Justice Watch Discussion Board "The case against the Ramseys is gone 2" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... The case against the Ramseys is gone 2, Morgan, 21:22:42, 7/17/2000 straykat., Holly, 21:34:33, 7/17/2000, (#1) Repost from other thread, dawn, 21:54:40, 7/17/2000, (#2) another repost from thread I>>, ayelean, 21:59:21, 7/17/2000, (#3) I'm upset, rose, 23:59:53, 7/17/2000, (#4) At least, momo, 03:02:56, 7/18/2000, (#5) The Myth of the Mythtery Woman, Lacey, 05:37:26, 7/18/2000, (#7) at least for me, ericasf, 08:20:10, 7/18/2000, (#11) Brevity's not my baliwick.., Ginja, 05:36:21, 7/18/2000, (#6) Ginja, canadiana, 08:07:15, 7/18/2000, (#8) Canadiana..., Twitch, 10:40:11, 7/18/2000, (#21) I Repeat..., shadow, 08:16:38, 7/18/2000, (#10) I'm off to go fishing...., mame, 08:12:34, 7/18/2000, (#9) the investigation, mame, 08:26:18, 7/18/2000, (#12) I have steered clear of , v_p, 09:10:15, 7/18/2000, (#14) mame, Seashell, 09:08:44, 7/18/2000, (#13) I think one of the problems, dawn, 09:25:59, 7/18/2000, (#17) A modest request, docg, 09:19:35, 7/18/2000, (#15) Story, Sylvia, 09:22:39, 7/18/2000, (#16) Easier said than done, tamster, 09:43:02, 7/18/2000, (#18) Tamster and Shadow, rose, 10:22:39, 7/18/2000, (#19) Rose, ericasf, 10:30:54, 7/18/2000, (#20) Ericasf,, gaiabetsy, 13:26:23, 7/18/2000, (#22) I'm with you, Rose, Gemini, 13:52:12, 7/18/2000, (#23) urgency vs thoroughness, mary99, 15:37:25, 7/18/2000, (#24) another case with parallels to MW/JBR , darby, 17:14:17, 7/18/2000, (#25) Well worth reading, mary99, 19:04:46, 7/18/2000, (#26) Excuse me, but, docg, 21:09:37, 7/18/2000, (#27) I may be wrong, but..., mary99, 21:33:35, 7/18/2000, (#28) docg, darby, 03:45:05, 7/19/2000, (#29) Darby, docg, 09:27:55, 7/19/2000, (#30) thanks, docg (I think), darby, 10:06:00, 7/19/2000, (#31) LOL, Not Quite, Lacey, 10:16:12, 7/19/2000, (#32) Lacey, darby, 10:22:12, 7/19/2000, (#33) FLOL, Lacey, 10:29:40, 7/19/2000, (#35) Darby, momo, 10:27:25, 7/19/2000, (#34) Just my opinion, freebird, 10:39:38, 7/19/2000, (#36) freebird,, gaiabetsy, 12:45:04, 7/19/2000, (#37) forgotten comment, fly, 13:16:25, 7/19/2000, (#38) I liked Beckner's comment, Holly, 21:08:10, 7/19/2000, (#43) gosh, fly, darby, 14:50:42, 7/19/2000, (#39) Darby, Holly, 07:46:14, 7/21/2000, (#51) Darby>>, ayelean, 18:45:47, 7/19/2000, (#40) Ayelean and Darby, momo, 19:55:34, 7/19/2000, (#41) Momo, frankg, 20:45:05, 7/19/2000, (#42) frankg, v_p, 21:11:28, 7/19/2000, (#44) Frankg, Post #42..., shadow, 07:01:45, 7/20/2000, (#45) darby, fly, 09:11:41, 7/20/2000, (#46) Big question., gaiabetsy, 13:38:17, 7/20/2000, (#47) White, lake, 15:04:25, 7/20/2000, (#48) And Further, lake, 17:11:07, 7/20/2000, (#49) Speaking of Fleet, Morgan, 18:38:01, 7/20/2000, (#50) The more I read..., shadow, 08:04:21, 7/21/2000, (#53) Ending the week..., Brightlight, 07:57:25, 7/21/2000, (#52) Bravo, Brightlight!, LurkerXIV, 08:16:07, 7/21/2000, (#55) Yeah, v_p, 08:10:18, 7/21/2000, (#54) Nice Post Brightlight, frankg, 08:56:20, 7/21/2000, (#57) Brightlight, mary99, 08:41:46, 7/21/2000, (#56) Brightlight & Mary99, Hoping, 09:47:37, 7/21/2000, (#58) Frankg, Hoping, 09:56:21, 7/21/2000, (#59) Back to the subject at hand..., mary99, 10:51:08, 7/21/2000, (#62) Back to the Future, Hoping, 12:03:48, 7/21/2000, (#65) It's about Time, Real Stormy, 10:23:31, 7/21/2000, (#61) Last Words On MW..., shadow, 10:08:11, 7/21/2000, (#60) Excellent, Gemini, 10:51:28, 7/21/2000, (#63) Gem, Hoping, 11:23:12, 7/21/2000, (#64) Hoping, Gemini, 12:07:30, 7/21/2000, (#66) mary99..., Brightlight, 15:12:31, 7/21/2000, (#68) Brightlight & Mary99, canadiana, 15:08:34, 7/21/2000, (#67) Clarification, mary99, 15:25:27, 7/21/2000, (#69) Some posters, Morgan, 17:17:04, 7/21/2000, (#70) No matter, Morgan, 18:14:31, 7/21/2000, (#74) Morgan, Gemini, 18:05:26, 7/21/2000, (#72) mary, v_p, 17:53:41, 7/21/2000, (#71) V_P, freebird, 18:07:58, 7/21/2000, (#73) freebird, v_p, 20:25:24, 7/21/2000, (#79) Big Bird, mary99, 19:41:35, 7/21/2000, (#75) Mary99, freebird, 20:35:59, 7/21/2000, (#81) Gee Mary, Gemini, 20:01:56, 7/21/2000, (#76) FW & JR Dispute Answered, Abby, 20:13:21, 7/21/2000, (#77) URL For Post # 77, Abby, 20:29:23, 7/21/2000, (#80) Well, I'm Shocked, Real Stormy, 20:24:43, 7/21/2000, (#78) obnoxious behavior, doc, 01:37:00, 7/22/2000, (#87) fly, darby, 21:58:07, 7/21/2000, (#86) v_p, Morgan, 20:55:44, 7/21/2000, (#83) Abby, Gemini, 20:48:33, 7/21/2000, (#82) Gemini, mary99, 21:07:39, 7/21/2000, (#84) Whoa!, canadiana, 21:13:14, 7/21/2000, (#85) Seconding doc, darby, 04:05:59, 7/22/2000, (#88) One more thing, darby, 04:54:15, 7/22/2000, (#89) Yep, he's no hero, mary99, 07:59:33, 7/22/2000, (#90) ................................................................... "The case against the Ramseys is gone 2" Posted by Morgan on 21:22:42 7/17/2000 straykat, like I said, share the details of your knowledge that MW is a "ploy" with us. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "straykat." Posted by Holly on 21:34:33 7/17/2000 MW is certainly pertinent to JB's murder. We've already been down that road. The truth is that a seriously thorough review and investigation of her claims is necessary. That's all. Without one, kiss this case goodbye. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Repost from other thread" Posted by dawn on 21:54:40 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 ] 3. "another repost from thread I>>" Posted by ayelean on 21:59:21 7/17/2000 Morgan, Why couldn't a prosecutor 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 MIMIC 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 ] 4. "I'm upset" Posted by rose on 23:59:53 7/17/2000 not for the JonBenet case now, but for the child that MW said was out of the country with her abuser and MW was very concerned for this childs safty. I am going to assume that she named this child and her supposed abuser! We can do nothing right now to protect Poor JonBenet from harm, she's dead and in God's hands now. But if MW's child is being hurt as we speak, what can be done to protect her without a full investigation? I can't believe that the FBI has not been following through with a full investigation for this childs sake alone. But if they are not, then MW has an obligation to this child to go public and tell her story for this one childs sake. If she believes that this child is in danger of being killed or will grow up with the horrors that she MW had to endure as a child, then it should be addressed now, not later. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "At least" Posted by momo on 03:02:56 7/18/2000 here at Justice Watch we cover all the bases. We can't possibly sweep MW's story under the rug. Otherwise we're no better than the BPD. When stories that relate to the case pop up, they must be investigated. Theories are like **sholes, everyone has one. But when they cause you to close your mind to other possibilities, well, you know where that leads. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "The Myth of the Mythtery Woman" Posted by Lacey on 05:37:26 7/18/2000 LOL, the saga continues. Morgan? Logic Error: Smash forehead on keyboard to continue. In your typical implacable fashion some of you just won't give this up. Because some of her abuse story is credible and verifiable, you have awarded her blanket authenticity even though other parts of her story are inconsistent and hampered by a history of histrionics which has been verified as well. The connection isn't credible. Live with it. Or whatever. Myself, I still stand by my preliminary posts on this matter, that someone found her and by suggestion encouraged her to enhance her story to harm the innocent. It's much more likely, given what we know of the Ramsey investigation and the BPD's eleven-week look-see into her background. Since the Shapiro Days, Mr. Sinister Hunter has been trying to smear White as he has done with so many others in retaliation for their refusal to "play the game." We've heard about it for years and it all fits. The buck stops THERE. That's all there is to it. My sympathy to MW for getting tangled in the web. Obviously, she will pander to anyone who will listen, and we have a bunch from the Helen James Society right here on this forum who will do just that and apparently more! My point and I DO have one, is, I would guess MW's suddenly coming forward three years after the Ramsey homicide has more to do with a similar mindset than a true exposé. She may have had a legitimate claim 20 years ago, but her recent allegations of less than ten years were tossed out, weren't they? False claims, false allegations, false police reports.. how does she answer to that? She doesn't, does she. I tend to think she sounds a bit delusional and that her claims get more detailed the more people gather to listen to her. As long as there are people to listen.. MW has woven things into her story that do not pan out. She's a tragic woman but her sensational allegations exceed the sum of her parts. Hope she gets help and finds resolution to the demons apparently plaguing her.. and the ones encouraging her as well. Just Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "at least for me" Posted by ericasf on 08:20:10 7/18/2000 I don't give MW blanket authenticity. i believe that she should be given her legal right to have her story investigated to see if it is true. The rest are all allegations regarding any connection to Fleet White. The only connection that we know of right now for certain is that FW, Sr was her mother's godfather. That's it. The rest is speculation as to what could have happened. The facts have yet to come out. So please, for sanity's sake, why don't we just stick to the facts? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Brevity's not my baliwick.." Posted by Ginja on 05:36:21 7/18/2000 But I'll try. :-) First, responding to Canadiana from thread one: I had to pull an all-nighter to get to Hol's and then got there late (during the FBI's presentation)...my apologies for not being able to "spell it all out". I stick by the fact that there are just some things were are NOT going to be able to post. Again, it would be suicide for any kind of justice for JBR. However, what I was alluding to (and questioned on) in my post have been brought out by other posters...that is, there is a link between MW and FW...but that's as far as I'm going to take it. Sorry. Why I'm jumping in here quick is to note that I ended my last post there by saying that WE could blow this case out of the water...if we tried. What I'm seeing here (and I'm sure others are, too) is exactly the same as what's going on in Boulder in the BPD and DA's office...no one wants to work together, they want to work against each other. They don't want to work out a 'workable' theory, especially if it doesn't go along with their theory, e.g., the bedwetting scenario. Let's try to stop ragging on each other and working together. Just a quick thought. Have a nice day all! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ginja" Posted by canadiana on 08:07:15 7/18/2000 Thanks for your response. Please know that I am willing to 'work together' and I am not 'ragging on' anyone. You say that 'we' could 'blow this case out of the water'; how can WE do this when WE do not know what details have been discussed? WE do not (ALL) know what you have been talking about, WE have just been asked to 'trust' those who do know. You have not convinced me there is any evidence that connects (directly and absolutely) MW to JBR's death. Although it is obviously not necessary for you to do so, I am asking you to convince me. If you chose not to, I cannot just assume you all have the evidence to 'blow this case out of the water'. Rather than be interactive, this forum will become a place others (outside the inside circle) will come to read only. IMO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Canadiana..." Posted by Twitch on 10:40:11 7/18/2000 Well put. My sentiments exactly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "I Repeat..." Posted by shadow on 08:16:38 7/18/2000 Maybe it's time for the MW to go public. The BPD and FBI have investigated HW's allegations and, as far as I know, have not been able to relate her allegations to the JBR case. I realize that many people on this forum have little confidence in the BPD, the FBI, Hunter and the DA's Office, the Governor of Colorado, and the Justice Dept - but this is all we have right now from the people in this case who count. So, where do we go from here? IMHO, it's time for MW, her doctor and her lawyer to go public. No, not the Boulder Camera, mame and the JW Forum. They must hit the circuit ah la JR/PR and ST - the national networks, the NY Times and Wash Post, and the talk shows (LKL, Geraldo, etc.). What's the problem with this? Those whom she will accuse already know who she is - those who want to hurt her already know who she is - in fact, everyone who matters knows who she is. MW's story has no visibility outside the small world of Boulder and the JBR forums... if it has a bearing on the JBR case, or, for that matter, real child abuse sex rings and porn in this country, it needs to be revealed nationwide. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "I'm off to go fishing...." Posted by mame on 08:12:34 7/18/2000 however, i'd like to make one thing clear. anyone who has spoken to me personally about this case...or The Witness, knows full well how tough i am about fantasy leaps. i've driven holly and other's crazy with my dogged stance concerning wild leaps. they will sadly testify to that. i have stayed quiet in recent weeks for many reasons...but, one main one is that i am not the point person in this story. i will not become the poster person (no pun intended) for this theory or any theory. ANYONE WHO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE WITH ME KNOWS THAT I HOLD NO ONE PARTICULAR THEORY IN THIS CASE!!! THAT IS A FACT. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "the investigation" Posted by mame on 08:26:18 7/18/2000 is taking place by those who have respect as investigators. I AM NOT INVOLVED IN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. i only know they are taking place. it will take time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "I have steered clear of " Posted by v_p on 09:10:15 7/18/2000 the MW theory because, from what I have seen on paper, there's nothing there to connect her directly to JBR's murder. I have a couple of questions, however. 1. Have Children's protective services been notified of FW's involvement in child pornography rings? If so, why are their children allowed to remain in their home? I mean, they would normally be taken out of the home, at least until a thorough investigation is done. 2. This is one helluva tabloid story, why haven't we seen MW's allegations smeared all over the front pages of the Globe or Enquirer. (I may have missed this if it has been). Fleet White is probably intelligent enough to know that if he did dispute the allegations made by MW, it would only make matters worse for he and his family. I have heard exactly one sound=bite about MW on National news and that was it. Who is investigating MW's allegations?. And if it is being investigated, why all the whining about it not being investigated? Something about this reminds me of the relationship between Susan Stine and Patsy Ramsey...you know, the way Susan would believe anything PR says just to be a part of her life/story... V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "mame" Posted by Seashell on 09:08:44 7/18/2000 >the investigation is taking place by those who have respect as investigators. I AM >NOT INVOLVED IN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. >i only know they are taking >place. it will take time. Thank you, I needed to hear that. However, we've been stalled for many years now by people who tell us that the investigation is on track. This morning, I tend to agree with shadow. Let's get her and her attorney and therapist on the talk show circuits. If need be, they can have their faces scrambled for TV, but let's get this story out so it can't be shoved under the rug. I too think there's something there. We already know for a fact that there's a connection between FW Sr. and MW's mother. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate some nasty possibilities. aylean writes: < by the Rams behavior that one or both are guilty. We know the note was pure Patsy.>> We don't know this at all. JR could have written part or all of it; he could have dictated part or all of it. <> We don't know this. We mustn't assume things. He may actually think the Rams innocent but I haven't yet figured out why ST, in his book, said that Hunter thought Patsy was good for it from very early on. That boggles my mind and ST should never have printed that, true or not. No wonder Hunter was angry at him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "I think one of the problems" Posted by dawn on 09:25:59 7/18/2000 is exemplified by the title of the thread. There is no way that the Ramseys had nothing at all to do with the death of their daughter, even if a truckload of MWs were to arrive and their stories were verified. It wouldn't even make the Patsy theory less likely, as it could be argued that she tried to copy this type of crime. Nothing has been blown out of the water by this, and the case against the Ramseys is far from gone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "A modest request" Posted by docg on 09:19:35 7/18/2000 I don't have the time or patience to carefully study all the MW posts. I did listen to a good chunk of Mame's interview. And I remain extremely puzzled. Most of these posts refer to MW's "allegations" and whether or not they can be substantiated. However . . . WHAT is it exactly, that MW is alleged to have alleged? Can anyone spell this out for me? What am I missing here? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Story" Posted by Sylvia on 09:22:39 7/18/2000 http://www.denverpost.com/news/jon051600.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Easier said than done" Posted by tamster on 09:43:02 7/18/2000 I just want to say that while I would like to see MW go public with her story and hit the talk show circuit, it is much easier for us to express that sentiment than for her to actually do such a thing. I believe that she has experienced a tremendous amount of trauma and has had every shred of dignity taken from her. As she works through her recovery, she needs to be empowered. And part of the empowerment process means that she needs to be in control of her life and she needs to make those decisions for herself. Disclosing facts surrounding abuse to the proper authorities so that an investigation can take place is one thing. Going before Oprah Winfrey and Dateline is entirely different. I think that we should respect her decisions and hope that she will choose to come forward when the time is right for her. That is what is in her best interest and we need to honor her decisions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Tamster and Shadow" Posted by rose on 10:22:39 7/18/2000 Tamster, I would agree if she was the only one involved in her story, but she has said there is a child in danger here and this child is with her abuser now. MW has an obligation to speak up and protect this child, if her story is true. Am I the only one worried about this child? If MW's story is true, this child is in torment now! How can anyone sit and wait for a slow investigation while a child suffers. Shadow, I agree with every thing you said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Rose" Posted by ericasf on 10:30:54 7/18/2000 We have no choice but to wait. We have all tried to find out more to the story but to no avail. We now have an investigative reporter working on the case and it's up to him/her now. We don't know the progress. But it's not just MW or JBR. If all is correct, then it could be a lot more than just the two of them. If we can help save one person, I will be satisfied. I want to pose a question to everyone now. If MW turns out to be telling the truth but has no connection to the Ramsey case whatsoever, would you still fight for justice for MW? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Ericasf," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:26:23 7/18/2000 in answer to your poll, my hear says "yes" but the rest of me is programmed to save myself at all costs. I think that's what PTSD is about. You are recalling to me the remembrance about someone who has been molested in much the same way I have. Let's face it, this picture ain't pretty. There aren't no easy answers, but I'll tell you this, as much as I would like to claim total success about this issue, I'll gladly, no ceremoniously, step aside to help another woman deal with her pain and misfortune. Take it as you will. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "I'm with you, Rose" Posted by Gemini on 13:52:12 7/18/2000 To me, most of the MW drama is, indeed, a mystery and only more (and solid) information will change that. BUT this person (MW) has repeatedly stated there is, currently, a child at risk. Since, according to her, this is no phantom child, but a child known to her, it seems reasonable to suppose she has told authorities (FBI BPD etc.) the child's name and connection to the people she believes represent a threat. Whether or not any of this has to do with the JBR case, I certainly hope those with the power to conduct a throough investigation have the welfare of this minor at the forefront of their activity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "urgency vs thoroughness" Posted by mary99 on 15:37:25 7/18/2000 Gemini, that has crossed my mind too. What we call an urgent need to remove a child at risk must be balanced against the need to carefully investigate the situation so the child is removed with cause and not a moment before the charges are substantiated. The FBI is renowned for their ability to put together evidence and make it stick. As much as it makes me cringe, that niece will probably remain where she is until the investigation wraps up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "another case with parallels to MW/JBR " Posted by darby on 17:14:17 7/18/2000 I was trying to search for information about sealed court records and found this article about a woman with possible information in the Polly Klaas murder. The similarities to the MW vis-a-vis JBR are striking. http://www.newsmakingnews.com/archive4305700.htm THE BAYCITIES OBSERVER Virginia McCullough "Have I missed the mark, or, like a true archer, do I strike my mark? Or am I a prophet of lies, a babbler from door to door?" Cassandra, as reported by Agamemnon. (c) 2000 Virginia McCullough. All Rights Reserved. Use only with written permission. WHO PROTECTS HALEIGH MARDEUSZ? There was a recent uproar in Marin County when a group of people, thoroughly fed up with the courts and their lack of justice, began a recall campaign. This action followed a report written by Karen Winner that severely criticized the cronyism and conflicts of interest that exist between certain judges, expert witnesses and favored attorneys. The Marin Independent Journal and The Coast Writers Syndicate have recently covered the story. Click At the very center of this debate is a woman named Carol Mardeusz who has become the focus of the prosecutors and judges in both Sonoma and Marin Counties. An inordinate amount of time and money has been spent to discredit and jail this mother of two daughters. If one listened to the trials this woman has had to endure since 1995 one would wonder if she is not Public Enemy No. 1. Why is so much time and effort being devoted to the hounding and persecution of this single mom? Perhaps it is because Carole Mardeusz, her teenage daughter Natalie Mardeusz and her youngest daughter, Haleigh, have testified in police reports that the man who confessed to kidnapping and murdering Polly Klaas in October of 1993 might have had an accomplice. That type of information would not go over well with the local law enforcement and the FBI who diligently worked to convince a nation that Richard Alan Davis was the sole perpetrator in the killing of America's Child. Mardeusz gave the Petaluma Police Department a report that her Polly look-alike daughter Natalie, and her girlfriend, Click had been stalked by a man answering the description of Richard Alan Davis a full two weeks BEFORE the kidnapping of Polly Klaas. Within the month following the kidnapping Mardeusz obtained the license number of the car she and her daughters had seen Richard Alan Davis entering. Nothing was done about these reports but the Mardeusz family was listed as "Petaluma Witnesses" in the trial of Richard Alan Davis, only to be eliminated later by Sonoma County District Attorney Mullins. The Mardeuszs are Brady witnesses in the Davis/Klaas case. Carol's young daughter, Haleigh, had been fathered during her brief affair with a man named Leo Magers. Haleigh was born on October 27, 1990 and she will soon be 10 years old. Her mother provided a collection of pictures of Haleigh to this reporter. Click Magers has a long documented history of physically abusing women. Magers lives in Rohnert Park and many reports were made to the Police Department there about his abuse of various girlfriends. Ignorant of these accusations, Mardeusz wanted her daughter to have a father figure in her life. Although she worked as a court reporter, Mardeusz also needed financial support for her child. She went to Toni Novak, a supervisor of Sonoma County Legal Services. Magers' response to Mardeusz' pregnancy was to try to force her to have an abortion and when that failed, he denied paternity in a paternity action. The Sonoma County District Attorney forced him to do a blood test to determine paternity. This angered Leo Magers. According to court records Magers retaliated--beginning a continuing escalation of physical and sexual abuse against his own daughter and threats against Mardeusz if she reported her child as a victim. The court records indicate that when Haleigh was six months old Magers held Haleigh by one of her legs dropping her to the floor when he blacked out from alcohol. In 1991 two neighborhood boys in Magers' Rohnert Park neighborhood saw Magers swear at the child and throw her onto the hood of a car, while he was drunk. Because of this incident [10/31/91] Mardeusz took steps to protect her child by filing a custody/paternity action in Sonoma County [Case No. 194243] on November 27, 1991. On February 24, 1992 the Sonoma County Superior Court ordered full legal and physical custody of Haleigh to the mother and ordered that Magers be allowed only supervised visitation. Later the father lost all visitation rights because he did not comply with the court order that he undergo a probation study. The abuse of the child by the father continued. The court records state that Haleigh reported to her mother that Magers had squeezed her neck in an abusive way, on more than one occasion. The mother reported this to her pediatrician Donald Hensley, M.D. at Kaiser Hospital. The doctor documented the child's cervical pain in a letter dated March 6, 1995 that was entered into the court records. During 1993 Magers' continued his abuse of Haleigh. The child reported to the mother that Magers physically and sexually abused her by hitting her and poking her in the "pepe". Five different reports by five different people document the reported abuse by the father. The most interesting ones are the Child Protective Services Reports dated 6/17/93 to 2/8/94 by Doris Sami, PhD. This same woman was also to figure prominently in the Polly Klaas Case. Sami had to be aware that the Mardeusz case and the Klaas were intertwined. During 1993 Magers had a girlfriend named Tina Bob. Court records state that Magers continually beat her and gave her a black eye and a broken arm. He was also her cocaine supplier. In fact he bragged about this under oath when he testified against Tina Bob on behalf of her ex-husband, Jerry Bob, who wanted custody of their children [Solano County Court Case No. F-024625]. Magers admitted under penalty of perjury that he abused alcohol and cocaine and purchased and distributed the drug. Throughout 1994 Haleigh continued to report to both her mother and her sister that Magers and his mother, Dr. Betty Magers, were both physically and sexually abusing her. In Marin County the Novato police received a complaint about Betty Magers because this city is her place of residence. Novato Police Report No. NP 94004692 dated January 26, 1995 by Officer Brett Gripe noted that on December 12, 1994 during an interview with Betty Magers, she stated that "Leo does have a problem with alcohol.........". Dr. Betty Magers was employed as a psychologist at Kaiser Hospital in Solano County. Apparently Magers' problems were well known within his family because on February 6, 1994, his own sister, Lynn, had reported that Magers had molested Haleigh [ See Petaluma Police Report No. 95-1030]. A second Petaluma Police Report [94-8464] dated 8/3/94 by Officer Tommasi notes that Lynn Magers "observed Haleigh's behavior of the past several years and during this time she has graphically described sexual contacts which are totally inappropriate for a 4-year old child. On one occasion Haleigh described someone inserting two fingers into her vaginal area." On February 6, 1995 the Novato Police Department and the Marin County sheriffs arrested and booked both Leo Magers and Dr. Betty Magers for the sexual and physical abuse of Haleigh. Click Dr. Magers and Leo Magers went to a personal friend, a former FBI agent, who gave the two of them a lie detector test that Dr. Magers paid for and the results of this test were then hand delivered to Officer Gripe. Apparently this test, tainted with conflicts of interest and paid for by the defendants was used, in part, to convince the Marin County District Attorney's office to not follow through with the prosecution of the Magers. Court records reflect that on May 25, 1995 Magers was allowed supervised visits following an application for a temporary restraining order by Mardeusz. The basis for the TRO was that Doris Sami of Sonoma County Child Protective Service had told the mother that Haleigh was molested on four occasions by Magers in his bedroom with "skin to skin contact." The mother was read this report by Sami who refused to send the mother a copy of the report. At the suggestion of Sami the mother filed an Emergency Assistance Application and Sami apparently declared Haleigh Mardeusz "at risk" with the notation "Date child determined to be at risk as of 5/4/95". Unknown to Mardeusz, at this time, was the fact that Magers' personal attorney, Catherine Connor, and her law firm, had a contract with Sonoma County to "assist" children "at risk". Meanwhile, during 1995, the trial of Richard Alan Davis was drawing near in Santa Clara County. His attorney, Barry Collins, had repeatedly stated in the court records that he could not go to trial before the end of August, 1995. Various and bizarre excuses were used by Collins in some instances, without his client Davis, present in the court room. The absence of Davis was addressed by both the judge and the prosecution attorneys because, as a death penalty candidate, Davis had the absolute right to be present. The transcripts reflect Collins' strange demand that the Davis trial not begin until August of 1995. Sonoma County Judge Lloyd Von Der Mahden reacted to the ongoing abuse of Haleigh Mardeusz by awarding Leo Magers physical custody of the child on August 31, 1995 based on a probation report of Carol Mardeusz written by Susan Rivetts, dated August 29, 1995. Sonoma County did not order a probation report for the father. Dr. Betty Magers gave her son, Leo, information on Munchausen Syndrome to deliver to the Sonoma County Probation Department. In effect, Sonoma County was now conspiring to deliver the child, Haleigh, into the hands of her abuser. In September of 1995 Leo Magers burned the front of both of Haleigh's legs with a cigarette. During a supervised visit Carol Mardeusz and the supervisor noted the burns and the next day Carol took pictures of the multiple injuries. Click On September 30, 1995, during a supervised turn-over of Haleigh, Magers turned up and took Haleigh with one hand while brandishing a butcher knife at Carol Mardeusz with the other hand. The supervisor present, Kimala Krchnavi, of the Sonoma County Legal Referral program observed this incident and reported it in a court declaration. On September 7, 1995, Judge John Gallagher of Sonoma County Superior Court, ordered Carol Mardeusz to see psychologist William Alvarez, PhD. The judge told the mother that based on Alvarez's recommendations Mardeusz MIGHT be able to see her daughter. On October 24, 1996 all Mardeusz' visitation rights were terminated by Judge Cerena Wong following a police report the mother had made to the Rohnert Park Police Report [Report No. 9618040]. On September 23, 1996 the mother had observed large scrapes on Haleigh's chest and reported this to Rohnert Police Officer Gene Fahey who refused to allow the mother to come to the police station to make the report. Still trying to protect her daughter, Mardeusz documented the cigarette burns and the chest injury to Captain Lyle of the Novato Police Department in a certified letter to him. Novato Police Officer Kelly Neiss would not allow the mother to come to the police station to make a formal report. Finally on November 18, 1996, Leo Magers called Mardeusz and told her that, if she went to the media about his abusing Haleigh, he would kill her and her "two brats". Magers made this threat because on October 26, 2996, TV-50 was present to observe the hearing before Judge Cerena Wong. Mardeusz' brother, Paul Van Zandt, was on the phone at the time of the threat and entered a declaration testifying to the threat by Magers. Mardeusz was living in Sacramento County at this time and she obtained a temporary order against Leo Magers in that county and its court made it's order permanent on December 9, 1996. Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Cerena Wong retaliated by ordering that Carol Mardeusz have no telephone conversation with her daughter, Haleigh. Several harassment trials were then conducted against the mother by prosecutors in Marin and Sonoma Counties. Presently the very prosecutor who declined to prosecute the Magers is attempting to prosecute the mother. How can a prosecutor wear two hats? Isn't this a conflict of interest for Marin County Prosecutor Paula Kamena? Is this just another attempt to discredit the Brady witnesses before Richard Alan Davis' appeal of his death sentence in the kidnap and murder of Polly Klaas? Why are both counties afraid of Carole Mardeusz? Marin County and Sonoma County working together, had successfully stole a child from her mother. It proves that they take care of their own - like Leo Magers and his mother. BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS - WHO PROTECTS HALEIGH MARDEUSZ? Copyright 2000 by Virginia McCullough [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Well worth reading" Posted by mary99 on 19:04:46 7/18/2000 Thanks for posting that story, darby. It's the kind of sickening abuse of power that we at JW should be aware of and YES, it pertains to MW and her struggle to have her side of the story taken seriously by the SLO police. Also the fact that the abusers mother was a psychologist and an abuser herself makes me ill. What will become of little Haleigh if her father is given custody after all the horrific instances of abuse detailed in the article? How can Judge Wong be so wrong and still stay on the bench? I hope the citizens of Petaluma stand up and roar. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Excuse me, but" Posted by docg on 21:09:37 7/18/2000 The article said: "She (the California woman) had no direct knowledge of anything that may have occurred the night JonBenét died," Police Chief Mark Beckner said. "This was her speculation based on what she claimed she went through as a child." In other words, if the above is true, then MW has had NO allegations to make about the Ramsey case. None. She simply, like most of US, has a theory. Has MW disputed what Beckner said above? I heard most of Mame's interview and did NOT get that impression at all? Has Mame disputed what Beckner said, above? Does ANYONE on this forum have reason to dispute it? And if not, then WHAT are we discussing here? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "I may be wrong, but..." Posted by mary99 on 21:33:35 7/18/2000 She wasn't THERE so she's not a witness. But she has suffered the same abuse at the hands of the same people who assembled in Boulder on Christmas 1996. Does that make her story irrelevant? Are you suggesting she should have remained silent because she has nothing to add to the unsolved murder of JBR? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "docg" Posted by darby on 03:45:05 7/19/2000 My thoughts on your post above... I gather that Michael Kane and the BPD have spend over three years developing a case against Patsy Ramsey murdering JonBenet in a rage over bedwetting. MW comes along, and guess what? BPD says in a carefully-worded statement that there is no evidence that her experiences have anything to do with the JBR murder. Case closed. Or is it? I think that there may be a very real possibility that if true, MW's tale of horrors could possibility lend credence to the theory that JBR's death was sexually motivated and had nothing to do whatsoever with a bedwetting rage. No, MW was not there, and it's probably true that some of the folks she thought were at the White party were not. However... Fleet White was there. Now, from what I gather, MW says she was garroted and sexually abused by adults as a child at parties. Even sometimes at Christmas parties. The big question is--Did Fleet White ever participate in such victimization of MW when she was a child? I don't know for a fact, but my assumption is that MW has said that he did. AND I HAVEN'T HEARD BPD OR ANYONE ELSE OFFICIALLY SAY THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MW HAD EVER BEEN ABUSED IN THIS WAY BY FLEET WHITE. This is why this thing bothers me. All we've been told is, "no connection." What we have NOT been told is whether or not Fleet White ever sexually abused MW as a child. And for me, this is the first question that must be answered. If such abuse occurred, then maybe the "no connection" conclusion needs to be re-assessed. You see, if FW had ever engaged in such practices, then I don't know if I fully trust the BPD's conclusion. I think that at this point the BPD has a vested interest in preserving the Patsy-in-rage-over-bedwetting theory. Millions of dollars have been invested in developing that theory. And we all know that the BPD has already become world-famous for supposedly botching the case. It would sure be bad news for them if their theory was wrong. Now, let's say that it turns out to be true that FW had committed atrocities to MW as a child. It might be just a coincidence that JBR's murder on the night of his party included garroting and molesting. But what a coincidence that would be! Maybe there was no sex party per se on the murder night. But there are so many ways the two crimes could be connected. For instance, in the years that FW and JR were best friends, it's possible that FW may have merely communicated to JR some of the unsavory things that the White family had engaged in (if true). JR could have then used that information to help in staging. There are countless other scenarios to consider which could show some connection between MW and JBR. And if such a connection exists, then shedding light on what really happened to MW as a child could only help to solve the JBR murder. And even if there's no connection whatsoever to JBR's murder, a full investigation might at least bring MW's abusers to some kind of justice. As it stands, the JBR case doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being successfully prosecuted. So how much damage could this new possible kink really have on an already hopeless case? In any event, the truth should not take second place to ego. It would be a shame for the BPD to bury its departmental head in the sand because of the fear that a full investigation of MW's claims might undermine their pet theory. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Darby" Posted by docg on 09:27:55 7/19/2000 Over the years I have come to develop a great deal of respect for so many of the members of this forum. We often disagree, sure, but the level of argument is generally high, the various thoughts and theories interesting and meaningful. I'm talking about you, Darby, also, certainly, Mame and many many others, really just about everyone (just about!). But this MW business has gone a long ways toward shaking my confidence in the critical abilities of many on this forum and that is a depressing and distressing thought. Just think for one minute: if ANYONE, anyone at ALL, had even simply accused Fleet White, or anyone else involved in the case, of being a pedophile, this news would be ALL OVER the world by now. Just simply the accusation itself, regardless of whether or not it had been substantiated, would be enough to draw reporters from every single tabloid known to man or Martian. There has BEEN NO SUCH ACCUSATION. Clearly! How difficult is that to understand? Why persist in a fantasy? Especially one with such terrible potential for harm? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "thanks, docg (I think)" Posted by darby on 10:06:00 7/19/2000 Quite possibly, but not necessarily. If the victim chooses or is told not to talk to the tabs, then the tabs would not have a story, would they? If the victim refuses to unseal her court records for the tabs, then the tabs would not have a story, would they? My understanding is that MW was, in fact, offered money by at least one tab for her story, and she turned it down. And right now, I wouldn't think that any tab personnel have any idea where she is. I trust that you are not saying that the lack of coverage by a tab is definite proof that MW's story is bogus. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "LOL, Not Quite" Posted by Lacey on 10:16:12 7/19/2000 Tabs are well-known for digging in the dirt and finding many a so-called untold story! No matter how many tell them there's nothing there, by God, those tabs will FIND it. Don't think they won't! And if they don't find it, THEY MAKE IT UP! No tabloid worth its circulation has ever been hampered by anyone's reluctance or refusal to talk. How silly. Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Lacey" Posted by darby on 10:22:12 7/19/2000 I'd bet a year's salary that it has happened many times that every tabloid has been hampered by someone's reluctance or refusal to talk. You are the silly one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "FLOL" Posted by Lacey on 10:29:40 7/19/2000 Nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nuthin'. And I didn't call you silly, silly. . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Darby" Posted by momo on 10:27:25 7/19/2000 ROFLMAO. Now someone is trying to give the tabs some credibility. How silly!!!!!!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Just my opinion" Posted by freebird on 10:39:38 7/19/2000 But, I have to disagree that the BPD/FBI would deliberately not go after FW or his guests if there was evidence that they were involved in the murder of JB just so they can continue with a bedwetting theory, Please, they would probably love to put this case behind them, to hold someone/anyone accountable would be a dream come true for them. AH could brag as to he was RIGHT to not bring a case against the R's, ST was wrong that is why he left ect, ect, so on an so on. There would be massive amounts of info to spin if there was a FW/pediphile ring. I don't buy that nothing is being done just to not upset a bed wetting theory. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "freebird," Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:45:04 7/19/2000 you're right on track. No way the BPD would have cared for a NY minute who was responsible for this murder. Nope, just produce. That's what earns them badges and promotions and recognition and more money. Look, I know some policemen are corrupt. If I had to stare into the face of Hell every day, I KNOW I'D BE CORRUPT. Or, at least, I'd need some real compensation in this ugly part of the world. But, unless the entire BPD was "paid off" by JR, ain't no way they'd all fold. No way. It's just not logical or psychological. I will admit and believe some policemen aren't exactly straight. They see money (in some form) and they take it. I just don't see this in the JBR case - at least certainly not in the beginning. No, I think that lucky and smart JR got away with quite a lot. I'm sure most PD have already been very critical of the procedure. BUT DOES THIS MEAN A GUILTY PERSON, WITH ENOUGH WITS AND MONEY, CAN JUST GET AWAY WITH MURDER OF THEIR OWN CHILD? Has the bar of justice been raised so much that a man with money and prestige (OJ) get away with very obvious murder? Help me, guys. I get a little lost about all this. Am I just not at all logical? Am I just whimsical and wishing to condemn innocent people? I mean it. Sometimes I wonder.......... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "forgotten comment" Posted by fly on 13:16:25 7/19/2000 darby - You posted: AND I HAVEN'T HEARD BPD OR ANYONE ELSE OFFICIALLY SAY THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MW HAD EVER BEEN ABUSED IN THIS WAY BY FLEET WHITE. That is true. However, the always forgotten comment by Beckner that went something like...he wouldn't comment about other aspects of MW's story out of respect for her. To me, that sounds very much like he didn't want to humiliate some highly troubled woman by discrediting her completely. As I've said before, that might not be the only interpretation, but it is one that should be kept in mind. Hey! I checked the supposedly updated archives and still don't see any of the MW stuff linked. Otherwise, I'd post the exact quote and link. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "I liked Beckner's comment" Posted by Holly on 21:08:10 7/19/2000 to Steve Thomas that the Whites were "morally empty" and he'd like to see Fleet in jail even better. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "gosh, fly" Posted by darby on 14:50:42 7/19/2000 I've never forgotton that Beckner statement--You won't let me! LOL However, I've never known exactly what he meant. And I'll stand by my feelings that it would be far more important to clear up an erroneous implied accusation of pedophilia than to let it drop out of respect for the errant implier. No huge deal needed to be made--just three words thrown in with the general statement ("or the Whites"). Maybe Beckner's priorities are mixed up. Maybe he's not as careful when he gives the go-ahead on some of the BPD official statements as you or I might be. Or maybe he simply was unable to clear the Whites of all wrongdoing because he has reason to think that some of the things MW may have said could possibly be true. I wish I knew the answer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Darby" Posted by Holly on 07:46:14 7/21/2000 I think it took the BPD lawyers a couple of days to get that statement out. It was supposed to come down the day MW was there -- May 15th, I think, but was delayed. Beckner knows exactly what is being said - and not said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Darby>>" Posted by ayelean on 18:45:47 7/19/2000 In post 29 you said: For instance, in the years that FW and JR were best friends, it's possible that FW may have merely communicated to JR some of the unsavory things that the White family had engaged in (if true). JR could have then used that information to help in staging. There are countless other scenarios to consider which could show some connection between MW and JBR. And if such a connection exists, then shedding light on what really happened to MW as a child could only help to solve the JBR murder. BRAVO!! Finally a voice of reason. My study of the personality of my favorite perp, was shattered when MW surfaced. I was so happy that finally someone came out of the shadows and was going to shed light on the case. Then a curious thing happened, or rather didn't happen. The Rams were silent. Here was the missing link to solving their child's murder, and dead silence! Hhmmmm Why would they not be jumping for joy? Ah Ha, if her story mirrored the modus of the crime, and I was right about the personality of my favorite perp, then it all dovetailed. The staging of the crime was patterned after the ritual sex abuse. All that would be needed would be for someone, anyone, that could vouch for the fact that the murderer knew the details of that abuse. Who would ever suspect a parent to kill their child using this method. The stager would count on being considered 180° away from suspicion. That is the only reason the Rams would stay mum about the MW. It also explains the wierd behavior of FW from that day forward. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Ayelean and Darby" Posted by momo on 19:55:34 7/19/2000 Your posts certainly make a lot of sense. When MW came forward you would think the Ramseys would have gone public about how some new evidence had surfaced. And you would have thought the Whites would have gone public to discount MW's claims. Neither side said a word. Silence is golden. It makes perfect sense that both sides are hiding something. Though they are apart they are tied together somehow. All just my opinion of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Momo" Posted by frankg on 20:45:05 7/19/2000 It's always intrigued me why Fleet and John have behaved as opposing magnets that were tied together. Constantly repelling but yet sticking together. Both silent on MW's charges. Both refusing to address the supposed blowup in Atlanta. Neither will even address whether they are friends or enemies. Now mind you, I am not accusing Fleet of anything but this type of behavior would seem consistent for two men who were involved in something neither wants to get out, yet haven't seen eye to eye on how to cover it up. Fleet was pleased as punch when the BPD was focused on Patsy and anyone who tried to derail that idea (Hunter, Tracey) became targets. John figured he might actually be able to convince someone an intruder did this so folks like Tracey and Smit became his allies. Then along comes MW and they both basically said "oh shit" under their collective breaths and we haven't heard either since. Hey, it's something different... :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "frankg" Posted by v_p on 21:11:28 7/19/2000 >>Fleet was pleased as punch when the BPD was focused on Patsy and anyone who tried to derail that idea (Hunter, Tracey) became targets<< Common sense tells me these two men know Patsy well enough not to "go down that path." They know what a waterloo is. :) V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Frankg, Post #42..." Posted by shadow on 07:01:45 7/20/2000 Now why haven't I posted that? I've thought about it many times... I have never said that that I haven't considered the possibility that FW is somehow involved in the death (or cover-up of the death) of JBR. I've considered every possibility posted on this forum (and written in books). Since this isn't a timed quiz, I believe I can wait for further developments before I decide which (if any) is correct... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "darby" Posted by fly on 09:11:41 7/20/2000 LOL! Perhaps you don't forget that quote, but you ignore it. Other comments (the morally bankrupt one, for example) are open to multiple interpretations, too, but sure get frequent use. :-) As I've posted before (and I'm sure you remember, even if you don't post as such), one possiblity is that BPD felt that FW as pedophile has pretty well debunked by the more general statement. That is, BPD investigated MW's story and found nothing to support it had anything relevant to the JBR case. Supposedly a significant aspect of MW's story involved FW as pedophile. Thus, BPD found no evidence to support the idea of FW as pedophile. That's only one possibility, as I've said each time. And that's why I keep asking SOMEBODY (read: mame) to try to get a statement from Beckner that would disambiguate the whole thing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Big question." Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:38:17 7/20/2000 Do any of those exploring this thread think Fleet White or anyone else present at that night, these people were so stupid as to do physical harm to this child? Your reaction is, "of course not, and neither would the parents." The real and honest truth is parents kill their children often - every day. Sometimes it isn't even for reasons any of us could possibly justify or understand. As a matter of fact, I think most parents who kill their children have no idea why they could do such a thing. And isn't that just a good defense? These people perform deeds not akin to this kind of defense. No way, man........... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "White" Posted by lake on 15:04:25 7/20/2000 Those posters that think that the media or the BPD would publically point the finger of accusation at FW (without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that could likely be proven in a court of law) as a possible secret molester of little kids, are the ones that are not thinking clearly. Both the BPD and the media have a lot to loose if someone other than the parents is shown to be a likely killer if JBR. Both the BPD and the media dug themselves a deep hole very early on in this investigation. And for either entity to promote anything other than the parents as the likely killers would be pure foolishness. Such actions would be strengthening the civil cases that the Ramseys are bringing against the media. It would mean that the BPD and the media were wrong for the first year or so, and that the false, misleading and damaging leaks that fed the coverage by the media was wrong and the Ramseys would have a cake walk in their civil suits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "And Further" Posted by lake on 17:12:17 7/20/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:12:17, 7/20/2000 If it could be shown legally that an adult (Fleet White or any other adult) contributed to the behavior of a minor that led to the killing of JBR, that adult could be held criminally and civially libel for contributing to the death of JBR. There is no question about that. If a kid or kids killed JBR, any adult that directly contributed to the behavior that led to the death, is libel for contributing to the crime committed by the minor. And if it were child molestation that was behind the crime, then the adult that contributed to the learned behavior of the offending minor would be in deep $#!^ in both criminal and civil court. So,even if an adult did not kill JBR, it is possible for an adult to be charged with contributing to the death of a minor if sexual molestation were behind the killing and the behavior was learned from an adult. Whoever that adult may be. Especially if the child were under the age required by law to be held legally accountable for his or her actions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Speaking of Fleet" Posted by Morgan on 18:38:01 7/20/2000 Has anyone located Fleet Oil online? As Alex wondered, why did a, what is described as a retired or semi-retired oilman, whose main activity is sailing, move to Boulder? Can anyone find Fleet online AT ALL in any regard besides this case? Has anyone tried looking for Fleet or Fleet Oil in any oil associations or directories, or involved in any charitable activities or social listings, etc. Has anyone ever found a newspaper article, or a mention in a trade paper of Fleet Oil? Has anyone checked the yacht or sailing clubs in California and Newport Beach for any past or current membership of Fleet White? Old Fleet is a wealthy resident of Aspen. Did you ever try finding any mention of his name in the Aspen newspaper? If anyone looks and finds anything, let me know, because I came up empty. This wealthy family maintains an extremely low profile, personally and professionally. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "The more I read..." Posted by shadow on 08:04:21 7/21/2000 on this forum, the more questions that I have about the Ramseys' guilt. Sure is beginning to look like it was FW or some kid(s) that he taught sexual abuse things to. Maybe it's time for shadow to take a close look at what jameson and murphy have to offer. Until then, move over on that fence, Gemini! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Ending the week..." Posted by Brightlight on 07:57:25 7/21/2000 This current discussion beats anything I've ever seen on JW and I thought I'd seen it all. If my prior posts regarding covert programmed sexual abuse and alleged victims has contributed to this in any manner then I apologize to the forum in general. However, at NO time did I express my personal opinion on whether or not MW's circumstances linked in any manner to JB's brutal murder or specific individuals. I found her story extremely interesting initially, especially any POSSIBLE similarities of programmed sexual abuse. In spite of my DESIRE to believe her the continuing lack of any justifiable reason these past 5+ months has brought me to a dead end with this disturbing story. There are other factors such as the needless secrecy in the refusal to reveal MW's name here even though it's a known fact all over the Internet. If MW and her case are so highly Top Secret then they shouldn't have been presented on this forum in the first place. Certainly not until enough information could be presented to make sense of this matter. Hearsay and innuendo don't cut it; neither does 'because he said/she said' or 'because I trust so-and-so.' I'm not interested in what so-and-so said. I'm interested in facts. And not those distorted by twisting and turning comments to make them appear as such. The response to one posters request for substantiation was that they should 'read between the lines.' Well, perhaps. But ONLY after initiation into the real highly classified world of clandestine ops, tutored by intelligence/covert operatives with 40 to 50 years experience in heaven knows what; former NSA, DOD, DIA, CIA and State Department insiders and the little known (to the public) agency ISA; former CIA station chiefs; former Navy intelligence officers; retired Pentagon Generals and Colonels; Phoenix Project & MACV-SOG operatives and beyond. Anything less would be like performing brain surgery with only a GED. Some of these guys mentioned above have been familiar with classified child sexual programming projects for years. So I've sent them some of the MW information provided here over the months. Out of respect, I won't repeat their comments. Couldn't anyway. If MW's story was first presented because a woman was in need (yes, I contributed) then that's all that should have been stated at the time. Period. The claims of whatever in h*ll took place over this past weekend regarding information which can't be shared is out in the ozone. It's 'my daddy's bigger than your daddy' and downright embarrassing for this forum as a whole. Or should be. Naturally it generated questions and responses from those excluded from last weekends affair. I'm not so presumptuous as to think my opinion counts but, for the record, it seems to me that MW has not only been dealt a blow of injustice by various officials but also those on this forum who profess their undying support while refusing to divulge alleged secret information known only by a select few...a choice which culminated in mudslinging. If that information was so highly secret then why do others know? Why does anyone know other than law enforcement officials and her attorneys? In the real clandestine world if information is THAT secret then NO one, outside of those at the eye of the storm, is told in order to protect them from having dangerous information in their heads which could mean life or death. Seems rather strange that somehow the same rule of thumb isn't applicable here. Let's see...MW's life is in danger. But those privy to her information, far too secret to reveal, are not. Seems the intelligence community would be interested in how this works. Interestingly an MW dissenter WASN'T responsible for starting the first thread on this ordeal bright and early Monday morning, nor were dissenters responsible for posting comments that confidential information couldn't be shared with those not present last weekend. The dissenters were quietly minding their own business. Even if verified documentation surfaces in the future proving MW's claims it wouldn't be surprising if POTENTIAL supporters turned their backs considering the manner in which this has been handled. Here's a news flash--there are far too many worthy causes and needy people with horrendous lives as it is. No one should have to play these games in order to support a cause, especially when there's a slim-to-none chance something may pan out in the future. There's also the possibility any such revelation would be too secretive to share with most here. This entire weeks worth of posts has not produced one single thing favorable for MW's case. Quite the contrary as I assume more MW fence sitters have toppled over to the negative side. There have been some very intelligent posts asking for substantiated evidence, which has been CLAIMED to exist. But those posters were pulverized while the pro side posted incessantly, usually commending one another for being in agreement. It's no secret that JW has its share of cliques. Be that as it may. But this weeks demonstration of who's in and who isn't is a disgrace and the 'I know something you don't' mentality is childish, serving no purpose whatsoever other than alienation. And those who feel they have some sort of a following might examine why they have a NEED for a following at all. Also the supporters of MW might stop beating POTENTIAL supporters on the head with a hammer. In the real world even dissenters can change their thinking but that will never happen if they're pulverized before they even have the facts. The claims of working for justice for JB, or even the claim that people gathered together this past weekend to 'work case,' is downright arrogant. Discuss may be an appropriate word but certainly not work. Work implies turning off computers and bypassing family reunions in exchange for TAKING ACTION geared toward a definite goal...and I don't mean doing it to bring back to JW. Take it for what it is, JW is a discussion forum. In the real sense of the word forum means OPEN discussion. Realize that a newbie may have that one source or idea which could be key. Posters who've been here since the beginning have simply sat at their computers longer. NOT ONE single person here has the answers to this case or it would have been solved. And no person worth his salt can make an informed, intelligent decision without knowing the FACTS. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Bravo, Brightlight!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:16:07 7/21/2000 I am in 100% concurrence with your post. I, too, believe that what has gone on here this past week has been an embarrassment to xxxxxxxxxxxx, and has done a great disservice to JonBenet. Why would this so-called Mystery Woman take her story to the Internet if she desired secrecy? The Internet is full of leaks, gossip, unauthorized transmission of information, espionage, Echelon, AOL revealing emails and identities, etc. Your post makes a great deal of sense, and I hope everyone gets to read it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Yeah" Posted by v_p on 08:10:18 7/21/2000 What Brightlight said. Excellent post; says it all. Thank you. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Nice Post Brightlight" Posted by frankg on 08:56:20 7/21/2000 I agree with what you said but have two concerns.. One, it seems to me that people here have a much higher demand for evidence when it comes to issues pertaining to other players than they do when it comes to the Ramsey's. There are still many here who have no problem believing John Ramsey was sexually abusing JonBenet when the closest thing to what we could call evidence points to Fleet as the most likely child abuser. Why is that? Why hasn't anyone written a post as eloquent as yours denouncing speculation or accusations of child sexual abuse against John? Where's the evidence? Children are not always, when abused, abused by their parents. JonBenet, right or wrong, was a reasonably accessible child. If she was previously sexually abused, and I do believe even that is still subject to debate (by an adult and for sexual gratification, that is), it could have been any number of people who did it. Two, I do not understand why some here feel the need to completely write this off. I have no problem with people not believing it to be true. Hell, at the moment I am one of them. But I think there is a lot of questions yet to be answered. Just as I lean towards Ramsey (one or both) guilt but still acknowledge they may be either entirely innocent or less involved than I think, I also lean towards Fleet being completely not involved but still acknowledge he may be somewhat or fully involved. I believe that none of us have supreme knowledge of the facts and therefore to rule ANYTHING in or out is a grievous error. Shadow... welcome to the fence buddy. Good to have you with us! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Brightlight" Posted by mary99 on 08:41:46 7/21/2000 Unfortunately, MW's family monitors the Internet forums concerning the JBR murder. Not the whole family, but enough to be a cause for concern. You quoted me as being one who plays the 'I know something you don't know' game'. Anyone was welcome to come to MD, so it was not a meeting of a private clique or inner circle. Those who think she is a Ramsey plant, secretly taking money for fingering FW are asking questions about her credibility. Questions we who attended the meet might have heard an answer or two, but it was not to be repeated on this forum. Sorry for making you grumpy, and it was not intended to cause that reaction. All it was meant to convey it that others who attended are pretty much in agreement that she is not a plant and and she isn't being paid to finger the Whites. What is going on here is that everybody wants to know everything, see all the evidence for themselves. This has been a major problem with this case from the first week of press coverage. The Internet is a public place where anyone can read or post at this forum. You may think this forum is unknown to MW's abuser's, but somehow thwy have found this one and others. Nobody here is sitting on life-threatening knowledge; but at the same time, we were asked not to repeat those confidences we were told. It should be enough to say that if say, 10 people all say she isn't lying, then that just might be good enough for the rest of the group. But NOOOOO, everyone has to see, learn, evaluate, handle the evidence for themselves. Fine. Can't say I blame you. But it's unreasonable to put MW in danger by discussing more sensitive stuff on the Internet. If you choose not to buy her story by now, chances are you never will, no matter how many more confidences are shared. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Brightlight & Mary99" Posted by Hoping on 10:04:45 7/21/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:04:45, 7/21/2000 Brightlight, thank you for your thoughtful post. I will confess to being a fence sitter on the MW issue. I have yet to see evidence that directly connects to JBR. It kind of reminds me of riddles that if cows are animals, and cows eat grass, is an unknown animal that eats grass a cow? Mary99, you seem to have a certain attitude that seems to bristle other posters (me included). I would respectfully request that if you have information that you cannot discuss on the forum that you try to control yourself and not bring it up. I personally find such behavior juvenile and offensive. It's great if you know something, but please don't keep saying "I have a secret". Thank you. *edited to fix my cow question, guess I should proof my posts ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Frankg" Posted by Hoping on 09:56:21 7/21/2000 I can only speak for myself but I think that the Ramseys are held more suspect based on their behavior for the past 3+ years. The Whites have appeared to be available for questioning, co-operative with the investigation, have remained in Boulder, have not be caught with inconsistent statements, have pressed for justice to be served, have not hired high powered legal representation, have not hired a public relations firm, have not written a book, have not gone on a publicity tour, have not participated in a documentary.....I could go on. I think it is fair to say that the Ramsey's have been their own worst enemies. Also consider that stats. support that parental involvement be invesigated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Back to the subject at hand..." Posted by mary99 on 10:51:08 7/21/2000 Hoping, you state that Fleet White has cooperated with the investigation. if this is true, why was he almost arrested and charged for obstructing justice? Nobody is playing a game with the release of information, but what has been brought out again and again about White is still being ignored. This thread started out to analyze WHY the case against the Ramseys will fail if White is not the hero the BPD wanted him to be. 1. He refused to talk to the investigators if not given the previous interview transcripts beforehand. 2. He wrote frequent letters protesting the delay in having the Ramseys arrested. 3. He has no visibility in the real world or the Internet world, yet is a millionaire. 4. He threatened a reporter and intimidated others who were targets of his anger. 5. He made dubious phone calls two days before Christmas for urgent delivery of medical supplies, to a woman under the care of a doctor, then -- 6. Went to the airport on pretense of dropping off medical supplies to be picked up in Aspen by an unknown person. 7. Was accompanied by the CA guests, who came to the Ramsey party without their wife/girlfriend, for this airport 'run', which was so urgent he left the Ramseys party at the drop of a hat. 8. He currently seems to have two names which share the same Social Security number. 9. All personal details of White's life are banished from print publications: where he was born, raised, educated, military service, etc. 10. He is the god-father of the mother of MW. 11. His daughter disappeared and was found hiding, after a frantic search, a call to the Ramseys, and a police response, in a cupboard in the White home. 12. He touched the broken glass at the crime scene, moved the suitcase, touched the duct tape, and generally contaminated the evidence as much as JR himself. 13. Looked into the windowless room where JonBenet was found, but claims not to have seen her. 14. had a violent argument in Atlanta with JR, some say it involved a gun, other reports say it involved using his hands around a persons neck, but in any event, it was denied completely by JR and FW later on. 15. Still 'friends' according to JR's deposition, yet they do not speak. 16. Dressed as Santa Claus for JonBenet that fatal Christmas, at the White Christmas party, according to DOI. 17. In Atlanta, Priscilla White was heard to say, "We know things you don't know", a cryptic statement if not incriminating. Why have they not shared what they know if it would help to further justice? 18. FW was considered for arrest on charges of obstruction of justice because he stonewalled the investigators. 19. A MW relative, Tal Jones, who has close ties to the Whites also, attempted to interfere with the Grand Jury and alluded to a 'connection' in the BPD. 20. Has been silent on the MW allegations while the Ramseys, who could be exonerated by those allegations, if they're not also involved, have also remained silent. 21. Changed 6-year-old JonBenets underwear, helped her in the bathroom, yet nobody is allowed to comment or wonder about the propriety of such behavior or the free license given by the Ramseys What all this adds up to is a suspicion, no more and no less, that there is something White is hiding. For this case to ever be solved, there has to be a trial. The prosecution can't put flawed witnesses on the stand. People don't want to add it up. They see nothing suspicious. Only a few posters think White has done anything strange or unusual. The rest all think he's a good person, unfairly attacked.(regardless of what I listed above, they won't even stop to read it and think) This is classic Pro-Ramsey logic. Everything White has done is normal and perfectly explainable by some convoluted reasoning. More Pro-Ram logic applied to White. There is as much 'hinkyiness' surrounding White as there is surrounding Ramsey. To continue to say it's not there is as oblivious as the Pro-Ramseys denying their suspicious actions and statements for 3+ years. There are certainly enough 'red flags' to raise a doubt about White's integrity. The purpose of this thread was to explore how the case against the Ramseys can be re-built after being hurt by White's lack of credibility if the MW allegations are true. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Back to the Future" Posted by Hoping on 12:03:48 7/21/2000 Mary99 - I do stop, read and think. If I use my mind and come to opinions that differ from yours please do not assume that I have applied only Pro-Ramsey logic. Fortunately I have been blessed with many experiences from which I draw and apply to a critial thinking process, which is uniquely mine. To return to the orginal thread purpose we must make many assumptions. 1-That Fleet White is a considered by the prosecutors to be a solid witness. I would hope that prosecutors are savvy to playing "devil's advocate" with all their witnesses. 2-That this case will ever go to trial. 3-That there is no other evidence against the Ramseys if there were to be a trial. 4-That MW allegations are true. 5-That MW allegations can be substaniated. 6-That MW has allegations directly related to this case. 7-That MW's allegations are related to a witness in this case and not to relatives. 8-That if MW's allegations are investigated, substantiated, and are found to relate directly to this case; the Ramseys are still considered "under the umbrella" and brought to trial. I could go on but do not want to get boring. There is too much speculation and I fear that this may be why the thread has fallen off-course (IMO). Before Gem and Frankg chew me up for dinner, I know the same could be said about the Ramseys. The only difference to me is that their daughter was found dead in their basement, they have been named by officials as being "under the umbrella", and there is some evidence reported that directly links them to the crime. I have yet to see Fleet White be called "under the umbrella" or directly accused of any crime outside of this forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "It's about Time" Posted by Real Stormy on 10:23:31 7/21/2000 Brightlight, Excellent post. While my personal opinion is that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter in a rage, my mind is not closed to other possibilities. I just need to see reliable and credible evidence. The evidence presently publicly known convinces me that that is the case. While I know that the autopsy shows chronic vaginal irritation and hymenal damage, it is not clear to me or even to the experts what caused that. I cannot make the jump to sexual abuse, and certainly not make that jump to John Ramsey or Fleet White. Sebsequent events and/or information may change that. But as for now, I cannot. I will make no further comment about MW except to say that I do not feel she has any connection to the JBR murder, nor does she have pertinent information. I will proceed with any participation on the forums with the above philosophy. Some may not like it. I don't care. I do not aspire to popularity on the internet. I have little emotional investment in this other than I abhor the lack of justice in bringing the murderer to trial. Others seem to have invested a great deal of emotion in this, for their own reasons and perhaps reflecting their own backgrounds. But as a Christian I feel it is my moral duty to not accuse people of crimes when there is no evidence, and will neither do that nor condone those who do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Last Words On MW..." Posted by shadow on 10:08:11 7/21/2000 by shadow - well maybe (but no promises). I had vowed (to myself) not to comment on the MW issue anymore - but I must! First, Brightlight's post seems to sum-up what a lot of us (who have nothing against MW) have been trying to say. Mary99 said - "It should be enough to say that if say, 10 people all say she isn't lying, then that just might be good enough for the rest of the group. But NOOOOO, everyone has to see, learn, evaluate, handle the evidence for themselves. Fine. Can't say I blame you. But it's unreasonable to put MW in danger by discussing more sensitive stuff on the Internet. If you choose not to buy her story by now, chances are you never will, no matter how many more confidences are shared." I just can't understand why it's so hard getting the point over that "10 people (that we don't know from Joe Blow) all saying she isn't lying" just isn't good enough for those of us who haven't already made our minds up on MW one way or the other... and, yes, we do want to see, learn, and evaluate the evidence for ourselves. If this is going to put MW in danager, then I can wait... but forgive me if I'm also going to reserve judgement on both MW and FW until I see the evidence for myself. BTW, I find it most interesting that the MW's name is known all over the place, her story is all over the place, and a lot of people have seen the "evidence," but it's dangerous for some of us to know anything. Kinda makes me feel like I did in gramma school when people didn't chose shadow, the nerd, to be on their team (never fear, when I got older, I got revenge by becoming a jock and being on the high school teams). shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Excellent" Posted by Gemini on 10:51:28 7/21/2000 post, Brightlight ... very well stated. It should come as no surprise that i have the same reservations as FrankG. Hoping, after reading hundreds upon thousands of posted comments over the past 3+ years, I still believe judgement calls about "behavior" have most often sprung from the well-head of presumed guilt ... IOW, after stalling the BPD interview during the first 4 months, while the tabloid media enjoyed a series of run-on field days, I don't think any behavior would have satisfied those who formed an early, locked-in opinion. From that time to now, the parents been damned (by many) if they do ... damned if they don't. Cliche, but totally appropriate in this case. Pre-judging, without sharing the same experiences from the same seat (i.e. the same background and baggage to draw from) doesn't convince me of anything in particular. And BTW, this also goes for my view of MW. Give me something solid, not "what if's", and I'll give it my attention. Currently, there are a few solid facts that point toward the Ramseys and a few that don't; the same in regard to MW's credibility. Speculation can make for interesting reading, but it isn't a basis on which to form conclusions. jmo of course [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Gem" Posted by Hoping on 11:23:12 7/21/2000 You may be right that some judgements on the Ramsey's actions have bias from initial presumed guilt. I truly think mine were not. I held out hope during the first year(at least the first year, if not longer) that we would hear of evidence that pointed away from the parents. My initial reaction was sorrow for the parents, that the parents would need to be looked at, and that the police would find whoever hurt this entire family and took away their little girl. I have, over the past couple of years, become saddened by the way the parents have seemed to put up an obstacle everytime there a chance for them clear up questions of their involvement. Every event and interaction with the ivestigation seems to have a list of contingencies and negotiations attached. I never thought our justice system was so biased as to allow this. I will admit that my opinions are based on what I have read from the media, comments made by officials, and watching interviews with the Ramseys. I will also admit that I may have developed some bias over the past couple of years due to my distaste for what I consider "faux Christianity". I know I really shouldn't judge another's faith, but find it distasteful when God as a bargaining chip. Sorry for the length of my post, just wanted to explain my positions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Hoping" Posted by Gemini on 12:07:30 7/21/2000 Thanks for the nice response. I don't have a problem with disliking some of the publicized activity of the parents. They do a lot of things I don't *think* I'd ever do ... like the book deal ... just one example. But y'see, I'm not coming from their situation and circumstances. While I truly believe I wouldn't have called in the friends, and would have tried to make sure the police entered as covertly as possible ... while I'm pretty sure I would not have allowed attorneys to stand between me and anything the police needed, to get the investigation on the right course; I just can't make a judgement that everything I'd have done (or not done) would have been automatically right and the things the Ramseys did could only point to guilt. Reading ST's book allowed a lot of insight into the, very determined, conviction by the BPD (with encouragement from the FBI) that they had only to look to the parents. The other areas of the investigation seemed half-hearted at best. So maybe the police would have misinterpreted some of their input as signs of guilt when it could also be caused by the confusion that comes from trauma and shock. For example, Thomas tells us police "thought it strange" that PR remarked she believed the paper of the note was the same as she kept in the kitchen, when she only had a poor copy of the note at that time. Well ... duh ... didn't she have an opportunity to get a good look at the original? That is, just in this one instance, assuming she wasn't the author. it's long seemed to me that most of the criticism of behavior doesnt' take into consideration that there can be more than one explanation for a good many of the parents actions and non-actions. Some things do seem to suggest guilty knowledge from a particular view point. But, if you flip the POV ... they don't. My opinion doesn't come so much from any kind of determination to adhere to good Christian principles (I'm a liberal Christian who does not take a literal view of biblical content) as from the life experiences and observations that tell me everything has two sides ... until the truth is revealed. So far, all the information we have may contain bits and pieces of the truth, but there's no cohesion. Frankly, I don't see much about the Ramseys to admire ... probably one reason this fencer chooses this forum over the flip side of the debate ... but do not believe being unlikeable equals being guilty of murder. As I understand it, a good many murderers are very charming. IF they're guilty, the indicators (imo) will be more solid than their personality traits or the human failings we all have at one time or another. And of course, the same can be said of the whirlwind around the MW possibilities. FW has never impressed me favorably, but that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically let my *?* where he's concerned lead me to assume he's done anything illegal. I've gotta have something I can hold onto, and turn over and around, and examine for plausibility before making that kind of judgement call. Off to try for a nap now (up too late last night) ... back later. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "mary99..." Posted by Brightlight on 15:12:31 7/21/2000 I remember posting to you shortly after your arrival at JW to commend you on your posts. However, on this issue we have a marked difference of opinion. Perhaps we can simply agree to disagree while carrying on the debate on this particular topic. I hope so. Brightlight > Unfortunately, MW's family monitors the > Internet forums concerning the JBR murder. Not > the whole family, but enough to be a cause for > concern. Is this a surprise? This should have been taken into consideration five months ago when MW's arrival was first announced. It's no secret that posting information on the Internet exposes that person to the ENTIRE WORLD. Which was my point in the 4th paragraph of my post. Your continued insistence on talking about confidential information concerning MW can be read here by her family who you claim 'monitors the Internet forums concerning the JBR murder.' I would think so. Since her name is posted all over the Internet it's a simple matter for them to determine the identity of MW. As though all the locations named, the name of her therapist and other specifics aren't sufficient. With all due respect, the so-called sleuths involved in this have violated every rule in the book. Unfortunately, MW is the only one at risk. > You quoted me as being one who plays the 'I > know something you don't know' game'. Herein lies the problem as I did not QUOTE you. Is this comment in my post the one to which you're referring? o It's no secret that JW has its share of cliques. Be that as it may. But this weeks demonstration of who's in and who isn't is a disgrace and the 'I know something you don't' mentality is childish, serving no purpose whatsoever other than alienation. And those who feel they have some sort of a following might examine why they have a NEED for a following at all. WHERE is your name listed? WHERE is your quote you claim I posted? Neither exist. See the problem? OTOH, if you believe that YOU ARE playing the 'I know something you don't know game,' then THAT would be considered factual. > Anyone was welcome to come to MD, so it was not > a meeting of a private clique or inner circle. And anyone was welcome to go to the Giza Plateau. Inner circle is your term. Inner means "being on the inside." The invitation was, indeed, extended to all but that doesn't negate the POSSIBILITY that once the group was together it evolved into that inner circle you mentioned. Or a private clique (private meaning; privy, confidential, hushed; clique meaning group of conspirators). Interesting. But it was clear to many that as of Monday morning the not so subtle lines in the sand had been drawn. Just like in MW's case, why didn't those who attended the weekend gathering simply keep it to themselves? They made their choice. And you didn't expect repercussions? > Those who think she is a Ramsey plant, secretly > taking money for fingering FW are asking > questions about her credibility. Questions we > who attended the meet might have heard an > answer or two, but it was not to be repeated on > this forum. There you go. Do you really want this to start all over again? People on this forum, including lurkers, have followed MW's case for the better part of the past five months, some daily. The majority have waited and waited and waited for ANY shred of valid information whatsoever. Now you, like the group gathered in MD, announce this week that...YOU HAVE INFORMATION! BUT, there's a catch...you can't tell the rest of us. Nope. We aren't privy to that which we've waited for month after month. Only you all. Again I say fine. BUT DON'T HAVE THE AUDACITY TO COME HERE AND ANNOUNCE YOU HAVE INFORMATION BUT NONE OF US CAN KNOW WHAT IT IS. If nothing else, that's rude, ill mannered and self-serving. In retrospect I'm rather surprised the response wasn't worse. So if this isn't a game then the only other conceivable explanation would be egos. > Sorry for making you grumpy... Oh no you don't. Don't attempt to blame me, or the others, simply because you're unable to assume accountability for your beliefs. Old ploy, very old ploy. > ...and it was not intended to cause that > reaction. All it was meant to convey it that > others who attended are pretty much in > agreement that she is not a plant and and she > isn't being paid to finger the Whites. > What is going on here is that everybody wants > to know everything, see all the evidence for > themselves. This has been a major problem with > this case from the first week of press > coverage. The Internet is a public place > where anyone can read or post at this forum. > You may think this forum is unknown to MW's > abuser's, but somehow thwy have found this one > and others. And who is RESPONSIBLE for that? MW's information didn't have to be posted world wide. Someone made a conscious choice initially and now they have to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately MW seems to be suffering them too. As for 'everybody wants to know everything, see all the evidence for themselves'...You can take it to the bank. With the exception of knowing everything...I'd be satisfied with a scintilla of documentation. > Nobody here is sitting on life-threatening > knowledge; but at the same time, we were asked > not to repeat those confidences we were told. ENOUGH ALREADY! PLEASE...take a good long look at what you're doing. Repeatedly. You continue to insist on repeating the very line that creates pandemonium. The results this unfortunate comment elicits is akin to racial slurs. You seem oblivious to its affect on others. > It should be enough to say that if say, 10 > people all say she isn't lying, then that just > might be good enough for the rest of the group. HUH? You're kidding, right? It'll be a cold day in h*** when I take someone else's hearsay as fact. And that includes numbers between 1 and a trillion people; including those former Generals from the Pentagon. Give me proof or count me out. You may believe this or not but in all the years I've worked in sensitive areas it's NEVER failed...substantiating evidence follows at some point, some sooner than later. Otherwise it continues on as mere hearsay for years and even decades. First party claims are nothing but hearsay without supporting evidence. Second and third party claims rank even lower. You brought it up, I'm just responding. > But NOOOOO, everyone has to see, learn, > evaluate, handle the evidence for themselves. You got that right. There's a reason. Think about it. > Fine. Can't say I blame you. But it's > unreasonable to put MW in danger by discussing > more sensitive stuff on the Internet. Get serious. Don't blame us, tell it to the person responsible for it being on the Internet in the first place. > If you choose not to buy her story by now, > chances are you never will, no matter how many > more confidences are shared. Not with the 'logic' presented here and I couldn't care less about confidences. I want proof. For the record, there are NO confidences here. Think about it: o MW was wittingly exposed on the Internet. o Confidences were shared with others long before now because innuendo's have been posted periodically for some time. o Confidences were also shared with the MD group last weekend. o No doubt a high percentage of each of those people have shared those same confidences with close friends on JW; maybe even other forums. So much for confidences. Same for MW's hope of anonymity. Now that I think about it I may be the only one who hasn't been told. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Brightlight & Mary99" Posted by canadiana on 15:08:34 7/21/2000 Brightlight, excellent post! Thank you. Mary...it has been stated over and over that things were discussed that cannot be repeated here. Then that was denied, over and over. Your latest post once again says things are being kept in confidence. I think we should just end this nonsense. With regards to Fleet White, you state: "10. He is the god-father of the mother of MW." I was under the impression that FW SENIOR was MW's mother's god-father???!!! Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Clarification" Posted by mary99 on 15:25:27 7/21/2000 Fleet White Sr is indeed MW's mother's godfather. I am amused that while listing 20 something reasons for Fleet White JR to be considered somewhat questionable, not one response has even acknowledged that those points are good cause for the BPD to look deeper into the MW allegations. Would you put a man with two names and a secret life on the witness stand? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Some posters" Posted by Morgan on 17:17:04 7/21/2000 want everything handed to them on a silver platter, right Gemini? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "No matter" Posted by Morgan on 18:14:31 7/21/2000 how many highhorses you whiners get on, the MW issue will not go away. You just don't get it. The case against the Ramseys is destroyed, unless her claims are thoroughly investigated, because she will bring reasonable doubt into a trial, should there ever be one. Docg, deal with it--she's not fantasy. Fleet White is not God Almighty. He is a man who contaminated a crime scene while ignoring a detective's orders, along with his best buddy JR, caused such fear that guns were brought out and 911 called, and tried his damndest to get a college professor fired. He is more than capable of protecting his honor. He doesn't need to be coddled and sheilded from scrutiny. And most of all, he lives in Boulder, where a barking dog will get you a swat team and homocide's OK. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Morgan" Posted by Gemini on 18:05:26 7/21/2000 I think the bottom line with me is just that i really, really dislike gossip. That's not to say I never indulge. i'm human with the usual assortment of human weaknesses ... hey, it happens. But, it always gives me the guilts. This is probably because I was reared by parents who believed nothing is as important to a man/woman as his/her good name. Now I'm not sure I totally accept that as the truth and the law, being more inclined to believe inner resources and peace of mind may take first place ... at least with me. However, I do retain the conviction that random speculation can turn malicious very easily, and would rather not get into that. I know that may sound a bit old fashioned in our world of tabloid style infotainment, but those views are part of my value system. The exceptions are when fact calls for concern. Examples might be Randy Simon wandering nude through the streets, crying out that he did not kill Jonbenet. We know that happened, so the speculation as to "why" it happened seems reasonable. Ditto Fleet White and his letter writing campaign, as well as the Ramseys and their book tour. We have a direct link to those public activities (and BTW whoever wants to deny FW is a public figure must take the public letter campaign into consideration). We know they happened. IMO, there's no reason not to hash them around and pool opinions. OTOH, the accusations and gossip about the Whites in connection with MW are via a third person ... not out here in the public eye. Therefore, we are asked to make judgement calls and ... well ... gossip about the various possibilities SHOULD the whispers be true. That's where I have to draw a personal line and say maybe, maybe not ... I'll wait and see. Mame tells us continued investigation is in progress. I don't think those efforts need us to poke around at this. When more information comes to light, I have no doubt we'll hear about it ... one way or the other. That doesn't equal wanting anything handed out on a platter ... it equals a committment to cautious, responsible behavior when individual reputations are at stake. I've defended the right of any and all to carry on discussion of 'whatever' subject without harassment from those who want a directed group-think to prevail in this forum. But, in good conscience, I don't choose to add accusation toward someone I don't know in regard to something about which we only have a few, mostly unsubstantiated, facts. I have the impression some of you feel it's very important to keep this topic alive. I think you should, certainly, have that right. So do me the equal courtesy of respecting my decision to wait for more to be brought to light before jumping to any particular conclusion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "mary" Posted by v_p on 17:53:41 7/21/2000 God, I'm a stunned bunny, which one of your "points" is supposed to point to Fleet White as a child molester or sex ring leader. I musta missed it. Would appreciate some clarification myself. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "V_P" Posted by freebird on 18:07:58 7/21/2000 You just don't get it do you? gosh some people are so dense... or mabey your a part of that ring also and don't want it investigated is that it? How can you sit here and atack this poor Mwoman? I don't understand people like you. this stuff does happen!! This woman went thru hell at the hands of that panty changing pervert.How could you stick up for that morally empty pediphile ring leader? I hope someday you get yours I will enjoy seeing that. reread those 20 reasons and you'll understand. It is right there in black and white if you will only take that JUMP and believe. Come on V_P don't abuse this woman any more than she has been. Now did that about cover everything? do you now see that FW is a child molesting pervert? :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "freebird" Posted by v_p on 20:36:16 7/21/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:36:16, 7/21/2000 yes, I have seen the error of my ways...but I'm going to give it a go anyway :) 1. He refused to talk to the investigators if not given the previous interview transcripts beforehand. I think he was trying to make a point. IMO, he felt the murderers were being given special treatment and he was indignant and pissed and I would be too. 2. He wrote frequent letters protesting the delay in having the Ramseys arrested. This is the most ludicrous of all innuendo. So, Miss West Virginia is sitting on a cold cement slab, eating God-knows-what, can't smoke, can't ham it up for CNN, and she is going to let Fleet White walk around the free world? 3. He has no visibility in the real world or the Internet world, yet is a millionaire. He has no visibility in the real world? And can't be found on the internet If I were to take this statement literally, I would say I could show you tons of stuff on FW on the internet. As far as the real world, I think his address is around here somewhere. 4. He threatened a reporter and intimidated others who were targets of his anger. Lots and lots of people threaten reporters, some even throw punches. Intimidated who? How? 5. He made dubious phone calls two days before Christmas for urgent delivery of medical supplies, to a woman under the care of a doctor, then -- What do you suppose he was doing ... really? 6. Went to the airport on pretense of dropping off medical supplies to be picked up in Aspen by an unknown person. Geepers, what do the detectives make of this? Who was that "mystery" person in Aspen? 7. Was accompanied by the CA guests, who came to the Ramsey party without their wife/girlfriend, for this airport 'run', which was so urgent he left the Ramseys party at the drop of a hat. Delivery of medical supplies, in some instances, can actually be considered urgent. Without their wives and girlfriends?? Where were the children. How many people can you fit into a Jaguar?? 8. He currently seems to have two names which share the same Social Security number. Seems? 9. All personal details of White's life are banished from print publications: where he was born, raised, educated, military service, etc. Highly suspicious, indeed. Banished, you say. Like an inappropriate book in a school library? He has no birth certificate? Imagine that, no birth certificate and two social security cards. I'm growing suspicious of the SS Administration. 10. He is the god-father of the mother of MW. Since there are no records of him anywhere and he is not "visible in the real or internet world, how is this documented?? And can we be sure it is the same Fleet White? 11. His daughter disappeared and was found hiding, after a frantic search, a call to the Ramseys, and a police response, in a cupboard in the White home. I used to hide in my grammies cupboard all the time...sneaking German Chocolate cake. Guess you couldn't real call that a disappearance though. 12. He touched the broken glass at the crime scene, moved the suitcase, touched the duct tape, and generally contaminated the evidence as much as JR himself. Moved the suitcase? I missed that. I'll give you the glass and the duct tape though. To think he went through all that trouble to wipe down everything, even the batteries in the flashlight and then, at the last minute, goes on a "touching" frenzy. 13. Looked into the windowless room where JonBenet was found, but claims not to have seen her. Maybe he really didn't see her. What do you suppose his motive was for this? To delay the finding of the body? Why? 14. had a violent argument in Atlanta with JR, some say it involved a gun, other reports say it involved using his hands around a persons neck, but in any event, it was denied completely by JR and FW later on. I know JR downplayed the altercation, but I don't recall FW denying it happened. I could haved missed it though. Grandpaugh had the gun, if I'm not mistaken, although you fail to mention it. 15. Still 'friends' according to JR's deposition, yet they do not speak. IMO it wouldn't look so good to tell LK and Mr. Robison his friends have all turned on him. Not good for the image of a christian. 16. Dressed as Santa Claus for JonBenet that fatal Christmas, at the White Christmas party, according to DOI. I can't comment, I missed this somewhere too. Is this in Schiller's book? 17. In Atlanta, Priscilla White was heard to say, "We know things you don't know", a cryptic statement if not incriminating. Why have they not shared what they know if it would help to further justice? "We know things you don't know" is a cryptic and incriminating statement. Isn't that what you've been saying for the past week?? They probably did "share" mary, but unlike some people, they are not so hungry for attention they would risk their credibility in the event of a trial by spilling their guts to the likes of us. 18. FW was considered for arrest on charges of obstruction of justice because he stonewalled the investigators. Obstruction of justice mary, not child molestation charges. He was not arrested. No records, remember? 19. A MW relative, Tal Jones, who has close ties to the Whites also, attempted to interfere with the Grand Jury and alluded to a 'connection' in the BPD. This one parted my hair. 20. Has been silent on the MW allegations while the Ramseys, who could be exonerated by those allegations, if they're not also involved, have also remained silent. Maybe because there is nothing to the allegations that has anything to do, IN REAL LIFE, with them. The rest of the world is oblivious to MW, why would FW make a huge deal out of being accused of participating in a sex ring and having a link to JBR's murder. 21. Changed 6-year-old JonBenets underwear, helped her in the bathroom, yet nobody is allowed to comment or wonder about the propriety of such behavior or the free license given by the Ramseys I absolutely question the lack of boundaries taught by the Ramseys. I wouldn't allow it of my male aquaintances. Then again, my ass print would be on the wooden chair in front of the BPD detectives desk. We are all different. V. edited to find the bold mistake :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Big Bird" Posted by mary99 on 19:44:59 7/21/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:44:59, 7/21/2000 Nothing in the 20 points listed about Fleet White goes anywhere near the MW allegations. I left that whole business out to show that even if MW had never opened her mouth, there is plenty about White we don't know and the BPD needs to find out BEFORE they contemplate ever putting him on the witness stand. For those who've been struck by conscience: the purpose of the JBR forums could be described as gossiping about case characters under the pretense of solving a murder. How amusing that so many posters recoil from gossip when the Ramseys are not the subjects. Since the issue of FLEET WHITE'S credibility came up (BTW, this thread was supposed to be about FW's credibility, not MW's)it seems like the most vocal of the MW critics have become very sanctimonious about their distaste for gossip, hearsay, speculation, rumor, accusation, name-calling, character-bashing, insult, second-guessing, prediction, and insinuation. WHAT the heck do you call what you've been doing to the Ramseys for the last 3 years?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Mary99" Posted by freebird on 20:58:18 7/21/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:58:18, 7/21/2000 Mary you should reread your 21 reasons again, I saw 3x where she was definetly mentioned. Edited because I forgot to say that I don't think anyone has a problem with FW being investigated... the problem I, mabey others? have is saying he was a perverted pediphile sex ring leader based on one womans accusations before a full investigation was completed. (Mame already said it may take 12 months so an investigation is underway.) BTW Big Bird was not nessessary [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Gee Mary" Posted by Gemini on 20:01:56 7/21/2000 How thoughtful of you to explain and define the "purpose of the JW forum". it's like a whole new light has come down and enveloped us here. p.s. You need to move away from your own rhetoric every once in a while and learn which of us here are pro-Ram, anti-Ram and fencers ... before making these sweeping statements (accusations). just a novel little idea [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "FW & JR Dispute Answered" Posted by Abby on 20:13:21 7/21/2000 I was just over at Jameson's forum and I came across a post by Afton. Afton has a link to an interview with Pam Paugh and she tells why she thinks FW and JR are feuding. It's quite revealing to say the least. Pam says that one of the areas that caused a rift between the two is that FW was concerned that by hiring lawyers and investigators they would dig into things in the past that certain people did not want revealed. Check it out, it's worth it. Abby [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Abby ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "URL For Post # 77" Posted by Abby on 20:29:23 7/21/2000 http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/webdollie3/images/dl1230pt11.rm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Well, I'm Shocked" Posted by Real Stormy on 20:24:43 7/21/2000 There are things about Fleet White that Mary99 doesn't know. This is the height of arrogance. Why should she know anything about Fleet White? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "obnoxious behavior" Posted by doc on 01:37:00 7/22/2000 I haven't posted much lately but I feel I must voice my disgust with the sarcasm and barbed remarks some of you are posting to Mary. This definitely is not a place where people can say what they think these days. And talk about cliques! A good way to discourage newbies and even potential newbies is your conduct. Can't you be civil? PS Mary I think your list has merit. I also think you malcontents write excellent informative posts when you stick to the facts. Doc in Atl [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "fly" Posted by darby on 21:58:07 7/21/2000 I don't ignore the Beckner quote that you frequently speak of! However, I don't actually have much of a clue of what he really said. Does that seem contradictory? Well it isn't. Fact is, try as I will, I can't NOT think of that quote. I can no more ignore that quote than I can the elephant that isn't sitting in my living room. So there. However, YOU seem to ignore what I say every time you say I ignore what you say regarding that quote. I always say that a police chief should be more concerned about an innocent citizen who had wrongly been speculated about as a possible pedophile--and this due in part to media coverage of the department's investigation--than the feelings of a delusional abuse victim who was basically the reason behind the false innuendoes about the innocent citizen (if this were the case). To that, you always say that Beckner probably didn't want to issue a huge retraction announcing that the Whites are not pedophiles, which might actually stir up MORE unwanted speculation about the Whites. You mention that to the public at large, the statement given probably helped to diffuse most of the potential continued speculation about FW as a pedophile even though it never directly said that he isn't. To that, I always say that all it would have taken was three words: I usually take that opportunity to bring up the fact that the BPD said in their official statement on MW that information about a child sex ring was forwarded to the FBI. Then I mention that the statement goes on to say that there is no evidence that the RAMSEYS had participated in such a ring. Then I tell you that this troubles me because, to my knowledge, MW has never claimed to have any direct knowledge that the RAMSEYS are in a child sex ring. Finally, I tell you that no huge deal had to have been made to cause undue focus on the Whites. All that needed to be said was that there was no evidence that the Ramseys or the Whites were involved in a child sex ring. Three words, I say. Just three words. And can you really say that just because the BPD said that there is no evidence to support that MW's experiences have anything to do with the murder of JBR, that this must necessarily mean that the BPD also determined that alleged abuse of MW as a child by FW is false? I agree that the BPD statement is begging for an explanation. Was it by design or oversight that irrelevant things were included and important things were left out? I sure wish I knew just what the Beckner quote was so you and I could really have a decent argument about it! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "v_p" Posted by Morgan on 20:55:44 7/21/2000 Please share with us the stuff you've found out about FW on the internet. Nothing to do with Ramsey, that's not in question. Attention all trolls! Give it a rest! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Abby" Posted by Gemini on 20:48:33 7/21/2000 Thanks for the link. That's been around a long time now ... maybe since last fall or so. I, also, found it interesting, way back when but most didn't seem too impressed. Another thought for Mary99 I think, if i looked far and wide for the spokesperson most likely to put people off about the MW/FW issues, you'd be right up near the top of the list. At first, the discussions were reasonable ... now they've turned rabid. When a poster who has never cared much for ol' Fleet (me) backs away, you might want to consider there just might be something wrong with the presentation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Gemini" Posted by mary99 on 21:07:39 7/21/2000 The facts of Fleet White remain the same regardless of the poster who comments on them. Anyone who would disregard a solid suspect, or have no interest in pursuing a line of questioning based on the poster who asked a few pointed questions isn't truly logical. Is this the logical approach? And no, I'm not 'rabid' about MW. I was first interested in discussing the FW JR credibility issue, but after seeing so many minds go into cyber-lockdown, I guess you could just say I'm disillusioned at the lack of ------ on this forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Whoa!" Posted by canadiana on 21:13:14 7/21/2000 You're disillusioned? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Seconding doc" Posted by darby on 04:05:59 7/22/2000 Mary's post #62 has merit. Go back and re-read it, and forget about worrying about who might be forming a clique, harboring secrets or any other such foolishness. It is ABSOLUTELY correct to say that on the off-chance that the Ramsey case ever gets prosecuted, team Ramsey will rake Fleet White over the coals if he turns out to be the prosecutorial star witness. If y'all don't like the potential problems being raised here about this man, just wait until the Ramsey dream team has a chance. Mary's list tells me that White does not lead a life that he would be proud to have revealed to the world, starting with the fact that he has an alias (yes v_p, it's true and has been known for years). He may be no child murderer, but it looks like he's no Mother Theresa either. It's too bad the Ramseys didn't have dinner with HER on that fateful night. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "One more thing" Posted by darby on 04:54:15 7/22/2000 I don't like the fact that Fleet White demanded his prior statements from the BPD. We are ALL flabbergasted that the Ramseys requested AND WERE GRANTED theirs. However, I truly think Fleet White really wanted his own prior statements, and not just on principle. I would venture to say that I think it's highly unusual for an unbiased murder witness to demand prior statements. If I had hosted the Ramseys for Christmas dinner in 1996, while I'd be furious that they were granted their prior statements, it wouldn't even occur to me to ask for mine as a way to express my outrage. The reason we're disgusted when folks get a hold of their prior statements is because this gives the bad guys a chance to memorize and stay consistent with any lies they may have told during the emotion-charged hours of the initial post-crime interviews. Truthful, objective witnesses to a crime would presumably have no need or desire for their prior statements. It would be one thing if Fleet White asked for his prior statements once just to make a point to Alex Hunter that providing the Ramseys with theirs was wrong. But if Fleet absolutely demanded his own prior statments and made a big stink about it when he was denied, then I'd have to think that there was more behind his demand than just the principle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Yep, he's no hero" Posted by mary99 on 07:59:33 7/22/2000 Maybe Fleet White wanted his previous statements so he could STUDY them before he was re-interviewed. Fleet White's refusal to talk to Hunter is thought by some to be the reason the Grand Jury was convened. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE