Justice Watch Discussion Board "FW Sources, Please.." [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... FW Sources, Please.., Dianne E., 22:52:37, 7/23/2000 Fleet White, Shamrockpati, 23:03:14, 7/23/2000, (#1) oughta be interesting, Matt, 03:42:33, 7/24/2000, (#2) Should be ashamed, Sylvia, 05:38:14, 7/24/2000, (#3) Beckner's in, Watching you, 06:15:41, 7/24/2000, (#4) Careful!!, shadow, 06:36:09, 7/24/2000, (#5) Why White?, Holly, 06:42:40, 7/24/2000, (#6) *sighs*, v_p, 06:48:39, 7/24/2000, (#7) Holly.., Dianne E., 07:25:26, 7/24/2000, (#8) Dianne E., Holly, 07:29:33, 7/24/2000, (#9) Straight from the horse's -----, mary99, 07:37:33, 7/24/2000, (#11) rest of FW's eloquent letter, mary99, 07:39:56, 7/24/2000, (#12) That Grand Old First Amendment...., LurkerXIV, 08:03:43, 7/24/2000, (#13) how many pages...?, mary99, 08:24:58, 7/24/2000, (#17) court records, ericasf, 07:05:18, 7/25/2000, (#68) Yes, v_p, Real Stormy, 07:30:23, 7/24/2000, (#10) OMIGOD!! NUDE Children!!!, LurkerXIV, 08:07:37, 7/24/2000, (#14) LurkerXIV.., Dianne E., 08:14:00, 7/24/2000, (#15) Mary99, Real Stormy, 08:18:40, 7/24/2000, (#16) FW - "I want to tell you", mary99, 08:34:30, 7/24/2000, (#18) Indeed I have, Mary99, Real Stormy, 08:40:25, 7/24/2000, (#19) mental exercise, mary99, 08:42:33, 7/24/2000, (#20) Having lurked for the last several days, momo, 09:04:23, 7/24/2000, (#21) Thank you, momo..., LurkerXIV, 09:07:29, 7/24/2000, (#22) Lurker, momo, 09:35:33, 7/24/2000, (#24) Dead Horse Walking???, shadow, 09:20:00, 7/24/2000, (#23) Mayhap, Watching you, 10:22:50, 7/24/2000, (#30) Shadow, kdubois2, 10:17:13, 7/24/2000, (#29) SHADOW, Sylvia, 10:16:37, 7/24/2000, (#28) Shadow, Longhorn, 10:01:28, 7/24/2000, (#27) out of the fray, Seashell, 09:50:40, 7/24/2000, (#26) NO NO NO NO, Sylvia, 09:43:23, 7/24/2000, (#25) Reliable sources, documentation, solid facts , MJenn, 12:14:05, 7/24/2000, (#31) Mjenn, ericasf, 07:11:14, 7/25/2000, (#69) MJenn, Sylvia, 12:21:45, 7/24/2000, (#32) For what it's worth..., Nandee, 12:37:25, 7/24/2000, (#33) Shadow, Teague, 13:21:15, 7/24/2000, (#35) Excellent thread, DianneE, A.K., 13:18:39, 7/24/2000, (#34) what?, fly, 13:51:14, 7/24/2000, (#37) Teague..., shadow, 13:40:17, 7/24/2000, (#36) shadow, fly, 13:54:26, 7/24/2000, (#38) I'm a 9, v_p, 14:40:16, 7/24/2000, (#39) Really, A.K., lake, 15:43:01, 7/24/2000, (#40) 8 here, Ruthee, 16:24:31, 7/24/2000, (#45) Shadow, Teague, 15:59:17, 7/24/2000, (#42) Good or Evil, Shamrockpati, 15:53:42, 7/24/2000, (#41) Shamrockpatti..., BearCat, 06:55:42, 7/25/2000, (#67) Well, SRP, lake, 16:04:38, 7/24/2000, (#43) Lake, Ruthee, 04:17:23, 7/25/2000, (#65) Lake , Shamrockpati, 16:22:25, 7/24/2000, (#44) I know SRP, lake, 16:35:42, 7/24/2000, (#46) RST , Matt, 16:57:26, 7/24/2000, (#47) Help me Jesus, lake, 17:10:04, 7/24/2000, (#48) lake.., PegB, 20:34:59, 7/24/2000, (#57) Well, that shows what you know Peg, lake, 22:33:31, 7/24/2000, (#60) Are you calling MW a fraud, Lake?, MJenn, 22:55:22, 7/24/2000, (#62) Internet, v_p, 17:15:40, 7/24/2000, (#49) lines in the sand, freebird, 17:35:53, 7/24/2000, (#53) Notice Holly, Mary 99 etc have not been back, fiddy, 17:31:45, 7/24/2000, (#51) Hi fiddy., Holly, 19:31:26, 7/24/2000, (#54) So, fiddy, lake, 17:35:30, 7/24/2000, (#52) And, lake, 17:29:17, 7/24/2000, (#50) mame and Fleet White, LurkerXIV, 20:05:35, 7/24/2000, (#55) Fast and Furious, A.K., 20:30:25, 7/24/2000, (#56) A.K., Real Stormy, 20:47:30, 7/24/2000, (#58) I'll look into that AK, lake, 21:50:45, 7/24/2000, (#59) lake, mame, 22:47:37, 7/24/2000, (#61) Let me break this down for you, pals, A.K., 00:15:54, 7/25/2000, (#63) Seems some people are having trouble, Sylvia, 03:39:01, 7/25/2000, (#64) Lake..., shadow, 06:10:59, 7/25/2000, (#66) Lake, K777angel, 17:42:53, 7/25/2000, (#70) ................................................................... "FW Sources, Please.." Posted by Dianne E. on 23:00:41 7/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:00:41, 7/23/2000 ..my mind is whirling with the many claims against Fleet White. I only remember reading that Daphne was missing and found hiding in the house. NOW it is being said that she was NUDE? Does writing long letters make you a criminal? I see so many long posts I am concerned I may be posting with criminals, lol. I wonder how you could consider a grown man wearing a Santa Suit at Christmas as a crime? Is the inside secret so sinister that Fleet White must be beheaded? Either Fleet and JohnBoy are pulling off the best scam on earth or this is the most brutal attack on a non "umbrella person" I have seen. May I respectfully request your souces, let's start with Daphne nude? Where did that come from? I am sure others will have their own questions, perhaps we could better understand your position on Fleet White if we had a clearer picture. Remember not all of us know this sinister secret, so is the secret the trigger for these wild claims? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Fleet White" Posted by Shamrockpati on 23:03:14 7/23/2000 I have also wondered why is everyone going crazy about Fleet White, he hasn't gone on TV he keeps a low profile and hasn't cashed in on JonBenet's death. Just because of that he's being crucified. What evidence does anyone really have that he's this perverted pedophile and possibly a mastermind of some vast kiddie port network and the killer of JonBenet? That's something I would truly like to know? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "oughta be interesting" Posted by Matt on 03:42:33 7/24/2000 Thus far I have seen the following cited as serious sources for lynching Fleet White: 1) DOI 2) the SWAMP 3) Hunter's remarks made to Singular (supposedly in Singular's book) 4) it's "a secret source", take my word for it This oughta be interesting as it unfolds, if not laughable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Should be ashamed" Posted by Sylvia on 05:38:14 7/24/2000 Have seen nothing about the man other then that he doesn't want to go in to this stupid speculations about him, can't blame him about that! Rammers are out to blame the man, as they did with all friends. So nothing new here. A stupid remark from Beckner, because at that time Hunter had him cornered as well. Hope he's become wiser, although when I see he is going to the Rams instead of making them come to BPD doesn't exactly comfirm that he's become wiser. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Beckner's in" Posted by Watching you on 06:15:41 7/24/2000 Hunter's camp; Hunter hates FW with a passion. It doesn't take much to figure out where that stupid comment came from. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Careful!!" Posted by shadow on 06:36:09 7/24/2000 To paraphase Greenleaf, are we inadvertently, giving the White defense team great fodder to explain away such things as blonds with rings in their tongues and tattoos on their butts ; having relatives visit them on Christmas; Boulder-wide, Colorado-wide, California-wide and world-wide sex rings; red Jags; "mean-spirited" letters to the Governor; actually talking with the BPD; and not confessing their involvement in all of the above, and in the death of JBR, to the mainstream media?? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Why White?" Posted by Holly on 06:42:40 7/24/2000 From the start FW has been integral to this case. The self-described star witness. PMPT, DOI, INSIDE THE INVESTIGATION, the Lee Hill deposition, and the Singlular book have all detailed FW's odd (at least to me) behavior. Beckner's statements, Hofstrom, Hunter and even a cop in Roswell GA and others tell me this guy is not operating with a full deck. And I want to know why. While many feel FW has deported himself with dignity and compassion and most of all a dedication to justice for JB, I disagree. Long before MW surfaced, I was trying to figure White out. His letters were over the top missives that seemed more focused on politics and Hunter than anything else. His controlling intensity bothered me. He scribbled notes on 12/26, hustled Burke out of the house, claims to have looked in the windowless room and seen nothing, violated a direct order from a law enforcement officer, went back to the crime scene and touched the blanket, tape, shadowed Patsy, bickered and insulted Ramsey friends and relatives in Atlanta, his behavior merited a 911 call from Roswell, he openly argued with JR about CNN, but their accounts are poles apart, he broke into Hoverstock's office with a note from a tab reporter, hounded the BPD over and over and over. He refused to testify before the Grand Jury. He wanted transcripts of his earlier statements. Why? He obstructed justice according to Beckner. He required kid glove treatment. Hours and days of reasoning finally got him in front of the Grand Jury. I would have RUN to the Grand Jury. But did he take a polygraph, give DNA? His daughter had been reported missing the previous October and found hiding in a cupboard. The NUDE information was provided by another poster via email, who heard it from a good source. But it's unconfirmed. He admits to having direct contact with JB by changing her panties on at least two occassions and wiping her in the bathroom. Sorry. I don't like that. You might. I don't. For months I have tried to confirm that White owns or works for Fleet Oil or any oil/gas company, is a champion sailor, a millionaire, an advocate. He does, however, share the same SS# with someone else. That's weird. There is not confirmation of anything except some address hits. But I am still trying. There is no website, no email addie, no internet info on White except relating to JB. Does this mean anything? Not really. Just deepens the mystery and intrigues the hell out of me and others. With the arrival of MW, the FW behavior finally seemed to make sense. But without s full investigation of this woman's claims, they are just data and not facts -- yet. For those who want heros, I hope White is one. But for now, based on my experience and several decades on this planet, many inter-actions with all kinds of people, some hiding dark secrets, some pushing private agendas, Fleet White makes me uncomfortable. I say this to myself every day. "Look with better eyes. The truth to this horrible crime is there." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "*sighs*" Posted by v_p on 06:48:39 7/24/2000 * [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Holly.." Posted by Dianne E. on 07:25:26 7/24/2000 .. MW's data in many cases is not verified as fact. The part that has been (the court documents) tell a much different picture in the allegations against Boykin. So the only "facts" about MW's claims seem to be grossly exagerated. ..I am sure if you called enough people about me you could find a few to say something nasty:) ..If you did a search on posters here, you would probably not find much or any info, does that make us criminals? Maybe MW's only real "mission" in life is to let the world know about ritual abuse and she is able to do so now? Or perhaps MW is Team Ramsey's (TR) best shot against FW? Maybe IF TR had been checking into FW all this time, MW was the best they could come up with? It is working out to be a great strategy if that is the case, fortunately, only a few are taking the bait. It is not a leap for me to consider that Team Ramsey could be the very reason MW was uncovered. I am sure if investigators spent a few years searching the family tree of any of us, they could find someone equally disturbed, perhaps for different reasons, but all the same. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Dianne E." Posted by Holly on 07:29:33 7/24/2000 I think I said that the MW data is not fact yet. Time will tell where this trail does or does not lead. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Straight from the horse's -----" Posted by mary99 on 07:37:33 7/24/2000 Fleet and Priscilla White's letter to the People of Colorado August 17th, 1998 To the people of Colorado: On August 12, 1998, Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that he would be presenting the JonBenet Ramsey murder case to a Boulder grand jury at the expense of the State of Colorado. Colorado grand jury law requires that both jurors and witnesses take an oath of secrecy regarding grand jury proceedings and testimony. In anticipation of receiving a subpoena to appear before that grand jury, we wish at this time to address matters concerning the investigation which we feel are of great importance to the people of Colorado and the Boulder community. After JonBenet Ramsey was killed in Boulder nearly twenty months ago, her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, immediately hired prominent Democrat criminal defense attorneys with the law firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. This firm and its partners have close professional, political and personal ties to prosecutors, the Denver and Boulder legal and judicial communities, state legislators, and high-ranking members of Colorado government, including Governor Roy Romer. The investigation of her death has since been characterized by confusion and delays. The district attorney and Ramsey defense ask the the public to believe that these delays and the lack of a prosecution have resulted almost entirely from initial police bungling of the case and the noncooperation of witnesses. This has continued to this day. Advising the district attorney since the early days of the investigation have been Denver metropolitan area district attorneys Bob Grant (Adams County), Bill Ritter (Denver County), Jim Peters (18th Judicial District), and Dave Thomas (1st Judicial District). Recently, Boulder police detective Steve Thomas, an investigator on the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, left the department in disgust. In his August 6 letter of resignation, he publicly accused the district attorney of obstructing the police investigation and allowing politics to "trump" justice. He asked that a special prosecutor be brought in to handle the case. We knew JonBenet and her parents very well and have been closely involved in the investigation as witnesses. During the past year, we have also come to know and respect Mr. Thomas and were saddened and discouraged by his departure from the investigation. We share Mr. Thomas' view regarding the district attorney and his contention that overwhelming pressure brought to bear on the district attorney and police leadership from various quarters has thwarted the investigation and delayed justice in the case. While it is unlikely that the district attorney has been corrupted by Ramsey defense attorneys, it is certain that the district attorney and his prosecutors have been greatly influenced by their metro area district attorney advisers and by defense attorneys' chummy persuasiveness and threats of reprisals for victim clients. Indeed, the district attorney and the Ramsey attorneys have simultaneously rebuked the police for "focusing" their investigation on the Ramseys when in fact police were simply following evidence. During the course of the investigation, the district attorney has used inexplicable methods including the recruitment of magazine writers and tabloids to leak information concerning the case and to needle witnesses, "suspects", and police detectives. He has provided evidence to Ramsey defense attorneys at their request but denied reasonable requests by witnesses for their own statements to police. He has thoroughly alienated police detectives and key witnesses whose cooperation is vital to the investigation and prosecution. His public statements regarding the investigation have been erratic, evasive, and misleading. They have also been profoundly damaging to the case. Understandably, public confidence in the district attorney's handling of the investigation was low even before Mr. Thomas' letter. Notwithstanding what the public has been led to believe, Boulder police leadership and detectives have been under the effective control of the district attorney and his advisers since the early days of the investigation. In December, 1997, we met with Governor Romer to request that the state intervene and appoint an independent special prosecutor to take over the investigation and prosecution of the case. Citing the growing conflict between police and prosecutors and the delay of any progress in the investigation, we expressed our view that Boulder authorities were incapable of seeking justice. We also pointed out specific circumstances which we felt could inhibit or restrict Governor Romer's willingness to intervene. In early January, 1998, we were advised that he had decided against intervention on the advice of Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby. Chief Koby, who has since left the department, had told Governor Romer that the investigation was incomplete and therefore had not been given to the district attorney for prosecution. In short, there had been no failure to prosecute and thus no basis for the state's intervention. Upon learning of his decision, we wrote a letter published January 16, 1998 in the Boulder Daily Camera expressing our views and requesting that Governor Romer reconsider his decision. Recently, Governor Romer publicly stated that he did not recall the letter. We hope that this letter will make a stronger impression. Since our meeting with Governor Romer eight months ago, the public has been shown the forced reconciliation of demoralized police detectives with the district attorney and his prosecutors and a sequence of odd and highly publicized milestones in the case. In March, 1998, police Chief Koby and lead investigator Mark Beckner (later to be appointed police chief), made an unusual public appeal to the district attorney for a grand jury investigation on the pro bono advice of three prominent Denver attorneys. In response, the district attorney requested a complete presentation by police of evidence. This presentation occurred over two days in early June, 1998, and was witnessed by prosecutors, representatives of the State Attorney General's office, prominent forensic scientists, and advisers of the district attorney and the police department. The public was then told that the investigation had been finally transferred to the district attorney from the police department and that the district attorney would now require some indeterminate length of time to review the case prior to making a decision concerning the police request for a grand jury investigation. Upon leaving the presentation, both Alex Hunter and Mark Beckner made inappropriate but tantalizing comments designed to give the public hope that the case may yet be "solved". They warned, however, that there was still a lot of work to do and that additional evidence was needed. Then, in late June, 1998, the public was once again brought in on a major development in the case. The Ramseys were interviewed by representatives of the district attorney in a carefully orchestrated demonstration of their willingness to cooperate in the investigation now that biased and incompetent police detectives were no longer involved. Most developments in the case brought to the public's attention throughout 1997 should be regarded as well-publicized but clumsy attempts by the district attorney and police leadership to look busy, follow long "task lists", and clean up investigative files while the district attorney killed time and spread-out responsibility for the case. On the other hand, "advances" in the case since early this year have been carefully planned to condition the public for a grand jury investigation. The district attorney's past indecision and the need for the police to ask him for a grand jury investigation were deliberate attempts to mislead the public. If based on nothing other than the district attorney's repeated public statements and leaks characterizing the case as "not prosecutable", there can be little doubt that, absent a confession, the people running the investigation had long ago decided against filing charges in the case. Instead, they manipulated public opinion to favor the use of the grand jury. There is compelling evidence, however, that their motivation for presenting the case to a grand jury has little or nothing to do with obtaining new evidence, grilling "reluctant" witnesses, or returning an indictment and everything to do with sealing away facts, circumstances and evidence gathered in the investigation in a grand jury transcript. It is our firm belief that the district attorney and others intend to use the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect their careers and also serve the conflicting interests of something to hide or protect or who simply don't want n to be publicly linked to a dreadful murder investigation. Also weighing on the district attorney has been the matter of preserving and protecting the now "cooperative" and forthcoming Ramseys' rights as victims. * * * In direct response to Mr. Thomas' recent letter, Governor Romer met on August 12, 1998 with district attorneys Grant, Ritter, Peters, and Thomas. Later that day, Governor Romer announced at a press conference that Hunter had told him that the case was "on track for a grand jury". Romer said that "it would be improper to appoint a special prosecutor now" but that to improve public confidence in the case he would make available to Hunter additional prosecutorial expertise. Shortly after the press conference, Hunter's office announced that the case would be presented to a grand jury in "order to gain additional evidence in the case". On August 13, 1998, the Rocky Mountain News offered an editorial entitled "Calling in the Calvary" (sic) in which the editor generally supported Governor's Romer's action but insightfully asked the obvious question: Why has it taken so long for Hunter's office to present the case to a grand jury? "But if the Ramsey case is 'on track for a grand jury,' as Romer insists, it seems to have been sitting on a siding for quite a long time awaiting clearance to proceed. This is all the more true given the fact that Ritter, Grant, Thomas, and Peters obviously believe that the grand jury must be used as an investigative tool in the Ramsey case, and not merely to reach a predetermined prosecutorial goal. If that is the case, why wasn't a grand jury used months ago? Indeed, why wasn't it used more than a year ago?" Following the Sid Wells murder in Boulder in August, 1983, a grand jury investigating the high-profile case met off-and-on for fifteen months without returning an indictment. Quoted in the January 29, 1984 Denver Post, Boulder Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise revealed that the case had been originally referred to the grand jury "because of its power to further investigate the case. The district attorney didn't have subpoena power and we needed that tool." Hunter had waited less than three months before presenting the Wells murder case to a grand jury. Three months after the death of JonBenet Ramsey, police were still trying to interview John and Patsy Ramsey and obtain other evidence critical to the case. There is a relatively simple but compelling answer to the question raised by the Rocky Mountain News editorial. Since very early in the case, there has been at least a tacit understanding among the district attorney, police leadership, those persons advising these agencies, and Ramsey defense attorneys that the case would be presented to a grand jury but not until the statutory Boulder grand jury was convened in April, 1998. This delay was deemed necessary by some or all of these parties in order to take advantage of a new statute (16-5-205.5, C.R.S.) concerning grand jury reporting procedures which was the result of legislation promoted by the Colorado District Attorney's Council and passed by the legislature in early March 1997. By law, however, this change in procedure would only apply to reports issued by grand juries convened after October 1, 1997. In order to take advantage of the new statute, a Boulder grand jury would have to wait until April, 1998, the next convening of the statutory Boulder grand jury subsequent to October 1, 1997. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary for these people to stall and cynically rely on the public's relative ignorance of the statute and the purpose and general nature of grand juries. The district attorney and police leadership worked hard to create the fiction that the police investigation was not "complete" and therefore not ready to be transferred to the district attorney. As long as the district attorney didn't have the case it would be difficult to fault him for not prosecuting or presenting the case to a grand jury. It was this fiction that was used by the district attorney to deflect mounting criticism including that contained in our letter in January, 1998. It also served as the basis for a Boulder court to throw out a suit brought against the district attorney by New York attorney Darnay Hoffman who had accused the district attorney of "constructively abandoning the case". The district attorney's publicly expressed indecision in late 1997 regarding a grand jury investigation gave way to his progressively greater "leaning" toward such a decision as the date for convening the Boulder grand jury drew near. * * * House Bill 97-1009 was drafted by the Colorado District Attorneys Council in late 1996 and was introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives on January 8, 1997, two weeks after JonBenet was killed. HB 97-1009 was sponsored by Representative Bill Kaufman, a Republican, and Senator Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat. The impetus for this bill was the desire of the statute (16-5-205 (4), C.R.S.) regarding the issuance of grand jury reports in those cases where there is not an indictment. The matter was discussed by the district attorneys and legislators at a conference in the summer of 1996. The existing statute allowed the issuance of reports but was argued to be confusing and overly restrictive. As a result, grand jury reports were nonexistent. In a January 19, 1997 editorial supporting passage of the bill, the Denver Post pointed to the inconclusive grand jury investigations concerning DIA and police conduct in the high profile Ocrant case in Arapahoe County. Also mentioned was the recent Truax officer-involved shooting case in which Denver DA Bill Ritter chose not to use a grand jury to investigate possible police officer misconduct because of his concern that the grand jury might not report its findings to the public. Citing these cases, the Post "...urged that in the balance between the public's right to information and the statutory demand for grand jury secrecy, public disclosure should carry more weight than it now does." The Post editorial went on to say: "The proposed law would instruct judges to determine whether the report should be released and allow for withholding any parts necessary to protect witnesses. It also would give witnesses an opportunity to see reports and file opposing motions if they object to their release. Such reports could go a long way toward dispelling doubts like those that still linger over the DIA and Truax investigations, and by providing all witnesses with safeguards against disclosures that might damage or embarrass them, still preserve the confidentiality that is both the armor and the engine of the grand jury process." The original draft of the bill was presented to the House Judiciary Committee by Representative Kaufman at a hearing on January 21, 1997, long after the Ramsey case had exploded into a national news story amid growing suspicions of police mishandling of the case. Speaking in favor of the bill before the committee were district attorneys Ritter, Thomas, and Grant. All of these district attorneys, along with Jim Peters, would be named publicly as advisers to Alex Hunter on the Ramsey case a few weeks later on February 14, 1997. It is clear from the draft bill and from their comments at this hearing that they intended reporting by grand juries to be on matters generally limited to allegations of non criminal misconduct by public employees, officials, and agencies but only when such information regarding those allegations was in the public interest. At the hearing Mr. Ritter stated: "...there are other matters where we bring...an issue into the Grand Jury for investigation and it grows legs and we find ourselves investigating the conduct of government officers, the conduct of public employees, the conduct of government programs where, because tax dollars are involved, the public does have a right to short of the conduct being criminal and that, I think, is the real meaning behind a bill like this." Also speaking in favor of the bill were John Dailey, Head of the Criminal Enforcement Unit of the Attorney General's office and Kim Morss of the Colorado Judicial Department appearing at the request of the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Also speaking in favor of the bill was Marge Easton of the Colorado Press Association. On March 5, 1997, Senator Perlmutter presented the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Appearing once again to speak in favor of the bill were Bill Ritter, Marge Easton, and John Dailey. Also speaking for the bill were Ray Slaughter and Stu Van Meveren. Included in the bill were specific criteria to be used by grand juries and prosecutors in determining what constitutes the "public interest" for the purpose of a grand jury report: "(5) Release of a grand jury report pursuant to this section may be deemed in the public interest only if the report addressses one or more of the following: (a) Allegations of the misuse or misapplication of public funds; (b) Allegations of abuse of authority by a public servant, as defined in Section 18-1-901(3)(o), C.R.S.,or a peace officer, as defined in section 18-901(3)(1),C.R.S. (c) Allegations of misfeasance or malfeasance with regard to a governmental function, as defined in Section 18-1-901(3)(j), C.R.S." (d) Allegations of commission of a class 1, class 2, or class 3 felony. The original intent of the Colorado District Attorney Council draft and that of Representative Kaufman was to make it easier for grand juries to issue reports in cases where there is not an indictment returned but where, in the public interest, the grand jury wishes to address allegations of misconduct by public employees falling short of criminal conduct. The final bill made it possible for a grand jury to address allegations of 1st and 2nd degree murder and the two classes of child abuse resulting in death. The new statute would enable a Boulder grand jury investigating the death of JonBenet Ramsey to publicly exonerate someone who has been alleged to have of (sic) committed one of these crimes but only in the event an indictment was not returned. The bill was signed into law by Governor Romer on April 8, 1997. We strongly urge those wishing to investigate the intentions and motives of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, legislators, and those speaking on behalf of the bill to review the Senate and House Journals and listen to tapes of the House and Senate Judiciary Hearings and floor debates on file at the Colorado State Archives, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 1B20, Denver. During the Senate Judiciary Hearing on March 5, 1997, and after the bill had been amended to include the criteria defining the public interest, Senator Perlmutter stated that he had "...contacted several defense attorneys I know in Denver and they were all supportive of it (the bill). They thought it was a good idea." According to records at the Secretary of State's Office, Sen. Perlmutter received a 1994 campaign contribution from Hal Haddon, defense attorney for John Ramsey. The Haddon firm is well known for its expertise in grand jury practice. Norman Mueller, a partner of the firm, once wrote in the April, 1988 issue of The Colorado Lawyer "...defense counsel must creatively and vigorously scrutinize the grand jury process at the earliest possible stage of the case." * * * The May 6, 1998 issue of the Colorado Journal, a publication for the legal community, presented an article flattering to Alex Hunter entitled "D.A. Winks At This One With or Without a Grand Jury Indictment Boulder's Prosecutor Will Still Shine". The article is written around comments received from Senator Perlmutter and district attorney Bill Ritter. It reads: "If Hunter does take the matter to the grand jury and that panel manages to wrestle the evidence it needs to hand down an actual indictment, Hunter could still ome out smelling like a rose with the help of a little-known state law that went into effect last fall: That grand jury reports may be released to the public if no indictment results from its probe. That way, a prosecutor facing pressure to file charges can say, 'See even the grand jury couldn't find anything.' said Sen. Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden, who co-sponsored the law in the 1997 Colorado Legislature. The law, which only applies to Class 1, 2, and 3 felony cases, was intended to help ease the public's mind in certain investigations where a prosecutor fails to file charges, despite pressure from the police to do so as in the JonBenet case, he said." (italics added). In the article Sen. Perlmutter indicated that he sponsored the bill because he "didn't want the grand juries to be abused, especially in high-profile cases as this one (the Ramsey case)." For his part, Mr. Ritter said: " I don't think Alex Hunter would go to the grand jury for political cover, that's just not how Alex Hunter operates,' said Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter. 'The reason you go to a grand jury is because, as DA, you do not have the ability in the state of Colorado to compel testimony or compel the production of documents."' But then the article speculates: "But no matter what the grand jury decides, its probe could help vindicate the impugned reputations of many members of the Boulder police and district attorneys office." The article was misleading in that it stated that the new grand jury statute designed by Mr. Ritter and Senator Perlmutter to protect and exonerate people and "vindicate" the reputations of public servants was "effective" and therefore available for use by a Boulder grand jury on October 1, 1997. It also inaccurately described what allegations the statute deemed of public interest. * * * For the purpose of assisting them in the Ramsey investigation, the Boulder Police Department in July 1997 accepted the pro bono legal services of Daniel S. Hoffman with the firm of McKenna & Cuneo, Robert N. Miller with the firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green, and MacRae, and Richard N. Baer with the firm of Sherman & Howard. All are prominent Denver attorneys. Responding to our public information request, the Boulder city attorney's office supplied us with copies of the final agreement between the city and these attorneys dated July 30, 1997 and an earlier draft of that agreement dated July 28, 1997. In the draft, these attorneys jointly made the following disclosures to the city: "As we indicated to you, our respective firms have or had certain relationships that we feel obligated to disclose to you. Specifically: 1. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. ("S. & H.") represents Lockheed Martin in various matters. Lockheed Martin currently owns Access Graphics, the company that employs the father of the deceased. In addition, in 1994, S. & H. represented Access Graphics in a lawsuit brought by a terminated employee... 2. Mr. Hoffman is outside counsel for Lockheed Martin in a number of litigations, one of which is currently pending. It is reasonable to assume that during our representation of you, Mr. Hoffman may be retained by Lockheed Martin. Additionally, Mr. Haddon represents Mr. Hoffman personally, in a case against Mr. Hoffman, his former law firm, and a number of Mr. Hoffman's former partners at the firm. 3. Robert Miller is currently co-counsel with Mr. Haddon on a litigation in which they obtained a significant verdict for their client and which will proceed on appeal." John Ramsey was the president and chief executive officer of Access Graphics, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the fall of 1997 Access Graphics was sold by Lockheed Martin to GE Capital in a complicated transaction reported in the news media to be valued at $2.8 billion. The value attributed to Access Graphics was likely in excess of $200 million. Prior to the sale, John Ramsey left Access Graphics under adverse circumstances after attempting to purchase Access Graphics from Lockheed Martin. Mr. Hoffman was identified in the April 18, 1997 issue of Colorado Journal to be the "lead attorneys for Lockheed Martin in an age discrimination case which days before had resulted in a $7.6 million settlement. The "Mr. Haddon" referred to in the disclosures is Harold Haddon, the criminal defense attorney currently representing John Ramsey. The final agreement that was executed by the city and these three attorneys did not contain these disclosures. According to Mr. Baer, they were deleted at the request of the city attorney. The city attorney has recently indicated to us that he has no knowledge of the role these attorneys have played in the investigation. On March 10, 1998, the Boulder Daily Camera reported that "DA hints Ramsey case headed for grand jury". Two days later, the Boulder police made their request for a grand jury on the advice of these attorneys and transferred the case to the district attorney. On April 22, 1998, the Boulder grand jury was convened. * * * It is certain that Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter; the metro area district attorneys advising Mr. Hunter; the current leadership of the Boulder Police Department, the three attorneys advising the Boulder Police Department, and Ramsey defense attorneys have known since HB97-1009 was signed by Governor Romer on April 8, 1997, that to take advantage of the new statute, it would be necessary to delay a grand jury investigation of the Ramsey case until April, 1998. In retrospect, it is clear that the case was delayed for that purpose. It is hard to imagine that Governor Romer and members of the office of The Boulder County District Attorney and issue a report telling the public that the case was delayed and that an indictment was not returned as a result of police misconduct and the noncooperation of witnesses. It will also enable him to publicly exonerate anyone alleged to have murdered JonBenet Ramsey. If he wishes such a report to be made, and of course he does since it would contain precisely what he has been saying throughout the investigation, he must first cause the grand jury not to return an indictment. This, then, is how politics will have been allowed, finally, to trump justice. * * * Delaying the case in this manner simply to serve the selfish interests of a relatively small number of public servants and wealthy and powerful people has destroyed the case's infrastructure which consists of the confidence and trust of witnesses and the public in the criminal justice system and the hard work done in good faith by police detectives. That he has allowed this destruction is compelling evidence that Alex Hunter and those advising him have no intention of seeking an indictment from a grand jury. By their actions, these people have demonstrated cynical and callous disregard for the people of Colorado, the criminal justice system, and the well being and safety of the Boulder community and its citizens. What distinguishes the investigation of JonBenet's death from all others, and what has so seriously handicapped the investigation, is the extraordinary number of people that it has affected and influenced. The people of Colorado wish to see justice for JonBenet. They must not accept the "conclusion" to the case now being offered by the Boulder County District Attorney and Governor Romer. We will not. After further assessing public opinion and reviewing the contents of this letter and that of Mr. Thomas, we hope it will occur to Governor Romer that evidence in this case must be reviewed by those who have no interest in seeking anything other than justice for JonBenet. Any further involvement of the Boulder County District Attorney, his prosecutors, or anyone else responsible for the delay of the case is totally unacceptable. The people of Colorado must demand that Governor Romer resist the advice of interested parties, including the district attorneys advising Alex Hunter, and immediately order the Attorney General to take over the investigation and any future prosecution. He must then excuse himself from any further involvement. He is simply too close to people whose lives and careers may hinge on what becomes of the case. Taking this action will be difficult for both Governor Romer and Attorney General Gale Norton who are serving the last months of their terms and are term limited from seeking re-election. They must nevertheless set politics and personal considerations aside and conscientiously deal with this problem now. It is unacceptable for them to further erode public confidence by passing that responsibility to their successors. etc. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "rest of FW's eloquent letter" Posted by mary99 on 07:39:56 7/24/2000 The people of Colorado are entitled to be frustrated and angry with those public officials and other persons who have brought this case to its current status. We must be mindful, however, of the first cause of the investigation's failure-the refusal of John and Patsy Ramsey to cooperate fully and genuinely with those officially charged with the responsibility of investigating the death of their daughter, JonBenet. Fleet Russell White, Jr. and Priscilla Brown White Boulder, CO August 17, 1998 (This was too long to fit into 1 post) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "That Grand Old First Amendment...." Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:03:43 7/24/2000 ...It will be a sad and sorry day in America when a concerned citizen can no longer write a letter of complaint to his elected officials. The death toll for freedom will be heard when a taxpayer can no longer disagree with government over how HIS money is being spent. Totalitarianism will reign supreme when a person who publicly airs his misgivings about the behavior of his DA gets accused of complicity in the very crime that generated misbehavior on the part of said DA. Get ready, America! Mary99 wants to take away your First Amendment Rights!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "how many pages...?" Posted by mary99 on 08:24:58 7/24/2000 Lurker, that was an eight page single spaced letter which was followed and preceded by others much the same. Fleet White can write all he wants, but is anyone still listening? Fleet White's letters are now ignored by the Daily Camera because they are too numerous, repetitous, too lengthy, and go over the same issues. If you take the time to read it, you might notice that Hunter was backed by numerous other DA's and advisors. Fleet White cried foul on Hunter because Fleet White wasn't getting his own way. The only person who benefits from what Fleet White proposes is (guess who) Fleet White. Fleet White has an agenda. If you read the letter, you might find out what is might be. It's not what it seems to be. He has been obsessed with the Grand Jury and what they can or can't divulge from the first weeks following the murder. Why is that? Did he predict the troubles that would arise? Did he help to create the troubles that would arise? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "court records" Posted by ericasf on 07:05:18 7/25/2000 Where are the court records regarding MW and Boykin? Can you tell me, Dianne? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Yes, v_p" Posted by Real Stormy on 07:30:23 7/24/2000 Sigh, indeed. This campaign against FW, it seems to me, has been fueled by a poster who is a relative newcomer to JW. Then along comes "Rascal" (not my dog, he wouldn't do that) to add fuel to the fire. I think it is possible that several people here are bent on destroying the forum with this FW stuff. Possibly accomplices of the Rams in their post murder cover-up. Time will tell. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "OMIGOD!! NUDE Children!!!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:07:37 7/24/2000 When my younger sister was 3 years old, she was apprehended, running NUDE on the Avenue on a Sunday afternoon. My teenaged brother was babysitting. The baby got up from her nap, disrobed, and snuck out of the house!!! The family still laughs about her Lady Godiva adventure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "LurkerXIV.." Posted by Dianne E. on 08:14:00 7/24/2000 ..are you sure there wasn't some hanky panky going on, after all a teenage boy was babysitting, ROFL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Mary99" Posted by Real Stormy on 08:20:33 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:20:33, 7/24/2000 All of us who have followed this case from the beginning are very familiar with FW's letter. Apparently it is something new to Johnny-come-latelys such as you. You needn't take up bandwidth with it. It is available to us on many other websites. Of course, with your mission to destroy FW, it doesn't matter to you, does it? You won't succeed in your determination to sidetrack those who are sincerely interested in finding justice. Tell that to the Ramseys, please. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "FW - "I want to tell you"" Posted by mary99 on 08:34:30 7/24/2000 ROFL, Real Stormy, I thought you would cheer up to see some of your hero's own words posted here. After all, he's entitled to his say, isn't he? Any other sources couldn't possibly convey what Fleet White really wants to tell us as well as Fleet White himself. ROFL. Question is, SPAM or SUBSTANCE? Did you ever read this POS for yourself? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Indeed I have, Mary99" Posted by Real Stormy on 08:40:25 7/24/2000 Indeed I have. What is apparently new to you is old stuff to those of us who are actually familiar with the case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "mental exercise" Posted by mary99 on 08:42:33 7/24/2000 OK, analyze it for us, since you're the expert. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Having lurked for the last several days" Posted by momo on 09:04:23 7/24/2000 It dosen't take much to make me realize why I haven't posted. I'd rather not have a subject cause me to lower myself as some of you have and resort to flaming people whom I have personally met and know only truly want justice for JonBenet. Let's not forget why we are here-Justice for JonBenet Ramsey. It's not about any of us here, that's for sure, unless we are truly interested in justice for an innocent little girl who was brutally murdered. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Thank you, momo..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:07:29 7/24/2000 ...for that Hallmark Moment! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Lurker" Posted by momo on 09:35:33 7/24/2000 "When you care enough to send the very best!" You are quite welcome! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Dead Horse Walking???" Posted by shadow on 09:23:18 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:23:18, 7/24/2000 Continuing this FW BS is taking-on all the aspects of a great big circle-jerk! As best I can tell we have: 1) those who really believe FW is the evil force behind the death of JBR and the Rams are completely innocent 2) those who really believe FW is the evil force behind the death of JBR and somehow got the, otherwise innocent, Rams to be involved in a "cover-up" 3) those who really believe FW is evil and was involved, with the Rams, in the death of JBR 4) those who really believe FW is evil, was involved in child sexual abuse, but was not involved in the death of JBR 5) those who really believe FW's actions indicate he is evil, but are not sure exactly how yet (time will tell) 6) those who are just using the FW issue to confuse and divert attention from the real JBR case issues (whatever they are) 7) those who think FW is a hero 8) those who don't think FW is a hero, but do not believe he was involved in the death of JBR 9) those who don't think FW is a hero, don't know what he was involved in, but think he should not be lynched until all the "facts" are in I'm sure there are many variations on the above, but these are close enough for Gov work! Those of us who hold one (or more) of the above opinions are not going to change our minds - so why are we continuing to beat this dead horse? shadow Edited to "fix" numbers... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Mayhap" Posted by Watching you on 10:22:50 7/24/2000 Shadow's post should have its own thread - I'm a #9 with a 10 bod. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Shadow" Posted by kdubois2 on 10:17:13 7/24/2000 After reading your last post, it reminds me of the movie My Cousin Vinnie, get you ass kicked or get two hundred dollars, i think i will take the two hundred dollars. I am a #8 from your post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "SHADOW" Posted by Sylvia on 10:26:51 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:26:51, 7/24/2000 #8 for me!! Sylvia sorry got the wrong number, but #9 would also be good for me. No lynching without facts!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Shadow" Posted by Longhorn on 10:01:28 7/24/2000 I've always dreamed of being a perfect 10, but will settle for 9 ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "out of the fray" Posted by Seashell on 09:50:40 7/24/2000 I was always suspicious of the 3 pro-bonos as well as that statute that was pushed thru quickly, but I don't fault FW because of them. I don't know how clean or not he is. I do know that ST thinks he's wunnerful and I do think ST is naive about the murder. Could he be naive about FW as well? How gullible is he? I don't know. I'm troubled by the allegations against FW Sr. because sometimes the apple falls close to the tree. I have never read nor heard about any allegations from MW against FW Jr. So while we're waiting to see if anything happens, I think I'll continue to hold the Rammers responsible for the death or knowledge of who killed their child. FW's letters are long-winded but I don't feel a nasty motive underneath when I read them. I think he's very pi**ed at the political manueverings and connections that brought the case to a standstill. "The fix is in." I do wish he'd say something about the allegations against his father. That's very troubling, but it does not make him a killer IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "NO NO NO NO" Posted by Sylvia on 09:43:23 7/24/2000 AM SICK OF IT!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Reliable sources, documentation, solid facts " Posted by MJenn on 12:14:05 7/24/2000 That's all we're asking for. Not ANONYMOUS SOURCES that YOU trust, not ALLEGATIONS, not what OTHER POSTERS SAID, not SECRETS, even those supposedly kept to protect a woman who is SAID BY POSTERS to be making claims against people but because of the nature of her ALLEGATIONS, nobody actually knows if what she ALLEDGES is true. Yet those of you who are attacking White are hanging your shocking ALLEGATIONS against this man on not one solid piece of evidence that I can discern. White is involved in this case because he was a close friend of the family of a slain child, who actually knew the child and has more right than any of us to care about her unsolved murder. The amount of HYPERBOLE used to create GOSSIP to discredit and destroy White is astonishing here. You're taking some very ordinary stuff and twisting it to sound sinister. You're dealing in fiction until you can support it with fact. This is so transparent that you now have us wondering what your real agenda is. We keep telling you we need substantiated sources; you keep ignoring this or giving us more ALLEGATIONS, GOSSIP, INNUENDO, UNREVEALED SECRETS, AND HYPERBOLE. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to argue with that stuff; how can I? If your mindset is to perpetuate this gossip as believable BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS, then who can argue with that? Either I go along with it, or I don't. When you've got a documented source you can point me to that is at least somewhat believable, then I'll consider it. Who knew we'd rue the weekend that little party took place? And even worse, YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR! SURELY THAT'S A CRIME! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Mjenn" Posted by ericasf on 07:11:14 7/25/2000 I couldn't have said it better. And I have, as well as others who were there, stated that there was nothing earth shattering discussed at the get together that couldn't be posted here. So take that for what it's worth. Everything else is what Mjenn said, hearsay, allegations, NOT FACT. Base your opinions on fact. I think that's what everyone wants. You know what happens when we assume! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "MJenn" Posted by Sylvia on 12:21:45 7/24/2000 Great post!!! Agree with you 100%!!! Thanks Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "For what it's worth..." Posted by Nandee on 12:37:25 7/24/2000 I again post Steve Thomas' comments on Fleet White. This was his response to a question asked on the APB.com forum: Fleet White is a man for whom I hold the highest respect and regard. He is a private man, and has not publicly spoken about the case (other than through some limited letters). We have to respect that privacy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Shadow" Posted by Teague on 13:21:15 7/24/2000 Great post above. Put me down as a #9, standing right beside Watching You. I'm not about to jump to conclusions about FW based on what little we know about him for the same reasons I don't jump on the "Patsy faked her cancer" bandwagon or the "JBR killed because of MBP" bandwagon. Three years and seven months later, I still can't say I "know" who killed JonBenet. Guess that makes me still a fence sitter, a position for which I've been tarred and feathered in the past. Sue me. P.S. I got rear ended--HARD--this morning and spent the morning in the emergency room. Be kind to me. I'm in pain. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Excellent thread, DianneE" Posted by A.K. on 13:18:39 7/24/2000 It's nice to see everyone hasn't gone 'round the bend. Make no mistake, folks, this is a calculated ploy that has Ramsey fingerprints all over it. I'm embarrassed for the few posters it actually scammed. And I'm angry at the supposed reporters who propagated this plot line before it was sufficiently checked out. I've never seen such amateurish and potentially damaging behavior, and I've seen a lot of wanna-be reporters. It might interest you to know that these half-baked stories have been repeated endlessly into the tabloid hotlines. Same silly details, same silly people. The tabs have offered big bucks for real info, wherever that might lead, and if you think this supposed "White Family sex cult" is an avenue they'd pursue, you'd be wrong. They're the BEST at spotting phonies. But the lies continue and these folks have the audacity to suggest $10,000 was offered to get Nancy to talk. It didn't happen. Period. No debate. Her story's not worth a dime as it has NO bearing on this case. While I'm here, lemme ask: How's that Quiet, Samantha book and contest going? Anyone go to Paris lately? Is Warren Patabendi working on solving the Lindbergh case now? Help me, Jesus! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "what?" Posted by fly on 13:51:46 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:51:46, 7/24/2000 mary99 - Fleet White's letters are now ignored by the Daily Camera because they are too numerous, repetitous, too lengthy, and go over the same issues. Your source for this? If you think FW's letter (which I'll agree is ridiculous) expresses ideas unique to him, you should have been reading the forums when it was published. Most of FW's ideas had been highly popular online for quite some time, and some posters did (or had done) extensive research trying to construct all the political links. Denver, for example. FW might be crazy, but he had a lot of company concerning his views about the investigation. shadow - An old friend once described much of the debate going on in his research field as "mental masturbation." I can't help but think that is a pretty good description of a lot of what goes on here. Momentarily satisfying to the individual, but accomplishes little otherwise. Yeah, you need to add another category in the lower ranks so that I could claim to be a 10 on something. As it stands, I'll have to be satisfied with a 9 or 8. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Teague..." Posted by shadow on 13:40:17 7/24/2000 I don't consider myself a "fence-sitter" because I believe the Ramseys were involved, somehow, in the death of JBR or the cover-up. I readily admit this opinion is based only on my "feeling" based on the actions of the Ramseys since before the 911 call was made. I'm probably somewhat hypocritical in that I call for waiting on the "facts" for FW but not the Ramseys - however, it should be noted that I do stay away from most wild allegations about the Ramseys such as JR the sex abuser, PR the cancer fraud... and ocassionally say I don't know who killed JBR. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "shadow" Posted by fly on 13:54:26 7/24/2000 Yep, you are a fellow fence leaner. Your feet are down on one side of the fence, but you are leaning up against it, ready to hoist yourself over if solid new information develops. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "I'm a 9" Posted by v_p on 14:40:16 7/24/2000 >>>Fleet White's refusal to talk to Hunter is thought by some to be the reason the Grand Jury was convened.<<< Really? Some? Whom? Why? Thanks...at this point I don't really expect an answer. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Really, A.K." Posted by lake on 15:43:01 7/24/2000 When I think of MW/FW and the tabloids, I think about Tony Frost telling JS that "we are all finished if the Ramsey's are not indicted". I think of Richard Gooding telling GR that "we are all in trouble if the Ramsyes are not guilty". Considering that, I hardly expect the tabloids or any of the tabloid-like media to take an active interest in the MW claims. On the contrary, I would expect that the tabloids, who have mothered and fostered the publicly pereceived guilt of the Ramseys, would say a far away form the MW story as they can. As as far a FW is concerned. The man is one of three things. Invlolved in the murder of JBR, a mentally unstable sicko that should be paid absolutely no attention to at all, or a man with a past that he does not want exposed publically because that would lead to his being investigatied. He can't have it both ways. He has painted himself into a corner in his three years suspicious irrational behavior. And I have only mild interest in what CAP thinks is the reason for the unusual attitude of FW toward the DA and the Ramseys, and the unusual attitude of the Ramseys toward the Whites and the potential MW impact on the reason JBR was killed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "8 here" Posted by Ruthee on 16:24:31 7/24/2000 The only reason I can jump my number up so high is that unfortunately I have the ability to think just like "Team Ramsey." I'll give you a little hint. No big secret everyone can read over there. Wasn't it just a short time ago that the Ramseys and the Team Ramsey site were both yelling for DNA testing of everyone. There's much more. Just read. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Shadow" Posted by Teague on 15:59:17 7/24/2000 Oh, I'm leaning right there with you and fly. I don't "know" who killed JB. I do know that there's more than enough suspicious behavior and suspicious evidence to say "the Ramseys" know a whole lot more than they're saying, are probably covering up for things one or both of them did, or at the least are covering up for someone else, are probably involved in some way with their daughter's murder. But morally, ethically, logically (given missing puzzle pieces), I can't in my mind, in good conscience, "charge" either or both of them beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude. I realize JW isn't a court of law and no poster here needs that level of proof to state an opinion . But my own personal code keeps me from leveling charges of anything more than deep suspicion without more evidence to determine who did what and who knew what (and when). Teague (just leaning here on the fence) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Good or Evil" Posted by Shamrockpati on 16:10:05 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:10:05, 7/24/2000 I don't want to flame anyone here it does no good and only causes bad feelings....but I will say why do I feel that JW is now split in two, the Fleet White is EVIL and the Fleet White is GOOD. There are some of us who think Fleet White is neither good or evil. He's just a human being caught in a most horrid situation. There has been on proof that he's involved in JonBenet's death. No evidence that can be seen or touched. Just peoples "feelings" regarding his writings and his so called lack of cooperation and his media silence. And the ramblings of a women, MW, who's credibility leaves something to be desired. She well may have been abused which I think is awful. But she also may be just someone who is mentally unstable who wants the publicity that this case can bring in the future. There are any number of people who WANT to be involved in this case and have deliberatly PUT THEMSELVES IN IT in vaious and sundry ways. All for their own glory. That is indeed very very sad and sick. As I said just because he hasn't made a media spectacle out of himself and his family, parading in front of any TV camera pointed in his direction does not mean he killed JonBenet or molested her in any way. There is no proof...and if there was the Ramseys would be all over him. This way through the forums they are being sneaky in "imfering" his being involved. That's the Ramsey bus at work...putting FW under those Ramsey wheels. I also feel this is somewhat of a calculated ploy to destroy Justice Watch. So many "newbies" lately and so many of the posters who have been here from the beginning and soon after are gone, they don't want to post anymore and they are pretty discouraged with JW now. I for one don't post hardly at all anymore, what for. So I can be flamed, geez I had enough of that at J-7 with "hir" and her gang. If I want to be flamed I'll go to the "swamp". Let the flames stop and intellegent dialog continue. So lets keep posting intelligent and thoughful posts with no name calling and crap OK guys. I still think Patsy did it....and JR covered up and Burke and the family including CAP know a hell of a lot more than they let on. JMHO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Shamrockpatti..." Posted by BearCat on 06:55:42 7/25/2000 Yeppers, I agree... >I also feel this is somewhat of a calculated ploy to destroy Justice Watch. So many "newbies" lately and so many of the posters who have been here from the beginning and soon after are gone, they don't want to post anymore and they are pretty discouraged with JW now. I for one don't post hardly at all anymore, what for.> I don't know if this is a calculated ploy, but I feel it IS destroying JW. I took a break sometime into the first months of the MW "story", because the so-called debate about FW and MW was just spiraling down into speculation that rivaled the Mr & Mrs Santa/druid sacrifice/some-rouge-cop-did-it junk that routinely goes on in the swamp. I felt that some posters were getting so frustrated with lack of real information or progress in the case, that they were clinging to any theory they could, no matter how far-fetched it was and no matter that no facts supported it. So I left for a while, and only began lurking again recently. Imagine my surprise that the FW/MW "debate" is still going on, and has, in fact, sunk to even more preposterous levels. I, too, noticed that many "old" posters were gone. Whether they've gone away because of the overall lack of progress or news on the case, or because of the state of the JW boards right now, I can't say. All I know is, I'm going back into hybernation until there's some real news to discuss. P.S. Pat, Artscape was happenin' this past weekend, and the temp. was in the 80s the whole time. Heard it was hot where you are. Mr. BearCat and I walked over from B. Hill every night to catch some music and eat, and I only gained two pounds after three nights of beer, butter curry chicken and vegetable samosas, jerk chicken and rice, Jamaican fried fish and chips, hot and spicy kielbasas with onions and peppers, board walk fries, fried chicken wings, more vegetable samosas, more board walk fries, and lots more beer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Well, SRP" Posted by lake on 16:04:38 7/24/2000 For once you and the Ramseys agree on something pubically. FW is an OK guy. John thanks you, Patsy thanks you, and FW will kiss your @$$ as soon as he calms down. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Lake" Posted by Ruthee on 04:19:53 7/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:19:53, 7/25/2000 Lake you are toooo funny, what would we do without you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Lake " Posted by Shamrockpati on 16:22:25 7/24/2000 Again you are over-simplifying....I did not say Fleet was an OK guy, I don't know him. I said he was a normal human being neither good or evil. I personally don't care what the Rams think of him. And swearing dosen't become you...LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "I know SRP" Posted by lake on 16:41:55 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:41:55, 7/24/2000 You step back when you think you are in agreement with the Ramseys line on an important issue. Admit it and keep on trucking. "A normal human being neither good or evil" sounds like an OK guy to me. Just be careful not to lend your support to the psychic sketch venture. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "RST " Posted by Matt on 16:57:26 7/24/2000 >>Beckner's statements, Hofstrom, Hunter and even a cop in Roswell GA and others tell me this guy is not operating with a full deck. And I want to know why. >> Holly, with all due respect to you , Beckner, Hofstrom, and Hunter are not respectable sources for a damn thing except Ramsey ass kissing. You know full well what Hofstrom and Hunter have done in this case and IMO both belong in jail for obstruction of justice. Why you would support them makes me truly wonder. Does taking FW down mean that much to you? You even quote the DOI and those creeps from the Swamp as serious sources. I am sorry but I have to wonder what is going on here. As for his daughter, a story about her has been circulating since Day ass 1. But it has taken on a newer sinister twist now. Now it's taylored to meet the new needs of RST. In the early days the story was that Daphne's brother was "messing with her". Now I see it's implied that it involves FW. Now she's even nude. And the report she's nude is thrown carelessly on the forum without confirmation! Geez is this a take FW down at all costs, even at the expense of making evil remarks about his little girl? This is SICKENING. As for FW not being in the Internet world for people to nose into, is every single company, business, and person, listed on the internet except FW? Shamrockpati, you're right about the line in the sand. But I think something more is going on here than "justice for JonBenet" which seems to be bantered about as a facade to mask another agenda by some. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Help me Jesus" Posted by lake on 17:22:31 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:22:31, 7/24/2000 FW is and has been playing a fraudlent game with the cops, the media and the public. He had an excuse not to come forward before the GJ because he was hiding behind his "key withess" billing. Well those days are long gone. Most of you think that moron Steve Thomas did the right thing when he wrote a book pointing to his favorite suspect before any arrest or charges had been filed in the case. So what is the excuse of FW if ST did not kill the case against a Ramsey? Oh yeh, he is just a private citizen that can write letters to the people of the State of Colorado, the Gov, etc. accusing a lot of people of being out to obstuct justice in the JBR murder case. Eveyone but himself and Steve Thomas that is. And then have the gall to complain when the editors of the larger state papers will not print his apparent delusional ramblings for free. This "Grand Wizard" FW, has as much or more to answer for regarding his public and behind the scenes behavior as the Ramseys do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "lake.." Posted by PegB on 20:34:59 7/24/2000 ..."Most of you think that moron Steve Thomas did the right thing when he wrote a book pointing to his favorite suspect before any arrest or charges had been filed in the case. So what is the excuse of FW if ST did not kill the case against a Ramsey?" I'll speak for myself here, I don't think ST did "the right thing" by writing his book, but being very interested in this case and very human by nature I read it. Mainly to glean factual tidbits, because it was written by someone who had all inside info to the case. Nor do I think he is a "moron", just a highly motivated "human" cop, trying to do his best in a difficult investigation. His book calls it like he saw it. He may have not had much experience with homicide investigation, but he certainly had "investigation" experience. He also had access to every detail of the case. There are still many good BPD cops who did not quit and are silently persuing JfJB. There is a real difference in the ability of ST to write his book and that of FW to write one, ST was not sworn in to GJ secrecy as was FW. Any of the people who gave testimony to the GJ are not allowed by LAW to discuss that testimony. ST may have not used the best judgement, but did nothing "illegal". If FW speaks out it would be ILLEGAL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Well, that shows what you know Peg" Posted by lake on 22:33:31 7/24/2000 A witness before the GJ is not legally forbidden from telling what he knew before he appeared before the GJ. The witness just cannot tell what he learned in the GJ appearance. You know what you know before you appeared before the GJ and there is no law in the good old USA that can keep you from telling a reporter or anybody what you know if it was not learned by you in a legal preceeding in which a legal order tells you cannot repeat what you learned in that legal proceeding. And anybody who appears before a GJ can share any knowledge that they took into the GJ room as long as they do not represent it as their testamony before the GJ. They can't discuss their testamony, but they sure as heck can discuss anything they learned outside the GJ, and it may or may not have been part of their testamony. But I imagine that FW enjoys the fact that he can still hide behind the fact that he appeared before the GJ and cannot reveal what he knows or does not know, and what he had pretended to know. But of course you would be foolish to believe anything FW stated as a fact anyway if there were not independent cooperation for a reliable witness. There is a woman that says he raped her years ago and that he keeps social contact with a woman who is represented as a procurer little girls for sexual preverts. I would use whatever regional common sense you may have and and not assume that everthing that FW may say is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Some of you have swallowed this fraud, hook line and sinker. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Are you calling MW a fraud, Lake?" Posted by MJenn on 22:55:22 7/24/2000 How would you or anyone know? One way or the other? I thought the grand jury stuff was sealed by the judge and a gag order was issued? I thought that talking about it would get you jailed? I also thought FW spent a lot of time at the police station spilling his guts early on. Which many seem to find suspicious. As opposed to not wanting to spill his guts later, which many find suspicious. Didn't you post, back at the beginning of summer, that you thought Burke and other kids might have been involved in the murder, including White's son? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Internet" Posted by v_p on 17:15:40 7/24/2000 Isn't FW a retired oil field executive? Retired being the operative word? As for FW calling the police when his daughter went missing ... are you all saying he was chasing her around naked, in an effort to molest her and when she got away, he called the police??? Are you charging him with stupidity along with all the other allegations? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "lines in the sand" Posted by freebird on 17:35:53 7/24/2000 I'll have to be on the side with the 9's. And frankly after some of the post I've seen I feel like we are being played. It sounds like we are in the middle of a round, where one person starts a story and another picks it up and adds to it and so on and so on... at this point I wouldn't believe much against FW without positive proof. Like crying wolf eventually you won't be believed. I can say as a newbie I sure appreciate the posters who post the known facts. Already I am cautious of believing certain posters anymore after seeing their criteria of what is a facts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Notice Holly, Mary 99 etc have not been back" Posted by fiddy on 17:31:45 7/24/2000 I have been lurking for years, do not post much but read every day. I said when this MW first came up that it was RST and I still say it today. The fact that Lake is posting on this thread should confirm it. I find it sad that FW can be trashed on so little fact. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Hi fiddy." Posted by Holly on 19:31:26 7/24/2000 I was out collecting beer cans. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "So, fiddy" Posted by lake on 17:35:30 7/24/2000 Who are you? A FW ST agent? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "And" Posted by lake on 17:29:17 7/24/2000 Speaking of sources. I would like to see the sources or facts and evidence that support those outrageous claims that the Grand OZ White made in his public and private letters. He can take his "key witness" billing and shove it where the sun does not shine as far as I am concerned. Some key witness he turned out to be. Key fraud is more like it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "mame and Fleet White" Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:05:35 7/24/2000 I would love to hear mame interview Fleet White. Although he cannot speak about his Grand Jury testimony, there are many other areas impinging on the case that he can talk about. How about it, mame? Turn on the charm with Fleet and Priscilla. Now THAT would be the Interview of the Year! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Fast and Furious" Posted by A.K. on 20:30:25 7/24/2000 Lake's back, and we've got him! (Darn it.) That can only mean one thing: The check's are clearing again. But dear delusional one, despite your belief in everything nasty you've read about the tabs, they have gone upside, downside, inside and out to investigate this case. And it leads back to (say it with me)... JOHN AND PATSY! Listen, I know of an unsolved homicide in Wyoming. Why don't you see where the three generations of White males were for that murder? It's a fact that most violent crimes in Wyoming are committed by white males. 'Course, there's no payment for this one so I doubt you'll take it... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "A.K." Posted by Real Stormy on 20:47:30 7/24/2000 White males, huh? Is that white males or White males. Are White males responsible for all the murders of children in this country or is it white males? I'm confused. Never Mind. Thanks for your good post above about the tabs. Very informative. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "I'll look into that AK" Posted by lake on 21:59:51 7/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:59:51, 7/24/2000 But I still say if the tabloids came upon a vidio of a non-Ramsey killing JBR they would buy it for whatever the asking price was a burn the damn thing. Just think about how much such a piece of evidence would cost the tabloids and others in the civil suits that the Ramseys are bringing against them. I think you are living in a dream world of the old investigative reporters days AK. For my money, the current media process has killed good investigative reporting. That is just something for you to dream about when you hear old timers talk about the good old days before the internet, cable TV and the 30 min. news cycle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "lake" Posted by mame on 22:47:37 7/24/2000 i've stayed away from this thread. even though panico is probably rolling over in her grave right at this moment...i must heartily agree with your tabloid stance! ain't that the truth... they've got a helluva lot invested in one theory... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Let me break this down for you, pals" Posted by A.K. on 04:33:24 7/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 04:33:24, 7/25/2000 The tabloids do not write up the opinions of their reporters and editors. They cite sources. DUH! They may or may not name them, but they are conveying information that comes from someone within a circle of knowledge. And the way they vet that info is what keeps the flow of stupid info out. God knows everyone tries to sell them crackpot theories but you don't see those make the paper. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. As for what would happen if the tabs came upon a tape, or any real info, that led away from the Ramseys as JB's killer, you must be insane to think they'd withhold that. They would tout that to the nth degree and sell more papers than ever. But don't believe me. Call Bill Cosby. He thought he had made lifelong friends when the Enquirer SOLVED the murder of his son. So when he got caught doing some unsavory things a few weeks later, he felt they would winky-winky keep their mouths shut. HAHAHAHA! Guess he learned a lesson. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Seems some people are having trouble" Posted by Sylvia on 03:44:19 7/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 03:44:19, 7/25/2000 with the fact that not all share their opinion and are having a different opinion, however that is their problem not mine. I am used to making up my own mind and I see most of the posters feel the same, wanting to make up their own mind. I respect that, whether I agree of disagree. I just want the plain and simple truth and as long as I do not see evidence given by experts, confirmed sources or any kind of other proof in whatever form, forget it I am not in for a lynching party. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Lake..." Posted by shadow on 06:10:59 7/25/2000 "For my money, the current media process has killed good investigative reporting. That is just something for you to dream about when you hear old timers talk about the good old days before the internet, cable TV and the 30 min. news cycle." We do agree on a few things. And BTW, I'm most certainly an "old timer!" shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Lake" Posted by K777angel on 17:42:53 7/25/2000 What is it with your hatred toward Fleet White? It seems very personal. And what ever happened to your theory that juvenilles - including Burke Ramsey - killed JonBenet and the parents are covering up?? Do you still go with this theory, why or why not? I have come to see merit in this theory. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE