "The most convincing piece of the puzzle is that when The Witness claimed to have been sexually assaulted once before, she told the truth. Boykin was subsequently charged with 64 counts of sexual assault, kidnapping and various other related crimes. He was allowed to plead guilty to four counts and served only ten months. Two days after he was released from prison, he showed up at the doorstep of The Witness, who had moved out of state and was supposedly in protective custody -- but her own family had told him where to find her. She was seventeen, and her torment by Boykin and others, she says, continued for nearly twenty years" So this went on until she was 27? And she didn't again have him arrested and charged right away when she was suppose to be in protective custody? (Again, only her word that this happened.) Also, the article does not say he was prosecuted for sexual assault on a minor and only pled guilty to 4 counts. What exactly were those charges he pled guilty to? "Various other related crimes". What were they? Could have been watching her playing in a pool, or changing clothes, may not have been related to MW at all! Could have been anything relating to sex, watching porn movies, stealing porn movies, etc. Who knows? This reporter offered his opinion of her being truthful, not offering whether or not she had been examined by a Dr., or whether she was already sexually active with a boyfriend, or anything. How old was she when she testified? I would like to see the court transcripts of this case, but cannot find any reference to them. Nor can I find any reference to M. Boykin being part of a "child sex ring". AND that he only served 10 months tells a lot. The charges were probably minor compared to what he was originally charged with. DA's often "beef up" their case and charge far more than they can prove, just so they can get one charge to stick. It's typical. They got him on 4 charges out of 64 they originally charged him with. Do we know what they are? Nope. You can all believe her if you want to. I don't due to the inconsitancies, and unsubstantiated info offered by her, herself. I find the timing to be just too convenient. edited to add: for the record, while I do believe she suffered some type of abuse, I don't wholeheartedly believe it was to the extremes she stated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "mame..." Posted by shadow on 13:05:26 7/17/2000 You and I have disagreed on a few things (MW), but I have always admired your reporting - and I certainly agree with what you just posted on #29. Also, not only did Thomas confirm what you and Plasket reported for months, but most of the things ST said about the FBI, I knew long before his book was published. I can only speak for myself, but I must say that it pisses me off to be told over and over that I "worship" and/or "consider Heroes" Steve Thomas and/or Fleet White...NOT! Apparently I fall into this category simply because I'm not willing to judge either based on the unsubstantiated opinions, theories, and crapola posted on this and other forums. If the things being said about these two people is SUBSTAINTIATED, I will bring the rope to the lynching!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Ruthee and others" Posted by chebrock on 13:36:01 7/17/2000 Thank you Ruthee for posting some reason here. I agree with you completely and probably would have posted some stronger sentiments than you did. There is no doubt in my mind that MW was abused and that is very sad. Abuse is a terrible thing in this world and ruins more people than we know. The fact that MW was abused has NOTHING to do with the JOnBenet case and Fleet White. I don't blame Fleet White for not responding to this ludicrous gossip passed off as information. He would only fall into the cesspool with the swimmers that that are already there. It is not worth the breath it takes to counter unsubstantiated claims and try to prove you weren't somewhere when MW won't even say where you weren't! Talk about getting back on track. This topic is a major derailing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Shadow, guess I am out as well" Posted by Sylvia on 13:28:31 7/17/2000 >I can only speak for myself, but >I must say that it pisses >me off to be told over >and over that I "worship" and/or >"consider Heroes" Steve Thomas and/or Fleet >White...NOT! Apparently I fall into this >category simply because I'm not willing >to judge either based on the >unsubstantiated opinions, theories, and crapola posted >on this and other forums. I do not worship Steve Thomas, nor Fleet White, however I must agree with you on this thing. The only thing that can be said about Fleet White is that he is no longer cooperative with the BPD, because he wasn't allowed the same priveledges as the Ramseys. Personally I think it's stupid of him, on the other hand I do not know in what position he was manoeuvred in. So I honestly have no opinion of the man doing anything wrong. So I guess I am in the same category as you are or maybe even worse. As for Steve Thomas, I have only constantly stated that he just confirmed all thing that were already know, only in more detail and that I am sure he didn't give away any information that might have jeopardized the investigation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Oh, dear me, Sylvia," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:39:55 7/17/2000 how can it be two people, such as you and I, could grow up in such different worlds, yet agree so completely on the outcome? I think that means there is a commonality of thought and logic and intuition that supercedes all that other blather to ensure we arrive at the right conclusion. How wonderful mother nature allows us to arrive at this conclusion. It's only natural. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "gaiabetsy sometimes that happens" Posted by Sylvia on 13:45:32 7/17/2000 >how can it be two people, such >as you and I, could grow >up in such different worlds, yet >agree so completely on the outcome? > I think that means there >is a commonality of thought and >logic and intuition that supercedes all >that other blather to ensure we >arrive at the right conclusion. >How wonderful mother nature allows us >to arrive at this conclusion. >It's only natural. I only work things out in my mind and consider all possibilities, the one most logic to me at that moment is my opinion, guess we both are close to nature. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "For the life of me" Posted by momo on 14:23:36 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:23:36, 7/17/2000 I can not understand the unsympathetic attitude towards MW. I guess that same attitude would be around if it were JonBenet instead of MW. Think about it. Would some of you feel the same if JonBenet were 37 years old and coming forward because MW had been abused and ultimately murdered. It's best to wait until the investigation is over before you make up your mind. You only think you know all the facts. Even if MW is lying ( which I don't believe ) then she still needs help. If you really care about JfJBR, then open up your hearts and minds for God's sakes. And for the poster that said FW dosen't have to reply to allegations of sexual abuse, uh, that is ridiculous. If I were accused of abuse and was innocent , I would be shouting it from the rooftops. Anyone in their right mind would. Who would want to leave people to wonder about what kind of a sicko you might be? I have to wonder why people won't open their minds and realize that horrific acts happen to children all over the world every day. It's not pretty, and no, no one wants to believe it, but it's true. Allegations of sexual abuse, if false, should certainly be addressed. How silly not to. Fly, it is your perrogative to believe those silly little heads if you want to. I am tired and peeved, so I hope I haven't offended anyone. I just care too much I guess. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Sylvia," Posted by gaiabetsy on 14:01:42 7/17/2000 do you mean to say you are so logical we couldn't agree or even be friends? Because, the truth is, most of my conclusions bear little logic if any. I get the thoughts and answers from the center of my mind, or off the top of my head, or from between the midpoint of my forehead. What do you think about that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "gaiabetsy , " Posted by Sylvia on 14:11:04 7/17/2000 >do you mean to say you are so logical we couldn't agree or even be friends? Because, the truth is, most of my conclusions bear little logic if any. I get the thoughts and answers from the center of my mind, or off the top of my head, or from between the midpoint of my forehead. What do you think about that?< No don't mean I am so logical that I couldn't be your friend, because I go over all the possibilities and I search for logic. But that doesn't mean I don't use my feelings as well, that is a very important factor. Feelings also count in my decisions. It's more a combination I think. Call it instinct or something like that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "birds of a feather?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:54:41 7/17/2000 what I think the connection between MW and JBR is the friendship between JR and FW. Why are they friends? What did they have in common that could turn a meeting thru their wives into "bestfriend" status? As JR said, FW basically inherited a couple little gas stations, Gomer with cash, if you will. That almost sounds like JR didn't respect FW. What does a computer guy have in common with a gas station attendant? A gas station attendant who, now it seems, has a past of sorts. A sordid past. What kept them pals? Their wives? Did PW hang out more w/PR than JR and FW did? I didn't get the impression that P&P were all that tight. Whatever the bonds, they must have been tight as a garrOAT, because even now, either side has said anything truly damaging or hostile about the other. It's as tho they are not burning bridges, just in case they might someday resume their friendship. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Shouting from rooftops and all that" Posted by canadiana on 16:02:33 7/17/2000 It was said "And for the poster that said FW dosen't have to reply to allegations of sexual abuse, uh, that is ridiculous. If I were accused of abuse and was innocent , I would be shouting it from the rooftops. Anyone in their right mind would. Who would want to leave people to wonder about what kind of a sicko you might be? I have to wonder why people won't open their minds and realize that horrific acts happen to children all over the world every day. It's not pretty, and no, no one wants to believe it, but it's true. Allegations of sexual abuse, if false, should certainly be addressed. How silly not to." Well, if I were the parent of a murdered child I would be sitting on the police depts doorsteps daily. And if I were accused of molestation and abuse, you bet I would be screaming from rooftops. I think FW's behaviour has been odd, to say the least and I think the R's behaviour has been despicable. ST seems to me, to be an honest man saddened and beaten by the justice business in Boulder. I did cringe a bit when I read his book; cringing because I hated that he 'told' so much and cringing because there was so much to be 'told'. My heart aches for the abuse MW might have, and likely was, subjected to for so many years. I DO NOT KNOW ONE SINGLE THING that definitely ties her abuse to JBR's. Just because I don't jump on the MW and FW bandwagon does not mean I do not have sympathy, heartache and anger for MW and all other abused women and children. There are many here who may know much more about the MW's reality and they may been trying to convince other's of her relevance to JBR's abuse and murder, and rightfully so. But I don't know those facts or allegations; I only 'know' that MW's mother's godfather is FW,Sr!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Hareen" Posted by Ginja on 16:00:12 7/17/2000 Ginja, maybe my memory is faulty (quite possible!), but I thought in the past you hadn't put much stock in what MW said and generally steered clear of these threads. Did you learn something this weekend that changed your mind? I can't say your memory is faulty since so many others seem to think the same thing; so perhaps I wasn't clear in my explanations. That bothers me because I think I pulled together some pretty detailed posts...so detailed that posters get bored and scroll by. In that sense, I think the latter is the problem. I try to set out the complete scenario as well as the laws that apply to the situation. Too much detail. What I've said is that, if nothing else, at least MW's allegations are cause to open the eyes of Boulder officialdom within the Republic of Boulder to the FACTS of pedophilia and sex rings and family involvement in such abuse. Let's get real. How many parents have garotted their child for bedwetting? Or even just out of overtired exasperated rage? And then follow-up with a mortal head blow, rather than seeking help for the 'accidental' garotting! This crime revolves around sex. ANY kind of accident should have elicited a response to help that child survive. But instead, the web continued to be woven to hide. Do you kill your child because you're embarrassed she wet the bed? Or because you lost control? But you sure as hell would go to extreme measures to cover up if that "accident" had some link to sexual abuse. Maybe there's confusion here because I said that MW couldn't point the finger directly at the Ramseys. She can't claim first hand knowledge that either John or Patsy or both were sexually abusing JonBenet, or that they murdered her or were involved with her murder. HOWEVER... There are some pretty nasty first hand links to the White family and MW's abuse. The Whites and Ramseys were tight. Is it just coincidence that everything MW describes about her own abuse, by members of the White family and others in California, align so perfectly with JonBenet's injuries? Or the time of year those injuries were effected? And is it also simply coincidental that other members of the sex ring described by MW are visiting the Whites during the holidays, and are in town the night of the Ramseys Christmas party when some pretty fishy, unexplained things happened? (e.g., the 911 hangup? the need for Fleet, not the hospital or doctors or medical supply houses, to gather medical supplies for his mother in an Aspen hospital? that Fleet needed to get those supplies and then drive them to the airport to be shipped to Aspen? (ever hear of FedX? UPS? US Mail overnight? or any of a number of shipping services?) We'll never know what's critical or coincidence if it's not investigated. The tie that binds. Why was Fleet so involved with this investigation, both publicly and behind the scenes, until the appearance and allegations of MW? And isn't it odd that MW's allegations basically say that Fleet, if not a member of this ring, then one who has very close ties to it, could very well be exculpatory as to Ramsey involvement, yet Ramsey likewise has crawled into the woodwork and is hiding out? What I've posted to before, Hareen, is that MW's allegations don't go to Ramsey culpability. She doesn't have first hand knowledge or information on that. However... She has first hand knowledge of Fleet White and his involvement in sex rings and her abuse. What the BPD needs to do is start a separate investigation of the Whites as regards MW's allegations. Is there something there? And if it pans out that it eventually links to the Ramseys, then that's when the two investigations should be worked together. IOW...the BPD just dropped MW because of the "obvious" (to them) ... no evidence against the Ramseys. Their detectives were honed in on the Ramseys. Fine. That's all well and good, but what of White? There's a chasm in Boulder and a helluva lot is falling into it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "fly" Posted by mame on 15:59:31 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:59:31, 7/17/2000 i have covered those issues concerning the cheesy investigation into bridget's claims in news reports and here on justice watch. i have interviewed several who were interviewed by the police. even the DA in california who was assistant DA when Boykin was prosecuted, was shocked that the police found "no time" to meet with him while in california. that's the very first person any investigator, (reporter or otherwise) wants to talk to. i might add that the DA backs her all the way. AND, that the The Witness passed the extensive psychological exam done on her at the time. the boykin case appears to be the first stop for an investigator because it's a roadmap to her truth and to her sanity. makes sense. yet, leno's famous boulder cop shop told the DA they didn't have time to stop in for a chat. also, another brilliant move was to call suspects and make appointments with them for a week away. how grand to know when the cops are stopping by for tea. any and all possible evidence could be swept aside in the 7 day time frame. pullleeaaazzzee. tell me that's kosher? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Responding to Ruthee's earlier post" Posted by Ginja on 18:07:12 7/17/2000 Personally, I believe Steve Thomas to be an honest and truthful man. I've never placed him in the "hero" class. Good for you and everyone else who thinks like that! I've never bashed him. I've tried to point out the harm he's done. It's not accepted. Hell, it's not even considered. Posters refuse to open any discussions on him UNLESS it's to discuss what wonderful things he's done and is doing for this case. Why? Thomas was very involved with this case. He interviewed witnesses, collected evidence, met with the Ramseys. He's knowledgeable about the case. He even has insights. But this case is still open and he's not a retired FBI agent working a cold case or an investigative reporter. Because he's published the book, it makes no difference how well-versed he is on case, he's useless to the investigation and any prosecution. Some think, "ah! there's never going to be a prosecution." That book could very well have been the cement shoe that sunk it for good. If there is a prosecution, and I believe there will be, Thomas has no credibility and will not be called as a witness for the State. He can't be. He CAN be a witness for the defense. Big deal he told Patsy to her face that she's "good for it" on national tv. That'll never put her behind bars. Thomas' actions will be fodder for defense and they'll use him to put the DA and BPD on trial...not the Ramseys! Cochran pulled the race card in Simpson, and Haddon's gonna pull the incompetence card in Ramsey. And Steve Thomas is going to be defense's star witness. Maybe you and others can accept that. I think it sucks and I'm not happy about it at all. I thought we were a group of people who had come together to get the justice JonBenet so deserves. Not to hype up a rogue cop who's taken her cause completely out of the picture. Fleet White is still a mystery to me. I can't understand why he did not speak out after Jane Doe surfaced. He seemed to have no trouble contacting the highest public official who would lend an ear. I agree with you Ruthee. Something is terribly fishy here. Fleet's gone into hiding. Why? Likewise, Ramsey is ignoring MW and has also gone into hiding on this issue. Why? The BPD is so focused on the Ramseys that they're ignoring what could possibly be the link that makes this case. The BPD is NOT following the evidence. As far as Hunter being scum, I believe he is incompetent and has been a manifestation of the Peter Principle since his election to the office he holds. Maybe. But no one here wants to know the real score. I took seriously Straykat's and others' call to look into possible corruption. And did anyone bother to take a serious look? Nope. I was chastised for having already made up my mind. Which I find laughable. I question the seriousness of many posters. All talk, no action. When I started posting some of the things that could be cause for concern as to corruption, there was absolutely no follow-up. No one wanted to dig. No one really wanted to look into it, to analyze it. Are we afraid there's no evidence of corruption? Seems many just stopped dead in their tracks...they didn't want to "really" find out what was and wasn't. They'd rather just say the DA is corrupt and Ginja supports him. I've mentioned before that I don't know what morally empty means. I still can't figure out why Beckner made that statement and has since ignored White. If anybody knows what that may mean, I wish they'd tell me. I'm not in Beckner's brain, so I can't say. I can only look at the statement, "morally empty" and take it at face value: Fleet White has no morals. I've never heard any statement by anyone other than a forum opinion that Fleet White Jr. or Sr. was sexually deviant. The only thing that I know is that Boykin was convicted of sex charges involving Jane Doe. Well, Ruthee, herein lies the problem. This is a public forum...anyone on the internet can come here and read...and they do! Including the Ramseys and their moles. Should we hand everything over to them on a silver platter so that they can better defend themselves? You know as well as I do that the Rams have changed their stories constantly and consistently to match the evidence in this case. I don't want their acquittal on my head! We're supposed to be in this together...that is, all of us here at JW. We have a mission...to get justice for JonBenet. There are things we learn offline that we just can't put online. But I would think that after almost four years, posters would trust their fellow posters who get together to work case in RL. I'm not talking about posters who come here and claim they have a source and can't tell us...you all know who I'm talking about...there are several posters like that. What I'm talking about is when a group of us pull together on a weekend. I think if you look at the list of posters who came together this weekend, you realize this is a group who you all know are trustworthy and honest and are only in this for one thing...not fame for themselves, but justice for JBR. None of them are liars, not of them are cheats, none of them are going to take anyone else at JW for a ride! IOW, there's got to be some trust here and the realization that it would be suicide to post critical information that the Rams and their moles could twist and turn. I understand this is a hard pill to swallow. Then again, if we've reopened an issue, then know there's a reason for that. Posters are always asking, "what can we do", "how can we make a difference"? The Ramseys and their moles aren't the only ones coming here to see "what we're talking about". Rather than making empty allegations of corruption, perhaps if we just put it all on the line...the issues that'll make the investigators and prosecutors take a second look...instead of ragging on other posters...we could be the spark that lights their pants. Know what I mean? I don't understand what being a staunch supporter of Thomas and Eller has to do with anything involving the murder of JonBenet. It could have everything to do with it...then again, maybe nothing at all. But we won't know unless we look into it. Put it online and be that spark I was just talking about. Ignore it completely and it'll go away...perhaps taking the investigation with it! The BPD was split in half (just like this forum :-) ). There were the Eller followers, who are going after Patsy the Killer. Thomas was in that group. The other group was going after John the Killer. That group included Mason and Arndt. Eller tried to screw anyone who didn't see it his way. The chasm in the BPD got wider. That attitude put a chasm between the BPD and DA. While in Atlanta, Mason --not in Eller's pocket-- tried to get the video and outtakes of the Ramseys 1/1/97 CNN interview. He'd been on the case since the first hours. Thomas had just been assigned. He saw Mason with the CNN reporter. "Saw" is key here. Thomas didn't 'hear' what was going on between Mason and CNN. He just assumed that Mason was talking to the press and filed a report to that effect with Eller. Immediately upon the detectives return to Boulder, Mason was pulled from the case. The official reason out of Eller's office was that Mason "was leaking information to the press." The behind-the-scenes machinations are just as important to this investigation as the investigation itself. If you believe Thomas' hypothetical, then you'll see no harm in what was done to knock out the 'competition'. Where is the BPD today? Still trying to pin this entire murder on Patsy whom they believe lost her cool because her daughter wet the bed! I'll say it right out. This is why this case hasn't gone to trial yet. This is why Hunter won't sign an arrest warrant. The evidence does not support this theory. JBR spent close, if not more, than 5 hours at the Whites that night. They knew what she was wearing, what she was eating, what kind of temperament she was in, how she was getting along with her family and the Whites...iow, Fleet "knows" more about JBR that night and saw her in action for 5 hours or more. Susan can't even come close to giving any kind of information to that magnitude. And Susan's a Ramsey bull. She'd lie. Maybe she did see JBR for 10 minutes that night. Did she see her dead or alive? Sleeping or up talking? And can we take her word for any of it? As far as the chain of events, we've got some missing puzzle pieces. There's evidence here that the BPD...and many JW posters...refuse to look into. Fleet White may have Steve Thomas in his back pocket, but I've not seen anything in print where White even mentions Thomas' name. The two worked closely together in the early part of this investigation. And both did their damndest to get Hunter removed and replaced. Both removed themselves from the case at about the same time, as well. PMPT talks of their relationship. I may be missing something, but can you show me a quote where Jane Doe says that Fleet White Sr. and Jr. abused her? Is there a quote anywhere from any of the investigators regarding this matter that indicates she said that? We don't have access to the police reports or testimony MW gave to them. That is, I can't cite anything from the investigators. I have no idea who these "other known abusers" are who visited the White's home on Christmas Day. Do you know who they are? This has been discussed here on the forum. Every time we start a new thread, it shouldn't be a clean slate. We should be building on everything we've brought to the table for almost four years. A rogue cop??? Hunter was kind enough to make the statement that there was nothing in Thomas'book that was not already available to the Ramseys. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what he said. And that makes it alright? There's a helluvalot more that goes into the making of a rogue cop than releasing a book that has evidence in it the suspects already know about. I've posted until I'm blue in the face with what's wrong with this picture. No one's listening. That's obvious when people still consider him a "whistleblower" and the best thing that ever happened to this case. If someone resigns from the FBI and writes a book of critizism, it's ok. For some reason Thomas is a rogue cop. Another poster already explained this. Thomas is a rogue cop for many reasons, not just because he wrote the book. But every time I try to set forth many of those reasons, I get bashed. So why bother? I don't believe Thomas abandoned the homicide investigation. I believe he was locked out. I can appreciate your opinion. The problem here is that many are basing their opinions on misinformation and misunderstanding. And when some of that misinformation or the misunderstandings are brought to light, they're ignored. You chastise others for calling Hunter scum and then turn right around and accuse him of feeding information to Shapiro regarding Eller's "deviant" behaviour. Do you have any idea of what behaviour that might be? Your first statement is completely false and misleading. My bitch lately has been that many don't want to look at all the facts. Thomas accuses the DA of all kinds of incompetence and negligence, and many just take him at his word. When I try to point-counterpoint some of Thomas' statements, I'm blasted away. For example, Thomas blames Hunter for not giving him search warrants. I pointed out that Thomas didn't understand the law (I was being nice). Thomas was guising records subpoenas as search warrants. Hunter can't sign off on records subpoenas...only the Grand Jury could do that. IOW, many were trying to point to Thomas' allegations as proof that Hunter's scum. I was trying to point out that those allegations were faulty at best. OTOH, are there "real" reasons why Hunter's corrupt, i.e., scum? I tried to pull it apart and find out. As an example, I posted the exchange between Hunter and Shapiro as regards Eller. IOW, Ruthee, what I see is many don't want to know the truth...or at least, prove it as anything other than false allegations. Can you lead me to the unwarranted and uncorroborated reports that were filed by Thomas? I posted them before, citing where they were talked about in PMPT or news reports. I just posted here one of the reports Thomas filed with Eller as regards Mason. I'd be happy to get back on track, but so far I have no information available to me to consider. What sucks here, Ruthee, is this has turned into another long post which many are just going to scroll by. All your questions here have been covered and answered before. Like I said, I've talked til I'm blue in the face (and I'm definitely not the only poster here who's done that!). Personaly, I'm too tired to keep this up. I've spent hours analyzing and posting, only to be told "you've already made up your mind". If there's a real interest in getting back on track, then let's stay on track. This thread was supposed to look into the MW allegations...which went nowhere fast. My Corruption 3 thread in trying to analyze Hunter's alleged corruption was ignored and went nowhere fast. I've done plenty of threads on Thomas as to how he misunderstood the law and followed reporters' leads rather than the evidence...and those threads went nowhere fast. This forum could blow this case out of the water if it wanted to... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "I'm not Fly" Posted by Real Stormy on 16:09:23 7/17/2000 But yes, that's Kosher. Even if the police had made no appointments and had just shown up on someone's doorstep, they could not search the premises and confiscate evidence unless they had a search warrant. In order to get a search warrant, they would have to have had probable cause to present to a judge and the judge would have to sign the search warrant. Additionally, no one has to talk to the police unless they wish. That's the way it works in this country, thank God. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "There is" Posted by ericasf on 16:10:26 7/17/2000 the 'clause' that is called in plain view.... They don't have to call ahead to ask questions. I agree with mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Ugh" Posted by Abra on 16:16:37 7/17/2000 What an embarassing thread. Mame, please explain to us all finally: what exactly has your pal MW actually alleged about the Ramsey case? Or are we dealing with sheer fantasy here? Abra [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "well" Posted by mame on 16:18:02 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:18:02, 7/17/2000 smart investigators don't give a head's up if they think there is value in a "surprise" visit. take one look at the blood lines here and you'll see "surprise" might be an investigators main tool. come on...even NYPD follows intelligent investigating. no, their investigation was not kosher! ... but then maybe you and i speaka da different yiddish... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Abra" Posted by mame on 16:20:41 7/17/2000 I'm not sure whose fantasy you're talking about Abra. The BPD's? MW's? I know of no fantasy, Abra. I am not an investigator who is able to investigate these allegations. I do believe an investigation is being done...The right way. It's the only way I sleep at night. I am not involved in that investigation...or privy to it's course. It takes time. And I'm willing to wait. In the meantime I keep banging my tin cans...(beer cans, that is) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "I do hope" Posted by darby on 17:29:53 7/17/2000 an investigation is being done. I don't find this thread embarrassing a bit! I wish that whoever is doing the investigation (if true) would tell the world that an investigation is being done. Alternately, if no investigation is being done, then I wish that whoever is NOT doing the investigation would tell the world that no investigation is being done. Anyway, chalk this up to my basic impatience. The second alternative is the one I fear most, because I can guess that if nobody is investigating anything, then nobody is going to announce anything to anybody. This would force me to live with an ambiguous conclusion, and I don't LIKE ambiguity. But in my mind, the MW issue has NOT been resolved at this time. I have yet to hear that the claims I've assumed concerning MW being sexually abused by the Whites are true or untrue. No statement to that effect has been made by any official entity. I wish this could all be deciphered and publicly shared. This is just a wish of mine. And if wishes were horses...? (What IF wishes were horses?? hmmmm.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Mame" Posted by Real Stormy on 17:15:13 7/17/2000 Oy Vey! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "real stormy" Posted by mame on 17:37:33 7/17/2000 smile [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Here is an example" Posted by Morgan on 19:09:45 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:09:45, 7/17/2000 of why the BPD are STOOPID as CHIT for requesting advance permission of their visit: Last month the Greeley CO police recieved a complaint from the parent of an adolescent girl that she had attended a party at her former coach's home and he offered the girls, ages 11-14 money to dance in their swimsuits. Unlike the asses at the BPD, they decided to pay this coach, Bert Smice, an unanounced visit. He opened the door and stepped outside to talk to them, closing the door behind him. That bothered the police, and he explained that he had a guest. After awhile they got him to open the door and let them in. A 14 year old girl, a former soccer player of his was there. She said she was helping him do some work in his home. Naturally, at that point, they got a warrant, searched the apartment and found plenty of porn, including pornographic films he made of her and other young girls. They took his computer. Smice was a volunteer coach for 20 years. Does anyone want to say there is no value in dropping in for a surprise visit on a witness or suspect? Gee, I wonder what would have happened if they called and made an appointment in advance? Whatever the BPD is being paid, it's too much. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "If anyone is keeping track" Posted by pinker on 19:19:35 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:19:35, 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:07:53, 7/17/2000 or if there is an official vote I go with the dis MW theory. I think the crime was a 100% inside job with J&P both involved enough to be charged. I see no direct link between what happened to MW and the fate of JBR. It seems Kevin Bacon's six degrees of seperation is intact and visable MW-MW's mother-FW senior-FW junior-JR-JBR. Now if MW had been murdered as a child with a FW senior connection I might think the situation relavant. I do believe MW was abused. I do not believe JBR was abused in the same respect/manner or by the same people. Would it be at all possible that the Ramsey's dug up MW to throw people off track? Didn't she first surface thru an attorney with a JR connection? edited to add-I respect both ST and AH for attempting to deal with what will go down in history as two of the most cunning people around. Morgan, I don't think the case is dead yet. The plans for the scheduled interviews now include representation from the DA's office and the BPD. Only the DA can issue the indictment with the BPD slapping on the cuffs. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "but, isn't the bottom line" Posted by Edie Pratt on 19:18:51 7/17/2000 Pinker, that FW is nolonger a credible witness? If he holds the key to this murder, heard or saw something crucial, he is worthless if those ugly allegations are true. Maybe that's what the checkmate is all about, and why both FW and R's have kept mum. If he takes them down, they are prepared to repay the favor, tenfold. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Question regarding FW as a witness" Posted by ericasf on 05:56:20 7/18/2000 Is FW still considered a valuable witness since ST left and MB stated that he believes FW is "morally empty"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "What did FW witness? " Posted by pinker on 19:28:58 7/17/2000 JR's pretend discovery of the body? FW's value as a witness relates more to the photographic evidence he supplied to the BPD with that undeveloped roll of film Dec 26th. Those pictures will speak for themselves with out FW having to utter a word. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Pinker" Posted by momo on 19:15:25 7/17/2000 If it wasn't premeditation, then I wonder why the Rams would go to the lengths they did in the cover-up? I have to believe it was for a sex crime. It was overkill. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "momo" Posted by pinker on 19:35:27 7/17/2000 I don't think there was any premeditation. I believe the murder was an accident and the cover up unsued because the Ramsey's have a serious superiority complex. They think they are smarter than everyone else, well almost everyone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Morgan" Posted by Denver on 19:15:20 7/17/2000 With all due respect, if MW's family was aware of the fact that she was in Boulder talking to Boulder officials, would they not reasonably assume that there was an outside chance the Boulder PD would followup with a visit to their homes? What surprise are we talking about here? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Denver" Posted by Morgan on 19:24:44 7/17/2000 Are you referring to another STOOPID stunt of the BPD's? (notifying her family of her whereabouts) You aren't seriously saying that a surprise visit to the hell bitch would have no merit, are you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Ginja" Posted by canadiana on 20:23:48 7/17/2000 You said..."What I'm talking about is when a group of us pull together on a weekend. I think if you look at the list of posters who came together this weekend, you realize this is a group who you all know are trustworthy and honest and are only in this for one thing...not fame for themselves, but justice for JBR. None of them are liars, not of them are cheats, none of them are going to take anyone else at JW for a ride!" "IOW, there's got to be some trust here and the realization that it would be suicide to post critical information that the Rams and their moles could twist and turn." .................... I understand what you are saying here (above). You are telling us that you had great discussions when meeting with other posters this weekend, and during those discussions, points were made and information shared that cannot be posted here. I understand that; I don't believe anyone to be a liar or a cheat. But how can a thread be responded to if only some are allowed the facts? Skepticism is natural when facts are absent or only alluded to. You ask that we accept small amounts of information posted alleging various situations. If we do this, we cannot respond because we don't know what you know! It is like me telling you it is snowing here right now. You can only say, well OK, because you don't know. And just pretend you have no way of verifying the weather where I am, if you even know where I am. If there is to be lively discussion, information has to be shared. If the information cannot be shared, you can not expect lively discussion other than challenges to the bits and pieces offered. If there is no response, it is viewed as a lack of interest. If there is response and challenge, it is looked at as we are being close minded. I am not close minded. I am sympathetic to MW. I am suspicious of FW, ST, AH, and everyone who is presently in Boulder. except mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Morgan" Posted by Denver on 20:13:08 7/17/2000 "Are you referring to another STOOPID stunt of the BPD's? (notifying her family of her whereabouts)" Yes, how can it be a surprise visit if the family is aware that MW is talking to the authorities? "You aren't seriously saying that a surprise visit to the hell bitch would have no merit, are you?" No, the point I was making is that there was no surprise element involved, since the family knew where MW was and who she was talking to. Do you think they would leave a trail of evidence laying around under those circumstances? The critical posts on this thread regarding the detectives that went to California and made an appointment with the family are without merit. There was no surprise involved once the BPD made the family aware of MW's location. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "MW is a Ruse" Posted by straykat2 on 20:56:43 7/17/2000 I am so disappointed in some of the posters here at Justice Watch for falling for the Mystery Woman ruse. Don't you people know that it is common in high profile murder cases to use the ploy of a "mystery woman" to raise reasonable doubt? Justice Watch has become a joke and laughing stock in the Denver metro area. Now I know why. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "straykat" Posted by ericasf on 05:58:32 7/18/2000 Please explain how JW is a laughing stock because we do "buy" into Nancy's claims. Nothing has been disproven. OPEN YOUR MIND TO POSSIBILITIES. That is what we have done. Opened our minds to all of the evidence!!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "straykat2" Posted by Morgan on 21:14:24 7/17/2000 A detailed explanation from you explaining your knowledge that MW is a "ploy" would be welcome. Please share your information and wisdom with us. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Denver" Posted by Morgan on 20:41:01 7/17/2000 What is your point? MW's family had no reason to be sure that BPD would visit them after the fools notified them of MW's whereabouts. They may have taken precautions at that point, but when notified of an impending BPD visit, they sure as hell knew to be prepared. Either way, the BPD behaved unprofessionally, unwisely and stoopidly. Of course, relative to their IQ's, they may have acted brilliantly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Pure Ramsey Propaganda" Posted by chebrock on 20:47:34 7/17/2000 This thread reeks of pure Ramsey Propaganda and SPIN. It's coming out right before they do their 700 club Christian media interview. Somebody has been BOUGHT with one of the Ramsey's last dimes. There have been NO accusations against Fleet White anywhere besides on this forum so why should he respond if he doesn't post here? I'm wondering which posters here are in the Ramsey camp or whether it's just MW that has been bought? The more this MW thing is pushed down our throats in the name of feeling sorry for abuse victims, the harder I'll reject it. MW is not JonBenet and has no connection with her. MW is effectively out and there is no more reason to protect her name. The police and FBI have investigated her situation so her perps know she has told. It's rediculous to hold back her information in the name of safety. So WHO is throwing Fleet White under the Bus? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Cheb" Posted by ericasf on 06:05:27 7/18/2000 I'm not sure how you got to the point of reasoning that you have come to but it is far off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Chebrock" Posted by Morgan on 21:04:25 7/17/2000 You are missing the point, intentionally or not. The point is, a woman who was taken very seriously and found to be believable by a CA district attorney in the past, has come forward with allegations about a major character in the JB case. These allegations will be used by a Ramsey defense lawyer, in the event of a trial, to create reasonable doubt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "chebrock" Posted by mame on 20:55:21 7/17/2000 injustice has thrown everyone...and anyone under the bus. when justice is NOT served, there's no one else to blame. speedy and thorough investigations and placing a case in a courtroom is what prevents being squeezed under that bus. no one person, especially a courageous woman with compelling information can do that. injustice is the culprit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Grow A Brain, Folks!" Posted by straykat2 on 21:13:28 7/17/2000 The entire "mystery woman" story belongs in a sexual abuse newsgroup, not here at Justice Watch. This story was brought to this group in an attempt to introduce reasonable doubt. Let's get back to the real injustice of this case; PROSECUTORS WHO DON'T PROSECUTE cases while collecting taxpayer dollars and blaming cops. Grow some brains, folks! Murderers are going free while you are chasing panty guys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Straykat" Posted by ericasf on 06:07:20 7/18/2000 Have you had a chance to talk with Mame about MW? Have you had a chance to read up and educate yourself on MW? Read and educate yourself before you start throwing out disparaging remarks at a very talented, intelligent, insightful group of people. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "straykat2" Posted by darby on 23:48:33 7/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:48:33, 7/17/2000 I've paid attention to your posts because I think you have an in with the BPD and/or Steve Thomas. But I really would like to see a little less talking down to us and a lot more substance to back up your claims. With all due respect, explain yourself! MW is a ruse? A ruse put on by whom? If you know this for a fact, please tell us the details. If this is merely your opinion, please present your claims as only your hunches, no matter how sure of yourself you think you are. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if that's all it is, please tell us as much. If you have information that would reveal to us that MW is a hoax and that the Whites have been unfairly targeted, don't hold back! Explain who she is and who exactly is benefiting from her claims! To withhold this information is a disservice to the Whites! Yes, we all know that it is common in high profile murder cases for people to use various ploys to raise reasonable doubt. But that tells us NOTHING about this particular woman. NOTHING! Just because it happens quite often is not even close to proof that this woman's information is a hoax. You say that Justice Watch is a joke in the Denver metro area? Gee, last time I checked with my family and friends there, the overwhelming majority don't even give a whip about the JBR case any more, let alone any internet groups following the case. Laughing stock? Give me a break. Better yet, give me an explanation. Instead of telling us to grow some brains, why don't you back up your claims with FACTS explaining exactly what has been said that is incorrect--point by point. Nobody manufactured MW. She's not some random individual who was willing to be bought and paid for by an evil entity. She's a real person whose mother is Fleet White Senior's goddaughter. In other words, she was BORN with a connection to the Whites. And her abuse was documented before the birth of JonBenet. Tell me, how did she orchestrate the ruse you claim she's pulling prior to the birth of the murder victim? If it's true that MW was subjected to sexual abuse as a child by the Whites and that the abuse was documented prior to the murder of JonBenet, then how could this information possibly be a reasonable-doubt ruse to be used to thwart the JBR murder case, as you claim? It would take one clever (and psychic) hoaxter to pull that one off! Maybe you could tell us just how the hoaxter did it. I'll be waiting for specific, FACTUAL information. Thanks in advance. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "If it is true" Posted by dawn on 21:49:27 7/17/2000 If MW is telling the truth about this story, rather than exonerate the Ramseys, it castigates them, as it proves that they had a long history of being involved with people who are known sex offenders who abused children in a similar way that JonBenet was on the night that she died. The White's alibis are strong. They had a house full of guests who could testify that the Whites were in their home that evening and did not leave. But if MW's story proves to be correct, the Ramseys' past relationship with the Whites would indicate that the Ramseys were involved with people who have committed similar types of acts. It would condemn them rather than vindicate them, IMO. The Whites were not involved that evening. But JR may have learned a few tricks from his best friend. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Morgan, why couldn't a prosecutor>>" Posted by ayelean on 21:42:29 7/17/2000 use the same information and point out that because of the close proximity of the Rams and Whites that knowledge about the modus operendi of MW's abuse was used to STAGE the crime scene. MW's story may be true beyond belief, & FW could be involved with MW abuse and still not have a damn thing to do with JBR's death. If Patsy fashioned it to resemble that abuse, that would explain why neither FW or the Rams are touching MW's story with a 10 foot pole. We know there was no intruder, we know who was in the house, we know by the Rams behavior that one or both are guilty. We know the note was pure Patsy. We know the DA was scared chitless of the Ram's defense team. We know there was evidence of previous sexual trauma. Why is Premeditation so impossible a concept? Patsy could have planned this crime to a 'T'. She is certainly capable of such planning, in fact it is her trade-mark. I think we have all strayed from the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) concept. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. ""Meet Mame"" Posted by Orsen on 22:24:48 7/17/2000 ...especially a courageous woman with compelling information can do that. injustice is the culprit. Meet Mame at Holly's bar-be-Q & A, said the invite. Two days later this thread? "Injustice is the culprit" - so is a reporter's subjectivity, IMHO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "JfJBR is the bottom line" Posted by mary99 on 01:36:38 7/18/2000 Orsen, I wish you could have attended the get-together. We had plenty of laughs but also some serious discussion. Mame is not pushing MW on anybody-and she is pretty damn objective about the whole thing. She posted above that there won't be a trial, and I halfway agree with her. The way things stand now, FW and ST are both more more likely to be called as defense witnesses than for the prosecution. Unless we can expand our horizons to include the possibility that there was more going on here than an accidental homicide over bedwetting. FW's account of the actions of JR and himself is worthless if he is a sexual abuser. Instead of letting the JBR case wither on the vine, we need to be calling for an investigation of White and those CA guests who were part of MW's tale of horror, and right in White's home that Christmas night. Thomas's book, as Ginja pointed out, has brought up police bungling and made that an issue, much as in the OJ trial, except to make it worse, this is a BPD dectective blasting the BPD for incompetence. Justice Watch has always been read by the Ramsey camp. Dunvegan's invite was mentioned in the Parkersburg newspaper! Too bad they didn't show it to their readers. So, we need to start screaming for the White investigation to begin in earnest. As long as this forum is locked in a Q&A mode, we can't move forward for jfJBR. As so many have pointed out already, the similarity between what happened to JBR and MW is more than coincidence. That the Ramseys were 'close friends' with the Whites in light of these allegations bears scrutiny. That Fleet White changed JB's underwear is a known fact. Who would not be bothered by a man changing your 6 year old daughter's panties? The Ramseys weren't bothered... What was the purpose of our meet? To share our stories with each other. Was there a Ramsey plant among us? Nope. Everyone there is just dedicated to Justice for JonBenet Ramsey. Her parents are still free after almost four years, so we brainstormed about what exactly is wrong with this picture. Nobody told us what to think, it was a true discussion. MW is relevent because those who abused her were in Boulder that Christmas. What happened to JBR is related to that groups activity. The Ramseys were part of that activity we think. Her death was accidental, but given the nature of the group's activities also predictable. We start threads about MW that disintegrate into discussions about her credibilty. I'll say this once more: anyone who thinks she isn't credible isn't really seeking jfJBR! Because the Ramseys are not implicted directly is no reason to discount MW's credibility, but that's what I'm seeing here. Those wedded to the belief that the Ramseys planted her are forgetting that the Ramseys aren't saying a word about her, even though she could exculpate them, if they aren't involved too. What has stymied JW is when MW came forward, she was suspected of being a Ramsey plant, which she's not. Those here at JW who derail every discussion about FW and MW are doing more harm than good if they want jfJBR. Is the prospect of multiple perps too much to comprehend? Is it because we have fallen into the Patsy-did-it-alone trap and we can't climb out? This case is over if the Ramseys are the only suspects. There is a bigger umbrella waiting at the DA's office if we at JW can just agree that more needs to be done to investigate White and those guests. A child's murder will go unpunished if we remain deadlocked about the relevence of MW to this case. While it's true that JW is one of the few places on the Internet or anywhere to find these allegations being explored, that doesn't mean they are without merit. If we are privy to inside information, we won't be putting it on the Internet for all to read. The truth is she was abused by a sick group which included members of her own family and both the elder and junior Whites. There's no way to state it more emphatically. Let's move on and call for an investigation into White that digs deep and finds the dirt we know is hidden. We need to keep the pressure on until the BPD responds to public pressure. If Boulder wishes this would just go away, then our Internet presence should hound them daily. If White isn't fully investigated, we'll never know the truth, will we? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Hey Mary," Posted by Orsen on 02:54:19 7/18/2000 Wish I could have been there too, wanted to meet you guys, you all seem so cool. Wish Holly would post who is who in those first pics, like the ones of the 5 women standing in a marina. Anyway, your post was excellent...you always give good post Mary. Are we investigating these people to see if they will be credible on the witness stand or if they are involved in the murder. I'm getting sick and tired of cases in both our countries that get tossed out because a witness stole a bicycle when he was 10, or because the person who saw a murder just walked out of a detox center 5 seconds before it happened. However, this MW is different, she is not a witness, did not know the victim, the crime scene, the motive and is not involved in any cover-up. Shes just a tenuous link to an unsubstantiated story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Orsen" Posted by ericasf on 06:09:35 7/18/2000 She did. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "mary99" Posted by rico on 02:47:14 7/18/2000 >truth is she was abused by >a sick group which included members >of her own family and both >the elder and junior Whites. There's >no way to state it more >emphatically. Respectfully, where is the emphatic proof? Where are the other victims of this pedophile sex ring? Is the FBI incompetent too? And Lou Smit, is he compromised also? Why didn't he follow this lead? And how do you know the BPD did not investigate MW's allegations? This woman came forward 3YEARS AFTER JBR's death, and no one can substantiate her allegations. And we should accept it as the truth? Oh well, just as long as the bus keeps rolling. Maybe we can all go back and review MW's earth-shattering interview with mame. That was a real revelation. And there's no way to state it more emphatically. Don't believe MW is a Rams plant but if she can help discredit FW then I'm sure they got to love her. JMO JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Mary99, I love your posts>>" Posted by ayelean on 05:40:35 7/18/2000 You have such an ability to clearly state your thoughts. I agree whole heartedly that every detail of MW's story be investigated, as well as every individual at the White's and the Whites. What I also want investigated is ANY evidence that Patsy knew about this abuse. What screams to me is that this is yet another facet or evidence that Patsy PREMEDITATED this whole thing to FIT this evidence. If she didn't she would be screaming for MW to be investigated. If Patsy and say, Mrs. White discussed this in 'girl talk' and Patsy was hell bent on silencing JBR because she was about to divulge info that exposed Patsy to something Patsy considered sordid or embarrasing, don't you think that Patsy could have chose the time for JBR to die to coinside with a time when the White's would be having this gathering? If this is the case, then even if the public perceives MW's information to be exculpable, Patsy knows that it will also be revealed that she was privvy to these details and it would come back to bite her in the *ss. The evidence does not support a gang ritual, it all comes back to the evidence and that all fits if the crime was premeditated. Patsy can safely dispute ST's theory because she knows it was not accidental. She is counting heavily on people unable to believe that a mother could premeditate this type of a crime. I could even envision Patsy coercing Fleet or John making a sling for her precious painting so she could use the thing to strangle JBR. It would certainly account for the behavior of Fleet White since the time of the crime. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Did PR stage it?" Posted by mary99 on 09:03:02 7/18/2000 Ayelean, I wasn't going to reply on this thread, because it's too long already, but you offered an alternate to the FW/sex ring scenario with PR copying MW's abuse to silence JBR (over incest)and make it look like one of the 'sex ring' members did it. This would be possible except for the behavior of Fleet White. From the moment he was summoned to the Ramsey home, his actions are suspicious. Taking charge of Burke, then investigating the basement, moving the broken glass, the suitcase, touching the tape after the body was found, and of course, not seeing her when he first searched the hell hole. Was she laying there or not? Any answer he gives, like JR, is as likely to be a lie as the truth. He then took charge of PR, hovering and behaving strangely, allowing nobody to approach her. In GA, we know the account of his bizarre outburst and the reports of the police being called. Priscilla White reportedly said, "We know things you don't know". I haven't figured out what it adds up to yet, but I don't think PR staged it, based on what PW told her in 'girl talk'. True, FW could have been guarding PR only because she had copied the bizarre sex abuse pattern he and his father practiced along with MW's family, but in that case I don't think he would have contaminated the hell hole and disturbed the evidence. For him to do that suggests the same motive JR and PR showed when they contaminated the body: fear of direct physical evidence on the body and surrounding area linking them/him to the murder. If PR staged it, it would not have been a concern. He would have avoided all contact with the hellhole and let the chips fall where they may. Especially if he was guilty of practicing ritual sex abuse/strangulation, but didn't do it to JBR, he would have avoided all contact with the crime scene Dec. 26th. Instead he was side by side with JR, touching and thereby contaminating-which suggests to me that he was purposefully covering any tell-tale evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Allegations and Inaccuracies" Posted by Lacey on 08:38:22 7/18/2000 >Oh by the way, the records in the Boykin case are sealed because MW was a minor. The case can only be released by her. She signed releases for the cops and fbi. She also offered over and over to take a lie detector test. Mame, that is ridiculous. There is no way that the MW could possibly have control over sealed court records, her own or otherwise! This is just one example of the lack of accuracy in the information you all receive and believe from this pathetic woman. She is transparent and it is apparent that you'll believe whatever she tells you. Get A Grip, Please Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Hey, who made you the expert?" Posted by mary99 on 09:11:10 7/18/2000 Last time I checked, a minor's records are always sealed. And when that minor is an adult, they can unseal them and waive their right to privacy. That doen't mean you can see those records, but law enforcement agencies certainly can see them if she so chooses. You have been a non-stop critic of this woman since she came forward. Nobody here is suffering under a MW delusion except those who think she's a fraud. And, why didn't you come to the MD get-together and confront the 'deluded' JW-ers to their faces? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "mary99" Posted by canadiana on 21:36:26 7/18/2000 You said.... "And, why didn't you come to the MD get-together and confront the 'deluded' JW-ers to their faces?"... I know you weren't speaking to me, but that isn't a fair comment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "well, she does" Posted by mame on 22:08:06 7/18/2000 have control over the SEALED court records. you can call there yourself. it's the san bernadino county DA's office. give them a ring. they'll tell you quite clearly that The Witness is the only one able to release those records. It's NOT ridiculous...it's fact. maybe when you check your facts you might find some manners in how you respond to those who HAVE checked their facts. lacey, if we're a group of bored housewives..why bother with us. we're just beer can collectin' ol' broads with a betty crocker cookbook and access to a computer. soccer mom's on speed... ha... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Mary99>>" Posted by ayelean on 22:45:29 7/18/2000 If you think this thread was long before---LOL Thank you for your answer to me (91) but I am not seeing it in the same light that you see it. All of the reasons you state that FW's actions were suspect is after the fact that we know JBR's body was there all the time. Granted FW is a little quirky, but quirky does not a murderer make. I see FW as a fuddie duddie kind of guy that has more nurturing kind of genes than most men have. I know 3 males that are better mommies than their wives are. It would not be above or beneath any of them to hover over the people in that Ramsey household that morning, thinking themselves helpful, caring, taking charge for friends that appear beside themselves with angst over a missing child. I see FW tending to JBR over a soiling accident with the same mothering concern without a shred of worrying about the appearance of sexual abuse. If such a situation ever happened. I also see a cunning manipulator like Patsy setting a mommyize male like FW up for future finger pointing as a suspect. I am not defending or defaming FW because there is too much we don't know about the facts, but it seems that a few posters here envision him as the devil personified and I think that plays just like the Rams want him portrayed. That is the very reason that gives me the suspicion that he is being hung out to dry here. Despite all these suspicions the evidence just doesn't support it. I want to know how much Patsy knew about MW's abuse. As God made little green apples I will bet Patsy knew ALL about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. ">>Ayelean" Posted by mary99 on 23:07:35 7/18/2000 Fleet White is not motherly or tender, from what war stories I've heard. He may not be the devil personified, but he's given some of the 'case notables' a peek at his dark side and it wasn't pretty. In fact he scared them chitless. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Mame" Posted by mary99 on 22:28:36 7/18/2000 I ran out of Nancy Drew books and just putter around here to kill time...ha! Seriously, if JW can't unite and move as a group to call for a full and complete investigation, our only hope for justice rests with the FBI. What happened to JUSTICE WATCH, the forum that set the standard for defining the issues and keeping the heat on? Right now many of those who say they want jfJBR would rather roast those who would follow the evidence, no matter where and to whom it leads. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "Mary99" Posted by ericasf on 06:07:54 7/19/2000 I agree with you wholeheartedly. People are forgetting what we are here for. We are a group united for the purpose of justice. I definitely am not a bored housewife but a person who cares about equality and justice in our society. I suggest that anyone who isn't for this speak up now so we know exactly what we are dealing with. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "TBNT" Posted by Lacey on 05:38:53 7/19/2000 Come to your meetings? flol, think I'll take a pass. (Though clearly you could use the common sense to counter your active imaginations.) Sorry, Mame, if I spoke prematurely on the sealed-records issue but for now I will stand by my post. Wouldn't be surprised if it turns out you're right.. only in California, eh? It's certainly not de rigueur by most state statutes. Repeating my mantra - Carrion. Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Lacey" Posted by ericasf on 06:09:30 7/19/2000 Maybe in your state, juvenile records are allowed to be accessed but I know where I live, DC METRO AREA (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT IN MY BACKYARD) that is not the case. For adoptions, juvenile crimes, underage victims, etc...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "what "war stories", Mary99?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:33:00 7/19/2000 I'm just reading these threads and happened on your remark about FW. I have NEVER read or heard ANYTHING about FW, strange or not. I don't know what info you all have, I must have been out sick that day, but where is there documentation about FW and his "dark side"? What do people mean when they say he's an odd fellow, or scarey, or whatever? Gee whiz, he's remained so silent, I don't know one darned thing about him, how do you? Please tell me, Mary, where can I find all this info on FW? I'd like to form my own opinion, and see something that could help me do that, besides the word of posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "LOL, I guess your non-answer" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:02:35 7/19/2000 is my answer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Edie " Posted by mary99 on 15:21:49 7/19/2000 If you happen to have a copy of Stephen Singular's book, see if you can find his account of meeting with Alex Hunter and the comments made by Hunter r.e. Fleet White. There are other indications that FW is not a model citizen, but you have to read between the lines. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "edie" Posted by v_p on 15:34:31 7/19/2000 Here's your answer: >>>>There are other indications that FW is not a model citizen, but you have to read between the lines. Explains a great deal, I think. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "Edie, I hear ya>>" Posted by ayelean on 19:00:51 7/19/2000 I am in the dark about all the vile things FW does. I thought playing on the floor with his daughter and JBR making jewelry or something to that effect was just despicable. LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE