Justice Watch Discussion Board "Fact, Fiction & Fantasy" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Fact, Fiction & Fantasy, mame, 11:02:46, 7/27/2000 mame, ericasf, 11:07:18, 7/27/2000, (#1) Well said, mame..., shadow, 11:12:37, 7/27/2000, (#2) Way to go, mame!!!, darby, 11:13:38, 7/27/2000, (#3) I allways try, Sylvia, 11:26:42, 7/27/2000, (#4) mame, fly, 11:43:57, 7/27/2000, (#6) Very good,, Holly, 11:33:23, 7/27/2000, (#5) An Honest Question...., Voyager, 11:46:07, 7/27/2000, (#7) Mame, Florida, 11:58:35, 7/27/2000, (#8) MW Interview, v_p, 12:04:32, 7/27/2000, (#9) fly and voyager, mame, 12:15:58, 7/27/2000, (#10) i do have one question, ericasf, 12:22:22, 7/27/2000, (#11) ericasf, mame, 12:25:00, 7/27/2000, (#12) Mame, Florida, 12:38:43, 7/27/2000, (#14) thanks, ericasf, 12:36:02, 7/27/2000, (#13) the document, mame, 12:48:01, 7/27/2000, (#15) mame, fly, 13:05:01, 7/27/2000, (#16) I would like to remind, mame, 13:19:37, 7/27/2000, (#17) End of FW controversy for now re: fact vs. fiction PLEASE!, ericasf, 13:51:26, 7/27/2000, (#19) ericasf, Nandee, 14:28:17, 7/27/2000, (#26) Lovely Pigeon talked , Florida, 13:45:11, 7/27/2000, (#18) Mame, LizzieB, 13:57:16, 7/27/2000, (#20) poor mame, ericasf, 14:03:26, 7/27/2000, (#21) May as well forget it, lake, 14:43:54, 7/27/2000, (#29) Mame, I blame you, Seeker, 14:27:47, 7/27/2000, (#25) Ericasf, Florida, 14:21:48, 7/27/2000, (#23) why would we, ericasf, 14:26:42, 7/27/2000, (#24) florida, mame, 14:20:54, 7/27/2000, (#22) oh seeker, mame, 14:38:20, 7/27/2000, (#28) Ratings??, LurkerXIV, 14:33:29, 7/27/2000, (#27) Haven't posted in ages because, pat, 14:47:29, 7/27/2000, (#30) seeker..., dustii, 15:50:47, 7/27/2000, (#32) Whatever, Seeker, 15:13:34, 7/27/2000, (#31) Mame, Real Stormy, 15:54:18, 7/27/2000, (#33) Real Stormy, mame, 17:00:16, 7/27/2000, (#34) Yes, Mame, I understand, Real Stormy, 17:13:28, 7/27/2000, (#35) Well, RS, lake, 17:28:05, 7/27/2000, (#36) LP, rico, 18:49:54, 7/27/2000, (#39) Lake, Real Stormy, 18:25:25, 7/27/2000, (#38) A little story..., Greenleaf, 18:22:09, 7/27/2000, (#37) And Lake,, Real Stormy, 18:54:47, 7/27/2000, (#40) The Wonders of Evolution!!, shadow, 19:20:08, 7/27/2000, (#41) Hey Shadow, Lacey, 19:26:43, 7/27/2000, (#42) my two cents.., Dianne E., 19:55:06, 7/27/2000, (#43) Fine, v_p, 20:08:04, 7/27/2000, (#44) Proof in the pudding, Rascal, 22:34:20, 7/27/2000, (#45) Please explain, rascal, Holly, 07:29:33, 7/28/2000, (#47) Paper trail Holly, Rascal, 09:02:05, 7/28/2000, (#49) Hang in there mame., listener, 00:23:10, 7/28/2000, (#46) thank you listener..., mame, 07:33:04, 7/28/2000, (#48) Mame, LizzieB, 14:09:29, 7/28/2000, (#51) Woodward and Bernstien, v_p, 11:03:59, 7/28/2000, (#50) lizzieb, mame, 14:22:04, 7/28/2000, (#52) Mame, LizzieB, 22:28:20, 7/28/2000, (#58) Ignorance is bliss! Mame, Rascal, 17:03:00, 7/28/2000, (#55) mame, fly, 15:25:10, 7/28/2000, (#53) What's wrong with this picture??, v_p, 15:48:19, 7/28/2000, (#54) OK I just have questions, Seeker, 18:53:03, 7/28/2000, (#57) fly, lake, 18:39:37, 7/28/2000, (#56) Seeker, Real Stormy, 06:54:15, 7/29/2000, (#59) Court Docs/MW Interview, Florida, 08:17:08, 7/29/2000, (#60) Today's Daily, LizzieB, 09:27:07, 7/29/2000, (#62) ???, v_p, 08:56:45, 7/29/2000, (#61) Projection..., Dianne E., 09:48:59, 7/29/2000, (#63) Ok I'll Do It., Ruthee, 12:13:53, 7/29/2000, (#64) Thanks Ruthee, LizzieB, 12:19:31, 7/29/2000, (#65) Go team, MJenn, 12:25:01, 7/29/2000, (#66) only a fraction of the whole story (or picture), mary99, 14:44:50, 7/29/2000, (#67) Mary 99, Ruthee, 21:36:36, 7/29/2000, (#79) Mary99 " Compelling Simularities., Rascal, 16:05:56, 7/29/2000, (#70) mary, v_p, 15:41:59, 7/29/2000, (#69) Thanks, Ruthee, Real Stormy, 15:38:49, 7/29/2000, (#68) low blow, Rascal!, mary99, 16:27:04, 7/29/2000, (#72) Tabloid Journalist=Mame, Rascal, 18:39:58, 7/29/2000, (#73) Another Journalist Equivocates..., LurkerXIV, 20:42:02, 7/29/2000, (#76) Mame, we love you!, mary99, 20:08:27, 7/29/2000, (#75) Mary99, Florida, 16:15:05, 7/29/2000, (#71) How odd is it..., LurkerXIV, 19:12:33, 7/29/2000, (#74) Just, rico, 21:14:42, 7/29/2000, (#78) question of jurisdiction?, mary99, 21:00:53, 7/29/2000, (#77) Speculation Mary99, Rascal, 21:56:23, 7/29/2000, (#81) Thank you, Rascal, mary99, 22:22:58, 7/29/2000, (#82) mary, canadiana, 22:36:40, 7/29/2000, (#83) lizzie, ruthee, canadiana, 21:54:21, 7/29/2000, (#80) ................................................................... "Fact, Fiction & Fantasy" Posted by mame on 11:09:36 7/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:09:36, 7/27/2000 Last week I made a statement concerning claims and allegations made by The Witness (Mystery Woman) who recently came forward with information possibly important to JonBenet Ramsey's murder. At that time I said I would no longer make comments on the story, until there is hard news to report. In the last week, I have seen more mean spirited banter.... misinformation....misquotes...and a division in this forum that is very hurtful to this community and it's goal of justice. I have not read posts at other forums recently. However, I've been asked numerous times to correct or respond to many posts, here and elsewhere. I cannot, and will not respond to "he said/she said" posts and random information gathered in an unprofessional manner. To do so would be inappropriate and as Plasket used to say, "Mary, it's like committing suicide with a dull blade!" This story and these allegations are deep and twisted. I have no idea if her information can help this case or not. I will only respond with news items or corrections with direct sources. The Internet is very important...it's not the whole world of information though. I will, on rare occasions, when I feel it's appropriate and professional, answer questions and make some corrections. Beyond that, I'm waiting just like everyone else. I love this community and the people who have fought hard for justice for almost four years. I do hope we can continue to seek justice through respectful, fair-minded, thoughtful and sometimes-heated debate. That's the best kind of living room to sit in. This forum has always shown that kind spirited independence. 1) I have spoken directly to Lou Smit. He has never said, "There is no story here". He asks if those who claim he said those words to offer him their source. 2) Much of the information posted elsewhere concerning the Boykin case is wrong. Off the top I can tell you Mr. Boykin was charged with over 60 counts and taken to San Bernadino County (he owned a home there at the time) on January 24, 1979. He immediately posted bail and was released. He admitted to sexual misconduct with the victim. He was not a Purple Heart recipient. The case was set for trial; a jury chosen...and then the deals began. He plea-bargained to 2 counts (each with one count beneath). The testimony from that case is disgusting and vile. I will say no more unless there is news to report on the case. I ask that we all realize the depth and layers of generational abuse. Stories and allegations such as these are never black and white. That's why a full and complete investigation is necessary. It will do no one any good to try and dispute random claims and misinformation on the Internet. (Edited to say whenever I hear the words "Fact" or "Fiction" I think of our departed Panico...She constantly challenged us to all know the difference.) [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "mame" Posted by ericasf on 11:07:18 7/27/2000 Thank you..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Well said, mame..." Posted by shadow on 11:12:37 7/27/2000 And Plasket is absolutely right - anything you say is going to trigger "instant analysis" of what you said, and in-fighting based on the different intrepretations. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Way to go, mame!!!" Posted by darby on 11:13:38 7/27/2000 I have decided not to argue MW points any more until the whole story comes out because of the poison this subject seems to be for this forum. I do ask that the honest posters here try to keep an open mind; don't accept anyone's word as gospel. As evidenced by claims about Lou Smit's supposed stance on MW, mis-information abounds. None of us, including me, should be making any conclusions at this point when so little is publicly known. Please, please. Make this a productive, peaceful thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "I allways try" Posted by Sylvia on 11:26:42 7/27/2000 to stick to the facts, that is why I will not tell who did it or who didn't. I do not know, I have an opinion, but that is all. There is no way I can prove it. As said before, the only thing I can do is challenge certain people on what they say or did, but I can't be sure of who the murderer is for sure untill I have all the proof. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "mame" Posted by fly on 11:43:57 7/27/2000 Can't help but think that a lot (not all) of the uproar here might have been avoided had you posted some facts a bit earlier. Can't understand why you didn't, either. So the charge sheets we've seen (you aren't saying those are fabricated, are you?) were not the original charge sheets, but some secondary charge sheets drawn up after the plea bargain was arranged? I have no idea how paperwork is typically done when plea bargains are done - whether all the original charges are shown but indicated as having been dropped, or whether the ones not involved in the plea are not mentioned in the court documents. Maybe one of the folks with legal experience will comment on this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Very good," Posted by Holly on 11:33:23 7/27/2000 mame. That puts a couple of rumors to rest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "An Honest Question...." Posted by Voyager on 11:51:26 7/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:51:26, 7/27/2000 about the facts of the MW's allegation. Does her allegation of generational abuse and child prono sex rings, include allegations against Fleet White Jr.? Also, is there some site we can access to read MW's formal allegations to authorities? Mame, when you interview her or in your private conversations with her, did she tell you that Fleet White Jr. abused her as a child or that she ever observed Fleet White Jr. molesting another child? I would really like to know the facts about this particular issue, because some posters have used the "rumor of this allegation" as fact to further their theories and adgendas. If we knew for a fact whether or not this is part of the offical allegation, it might put to rest some of the heated debate where rumor rules the day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Mame" Posted by Florida on 11:58:35 7/27/2000 Were Gibbons and McDowell the DA and Asst. DA's in the case against Boykin? Trona is in San Bernadino County. LP was told the events took place in Inyo County. Was he also charged in San Bernadino County in addition to the charges shown from Inyo County? If so do you have the charge sheet from San Bernadino County? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "MW Interview" Posted by v_p on 12:04:32 7/27/2000 How do I access it? Thanks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "fly and voyager" Posted by mame on 12:17:31 7/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:17:31, 7/27/2000 fly: I have given MANY facts and reported many allegations, as other news outlets have, over the last few months. Since the bulk of the Boykin case is SEALED, i have not had direct access to the case files. I did ask recently for clarification on some basic dates and charges. So, I wasn't trying to leave anyone out in the siberia of no information. AND, I will not take responsibility for a lack of information. There is not one person who can give you the "genie in the bottle" answers many would like. That's not only true of her story and allegations...but of the entire Ramsey case. They are ALL dots, dear fly. Voyager: Great question. But, one i can't answer. I have NEVER named names, and will not begin now. Wouldn't we all love to see statements from this case...and other cases. As of now, i don't believe the police make a practice of publishing that information. You might go back through the news archives concerning her claims. The articles from february and march of this year give an enormous amount of information. Many of those media outlets...chose to name names. I won't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "i do have one question" Posted by ericasf on 12:22:22 7/27/2000 Have you seen the documents that Lovely Pigeon supposedly found regarding MW and her case with Boykin? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "ericasf" Posted by mame on 12:25:00 7/27/2000 I have not seen those documents. There are hundreds of documents in those files. So, one here and there does not make a full puzzle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Mame" Posted by Florida on 12:38:43 7/27/2000 One of those documents is the charge sheet from Inyo County. http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/Boykin_charge_sheet.JPG Are you saying that Boykin was charged with 60 counts in San Bernadino County and those 60 charges were bargained down to two in addition to the charges in Inyo County? Please answer as I think this is a legitimate and important question. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "thanks" Posted by ericasf on 12:36:02 7/27/2000 again, Mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "the document" Posted by mame on 12:48:01 7/27/2000 posted is very unclear, fly. i will see what i can find out. i do know the original charges were filed in january of 1979. that's when mr. boykin was picked-up and charged with the original charges. he was taken to san bernadino to begin with. the case was ulitmately filed in Inyo County. I'm not sure if this document posted is the "dialed down" charges...or what it is...i'll need more information. and others need to do their homework as well. this is about the only thing i will respond to right now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "mame" Posted by fly on 13:05:01 7/27/2000 mame - In case it was unclear, my comments concerning posting information earlier dealt with the information you just posted. If you got that information in the last day, you couldn't post sooner, obviously. If you had that information before, posting it might have helped. I wasn't suggesting you provide an entire genie (although it would be nice to have a few more "facts" rather than innuendoes and ambiguities). If you can clear up the matter of county and the documents, that would be very helpful. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "I would like to remind" Posted by mame on 13:19:37 7/27/2000 everyone of a very important fact. one of the biggest research tools i've learned about this year...is reading a court file. it takes great skill to do it right. i had the outstanding opportunity to watch "the master" mr. bj plasket do it..time and time again. interpreting a case file is an awesome skill. no one single piece of paper indicates the path...or the story. plasket did it masterfully with the smit/hunter secret court dates. you need to take every single piece of paper and slowly and methodically piece them together. very few can do it right. i certainly can't. i mention it here because we seem to have taken such stock in a couple documents. please know they are only smidgeons of information in a huge, very, very sensitive case file. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "End of FW controversy for now re: fact vs. fiction PLEASE!" Posted by ericasf on 13:51:26 7/27/2000 "We needed to take the time to complete a thorough investigation," Police Chief Mark http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr000515.html Beckner said. "Unfortunately, the allegations have led to speculation that Fleet and Priscilla White, former close friends of the Ramseys and hosts of the 1996 Christmas party, were somehow involved in the sexual abuse and death of JonBenet. We have no evidence whatsoever to support this and have never had evidence to support such an allegation. Nor do we have any evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "ericasf" Posted by Nandee on 14:28:17 7/27/2000 Thanks for this quote. Add that to ST's quote saying almost the same thing and I think those of us who are looking are getting a clear picture.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Lovely Pigeon talked " Posted by Florida on 13:45:11 7/27/2000 to the man who prosecuted Mackey Boykin. Has anyone else talked to the prosecutor and if so was his information any different than what Lovely Pigeon posted?? (Callie is MW) 25 . "I called DA McDowell" Posted by LovelyPigeon on Jul-25-00 at 12:42 PM (EST) I just got off the phone with Inyo County DA Phil McDowell, a very pleasant sounding man. He's been working (his way up) in the District Attorneys office in Inyo since 1975. He was deputy DA in 79-80 and prosecuted Macky Boykin, along with then DA Gibbons, I told him I would be writing this and asked him not to tell me anything I couldn't repeat. I didn't want to be stuck with knowledge I couldn't share.Here's what he said, in answer to my questions: The BPD contacted McDowell a few months back and asked him about Callie and the Boykin case. He has not been contacted by FBI. A reporter from Boulder called him, also, several months ago. (Sorry, he didn't recall the name. I am emailing him the urls to the Callie stories, so maybe one of the reporters' names will jog his memory) The only person Callie accused when she spoke to DA was Macky Boykin. There was no mention of any sex ring, no childhood abuse by anyone. No abuse claims of mother or relatives or friends or anyone. No stories of others having sex with her. No involvement with social services. The evidence against Macky was simply her claims. Her mother and her step-father (who is Macky's brother) were very supportive of Callie then. They believed her, and stood behind her to press charges and prosecute. It was difficult for the Boykin family, being as Macky was the step-uncle of Callie. Protective services were not available from state or counties until recently, so any claim that Nancy made about being out of state in protective custody would have been family arrangments. McDowell was not aware of any arrangements made for Callie. Any contact by Macky to Callie would have immediately revoked his probation, and caused a hearing. No contact was ever reported by anyone regarding Macky having further contact with Callie. McDowell was not aware of Callie's 1991 claim against Boykin in San Luis Obispo. McDowell had some awareness of the JonBenét Ramsey case ("How could anyone avoid it with all the media attention!") but Callie had never mentioned any Fleet Whites when she made her claims in 1979. He was not aware of Callie's mother's connection as godchild of Fleet Sr. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Mame" Posted by LizzieB on 13:57:16 7/27/2000 Do you have a case number for Boykin's San Bernadino County charges? Or would there even be one, since the case was apparently transferred to Inyo County? Thanks! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "poor mame" Posted by ericasf on 14:03:26 7/27/2000 you knew this would happen! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "May as well forget it" Posted by lake on 14:43:54 7/27/2000 If Boykin had been found guilty or all 60 counts those that want to believe the best of FW and his family and doubt MW would just point out that the charges against Boykin had nothing to do with FW or any sexual abuse of MW by FW sr 30 some years ago. So why argue about something like Boykin how bad or good Boykin is. He was a 40 some year old man that had sex with his teenage stepneice on at least two occassions. He apparently said he was drunk a the time and blamed it in part on being a drunk. Don't know who you want to blame for that or what that makes Boykin to you, and I don't really care, because I know what that makes the guy to me. And to question the female teen in such a situation is just stupid. And as for FW sr and FW jr, I have to question a generational relationship between those two and Gwen Boykin. What is the link that connects FW jr to to the goddaughter of his 80 some year old father? GB told the cops that she was at a FW jr Halloween party is 1996 in Boulder. MW says the woman told her that she was at the 1996 FW Chistmas night dinner and had a young female with her. Believe what you choose to believe, but there this whole White thing is one of the main reasons that nobody can or ever will be charged in the killing of JBR IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Mame, I blame you" Posted by Seeker on 14:27:47 7/27/2000 for this entire controversy. Let me explain why I say that. If we had just read the few articles on MW/Nancy we would have speculated for a bit and then just dropped it. But no, you had to interview her and broadcast that interview making sure you surrounded her and shrouded her in mystery with this "cloak and dagger", "I can't tell you xxx" stuff. And you continue to do the cloak and dagger bit by saying your "I know, but can't tell" thing. OK journalistic ethics, or whatever. But I ask, how ethical is it to interview someone who's life is suppose to be in mortal danger, broadcast that interview and open it up to scrutiny and speculation and get the controversy going? Why didn't you interview her, tape it, and wait until AFTER the investigation was complete? Why didn't you wait until you had all the "facts" and were able to share them? Was it for ratings? Sorry mame, but I do have to ask as I find your actions to be just as reprehensible as our own (mine too) in this situation. I know hind sight is 20-20, but you're responsible for these interviews, and I know it's hard to say, but shouldn't you weigh all the "facts" against all the "information" (you're willing to share) before you do it? Wait until you can and will share ALL of the information and evidence before you say anything might be a better option, at least on the forums. Just a suggestion. By the way, she's been in therapy for over 10 years and the day before she and Mary left to come to CO she's supposedly assaulted again? And she has STD's? Guess her "therapist" isn't worth a darn, huh? Didn't even explain to her that since she has no criminal record she can go to the police, move to another state, hell, another country for that matter, and get away from these people. Was the possiblity of Nancy having a record investigated first? (what if she's a drugged out street walker and that's why she had those STD's? It's possible you know.) What if she turns out to be a liar? What then? Then the next person, who very well may be a sexual abuse victim, will have a tougher road to travel to get help, and be believed. I've seen this before, so that's why I'm so suspicious of this whole thing. Maybe you should hold off on interviews for awhile, or at least not broadcast them and get us all fighting over our "opinions" of the meager scraps you throw our way. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Ericasf" Posted by Florida on 14:21:48 7/27/2000 The only thing I want is the truth. MW has made scurrilous charges against Fleet White Sr. Fleet White Jr., his wife and other memebers of his family have been vilified on this board. On the word of one woman. There is substantial evidence the woman has not always told the truth. We could ignore it and let the White's twist in the wind or we can try to find out what is fact and what is fiction. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "why would we" Posted by ericasf on 14:26:42 7/27/2000 fight for Fleet White? I know what's fact and what's not so to me, he's not really twisting in the wind for anything.... Nothing is fact. But you can't ask people to give up confidential information. I don't think that there is anything wrong with trying to find out the truth. We all want that. Right guys and gals? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "florida" Posted by mame on 14:20:54 7/27/2000 i will not respond to comments that are not direct exact quotes in a case like this. mcdowell is fully aware of the risk to him legally and to the witness personally (security wise) in regards to her case. while i respect LP for her investigative chutzpah, i will not respond to her post. i will only attempt to provide exact dates and charges. that's it. i will not comment on a random page from a file that is hundreds of pages thick. that's crazy. also, as to the fbi investigation, if we think we can determine if there is one by a phone call to the DA...we're crazy. as a wise person recently told me...they don't work that way. you never know of their investigations by typical means... enough said. i will come back one more time to give you exact dates and charges...at least what is possibly available to me. and that's it, folks. i will wait for the final word of a FULL AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION...which looks at every piece of the puzzle. as it should... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "oh seeker" Posted by mame on 14:40:02 7/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:40:02, 7/27/2000 go read a jounalism 101 textbook and we'll talk. my goodness....did woodward and bernstein wait til the president was "safe" to write their stories? did the reporter who first saw rosa parks and her plight wait til the civil rights amendment was passed to tell the story of a little voice? come on this is crazy. no reporter waits til the coast is clear to report a story. it's not their job to do the full and complete investigation! it's their job as a conscious of the community to give their readers INFORMATION that will help them be informed citizens. i have never said once that i have information that is vital to the public good. do you think any reporter on any case tells you all they know? if you're think that your crazy. please be informed about how journalism works in our society...or how it should work. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Ratings??" Posted by LurkerXIV on 14:33:29 7/27/2000 I don't think the ToppCatt Studio is listed in the Nielsen ratings. But I think it should be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Haven't posted in ages because" Posted by pat on 14:47:29 7/27/2000 of the tone of the forum. But I just have to say to seeker,,why the need to blame mame? Can't we just get on with the forum without all these judgements. May I remind folks that reporters don't always give out everything when it reaches them,,,sometimes in their judgement things have to come out in due time. Mame has made her decisions about how she is handling this and I move we let her do it her way,,she isn't interfering with anyone else doing his thing. All the bitching and blaming and whining really detracts from the substance here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "seeker..." Posted by dustii on 15:50:47 7/27/2000 You said: for this entire controversy. Let me explain why I say that. If we had just read the few articles on MW/Nancy we would have speculated for a bit and then just dropped it. But no, you had to interview her and broadcast that interview making sure you surrounded her and shrouded her in mystery with this "cloak and dagger", "I can't tell you xxx" stuff. And you continue to do the cloak and dagger bit by saying your "I know, but can't tell" thing. OK journalistic ethics, or whatever. But I ask, how ethical is it to interview someone who's life is suppose to be in mortal danger, broadcast that interview and open it up to scrutiny and speculation and get the controversy going? Why didn't you interview her, tape it, and wait until AFTER the investigation was complete? Why didn't you wait until you had all the "facts" and were able to share them? Was it for ratings? Sorry mame, but I do have to ask as I find your actions to be just as reprehensible as our own (mine too) in this situation. (Get a grip! When this story started coming out, I think most people wanted to hear any and every little crumb they could be fed. Mame interviews and brings to us information. It's up to us to digest and analyse the information. Of course it wouldn't have been dropped if there had been no interview. To blame Mame for all the upheaval etc that has come from this is stupid, if you didn't want to know what was said in the interview, you didn't have to listen. As for the "cloak and dagger bit, do you really think anyone else is telling all the facts in this. Mame is bringing to us what can be brought to us. If she feels obligated not to reveal some things because of an ongoing investigation, so be it. Live with it.) You said: By the way, she's been in therapy for over 10 years and the day before she and Mary left to come to CO she's supposedly assaulted again? And she has STD's? Guess her "therapist" isn't worth a darn, huh? Didn't even explain to her that since she has no criminal record she can go to the police, move to another state, hell, another country for that matter, and get away from these people. Was the possiblity of Nancy having a record investigated first? (what if she's a drugged out street walker and that's why she had those STD's? It's possible you know.) (I don't believe this. Obviously you haven't had a deep seated problem for which you have felt worthless, and needed professional help to overcome. To say the therapist isn't worth a darn is irresponsible and ignorant. Don't assume you know what a person should or shouldn't do until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Hopefully you will never have to.) You said: What if she turns out to be a liar? What then? Then the next person, who very well may be a sexual abuse victim, will have a tougher road to travel to get help, and be believed. I've seen this before, so that's why I'm so suspicious of this whole thing. (Sexual assault victims already have a tough enough road to travel, mainly due to people like you who instantly disregard what they say, and doubt their sincerity. To say that the next person who may very well be a sexual assault victim will have a tougher road to travel, to get help and be believed, is to imply that you believe this person is a fake. You know that do you? Please. What if she does turn out to be a liar? So it falls on Mame's shoulders? I don't think so, but I do think there is enough to at least know that this person HAS been a victim of sexual assault.) You said: Maybe you should hold off on interviews for awhile, or at least not broadcast them and get us all fighting over our "opinions" of the meager scraps you throw our way. (It's always easy to blame someone else for starting the fights etc that comes from differing opinions. Everyone must take responsibilty for their own actions. Stop passing the buck. Most of us, I think, are grateful for the interviews Mame brings us. And for those who don't want to know about it, or who aren't satisfied with the information contained in them don't have to go there. Simple.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL dustii ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Whatever" Posted by Seeker on 18:48:14 7/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:48:14, 7/27/2000 just wondered whatever happened to "responsible" journalism. I know mame does what she thinks is right and I'm glad she does what she does. I would just like to know why on this particular story, she wouldn't wait, knowing (or at least suspecting) that a full investigation was going to take place. Thanks for no direct answers mame. I'm not being hostile, just noticing you didn't really address one question I asked and your answer seemed to be a "spin" of your own, to try and turn it in another direction. I have taken a journalism class (way over 20 years ago), and we were taught that we needed to be responsible for what we were reporting, as well as being accurate. Guess that style went out when the tabs really got rolling. "i have never said once that i have information that is vital to the public good. do you think any reporter on any case tells you all they know? if you're think that your crazy." I never said you did have info that was vital to the public good either. I don't need to know all you "know", just would appreciate some solid, verifiable facts. I don't need names, dates, and locations, but would appreciate it if you would give more info so we can be better informed and be able to make a more clear evaluation of the entire situation. edited to add: I've been deeply hurt by someone I loved and trusted that had similar claims as Nancy, only to find out that they were lying. Once bitten, twice shy. I no longer give my loyalty to anyone on their "word" alone. I still feel that betrayal quite deeply. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Mame" Posted by Real Stormy on 15:54:18 7/27/2000 You are absolutely right that you won't "name names." In the interest of fairness and integrity, however, and in view of the way that Fleet White, Jr. has been vilified, if MW did not name him to you as one of her abusers, you should say so. If she did name him, say nothing. We will know what you mean. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Real Stormy" Posted by mame on 17:00:16 7/27/2000 I can't name a name. See, I believe that EVERYONE deserves fairness. So, naming a name that a witness, may or may not have spoken is just making matters worse. It's just a name until proven to be a solid piece of information. So, I can't and won't go there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Yes, Mame, I understand" Posted by Real Stormy on 17:13:28 7/27/2000 And agree with you. However, I am talking about "unnaming" a name. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Well, RS" Posted by lake on 17:28:05 7/27/2000 Since post # 34 was really a say nothing post.... But to ask that mame say nothing if FW was named is bit harsh. That would mean that mame could no longer post if she did not state that FW was not named by MW. Andrew Hodges could do a lot with that kind of a request from you to mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "LP" Posted by rico on 18:49:54 7/27/2000 posted factual court information. But now we are told you have to be able to "read" such documentation to get the whole truth. I think the real truth has already dawned on some JW posters; it's not a good idea to question the abilities and professionalism of one journalist based on something as banal as the facts. Never once did I see this forum member challenge, question or affirm the numerous (and outrageous)"allegation alerts" that have been stated later as known facts. Fair? I didn't read journalism 101 but I read my History and I know what the Salem Witch Trials were, and the McCarthy era ("I have a list of names Mr. Chairman.."). This may well be deleted but I'm posting it anyway under the assumption that all forum participants have the equal right to express their opinion. And if that isn't the case then I'll know soon enough. It needs to be said and I'm saying it (and will bet the farm many others are thinking it). The emperor has no clothes. It's not personal, it's not flaming, JMO. Still waiting to read a reply to post #20. JfJBR rico [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Lake" Posted by Real Stormy on 18:26:42 7/27/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:26:42, 7/27/2000 I certainly didn't intend to be harsh. With all of the speculation about FW Jr. I thought and still think it is only fair to say so if he is not accused. But then, my standards of fairness are likely different from yours. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "A little story..." Posted by Greenleaf on 18:22:09 7/27/2000 It's one of those cold, winter evenings. Everyone has gone and I'm home alone. I light the big oak log in the fireplace, fix me a hot toddy, put on my old bathrobe and slippers, and get out a mystery novel that I've been dying to read. The title is titillating: "Mystery Woman." I become totally engrossed in the tale, which unfolds in tiny increments, with each page ending with a promise of much more to come. I continue, and my mood changes. I become morose and depressed. My toddy starts tasting bitter. The log in the fireplace burns out, and I don't even care. My warm and fuzzy feeling has gone. The clues drop, like lead balloons, upon the cold floor. I rush forward, barely scanning the pages, determined to find something enlighting near the end. Nothing. There is no end. Just a beginning and a middle. (sort of) I look at the clock. It is near midnight and I become sleepy. I know I'll have a sleepless night, as I try to fill in the gaps of the story. Love and peace, Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "And Lake," Posted by Real Stormy on 18:54:47 7/27/2000 I welcome as many witch doctors as possible to analyze my posts. Since my post was a "say nothing" post to you, why did you butt in? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "The Wonders of Evolution!!" Posted by shadow on 19:20:08 7/27/2000 My, my... does anyone else find it ironic that the JW forum has evloved from Pro-Ram vs Anti-Ram to Pro-FW & Pro-ST vs Anti-FW & Anti-ST? Yeah, yeah, I know I will now be told by at least 25 posters they're not "Pro or Anti" anyone. I know this evolution makes Lake a happy soul - my guess is that JR, PR and the Stines are getting a good laugh out of this turn of events also. mame, I suggest your follow Plasket's advice... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Hey Shadow" Posted by Lacey on 19:26:43 7/27/2000 You up for a little Dueling Satire? Check out Orsen's and DON'T TELL ME you're lacking inspiration!!!!! Lay it on us LOL Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "my two cents.." Posted by Dianne E. on 19:55:06 7/27/2000 ..I am quite sure before Watergate broke the reporters had checked their facts. ..Rosa Parks historic day was captured on film and it was NEWS. Acquiring public documents would seem a good place to start as an investigative reporter. It would also appear an interview with the DA would have been a good step also. I am quite certain from the last time I checked into Journalism 101 they still taught about source checking, how to access documents and conduct interviews or was that classes for gossip columnists? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Fine" Posted by v_p on 20:08:04 7/27/2000 I didn't want the danged URL anyway. So, can someone point me to where they found the information concerning the Santa suit in the wine cellar? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Proof in the pudding" Posted by Rascal on 22:34:20 7/27/2000 Case number CRF-55-798 Mackie Eugene Boykin Versus State of California. Inyo County court house, Independence, Calif. The court clerk has it on microfilm, it cost 1$ per copy to have made. Ask the clerk the total number of pages. Send them a check. The District Attorneys office is next to the court house. Freedom from rumor mongers and freedom of information. It is your right to have actual court documents, not hearsay. Mame can get all the court documents. Mame can talk to the District Attorney who talked to the witness (MW). Just do it Mame. The District Attorney can talk about what the witness didn't say, he can't talk about the statements the witness said as a minor concerning her and Boykin. The DA said, that the minor never said anything about sex ring or Whites. Period What do you want people, hearsay or actual court factual documents and a District Attorney's statement? Get off the mame-go-round! The court never accepted 64 counts, nor were they ever filed. Mackie Eugene Boykin was found guilty of two Felony counts. He was guilty of forceable sex with a minor and oral copulation on a minor "the witness (MW). The end. The rest MW says you have to believe her alone. What Mame says you have to believe her alone. CHOICE! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Please explain, rascal" Posted by Holly on 07:29:33 7/28/2000 how you can be CHARGED with 64 counts, but the charges are not FILED? In MD, ALL charges are filed and then some can be nol prossed or dismissed and never be prosecuted. Still, they are offically "filed". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Paper trail Holly" Posted by Rascal on 09:16:50 7/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:16:50, 7/28/2000 >how you can be CHARGED with 64 >counts, but the charges are not >FILED? In MD, ALL charges >are filed and then some can >be nol prossed or dismissed and >never be prosecuted. Still, they >are offically "filed". The endless argument is your style Holly. I've seen the court filings and their was twelve (12)only filed felony charges. The witness MW may have-accused- Boykin of-64-alleged criminal acts, but the convicted counts are only two "proven" felonies of quilt by Boykin. Holly, you can choose to change the facts, but can you produce the publc documents to support 64 counts? The public record. Holly, you would rather argue and flame versus produce all the court documents that are "public record" at Inyo County Court House. The on-going speculation by Mame and yourself will only confuse the real story of the witness. Please, concern yourself with what your doing to the Witnesses' reputation. The first question is what the Inyo County authoritie's found to be the final judgement? Two felony counts period. The second question is what the District Attorney heard from the Witness MW, and what he did not hear about sex-rings or speculated prior abuse? The third question is what quilt is, one's opinion, or a judge's decision? The Witness is not a professional communicator, and she cannot or should not IMO be held accountable for her confusing past teenage memory statements. Holly, you and Mame are accountable by your reputation of what you bring and do not bring to the forum. The truth is, you two only bring to the forum hearsay and your own speculative opinions much of the time. Justice is found in fact by judges and jurys. LovelyPigeon has produced court documents and an interview with Inyo County DA. She has made a sound effort to produce the facts from the paper trail. Holly and Mame, you two should be thanking her for the information. The information that allows the forum posters to make sound opinions and conclusions on their own. Inyo County Court House Court Clerk Independence, Calif CRF-55-798 micro-film file number 1$ per copy [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Hang in there mame." Posted by listener on 00:23:10 7/28/2000 You done good. O.K.,....I'll go against the grain, and thank you very much for giving us those MW reports during one of the most dry news spells of this forum. Not only that, but it's looking like, currently, there wouldn't be much to talk about on this forum if you hadn't given us any of that news. Seeker stated she wished to be given more information; so we can be better informed and be able to make a more clear evaluation of the entire situation. Well, I personally think that's exactly what you did do. And I never heard you mention that it was written in stone that everything MW stated should be considered as the gospel truth. Like it or not, my mind has been greatly expanded due to your MW reports, because one thing leads to another. I truly was hardly aware of the totally gross lifestyle of the generational sexual abuse. I struggle with it's very existance, but at least i am aware of it now. Very. JonBenet was sexually abused, either dead or alive, and as far as I can tell, that was done by either a family member or at least with their approval. Nobody protected that little child like they were suppose to do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "thank you listener..." Posted by mame on 07:54:30 7/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:54:30, 7/28/2000 i respect those with varying opinions on this forum. i do not, and will not, respect those whose anger is centered on their ego driven...one track stance on "who done it" woodward and bernstein were ridiculed and made a laughing stock in the years leading up to the truth. i can take it. i tend to look at this all in a positive light. a glass half full scenario. this community has been damn lucky to have those roving reporters who picked up a microphone and typed on the scene reports. those like panico, BJ plasket, myself, visiting sleuths...chris, holly, darby, etc. the list goes on. AND WHEN IN HISTORY...do you get direct, daily access to those reporters? i know the role of journalism. i know what is appropriate and what isn't. i stand by every story i've ever done. if i am wrong on any detail i will stand tall and tell you. as soon as i have all the details on charges and dates in the boykin case i will post them. beyond that, i will no longer comment on this story until there is hard news to report. i have many other interviews and stories to work on. edited to add this recently bob woodward gave a speech to other reporters, and said... "No one likes what we do and (we're) always uncomfortable with it, but it is the discomfort which gives impulse and comfort really to knowing that we have made a real sincere effort to not just do the surface of something but to get very far into its insides." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Mame" Posted by LizzieB on 14:09:29 7/28/2000 I, like so many, have appreciated your interviews with MW and all the others. I am one of those who decided to wait until more information was available to make up my mind about MW. I don't give a rat's a** whether Fleet White is a monster or a saint, or something in between. I have no stake in that whatsoever, or in any particular theory, for that matter. I only want the truth to come out. Mame, I was very disturbed to learn recently that when LP offered a while ago to share the court documents with you and tell you what she learned from the DA and others, you told her you were not interested. You didn't even want to listen! On this very thread you posted (with regard to the court documents), "There are hundreds of documents in those files. So, one here and there does not make a full puzzle." Well, geez, Mame, those eighteen pages just happen to comprise the official court record of the Boykin case, one of the few easily documentable allegations in MW's past! Don't you think that might count for something? And they show that the conviction took place in a different county than the one MW had said. And they show that fewer counts were charged than thought. And, more fundamentally, they show that the court record is not sealed after all. The depositions are sealed, as always when a case doesn't go to trial - nothing special about this case - but the court records themselves are not and never have been sealed. The only reason nobody could find them before is that they were in another county. I might also add that it does not take a rocket scientist to read these court documents, as you suggest. I have a degree in paralegal, among other things, but a paralegal or legal background is not necessary to understand the bulk of these documents. It's offensive to me when you imply that people don't know what they're talking about when they cite information from these pages, especially when you haven't even taken the time to look at them yourself. And the DA whom LP interviewed just happens to be the very same person who prosecuted the case, who dealt with Boykin and MW and her family at the time! He contradicted MW on a number of major points. I would think a journalist would jump at the chance to examine this information. You didn't have to take LP's word for what he said - you could interview him yourself. Instead, you hint mysteriously that he might not be telling the truth and MW's security might be affected by his statements (in a 21-year-old-case in which the defendant has been dead for 5 years). Now, I can understand why you would want to take LP's interviews with MW's friends and family with a grain of salt, as there is likely a bias there. I would do the same. But you didn't even want to hear what they said. I find that mind-boggling. So, I am not angry - and I don't think I am ego-driven, nor do I have a one-track stance on whodunnit - but I am disappointed. And this doesn't mean I'm not grateful for your efforts in obtaining the interviews, because I am. I think we all learned something from them, perhaps moreso given the supportive environment you provided. It's just that you can't seem to get past your protectiveness of MW to even consider information which might contradict her story. That can be an admirable trait, but has no place in the field of investigative journalism. Mame, there is nothing personal here, because I like you a lot and enjoy talking to you in chat. I hope we can remain friends. That said, I will follow up on MW's interviews myself by obtaining copies of the court documents and doing my own research, and looking at the research others have done. Your brand of journalism appears to require blind faith, something I'm not capable of providing. Woodward and Bernstein, indeed! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Woodward and Bernstien" Posted by v_p on 11:03:59 7/28/2000 won a pulitzer prize for their reporting in the Washington Post on Watergate. Is this the time period you're referring to mame? I'm not getting the comparison here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "lizzieb" Posted by mame on 14:25:43 7/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:25:43, 7/28/2000 you are one of my favorite posters. i respect your questions. however, AGAIN, until this whole story is told, i have very good reasons not to respond to every tom, dick and harry who collects information. i can't. someday you'll understand why. i've tried to make it as clear as i can. from my research today, and others who are shocked at the random posting of SEALED documents, we believe those documents were obtained and given illegally. i can say no more. lizzieb, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER ASKED ONCE FOR ANYONE TO BELIEVE THIS STORY!!! you can go through any news report and any post i've ever made and see that is true. i reported a story and asked that a full investigation take place. i don't believe that happened. i respect your other criticisms, however i have never asked for blind faith. you may be confusing me with other posters who have taken sides. when you report a story, it doesn't mean you are FOR or AGAINST. if you can show me one instance where i asked for faith in a story that's not even fully investigated yet..go for it! i have never done it and i never will. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Mame" Posted by LizzieB on 22:28:20 7/28/2000 I have no problem per se with your not responding to "every Tom, Dick and Harry who collects information." My concern is with your disregard for the information in the first place, before you even looked at it. It's bad enough (given your journalist status) that you didn't seek it out yourself, but when it was offered to you on a silver platter, you rejected it sight unseen. Secondly, I agree with Rascal that the file is not sealed and think it is highly unlikely that it ever was. It's almost always unconstitutional to seal adult criminal court records, even if the testimony of minors is involved. (Depositions, when there is no trial, are a different story.) A link in this regard is here (see paragraphs 5&6): http://www.wnpa.com/legal/2_2_A.htm Lastly, I agree with Fly's statement that when a journalist writes a story it is implicit that she wants to be believed. Otherwise, what is the point? You're the one who proclaims herself to be a journalist and as such, I think you have a higher standard of proof than the average poster. You always seem to respond to criticism by saying that you never asked anybody to believe you - well then, perhaps you should remove the journalist hat. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Frankly, I don't know why you started this thread in the first place, since you seemed to spend most of it telling us you had good reasons for not being able to tell us anything. You haven't even given us any objective information to speak of. Perhaps you should have waited until you had some. Mame, I have tremendous respect for the caring and devotion you have shown to MW. You showed yourself to be an outstanding human being when you took her in the way you did, in spite of everything. But you don't invite someone into your home, nurture her in every way possible, and expect to come away with the objective reporting of her story. It's just not possible, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Ignorance is bliss! Mame" Posted by Rascal on 17:03:00 7/28/2000 > > > > NOTE: >This message was last edited 14:25:43, >7/28/2000 > > > you are one >of my favorite posters. i >respect your questions. however, AGAIN, until >this whole story is told, i >have very good reasons not to >respond to every tom, dick and >harry who collects information. i >can't. someday you'll understand why. > i've tried to make it >as clear as i can. >from my research today, and others who >are shocked at the random posting >of SEALED documents, we believe those >documents were obtained and given illegally. > i can say no more. The Mackie Eugene Boykin vs. State of California file number CRF-55-798 is not sealed, nor is it illegal to obtain from the Inyo County Clerk in Independence, Calif. The minor's (MW) name was removed to protect the minor, that's all. Mame, it's just more hearsay and speculation on your part and the "we believe" group. The BPD did not have to get a Inyo Judge's order and neither does any American citzen for this file. Mame, get to the "inside" of this information. It's only a dollar a page copy. Report the truth will ya, by providing the facts. The Washington Post reporters have a good reputation of printing facts that led to the truth about Watergate. They also got lucky with an-insider called "deep throat"-who gave info. The witness MW is no Boulder insider and no "deep throat" Santa Bear.IMO The witness, MW, may be the person that the killer listened to in order to develope aspects of the crime in Los Osos, Ca before Boulder. Why do you think the Whites, Ramsey team, BPD, and the FBI were in Los Oso, Ca. The rest is history. No sex ring! "i can say no more." How mysterious. > >lizzieb, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, I >HAVE NEVER ASKED ONCE FOR ANYONE >TO BELIEVE THIS STORY!!! you can >go through any news report and >any post i've ever made and >see that is true. i >reported a story and asked that >a full investigation take place. >i don't believe that happened. >i respect your other criticisms, however >i have never asked for blind >faith. you may be confusing >me with other posters who have >taken sides. when you report >a story, it doesn't mean you >are FOR or AGAINST. if >you can show me one instance >where i asked for faith in >a story that's not even fully >investigated yet..go for it! i >have never done it and i >never will. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "mame" Posted by fly on 15:25:10 7/28/2000 mame - There is an implied "believe me/it" whenever a journalist writes a story. The public trusts that the journalist is both being accurate and has checked the facts. Didn't Woodward & Bernstein have to obtain verification through other sources of the points in their Watergate expose? Seems like they did. I realize that presenting an interview has some special problems and might not fall completely under this implied believability awning, but I don't think those situations are completely devoid of implied validity. The MW situation might make all this more difficult, especially when people are certain to begin to clamor for more story once that first bit is dangled before them. However, to use the "I never asked you to believe" line lacks something, even so. I'll beat you to it: I never took journalism. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "What's wrong with this picture??" Posted by v_p on 15:48:19 7/28/2000 Mame, you wrote on Witnesses and Woes: "The Witness has never once claimed to have the pieces necessary to solve JBR's murder. She gave authorities a vast amount of information she hoped might help them in their investigation." Help them in their investigation into what? Another murder? A purse snatching? This is contrapositive and (mis)leading, even though you say that is not your intent. I don't know you as the other, long time posters, do. I can't say I respect you as a journalist, that would be an untruthful statement ... I've never seen any of your work. I'm giving my opinion and stating my puzzlement based on what I've read here. I hope I don't offend. I'm just giving my opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "OK I just have questions" Posted by Seeker on 18:56:36 7/28/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:56:36, 7/28/2000 Mame, I have a lot of questions. Guess you figured that out by now. Some you feel you cannot answer. OK I can respect that but when you wrote on Witnesses and Woes: "The Witness has never once claimed to have the pieces necessary to solve JBR's murder. She gave authorities a vast amount of information she hoped might help them in their investigation." That seems to be a contradiction to this: http://insidedenver.com/extra/ramsey/0227mary2.shtml Note: "her client gave police names of individuals who are witnesses in the killing of JonBenet as well as ongoing sexual and physical abuse of other children." She's claiming she knows who killed JonBenet? How would she know who witnessed the murder? (see why I'm raising questions?) Then I stumbled onto this article too: http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/09lrams.html Notice "did not start mentioning the names of JonBenét Ramsey or anyone in the Ramsey family until after Dec. 26, 1996, the day JonBenét's body was found." I thought she told mame she had mentioned them long before JonBenet's murder and provided proof of some type. I could be mistaken, but I thought mame said this to us on another post. There seems to be contraditory statements made by you and Nancy. I'm just frustrated (promise) by all of this and it seems you have some answers that you are not willing to share. Maybe you have an emotional attachment to her, maybe you hate to be wrong, I don't know. Here are some questions based on my personal experiences. I've had a lot of personal experience with real victims. None of which received active ongoing therapy for over 10 years and allowing the abuse to continue while seeking help even up to the day before providing testimony. (got that from the link, I believe it was you, provided to an article) I do have my reservations about Nancy. Some things just don't pan out. I thought she was now married? (one of her therapists threatening phone calls) Where's the husband? Who abused her the night before she and her therapist left for CO? Why was she where she could be abused while waiting to go to CO? Why didn't she go into hiding here in CA? Why was she alone where one of her abusers could get to her and keep her from going to CO if she was so in fear for her life, where was her therapist-friend Mary? Where was her "husband" if she has one? Why no protection? Why did they announce they were going to CO instead of just packing up and leaving in the middle of the night, or at anytime (especially with the decoy of going to a therapy session)? You've said, mame, that you were harrassed at home by police. It's been indicated that the people that Nancy is pointing fingers at are rich and powerful. In that vein, I'm sure since they're dirty, filthy, scum, child abusers breaking the law in the seamy underworld they would know many criminal elements. Some who could be hired for a price to tap and trap your phones to find her, or just put a hit out on her. Did you consider that a trap on your phone was possible and by interviewing her via land lines (pay phone to your home, or office) you could have jeapordized her life? Wasn't, or isn't Lee Hill one of the Ramsey's Boulder attorney's? These people she is pointing at are rich and powerful and scare her, and she says they were all part of this from much earlier in her childhood yet she wasn't afraid to point the finger at the "ring leader/trainer" knowing he had connections that could have ended her life, then. What events made her wait until she was 17 to bring this out to a DA and the cops in 1979, and subsequent years after? Why not before when the McMartin pre-school case was being splashed all over the country? She would have been removed from the home, put in protective custody, and the ring would have folded like a cheap paper fan. Can you see why I'm suspicious? I've given my trust to others, tried to help, and been betrayed by their lies. I don't live in perfect little world and have experienced much in this area. I even volunteered at a womens crisis center, but never, ever heard anything remotely like what this woman is claiming. Seems as if she saw the movie 8mm that was released in 1999 that graphically depicted the type of sado/masichistic (sp?) acts she claims happened to her. Exactly. I'd like an answer to any of these questions without any spin in another direction or attack on my abilities/education. I noticed you didn't answer quite a few posters who didn't praise you either, like v_p, who just asked a simple question. You completely ignored her question too. I never know what posts you read, and the more I read the angrier I became at your seeming unwilingness to explain anything unless someone was sucking up to you. I guess it just really bugs me when someone implies "I've gotta secret, but I can't tell you..." And yeah mame, you do it a lot. Sorry, but that's what quite a few of us see. I appoligize if I'm comming off as rude, I'm just really frustrated. Peace Seeker [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "fly" Posted by lake on 18:39:37 7/28/2000 "mame - There is an implied "believe me/it" whenever a journalist writes a story. The public trusts that the journalist is both being accurate and has checked the facts." Ho, Ho, Ho. And what can old Santa bring you for Christmas this year little man? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Seeker" Posted by Real Stormy on 06:55:47 7/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:55:47, 7/29/2000 Good post. I had thought that if Fleet White were not one of the people who MW named to Mame as one of her abusers, it would be the honest thing for Mame to say so and stop all of this character assassination which had occurred. Mame responded by saying she wouldn't name names, which is not what I asked. Her silence only makes me presume that either MW did accuse Fleet White, or Mame wishes to prolong her own feeling of self-importance. To compare her situation to Woodward and Bernstein's during their Watergate investigation is ludicrous. While they had "Deepthroat" as their informer, they never wrote one accusation without having it confirmed by a second source and in some cases more than a second source. Sounds more like the Tawana Brawley episode to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Court Docs/MW Interview" Posted by Florida on 08:23:00 7/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:23:00, 7/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:19:50, 7/29/2000 From the 2nd Mame interview with MW: m: so who were you reporting this to? How old were you when you first started reporting? c: I was 17 years old and I first reported it to the district attorney of San Bernadino County. m: And did he believe you? c: yes, he did. m: and is he the same district attorney who successfully prosecuted this man, The GAROTTER? c: Uh, I believe it is. m: Ok. Tell us about that case quickly. There were 64 counts and he pled down to how many? c: 4 m: 4. Over what period of time? c: Well, it started in May of '79 at a preliminary hearing, and there were 5 postponements between May of '79 and July of '80 , and at that time, he pleaded "no contest". m: so once they got him down to 4 of 64, he went down. According to the court documents that were legally obtained by Lovely Pigeon (and could be legally obtained by anyone else who wants them if they have $18.) He was prosecuted in Inyo County, there were 12 counts (6 of each charge) in the charge sheet in May of '79 and he plead no contest to 2 of those counts. He was sentenced in November of '80 to 1 year suspended, 5 years probation and alcohol treatment. Lovely Pigeon sent the prosecuting DA her post on their conversation, the urls for all of the news articles in the CO papers, and the interviews Mame did with MW. He has her real name and her email address in case he would like to make any corrections to her post. So far he has not. It would seem to me that any reporter who is looking into a case would contact the prosecutor and talk to him. He would be the one who was the most familiar with the case, he would be able to explain why some of the charges were dropped, he would be able to explain why they plea bargained the way they did. Any reporter who was looking for the truth should have made this basic phone call. Edited for spelling. 2X [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Today's Daily" Posted by LizzieB on 09:27:07 7/29/2000 On the Daily, Mames says: >>on the advice of a gazillion e-mails I AM TOTALLY STAYING AWAY FROM THAT OTHER THREAD!!!! i'm not the BPD folks...i'm not the FBI...and i'm NOT the journalist investigating the claims of the Mystery Witness! it's OUR PUBLIC OFFICALS role to take what we find and DO SOMETHING! like maybe a COMPLETE INVESTIGATION! some other journalists got in here and read what's being written and all agreed, THIS IS WHAT GIVES THE INTERNET A BAD NAME! even though i've been ripped from stem to stern...ol' mame is standing tough and tall. and believe me i'm not standing alone. so rip if you need to...i'll keep calling them as i sees em'... you can just hit the stop button...I AM! Well geez, Mame, if you're not investigating MW's claims, then why did you start this thread to sort out fact, fiction and fantasy? Isn't that a little hard to do if you haven't researched the facts? How are you able to judge the accuracy of the information LP has found if you haven't done any investigating on your own? I didn't hear you condemn her for investigating the case -- rather, you were questioning the accuracy and the legality of her information. And why all the comparisons to Woodward and Bernstein? The implication throughout this thread is that you've been ferreting out information about MW. Otherwise, what is the point of comparing yourself to the most famous investigative journalists of all time? They didn't just interview one person and call it quits. And that's fine if you're not looking into MW's story. I have NO problem with that whatsoever. But if that's the case, then you have no right to judge the content of the information others are turning up, much less start a thread about it as if you are an authority. Sheesh! I didn't start this, Mame! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "???" Posted by v_p on 08:56:45 7/29/2000 >>The GAROTTER?<< Who gave him this nick-name. Is Boykin dead? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Projection..." Posted by Dianne E. on 09:48:59 7/29/2000 ..imo, this is a classic "text" book case. "some other journalists got in here and read what's being written and all agreed, THIS IS WHAT GIVES THE INTERNET A BAD NAME!" GIVE me a BREAK, I think spreading half baked theories which include other innocent people is what makes the internet a BAD PLACE. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Ok I'll Do It." Posted by Ruthee on 12:13:53 7/29/2000 I'm sending an $18.00 check along with a large SASE to the Inyo County Clerk requesting copies of the court proceedings on file. When I get em, I'll scann and/or transcribe them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Thanks Ruthee" Posted by LizzieB on 12:19:31 7/29/2000 I've already sent off for them as well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Go team" Posted by MJenn on 12:25:01 7/29/2000 I'm a "prove it" kinda' person myself. While I believe one has to theorize and brainstorm to get ideas to follow-up on, it's the follow-up that makes or breaks the theory. So thanks to you all who add to the info, theoretical and factual. It's all important. Look forward to that case file. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "only a fraction of the whole story (or picture)" Posted by mary99 on 14:44:50 7/29/2000 Those who wish to get the case file and read it for themselves are welcome to do so. Nobody is going to learn the 'real truth' by reading it however...the small truth about Boykin's sentencing, yes, the truth about MW, no. MW gave a 'vast amount' of information to the authorities. Apparently there's a lot more to it than Boykin being sentenced on 4 counts back in 1980. It all started YEARS before that, when she was born into a family lightyears away from what anyone at this forum would call 'normal.' Mame is right to refuse to engage in countering the disbelief factor post by post, count by count. Whatever was on the video she saw in Lee Hill's office with BJ Plasket was 'compelling' evidence; good enough for Hunter and Hill, Plasket and Mame, the BPD and now the FBI. Never has the BPD come out and said 'she's a liar'...no once. The BPD has never come out and even called the Rams SUSPECTS. See how carefully everything is hedged? The oft-repeated statement that the BPD 'found nothing' was said in reference ONLY to the BPD conclusion that they have 'no evidence' that Ramseys were in a sex ring, nor was Fleet White JR involved in the death of JBR. And that can change anytime, if new evidence comes to light. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Mary 99" Posted by Ruthee on 21:36:36 7/29/2000 Mary I don't need your permission to write for the transcripts. I'm surprised no one else in this back and forth has seen fit to order copies. I don't expect to learn the "real truth", I expect to learn exactly what charges were filed and went on to a plea, judge or jury trial. At least I have that information. Did he end up with a sentence to two counts of criminal activity or four? That's the truth I'll gain. I don't expect to learn the truth about MW, she is not the one charged. Now you can claim you know, and choose not to tell me, that's your decision. If you chose not to tell me, don't tell me I'm wrong if I should state an opinion because I don't have the whole story. I'd rather just ignore it. IF NO ONE IS GOING TO TELL US ABOUT A VIDEO SHOWN IN LEE HILL'S OFFICE.............WHY IS IT EVEN PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE ON THIS FORUM? Once the Ramseys are admitted by the police to be the "suspects" in the case, the legal proceedings involved in the questioning changes. Thay haven't named them as "suspects" for a very good reason. My belief in the guilt of the Ramseys can change anytime new evidence comes to light, so I don't know what that has to do with this conversation. What I'm saying to you is don't give me a piece of crust, and then get into an argument with me as to weather the pie is apple or peach. You still haven't answered the question I ask you on another thread. Ruth [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Mary99 " Compelling Simularities." Posted by Rascal on 16:05:56 7/29/2000 The witness MW provides no "compelling evidence" as you write Mary99. MW provides--compelling simularities--to the JBR death crime scene. The process of death is the big issue with MW. The killer didn't just pull it out of a hat. The killer didn't just imagine it anew. I say the killer heard it from MW, and that does mean MW was close to the killer. The killers ear was maybe close to her words. It does not mean she knew the person was to be the killer. There's no sex ring, but there's a viable possible connection to the killer and MW story. Mame is who Mame is and no more. Let everyone understand Mame's work and reputation. She reports on gossip, hearsay, speculations, and she will not do the deeper paper trail work, this like the main stream professionals will do to maintain standards. She will-not-verify the information she reports. That's her right, and nobody has to buy it. Tabloid journalism Mame, and Mame is good at it, for what it is as a crude form of journalism. Nothing more,I'll see you all at the supermarket. IMO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "mary" Posted by v_p on 15:41:59 7/29/2000 >>The BPD has never come out and even called the Rams SUSPECTS<< Alex Hunter called them "suspects" on national Tv just a few months ago on Geraldo. Not "under the umbrella," ... "suspects." But then you are not one to nit-pick when it comes to facts, are you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Thanks, Ruthee" Posted by Real Stormy on 15:41:34 7/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:41:34, 7/29/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:39:36, 7/29/2000 I look forward to seeing the court documents. Even using my poor feeble brain, low IQ, lack of education, poor reading comprehension and absolute lack of understanding of journalism ethics, I'll endeavor to decipher them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "low blow, Rascal!" Posted by mary99 on 16:27:04 7/29/2000 Mame has never said she will INVESTIGATE this story fully and bring us the results on a silver platter! She never said that she even KNOWS the whole story, forget about investigating it. She brought us INFORMATION. And we lapped it up! Why turn on her now for leaving the rest up to the FBI? You surely can respect her for knowing when to keep quiet and let the pros do their thing. She didn't pretend to be 'investigating' it, and to expect her to divulge what may be confidential information is just wishful thinking. As much as I'm interested in the outcome of the investigation, I feel that Mame's listeners are very fortunate to have not just learned so much, but to have HEARD MW describe in her own words, some very painful and traumatic events which she made public because of a deep concern for two little girls. Let's not take Mame or MW for granted! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Tabloid Journalist=Mame" Posted by Rascal on 18:39:58 7/29/2000 >Mame has never said she will INVESTIGATE > this story fully and bring >us the results on a silver >platter! True... >She never said that she even KNOWS >the whole story, forget about investigating >it. True... >She brought us INFORMATION. And we lapped >it up! Why turn on her >now for leaving the rest up >to the FBI? False, she has become a public figure by her own choice. Mame is nothing more than a opportunist, and MW, BPD, Hunter, FBI, and JBR are her wave to ride on Internet time. >You surely can respect her for knowing >when to keep quiet and let >the pros do their thing. The Washington Post reporters didn't leave it up to the FBI. Mame is letting the others do the work, and she distorts with unverified statements. >She didn't pretend to be 'investigating' it, >and to expect her to divulge >what may be confidential information is >just wishful thinking. Exactly, she is a tabloid journalist. No investigation! >As much as I'm interested in the >outcome of the investigation, I feel >that Mame's listeners are very fortunate >to have not just learned so >much, but to have HEARD MW >describe in her own words, some >very painful and traumatic events which >she made public because of a >deep concern for two little girls. Mame did not initiate or first report on MW's statements. The magazine and newspaper first reported the story. The newspaper journalist met with Lee HIll, remember. > >Let's not take Mame or MW for >granted! MW, has never been taken for granted by me Mary 99. Mame, I don't take for anything but hearsay, speculation, and unverified distorted statements. But even I read the tabloid headlines at the JW supermarket line. ugh! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Another Journalist Equivocates..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:42:02 7/29/2000 ...on the Fleet White/MW issue. The following is from JW Archives, May 11. Written by Barrie Hartman, it appeared in the May 7 issue of The Camera. Ramsey case: hard choices, tough calls for editors I love my job. It is a privilege to practice journalism in Boulder County. The Daily Camera is blessed with readers who truly care about the community and the quality of the newspaper. Most days, I go home feeling fulfilled and deeply rewarded for the chance to sit in the editor's office. But some days are really hard. We live in an imperfect world and sometimes the news of the day is heartbreaking. I know the decisions I make about publishing those stories may bring pain to another human being. You readers know that, too. Your sophistication about media and your high expectations for journalism and journalists put those of us in the profession under a microscope and rightly so. Newspapers are the target of intense criticism these days. We are seen as intrusive and insensitive. To many we are not merely the messenger, but a big part of the problem. That's regrettable, because a good newspaper, and we try to be one, performs a vital role in the community. We publish information that allows you to make informed decisions. In Boulder this media scrutiny has been particularly intense since Dec. 26, 1996. It was on that day that the murder of JonBenét Ramsey became a global news story. This tragic story has resulted in journalism at its worst and at its best. We want to be part of the best. We believe the Daily Camera should be held to a particularly high standard because of our unique role as the local community newspaper. The Denver papers, the national tabloids and the television stations come and go with the ebb and flow of the next big story, and so does the attention of their readers and viewers. But those of us who live in Boulder County live with the story day in and day out. The names that appear in our news columns are those of our family, friends and neighbors. Because of that, we strive for the highest level of journalistic integrity on every story every day. We have worked doubly hard on stories about the Ramsey case. No decision in the coverage of this story has been easy. Each has been the subject of intense discussion and debate. In every case, other experienced editors might have made different decisions given the same set of facts. This is not Journalism 101. These are tough calls. They weigh heavily on every editor at the Camera. On Feb. 25, the Camera published yet another story about the Ramsey investigation. This story, about a woman from California who claims close knowledge of circumstances that seemed to her to be similar to those surrounding the death of JonBenét Ramsey, again tested our best editors and news judgment. The story was like many we have published about the Ramsey investigation. In those stories and this one, there were troubling elements and references to local people who have been associated with the family or the investigation in one way or another from the beginning. Throughout the long months of reporting on this case, many local people have been investigated, questioned and ultimately cleared by police. In every case, the names of these community members remain a part of the public record. Names, like accurate quotes, times and places, are essential facts in credible news reporting. Without them, news stories lack clarity. This creates an unfair atmosphere of guesswork among readers and casts a broad blanket of suspicion where none exists. Usually, based on documentation and reliable information from law enforcement officials, we have included names in news stories. But we have been careful not to go farther than the facts support. This is important to the newspaper and to you, our readers. When you read stories about this case, or any criminal investigation, it is essential to center on the facts. This is really hard in this case because of the international coverage and the Internet exposure. Speculation and fact have become all mixed up. In our reporting about this particular story, the name of Boulder resident Fleet White Jr. was published. The California woman said she had been introduced to the Ramsey family years ago through the White family. White and his wife Priscilla, who, as the Feb. 25 story said, have been cleared by police in the murder investigation, have written several letters strongly objecting to the family name being included in this story. Deciding whether to publish this story, and whether to use White's name, even in a neutral way, were very difficult decisions involving hours of discussion and legal advice. The compelling facts were these: The District Attorney, a duly sworn officer of the government and the highest law enforcement officer in Boulder County, believed the claims brought forward by the California woman merited thorough police investigation. The only link between the woman and Boulder County was her association with the White family. At the same time, we believed it was essential to repeat the fact that the White family had been cleared by police. And, to further protect the Whites' reputation, we also pointed out that they have been aggressive in seeking Hunter's ouster for his refusal to prosecute the Ramseys. I repeat. It is important for readers not to jump to conclusions. That's why we were so careful to point out these facts. And yet, the Whites point out that some people have jumped to conclusions even though they were not supported by the facts in the story. The police investigation into the woman's claims is ongoing. If they determine the woman's story is not credible after all you can count on the Camera to report that promptly and prominently. The Whites' anger at the Camera is understandable. Yet, it is a troubling reality that the names of community members somehow connected to the Ramseys or the case continue to surface in the investigation, even after the individuals have been cleared by police. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Mame, we love you!" Posted by mary99 on 20:08:27 7/29/2000 Rascal, I said: >>She brought us INFORMATION. And we lapped >>it up! Why turn on her >>now for leaving the rest up >>to the FBI? You replied: >False, she has become a public figure >by her own choice. Mame >is nothing more than a opportunist, >and MW, BPD, Hunter, FBI, and >JBR are her wave to ride >on Internet time. My answer to your reply: This isn't about whether she or not she's a public figure, or whether it was by her own choice. She has said again and again she does not claim to be, nor does she wish to be MW's designated investigative reporter. She has always said, "I bring INFORMATION. It's up to the authorites to do a Full and complete investigation." (it's like mame's mantra lately!) Then I said: >>You surely can respect her for knowing >>when to keep quiet and let >>the pros do their thing. You replied: >The Washington Post reporters didn't leave it >up to the FBI. Mame is >letting the others do the work, >and she distorts with unverified statements. The similarites between Watergate and MW only go so far. Watergate exposed corruption at the highest levels of politics in Washington; it went right to the office of the President. Perhaps Woodward and Bernstein didn't trust the FBI to uncover the coverup, as it was, because the FBI might have swept it under the rug as a matter of national security. The MW file is not a matter of national security, and the Witness has placed her faith in the ability and integrity of the FBI to investigate the matter fully, and Mame respects that. She has also disclosed it's not within her power nor is she inclined to take on the role of law enforcement and do a 'full and complete investigation' for us at JW and those on the Internet who are following the developments. My prior remark: >>She didn't pretend to be 'investigating' it, >>and to expect her to divulge >>what may be confidential information is >>just wishful thinking. >Exactly, she is a tabloid journalist. No >investigation! My reply: Here we differ in what we call 'tabloid journalism'. I do think the tabloids investigate more than you give them credit for. While the subject matter may tend toward the scandalous, and the headlines are driven by public interest, they DO investigate before they print. MW's 'vast amount of information' is far better suited to a 'full and complete investigation' by the FBI vs. the National Enquirer. As much as the Enquirer would like to investigate it, or not, it's a piece of a puzzle in an ongoing murder investigation, and might link to other ongoing criminal activities. It's not a job for Mame or any tabloid! Just because she brought us interviews with MW, in a new format, in MW's own voice and words, doesn't make her an investigator. I hold Mame in the highest esteem, for her sense of integrity, her journalistic ethics, her empathy and her ability to let go and let others (the FBI) take over. She has not caved in when posters relentlessly pressed for more and more info, and she has been subjected to a lot of criticism for not answering questions-not neccessarily from you. For that matter, why isn't the BDC, the Denver post, or the RMN doing their own investigation? Why is Mame wrong, yet the BDC, DP and RMN have been spared? They aren't going to step into an ongoing FBI investigation, that's why. They will all tell us what the outcome is when it's over-I hope. Now, give credit where credit is due! Thank you, Mame, for bringing us the news! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Mary99" Posted by Florida on 16:15:05 7/29/2000 "MW gave a 'vast amount' of information to the authorities. Apparently there's a lot more to it than Boykin being sentenced on 4 counts back in 1980" He was sentenced on two counts, not four. If all of her allegations can be proven then so be it. I'll look at any verifiable information put forward. Until then, I am not going to sit by and let unsubstantiated innuendo hang someone without questioning it. I hope the only thing anyone here wants is the truth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "How odd is it..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:12:33 7/29/2000 ...that Nancy K. cannot even remember the name of the county in which her alleged attacker Boykin was prosecuted? In the mame interview she claims it was San Bernardino. Court documents prove that it was Inyo. I really must give due credit to Lovely Pigeon for her persistence and doggedness in tracking down those documents. IMHO, they give us some insight into the credibility of Nancy K. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Just" Posted by rico on 21:14:42 7/29/2000 a reminder so we'll all know we're looking for the same thing. "What is Justice"? Posted by mame 07:31:05 7/18/2000 "3:conformity to truth, fact, or reason:CORRECTNESS" "MW Returns With Mame" Posted by mame 8:41:18 5/17/2000 "..as my dad used to say, "you can't be a little bit pregnant". either i cover this story and hear this woman's voice...or i don't. if fear and intimidation rules me then i'm nothing to her or you. i'm trying to be the real enchilada...not easy..." Mame, Time and again many posters have asked you to address the FACTS we have and the discrepancies in the MW story. You have chosen to ignore them. Obviously, you're not "the real enchilada". JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "question of jurisdiction?" Posted by mary99 on 21:00:53 7/29/2000 Where I live, criminal complaints are heard in the local district or county court. Misdemeanors and motor vehicle violations are adjudicated there. Serious crimes, like the felony Boykin was charged with, are 'sent up' to Superior Court. Boykin was heard in Superior Court. A Superior Court encompasses several counties. Boykin may have been charged in San Bernardino Court and the case was moved up to Superior Court in Inyo County. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Speculation Mary99" Posted by Rascal on 21:56:23 7/29/2000 Mary99 and Mame need to stop speculation and spend time to get documented facts like LovelyPigeon has done. The Boykin crime was committed in Inyo County. Boykin committed two felonies he plead guilty to and was sentenced. That means in Calif. that Boykin did it. MW was a young teenage woman and lived at the County line of San Bernardino and Inyo Counties. She didn't have a clue of how the legal system worked.IMO The crime was reported in Trona, Calif. which is in San Bernardino County, Ca. She reported it to a high school teacher called Mr. White. The crime was committed undoubtly in Inyo County. The case was filed in the County of crimes occurance. Not in the SB County of Police report. MW was a teenager at the time and IMO she can not be held responsible for the confusion in her statements. Also, there is no question of a legitimate medical mental/emotional health issue for Nancy. Give her a break. IMO All the more reason for Mame to protect Nancy from inacurate statements by Mame following up the facts. Nancy's reputation is what's important here, not Mame's Internet Tabloid Journalism. Mame says: "i can say no more." `In Calif. each County has a Superior Court. No "maybe" about it Mary99. Stop speculating. Get the facts will ya. TM= The mystery. ITPh=Its the problem of hearsay. NPS=No professional standards. SULQ=Stop the use of leading questions Mame, of The Witness, MW, Nancy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Thank you, Rascal" Posted by mary99 on 22:22:58 7/29/2000 Thanks for clearing that up. Legal jurisdiction=minor crimes to District Court, major crimes to Superior Court Geographical jurisdiction=where the crime occurred vs. where the crime was reported BTW, I used to live in a section of a city under the jurisdiction of that city's PD, yet the area had its own name and zip for mail, and my phone exchange showed me as a resident of the town next door. Who knows better than MW the details of the trial and its location? Is she a liar because we don't have all the facts and can't make sense of what we do know? BTW, Ruthee, what question? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "mary" Posted by canadiana on 22:36:40 7/29/2000 you said...."Who knows better than MW the details of the trial and its location? Is she a liar because we don't have all the facts and can't make sense of what we do know?" Since MW is the ONLY one who KNOWS ALL the details, MW should be the ONLY ONE posting about the details. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "lizzie, ruthee" Posted by canadiana on 21:54:21 7/29/2000 what you said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE