Justice Watch Discussion Board "Witness, Whines & Woes" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Witness, Whines & Woes, mame, 08:10:37, 7/19/2000 Mame, Seeker, 08:44:21, 7/19/2000, (#1) Thank you Mame!, ericasf, 08:58:45, 7/19/2000, (#2) mame, , starry, 09:05:39, 7/19/2000, (#3) Witness, docg, 09:09:17, 7/19/2000, (#4) docg, Seeker, 09:21:02, 7/19/2000, (#5) Patsy did it!, LurkerXIV, 09:25:39, 7/19/2000, (#6) Witness, mame, 09:28:10, 7/19/2000, (#7) lame mame, rico, 10:00:29, 7/19/2000, (#10) I see rico, Holly, 11:24:07, 7/19/2000, (#17) Rico, ericasf, 10:09:26, 7/19/2000, (#12) ericasf, rico, 11:49:34, 7/19/2000, (#19) piquing our curiosity, Seashell, 09:43:20, 7/19/2000, (#8) Seashell, ericasf, 09:45:51, 7/19/2000, (#9) Erica, Seeker, 10:06:08, 7/19/2000, (#11) Seeker..., shadow, 10:16:11, 7/19/2000, (#14) Again rico, darby, 10:14:54, 7/19/2000, (#13) Shadow, Seeker, 10:30:37, 7/19/2000, (#15) Seeker--INYO Co., Rascal, 16:57:02, 7/19/2000, (#31) Seeker, Teague, 11:49:47, 7/19/2000, (#20) Maybe rico, Holly, 11:22:16, 7/19/2000, (#16) Snippets, Chris, 11:45:52, 7/19/2000, (#18) Chris, rico, 12:00:10, 7/19/2000, (#22) I think Mame.., Phantom, 11:50:46, 7/19/2000, (#21) Thanks, Chris, Lacey, 12:31:33, 7/19/2000, (#23) Thanks, seeker, Seashell, 14:22:18, 7/19/2000, (#24) 10 months..., dustii, 15:14:02, 7/19/2000, (#26) about the "Flame Fleet Fest", stryker, 16:27:17, 7/19/2000, (#28) "Quiet and Courageous", Real Stormy, 14:54:09, 7/19/2000, (#25) Dustii & Real Stormy, Seeker, 16:00:25, 7/19/2000, (#27) Once More Into the Fray, Maude4, 18:22:03, 7/20/2000, (#85) MW, short timer, 16:29:27, 7/19/2000, (#29) Short Timer, ericasf, 07:37:53, 7/20/2000, (#71) short timer, Morgan, 17:15:24, 7/19/2000, (#35) I Confess, rico, 21:01:22, 7/19/2000, (#55) short timer, darby, 17:07:15, 7/19/2000, (#32) Bravo! Short timer, mary99, 16:56:01, 7/19/2000, (#30) MW came forward only when..., Rascal, 17:17:46, 7/19/2000, (#36) Rascal., Holly, 04:36:16, 7/20/2000, (#68) Never be enough proof?, Real Stormy, 17:13:07, 7/19/2000, (#34) Just who the HELL, v_p, 17:09:28, 7/19/2000, (#33) V, ericasf, 07:42:43, 7/20/2000, (#72) MW please consider, Rascal, 17:31:33, 7/19/2000, (#40) v_p, darby, 17:28:04, 7/19/2000, (#38) v_p, Morgan, 17:23:01, 7/19/2000, (#37) v_p, mary99, 17:59:37, 7/19/2000, (#44) Mary, Morgan, v_p, 18:34:06, 7/19/2000, (#49) Rascal, Morgan, 17:29:34, 7/19/2000, (#39) Morgan stop chasing your tail, Rascal, 22:34:34, 7/19/2000, (#63) Rascal, ericasf, 07:45:08, 7/20/2000, (#73) Rascal, Rascal, RASCAL!, darby, 17:51:36, 7/19/2000, (#42) darby, no cover-up, Rascal, 19:56:04, 7/19/2000, (#52) Thanks Morgan, starry, 17:50:54, 7/19/2000, (#41) I don't know about you'all, starry, 17:54:36, 7/19/2000, (#43) the $75,000 payoff?, mary99, 18:06:34, 7/19/2000, (#46) mary99, ericasf, 07:52:28, 7/20/2000, (#76) Payoff was offered, mary99, 10:48:13, 7/20/2000, (#82) Mary99, Denver, 18:03:59, 7/19/2000, (#45) Dots and Beckner, Holly, 04:57:29, 7/20/2000, (#69) Denver, mary99, 18:43:24, 7/19/2000, (#50) Thank you, momo, 18:17:17, 7/19/2000, (#47) Starry, Morgan, 18:25:30, 7/19/2000, (#48) Morgan, ericasf, 07:53:24, 7/20/2000, (#77) Darby, v_p, 18:48:49, 7/19/2000, (#51) V_P, Abby, 19:58:08, 7/19/2000, (#53) Mary99>>, ayelean, 21:30:01, 7/19/2000, (#57) >>ayelean, mary99, 21:38:55, 7/19/2000, (#58) Boykin, v_p, 20:53:01, 7/19/2000, (#54) v_p, darby, 22:24:47, 7/19/2000, (#62) What we COULD be doing, mary99, 21:27:44, 7/19/2000, (#56) short timer, mame, 22:15:46, 7/19/2000, (#61) And I, for sure, Real Stormy, 21:43:36, 7/19/2000, (#60) Very good, momo, 21:42:01, 7/19/2000, (#59) dustii, Mary99, darby, 22:42:48, 7/19/2000, (#64) Darby, mary99, 01:05:56, 7/20/2000, (#66) Mame, rico, 23:36:13, 7/19/2000, (#65) Mame, Bobby, 04:27:08, 7/20/2000, (#67) MW, Dianne E., 07:51:14, 7/20/2000, (#75) Dianne E., thanks, , LurkerXIV, 09:17:50, 7/20/2000, (#79) in response to rico, mame, 07:16:24, 7/20/2000, (#70) mame, rico, 12:28:10, 7/20/2000, (#83) Interesting post, Rascal, and it explains, Cassandra, 08:02:56, 7/20/2000, (#78) denver, mame, 07:50:40, 7/20/2000, (#74) Rascal, you Wascal you>>, ayelean, 09:19:16, 7/20/2000, (#80) Ayelean, Rascal, 19:24:17, 7/20/2000, (#88) ayelean and others, hareen, 09:53:09, 7/20/2000, (#81) Hareen, Rascal, 20:14:42, 7/20/2000, (#90) Rascal, you might be..., LurkerXIV, 20:47:20, 7/20/2000, (#91) Lurker, singular or plural, Rascal, 23:25:10, 7/20/2000, (#92) Rascal, mary99, 00:11:57, 7/21/2000, (#93) Mary99, Rascal, 10:23:30, 7/21/2000, (#96) mary99, DianneE & Denver, fly, 13:59:01, 7/20/2000, (#84) Amen, fly , straykat2, 19:34:31, 7/20/2000, (#89) fly, mary99, 19:02:26, 7/20/2000, (#87) Thanks, fly!, LurkerXIV, 18:44:29, 7/20/2000, (#86) Real Stormy, , doc, 01:58:08, 7/21/2000, (#94) mary99, fly, 08:38:35, 7/21/2000, (#95) Fly, mary99, 11:37:31, 7/21/2000, (#98) The ONLY question, Luvsbeagles, 11:33:27, 7/21/2000, (#97) mary99, fly, 12:44:13, 7/21/2000, (#99) I stand by the possibility, mary99, 13:00:48, 7/21/2000, (#100) Mary99,, gaiabetsy, 13:54:51, 7/21/2000, (#101) mary99, fly, 14:30:15, 7/21/2000, (#102) fly..., shadow, 14:41:58, 7/21/2000, (#103) ................................................................... "Witness, Whines & Woes" Posted by mame on 08:47:56 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:47:56, 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:13:22, 7/19/2000 It's time I cleared a few things up concerning The Witness who came forward with possible information in the JBR case. I understand the frustration by many concerning a lack of information regarding claims made by The Witness and her story. I'm told that many believe I have those answers. I don't! I was one of a handful of reporters who saw documents and videotapes. BJ Plasket and I interviewed her for four hours early on. We fired questions at her...and her attorney. I also followed up with two interviews privately on audio. The Witness also became my friend. During the weeks she stayed at my home I only gained depth into a person who had been abused since a child. I did not gain information that could solve any crime, or firmly name any suspect. I only saw dots that might be connected...a very compelling story that deserves an investigation. That's it! I despise secrecy. I have sought to fight secrecy in grand juries, government, friendships and life. The egos fueled in this case by knowledge that "they know something" other's don't, has been poison. I have never wanted to be labeled in such a way...or deserve such a label. Especially since I don't hold a key to ANYTHING! My trip to Maryland had nothing to do with The Witness. I honestly answered questions about the case as they were asked. Because there are highly respected journalists and investigators working on this story I feel confident the answers many want will be shared one day. Until that time, I ask you all to contact Lee Hill, her attorney, for further comments on his client. For those on this forum taking on other hats to go fishing...I'm aware of your motives. Lou Smit does NOT give interviews! The depiction of his stance on her story written here is nowhere near the truth. Other local journalists chose to cover the "book dog and pony show" while this witness came forward with her quiet courageous voice. That's their choice. If I could help you in your own sleuthing and thought processes...I would. I don't have the information you seek. The Witness has never once claimed to have the pieces necessary to solve JBR's murder. She gave authorities a vast amount of information she hoped might help them in their investigation. I will make no more comments on this story. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Mame" Posted by Seeker on 08:44:21 7/19/2000 Thank you for your candor. I do appreciate all you have done in this case. I'm sorry I'm so skeptical, but I've had many dealings with people who, unfortunatley, turned out to be pathalogical liars. I respect what you do and have done for all of us here at JW. Keeping us informed at no small risk to yourself, or your integrity. I'm still waiting for that info, and will share it as soon as it/if it becomes available. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Thank you Mame!" Posted by ericasf on 08:58:45 7/19/2000 Hopefully this will quell the natives for a while until the truth is told..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "mame, " Posted by starry on 09:05:39 7/19/2000 As usual, I'm clueless. Where is the link or the information regarding an interview by Lou Smit? What am I missing here? Who's hats are changed? Who were they and who are they now? LOL, I'm probably better off being the clueless ninny I am. Seriously, I believe mame when she says she's confident that these claims of MW are being investigated and that she holds no inside keys to the answers. As with Justice for JonBenet, we'll just have to hang on and wait and see whether or not we get the answers to this murder mystery. It gets tiresome, because I, as much as anyone, and maybe more than some... am very impatient..... I want Justice and I want it now... good thing I'm not used to getting everything I want when I want it.. otherwise, I'd have a sorry lesson to learn. Thank you for all your work, honesty, commitment and candor, mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Witness" Posted by docg on 09:09:55 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:09:55, 7/19/2000 to what, exactly? Why do you call her a "witness"? Seems to me she's just another person with a theory. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "docg" Posted by Seeker on 09:21:02 7/19/2000 I believe she means that MW was a witness in the case against Boykin. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Patsy did it!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:25:39 7/19/2000 Patsy did it! Patsy did it!! Patsy did it!!!!! (Hi, Holly!) ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Witness" Posted by mame on 09:28:10 7/19/2000 wit·ness Pronunciation: 'wit-n&s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English witnesse, from Old English witnes knowledge, testimony, witness, from 2wit Date: before 12th century 1 : attestation of a fact or EVENT 2 : one that gives evidence; specifically : one who testifies in a cause 3 : one who has personal knowledge of something [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "lame mame" Posted by rico on 10:00:29 7/19/2000 And I stand by my source, a RESPECTED journalist who contacted Lou Smit in an attempt to find out if any new leads had developed in this case. And when MW was brought up, "no story there". The FBI has had this case since February and no arrests, no breaking story, nothing. You served up yet again, another helping of MW and now you're backpeddling. You've cloaked this story in mystery, innuendo, and secrecy from day 1. And of course, the media and law enforcement are to blame if nothing ever comes of this shameless tale. In the interest of "justice" you've pandered this story with more conditions than a R's interview. Why has LH's client failed to make her story public? Why has the "sound bite" media failed to take up MW's story? Slander and libel are two good reasons. And you're wrong about MR. Smit: if this story had legs good ole Lou would have it in print faster than you can say "stun gun" or "sex perp". You're right on one count: eventually the truth will come out, and I hope your memory doesn't fail you when MW hands you your journalistic integrity on a platter. Done with this trash. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "I see rico" Posted by Holly on 11:24:07 7/19/2000 did read this thread. And now rico is done with it... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Rico" Posted by ericasf on 10:09:26 7/19/2000 You are making the assumption that Lou Smit is a credible person too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "ericasf" Posted by rico on 11:49:34 7/19/2000 You are correct; I can make no claims regarding Lou Smit's credibility or lack thereof. darby, I will be happy to respond to your questions via e-mail. This issue will resolve itself. My apologies if I was abusive toward anyone; you've stated your opinions, I stated mine. If MW chooses not to go public with her story, then I choose to drop the issue. I don't see that justice is served by smearing names now and getting facts later. Done (again!LOL) respectfully, rico JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "piquing our curiosity" Posted by Seashell on 09:43:20 7/19/2000 mame, you say, "I was one of a handful of reporters who saw documents and videotapes." So why don't you tell us what was in the documents and who was on the videotapes? If they don't solve the murder, what harm is there? If the videos are of her buises, why can't you tell us that? I like and respect you, mame, but this sentence is a scorcher and I feel toyed with. Telling us that you saw things and then not telling us what, makes me feel that you know quite a bit more than you're letting on. I'd rather have you say that you saw compelling evidence against/about ??? but can't tell us about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Seashell" Posted by ericasf on 09:45:51 7/19/2000 I am kind of surprised that you asked Mame to break the "code" that reporters have. You are asking her to put people in danger, go back on her word. I am very surprised at the fact that someone would ask her to compromise herself, her family, other people to satisfy someone's curiousity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Erica" Posted by Seeker on 10:06:08 7/19/2000 I don't think that's what Seashell meant. I understand what she means. Mame could give us information about what (exactly) she saw, yet leave names, places, and dates out. Edit for content instead of just saying, "I saw compelling evidence..." (if that makes sense). I'll say it again. I've known women who wanted recognition, to be the center of attention, and sought publicity, deliberatley lie (believing what they were saying wholeheartedly) just to be found out later. It's sad, but it does happen. I'm not saying MW wasn't abused in some fasion, it just seems that 10 months was a minimal amount of time to spend in "jail" for committing a felony, especially against a minor in a statutory rape case. I find it very hard to believe (personally). I'll wait and see what info I can get (verifiable) on this. I promise to share with all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Seeker..." Posted by shadow on 10:16:11 7/19/2000 How are we going to know it's "verifiable?" LOL shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Again rico" Posted by darby on 10:14:54 7/19/2000 You said: 'And I stand by my source, a RESPECTED journalist who contacted Lou Smit in an attempt to find out if any new leads had developed in this case. And when MW was brought up, "no story there".' I will not ask who your source is, but could you give a date (or even an approximate date) when Lou Smit said, "no story there"? I'd really appreciate it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Shadow" Posted by Seeker on 10:30:37 7/19/2000 you nut! I'm sure the attorney I e-mailed will provide the correct laws on this and I'll post his (I hope) response for all, so they may look up the laws cited. K? Rascal found the info in Independance, CA courthouse (not sure what county that's in, I thought it was Inyo). Mame says to call San Bernardino Co, court. I thought the trial was in San Luis Obispo? As far as I know all of these are in different counties! Maybe state records are microfisched to each county court? I'm not sure, but am trying to check. I thought most, if not all, were kept in Sacramento, not distributed to each county unless the proceedings took place there. Rico, good post, but if this is a well respected journalist, would you provide the name? If they are respected I doubt this info would harm their rep. Did this person do a peice on the MW/Lou Smit story? If so, where can we find it? What diffference would this journalist talking to Lou Smit make? Thanks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Seeker--INYO Co." Posted by Rascal on 16:57:02 7/19/2000 I have been there and the court employees are serious women in calico dresses. Thank you. Again one more time, the Boykin case was in INYO County, Independence, California. The records are on microfilm. The year 1978-79. The copies are a 1$ each charge. The court is on Hwy 395. East of Los Angeles closer to the Nevada border. A very small western town. I only asked for the 12 actually filed counts and final judgement on two counts. Boykin VS. State of Calif. The clerk can and will look the case number up for you. If you want everything, please first ask her to review and count pages. Then call back and offer to send Money order and self addressed envelope & postage. Geeeeees... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Seeker" Posted by Teague on 11:49:47 7/19/2000 You said above "I'm not saying MW wasn't abused in some fasion, it just seems that 10 months was a minimal amount of time to spend in "jail" for committing a felony, especially against a minor in a statutory rape case. I find it very hard to believe (personally). " I'd sure be with you on this as far as common sense might take us. But the laws and common sense aren't always in synch. Watched Montel Williams one day last week when his guests were young women who had been sexually abused as children by fathers, other family members, and caretakers. I was shocked at how miniscule some of the sentences were for those abusers who had been prosecuted--one served only seven months if my memory serves me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Maybe rico" Posted by Holly on 11:22:16 7/19/2000 will read this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Snippets" Posted by Chris on 11:45:52 7/19/2000 Rico, I too have talked with a highly respected National journalist who, until recently, was situated in Denver. She covered everything from Matthew Shepherd to Columbine, etc. When we spoke about MW she said there was no story there also. But, to be fair, you have to understand the context of her comment. She wasn't saying that what MW said didn't pan out or that it wasn't true, she was saying that for the publications she writes for (Time, USA Today, etc.) the story wasn't developed enough for her to do anything with it. She's not an investigative journalist and doesn't write that type of story. She was, however, paying close attention, had an open mind and was ready to jump should the story develop. To the best of my knowledge, she still is. FWIW, in the handful of conversations I personally had with MW, she never mentioned Fleet White, Jr. to me, except in terms of familial relationships. (What I mean by that is to tell me who was related to whom, etc.) I don't know what any of this means. Like many of you, I'm taking in the information I can get my hands on and filing it away so that I can use it to draw conclusions on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Chris" Posted by rico on 12:00:10 7/19/2000 Thank you for your comments and sharing this information. I have asked on more than one thread for the compelling information some posters seem to have after the MD get-together. And that is also why I think it is important MW go public with her story: the media may not have investigated this story fully however, given that information they certainly wouldn't ignore facts wherever they lead. I do not believe people have been indifferent to the suffering and abuse MW has gone through but if she wants to change things and seek justice for other potential victims, she needs to help others help her do just that. Respectfully, rico JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "I think Mame.." Posted by Phantom on 11:50:46 7/19/2000 is a very creditable and honest person although I've never met. Just because someone can't tell you something that you want to know, doesn't mean that she isn't telling you because she gets a "kick" out of it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Thanks, Chris" Posted by Lacey on 12:31:33 7/19/2000 That was a Voice of Reason moment. And I think that is good advice for the whole forum! As for Mame.. Mame tries. I do not recall her ever taking part in the Flame Fleet Fest, but I ignored many of those threads until it became impossible to overlook them any longer. Most of us know who the ringleaders are, and apparently they have done a bit of proselytizing at a weekend gathering in DC. In any case. As long as there are those of you who continue to take the low road to target the innocent, there will be those of us taking the high road to defend them. In this case, armed with logic and the results of an eleven-week investigation as proof. Backing off for now. Until the next assault...... Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Thanks, seeker" Posted by Seashell on 14:22:18 7/19/2000 Of course I didn't mean that mame should name her sources. Mame says she doesn't know anything, but then says she's seen videos and other things but won't tell us what. This is a logical contradiction. Either she knows something or she doesn't and by withholding what's on the videos, by keeping it a secret, I would say that mame knows something - so why deny it, mame? BTW, I've always assumed you know more than you're letting on. And I would lie low, if I were you. Please take care. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "10 months..." Posted by dustii on 15:14:02 7/19/2000 I've been lurking for a couple of months now, and leaving the posting to other more articulate posters. I was never a prolific poster anyway, but, the MW subject always seems to get my blood boiling. Or, should I say the ignorance by some, gets my blood boiling. In regards to the paltry 10 months served by MB, to some, that small sentence therefore goes someway to proving he wasn't guilty of the charges? Wrong. I have told my story here before, and those who read it know that I have stated i was raped by four youths in my teenage years. In the time between the preliminary trial, where they appeared on charges of rape and were sent to trial, and the time of the trial, their solicitor made a motion for the rape charge to be dropped to carnal knowledge. (Excuse my lack of legal terms here, sorry) The reason?... I should have been able to get away from them, seeing as I was a solidly built girl. Yeah right! I was 14 also at time. Scared witless, and only thinking of trying to survive. The result, one of them served 18 months, one, 12 months and the other two, nine months. Believe me, I know it was rape! Not carnal knowledge. It wasn't done with my consent. I was a virgin at the time, would anyone choose for their first sexual experience to be with 4 strangers in an unlit bushy reserve, with the others sitting around watching and waiting for their turn. I think not. As they pleaded guilty, I was not needed to testify in court, and looking back, at 14, it probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway. I wasn't wise enough in the ways of the world, or the criminal mind or processes to help myself. What I'm saying is that because the sentences were so ridiculously light, doesn't mean that this crime didn't happen and was the most horrific, and life changing thing that has, or will ever happen to me. The charges being dropped to carnal knowledge, and the lack of importance that was placed on it, along with the questioning, and lack of support for me, is the main reason I still struggle with issues from this to this day. Please, have an open mind a little, and don't disregard things just because you have no inside knowledge of what may have happened. Mame, as always you have my respect and support. You go girl. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL dustii ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "about the "Flame Fleet Fest"" Posted by stryker on 16:27:17 7/19/2000 I, personally, had nothing against Fleet til it took over BankBoston. Since then, my bank fees have gone up and service has gone down, and their profits have jumped 24% since this period last year. I think Fleet needs more than just flaming.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. ""Quiet and Courageous"" Posted by Real Stormy on 14:55:46 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:55:46, 7/19/2000 When a witness comes forth with information of the most serious nature and, by implication, accuses another of heinous crimes, whether or not the witness is courageous remains to be seen, although they may have spoken quietly. The fact of the matter is that if the witness is proven to be a liar, she/he is hardly courageous. If they have told the truth at some risk to themselves, then yes, I would say they were courageous. You cannot tell merely by listening to the witness whether or not they are telling the truth and should reserve your judgement as to their courage or lack thereof. The mere telling of the story proves neither. How many people believe the telling also proves nothing. What proves something is whether or not subsequent events show the story to be true or untrue. And not before. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Dustii & Real Stormy" Posted by Seeker on 16:00:25 7/19/2000 you have my smypathy. I wish I had been there to help you "fight" them off! We'd have won the day and you wouldn't have gone through such an awful experience. Just remember the differences though. You were attacked by 4 jueveniles (you said youths, I'm guessing they were also under 18 at the time this occured), MW was attacked by an adult. Most courts do not want to "ruin" a young person's chances of having a "clean" record (if they had been fully charged and put into jail they'd have gotten a taste of what they put you through). While I applaud your coming forward, one case is not the same as the other in this regard. Real Stormy, well put. Thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Once More Into the Fray" Posted by Maude4 on 18:22:03 7/20/2000 As a mental health professional with expert knowledge of the how the criminal justice system handles cases of child sexual abuse and uses the mental health system as "alternative to incarceration", and the number of professionals (physicians, judges, lawyers, etc.) who go into "treatment programs" rather than jail, I say this to all of you who believe the system insures "the time matches the crime": 1) ain't no such thing as justice for a victim of child sexual abuse as the criminal justice system and the police have the headset that somehow a)the child will forget and so not be "harmed", b)the poor perp just couldn't help him/herself: 2) the more "respectable" the perp, the less likely the "allegations" have "any substantiation"; 3)no chages filed means "unsubstantiated allegations" -guess that goes for JFJBR too (no charges filed so she's not really dead?wasn't sexually abused?; 4)being openminded means "disbelieving, flaming all allegations" until "proven" in a court of law (written in stone probably doesn't work for these people as they haven't seen the tablets so lets throw out ten commandments, we have no direct evidence those tablets existed that could be "proven" in a court of law, ergo they only "allegedly existed"; 5)allegations of childhood sexual abuse are always easily substantiated and "proven in a court of law" if true; 6)telling your story to the media will allow the disbelieving/flamers see/discern/know the "truth" of the allegations. Voyeurism by proxy (my term for which I have a clinical definition) is also a form of sexual abuse and harrassement of victims. It allows the the "voyeuristist by proxy" to "know about" all the terrible things the victim underwent (complete with emotional response of the victim which is part of the thrill/charge perps get), then be repulsed by this terribly "tainted, unclean, violated" person and be able to treat them as a pariah. Victims of abuse who go public with their stories are so treated by the public at large, that any clinition must very carefully weigh advise to client to go public, file charges, tell the story as it were, because the resulting response can be totally destructive to the individual. Reading the responses regarding child abuse on this former are, at times, disheartening. I would like to believe that in my lifetime, I will see a change in how such victims are treated, not only by the criminal justice system, but the individual members of society. No other crimes equates guilt on the part of the victim and "it's not their fault" on the part of the perpatrator like child sexual abuse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "MW" Posted by short timer on 16:29:27 7/19/2000 I hope some of you posters are satiated, now that you have attacked MW like vultures and pecked away at her bones with your rapacious appetites for the last few days. Considering how often you cry foul, I'm surprised to see how many times some of you have slinked up to the buffet table for just one last morsel of this tasty dish. If MW was as heathen as some of you allude to, I expect you'll be coming down with food poisoning shortly. To answer one question that seems to be asked repeatedly but never gets answered, I am going to guess that maybe the reason MW hasn't gone public on talk shows, newspapers, tabloids, magazines, etc. is the fact that this is an ongoing investigation with the FBI. Somehow I sense the FBI might be a little miffed and vexed to spend their time and manpower investigating these charges while MW chews the fat via national media. And even more so considering the only reason you want her to go public is so you can decide for yourselves if she is credible or not. Another good reason for her not to cater to your whims to go public could be that she is in hiding to protect her life. Maybe coming out of hiding to appease your zest for the truth just isn't worth the consequences for her. There again, maybe she isn't going on public TV right now because she has seen the way some of you have handled her claims and just isn't in the mood to have her entire history mocked, ridiculed and challenged by a bunch of nasty forum posters. Why are some of her claims called bogus? Maybe it's because she has relatives in the sheriff's department where these crimes took place. Why did she wait three years before going public with her story? Maybe it's because she knew she would be on the run the rest of her life if she came forward. Maybe it's because she knew her own life would be in danger the minute she spoke out. Maybe it's because she knew she would have to walk away from everything familiar in her life. Maybe it's because she knew she would be without money and clothing, except for what was on her back. Some of you who allude to heros might want to consider what real heroism is. Why don't some of you smart-mouthed vulchers try walking away from your entire life and see how cheery and easy it is. Why not trying depending on the milk of human kindness for your next meal. And while you're out there looking for that next meal, try knocking on the doors of a few JW posters. After they slam the door in your face, you'll know what real hunger is all about. I have no idea if MW's claims will ultimately involve the JonBenet case or any of its players. I do know, though, that she is a human being and deserves kindness if nothing else. If her story is true, she has already seen the depths of human and moral depravity since an early age. And, if she should miss that depravity, I suggest she drop by JW to see a bit more. Some of you could be poster children for that same kind of depravity. Some of you are so self-righteous while pandering to the JW posters that do believe in this woman and her courage that I pity you your lack of compassion. One day some of you will eat those very words you so piously broadcast on this forum. It will give me a damn sight more pleasure to watch that than it has been to watch you pick the bones of a woman who is unable at present to defend herself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Short Timer" Posted by ericasf on 07:37:53 7/20/2000 You have said what I think a lot of us were trying to say. Absolutely true. Thank you for the beautiful way you relayed the plight of MW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "short timer" Posted by Morgan on 17:15:24 7/19/2000 You made your point beautifully. Empathy and an unbiased, intelligent assessment of MW and her situation should be a top priority. Her situation, if true, is unimaginably painful and difficult. If true, her courage is awesome. I believe she is struggling to make the wisest decisions. The BPD, despite their lame investigation, did not call her a liar or accuse her of making false charges. Rico is a plant with ulterior motives--let's get real here. I don't even want to explore the motive for Lacey's condescending smugness. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I Confess" Posted by rico on 21:01:22 7/19/2000 Rico is a plant with ulterior motives--let's >get real here. Okay Morgan, you got me you super-sleuth you. I'm really an unemployed, ex-KGB deep cover operative hired by a small foreign faction of the John Birch Society (for 118,000) to discredit MW. And Lacey is my smug accomplice. Happy now? rico aka Vladimir Chenko Pssstt Morgan, if you promise to keep it a secret I'll tell you how the KGB conspired to put those holes in your swiss cheese. Das Vadanya comrade! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "short timer" Posted by darby on 17:07:15 7/19/2000 Courageous post. I don't know why, but the knee-jerk reaction of many people is disbelief when they hear someone blow the whistle about their victimization of sexual abuse of any type. And it seems ironic that the victims' memories can't be considered reliable because of the horrible abuse they endured. Any of you who have decided to say horrible things about MW, have you ever considered the possibility that she might been telling the truth? Forget about asking me the inverse, because I'll tell you in advance that yes, I've thought about it. My question for you stands. What if MW was someone you cared deeply about, someone who you knew was telling the truth? Or what if YOU were in MW's shoes, and you were telling the truth? What if for no particular reason, nobody believed you? The references to documentation prior to the JBR murder which have never been refuted by anyone tells me that I will give MW the benefit of the doubt for the time being. For crying out loud, it's not as if she has claimed that aliens abducted her. All she has said is that she was sexually abused as a child. If you don't believe such a thing ever happens, then you're living in a dream world. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Bravo! Short timer" Posted by mary99 on 16:59:25 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:59:25, 7/19/2000 My thoughts exactly. She has been trashed by so-called truthseekers who can't or won't accept her story, because they 'lack sufficient facts' to process it. It's not a shortage of information, because the dots are there for anyone to connect. Why can't certain posters suspend judgement on her morals and motives while the investigation is ongoing? Fleet White has enjoyed 3+ years of hero status and never proved a thing. Why the double standard? I have a feeling even if she took an FBI polygraph and backed up her story with photos, artifacts, medical records, etc., posters here who don't believe her now would still be questioning her credibility, or saying she has nothing to contribute to this case. Ultimately, our choice to extend credibility to a man who is a mystery by his own design and refuse to extend that same measure of credibility to a victim who risked everything, including her life, is a reflection of the sad state of our society's attitude to sexual abuse survivors in general. There will never be enough 'proof' to satisfy those whose minds are already made up to reject shocking allegations. Thats what enables these people to perpetrate their evil for generations without being stopped. Victims do report; but nobody believes them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "MW came forward only when..." Posted by Rascal on 17:17:46 7/19/2000 Fleet White Sr. & JR. heard from the Ramsey investigators asking about a Los Oso woman. The Whites thought Gwen Boykin then to MW and Grandma in Los Oso, Ca. The White's made contact with MW and MW got frightened by her oldest and greatest fears. MW contacted her therapist who helped her contact Atty. Hill and the rest is public knowledge. The truth is that MW's movement was motivated by the inquires of the Ramsey investigators. Lou Smit did talk finally to MW after everyone else, but if she would have gone with Whites, he would have been one of the first to talk with MW. The Whites were asked because they are originally from California. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Rascal." Posted by Holly on 04:36:16 7/20/2000 Huh? Where did this info originate? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Never be enough proof?" Posted by Real Stormy on 17:13:07 7/19/2000 How about any proof at all? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Just who the HELL" Posted by v_p on 17:09:28 7/19/2000 is trashing this woman?? Show me one post where SHE has been trashed. Just one. Fleet White, on the other hand, has been trashed plenty. Post those too, while you're at it. If attention is what this woman is after, she must be in hog heaven right now. That is not to say she wasn't abused as a child...please let me make myself clear. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "V" Posted by ericasf on 07:42:43 7/20/2000 I haven't read the other posts yet but I just wanted to say that there have been several people trashing MW. There is one in particular who has bashed MW as well as many of the posters on JW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "MW please consider" Posted by Rascal on 17:31:33 7/19/2000 The greater importance and possible opportunity of making a big difference. Your story MW is everything. Everything about JBR may hing on your story about the images and descriptions of abuse. The images and descriptions are the greatest things stolen from your story. These are the things that are used in the JBR murder scene. And these are the images and processes to make it look like your story MW. Creative intelligence is the issue here in what was stolen. Your story MW made to look alike in JBR's death scene. You lived it another used it! Please consider what I ask for in past names. Thank you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "v_p" Posted by darby on 17:28:04 7/19/2000 Have you ever read some of BobC's posts? Granted, he's off this forum now, but he thoroughly trashed MW and was quite proud of it. To be fair, I think that Bob believes with all his heart and soul that MW is a liar. Yet, I've never heard a clear reason from him as to why he feels that way. I've seen a few others call MW a liar, but the majority of those who think her story is bogus say she's delusional. Again, I wonder how anyone can just KNOW that this is the case. Lately, I've seen a handful of posters dismiss MW with claims of inside knowledge but without so much as a hint of where the inside knowlege came from. Beyond that, I think that the main "trashing" I've seen is in the automatic disbelief of MW's claims, and even before we have full knowledge of what her claims are. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "v_p" Posted by Morgan on 17:23:01 7/19/2000 If you're looking for a post that trashes MW, look at your own. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "v_p" Posted by mary99 on 17:59:37 7/19/2000 Show me where you found sufficient facts to hold Fleet White in high esteem. Show me where he uses his million$ to benefit anyone but his own family. Please show me his glowing record, which I must have missed along the way, of his charitable contributions, political donations, foundations or anything at all that qualifies as a tax write-off! Please tell me the story of his good deeds and volunteerism. Does he coach a team, sponsor a team, do anything at all for anyone? True, not doing those things is no reason to think he's a bad guy. I think he's a bad guy based on what MW has said, and those who've said they believe her: people YOU don't recognize as credible, but that's your problem. As hard as I've tried, I can't find a single thing that Fleet White has done to benefit mankind, have you? How has he earned the undying respect and devotion of so many posters and done NOTHING but write long windy self-serving letters? Should MW write long windy self-serving letters if she wants to earn your undying respect and devotion? Talk about bias, this is past ridiculous. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Mary, Morgan" Posted by v_p on 18:34:06 7/19/2000 Morgan:>>If you're looking for a post that trashes MW, look at your own.<<< Which one? >Show me where you found sufficient facts >to hold Fleet White in high >esteem. Show me where he uses >his million$ to benefit anyone but >his own family.Please show me his >glowing record, which I must have >missed along the way, of his >charitable contributions, political donations, foundations or >anything at all that qualifies as >a tax write-off! Good Lord, this sounds just like my rich Uncle, should I check into his extracurricular activities??? >Please tell me the story of his >good deeds and volunteerism. Does he >coach a team, sponsor a team, >do anything at all for anyone? I think I'd suspect him more if he coached a team of children. Lots of pedophiles do. >True, not doing those things is no >reason to think he's a bad >guy. I think he's a bad >guy based on what MW has >said, and those who've said they >believe her: people YOU don't recognize >as credible, but that's your problem. What has MW said about Fleet White? Is he one of her abusers? Did she actually say that...as a witness? >As hard as I've tried, I can't >find a single thing that Fleet >White has done to benefit mankind, >have you? He tried to benefit JonBenet when he begged for a special prosecutor in this case. >How has he earned the undying respect >and devotion of so many posters >and done NOTHING but write long >windy self-serving letters? He does not have my undying respect, I don't believe I've ever said that. I don't know the man, personally. I just don't have the evidence to bring an instrument to your "Fleet White is a pedophile" bandwagon. >Should MW write long windy self-serving letters >if she wants to earn your >undying respect and devotion? Like I said before, I have no feelings for MW one way or the other. I do, however wish her luck in her investigation and justice for whatever abuses she's endured. For me, this isn't about her. The reason I'm here is to find justice for JBR. I don't see how her story relates to the murder of that beautiful child. >Talk about bias, this is past ridiculous. As Patsy Ramsey would say, "absolutely!" V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Rascal" Posted by Morgan on 17:29:34 7/19/2000 So, you're saying that the Ramsey investigators had info about MW before she contacted Lee Hill? Who gave them that information? Logically, I must assume it was the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Morgan stop chasing your tail" Posted by Rascal on 23:33:03 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:33:03, 7/19/2000 The Ramsey investigation knew absolutely nothing about MW. The information they had was and is of another Los Oso female who lived in Boulder off and on up to 5-98. The Ramsey team went first over to the former California Whites. The White's came up with MW. The team logically says lets check this Los Oso one connected to the Whites out first. MW's old fears coupled with the Rex Allen Krebs arrest in SLO were bad timing. MW was frightened and reacted in fear to the White's approach. The rest is recorded. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Rascal" Posted by ericasf on 07:45:08 7/20/2000 How is it that you have been privy to this information? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Rascal, Rascal, RASCAL!" Posted by darby on 17:51:36 7/19/2000 You said: "The Whites thought Gwen Boykin then to MW and Grandma in Los Oso, Ca." Am I missing something, or is this sentence missing something--like the rest of it? No flame, just trying to figure out what you are trying to say. You also said: "Lou Smit did talk finally to MW after everyone else, but if she would have gone with Whites, he would have been one of the first to talk with MW." Are you saying that LS waited to talk to MW because she hadn't "gone with the Whites"? And if she had "gone with the Whites," he would have talked with her right away? What do you mean by this? Are you saying that if MW had decided to side with the Whites, perhaps by agreeing not to spill the beans, then LS would have gotten to her right away, perhaps for the sake of the Ramseys? And then: " MW please consider Posted by Rascal on 17:31:33 7/19/2000 The greater importance and possible opportunity of making a big difference. Your story MW is everything. Everything about JBR may hing on your story about the images and descriptions of abuse. The images and descriptions are the greatest things stolen from your story. These are the things that are used in the JBR murder scene. And these are the images and processes to make it look like your story MW. Creative intelligence is the issue here in what was stolen. Your story MW made to look alike in JBR's death scene. You lived it another used it! Please consider what I ask for in past names. Thank you." RASCAL! Are you saying that you think that the JBR murder was STAGED to look like what happened to MW? Are you saying that the person who killed JBR staged the murder scene to look like JBR was a child victim much like MW had been? Are you saying that whoever did this staging had knowledge of MW's experiences and then used them to make the murder look like something other than it was? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "darby, no cover-up" Posted by Rascal on 20:00:15 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:00:15, 7/19/2000 The issues MW has with the White's are between MW and the Whites period. I'm here to say exactly I see JBR's death as having MW's abuse elements in the crime process. The difference is that the thief of process is back in Los Oso, Ca. The thief did live in Boulder County. MW was not the focus of Los Oso investigation, but she is a side element connected to the Whites in Los Oso. darby, you're last paragraph is right in regards to my first hand knowledge and opinions. The issue of sides is a ridiculous position if one wants the truth. The Whites undoubtly IMO did not fully comprehend MW's fears when they contacted her. The Ramsey investigation team was waiting to talk with MW. Lou Smit was waiting for the Whites to bring her in to talk. MW bolted and it didn't happen till later. MW did when she settled down talk with Lou Smit. MW is having difficulties knowing whom to trust is all. The focus of importance now is who she told her story too in Los Oso, Ca. The ending is not yet written darby. The name of the other Los Oso female would be helpful to come from MW herself. A person MW may have talked to in the past years. The connection is or it is not their's in Los Oso (the female bear). darby, yes on your last paragraph. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Thanks Morgan" Posted by starry on 17:50:54 7/19/2000 For clearing that up. I thought I was either reading too much into Rascal's post or being my usual dense self. Hey! BTW, where's my e-mail on that alternative healing site? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL starry ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "I don't know about you'all" Posted by starry on 17:54:36 7/19/2000 But I just love it when people speak in cryptic posts.... makes sorting the "muck" so much more fun. sheesh. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "the $75,000 payoff?" Posted by mary99 on 19:18:07 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:18:07, 7/19/2000 Could her rejection of the money offered to her to keep her mouth shut have meant she didn't go with the Whites, and therefore talked to Smit AFTER she went to Lee Hill, i.e. to expose the truth rather than cover it up? Did you mean that if she spoke to Smit early, if she had gone with the Whites, it would have been to refute the 'Los Osos woman' story after taking the hush money? Thanks for adding this to the discussion, Rascal. I hope you stick around long enough to enlighten us. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "mary99" Posted by ericasf on 07:52:28 7/20/2000 Where did $75,000 come into play? I'm so confused! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Payoff was offered" Posted by mary99 on 10:48:13 7/20/2000 MW has reported in her recorded interviews that she was offered money ($75,000) to keep quiet. This was in the first interview with Mame, I think. She refused the money, however, so she would not be double-crossing those who had offered it when she then went to Lee Hill. What Rascal says makes sense to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Mary99" Posted by Denver on 18:09:10 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:09:10, 7/19/2000 Let me preface my post by stating that I believe MW was horribly abused in childhood, and that abuse is ongoing right up to present. Additionally, I believe she knows the White family through her family. I also believe her when she states that the White family members abused her. I have no reason to believe she is lying. That being said, I have a question. You state: "She has been trashed by so-called truthseekers who can't or won't accept her story, because they 'lack sufficient facts' to process it. It's not a shortage of information, because the dots are there for anyone to connect." What dots are there, and just what image do the dots create once you have connected them? There are some on this forum that have more information (dots) than others, and I think that is causing some of the friction on the forum when you make statements like the ones I quoted. I personally have seen a lot of the dots, but they do not connect for me, at this time, to show any proof that the White family was responsible for the murder of JRB. The dots I have seen do not prove the Whites are involved in any kind of porno ring. They may be involved in both of the above, but connecting the dots as you suggest is not showing that to me at this time. Did JBR suffer the same kind of abuse as MW? Possibly. Do the dots connect to indicate that irrefutably? Not for me, but I don't have all the dots, and I respectfully suggest that no one on this forum has all the dots. I trust that the FBI will investigate MW's claims thoroughly. I believe the FBI is the only entity capable of investigating MW's claims, since the alleged crimes spanned years and state lines. I do not expect that the FBI will be giving us daily updates on the progress of that investigation. I also respect MW's privacy, and fear for her safety. The dots I have seen indicate to me that she has been around some very dark characters in her lifetime. If the Whites have associated with the same people as MW alludes to, it tells me a lot about the character of the Whites. In summary, I guess I am only asking that you consider the fact that you are pulling people's chains when you state that the dots are there...just connect them. I also have to agree with Short timer...enough picking the bones of this poor lady. We as a forum are not going to prove or disprove her claims. We as humans can have compassion for her. We as humans can have compassion for the Whites by allowing them their day in court if the claims made are substantiated. (Edited to separate the last two par.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Dots and Beckner" Posted by Holly on 04:57:29 7/20/2000 MW has provided plenty of possibilities for investigators to probe. I'm not aware she is doing anything other than offering potential leads based on her own experiences. Her dots do include the Whites. Whether any crimes can ever be charged or proved remains to be seen. I think mame has stayed pretty neutral and refrained from declaring any of these statements as fact. She only advocates a complete investigation. She frustrates even ME, because I want to know every single detail. I want to call MW and talk to her for hours - but that won't happen. So far as Fleet bashing, I'm not alone. In ST's book, Beckner suggests several times that Fleet should be thrown in jail. He says he is obstructing. He suggests the DA's office send someone "to get the Whites' head on straight". He is quoted as describing White as "morally empty" and finally wonders if Fleet White is the murderer of JonBenet. And all this BEFORE MW came to town. Now if this is what the Chief of Police has to say about the "star" witness, there is a big problem. All of the FW huggers need to ask why Beckner is so intense about White. It's not just some of us. White doesn't add up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Denver" Posted by mary99 on 18:43:24 7/19/2000 I appreciate your civilized response to my post. What I call the 'dots' which may be connected are: 1. Crimes committed against MW at the Christmas holiday, and more specifically on a girl's sixth Christmas-the age JBR was that Christmas-all documented BEFORE JBR was murdered and possibly before she was born 2. Suspicious and unaccountable behavior on the part of BOTH JR and FW on Dec. 26th-both were in the Ramsey home while Arndt called in vain for backup. 3. Guests from CA who are reportedly the same ones who abused MW as a child were said to be at the Whites party, and thus with JBR shortly before her death-to this day a full guest list has not been released 4. Crime scene contamination by BOTH JR and FW, the glass, the suitcase, and the tape in particular were touched by Fleet White the 26th, or so he says 5. A theory of sexual asphyxiation as proposed by Wecht and ignored by the BPD, which is consistent with the practices of the group which abused MW and was documented before JBR was even born 6. A diagnosis of ongoing sexual abuse by many (but not all experts) which included an almost non-existent hymen, recent tissue inflammation preceding the murder by 48 hours or so, and a bloody sex assault the night of JBR's death, leaving no doubt (in my mind, anyway) she WAS abused 7. A teddy bear which PR denied ever seeing before was also a common 'gift' to the girl from her abuser, according to MW 8. The heart on JBR's hand, which PR denies drawing, was also used as a symbolic 'reminder' by the group that abused MW Whether JBR was killed by the same abusers as those who abused MW, by a Ramsey parent who mimicked the abusers method and therefore had inside knowledge, or whether she was killed by a combination of the two, i.e. JR and FW together is what I won't pretend to be able to determine from what we know. But I agree with you that the entire episode has been a tragedy for MW and seeing the forum jump all over her for 'proof' when she has already given us a great deal of information to work with is truly making a mockery of her and anyone who might be contemplating coming forward with a similar story. There WERE other children abused with MW, but after the reception she has had here, is it any wonder we haven't heard from them? That is why I say there is a lack of compassion here at 'Justice' Watch for abuse survivors on the part of a small but extremely vicious minority. If this forum could draw one of MW's contemporaries out of the woodwork to give supporting evidence to her story, any hope of that has been lost with the actions of those who have engaged in an all-out war against her. Yet those same posters defend an invisible man about whom we know nothing except that he writes long letters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Thank you" Posted by momo on 18:17:17 7/19/2000 Denver and Short Timer. What eloquent posts! I wish I were as good as you at saying what I think. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Starry" Posted by Morgan on 18:25:30 7/19/2000 I will email you soon. I've had a traumatic situation to deal with here involving rabies! Posting here has just been therapeutic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Morgan" Posted by ericasf on 07:53:24 7/20/2000 Hope you are ok! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Darby" Posted by v_p on 18:48:49 7/19/2000 I haven't posted a single time that I think she's lying. This is my point. In the past three days, I've not read a single post accusing her of lying about her abuse. I'm not real sure what she's said, exactly, it's like pulling teeth to get a direct quote around here. I'd like to know how MW's investigation ties directly to the murder of JBR. I would love to hear the theory which connects it. Anyone?? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "V_P" Posted by Abby on 19:58:08 7/19/2000 Mary99 in post #50 tries in vain to enlighten you about how MW possibly ties in with the JBR murder. I just don't understand what it is that you don't get??? She is trying to connect the dots for you. She has done her homework and I applaud her for it. You go Mary!! Abby [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Abby ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Mary99>>" Posted by ayelean on 21:30:01 7/19/2000 I envy your ability to articulate. In you #50 post you wrote: I appreciate your civilized response to my post. What I call the 'dots' which may be connected are: 1. Crimes committed against MW at the Christmas holiday, and more specifically on a girl's sixth Christmas-the age JBR was that Christmas-all documented BEFORE JBR was murdered and possibly before she was born If a parent was determined that her child had to be silenced and she was a planner and a schemer(spelling?), and she knew about the association of Sixth year Chistmas, might this influence her choice of timing? 2. Suspicious and unaccountable behavior on the part of BOTH JR and FW on Dec. 26th-both were in the Ramsey home while Arndt called in vain for backup. Monday morning quarterbacking this appears suspicious, but if they were really baffled about JBR disappearance at that time, would their behavior look suspicious? Remember, not long before this happened Daphne was missing and they found her hiding. Never have figured that one out. Do we know this as fact. Are we talking only of FW Sr.? If Sr. is who we are referencing, even if he is MW's abuser he is also Jr.'s father and has every reason to be at his son's for Christmas or anytime. Lots of questions here. 4. Crime scene contamination by BOTH JR and FW, the glass, the suitcase, and the tape in particular were touched by Fleet White the 26th, or so he says Again, if they really believed JBR was missing what they did was understandable, it is only after we know that she was murdered does it become troubling. 5. A theory of sexual asphyxiation as proposed by Wecht and ignored by the BPD, which is consistent with the practices of the group which abused MW and was documented before JBR was even born Who else knew about this method, the murderer/stager? 6. A diagnosis of ongoing sexual abuse by many (but not all experts) which included an almost non-existent hymen, recent tissue inflammation preceding the murder by 48 hours or so, and a bloody sex assault the night of JBR's death, leaving no doubt (in my mind, anyway) she WAS abused Was ongoing sexual abuse from a generational incestual relationship present and the murderer knew about it and in her sick mind felt that the only way to keep it from being divulged was to silence the victim? Was the bloody sex assult that night to try to cover evidence of older abuse? 7. A teddy bear which PR denied ever seeing before was also a common 'gift' to the girl from her abuser, according to MW Did the murderer know about this common 'gift'? Just because PR denies it dosen't make it true. We've only witnessed lie after lie from PR and JR since the time of the murder. 8. The heart on JBR's hand, which PR denies drawing, was also used as a symbolic 'reminder' by the group that abused MW We have also heard that PR did use that symbol on JBR's palm to calm her fears when they were separated. With PR's record, which one is the lie? Whether JBR was killed by the same abusers as those who abused MW, by a Ramsey parent who mimicked the abusers method and therefore had inside knowledge, or whether she was killed by a combination of the two, i.e. JR and FW together is what I won't pretend to be able to determine from what we know. Finally, it is very possible that someone with and eye for detail, fashioned this crime to fit the appearance of ritualistic sexual abuse. Especially someone highly motivated to preserve their own perfect life at the expense of another life, who could justify their actions by safely delivering the victim to God, so she never would have to suffer CA or any other unpleasantness again. But I agree with you that the entire episode has been a tragedy for MW and seeing the forum jump all over her for 'proof' when she has already given us a great deal of information to work with is truly making a mockery of her and anyone who might be contemplating coming forward with a similar story. Only a few here have posted that they disbelieve MW. I believe her story and I feel that if the murder has been staged to look like her abuse, then she has suffered twofold, because she felt the need to expose herself for JBR's sake. There WERE other children abused with MW, but after the reception she has had here, is it any wonder we haven't heard from them? That is why I say there is a lack of compassion here at 'Justice' Watch for abuse survivors on the part of a small but extremely vicious minority. If this forum could draw one of MW's contemporaries out of the woodwork to give supporting evidence to her story, any hope of that has been lost with the actions of those who have engaged in an all-out war against her. Yet those same posters defend an invisible man about whom we know nothing except that he writes long letters. I would hope that other abused victims would appreciate all the support that has been expressed on this forum. As far as defending the long letter writer, if we know what you know, maybe we would all be on the same page you are. Discussion about this is healthy, and I agree to abide with those who disagree with me. I am going to post this without editing, I am tired! Please excuse typos! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. ">>ayelean" Posted by mary99 on 21:38:55 7/19/2000 Yes, it's possible that PR did this and staged it to LOOK like the ritual sex abusers, who just happened to be in town, did it. But on a more technical note, we have it from Wecht that she was slooowly strangled, which is consistent with the hemmorhaging in her face, and that's somewhat INconsistent with PR doing it as staging, and more consistent with the actions of true sexual abusers who practiced, somewhat inefficiently, the type of strangulation MW was subjected to. Macky Boykin was dead, and the group was experimenting with novices. She was not supposed to die. If PR wanted hr to die, the strangulation would have been swifter given the natural distaste on the part of PR for drawing it out. But as you well recall, it was my theory for a long time that she was killed as a ritual/sacrifice by PR and PR alone. Times change, new evidence has changed my mind. But I respect your opinion and still consider your theory a viable scenario. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Boykin" Posted by v_p on 20:53:01 7/19/2000 Was he part of this sex ring? Documented where mary? Is this something you've seen, personally? There must be a theory. Where did the sexual molestation involving Fleet White take place that night? At the party? I'll ask again, was she driven home, laying next to Burke, with the Garrotte still dangling from her neck? MW says there were people attending the White's party who had molested her. Names? Again, does she name Fleet White as one of her molesters? I don't understand why you are getting so cranky with me because I don't agree with you about this. If you want to argue with me about something I can see, feel and touch, that's one thing. There are no books or videos to watch on this one. I'm going on the information I have actually read and seen; none of which refers to MW. Did I miss her connection in PMPT? ST's book? Wecht's book? I didn't read Singular's book, is it there? I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or anyone else. I simply hate to see Fleet White slandered without proof, just as you hate to see, or perceive, MW's story being disbelieved. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "v_p" Posted by darby on 22:24:47 7/19/2000 I never said you said MW is a liar. All I'm saying is that a few posters have revealed, in one way or another, that this is apparently what they think. You ask for a direct connection between MW and JBR. Here are some thoughts of mine. It's true that kids are killed by their parents all the time. But how often does it happen that the ostensibly pampered pageant daughter of a multi-millionaire CEO and his socialite beauty queen wife ends up getting murdered by her parents? Not too often. How often is it that parents like these use strangulation by ligature as the method of murder. Never! Never, except for this ONE TIME. Add to that the fact that this child had been sexually assaulted and found with a shattered skull. Throw in a three-page ransom note that all but screams authorship by Miss West "Mommy Dearest" Virginia, and we truly have one of the most curious documented murder cases in history. Just the fact that a six-year-old child was murdered is pretty extreme in and of itself. But when you consider all the circumstances surrounding this murder, I think we can say with some degree of confidence that the Ramseys probably have never been your ordinary run-of-the-mill well-to-do American family. Appearances notwithstanding, something MAJOR must be wrong with the Ramseys to have been able to do what they have done. This is one truly bizarre crime that, going on four years, hasn't been solved. And in a way, it's no wonder. Look at the forums. We have all brainstormed 'til the cows come home, and there just doesn't seem to be any completely satisfactory theory that works all the way around. Every single theory has a "yeah but..." attached. Nothing seems to fit. But the fact is, this child is dead and something really did happen. All I can say is that way, way back, nearly all of us on the forums dismissed as too far fetched even the idea that ritual child sexual abuse could have been part of this crime in any way, shape or form. But now a woman has emerged saying that, as a child, she was the victim of a family sex ring, and that her family has very close ties with the family of the man who entertained the Ramseys on the murder night. Now, I'm not so sure that it was wise to close our minds to the thought that JonBenet's murder and/or staging of her murder could have had something to do with ritual sexual abuse of a child. This woman's experiences and social proximity to the Ramseys is just too close for me to think that there definitely could not be a connection. I'm not saying with certainty that there is a direct connection. I simply don't know the answer. What I am saying is that there is enough there for me to think that there might be a connection. And my hope that someone is investigating to find out if such is the case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "What we COULD be doing" Posted by mary99 on 21:29:57 7/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:29:57, 7/19/2000 Instead of arguing about whether MW is believable or not is a waste of time. We should be trying to figure out how this worked...where it happened...who was involved--and using the leads MW has bestowed on us to develop some alternate scenarios. Nobody claims to have all the answers, but this is a huge lead which is currently remaining stalled because of those who are too timid to venture into hallowed territory. Since when were ANY of those who were at the Ramseys Dec. 26th or even remotely connected to them too sacred to suspect? Only Fleet White has escaped the wrath of the forums, and all because of his clever trick of writing self-serving letters calling for an independent prosecutor. And that's because, IMO, he had a vested interest in seeing the Ramseys go directly to jail for a crime he knew would embarass if not implicate him. Plus, we don't know if he had an 'independent' prosecutor all lined up to do his bidding. And no-one will even stop to think about that possibility. What if that's WAS the case? Wouldn't that go a long way to explain the reluctance of Hunter to sign off on the Ramseys, if he suspected there was more to it than bedwetting? Don't the long, numerous letters by White take on a different meaning when viewed through the perspective of false indignation masquerading as righteous anger? Until this plausible scheme is fully hashed out by all of JW as a forum, we haven't done our homework, as any conclusion we reach about who, how, when, why JBR was killed are worthless if all the possibilities have not been explored. To give White a pass by virtue of writing letters is to be duped by the oldest trick in the book: the con game. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "short timer" Posted by mame on 22:15:46 7/19/2000 bravo! you are one of the finest writers i've ever read concerning this case. i applaud your passion and words! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "And I, for sure" Posted by Real Stormy on 21:43:36 7/19/2000 Will stay away from con games--no matter where and who. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Very good" Posted by momo on 21:42:01 7/19/2000 posts Mary. I have always thought you knew how to put out an insightful and thoughtful post. And you always do. I wonder what some posters would think if we all found out that FW WAS one of MW's abusers. Would they believe it then? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "dustii, Mary99" Posted by darby on 22:42:48 7/19/2000 dustii, what a horrendous experience that never was properly dealt with. I wish all of this could change in our society. It's inexcusable. Mary99--I agree that you have some of the best posts on the forum. We are fortunate to have you with us! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Darby" Posted by mary99 on 01:05:56 7/20/2000 That was a heck of a post you just put up too. Do you happen to recall another post you made quite a while ago about the ritual abuse scenario? You explained very clearly all the factors which indicate ritual abuse and how it could have happened. If it's in the archives, would you mind if it was re-posted as a topic? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Mame" Posted by rico on 23:36:13 7/19/2000 please don't take this wrong but I just looked at the title of your thread and Elmer Fudd popped to mind! You Wascally Wabbit!! Oh well, guess you had to be there. rico [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Mame" Posted by Bobby on 04:57:48 7/20/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:57:48, 7/20/2000 Wow haven't been around but just scanned the threads here and cyberslueths. Since I have somewhat removed myself from the fray about MW, it seems clearer-the old forest and trees thingy. There are those that are very emotionally tied up with this FW/MW thing for very personal reasons. They are present on both sides and really spool up when MW is mentioned. My only thoughts are that if there is anything there to check out the FBI is on it in an ongoing way. No one needs to be second guessing it unless they are trying to flush out info for their own ends. The FBI would love to clear its name since they can't produce a fair polygrapher, ya know? IMHO Mame take the rest of the summer to hang with your kids. If something presents itself in Boulder with MW, you'll hear of it anyway. Thanks for all your time and journalist work. You've certainly kept your integrity intact IMHO. edited because I needed more coffee. Hope it's right this time;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "MW" Posted by Dianne E. on 07:51:14 7/20/2000 agreed Bobby, the mention of MW's name gets the crowd here in a frenzy, friends turn into enemies and blanket statements about "those" that seem to not agree with her supporters as lacking in sympathy for MW. If the best example of a poster who attacked with no sympathy toward MW was BobC, then I rest my case. What I see on this thread is those of us who have been unable to connect the dots between what MW is claiming and any connection to the brutal murder of JonBenet asking questions and searching for any more new "dots". It appears to me that before this issue can be discussed further, we need more of those dots to help us to connect. It seems to me that there are no more dots since the last rather lengthy discussions about MW. MW has brought up some very interesting information for discussion about ritual abuse issues that I see surrounding this case. The FW "connection", if true is an interesting coincidence also. IF FW's father is also the father of MW, that is also interesting, but where are the "dots" to directly connect the FW family and MW to the brutal murder of JonBenet? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Dianne E., thanks, " Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:17:50 7/20/2000 ...for a good, balanced post. BobC had a good inside source in the BPD. I'm sorry he was chased off here by a few angry females. Sign me... DOTLESS in PENNSYLVANIA [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "in response to rico" Posted by mame on 07:18:45 7/20/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:18:45, 7/20/2000 i never saw your #10 post. how little you know of mr. smit. you are absolutely wrong on this rico! it's second hand info. any reporter covering this case knows how mr. smit handles himself. he does NOT give interviews. when he does talk, he NEVER EVER gives details of his work or his investigations. when i speak with mr. smit, we spend more time talking about the white sox and the cubs than the ramsey case! mr. smit is not a "chatter" about important issues in this case! so you might go back and talk to your second hand sources....someone who knows someone who said something! i work this beat, i know my sources directly. oh, i agree on the elmer fudd comment... LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "mame" Posted by rico on 12:28:10 7/20/2000 The argument is moot. I stand by my source and time will tell on the MW story. Thanks for your comments. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Interesting post, Rascal, and it explains" Posted by Cassandra on 08:02:56 7/20/2000 the staging details that were so puzzling. From the start, the professionals said staging. Some said accident and staging. I hope that all the loose ends get tied up and we know someday what really happened that night, and who the link was to other little girls who were abused. You make some very interesting posts, Rascal. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "denver" Posted by mame on 07:50:40 7/20/2000 i must say you have again shown your fine critical thinking skills! i applaud your fair mind and logical thinking. it's posters like you that make this forum what it is. it's been a long, almost four years on this case. i amazed at the committment to justice found on this forum, and others. i sincerely wish someone could wave a magic wand and give us the answers we seek to find truth. reality tells us that's not going to happen. however, through intelligent debate and discussion, we may just find our own wands. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Rascal, you Wascal you>>" Posted by ayelean on 09:19:16 7/20/2000 Darby wrote to you: RASCAL! Are you saying that you think that the JBR murder was STAGED to look like what happened to MW? Are you saying that the person who killed JBR staged the murder scene to look like JBR was a child victim much like MW had been? Are you saying that whoever did this staging had knowledge of MW's experiences and then used them to make the murder look like something other than it was? And you answered in the AFFIRMATIVE. I sure would like to know what you know. This makes all the craziness fit. I have been looking for this proof. I only hope the investigators are looking for it too. Do you think they are? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL ayelean ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Ayelean" Posted by Rascal on 19:30:43 7/20/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:30:43, 7/20/2000 The Ramsey investigators were in California pre- and during MW's surfacing. They were in Los Oso, Ca. They were IMO functioning with the Whites contact to MW. They found a close info connection to the Whites in Los Oso. MW. They went after her. The Ramsey investigators were also in Los Angeles County. They paid a Feb. 2000 harrassing visit to my rural residence. It was for a week they performed Psychological warfare per se toward me. The acts were intimidating and stressful. I would take a lie detecter anytime they want one. I met in 1997 a Los Oso woman who I became friendly with in 97. I became suspicious of her over the first six-months of seeing and talking to her. Somethings did not add up or she would not clarify. The date of Boulder departure is the main one and other points. I recieved Feb 2000 a white sailors hat left outside my bedroom window, a childs toy GI Joe plastic mind sweeper left behind my car, I was followed 9 miles with no hiding by SUV with Colorado license Plate with two occupants, and the biggest was the black super long limo at 5:52 am. that passed extremely slowly back and forth in front of the property. The two whitewall tires left were symbols of a'target'. IMO The Ramsey's do have a investigation team and they are spending some serious money. I came to their attention by me sending a letter to the Presbyterian minister in Boulder, Colo. The letter contained information of another Los Oso woman, not MW. The woman has relatives in Boulder County and she lived there off and on and did attend high school one year in Boulder County. She was living in Boulder itself and left "at Christmas 1996". She returned to Boulder in Oct/nov 1997 and left again no later then 5-98. She has remained in Los Oso/Arroyo Grande/SLO ever since. She is today 23 years old. I see the harrasment being the result of their male/pedophile suspect theory. I'm a white male in my late 40's with a two year college education. I think I must have fit their profile. I also fit the expectation of trying to get into the case work by perp. The big question is why all the reaction to MW and none to someone who has lived in Boulder as the other Los Oso woman has off and on? Interesting is it not. I will say for the first time that I contacted the BPD in Oct. 1997 about my suspicious Los Oso woman. I recieved a signed green certified mail receipt and I was never contacted by BPD. When the Ramsey team got the letter from the minister, well things did begin to happen. MW surfaced from this same pressure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "ayelean and others" Posted by hareen on 10:10:00 7/20/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:10:00, 7/20/2000 I don't believe Rascal is implying that the Ramsey's are the ones who staged the crime. Anybody who wants to try to decipher his meaning should spend some time reading dis-man's (Rascal's) posts at Jams' forum. The big question I have, Rascal, is what is your real agenda? And who are you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Hareen" Posted by Rascal on 20:14:42 7/20/2000 I have no agenda. I came into this in 1997 by meeting a young woman at Montana De Oro State Park in Los Oso, Ca. She was driving a older white compact car with sun roof. The car had Colo. plates and she said she was from Boulder. The car was littered with her's and a young child's clothes. I brought up the Ramsey thing 6-96 in the news and she fell silent. Not a word. Never. When I asked her for the exact date & time of her departure from Boulder Christmas 1996, she fell silent, immediately withdrew and ended the phone conversations later in 1997. Back in 6-96 initial meeting she spoke of her father dying of a head trauma by a friend with a pick-nick table bench as a young child. The description by her led me to think of her as witness to her father's death. I do not know for sure. She spoke of having a "rich boy friend who she blew it with." they were to be married according to her. She later in 1997 spoke of telephone conversation with her aunt at a Boulder County construction firm INC. She spoke about talking with her aunt and then there with a carpenter wearing a police bracelet. She said: "she saw this as a sign that the trouble in Boulder had blown over." She then left Calif. and returned to Boulder. She invited me to visit and gave me her relative's address and aunt's work phone number, a construction company. She reurned to Calif. no latter than 5-15-98 because she called me then. Coincidences? I did not creat MW's abuse story, or that it is a coincidence of her White connection and Los Oso, Ca residence. I did not creat the other Los Oso woman. The Los Oso woman spoke of working for a pet care service, gift company, and she changed jobs often. She spoke of partying at the University and clubs. She wears many earrings,silver rings, toungne ball, a red flower tatoo on lower back, and a bird with decorations on calf to knee. she is a white female with whitish/blond hair. And spoke of topless dancing as if in Boulder. I'm working on her time-line of living in Boulder and SLO. She attended high school in Boulder County in 1992-93. She lived all or part of 1996. She returned Oct. 1997 and left no later than 5-15-98. She has a aunt and Grandparents in Boulder County. their are some Lenhardt's in her school yearbook, the Mike Lenhardt and Tina Hoffman of the maid LHP. No confirmation on any connection as of yet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Rascal, you might be..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:47:20 7/20/2000 ..a wee bit more credible if you would stop referring to Los OSOS as Los Oso. Nice try at muddying the waters, though! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Lurker, singular or plural" Posted by Rascal on 23:25:10 7/20/2000 You're right, the use is plural as a town name. Los Osos =The female bears. Los Oso= The female bear. They have some large wood carved female bears in the town. Everything is about 'bears' in Los Osos, Calif. Los Osos is about bears and stories of pretty little beauty queens all dressed for the show. And the town gave us a couple mystery women. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Rascal" Posted by mary99 on 00:11:57 7/21/2000 Can you tell us if the young lady from Los Osos is related to MW by a pattern of abuse, or is she related through the family itself? Now that you have explained the aftermath of your relationship with Callie2, as she has been called, I understand your situation better. Last, if she is neither a relative of MW nor an abuse survivor, can you tell me if she is related to the White family? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Mary99" Posted by Rascal on 10:23:30 7/21/2000 Kali2 has not been confirmed to be related or to have association with any Whites, MW, Steve Thomas, or the Ramseys. The areas of possibilities: JAR and his friends at the University. A Los Osos association with MW as far back as 1988. MW may unknowingly have provided the images and processes that have likeness to JBR's death scene. Copy"Cat". The big question is also MW including the Whites name in her oral presentations to ears in Los Osos. A Boulder County asociation as far back as 1992 with the maids LHP family members and son-in-law Mike Lenhardt family. A possible association with the "KSR" Boulder County street gang in the 90's. A association with Steve Thomas at a Boulder County Inc. construction firm. A remote connection to the Whites through a 'Cox' as a possible owner of a construction firm. A connection to JBR through family pets. Knowledge of the Ramsey house and blueprint of house plans from construction firm. A association with Mr. Ramsey's disgruntled employee. A unknown 'Ryan White' with a female friend from Los Osos and he seemly has investments in Los Osos is being explored. She is a Brad Pitt super fan. See movie "SEVEN." Her Boulder County High School picture shows two necklaces, one that is cord and tyed with knots and the other with a solid colored 'heart' on it. I want to re-emphasis June 1997, She said: "I left Boulder "at" Christmas 1996 and surprised my mother for Christmas." I interperted the oral conversation in the 'past' of Christmas day when we spoke of her visit to her mother in Los Osos, Ca. The exact time and date has not been confirmed. Kali2 has avoided confirming the date and time to me. My quess is, She did not arrive at Los Osos until 12-27-96. Her relatives in Boulder area and Los Osos 'could' confirm the times and dates. I have moved toward them to speak with the authorities on the times and dates & her associations. Kali2 is a person who functions from 'signs' to future decisions and activity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "mary99, DianneE & Denver" Posted by fly on 14:00:44 7/20/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:00:44, 7/20/2000 DianneE & Denver - Nicely put. mary99 - I'm all for evaluating how (whether) a MW scenario could have happened. In fact, having done that is one reason I am skeptical that a MW scenario is the answer. For now, I'm going to ignore the idea of somebody copying MWs experiences. If MW's tale of somebody in a Fleet White involved sex ring killing JBR is accurate, either: (1)JBR was killed at the Whites that evening at the Whites' party; OR (2)JBR was killed by one of the Whites or their guests (a White-as-intruder theory); OR (3)JBR was killed by one of the Ramseys who decided to have a "private party" without the usual other sex ring participants Numbers 1 and 3 require the Ramseys to be part of a perverted sex ring with the Whites and the Whites' guests. However, the lack of good evidence that JBR was the victim of long-term abuse strong suggests to me that this is unlikely, or at least that it was extremely recent. In other words, not impossible, but not high in probability. Number 1 requires that JBR be mortally wounded or dead while being hauled around delivering presents. Kind of risky, and contradictory to the reports of those people who got the presents. The idea that perhaps she'd been hit, but not strangled, prior to the drive home is contradicted by the minimal swelling (and perhaps the minimal bleeding) and the very unlikely chance that she'd have remained conscious following such a blow. Finally, it requires that Burke be able to not freak or slip at any point during the immediate events or during any other part of the investigation. Not likely. Number 2 requires that we do, indeed, have an intruder. We'd have to forget about all those posts proclaiming how an intruder was not consistent with the evidence, which IMO were mostly well reasoned. There is little, if anything, that points to an intruder, and what little there is apparently doesn't put any of the known people in the spotlight. Hard to accept. Number 2 also requires that there is a conspiracy to provide the Whites their alibi and to coverup a killing they (the conspirators) did not commit. Pretty big gamble on the part of the non-murdering sex-ring people. Again, not impossible, but awfully unlikely. These are just the most blatant problems. I've not mentioned the ransom note, the overkill, etc. because those are issues that trouble even the basic a non-sex-ring Ramsey did it scenario. I'm also ignoring the likelihood of the huge sex-ring-who-can-keep-perfect-secrets aspect of MW's story, and the red flags concerning the validity of ceertain aspects of her story. What I've outlined starts out accepting that the Whites are sex-ring-pedophiles, as MW apparently has charged. You see, mary99, carefully considering how MW's tale might relate while paying attention to the realities of the case doesn't provide much support for the idea that her story provides any significant contribution to the JBR case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Amen, fly " Posted by straykat2 on 19:34:31 7/20/2000 Fly is right on target as usual. v_p, I agree that no one has trashed MW. Many posters have doubted that MW's abuse is related to JBR's murder, but they haven't doubted her allegations of abuse. I don't understand why that is so hard to "get" and how that can be interpreted as "trashing" her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "fly" Posted by mary99 on 19:02:26 7/20/2000 Your input is appreciated, whether or not you come up with a 'perfect' scenario right off the bat. For instance, IF there was such a group in Boulder that night, they may have been INVITED into the Ramsey home after the Ramseys left the White's. Wasn't there a house which was a White rental property nearby? what if the CA guests were staying there? What if the overflow were invited back to the Ramsey home to be shown around by PR. (Never one to miss an opportunity to hear a few oohs and aahs over her Christmas excess, LOL) What if those guests were tucked into their guest bedrooms and decided to have a little fun when the house was quiet? I'm still convinced the Ramseys were in on the coverup, for no other reason that being totally embarrassed about reporting that a guest would kill their daughter accidentally in such a horrific way, but, none the less, they are still guilty if they knew the truth and said nothing. Also, we constantly hear JR or PR asking the Lord to push the killer to confess. Part of me thinks it's all fakery, and another side of me wonders if they are just waiting for the killer(whom they could identify, but won't, from fear, threats, shame, etc.) to crack and give up or tell someone else, leaving the Ramseys looking innocent. We have it from MW that her own mother told her she was in Boulder and was THERE when JBR was killed. I do think it was a sexual abuse situation, not a bedwetting thing. I do think that if JR was part of the abuse scene, he was unable to stop it when it went too far. I do believe , he, JR, had been molesting JBR and was perhaps willing to let this group teach him some new tricks, without PR's knowledge of course. This is off the top of my head, and please don't take it as a fully developed scenario. It's just to show that there is some middle ground whereby the Ramseys could be both involved and yet not acting alone(as a couple), and also that for there to be no intruder does not exclude the possibility that the Ramseys invited the killer(s) into the home and either knew what happened after the fact, or one of them or even both was in on it all along. I tend to think PR would not have permitted this, but was willing to write the ransom note after the 'accident.' For the sake of their good name and all that. How wrong they were, huh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Thanks, fly!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 18:44:29 7/20/2000 Sometimes we need a logic dog like you to bring us all down to earth. BTW, What's so mysterious about the mystery woman? I know her name, where she was born, where she was raised, and I've read online the disposition of her case against Boykin. And I'm not even a particularly good online researcher. And I didn't have to travel to any particular place to learn this. Or be initiated into an inner circle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Real Stormy, " Posted by doc on 01:58:08 7/21/2000 that was awesome! Thanks for expressing MW's situation and its affect upon this forum. Her bravery is impressive. I believe. The Fat Lady has not sang. Every time I read criticism-especially to Mame, I think: What service have YOU given to this case? I graduated with a degree in journalism. However, I never was a reporter by profession. It did not pay enough. And here these people(Mame, BJ, TopCat) are doing this for free!And Chris is making it all happen. We are paying the 4 of you entirely too much money!Maybe we should cut your salary LOL! I hope our forum members learn to "think out of the box" as we marketers say. Then and only then will we accept whatever verdict convicts Jon Benet's killer(s). JFJB PS Are the tee shirts ready to be purchased? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "mary99" Posted by fly on 08:38:35 7/21/2000 For instance, IF there was such a group in Boulder that night, they may have been INVITED into the Ramsey home after the Ramseys left the White's. Wasn't there a house which was a White rental property nearby? what if the CA guests were staying there? What if the overflow were invited back to the Ramsey home to be shown around by PR... What if those guests were tucked into their guest bedrooms and decided to have a little fun when the house was quiet? I'm still convinced the Ramseys were in on the coverup, for no other reason that being totally embarrassed about reporting that a guest would kill their daughter accidentally in such a horrific way, but, none the less, they are still guilty if they knew the truth and said nothing. (1) I'm not clear as to whether these guests were supposedly in the White's rental house or in the Ramseys' guest bedroom (singular, as far as I know, BTW). If the rental (do you have any reason to believe it was not rented?), we are back to the intruder problem. If the Ramseys' we have to believe that those guests would be audacious enough to party without permission, quiet enough to not wake anybody, and slick enough to leave no signs of themselves. Try again. (2) You can't really think the Ramseys would allow their daughter's killer to escape because they were embarrassed that a visitor would kill her? LOLOLOLOLOLOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Fly" Posted by mary99 on 11:44:20 7/21/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:44:20, 7/21/2000 Certainly if one could believe JB was killed by PR because of ongoing incest, it isn't too great a leap to think that PR would also cover up a ritual abuse killing especially if JB had already been molested for a period of time, as the hymenal erosion indicates. The reasoning that PR would kill over soggy sheets has been advanced by the BPD. In both an incest or bedwetting scenario, shame and embarrassment play a major part in the subconcious motivation to kill one's child. Medical, legal, psychological help were available to the Ramseys by virtue of their wealth. No treatment was off limits financially. So, if incest or bedwetting was the trigger for PR in spite of her ability to seek better remedies than murder, shame and embarressment over the problem played a huge part in her failure to seek help. For a guest to kill and garrotte one's child in a ritual sex abuse scene, on Christmas night, and when the child has been molested already on a continuing basis, leaves no doubt in my mind it would be extremely embarrassing, humiliating, horrible and heinous. (remember PR's quote?) I thought the subject of PR's obsession with what people thought about her, her perfect family, and her perfect husband and daughter had already been explored? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "The ONLY question" Posted by Luvsbeagles on 11:33:27 7/21/2000 people ought to be asking right now is...are these the postings of a mentally ill person, or just someone who has fun putting out total nonsense and watching the reactions to it? (and please...I am not referring to mame or the mw, so dont go nuts) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "mary99" Posted by fly on 12:44:13 7/21/2000 First, the erosion of the hymen mentioned in the autopsy does not suggest JBR was molested over a long period. The erosion is located at the position of the hymenal abrasion (7:00). It IS the abrasion; it is not a description of the condition of the hymen in total. It is an acute injury, not a chronic one. If JBR was molested long-term, that is not the evidence that proves it. Second, I'll suggest that there's a rather dramatic difference in the likelihood of feeling guilt/embarrassment/fear, and thus trying a cover up, when one has mortally wounded one's own child (for whatever reason) than that which occurs when a houseguest is the offender. Third, what you are proposing (houseguest as perp) is purely based on "what if," not on any evidence whatsoever. We can't avoid speculating entirely, of course, but we can try to limit our speculation to at least conform to the known evidence to a reasonable degree. We might as well start talking about space aliens as perps if we are going to abandon the need for some supporting evidence. I agree with you that the publicized BPD scenarios leave quite a bit to be desired. There are holes, without question. But the fact that they are flawed does not affect the reasonableness of theories that are based on total speculation mixed with the tale of a woman who has been shown to have passed along quite a few incorrect bits of information and who has been declared "unrelated" to the case by the folks who, unlike us, have seen the case evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "I stand by the possibility" Posted by mary99 on 13:04:39 7/21/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:04:39, 7/21/2000 If the Ramseys KNOW who killed JonBenet, and for some reason won't come out and accuse that person, and Burke has been excluded, doesn't that leave a family friend or relative of the family friend in the hotseat? Fly, you have always said you base your opinions (or lack thereof) on logic. Forget about MW, and just go by the above statement. If the Ramseys are hiding the truth, it's because the truth is too painful or embarrassing to admit. Ergo, the crime is sexual and implicates Ramsey knowledge and/or coverup. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "Mary99," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:54:51 7/21/2000 boy are you on track. To what do you owe your acumen? Basic, common sense logic, or something else? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "mary99" Posted by fly on 14:30:15 7/21/2000 Here are the real possibilities: (1) One Ramsey killed her, and the other is unaware. (2) One Ramsey killed her, and the other is covering for the other. (3) Both Ramseys were somehow involved in the events of that night. (4) Neither Ramsey was involved, and neither know who killed her. (5) Neither Ramsey was involved, but one or both know who killed her are are covering for him/her. Why you would limit things to #5 is hard to imagine. However, IF that is the situation, then I'd agree that it is somebody close to the family, not a friend of somebody close, not a relative of somebody close. However, we're still in the intruder scenario here, and that has at least as many problems as any of the publicized BPD/DA scenarios. But what would produce embarrassment that would lead them to cover a murderering friend? That's a bigger hole than we find in any of the BPD scenarios, IMO. And exactly WHO would they cover for? There's no good reason to believe that the Ramseys are covering for anybody except themselves. Is it possible? Sure, but I'd put it as less probable than most other scenarios in which the Ramseys are involved. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "fly..." Posted by shadow on 14:41:58 7/21/2000 Agree with everything you said. However, there is another possibility - 6. BR killed JBR and parents are covering not saying I support this, just throwing it out there! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE