Justice Watch Discussion Board "THE CASE AGAINST THE RAMSEYS IS GONE 3" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... THE CASE AGAINST THE RAMSEYS IS GONE 3, Morgan, 21:08:30, 7/21/2000 Why Fleet White has a problem, mary99, 21:47:21, 7/21/2000, (#1) Reason #27, Hoping, 22:27:57, 7/21/2000, (#2) Hoping., Holly, 07:22:20, 7/22/2000, (#9) Late Friday night boredom..., Brightlight, 22:43:36, 7/21/2000, (#3) reason JBR case will never be solved, mary99, 22:50:11, 7/21/2000, (#4) ????????????, Brightlight, 23:55:33, 7/21/2000, (#5) Fleet White , Real Stormy, 06:07:19, 7/22/2000, (#6) Darby, v_p, 06:32:01, 7/22/2000, (#7) MARY99, Holly, 07:16:53, 7/22/2000, (#8) More on FW, mary99, 07:44:59, 7/22/2000, (#10) A Mole Among Us..., LurkerXIV, 10:54:24, 7/22/2000, (#12) coupla things, Edie Pratt, 11:45:59, 7/22/2000, (#14) v_p, darby, 11:16:23, 7/22/2000, (#13) Edie Pratt, hareen, 12:07:56, 7/22/2000, (#15) Thanks Darby, v_p, 12:26:28, 7/22/2000, (#17) oh, to have a roomate, Edie Pratt, 12:33:23, 7/22/2000, (#19) Dear Hareen, Edie Pratt, 12:24:43, 7/22/2000, (#16) Gosh, hareen, 12:31:02, 7/22/2000, (#18) Address the Post, not the Poster!, Ginja, 09:48:05, 7/23/2000, (#20) Back to the Issue (I hope!), Ginja, 10:21:10, 7/23/2000, (#24) Ginja, you are right, and Edie Pratt-- , darby, 10:15:49, 7/23/2000, (#23) Clarification for Ginja, Gemini, 10:15:32, 7/23/2000, (#22) Ginja, v_p, 10:15:01, 7/23/2000, (#21) Presentation vs. Presentation, Ginja, 10:53:35, 7/23/2000, (#28) oh bo-log-na Ginj, Gemini, 11:19:54, 7/23/2000, (#30) Hmmm, v_p, 10:25:11, 7/23/2000, (#25) v_p, darby, 10:37:02, 7/23/2000, (#26) Darby, v_p, 10:43:17, 7/23/2000, (#27) v_p, Holly, 19:51:13, 7/23/2000, (#38) Jeesh, v_p!, Ginja, 11:43:49, 7/23/2000, (#31) v_p, darby, 11:14:52, 7/23/2000, (#29) Wow, ginja!, Seashell, 12:31:50, 7/23/2000, (#32) hmmm, Gemini, 13:12:51, 7/23/2000, (#33) Gemini, v_p, 17:59:04, 7/23/2000, (#34) Next Stop Lurksville!!, shadow, 18:22:19, 7/23/2000, (#35) Welcome to Lurkersville USA shadow, Longhorn, 18:28:57, 7/23/2000, (#36) You See, v_p, Real Stormy, 20:55:53, 7/23/2000, (#42) Yet another lurker, MJenn, 19:46:36, 7/23/2000, (#37) How's your presentation, MJenn?, Ginja, 10:43:19, 7/24/2000, (#62) I'd hardly consider 6 years,, Holly, 06:50:44, 7/24/2000, (#49) LMAOOO MJenn, v_p, 20:02:43, 7/23/2000, (#40) WAIT A MINUTE!, Holly, 19:59:31, 7/23/2000, (#39) MJenn.., Dianne E., 20:32:16, 7/23/2000, (#41) MJenn and Dianne, Real Stormy, 21:03:22, 7/23/2000, (#43) psst. Real Stormy.., Dianne E., 21:36:46, 7/23/2000, (#44) Taking things personally...., canadiana, 23:15:39, 7/23/2000, (#46) Misc., Brightlight, 23:49:02, 7/23/2000, (#47) real stormy, v_p, 05:48:24, 7/24/2000, (#48) VP, Florida, 07:04:18, 7/24/2000, (#50) Does anybody know, Real Stormy, 07:14:14, 7/24/2000, (#51) Fleet White is a raving loony, mary99, 07:44:17, 7/24/2000, (#52) Takes one......, Real Stormy, 08:26:38, 7/24/2000, (#53) Dear Holly,, Edie Pratt, 09:47:21, 7/24/2000, (#55) Hi again, EdieP, Holly, 19:37:08, 7/24/2000, (#91) Children must play..., Ginja, 09:41:35, 7/24/2000, (#54) Bravo, , momo, 09:48:07, 7/24/2000, (#56) BrightLight, Seashell, 10:06:15, 7/24/2000, (#60) Ginja, you said it!, mary99, 09:58:35, 7/24/2000, (#58) And my book will cover, Real Stormy, 09:56:45, 7/24/2000, (#57) Real rude, Real Stormy, mary99, 09:59:52, 7/24/2000, (#59) Yes, Mary99, Real Stormy, 10:09:57, 7/24/2000, (#61) Real Stormy, darby, 11:02:03, 7/24/2000, (#65) Thanks, Ginja..., shadow, 10:51:33, 7/24/2000, (#64) You're very welcome, Shadow, Ginja, 12:36:06, 7/24/2000, (#71) Real Stormy, Ginja, 10:50:05, 7/24/2000, (#63) Well, just this once..., Lacey, 11:20:24, 7/24/2000, (#66) Simply unbelievable, Ginja, 11:56:33, 7/24/2000, (#67) would somebody, ANYBODY, answer, Edie Pratt, 12:09:32, 7/24/2000, (#69) EdieP, Holly, 19:34:39, 7/24/2000, (#90) Gee, darby, 12:07:59, 7/24/2000, (#68) OK, Edie, I'll answer, MJenn, 12:30:10, 7/24/2000, (#70) MJenn, Ginja, 12:43:06, 7/24/2000, (#73) And the beat goes on..., frankg, 12:39:48, 7/24/2000, (#72) waste of time, but...., fly, 13:28:35, 7/24/2000, (#75) Ginja, shadow, 13:18:45, 7/24/2000, (#74) Well, Ginja, Real Stormy, 14:26:29, 7/24/2000, (#77) mjenn, short timer, 14:24:32, 7/24/2000, (#76) fly, darby, 14:37:22, 7/24/2000, (#78) Dear Ginja, v_p, 15:25:43, 7/24/2000, (#80) Short timer, Real Stormy, 14:59:46, 7/24/2000, (#79) hmm, Matt, 17:10:51, 7/24/2000, (#81) LOL, Matt!, Edie Pratt, 17:33:50, 7/24/2000, (#82) Drum keeps poundin', Lacey, 17:56:11, 7/24/2000, (#84) Aghhhhh!, shadow, 17:55:37, 7/24/2000, (#83) Something else to add, Gemini, 18:02:24, 7/24/2000, (#85) Gemini..., shadow, 18:20:50, 7/24/2000, (#86) :-), Gemini, 18:29:48, 7/24/2000, (#87) Down, Girl, Lacey, 18:40:06, 7/24/2000, (#88) This subject, Real Stormy, 19:31:33, 7/24/2000, (#89) Darby, Real Stormy, 20:12:20, 7/24/2000, (#92) FrankG, you may be a paid shill, MJenn, 21:46:32, 7/24/2000, (#94) Ginja..., Brightlight, 21:11:34, 7/24/2000, (#93) Real Stormy, darby, 22:27:14, 7/24/2000, (#95) fly, darby, 23:01:19, 7/24/2000, (#97) There you go again, MJenn, 22:46:29, 7/24/2000, (#96) mjenn, darby, 23:17:57, 7/24/2000, (#99) Mjenn, short timer, 23:03:59, 7/24/2000, (#98) mjenn, darby, 23:27:22, 7/24/2000, (#100) What is the purpose, Lacey, 05:18:35, 7/25/2000, (#101) Lacey, darby, 05:39:00, 7/25/2000, (#103) Darby, Lacey, 06:07:18, 7/25/2000, (#104) lacey, short timer, 05:37:35, 7/25/2000, (#102) Lacey, darby, 06:18:16, 7/25/2000, (#105) Pssst #5 Lacey, short timer, 06:37:01, 7/25/2000, (#107) LOL Darby, Lacey, 06:27:19, 7/25/2000, (#106) Darby, Florida, 06:50:22, 7/25/2000, (#109) That's interesting, Florida., Holly, 04:13:07, 7/26/2000, (#116) #6 , short timer, 06:44:40, 7/25/2000, (#108) Theft of Copy"written" Material, loriann, 21:28:50, 7/25/2000, (#115) darby, MJenn, Florida, fly, 07:55:31, 7/25/2000, (#113) Fla, Lace, darby, 07:49:46, 7/25/2000, (#112) To murder, Watching you, 07:37:25, 7/25/2000, (#111) More fun than a barrel of monkeys!, MJenn, 13:10:13, 7/25/2000, (#114) Can you honestly say............, ericasf, 09:18:03, 7/26/2000, (#117) ................................................................... "THE CASE AGAINST THE RAMSEYS IS GONE 3" Posted by Morgan on 21:08:30 7/21/2000 Please continue, but give the santimonious biddy stuff a rest. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Why Fleet White has a problem" Posted by mary99 on 22:01:21 7/21/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:01:21, 7/21/2000 This is WHY the case against the Ramseys will fail if White is not the hero the BPD wanted him to be. 1. He refused to talk to the investigators if not given the previous interview transcripts beforehand. 2. He wrote frequent letters protesting the delay in having the Ramseys arrested. 3. He has no visibility in the real world or the Internet world (except in ref. to JBR), yet is a millionaire. 4. He threatened a reporter and intimidated others who were targets of his anger. 5. He made dubious phone calls two days before Christmas for urgent delivery of medical supplies, to his mother, who was under the care of a doctor, then -- 6. Went to the airport on pretense of dropping off medical supplies to be flown in and picked up in Aspen by an unknown person. 7. Was accompanied by the CA guests, who came to the Ramsey party without their wife/girlfriend, for this airport 'run', which was so urgent he left the Ramseys party at the drop of a hat. 8. He currently seems to have two names which share the same Social Security number-I could publish the info but why bother, it's true. 9. All personal details of White's life are banished from print publications (most significantly PMPT, ITRI): where he was born, raised, educated, military service, etc. 10. He is the son of the godfather of the mother of MW. 11. His daughter disappeared and was found hiding, after a frantic search, a call to the Ramseys, and a police response, in a cupboard in the White home. She is alleged to have been naked. 12. He touched the broken glass at the crime scene, moved the suitcase, touched the duct tape, and generally contaminated the evidence as much as JR himself. 13. Looked into the windowless room where JonBenet was found, but claims not to have seen her. If he had anything to do with JBR's death, he would not want to be the one to discover the body. And it did smell bad. 14. Had a violent argument in Atlanta with JR, some say it involved a gun, other reports say it involved using his hands around a persons neck, but in any event, police were called, reports disappeared, and it was denied completely by JR and FW later on. 15. Still 'friends' according to JR's deposition, yet they do not speak. 16. Dressed as Santa Claus for JonBenet that fatal Christmas, at the White Christmas party, according to DOI and press release from TNP. 17. In Atlanta, Priscilla White was heard to say, "We know things you don't know", a cryptic statement if not incriminating. Why have they not shared what they know if it would help to further justice? If they did share it, why is the crime still unsolved? 18. FW was considered for arrest on charges of obstruction of justice because he stonewalled the investigators. Alex Hunter also had a feeling of danger about White, why is that? 19. A MW relative, Tal Jones, who has close ties to the Whites also, attempted to interfere with the Grand Jury and alluded to a 'connection' in the BPD. Could have been Haney, might have been Thomas. 20. Has been silent on the MW allegations while the Ramseys, who could be exonerated by those allegations, if they're not also involved, have also remained silent. 21. Changed 6-year-old JonBenets underwear, helped her in the bathroom, which should be cause for deep concern about the propriety of such behavior or the free license given by the Ramseys to do so. 22. Wrote numerous long letters to the People of Colorado, Gov. of Colorado, newspapers, and visited the BPD 18 times to ask that he be cleared. 23. *Allegation Alert* Has been named as the son of an abusive sexual exploitationist. 24. *Allegation Alert* Owns an oil company that produces money but exists only on paper. 25. Expected the press to retract a perfectly legal story based on a press release by the BPD concerning an investigation into MW. 26. *Allegation Alert* In spite of Internet threats made by presumed cohorts which allude to defamation lawsuits, has yet to file one against any entity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Reason #27" Posted by Hoping on 22:27:57 7/21/2000 Mary99 will have a complete and utter meltdown if Fleet White is not indicted and charged with child abuse, murder, head of sex-pedo. ring.... Come on and give it a rest, these reasons were posted on the first thread with logical counter points. The only reason to re-post is to beat a dead horse. BTW MORGAN = I AM NOT A TROLL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Hoping." Posted by Holly on 07:24:08 7/22/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:24:08, 7/22/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:23:19, 7/22/2000 Having spent last weekend with mary99, I can tell you she is a passionate woman. However, I'd be mighty surprised if she suffers a "meltdown" if FW eludes prosecution for something. mary99 is SCARY smart. She wants justice for JonBenet and cannot tolerate the manipulation she, I and others feel defines White. However, she wants only the person/people who are truly responsible to be prosecuted. And I am certain, on that point, you, mary99 and I agree. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Late Friday night boredom..." Posted by Brightlight on 22:43:36 7/21/2000 Morgan: > Please continue, but give the santimonious > biddy stuff a rest. Take your own advice and give the following a rest: o Your role as the in-house pit bull. o Going through threads insulting posters. o Your anger; you're beginning to sound almost postal. o Deal with it...as you santimoniously informed another poster earlier today. That phrase reminds me of my sons when they were adolescents. Fortunately they passed through it soon after puberty. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "reason JBR case will never be solved" Posted by mary99 on 22:50:11 7/21/2000 Petty issues cloud judgement of sanctimonious biddies when asked to give up the Fleet White is a hero bull cr@p and get back to the facts as posted 118,000 times. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "????????????" Posted by Brightlight on 23:55:33 7/21/2000 mary99: > 4. "reason JBR case will never be solved" > Petty issues cloud judgement of sanctimonious > biddies when asked to give up the Fleet White > is a hero bull cr@p and get back to the facts > as posted 118,000 times. I have no hero in this case. I also have no earthly idea what is meant by 'get back to the facts AS POSTED 118,000 times.' But then I'm in my usual stone sober state on this Friday night so what do I know? And I have no doubt that you posted whatever it is 118,000 times. All the while the pit bull was covering your six, shooting insults at posters for targets. I'm outta here. [Emphasis added] [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Fleet White " Posted by Real Stormy on 06:07:19 7/22/2000 Has no problem, Mary99. You're the one with the problem. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Darby" Posted by v_p on 06:32:01 7/22/2000 On the other thread, which is taking days now to load, you said it's been known for years FW has an alias. What is the alias? Has anyone asked him about this, like the BPD? What was his explanation? Thanks Darby. BTW, I appreciate your tactfullness. Whoever it was that said, (Gem?), it's all in the presentation hit the nail on the head. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "MARY99" Posted by Holly on 07:16:53 7/22/2000 Excellent summation of the FW "problem". Believe me now or believe me later. Something is hinky with this guy. Still, I go where the best evidence leads and it leads to Patsy. And I think she will someday be charged with murder. Before I ever heard of MW, I had a bad feeling about FW. I know this case needs a hero, but White isn't it. And in the end, I think he will have alot of explaining to do. His aggressiveness has been misunderstood, IMO. We thought it was JfJBR, but I think there was another agenda entirely. There has been plenty of Patsy and John bashing (and deservedly so), and if Fleet has to feel the sting, that's the way it goes. MW has felt the sting, Burke, Santa, LHP and many others. I would not be surprised if someday the truth of the MW account is finally detailed for all of us. I wish I knew more. I think it means the crime may not be exactly what it seems. And some heroes may lose their luster and some demons may finally find some credibility. And that is what the BPD has been trying to say from day one. Nothing is as it seems. This case was never a slam dunk. These are very, very smart, creative and desperate people. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "More on FW" Posted by mary99 on 07:44:59 7/22/2000 Thanks, Holly, for putting the FW 'problem' into a nutshell. Meanwhile, here's a link to an excellent thread on FW. NYLawyer liked it, so it can't be all bad, can it? http://Bermae.tripod.com/fleetpmpt.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "A Mole Among Us..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:54:24 7/22/2000 ...looks like the ramjams have successfully planted a mole on JW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "coupla things" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:45:59 7/22/2000 I read those threads, and it struck me odd how FW went IMMEDIATELY TO THE BASEMENT, upon arriving that morning. Interesting on many levels, but for one, JR DIDN'T CHECK THE BASEMENT, before calling 911, why would FW go there? And, how odd that he would brush past the police to help himself to a look see. JR said he ran around "abit", searched for and found his binoculars, (how long did THAT take?), scoped out the Barnhill's alley, and then told PR to call 911. Never so much as opened the basement door and yelled, "JonBenI?", or even asked Burke. Yet,he went IMMEDIATELY TO THE BASEMENT WITH FW when instructed to search top to bottom for anything out of place. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "v_p" Posted by darby on 11:16:23 7/22/2000 Stephen Mason. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Edie Pratt" Posted by hareen on 12:07:56 7/22/2000 I know it's been said over and over, and I have to sit on my hands after almost all your posts trying not to take up more thread space saying it yet again ... but you are SO FUNNY. >>Never so much as opened the basement door and yelled, "JonBenI?" LOL! I just hope you know how much pleasure you bring to a lot of people. Thank you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Thanks Darby" Posted by v_p on 12:26:28 7/22/2000 Where can I find this information? Edie, I agree, you are too funny. My roommate was watching the 700 club interview and started laughing, when I asked her why, she referred to your Johnism...lol. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "oh, to have a roomate" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:33:23 7/22/2000 you're lucky, V-P, I have a husband. A husband that's fed up to here with Ramseyisms. I used to push the vacuum around when I heard the car pull up, now, it's hurry up and shut the computer off! He does concede, however, that the Ramseys are just plain nutz:-)He's not stupid, just bent over:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Dear Hareen" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:24:43 7/22/2000 :-)thanks, it's especially nice hearing it from you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Gosh" Posted by hareen on 12:31:02 7/22/2000 Thanks! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Address the Post, not the Poster!" Posted by Ginja on 09:48:05 7/23/2000 That's the problem on this forum, for sure, if you ask me (not that anyone did!) :-) Presentation? That's addressing the poster. Believe me, I know. I've been ridiculed for "my" presentation plenty of times. Mary99 is no more going to have a meltdown over FW than I would over Thomas! Presentation? It's not what's presented, but "how" it's presented? That makes absolutely no sense to me, but then again, what do I know? I'm one of those who has lousy presentation skills! Let's just cut the chit and get to the bare bones of the "real" problem. Everyone claims they're here for JfJBR, so shouldn't we be more interested by what's being presented, rather than "how" it's being presented? Do you think Lady Justice gives a hoot about the 'who' rather than the 'what'? Is the presentation what's going to get this case resolved? or what's being presented? I really don't understand any of this malignity toward each other...over what? presentation style???? Rhetorical question but, what's really going on here? Mary99 gives 26 damn good reasons why we should be taking a second look at Fleet White and what's the response? "Come on and give it a rest,..." "You're the one with the problem." "... it's all in the presentation..." 26 points and that's the response! Shame on you!!! I've been through the three threads and haven't seen any counterpoint or rebuttal on any of those 26 points. Why? Why is the discussion on presentation? Cripes. Get over it! Please!! This is what I meant by us being in the same lousy chasm as between the BPD and DA's office. You're all falling into the same pit...you're pitting personality over case. Do you realize these people read these threads daily? Not to mention members of the press and media and god knows who else, including the Rams themselves. Isn't it just wonderful to know that your bickering is being read by them all! Personally, I'm ashamed. If we could all get over this personality clashing and look at the various elements and evidence in this case, like these 26 points, we might come up with something more than name-calling and innuendo. With any luck, those reading in Boulder and elsewhere might get the hint and off their arses and follow-up and follow-thru on ideas that WE came up with. Who knows? WE could be the light at the end of this tunnel. WE could be the perpetrators of JfJBR. WE could complete OUR mission. JfJBR. Peace. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Back to the Issue (I hope!)" Posted by Ginja on 10:21:10 7/23/2000 From reading through the threads I think I see what the problem might be, or at least, one of them. That is, there's no evidence that links MW's case to the JBR investigation. That's right. There isn't. Not directly, that is. MW has no first-hand knowledge of the crime or who committed it, ergo, no direct link to the Ramsey case. What MW has to offer is possible circumstantial evidence that would give credibility to the incest theory as well as plausibility to motive. That's how MW can influence this case. And think about the implications here. BOTH White AND Ramsey have gone into hiding since this issue became public. Why? Think about "those" implications. MW's direct link is Fleet White, Jr. and FWJ is a direct link to JR who is the direct link to JBR. But because the BPD and god knows who else don't want to follow THIS evidentiary lead, albeit circumstantial as regards the Ramseys, the link has been severed. As regards the direct link between MW and FWJ, the statute of limitations has passed. Ergo the investigation's complete severing between these two links and therefore any that would follow. As regards law enforcement investigations into MW's allegations outside the jurisdiction of the BPD and CO in general (per expired statutes), those investigations are in progress. Whatever else you want to say against those agencies, they're doing at least one thing right: keeping the investigation 'closed' from the media and general public. By the same token, in MW's situation, she's a living being, and therefore would need much more stringent enforcement of privacy and protection issues; JBR was dead and the BPD hung their hat on the Ramseys' guilt (without any proof) and the Ramseys made it public and released more red herrings than the BPD let out real evidence. IOW, there certainly were no problems with protection issues with JBR; but as far as privacy, she was dead and her parents made it a very public issue. That's why we aren't "hearing" anything about MW's investigation...it's being done right. Her privacy is being protected, as well as her life. And expired statutes is probably why we aren't "hearing" anything as regards FWJ and his links with MW. It also explains his silence...and the Ramseys. As well as why the BPD aren't "involved". Jmho, but if the BPD followed up on the FWJ and MW link, they'd have enough to give them a strong circumstantial link to the Ramsey case. So why aren't they? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Ginja, you are right, and Edie Pratt-- " Posted by darby on 10:15:49 7/23/2000 Let's be careful about attacks on personhood unless that poster really earns it--and then HAVE AT IT! (just kidding) Edie, your story sounds a lot like mine! If you and I are a couple of nut jobs, then all I can say is that we have quite a few nuts to keep company with. LOL--nobody in my sphere really thinks I'm a "nut job." But I will say that my obsession with JBR is rarely viewed as an asset by most of my loved ones who know about it. However, I have also noticed that, much like Patsy Ramsey, most people who attempt to turn a blind eye to this case also have a tendency to "peek." Dammit, darby, are you on that computer AGAIN??......Any news? And Edie, what a smart and funny person you are! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Clarification for Ginja" Posted by Gemini on 10:21:32 7/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:21:32, 7/23/2000 Ginja, you're leaping to assumptions about my use of the word "presentation", as you so often do about case related information. To me, "presentation" means whether ideas/opinions are presented as possibilities or presented in such a way that they can easily be taken as fact. I can see why you don't have a problem with Mary99's posts ... you guys have similar styles. And, you're wrong - it isn't personal (as in "the poster") ... it's the hyperbole that I find unreasonable in your posts (yes, I'm borrowing from fly, 'cause I agree), although you don't always do that. With Mary, it's her insistance in presenting information that is far from substantial in such a way as to give it equal credibility with known fact ... and pounding away at anyone who questions this by drawing MW's abuse like a six-shooter ("Pick up the gun"). THAT is why presentation is important ... not for the reasons you're presuming here and attempting to present as fact. (edited to deal with a wild preposition and add to clarification) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Ginja" Posted by v_p on 10:15:01 7/23/2000 >>>I've been through the three threads and haven't seen any counterpoint or rebuttal on any of those 26 points. Why?<<< I gave a rebuttal on the 2nd thread. I have a couple of questions. 1)Where in DOI does it talk about FW dressing as Santa? 2)Where is it documented that FW is aka Stephen Mason. I know of Steve Mason the singer :) And Ginja, I find merit in the presentation theory. If the poster is defensive and rude, how can they expect anything positive in return? I simply do not see FW as the bad guy here. Some of you keep saying there should be further investigation into FW, Perhaps the BPD did investigate and feel he checks out. What makes you think you should be privvy to the results of their private investigation into his past? I'm willing to bet there's a lot of questions we will never know the answers to until there's a trial; which will likely be never. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Presentation vs. Presentation" Posted by Ginja on 10:53:35 7/23/2000 I won't bore you with details, but I looked up the word "presentation" and nowhere in the definition did I find where hyperbole or attitude had anything to do with its meaning or connotation. "Presentation" pretty much means setting forth facts, documents or theories. I have found that these "presentations" are set forth here on the forum for discussion, such as these 26 points. The response is sometimes vituperative, sometimes implied in some 'slick' way, others just speak their mind on how they "feel" about the poster. I then find that the poster will many times repond in kind. There's frustration in the response because the original 'presentation' was ignored and the poster 'slammed' (for lack of a better word). And back and forth it goes, with many joining in, til you find yourself at the end of a 96-post thread that is so far off topic it's laughable. It's also very sad. What Gem and others have pointed out as to the "misunderstanding" with the word "presentation" is basically 'personality'. And so again, back to the personality clashes. Round 'n Round we go. And once again... Can't we get over it?! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "oh bo-log-na Ginj" Posted by Gemini on 11:19:54 7/23/2000 This is the important part: "Presentation" pretty much means setting forth facts, documents or theories. Exactly! The way we present those things in order to keep them straight ... or not. You're quibbling but if it will calm your troubled mind, I'll admit I should have said method or style of presentation. The other important point is that you are trying to insist I was waging a personal attack. You'll just have to take my word for it ... my concern was the "over the top" (IMO) way Mary's posts were presenting the FW material. IOW, I was addressing the posts, not ignoring the content to attack the poster. The content is what I find off-putting. But ... scramble it around any way you feel you must. I'm not interested in entering into discussion when the posts are over-blown and filled with insubstantial information, no matter who writes 'em. Guess that means you can have the last word :-) . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Hmmm" Posted by v_p on 10:25:11 7/23/2000 I misunderstood what you meant by presentation Gem, but I totally agree with you from that POV as well. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "v_p" Posted by darby on 10:37:02 7/23/2000 I'm not sure where the info can be found. Here's what I know. Throughout the years, and for various reasons, posters have conducted independent research into the Whites. Often that alias comes up. Because it's found quite often, and because it's always the SAME name, I tend to believe it. I wouldn't stake my life on it, however. That's all I know and probably all that should be said about it on a public forum (unless someone can prove it isn't true). I took it upon myself to share it, because I think that if it's true, it tells us right away that something could be amiss about Fleet White. However, I think that if you want to delve into it further, it should be done in private email. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Darby" Posted by v_p on 10:43:17 7/23/2000 Thanks :) With all due respect, one of the "points" mary99 made was that FW holds a SS card that has been assigned 2 names. In order for me to find merit in that point, I need something more substancial than hearsay. If anyone has anything, please email me. Meanwhile, I'll try to do my part to keep FW out from under this runaway bus. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL v_p ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "v_p" Posted by Holly on 19:51:13 7/23/2000 The two names one SS# was discovered months ago or years ago depending on who you are talking to. "Other" forum members knew this weirdness a couple of years ago. The Ramsey lawyers know, supposedly. We're Johnny Come Latelys. :-) It's intriguing, but I don't have a clue what it means. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Jeesh, v_p!" Posted by Ginja on 11:43:49 7/23/2000 With all due respect, I read your response to the 26 points last night, and then reread them again today. You've completely misunderstood me. I'm talking real "rebuttal" or counterpointing. Facts or some kind of proof -- something! -- to support what you're saying. You showed none of that in your response. And Ginja, I find merit in the presentation theory. If the poster is defensive and rude, how can they expect anything positive in return? And as far as your response in thread 2 goes, it's exactly the kind of response I was talking about earlier when I alluded to the 'slammed poster' reacting to provocation, rather than coming off as indignant and 'abusive' in their original "presentation". I found your response abusive...and without merit. I'll not address every single post, but just a couple to support my statements here. As regards "attitude": 17. In Atlanta, Priscilla White was heard to say, "We know things you don't know", a cryptic statement if not incriminating. Why have they not shared what they know if it would help to further justice? "We know things you don't know" is a cryptic and incriminating statement. Isn't that what you've been saying for the past week?? They probably did "share" mary, but unlike some people, they are not so hungry for attention they would risk their credibility in the event of a trial by spilling their guts to the likes of us. Why don't you tell us what you really mean...about case! If you had stuck to case and followed up your first statement, you may have found yourself in the middle of a real rebuttal. And who's to say you wouldn't have uncovered something...maybe even significant? Instead you addressed the poster, not the post. You set forth your jealousy and contempt for a poster, rather than rising above it and sticking to case, that is, the pursuit of JfJBR. As regards not having merit: 5. He made dubious phone calls two days before Christmas for urgent delivery of medical supplies, toa woman under the care of a doctor, then -- What do you suppose he was doing ... really? 6. Went to the airport on pretense of dropping off medical supplies to be picked up in Aspen by an unknown person. Geepers, what do the detectives make of this? Who was that "mystery" person in Aspen? 7. Was accompanied by the CA guests, who came to the Ramsey party without their wife/girlfriend, for this airport 'run', which was so urgent he left the Ramseys party at the drop of a hat. Delivery of medical supplies, in some instances, can actually be considered urgent. Without their wives and girlfriends?? Where were the children. How many people can you fit into a Jaguar?? This, in no way, can be considered rebuttal, v_p. The points were made to open discussion on those points and the possible links that can be made to the investigation, if any. Something is seriously wrong with this picture and you refuse to look at it! It was 2 days before Christmas and White was at the Ramseys with two (unaccompanied) male friends he brought with him. His mother was in an Aspen hospital. Query why a hospital would need to contact a patient's relative at a friend's Christmas party to send medical supplies back to the hospital? Couldn't that hospital make its own phone calls? How many medical supply houses did Fleet have access to after 6 p.m. on a Monday night that the hospitals didn't? Why would Fleet have to drive to that supply house, make the purchase in person, and then drive those supplies to the airport and put them on the airplane himself? Couldn't the hospital simply have made a phone call? Couldn't Fleet have simply made a phone call to the supply house, told them what he needed, given them his charge number? And couldn't that supply house then package the medical supplies and call one of those 24-hour delivery services, like FedX or UPS? Those services are making pickups after 6 p.m., and in cases of medical supplies, arrangements could be made to deliver the package straight to the airport by taxi or other means if a pickup truck wasn't available. Now that we know who that "mystery" person in Aspen is, and know that if that Jaquar isn't a 3-seater, Fleet drove something else around Boulder and Denver that night...isn't it about time we really got serious about this case instead of balking about posters' attitudes? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "v_p" Posted by darby on 11:14:52 7/23/2000 I understand about that runaway bus. But please keep your mind open to BOTH sides. That's what I am trying to do. None of us can point-blank say that there is no way that all of MW's alleged claims are untrue. None of us can say that we know for a fact that the Whites have nothing to hide. After 3 1/2 years, we may THINK we intimately know the Ramseys, the Whites, the Paughs, the Stines, Hunter, Thomas, etc., etc. But the truth is, all we know is what has been publicly aired. These people are not our dear friends (at least not mine). And of all the major Ramsey-case figures, it would seem that Fleet White is the one we know the least about. In many ways, Fleet White is more of a mystery person than MW is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Wow, ginja!" Posted by Seashell on 12:31:50 7/23/2000 "Now that we know who that "mystery" person in Aspen is, and know that if that Jaquar isn't a 3-seater, Fleet drove something else around Boulder and Denver that night...isn't it about time we really got serious about this case instead of balking about posters' attitudes?" This is new info for me. WHO'S THE MYSTERY PERSON IN ASPEN? WHERE DID WE HEAR IT WAS A JAG? Didn't JR have a Jag? Yeah, this whole story smells badly. Are we to believe a hospital wouldn't have the necessary meds for his mother or be able to get them without having to call him? There's lotsa room for investigative journalism about this FW story alone. Yesiree! Where are the clothes pins? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "hmmm" Posted by Gemini on 13:12:51 7/23/2000 i'd like to know the source for which car was used, too. Don't remember reading that. Another thing that was bandied about was that White took one of the pads of paper away with him ... think it was said he used it for notes when he was making the phone calls. Now, I wonder exactly where that information came from and how accurate it is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Gemini" Posted by v_p on 19:58:05 7/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:58:05, 7/23/2000 I was being facetious when I said Jaguar. I have no idea what sort of car they went to the airport in. Is it important? Ginja, why don't you answer all 26 points and tell me how they abate FW's credibility. How do they, each one, contribute to MW's claims and subsequently, jbr's murder? I imagine a hospital can get medical supplies if they need them...but perhaps they couldn't get them transported as quickly as FW could by delivering them personally to the airport. Why is this suspicious? I was being serious when I asked, "what do you think they were doing?" I've asked several times for clarification on some of the points and only one poster has obliged and then said it should be discussed in email. How can any of those points be posed for serious debate when the poster and the FW bashers are being so ambiguous? I read through PMPT again today and found nothing incriminating about FW's behaviour. He and Priscilla went in 18 times in 2 months for interviews; many times voluntarily. Priscilla White knows things that she's not sharing...who could blame her? Alex Hunter was feeding the Ramseys information so they could intercept and remedy any allegations made by F & PW. V. edited to correct spelling :-( [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Next Stop Lurksville!!" Posted by shadow on 18:26:06 7/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:26:06, 7/23/2000 I remember a long time ago when someone with the "hat" of "BlueFish" or "BlueFire" or close to this caused much discussion and not a little trouble on the JW Forum. This person threw-out some absolutely crazy theories (IMHO) that were given the credibility of at least three days heated discussion on the JW Forum... these discussions turned a lot of people who had previously agreed on "the basics" of the case against each other. After a couple of days, I realized something was amiss, and refused to post anymore until this "crazyness" went away. It finally did, and I returned to posting. I don't know if we have another "Bluewhatever" (Rascal) among us, but I will just be "lurking" until some small level of sanity returns (that's all I need). I also have decided I'm not going to post anymore about the MW until the FBI or "investigative" reporters clear this matter up, one way or the other. shadow BTW - Posted this elsewhere and kinda like it! Posting these amazing theories and opinions can be like masterbation - the longer you do it the more real it becomes!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Welcome to Lurkersville USA shadow" Posted by Longhorn on 18:28:57 7/23/2000 The little town is growing ;-) I'm only popping up to say that I could well be mistaken, but I had thought that the need for medical supplies was for the White's home in anticipation of FW,Jr's mother being released from the hospital. In other words, before she could go home, certain things needed to be ready in the house, and I know from experience that many things are not provided by the hospital when someone is released as to home care. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "You See, v_p" Posted by Real Stormy on 20:55:53 7/23/2000 That's one of the serious problems. Someone will state something in a post, perhaps facetiously as you did with the Jaguar, perhaps as speculation, and two or three posts down, it is accepted as fact. Then two sides develop, one arguing for the "fact" and the other pointing out that it is not a fact. Of course, then "experts" pontificate about it and point out that only they are capable of ascertaining the real story and it is, infact, a Jaguar. Then, the first thing you know it is not only a Jaguar, but a shiny new red one which belongs to the Prince of Wales. Then there is endless discussion about where Fleet White acquired Charles' Jag and could it mean he is the killer. Then, it is well, yes, he must be the killer. Then it is we know he is the killer. Help me Jesus. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Yet another lurker" Posted by MJenn on 19:46:36 7/23/2000 I've drudged through many threads about MW, and now all this hoopla over Fleet White's incredibly suspicious behaviour. Let's see if I've got it at last: Attending parties without his wife! Surreptitiously buying medical supplies for an aging mother! Driving around Boulder with other men unattended by mates! Announcing they know things! Writing protest letters! Having money not related to the computer boom! Refusing to answer police questions unless he received the same consideration as the Ramseys! Seeming to have another name! Threatening paparazzi! Being related to a man who is accused of being connected to an abused woman whose name everyone knows but nobody reveals! Refusing to distribute autobiographical information to the general public! Dressing up like Santa Clause! At Christmas! (The nerve!) Conducting an oil company business without an office building! Touched things in the Ramsey home! Argued with John Ramsey, but REMAINS FRIENDS! (GASP!) Had an adolescent daughter act like an adolescent daughter! Provided dry underwear to a wet child in his care! Won't publicly comment on being related to a man who is connected to an abused woman whose name everyone knows but no one reveals! Wrote MORE letters! Isn't filing lawsuits after anonymous posters presumed to be his "cohorts" by other anonymous posters said he would! Ticking off Alex Hunter! And AGAIN! AND MOST EGREGIOUS OF ALL!!!! RELATED TO SOMEONE CONNECTED TO SOMEONE WHOSE NAME EVERYONE KNOWS BUT NO ONE REVEALS!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY GOD!!!!SOMEONE, PLEASE ARREST THIS MAN!!!!!!! HE'S A WALKING CRIME SPREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that about the gist of it? How's my presentation? Is this a rebuttal? No? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "How's your presentation, MJenn?" Posted by Ginja on 10:43:19 7/24/2000 I've drudged through your list -- let's see if I've got it right! >Attending parties without his wife! That wasn't one of the points. This falls into the same category as v_p's mystery woman in Aspen and Fleet's jaguar! > Surreptitiously buying >medical supplies for an aging mother! No...put your thinking cap on and ask yourself why a hospital couldn't make arrangements for it's patients to get them the medical supplies they needed. If your mother was in the hospital and was going home, wouldn't you expect the hospital to see to her needs? If she were at Mass General and you lived in Hartford, CT, wouldn't you find it a bit strange that YOU were being called by the hospital to get your mother's supplies to her asap...when the hospital could simply as one of its outpatient services or social workers and senior citizens helper to assist your mother with her needs? >Driving around Boulder with other men >unattended by mates! Get real! Who are these men? And why are they driving around Boulder? Ask the tough questions, rather than making stupid statements! These men were from California and one or both was an alleged abuser of MW. Where were their wives? What were they doing in Boulder? You live in CA and your husband is an alleged pedophile and/or member of a sex ring. He leaves you home in CA during the holiday season to go off and visit a non-relative (who is alleged to have also been an abuser of MW). While he's away visiting one of his sex ring associates, the daughter of his associate's best friend is found bound, gagged and strangled to death in her basement. Imagine that....the same kinds of injuries your husband has been inflicting on children for years!!! Got a snotty answer for this? or would you like to seriously discuss the seriousness of the allegations and implications? >Announcing they know things! Put this in context! Priscilla said this after JBR's brutalized and tortured body was found. The statement, if I'm not mistaken, was made either in Atlanta or at or around the time FWJ and JR had that blowout. Take a serious look at this and question whether or not Priscilla was implying that they knew about JR and/or PR abusing JBR. Then question why they would know such a thing. This simple statement could go in many directions...but certainly not down your path! >Writing protest letters! Again, use your head! For months, actually, years, FW did nothing but write letters and go to hearings and meet with the Governor to get Hunter pulled off this case to insure the Ramseys would be arrested and tried. But then...in comes MW and out goes FW. What happened to his concern for seeing that JBR's murderers/abusers be caught and face the consequences? The point here wasn't so much that he wrote those protest letters, but that he suddenly stopped. White was on a mission. And then dropped it completely when MW hit the scene. And you're not even curious? >Having money not related to >the computer boom! Where are you coming up with this chit? I didn't see this in the points presented. >Refusing to answer >police questions unless he received the >same consideration as the Ramseys! Hello? On one hand, he can't write enough letters to get Hunter kicked off the case, yet on the other, he refuses to work with police. This is a point for discussion to see if there's more than meets the eye here. Is he another Shapiro? Playing everyone against each other? This week he supports the police, next week he doesn't. Why? Something's wrong with this. Why is he suddenly a reluctant witness? Does he really want justice for JBR? or is he more interested in getting himself cleared first, THEN going after his best friend? >Seeming to >have another name! Not "seeming"...sounds like he does...and two SS cards. You can have as many names as you want as long as you keep the same SSN. Again, it all has to do with intent. You keep it simple, then it's obvious you're not trying to defraud the government or otherwise break the law. But when you set yourself up with different aliases and different SSN's...it's not laughing matter. What's the intent? Defrauding the government? breaking the law? Hiding? >Threatening paparazzi! Not a real big deal, but why doesn't he want his picture taken. After all, he's on this justice bandwagon...he has no problem publising letters with his name, or going to the Governor and making demands, or showing up to hearings. He's in the forefront...everyone's hero for fighting on behalf of JBR...yet he doesn't want his picture taken? >Being related to >a man who is accused of >being connected to an abused woman >whose name everyone knows but nobody >reveals! What's your beef here? You have a problem protecting the abused woman? You know her abusers and irresponsible and noncaring family members are reading this forum, so let's just put it all out there, eh? Hell, we could use her name. Would it change anything? As far as the relative, I've already talked about him...even put him closer to your own home and life. How comfortable would you feel if that relative was your husband's relative, goes to a party with you at your best friend's house, and then that friend's little daughter is found dead in the basement. How comfortable would you feel about that, MJenn? >Refusing to distribute autobiographical >information to >the general public! There are records that are public that people have no control over whether or not those records are public. Birth certificates, marriage certificates, licenses, corporate papers, etc. When you can't even find papers like that, you have to wonder why? Is Fleet White another alias? And in the back of your mind you know that pedophiles and pornographers and other deviants keep as far away from the public eye as possible. Is this an effort to hide? >Dressing up like Santa >Clause! At Christmas! (The nerve!) You bet your ass, the nerve! JonBenet told her little friends that she was going to have a special visit from Santa. Next thing you know, she's dead! Did Santa kill her? There was a Santa suit in the basement taken into evidence. The investigation is taking this "Santa" story seriously. Too bad you don't. >Conducting an >oil company business without an office >building! What is wrong with you? Are you that naive? I'm not trying to demean you here, MJenn, but a lot of these statements of yours are off the wall. This so-called oil company without an office could be a front! Next step is to find out what it's fronting! >Touched things in the Ramsey home! Because he was curious? Naive? Or trying to 'change' the evidence? This is no joking matter. >Argued with John Ramsey, but REMAINS FRIENDS! >(GASP!) Jeez, I missed the Rams and Whites making up...when did that happen? They aren't talking to each other. There is a real separation here. JR didn't want to get into the 'content' of that Alanta altercation so he covered his ass by saying they were friends. Had an adolescent daughter act like >an adolescent daughter! That's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it is that Daphne is being abused as JonBenet was being abused. JBR hated "that" room; maybe Daphne hated all of it and hid. Maybe she hid to escape an abuser? What's adolescent here is this list of yours! >Provided dry underwear to >a wet child in his care! This is wrong. He didn't provide underwear. When that child was naked from the waist down, she called out to him and he went into the bathroom and wiped her private area. Sounds like a morally empty action to me! It's lunch time and I've basically had enough of this. Please take time to READ what's being posted and query what it's possible true meaning and/or implications could be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "I'd hardly consider 6 years," Posted by Holly on 06:50:44 7/24/2000 adolescent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "LMAOOO MJenn" Posted by v_p on 20:02:43 7/23/2000 Classic MJenn! V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "WAIT A MINUTE!" Posted by Holly on 19:59:31 7/23/2000 What jag? Patsy owned a Jag. The Whites own a VOLVO wagon and a Suburban. I can't find what I missed. What mystery person in Aspen? The whole medical supplies for Mom airlift story is goofy. Like hospitals in Aspen don't have supplies? What is this, a Jimmy Stewart movie? Fleet was on the phone. There are records. someone must have checked this out. The day after, 12/24, Fleet drove to Aspen, I think with Priscilla and returned that night. I've never quite understood this whole thing. And who can verify Nyla was ill or in the hospital anyway? Besides, her daughter, Lani, co-owns a real estate company in Aspen. Why couldn't she take care of this mess? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "MJenn.." Posted by Dianne E. on 20:32:16 7/23/2000 ..ROFL, yup your list sums it up, am strapping on my holster and on my way to make a citizens arrest, will take me awhile to get there but hey, maybe if I get there during the day I can catch him sitting on his ass writing more letters to add to his arrest charges. If all this crazed talk weren't about a human being who is not an "umbrella person" I could really get a good laugh out of the famous "List of 26+ crimes" FW has committed in some peoples minds. Heck I bet if I got charged with murder tomorrow someone could dig through all my relatives and come up with lets say the "less balanced" ones. The air here is indeed rabid. Todays hero, tomorrows scum bucket. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "MJenn and Dianne" Posted by Real Stormy on 21:14:17 7/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:14:17, 7/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:06:44, 7/23/2000 That's enough for me! What say we string him up without a trial? Such scum doesn't deserve a trial. I knew he was baaad, but I didn't know exactly how bad until I read MJenn's points. Out without his wife? Disgusting! Helping with the medical care of his mother?Unheard of among decent folk! Daring to be able to buy and sell most of the people on this forum? Inexcusable! And the money didn't come from the high-tech industry? Hanging offense in my opinion. In a Santa suit at Christmas? Oh no! This is bigger than the Watergate scandal. This is war! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "psst. Real Stormy.." Posted by Dianne E. on 21:36:46 7/23/2000 ..don't touch the kool aid here, even if they offer you your favorite flavor. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Taking things personally...." Posted by canadiana on 23:15:39 7/23/2000 While I realize that people are passionate about justice, some have gone too far. IMO of course. I have been open minded; I remember well being very interested in Holly's 'White Knights' thread. I see how PR could be 'good for it'; I see docg's (I hope that's right) point about the ransom note in JR's handwriting. I have also been sympathetic to MW. Presentation or no presentation, I have been called closed-minded, a sanctimonious biddy, and a member of the peanut gallery. You know Ginja, I enjoy much of the information you post here and have actually learned some things, but I refuse to be bullied. And I am NOT ashamed. There are others who should be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Misc." Posted by Brightlight on 23:49:02 7/23/2000 Ginja: You said you'd been through three threads and haven't seen any counterpoint or rebuttal on any of mary99's 26 points and wondered why? With all due respect it may be because Mary's Manifesto posted 118,000 times (her words; post #4) do not appeal to those seeking facts and feel no need to rebut subjective opinions. Or it could be because people scroll on by. Maybe it's as simple as people not responding because she called them sanctimonious biddies. v_p: You hit the nail on the head about being willing to bet there's a lot of questions we will never know the answers to until there's a trial. We've been told for several years that the public knows few of the FACTS, yet, in more instances than not, speculation has somehow been accepted as factual here. Even books have been served up as truth with references quoted as fact. A personal favorite is that those who have been cleared have been exonerated. Fact is anyone can be put back on the suspect list at any time. It just MAY be in the best interests of the BPD to clear a suspect in order to monitor their activities more closely and/or divert public attention away from that person(s) in order to avoid the type of controversy surrounding FW. Fact: The location of the murder is not known. Fact: The number of people present is not known. Fact: Who was present is not known. By ASSUMING everyone but the R's have been cleared may have left us barking up the wrong tree. And that may be exactly what the BPD had in mind. Gemini: Excellent points regarding importance of presentation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "real stormy" Posted by v_p on 05:48:24 7/24/2000 Charles does look a little shady when you think about it. Consider these points and you tell me if his behaviour is not suspect: - I think Camilla is a front, I mean, well, arf arf. - He involved himself with and then marries a daycare worker. Very suspicious, indeed. - Goes to the Spice Girl Concert where there are droves of small children. - Encourages William to pursue Brittney Spears ... (more kiddles). I think this needs to be investigated right away. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "VP" Posted by Florida on 07:06:34 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:06:34, 7/24/2000 Besides that, Charles goes by several names....and will probably change it completely in the future. He also wears skirts on occasion. Edited to add: He also talks to plants. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Does anybody know" Posted by Real Stormy on 07:14:14 7/24/2000 Where Charles was on Christmas, 1996? Does he ever ski in CO? Does Camilla go with him? I think there is a lot we should know about him and I demand he answer us. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Fleet White is a raving loony" Posted by mary99 on 07:44:17 7/24/2000 See 'FW sources' if you think my posts are long and tedious. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Takes one......" Posted by Real Stormy on 08:26:38 7/24/2000 To know one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Dear Holly," Posted by Edie Pratt on 09:47:21 7/24/2000 I've been reading so many pros and cons about FW, I'm dizzy trying to remember who said what. However, I do recall your mentioning that FW took furious notes on 12/26. Just now I've done a doubletake on that. Notes? How odd. Why would anyone take notes, and notes of what? Was he running his own investigation? I don't know what happened about FW touching things that am, but I do wonder if the police were quite awake, lol. Did they ALLOW him to just march down to the cellar? I find more fault with Ramsey for touching things, simply because he didn't bother to look there before he cordially hosted the impromptu party. And, because there were books around the house that suggested he was no stranger to the workings of law enforcement, and the need to preserve evidence, at the very least. The mention of the OJ trial on CNN, also verifies this awareness. (sheesh! the whole damned world is an armchair lawyer, thanks to the OJ case. EVERYBODY knows about crimescene preservation)FW might deserve a pass on the glass and suitcase handling, JR KNEW BETTER. The one person I'd like to hear from about FW that am, is Arndt. When she made the comment about getting out alive and bullet counting, did she actually mean to imply she was afraid of ALL OF THEM? She never once said JR did it, not once. ABC edited it to seem that way, but could she have meant something else altogether? Not trying to confuse, but maybe we should take another look see at what Arndt actually said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Hi again, EdieP" Posted by Holly on 19:37:08 7/24/2000 Linda Arndt told FW to "guard the basement door an not let anyone down". You are right about the Ram lie. LA NEVER said JR killed JB, though she did imply it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Children must play..." Posted by Ginja on 09:41:35 7/24/2000 To hell with the posts...most of you feel more comfortable with acting like idiots, then go for it! You quibble about posters presentation yet in order to make your points, you act like bullies! He who screams loudest is heard! I'm sorry I've taken the time to listen to these rantings! V-P did not intelligently counter Mary's points. Instead, she treated the entire post irresponsibly and in doing so, started idiot talk about a mystery woman in Aspen and FWJ driving around in a Jaguar. BTW, v_p, I did counter your 26 'responses' last night, only to have the freakin' pc freeze up. I'll try again tonite. Not sure why I'd bother, seeing as how not many here are open-minded enough to be serious and considerate. Longhorn, I was in the hospital this past Christmas and I don't care WHAT outgoing patients needed, the hospital met those needs. They did not rely on the patient or the patient's family. From drugs, to wheelchairs, to walkers to crutches...you name it. If the patient was going home and needed medical supplies, the hospital either got those supplies or brought in services that would see the patient had those supplies before leaving the hospital. I would expect the rich and mighty of Aspen could certainly do the same for its own. Shadow, Bluefire, as you say, set forth theories. That didn't happen here from what I can tell. Mary set forth 26 various points to open a discussion. There was no discussion with Bluefire. Then again, as is obvious here, no one has taken seriously the points ... so again, no discussion. All's I can point to here is intent: Bluefire didn't intend her/his work to be discussed...simply accepted; Morgan opened a thread to discuss 'why' FW could lose credibility if the MW allegations were true, and Mary set forth 26 points to that affect. Mjenn...your list was as silly and facetious as v-p's and you've taken over the thread with nonsense. Canadiana...don't be bullied by ANYONE! My comments weren't directed at you anyway. Brightlight...as regards rebuttal or countering Mary's points, v_p said she had countered all the points. My response was that she really hadn't. But the discussion revolved around v-p, not other posters responses. FWIW, since many of you have successfully bashed and quelled a half-way decent and serious discussion, to hell with it. Perhaps the next time the "internet subculture" is discussed or written about, it'll cover how far off base and unconcerned we are with our so-called mission! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Bravo, " Posted by momo on 09:48:07 7/24/2000 Ginga! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "BrightLight" Posted by Seashell on 10:06:15 7/24/2000 Your 3 points are very well taken. We don't know where We don't know who We don't know how many Most troubling of all, we have only the Ramseys *story* and we know they lie. Did they also lie about how many? Very very disturbing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Ginja, you said it!" Posted by mary99 on 09:58:35 7/24/2000 Too bad there aren't a few more like you Ginja. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "And my book will cover" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:56:45 7/24/2000 Bored housewives with time on their hands and self-appointed experts who are usually incorrect. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Real rude, Real Stormy" Posted by mary99 on 09:59:52 7/24/2000 Takes one to know one... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Yes, Mary99" Posted by Real Stormy on 10:09:57 7/24/2000 Perhaps. But I consider this persecution of Fleet White not only rude but inhumane. I'm sure you have your reasons for your relentless pursuit of a perfectly innocent person. You will have to answer for what you have done. It is on your head. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Real Stormy" Posted by darby on 11:02:03 7/24/2000 How do you know FW is perfectly innocent? Honest question. Before you ask how *I* know that FW is perfectly VILE, my answer is that I never said anything of the sort. I simply don't know whether he's vile, innocent, or something in between. What I have observed is some pretty odd behavior, up to and including the issuance of his diatribes against Alex Hunter and Michael Tracey. Re-read Mary's list and Holly's summary, and there you have it. I'm surprised you and your ilk are so gung-ho over someone none of us has much of a clue about. And how on earth could you possibly KNOW whether MW's allegations are true or not? Another honest question. Most of the people who you say are trashing FW are simply raising questions about him. That's all. What could be the harm in that? If we all just dropped the whole thing, some of us would forever wonder about FW. However, if we raise enough questions that somebody somewhere ends up investigating this man, then all of you who are so sure he's a saint shouldn't be worried in the least. If FW has nothing to hide, then what would he have to lose? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Thanks, Ginja..." Posted by shadow on 10:51:33 7/24/2000 Being over 60 years old, I am thrilled at the opportunity to return to the wonderful days of my youth which featured lectures from my fourth grade teacher - do you put your hair into a bum before you type? Ginja - "Shadow, Bluefire, as you say, set forth theories. That didn't happen here from what I can tell. Mary set forth 26 various points to open a discussion." I may not produce three page posts, but I'm fairly well-educated and not stupid - I'm smart enough to know that Mary's theory was explicit in her 26 points! Ginja - "There was no discussion with Bluefire. Then again, as is obvious here, no one has taken seriously the points ... so again, no discussion." Actually there was a discussion with Bluefire that lasted for days - as I recall, the "points" discussed had to do with people at Access Graphics (and foreigners) who might want to harm JR. Those of us who asked for some facts to support supposition, were told to "keep an open mind." Ginja - "All's I can point to here is intent: Bluefire didn't intend her/his work to be discussed...simply accepted;" Duh? That's not what Mary99 and other are asking for? Ginga - "Morgan opened a thread to discuss 'why' FW could lose credibility if the MW allegations were true, and Mary set forth 26 points to that affect." Can't argue with this! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "You're very welcome, Shadow" Posted by Ginja on 12:36:06 7/24/2000 >Being over 60 years old, I am >thrilled at the opportunity to return >to the wonderful days of my >youth which featured lectures from my >fourth grade teacher Enjoy that trip down memory lane, eh? You must have gone to a very special school to be given "lectures" in grade four! >- do you >put your hair into a bum >before you type? Trying to be a real ass wipe here or did you just not bother looking at the pictures from Annapolis? Or the pictures from New Jersey? JUST in case you were asking an honest question, my hair's too short to tie up into anything! >Ginja - "Shadow, Bluefire, as you say, >set forth theories. That didn't happen >here from what I can tell. > Mary set forth 26 various >points to open a discussion." >Shadow: I may not produce three page >posts, but I'm fairly well-educated and >not stupid - I'm smart enough >to know that Mary's theory was >explicit in her 26 points! Must have been that special school you went to! My recollection of Bluefire's theory is that it was a full blown theorized scenario. Those who disagreed did the same thing then as they're doing now...acting like little kids who can't handle serious discussion. >Ginja - "There was no discussion with >Bluefire. Then again, as is obvious >here, no one has taken seriously >the points ... so again, no >discussion." >Shadow: Actually there was a discussion >with Bluefire that lasted for days >- as I recall, the "points" >discussed had to do with people >at Access Graphics (and foreigners) who >might want to harm JR. Those >of us who asked for some >facts to support supposition, were told >to "keep an open mind." I didn't get too far in the so-called discussion of Bluefire's theory because I can only put up with so much irresponsible malignity of responding posters. The topic probably lasted four days because posters couldn't contain themselves from ripping apart a poster or his/her ideas. >Ginja - "All's I can point to >here is intent: Bluefire didn't intend >her/his work to be discussed...simply accepted;" >Duh? That's not what Mary99 and >other are asking for? Duh! No! Perhaps if you weren't so caught up with the lynch mob mentality, you'd see that over and over we've asked people to counter the points. We've said the points were put forth for discussion. When we said "discussion" though, we were talking "serious" discussion. People can't be bothered. >Ginga - "Morgan opened a thread to >discuss 'why' FW could lose credibility >if the MW allegations were true, >and Mary set forth 26 points >to that affect." >Can't argue >with this! Thank you! You're far too smart to get caught up in the tomfoolery that's taking place in this thread, Shadow...far too smart! Many of Mary's points have been discussed previously. All of a sudden, it seems as though many posters have either forgotten or could care. Instead of discussing the points, they make jokes or come up with these really crazy ideas that this point is meaningless or that point. Big deal FWJ dressed up like Santa. YES! Big deal...think about it. I explained the implications already to MJenn. JBR was told she was going to have a secret visit from Santa...there's a Santa suit found in the basement with her cold, dead body! Is this persecution or would it be fair to say, is there ANY possibility FWJ wore that suit? Hell...people had absolutely no problem accepting, persecuting, Bill Reynolds..a man in his 60's who just came out of bypass surgery...a very hairy man where not one of his hairs were found in the house...of being guilty without question for going into the house that night and killing this child. But ohhhhhhh...mention FW donning that same suit, a man who a victim has pointed to as one of her abusers using similar techniques as the injuries on that dead child's body, and what do we hear? WE freakin' persecutors!!! Steve Thomas plays games with the law, trying to illegally confiscate records. If he'd been allowed to take those records, those same records would have been thrown out of court. What if there was something significant in those records? Yet let's not discuss this; otherwise, his halo might start to tilt!!! I'm just sorry some posters really aren't serious about why we're here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Real Stormy" Posted by Ginja on 10:50:05 7/24/2000 If you're serious about this persecution of Fleet, would it be possible to get a serious discussion going here? It looks to me as though you believe Fleet's being persecuted, but the hell with it...and you drop the ball. Are you unable to counter the points? Or are you simply part of the mob who disagrees loudly and emptily? IOW, where's YOUR proof? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Well, just this once..." Posted by Lacey on 11:20:24 7/24/2000 Okay. Some of Fleet White's behavior that morning is reason to harbor suspicions about him.. to wonder, "What's up with that?" For myself, I never argued that issue. But to propel him to perverted pedophile sex-ringleader is a leap you cannot logically make with the information at hand. Not even close. In fact, the results of the MW investigations in both CA and CO nullify her claims and your declarations! And you know who you are! flol And here we go again.. the famous frenetic foaming-at-the-mouth forum faction forces a few inferences that lead to outrageous accusations against Fleet White, then demands that we prove it's not true. LOL! No wonder you can't stay in detective work, Ginj. And I mean that in the nicest way Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Simply unbelievable" Posted by Ginja on 11:56:33 7/24/2000 How the "pro-Whites" can't make any argument for their cause except to bully others and call them names. Like I said: Loud and empty! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "would somebody, ANYBODY, answer" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:09:32 7/24/2000 my question, please? WHAT ARE THESE NOTES THAT FW TOOK THE MORNING OF THE MURDER? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "EdieP" Posted by Holly on 19:34:39 7/24/2000 It's info from ST's book OR the Lee Hill depositon. I think it's ST's book. JR complains that instead of comforting him, White was scribbling notes on the 26th. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Gee" Posted by darby on 12:07:59 7/24/2000 It got awful quiet around here all of a sudden. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "OK, Edie, I'll answer" Posted by MJenn on 12:30:10 7/24/2000 I don't know. Does that help? Ginja, you just don't get it. I'm not a pro-White. I don't know the man. I just have yet to see any facts presented. You're pushing gossip, and rather nasty gossip at that. As for calling names, you can get as insulting as anyone here. But people are like that when they get upset and frustrated, so I don't take it personally. It's just the heat of argument--argumentum ad hominem, to be exact (attack the person, not the issue). It's human. Sorry my little satire upset you. I was being silly. On purpose. It's called humor. You should have a laugh yourself right now. You seem stressed. The purpose of humor is to lighten things up. After reading all the intensity of everyone's hair-pulling debating, I was just trying to interject some perspective. You know, it's just a forum to share ideas, good and bad, well-intentioned and mean spirited, subjective and objective, passionate and cool, right and wrong, and all the stuff in between. Peace. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "MJenn" Posted by Ginja on 12:43:06 7/24/2000 Your "humor" was ill received. It's people like YOU who can't handle reality, so you cover it up with humor or name-calling. AS far as me calling others names, or being insulting...it's provoked by you and your ilk. That's my problem though...I'm a bit too serious for people like you. When I look at something like Mary's points, I think of the little girl who was tortured to death. Humor's the farthest thing from my mind. I'm so sorry about that! Maybe someday I'll be tough like you and learn to laugh my ass off when I hear of a child being brutally murdered. I'll learn to laugh at people as they try to figure out who the bastard was that killed that child. I'll even learn to laugh my ass off when the case gets shelved because no one felt up to the task of investigating allegations made or points set forth. Yeah. Someday I'll learn to laugh my ass off at all of this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "And the beat goes on..." Posted by frankg on 12:39:48 7/24/2000 Lacey, there may be a few over-the-top posters here who are indeed trying to propel Fleet to perverted pedophile sex-ringleader, but they would be in a definite minority. And they are no more extreme than those here who steadfastly argue there is no way Fleet is involved in anything improper. I do not believe either position is defendable. I only wish posters whom I respect here, and that most definitely includes you, would keep an open mind and continue to explore the "potential implications" without considering this as a declaration of war against Fleet White. Stormy, your post #42 is dead on. Unfortunately, I see this happening all the time here. However, and I think this is most unfortunate, I only see people taking exception to this when it doesn't involve the Ramsey's. When the speculation, theories or accusations are leveled against the Ramsey's, no one here seems to mind. I see little difference between this most recent discussion of Fleet and the accusations made that Patsy faked her cancer for attention and that JonBenet was a victim of MBP. The biggest difference being no one screamed bloody murder at how unfair and outrageous it is to make those charges without facts to back them up. MJenn, your a "pro-White", eh? Tee hee hee... sorta like I'm a pro-Ram whenever I just ask for the facts to back up the accusations. Seems no one can distinguish between just wanting to know something is for real from being an active supporter. At least you haven't been called a paid White shill! I'm still one up on ya.. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "waste of time, but...." Posted by fly on 13:28:35 7/24/2000 darby - Perhaps it got quiet because people are either sick of the nonsense or, like me, are preparing to address 26 items. :-) ginja - Many of Mary's points have been discussed previously. Exactly, so why do they need to be refuted or discussed or even agreed with again? Still, just to satisfy you, I'll have a go once more. I'm trying to avoid a more unpleasant task, and this is as good a way to waste time and avoid it as any. Sorry about the length, but to address 26 items requires it. mary99- I'm not entirely certain what these 26 points are supposed to be suggesting. Are they intended to address FW's supposed guilt as MW's abuser sometime in the past? His involvement in JBR's death and/or abuse? Or just that FW is not a total saint or hero? I'll say from the start that I don't see FW as saint or hero. I'll guess that he has his flaws like most of us - a temper, moments of stupidity and bad judgement, the minor skeleton in a closet - a relative's or associate's or his own, perhaps even a shady business deal or two. I won't argue for sainthood. However, if you think these things support FW as abuser or murderer or generally bad guy, or that they give credence to MW's story, I think you are way off base in most cases. 1. He refused to talk to the investigators if not given the previous interview transcripts beforehand. I don't think that this was his original behavior. I think this developed after he found out BPD/DA were sharing stuff with the Rams. As others have suggested, it might be a desire to make a point (like the guy who refused a polygraph until the Rams took one). It might be because he was getting vibes from somebody that he was a suspect and hoped to avoid any accidental slip-ups. This might be important, or not. Without more information about the context, etc., it's hard to say with any assurance. 2. He wrote frequent letters protesting the delay in having the Ramseys arrested. And JW-ers have posted hundreds of similar protests, including writing and calling some of the same people FW directed his protests. Since when does this indicate guilty involvement? 3. He has no visibility in the real world or the Internet world (except in ref. to JBR), yet is a millionaire. LOLOLOL! You'd be surprised how many millionaires have no visibility! This is about as weak as it gets. 4. He threatened a reporter and intimidated others who were targets of his anger. So, he has a temper and doesn't like his privacy invaded by reporters. Same with me. How does this relate to anything else? 5. He made dubious phone calls two days before Christmas for urgent delivery of medical supplies, to his mother, who was under the care of a doctor, then -- 6. Went to the airport on pretense of dropping off medical supplies to be flown in and picked up in Aspen by an unknown person. 7. Was accompanied by the CA guests, who came to the Ramsey party without their wife/girlfriend, for this airport 'run', which was so urgent he left the Ramseys party at the drop of a hat. I've seen several versions of this story, involving medical supplies some times, and medical records other times. Do we have the real story? LOL, people see it as very weird that males would go to this party without their wives (rather sexist, of course, to believe only females would care to attend a kid-oriented party), and then you suggest it suspicious that they beat feet when given the opportunity! You can't win for losin' it seems. Without a bit more information as to exactly what went on, I don't see how this says anything about Fleet's supposed misdeeds or flawed personality. However, if you want to use this episode to point to FW's possible involvement in something evil, you might want to mention that in some of the versions of the story, FW supposedly borrowed a Ramsey notepad for those notes and then took it with him. Might not have been "THE" notepad, of course, but it's more suspicious than the medical SOS, IMO. 8. He currently seems to have two names which share the same Social Security number-I could publish the info but why bother, it's true. I've seen this posted, certainly, but I've never seen information as to how this information was obtained. If you have that info, please post it. We've seen how inaccurate online information can be (all those whitecalfs, remember?). Unless somebody has accessed SS info through "official" paths, there's risk of an error here. Assuming this is true, is it a SS error, or is it an intentional event by FW? If intentional, then there's something fishy. Might not have anything to do with JBR, sex rings, or other pervsions, of course, but it would be illegal. 9. All personal details of White's life are banished from print publications (most significantly PMPT, ITRI): where he was born, raised, educated, military service, etc. Banished? Or would "not mentioned" be more appropriate? Why would these things necessarily be mentioned? Of what relevance is his family history, at least prior to MW's allegations? None, I'll suggest, and it probably would have gotten the red editorial pencil had it been included. The fact that the authors didn't include it certainly does not have anything to contribute to the question of FW's character or guilt. 10. He is the son of the godfather of the mother of MW. So? There's little doubt that MW's family and the Whites have links. That doesn't mean FW is bad, even if his father were guilty of abusing MW. 11. His daughter disappeared and was found hiding, after a frantic search, a call to the Ramseys, and a police response, in a cupboard in the White home. She is alleged to have been naked. I've seen the naked bit mentioned in the threads, but I don't remember that as part of the original story. I've also never seen any information as to the events leading up to this, and that is pretty necessary prior to putting any meaning to it. Provide some more information, and we'll see if this merits more discussion. 12. He touched the broken glass at the crime scene, moved the suitcase, touched the duct tape, and generally contaminated the evidence as much as JR himself. All stupid, stupid things to do. Worth considering if the rest of the evidence puts Fleet White under the umbrella. 13. Looked into the windowless room where JonBenet was found, but claims not to have seen her. If he had anything to do with JBR's death, he would not want to be the one to discover the body. And it did smell bad. The room was dark. Maybe he didn't see her or even smell her (we don't know how strong the odor was, especially several hours earlier in the day). Some have even suggested she wasn't in that room at the time (not likely, IMO, but still a common theme). If involved, why would he claim to have looked in the room at all? He didn't have to - nobody saw him check the room - and he'd run the risk of just the sort of thinking you're doing. Unless it could be shown that the body had been moved by one of the people in the house that morning, trying to incriminate JR this way would be pretty risky, especially if FW had something to hide. 14. Had a violent argument in Atlanta with JR, some say it involved a gun, other reports say it involved using his hands around a persons neck, but in any event, police were called, reports disappeared, and it was denied completely by JR and FW later on. Where did FW deny this event? Who says he denied it? JR downplayed it in the deposition, that's true. In any case, without knowing which of a half-dozen versions are correct, how can anybody point a finger at anybody. Also, in at least one version, GPP was the one with the gun, not FW. Didn't this fight center on Fleet's belief that the Ramseys were either guilty or not cooperating as they should? I see that this event might show FW to be hot-headed and perhaps irrational at times, but I don't see how it shows him to be guilty of anything else. 15. Still 'friends' according to JR's deposition, yet they do not speak. JR's deposition was filled with weirdnesses. Perhaps JR still thinks of FW as a friend, but the feeling isn't mutual. How does this address FW's guilt (of whatever). 16. Dressed as Santa Claus for JonBenet that fatal Christmas, at the White Christmas party, according to DOI and press release from TNP. Guess I missed this. I'll admit it's kind of strange to have Santa show up on Christmas evening. 17. In Atlanta, Priscilla White was heard to say, "We know things you don't know", a cryptic statement if not incriminating. Why have they not shared what they know if it would help to further justice? If they did share it, why is the crime still unsolved? I don't remember to whom PW supposedly said this, and that information is very important. It would be reasonable to assume that it was said to somebody voicing support for the Ramseys' innocence and behavior. If so, the people being incriminated probably would be the Ramseys, not the Whites. Do you really think the Whites would say that if they were involved in evil deeds in the JBR case? All indications are that the Whites were not in the uncooperative mode that early in the case. That came later. As to why the crime remains unsolved if the Whites have told what they know, that's easy: there is physical evidence that probably could be pretty easily used to establish reasonable doubt that White's knowledge of events cannot outweigh. It it ludicrous to use the failure to go to trial as evidence of FW being the bad guy. 18. FW was considered for arrest on charges of obstruction of justice because he stonewalled the investigators. Alex Hunter also had a feeling of danger about White, why is that? FW obviously didn't trust the way the investigation was being handled, and thus, refused to cooperate. In every discussion of this situation, his distrust was in terms of information being given to the Ramseys, not in terms of trying to hide misdeeds of his own. BPD obviously would be pretty p*ssed at him. As to Hunter, my memory is that he stated FW is physically big and rather imposing. If you had him come in to rant at you about how you were handling the investigation, demanding to be cleared, etc., you might find that rather intimidating. FW's level of cooperation might open him to charges of hypocracy, but I don't see how it relates to his guilt as sexual pervert. 19. A MW relative, Tal Jones, who has close ties to the Whites also, attempted to interfere with the Grand Jury and alluded to a 'connection' in the BPD. Could have been Haney, might have been Thomas. I know about spade's attempt to get people together to submit information to the GJ via a connection to an investigator (Haney is the only name I've ever heard). However, I have to wonder how this is "interfering." Is trying, though investigator channels, to get your ideas in "interfering?" Assuming Tal Jones is connected to the Whites, wouldn't it be rather reasonable for him to have an interest in the case? If Jones had been trying to steer the investigation away from evidence of a sex-ring involvement or away from ideas of White as perp, this might be relevant. However, we have no reason to believe that the GJ was heading in either of those directions, ever. 20. Has been silent on the MW allegations while the Ramseys, who could be exonerated by those allegations, if they're not also involved, have also remained silent. You state below that he demanded the newspaper story be retracted. Thus, he has not been silent. He has not shouted publically, that's true, but I'll suggest that that would draw more attention to a story that had limited non-internet coverage. As to the Ramseys' silence, perhaps this once they had some brains and decided hitching their horses to a wagon without wheels might not be wise? Given that supposedly "their investigators" thought the psychic's description was worth using, and not MW, might be viewed as a statement on the validity of MW's tale. :-) 21. Changed 6-year-old JonBenets underwear, helped her in the bathroom, which should be cause for deep concern about the propriety of such behavior or the free license given by the Ramseys to do so. While we might question JBR's supposed tendency to ask for help, I don't see how a close family friend assisting her is evidence of sexual deviancy. Perhaps he was stupid to do such things, but then, some folks don't see anything evil in helping a small child and never consider that such helping behaviors would ever be viewed as evidence of perversion. 22. Wrote numerous long letters to the People of Colorado, Gov. of Colorado, newspapers, and visited the BPD 18 times to ask that he be cleared. Why does that make him suspicious or guilty? Everybody jumps him for keeping quiet, now you jump him for protesting his innocence. If you are innocent, you aren't supposed to ask to be cleared? 23. *Allegation Alert* Has been named as the son of an abusive sexual exploitationist. The supposed sins of the father make him guilty of sexual crimes? Plus, his father's supposed misdeeds are only from the mouth of MW. No supporting evidence. I assume you are taking the same tack as darby often has: if MW was abused by the Whites, and JBR was abused in similar fashion, it couldn't be just a coincidence and FW probably is involved. As I've posted to darby earlier, if you think that logic has merit, wouldn't BPD also think along those lines? They've stated the is and never was any evidence to suggest FW had anything to do with JBR's murder and abuse. Do you think they'd publically say that if they had found any evidence that FW had abused MW? They might not have slapped on the handcuffs, but I suspect they wouldn't have issued that statement, either. Not a 100% certainty, but reasonable. 24. *Allegation Alert* Owns an oil company that produces money but exists only on paper. What does this have to do with his guilt of sexual abuse or murder? Why do you make this charge? Because the company doesn't have a web page or other online info? If it is a privately owned company, why would it have to be online? 25. Expected the press to retract a perfectly legal story based on a press release by the BPD concerning an investigation into MW. What does this have to do with his guilt concerning sexual abuse or murder? Perhaps he had no legal right to demand a retraction, and thus, wouldn't win a case in court, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to state his opinions as to the appropriateness or fairness of the story and ask that it be retracted. Although the story might be technically on safe legal ground, publicizing such horrendous charges without first investigating is at least highly questionable in ethical terms. Of course, now you are chastising FW for speaking up, when failing to protest has been a major point repeatedly raised as evidence that FW isn't "acting innocent." 26. *Allegation Alert* In spite of Internet threats made by presumed cohorts which allude to defamation lawsuits, has yet to file one against any entity. I guess I've missed these threats, and who are these cohorts? MM? Why hold FW responsible for the posts of some "presumed cohorts"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Ginja" Posted by shadow on 13:18:45 7/24/2000 First, I was indeed joking about your hair bum - I saw the "get together" pictures and you are very pretty! Second, as I recall, I got "lectures" from my teachers (and professors) from first grade right thru college. I was a "trouble-maker!" Third, if you have been around long, you should know that, in addition to never saying that either of the Ramseys killed JBR, I (along with Gemini, fly and frankg) never jumped on the hero bandwagon for Beckner, Thomas, Gov. Owens, or Fleet White. Finally, none of my posts have ever attacked the MW, nor said FW is innocent (or guilty) of anything - I have simply asked that we not "rush-to-judgement" on FW and his family until all the facts are in. Frankg, I kinda agree with you about discussing FW "stuff," but I do have a problem with deciding whether FW (or anyone for that matter) is a child sexual abuser based on analyzing data (information) of which I have no idea is true. I refuse to do this with John Ramsey also. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Well, Ginja" Posted by Real Stormy on 14:26:29 7/24/2000 "All's" I can say is I have trouble engaging in serious discussion with a person who uses the term, "Ass wipe." It doesn't sway me toward discussing anything with that person, serious or otherwise. It is, in fact, vulgar and offensive, as I find this subject of crucifying Fleet White, merely on imaginary evidence to be. Do you remember "And they exhumed Beth's body?" I do--enough said? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "mjenn" Posted by short timer on 14:24:32 7/24/2000 Maybe this is nasty gossip about FW but I don't see how it differs from 3-1/2 previous years of similar nasty gossip about JR, PR, BR, JAR, Santa, Patsy's father etc. All of them were accused of sexually molesting JBR and there isn't a shred of evidence that I know of that actually points to one of them. There's a ton of circumstantial evidence that points to the possibility of some of them abusing JBR but no real evidence. If there was any real evidence, someone would have been arrested by now. Let me make myself clear here. I am not accusing FW of anything. I am also not accusing him of being involved in JBR's murder. I am interested in looking into the possibilities of illicit activities that might involved FW. Someone has stepped forward and accused the FW's of certain illicit behavior. It's my choice to consider that information as worth pursuing. If it's someone else's choice not to, that's fine with me. If some of you want to joke about it, that's fine too. What amazes me the most is this subject is so upsetting to many of you but you can't keep away from the threads that are clearly marked with this topic. Why not just avoid these threads? Why not scroll? OTOH, it's fine for you to object all you want. The proof is in the pudding. One day we will hopefully know who was right and who was wrong. Until that time comes, though, I'm going to follow my intuition, just like every other poster on this forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "fly" Posted by darby on 14:37:22 7/24/2000 LOL--I was just echoing the "WST" complaints the other day when nobody responded within nano-seconds after Florida posted her Boykin URLs... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Dear Ginja" Posted by v_p on 15:25:43 7/24/2000 >>V-P did not intelligently counter Mary's points. Instead, she treated the entire post irresponsibly and in doing so, started idiot talk about a mystery woman in Aspen and FWJ driving around in a Jaguar.<< I didn't write anything at all about a "mystery woman" in aspen. I later explained the Jaguar commment. As for your other insults, I'll consider the source. As far as laughing about the death of a child...even you know better than that. There's not a soul on this forum who would laugh at a child's death. Funny how your computer freezes when you write your "counter points" but allows the posting of all your other exhaustive posts. Have a great evening! V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Short timer" Posted by Real Stormy on 14:59:46 7/24/2000 I agree that there is little difference between what happened in the past regarding allegations against John Ramsey, Mr. Paugh, Santa, etc. etc. etc. I spoke out against those unfounded acusations as I now speak out against the crucifying of Fleet White. The only solid evidence of which I am aware is that MW said that Fleet White Sr. is her mother's or grandmother's (variously) godfather. Apparently this was confirmed by a family member. Because MW claimed to have been the victim of a child sexual abuse cult (which has not been substantiated and there is some evidence to the contrary)all of this discussion springs from this godfather relationship. I heard both interviews which MW did with Mame and I heard no such accusations. That is the only word I have heard directly from MW. All the rest is from very fertile imaginations from some posters bent on destroying this forum. As to their motives, they will have to speak to that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "hmm" Posted by Matt on 17:10:51 7/24/2000 >>I am interested in looking into the possibilities of illicit activities that might involved FW.>> I am interested in who killed JonBenet and getting that woman behind bars. That is why I come to the JonBenet Ramsey discussion forum. Surprise! As for why people open up these threads I think it is because a large number of people enjoy flaming, insulting, name calling, and acting like a horse's ass. They won't admit it but it's true. And these threads always cause that. Why? Because FW is the punching boy right now, and the ones who do not believe him to be JB's killer or believe him to have sexually abused JB keep coming back to defend him. plus, as I said, they love the flames. BTW, I hate it when a poster tells me to "scroll". I'm always reminded of grade school for some reason. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "LOL, Matt!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:33:50 7/24/2000 Good one, "I am interested in who killed JonBenet, and getting her behind bars." FOFLMA! Your post got me humming, "If you see me walking down the street, and I start to cry, each time we meet, SCROLL on by-y-y-y, SCROLL on by...." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Drum keeps poundin'" Posted by Lacey on 17:56:11 7/24/2000 a rhythm, grow a brain. Lah de dah de de... Oh, make that, TO the brain. Drum keeps poundin' a rhythm TO the brain. There. Okay. Lacey, there may be a few over-the-top posters here who are indeed trying to propel Fleet to perverted pedophile sex-ringleader, but they would be in a definite minority. And they are no more extreme than those here who steadfastly argue there is no way Fleet is involved in anything improper. I do not believe either position is defendable. I only wish posters whom I respect here, and that most definitely includes you, would keep an open mind and continue to explore the "potential implications" without considering this as a declaration of war against Fleet White. Okie-dokie frankg, believe what you like, surely you don't believe that? Look. It's been done. It's .. already .. been .. done. So I stand by my post. And my first paragraph of the above-referenced post states where I stand on the issue of Fleet White. That's all. You might call them a minority but you could never determine that by the number or length of their posts! At one point every other thread was full of whatever a warped mind could come up with and the focus was Fleet. There was no stopping that and there's no stopping it now, even with the more detailed factual informaton that was given on the Victims thread. (Kudos to Florida, and others.) They don't care! THEY are the ones who remain abusive and confrontational when challenged about the evidence and the issues. So again I say, believe what you like. And another thing. Very nice, fly. I would have done it myself but why bother Ah, come to the watering hole. You too Storm.. Lacey [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Aghhhhh!" Posted by shadow on 17:55:37 7/24/2000 I ain't going to post here any more - took me half the night just to load this sucker! If anyone has anything else to say on this matter (not sure what's left to say), create a new thread - please!!!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Something else to add" Posted by Gemini on 18:02:24 7/24/2000 Alert! Shadow, i'm going to start a running tote on how many times you claim you're not gonna post to this subject anymore. Just did not want to be sneaky about it and boggle you with numbers at some future point in time. ; ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Gemini..." Posted by shadow on 18:20:50 7/24/2000 Read my lips!!!! What I said was - "I ain't going to post here any more - took me half the night just to load this sucker!" Now you have made me a liar, by getting me to post on this thread again. SHAME!!! As far as the MW subject is concerned, I'm not posting on that issue anymore. Feel free to whip me like a mule if I do... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. ":-)" Posted by Gemini on 18:29:48 7/24/2000 LOL! (choke choke) ROFL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Down, Girl" Posted by Lacey on 18:40:06 7/24/2000 Did someone say whips and chains? PLEASE! PEOPLE!! Let's don't encourage them. Next thing ya know, The Warped Ones will open a thread called Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones But Whips and Chains Excite Us! They will come up with a way to link it to the impossible They will . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "This subject" Posted by Real Stormy on 19:31:33 7/24/2000 Reminds me of the saying about foxhunting. "The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible." And since I am in a literary mood: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Darby" Posted by Real Stormy on 20:12:20 7/24/2000 I say that Fleet White is an innocent person for the same reason I would say you are an innocent person. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "FrankG, you may be a paid shill" Posted by MJenn on 21:46:32 7/24/2000 but I am now officially "ilk." Fly, very brave of you to answer THE 26 STEPS TO HANGING FLEET WHITE with a straight face (well, there was that remark about Santa, but it was a small thing.) However, you better be careful, as you'll be "ilk" yourself if you don't lookout. Calling all "ilk!" Meet me at the morgue: all night laughing party--BYOB! (That's "bring your own body," not beer.) Suspicious deaths welcomed! (We find those really hilarious!) We're down the rabbit hole, now, Alice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Ginja..." Posted by Brightlight on 21:11:34 7/24/2000 > Brightlight...as regards rebuttal or countering > Mary's points, v_p said she had countered all > the points. My response was that she really > hadn't. But the discussion revolved around v-p, > not other posters responses. My apologies if I intruded. You asked a question saying you'd been through three threads and hadn't seen any counterpoints or rebuttals; no particular poster was named, only comments. Guess it's all in the presentation. > 20. "Address the Post, not the Poster!" > Posted by Ginja on 09:48:05 7/23/2000 > > I've been through the three threads and haven't > seen any counterpoint or rebuttal on any of > those 26 points. Why? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Real Stormy" Posted by darby on 22:27:14 7/24/2000 I fully realize why you seem to feel the way you do. But I don't think that me and Fleet White can be compared so easily. Yes, it would be unfair if someone on the forum announced out of the blue that I had been in a sex ring, especially since I never have. However... If some quasi-relative of mine and her lawyer went to the media with information, and then several news articles were released saying that the woman's family knew mine and that she had all kinds of documentation verifying that she has been abused in a child sex ring, then I would expect that people might be discussing the possibility that I might have been one of her abusers. If the whole thing was untrue, I'd be extremely angry, but it wouldn't be directed toward the people speculating about me based on the articles they read; this would be expected given the allegations. Instead, I'd be angry with the media for providing the fodder for speculation, and I'd demand a retraction. You can bet that for the sake of my children, I wouldn't take the supposed high road by sitting back and remaining silent. As things stand, pretending as if the articles about MW were never released will not negate the speculation. And until the questions that were raised by those articles are answered, the speculation will continue. Yes, all of this would be unfortunate if Fleet White is innocent. But if so, the damage has already been done. And never talking about it again won't make many of us stop wondering about him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "fly" Posted by darby on 23:02:33 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:02:33, 7/24/2000 You have made some good alternate explanations for the 26 points. The thing is, most, if not all, of those points can be interpreted many ways; there's no way to prove which explanation is correct. Some of the more astute forum people, including yourself, have wondered about many of the 26 points well before MW came along. And now that she has, more of us are taking a second look. What I see are 26 more reasons to determine what exactly is the truth about Fleet White. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "There you go again" Posted by MJenn on 22:46:29 7/24/2000 I thought Mary99 said Fleet demanded a retraction of this MW story written in a media publication? Didn't Fly just address this no-win logic? White says nothing, he's guilty; White says don't publish those lies, he's guilty. And now White is a "quasi-relative" of MW. I haven't seen the proof that MW is related to anybody. Heck, I don't even know her name, though I will concede that if she is an actual human being, she does have a mother and a father somewhere. But "quasi-relative" is a perfect example of how exaggeration makes someone ALLEDGEDLY very remotely connected sound closely related. Oh no. I forgot to scroll. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "mjenn" Posted by darby on 23:17:57 7/24/2000 My reference to retraction probably wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that if I was innocent, I would go ahead and make a VERY public stink about the whole thing, even if it meant calling attention to myself. I'd provide an explanation or at least a guess for why I think my father's goddaughter's daughter had a mind to do such a thing. As it is, I would guess that most of the folks in Boulder who know of Fleet White know all about the MW article. If they didn't read it themselves, they no doubt have heard about it through the rumor mill. And I have to wonder if some Boulder parents would entrust their kids to spend the night over at the Whites' house. Would you? For that reason--for the sake of my kids--If I was innocent, I would be raising hell about this. Quasi means having some resemblance, usually by possession of certain attributes. It does NOT mean one and the same (ie, a quasi-relative is not a relative). So I was not exaggerating when I used the word quasi. I used that term for my example, rather than saying, "If my father's goddaughter's daughter..." I thought it would be easier to follow. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Mjenn" Posted by short timer on 23:03:59 7/24/2000 Don't worry about that scrolling advice. It was just for people who were upset by this subject. It's obvious you're enjoying your visit to Cutesy Paradise. By all means, continue having fun. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "mjenn" Posted by darby on 23:27:22 7/24/2000 You might try looking up ilk as well. I wouldn't think you'd have any reason to take offense to the term as I used it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "What is the purpose" Posted by Lacey on 05:18:35 7/25/2000 of continuing to reference the original MW articles that have been canceled out by subsequent articles that reported that her claims could neither be verified nor substantiated? You are leaving out a big chunk of information when you imply that initial media reports were true but the credibility busters are not. LOL! Such reasoning prowess, go figure. I believe a fair assessment of the situation would have to include ALL the media coverage, start to finish. Some of you just don't get it. And it's very sad to watch Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Lacey" Posted by darby on 05:39:00 7/25/2000 What, exactly, has been canceled out? The Boykin case relies on mostly Boykin relatives and friends of Boykin relatives to indicate a lie in the violation claim which occurred after the initial conviction. I think that most references to unsubstantiated claims have to do with this case, and I have to wonder when relatives are vouching for someone. Plus, the DA in that case supports that MW told the truth. I wonder if perhaps MW might have told that prosecutor all about other abuse at the hand of a Ramsey-case figure long before the murder. Or maybe the same occurred with Bienkowsky. At any rate, we have heard lots of references to documentation and communications of abuse PRIOR TO THE MURDER, and we have NEVER heard that this has been proven false. Perhaps that is why we are all still talking about MW's claims. And until I hear that there is no evidence of such information being conveyed prior to the JBR murder, I will continue to wonder. As it stands, as far as I'm concerned, this is not a done deal. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "Darby" Posted by Lacey on 06:07:18 7/25/2000 I'm not quite sure what you're talking about now, but I thought you were referring to the QUASI MW/Fleet White sexual-abuse allegations in your previous posts? In Colorado? Proof of other unsubstantiated claims of hers has also been posted on other threads which to me soundly extinguishes her credibility (albeit not the plaintive wails of her supporters). Well in any case the lengths one has to go to to find substance in all her claims of lifetime abuse.. under these circumstances most of us are unable to make such leaps. And certainly not the leaps of logic that lay the blame at the feet of Fleet. It's a force-fit that requires a step-back to survey the big picture. And Fleet White is not in it. Where does he fit in? I don't know. But I am sufficiently satisfied with the proof and information that's been presented to rule out the sex-ring thing. short timer, what are you, some kind of troll follering me around from thread to thread. Leave me alone, moron Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "lacey" Posted by short timer on 05:37:35 7/25/2000 Must not be too sad for you, Lacey. This is your 4th post on this thread so you're obviously dropping by pretty regularly to read this sadness. And yes, au contraire to what you think, some of us do "get it". I could explain why again but I know you don't listen. Your mind is as closed as you accuse our minds of being. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "Lacey" Posted by darby on 06:21:19 7/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:21:19, 7/25/2000 I'm just waiting for more information is all. mame has heard that things are being investigated, so I'm waiting for the outcome of that. If it nothing further ever surfaces, say by the end of this year, I'll assume that nothing could be substantiated, and I'll drop the whole matter. edited to point out that name calling isn't very nice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 107. "Pssst #5 Lacey" Posted by short timer on 06:37:01 7/25/2000 Moron. LOL! You wish. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 106. "LOL Darby" Posted by Lacey on 06:31:54 7/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:31:54, 7/25/2000 Drop the whole matter? But you've worked so hard. Well the damage is already done, you really should do more than that but who am I after all to suggest what you should do about it. I guess I have to say I'll believe it when I see it. You seem rather entrenched in the whole MW Phenomena, but perhaps I'm mistaken. And now you want to be thread patrol too? Give it a rest. short timer has said far worse, it's not too hard to find, and I'm flocking sick of it. A troll is a troll is a troll, and the short timer hat is a scroll Lacey Not very nice? Edited to point out maybe you should remember that next time you're flaming Fleet . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 109. "Darby" Posted by Florida on 06:50:22 7/25/2000 "The Boykin case relies on mostly Boykin relatives and friends of Boykin relatives to indicate a lie in the violation claim which occurred after the initial conviction. I think that most references to unsubstantiated claims have to do with this case, and I have to wonder when relatives are vouching for someone. " If you are talking about the charges she made against Boykin in the early '90's - The San Luis Obispo Police Department investigated this charge completely. They did not rely on the word of relatives. The medical records were checked. The Police Chief in the MO town he was in vouched for his whereabouts at the time she said he broke in and raped her. He was not in the state, ergo, he could not have done it. Why is it so hard to accept the truth as the truth? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 116. "That's interesting, Florida." Posted by Holly on 04:13:07 7/26/2000 Why would the police chief in the MO town be aware of Macky Boykin at all? He may well have been there. Still, sadly, relatives provide alibis all the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 108. "#6 " Posted by short timer on 06:44:40 7/25/2000 You bet I've said far worse, your smugness. So have you. I'm no troll, cupcake. I'm as interested in the outcome of this case as anyone who posts here. The case has gone on for 3-1/2 years now so I don't get involved in all of the rehashing of the rehashing. I do, however, firmly believe in my right and my ability to do further investigation into the MW claims. If anyone has followed others around mocking them, it's you my dear Lacey. There's nothing you don't have an opinion on, no one you won't insult, no one whose face you won't laugh in, and then you tie it all in a neat little bow and deliver it to their stomach with a 2X4. If you want to mock everyone who has an opinion that differs from the high and mighty Lacey, then be prepared for others to mock you. It's that simple, your smugness. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 115. "Theft of Copy"written" Material" Posted by loriann on 21:28:50 7/25/2000 I have a copyright on the term "Flock Off" and in light of the current hoopla per Jeani Lou(ser), Lacey can expect prompt litigation followed by a lengthy prison sentence in a maximum security facility. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 113. "darby, MJenn, Florida" Posted by fly on 07:55:31 7/25/2000 I'd start a new thread, but that would probably only promote this sad state of affairs. So, I'll add to this one until it collapses under its own weight. darby - Yes, some of the 26 items have multiple explanations (assuming that the facts are correct as stated). As such, those are nearly worthless as evidence supporting the idea of involvement in some illicit activity. That is especially true of those for which the more innocent explanation is also the far more likely one. Of the list of 26, the only ones worth any real thought are Fleet's foray back to the crime scene and the possibility of multiple SS numbers, IMO. The latter has already been shown to be more common than most of us would imagine, however, calling its likely importance into question. MJenn - I've been called worse, and for that matter I've been considered "ilk" by some here for quite some time. Thanks for the concern, though. Florida - The answer is: because conspiracies are much more exciting and let people avoid evidence that damages their favorite viewpoint. I can't count the number of times this sort of attitude has been demonstarted on the forums. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 112. "Fla, Lace" Posted by darby on 07:49:46 7/25/2000 Fla--Okay, it would be hard to argue with hospital records. But I'd like to hear more, a LOT more, before passing judgment, mainly because there are too many conflicting reports on everything, and too many interested parties involving MW's relatives (both real and quasi). I know that some of them are posting on the internet and I can't be sure that none of them are around here. Plus, I haven't seen the hospital records, only heard about them. But supposing that MW lied about Boykin: This I hate to say, but an abuse victim who sees the injustice of very small sentence for someone who helped to destroy her life just might in desperation lie in an effort to avenge her abuser. I'm not saying this is right, only that I could see this happening. I know, I know, if a person lies once, who could believe anything else? But such a lie wouldn't and couldn't negate claims against someone else if such claims had been documented and then basically substantiated later by a case with the same M.O. Lacey--I have leaned toward believing that there might be something to MW's claims, but I have made it very clear that I don't know anything for sure. Believe me, I do want the truth, no matter which direction it points. I haven't trashed FW. I've only questioned his behavior and wondered if MW's claims are right. I'd like to know how can you or anyone else say with certainty that she is wrong at this point. I do think that more information is forthcoming, though when, I don't know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 111. "To murder" Posted by Watching you on 07:37:25 7/25/2000 character is as truly a crime as to murder the body; the tongue of the slanderer is brother to the dagger of the assassin. ...Tryon Edwards. Why don't y'all just start another thread so anyone who is interested can load it easier. That would not be WY. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 114. "More fun than a barrel of monkeys!" Posted by MJenn on 13:10:13 7/25/2000 Darby, I don't need a dictionary to know what you mean when you hurl "your ilk" at me during a slug fest. But "his father's goddaughter's daughter" would have been correct, if any of this stuff is even closely related to terms like "correct." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 117. "Can you honestly say............" Posted by ericasf on 09:18:03 7/26/2000 The law firm of Haddon Morgan & Foreman also represented President Clinton, from 1981 forward, as was revealed in the Whitewater investigation. Members of the law firm are also politically powerful in Colorado. Can anyone honestly tell me that since the above statement is proven to be true that the Rams didn't have political pull in Colorado? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE