"Mark Beckner is an idiot" jameson's Links Timeline News Chat Forum Archives Cord Photos Email [Lobby] [Main] [Help] [Search] jameson's WebbSleuths Forum Type: Protected Moderator: jameson Time Zone: EST Printer Friendly Format Original Message "Mark Beckner is an idiot" Posted by jams on Aug-02-00 at 09:48 AM (EST) Mark Beckner points out that the fact that there was no ransom note left at the house of the 14 year old girl - - we need a name for her, let's call her "Lucy" - - and there was one left at the Ramsey house. Anyway, I would point out a couple of things to Mr. Mark Beckner. 1. This killer may have entered the house while the mother and daughter were home, he may not have been able to move around finding pad and paper, even if he wanted to. 2. IF this was the same guy, maybe he didn't WANT to leave another note - after all, to have his handwriting left at another house might really cause him problems! It would clear the Ramseys (they weren't in Boulder) and it would be another link directly back to HIM! Maybe he is just a bit smarter than Beckner gives him credit for. Beckner looked stupid with that comment. JMO, of course. (Are there any basic police courses being offered in the Boulder area soon? I think some Boulder cops really need to start over.) The same criminal can do 10 crimes, they will NOT be identical! If there are similarities, THAT is enough to warrant a closer investigation. Geeesch! [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] Table of Contents Ahh, a thread with a great title!, violet, 09:53 AM, Aug-02-00 Restraint..., DonBradley, 10:01 AM, Aug-02-00 restraint, jameson, 10:37 AM, Aug-02-00 Mark is an idiot......and so much l..., Dixie, 10:51 AM, Aug-02-00 Lilac's Input, Lilac, 11:13 AM, Aug-02-00 Beckner is not an idiot, MaskedMan, 11:24 AM, Aug-02-00 He may not be an idiot,, TeamRamsey, 11:35 AM, Aug-02-00 agree with MakedMan, sort of, the_anti_k, 11:38 AM, Aug-02-00 Beckner, Dixie, 11:39 AM, Aug-02-00 Team, no other evidence, MaskedMan, 11:57 AM, Aug-02-00 counterproductive, LovelyPigeon, 12:14 PM, Aug-02-00 Lovely, is there a big difference b..., Dixie, 12:24 PM, Aug-02-00 Lovely, yes, a little indefinite, MaskedMan, 12:29 PM, Aug-02-00 I would hate to think, Sweebie, 12:16 PM, Aug-02-00 Nope, not deleting it, jameson, 12:28 PM, Aug-02-00 No One in their right minds though ..., Dixie, 12:33 PM, Aug-02-00 gimme a break, MaskedMan, 01:12 PM, Aug-02-00 Ok, we are adults, violet, 12:39 PM, Aug-02-00 Agree with MM, Bluefire, 01:06 PM, Aug-02-00 How To Win Friends and Influence Pe..., MaskedMan, 01:43 PM, Aug-02-00 Counterproductive ??, DonBradley, 01:47 PM, Aug-02-00 Counter productive? In what way? ..., Dixie, 01:55 PM, Aug-02-00 Masked Man, Bluefire, 02:31 PM, Aug-02-00 MM, Dixie, 04:13 PM, Aug-02-00 THE UPCOMING MEETING, Jarbo9, 02:24 PM, Aug-02-00 Dixie, here's the log, LovelyPigeon, 01:54 PM, Aug-02-00 You left out the part, Dixie, 02:16 PM, Aug-02-00 Please, nelda, 02:50 PM, Aug-02-00 Nelda, that should apply to everyon..., Dixie, 02:52 PM, Aug-02-00 Nelda, Sweebie, 04:33 PM, Aug-02-00 Do tell, dixie, LovelyPigeon, 02:55 PM, Aug-02-00 Tell you what Lovely, Dixie, 02:58 PM, Aug-02-00 call me codependent...but, bilas, 03:11 PM, Aug-02-00 My two cents, mBm, 03:02 PM, Aug-02-00 Chat, Sweebie, 04:08 PM, Aug-02-00 mBm, candle, 04:08 PM, Aug-02-00 Unhealthy Skepticism, TeamRamsey, 04:13 PM, Aug-02-00 Sounds like a good compromise to me..., Sweebie, 04:24 PM, Aug-02-00 feminazis on campus, Bluefire, 05:22 PM, Aug-02-00 Thanks mBm but I'll respond point b..., Dixie, 04:21 PM, Aug-02-00 I hardly ever make , candle, 04:41 PM, Aug-02-00 MM & others, Lilac, 05:35 PM, Aug-02-00 Lilac, Bluefire, 05:40 PM, Aug-02-00 Bluefire, Lilac, 06:02 PM, Aug-02-00 A hoax from Arizona, Bluefire, 05:10 PM, Aug-02-00 sure you did, Dixie, LovelyPigeon, 04:59 PM, Aug-02-00 LP. Exactly what I wonder, Bluefire, 05:14 PM, Aug-02-00 Maybe she should, Ashley, 05:43 PM, Aug-02-00 Skepticism, TeamRamsey, 06:20 PM, Aug-02-00 TeamR., Bluefire, 06:45 PM, Aug-02-00 Then I apologize Lovely, Dixie, 06:03 PM, Aug-02-00 Now that the coast is clear??, Afton, 06:29 PM, Aug-02-00 Blue wasn't in Chat last night and, Dixie, 06:43 PM, Aug-02-00 Dixie, Afton, 06:46 PM, Aug-02-00 Afton re: Blue, Dixie, 07:25 PM, Aug-02-00 I can see both sides, Sweebie, 07:26 PM, Aug-02-00 Ashley, candle, 06:37 PM, Aug-02-00 candle, LovelyPigeon, 06:46 PM, Aug-02-00 Bluefire, victim blaming, candle, 06:49 PM, Aug-02-00 Candle, Sweebie, 07:35 PM, Aug-02-00 Regarding the victim, violet, 10:59 PM, Aug-02-00 Candle, Ashley, 11:35 PM, Aug-02-00 I'm astounded, MaskedMan, 00:04 AM, Aug-03-00 Astounded MM? I'm frazzled - where..., Dixie, 00:26 AM, Aug-03-00 Ashley, mBm, 00:58 AM, Aug-03-00 the girl didn't let him in, Guppy, 00:50 AM, Aug-03-00 Dictionary Game?, BraveHeart, 01:06 AM, Aug-03-00 Beckner an Idget??, Sparrow, 01:43 AM, Aug-03-00 Messages in this discussion 1 . "Ahh, a thread with a great title!" Posted by violet on Aug-02-00 at 09:53 AM (EST) Yes, a great big giant Geesh! is needed for Mark (I really have no intention of ever finding out who killed JonBenet) Beckner. If this man had one ounce of passion about him I would think "Well, maybe he really might want to find her killer." Instead, he just looks incredibly put upon that the idea her killer can be caught is still floating around. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 2 . "Restraint..." Posted by DonBradley on Aug-02-00 at 10:01 AM (EST) Its good that there is some restraint at this time. The BPD is not wholeheartedly embracing the similarities...but there is not a full scale attack on the suggestion of a link either. I think the statement about 'no media interviews right now so as not to jeopardize the meeting' is a good sign. If neither side adopts a public stance, the meeting may be more fruitful. I don't think sending the entire force back to the Academy is going to work ... their priorities are skewed. They seem to think of 'the department's reputation and Boulder's reputation' first. Thats not their job. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 3 . "restraint" Posted by jameson on Aug-02-00 at 10:37 AM (EST) I know, the Ramseys will meet with the BPD this month and they are all trying to make nice, but Mark Beckner made the remark and as a proivate citizen who works for no one, I wanted to express MY opinion. The Ramseys haven't spoken to me about this - I just am angry at what I see as an attempt to gloss over something that needs to be investigated further. And Mark knows I think he is an idiot. I have told him that repeatedly. He should have met with the Ramseys himself when they first invited him to Atlanta. He should have listened to people who called with information and followed all reasonable leads. (And yes, Mark, I know there are some that beg to be deep-sixed - - I got some of those too.) He should have shared evidence with the DA's office - and he should have READ THE DAMN FILES so he wouldn't be caught with his pants down! You know, if you don't like being caught with egg on your face, stop eating the egg and clean up! [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 4 . "Mark is an idiot......and so much less" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 10:51 AM (EST) >He should have shared evidence with the >DA's office - and he should >have READ THE DAMN FILES so >he wouldn't be caught with his >pants down! >You know, if you don't like being >caught with egg on your face, >stop eating the egg and clean >up! What they "did" was try to keep this case under wraps and for a very, very good reason; what this guy did within walking distance of the Ramsey home just nine months later is so exculpatory that it isn't funny. NINE MONTHS. The have endured over THREE YEARS of horrible torment, been vilified in the tabloids, even had to sneak to visit the grave of their baby and if this IDIOT had done his job, the focus would have and should have turned to this perp and perhaps, just perhaps he would be in jail now and Boulder could rest easy and JonBenet and her family could finally find the peace they have so longed for. Nothing can bring JonBenet back, nothing will take away the trauma "Lucy" endured (therapy is a crock - been there done that) and nothing is going to save this guys other victims (or victims he has already assaulted or even killed) until the BPD and the DA's office gets off their lazy, hard headed, "we have to be right" asses and does their jobs. That's my opinion anyway. At least an "idiot" does not function because they cannot function, this guy "chooses" to be an idiot. And one day, not to far in the future, he is going to have to eat the biggest pile of #@$#. And that is a day I can't wait to see. The day when it's his face plastered all over the tabloids with headlines like "Beckner Ignors Important Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case", "Beckner Fails to Properly Investigate - Rapist/Murderer Still Loose in Boulder" and the like. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 5 . "Lilac's Input" Posted by Lilac on Aug-02-00 at 11:13 AM (EST) I just got through posting the following on a "Brennan" thread. So if you've already read it, skip ahead. But the title of this thread is perfect. Here it is: In the Brennan (1) thread Beckman is quoted as saying, ""The problem with this kind of work is, you never want to say yes or no definitively, until you know the answer," he said. "So I would not rule anything out, but I would be skeptical that they are related." -- "until you know the answer?" HAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA! Like this guy actually has any of this stuff investigated... I can't believe how nice everyone on the forum has been. Here, allow me....This guy is a total FU&*^%$ IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, gee, let's see how these two incidents could be related...DUH! I am so serious! This guy needs to be fired. He is supposed to be serving the public. He is not doing so by dismissing important links and continuing to point his finger at the Ramsey's. Something I find incredibly odd, though...If I were the girl's mother, I'd have contacted the Ramsey's years ago! What the Hell is she thinking? Obviously these two cases could likely be related. She's damn lucky that she has a daugher right now. I just can't believe she didn't contact the R's. Kind of makes you wonder what other cases are in Boulder that haven't been connected. Why don't the complacent people of Boulder demand that their stupid as hell police force be investigated? Funny thing is, before this case, I've never bad-mouthed a cop in my entire life. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 6 . "Beckner is not an idiot" Posted by MaskedMan on Aug-02-00 at 11:24 AM (EST) I don't approve of the name-calling. It's unjustified and it does no good. I guess Jameson is trying to make sure that Mark Beckner never comes around to the Ramseys' side. Jameson wants to treat Beckner as an unalterable enemy. That's a good way to keep someone as an enemy. I doubt that the Ramseys approve of calling a Beckner an "idiot." That's uncalled for. Beckner isn't an idiot. This whole thread should be deleted. It's insulting and counter-productive, but I guess Jameson can't contain herself. She has to "speak the truth." Yadda-yadda-yadda. Jameson, you pulled the same negative attack on Carol McKinley. That approach won't get you anywhere with people. Jameson, you just don't get it. DELETE IT. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 7 . "He may not be an idiot," Posted by TeamRamsey on Aug-02-00 at 11:35 AM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 11:40 AM (EST) but Beckner is not, apparently, the most intelligent of people: as I understand, he is saying that the BPD have already looked at this case thoroughly, that they have compared it to the Ramsey case, that what they are doing now is repetitious. And yet they have NOT yet compared the partial palm prints - they're doing that now. How can you be "going over" something if you haven't been over it yet?! Btw, MaskedMan: I have read in a couple of articles about this that the BPD will now review "evidence" - is there any evidence in addition to the partial palm print? Never mind - a fingerprint was found as well. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 8 . "agree with MakedMan, sort of" Posted by the_anti_k on Aug-02-00 at 11:38 AM (EST) Sure, calling Beckner an idiot is counterproductive (and probably an incorrect assessment.) But I think that forums (like this one) are the perfect place for name-calling and the like. Insult away. But, the BPD are a littel more on the ball then most people give them credit for. They have some understanding of the Ramsey case, even if they don't know who or how or why, they still know enough about it to determine whether or not there is a connection to the "Lucy" case. And there is no connection. It's obvious (to some of us, sorry about the rest of you... ). Of course, the "Lucy" case should not be dismissed out of hand without having a look. everything should be giving a look. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 9 . "Beckner" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 11:39 AM (EST) >I don't approve of the name-calling. >It's unjustified and it does no >good. I guess Jameson is >trying to make sure that Mark >Beckner never comes around to the >Ramseys' side. Jameson wants to >treat Beckner as an unalterable enemy. >That's a good way to keep >someone as an enemy. I >doubt that the Ramseys approve of >calling a Beckner an "idiot." >That's uncalled for. >Beckner isn't an idiot. This whole thread >should be deleted. It's insulting >and counter-productive, but I guess Jameson >can't contain herself. She has >to "speak the truth." Yadda-yadda-yadda. > Jameson, you pulled the same >negative attack on Carol McKinley. >That approach won't get you anywhere >with people. Jameson, you just don't >get it. >DELETE IT.< MM, some of us are so appalled at what has happened that "idiot" is just about as nice a word as we can think of. Beckner isn't going to come around just because Jams or anyone else butters up to him. And he isn't going to fail to come around because someone called him an idiot. I doubt anything will ever make this guy open his eyes. If Jams wants to delete the thread, that's cool, but at least some of us got the chance to vent and get this off our chests. As for name calling, you've been fairly good at that yourself, I remember a few you called me. Not that I care, I respect you right now like you can't believe. :) Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 10 . "Team, no other evidence" Posted by MaskedMan on Aug-02-00 at 11:57 AM (EST) TeamR, I don't think Mark Beckner is stupid. I think he's a bright guy. I like him. He's a big improvement over Tom Koby, his predecessor. No, there's not much physical evidence in the 1997 intruder case -- just a couple of prints. It's not even certain that the unidentified palmprint was left by the intruder. It just goes to show that an intruder can spend a lot of time in a house, and yet not leave much evidence. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 11 . "counterproductive" Posted by LovelyPigeon on Aug-02-00 at 12:14 PM (EST) I agree with you MM, on that point. I don't like name calling, not about anything or anyone. Fair discussion can be done without name calling. Actually, fair discussion can ONLY be done without name calling. I don't agree that we have evidence the '97 case had an intruder in the house for hours, though. I don't see the police investigation coming up with that as a definite. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 13 . "Lovely, is there a big difference between" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 12:24 PM (EST) What some of you did last night in more than implying that this 14 year old child was a liar and that her mother was a liar and in some of us thinking and saying what we think, that Beckner is behaving like an idiot? Are there two sets of rules here? You don't like "name calling" but you and others did not hesitate to take stabs at an innocent 14 year old child. I just find that terribly confusing. Dixie >I agree with you MM, on that >point. I don't like name calling, >not about anything or anyone. >Fair discussion can be done without name >calling. Actually, fair discussion can ONLY >be done without name calling. >I don't agree that we have evidence >the '97 case had an intruder >in the house for hours, though. >I don't see the police investigation >coming up with that as a >definite. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 15 . "Lovely, yes, a little indefinite" Posted by MaskedMan on Aug-02-00 at 12:29 PM (EST) Lovely Pigeon, Yes, it is a little unclear whether the 1997 intruder spent hours in the victim's home. But that's what the family believes. There was no forcible break-in. The mother locked up the house and set the alarm at 11:00 p.m. So, how did the intruder get in without setting off the alarm? The family thinks the intruder must have slipped in through the back door before it was locked and the alarm was set. If that's true, he would have had to wait in the house for over four hours before creeping up to the girl's bedroom at about 3:00 a.m. One wonders whether the same m.o. might have been employed in the Ramsey case, i.e. entry through an unlocked door, since there was no sign of a forcible break-in at the Ramsey house. I think the title of this thread is offensive and uncalled for. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 12 . "I would hate to think" Posted by Sweebie on Aug-02-00 at 12:16 PM (EST) that the assault on the 14 year old was the result of police malfeasance. If they entertain the notion that there WAS an intruder in the Ramsey case, then the police KNOW that they are indeed culpable of exposing perhaps THIS child, and other children in Boulder, to him for 9 months and possibly even longer. To actually FIND the intruder in the Ramsey case, is to shoot themselves in the foot. Can you imagine what the ramifications would be? Yes, some would hail them as heros...but there is the other side of the coin. It is sad to think that they may have more invested in NOT finding the killer of JonBenet, than in actually finding him. I certainly hope that is not the case.But one can't help but wonder, at this point.Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... I agree that it might speak well of their sincere desire to meet with the Ramseys - hence their refusal to discuss this new case. MaskedMan, you said, "... Jameson wants to treat Beckner as an unalterable enemy. That's a good way to keep someone as an enemy. I doubt that the Ramseys approve of calling a Beckner an "idiot." That's uncalled for." MM, Beckner's professional judgment is not supposed to be affected by any name anyone calls him. If his ability to conduct an investigation is compromised by someone calling him a name, then he is unfit to be in that position of responsibility. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 14 . "Nope, not deleting it" Posted by jameson on Aug-02-00 at 12:28 PM (EST) Mark Beckner and I have had several discussions on this case. He has made it clear that he is not opposed to letting innocent people hang in the wind. He has made it clear that he sleeps well even though all the leads have NOT been followed. He has made it clear that the Ramseys are the focus of the investigtion and he is in NO HURRY to change that. Maybe if he doesn't just get fan mail from the likes of the JW posters he will realize that there are people out here who do NOT think he is doing his job right. You may not like my methods, Masked Man. But I am doing the best I can to get beckner realize he is supposed to be working for the victims and HE IS FAILING! I like you, MM, I really do, but you defend the wrong people too often... Judith Phillips, Boyles, Donald Foster, LHP.... each one has benefitted at one time or another from your support. But sometimes people deserve to face the truth of their actions. And Beckner needs to gt his ego out of this and just do the right thing. That's my opinion - - you are welcome to disagree, and state it. But I am not going to hide what I think needs to be said. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 16 . "No One in their right minds though you would delete it jams...." Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 12:33 PM (EST) >Mark Beckner and I have had several >discussions on this case. He >has made it clear that he >is not opposed to letting innocent >people hang in the wind. >He has made it clear that >he sleeps well even though all >the leads have NOT been followed. > He has made it clear >that the Ramseys are the focus >of the investigtion and he is >in NO HURRY to change that. > Like when have you ever caved to someone demanding that you DELETE something :). You have a reputation for hanging in there, saying what you think. I'm glad you're leaving it up. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 19 . "gimme a break" Posted by MaskedMan on Aug-02-00 at 01:12 PM (EST) Jameson, What is your point -- that I'm always wrong? Gimme a break. I don't appreciate your response. Get your facts straight. I NEVER defended Peter Boyles. I've been unrelentingly critical of him. I stand by my objective view of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. I've "defended" her against the outrageous theories and untrue accusations made by some misinformed people. I was critical of her story in The Star. What is your objection to what I've said about her? As for Judith Phillips, I've been critical of her remarks. I was disturbed by her comments on the Leeza show when I was guest on the program last year. As for Donald Foster, I didn't have all the facts about him -- and you refused to divulge them. I have since adjusted my view of him. In any case, that's no excuse for your personal attack on Mark Beckner (and Carol McKinley). Beckner is NOT an "idiot." He's not a stupid man. No one here perceives him that way. The Ramseys want to make a favorable impression on Beckner in the upcoming interviews. So, why are you attacking him? What are you thinking??? Apparently, you just want to "vent," regardless of the effect. Jameson, you just don't get it -- [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 17 . "Ok, we are adults" Posted by violet on Aug-02-00 at 12:39 PM (EST) and name-calling is not nice. But, is there anything that anyone here has seen that would make you think that Mark Beckner passionately cares about who killed this little girl? Please, show me the transcript, the quote, because I have never seen him even get animated about this case. It would even make a difference if he would acknowledge the possible fallout he and his department would encounter if the killer was not a Ramsey. His sneaky maneuvers with the lie detector tests and then his dismissal of the results even before they were announced showed that covering his behind is number one on his agenda. Beckner should be a man and acknowledge that his officers would look pretty foolish if an intruder is caught, but he would never let that stand in the way of justice for JonBenet. Then he would be a man worth looking up to. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 18 . "Agree with MM" Posted by Bluefire on Aug-02-00 at 01:06 PM (EST) After reading Masked Man's comments I have decided to try and go through my posts concerning the BPD and Mark Beckner as being drooling sub-morons. I agree with Masked Man, it is probably counter-productive. Might take me awhile to find them all though. In the meantime, my apology to Beckner and the Boulder "boys and girls" in blue. ;-0 Come on over for a popsicle, heh? [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 20 . "How To Win Friends and Influence People" Posted by MaskedMan on Aug-02-00 at 01:43 PM (EST) I think I'd better send Jameson a copy of "How To Win Friends and Influence People." She says "Beckner needs to get his ego out of this and just do the right thing." And how will Beckner be persuaded to do that? By insulting him and calling him an "idiot"??? Hardly. You can't get anywhere with people by insulting them and treating them as enemies. I think Mark Beckner tries to do the right thing. I consider him to be sensible and well-intentioned. I think he's amenable to reason. Like it or not, the case rests in the hands of the Boulder Police, who aren't all a bunch of fools. It won't help by making gratuitous personal attacks. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 21 . "Counterproductive ??" Posted by DonBradley on Aug-02-00 at 01:47 PM (EST) Counterproductive ?? Well, probably, but I've never felt that 'efficient production' is the only standard we are judged by. We have all heard various terms for many of the people involved: my particular favorite has been 'Keystone Kops'. Behind all that humor does lie a kernel of truth. I don't know why he ever turned down the free plane ticket to Atlanta and the 'bury the hatchet' offer ... but he did. I've never felt Arndt's investigative techniques were up to par ... but it is the fault of the chief if crimes are poorly investigated and "classified" rather than solved. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 23 . "Counter productive? In what way? And Blue" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 01:55 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 01:56 PM (EST) >Counterproductive ?? Well, probably, but I've never >felt that 'efficient production' is the >only standard we are judged by. > >We have all heard various terms for >many of the people involved: my >particular favorite has been 'Keystone Kops'. > >Behind all that humor does lie a >kernel of truth. >I don't know why he ever turned >down the free plane ticket to >Atlanta and the 'bury the hatchet' >offer ... but he did. >I've never felt Arndt's investigative techniques were >up to par ... but it >is the fault of the chief >if crimes are poorly investigated and >"classified" rather than solved. < Don, I fully agree with your post except that I do not see where calling a spade a spade is counter productive. If Beckner wants to be seen in a productive light, then let him do something productive. I sincerely hope, Blue that you did not mean to say that an assault on a child (a 14 year old is a child - no matter how you want to phrase it) isn't a serious crime. If it isn't, then I don't know what is. It is ludicrous that the BPD has so much activity involving crimes against women that are going unsolved and more than likely inadequately investigated. Boulder is apparently, rapist heaven. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 26 . "Masked Man" Posted by Bluefire on Aug-02-00 at 02:31 PM (EST) Could you please let the people around here who are ranting about what a bad place Boulder is, like calling Boulder "rapist's heaven", that Boulder is a peaceful small city with a relatively low violent crime rate? Any stats for us? I'd rather live in Boulder than Houston any day. Dixie, I didn't understand the question directed at me. I never said anything to the effect where a sexual assault on a 14 year old is not a serious crime. All I said was I need to ascertain a crime actually occurred. If it did, then I need to understand how, if it all, it connects to the ramsey case. I am more inclined than not to believe the crime occurred, and have nothing to say, yet, about how, if at all, it relates to the Ramsey case. More information is what I need. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 36 . "MM" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 04:13 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 04:30 PM (EST) Editied, wrong heading, directed towards Blue >Could you please let the people around >here who are ranting about what >a bad place Boulder is, like >calling Boulder "rapist's heaven", that Boulder >is a peaceful small city with >a relatively low violent crime rate? >Any stats for us? I'd rather >live in Boulder than Houston any >day. >Dixie, I didn't understand the question directed >at me. I never said anything >to the effect where a sexual >assault on a 14 year old >is not a serious crime. All >I said was I need to >ascertain a crime actually occurred. If >it did, then I need to >understand how, if it all, it >connects to the ramsey case. I >am more inclined than not to >believe the crime occurred, and have >nothing to say, yet, about how, >if at all, it relates to >the Ramsey case. More information is >what I need. The crimes statistics are on the BPD's web page and they seem much more apt as traffic cops than solving serious crime. Blue, you know we disagree on some things, but you know I consider you a friend. I really just hoped you'd explain that further so that perhaps people would understand that you did not see this crime as something other than serious. I know how much you love children and how hard you work to make it known how very serious the subject of child abuse is. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 25 . "THE UPCOMING MEETING" Posted by Jarbo9 on Aug-02-00 at 02:24 PM (EST) The Ramseys have repeatedly stated that their desire is to do whatever they can to assist the BPD in the investigation of their daughters murder. I believe that is the only reason the the Ramseys agreed to the upcoming meeting. This is hardly the time to vent any anger. It is clear to me that this is NOT the action that the Ramseys would like us to take. So cool it! [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 22 . "Dixie, here's the log" Posted by LovelyPigeon on Aug-02-00 at 01:54 PM (EST) I don't appreciate your post that I and others "did" something reprehensible in chat. I removed all names except yours and mine, but all others' comments remain. [20:57] *** dilela1 has joined #Webbsleuths [20:57] LuvyPigen> hi dixie [20:57] dilela1> Luvy! xxxx! [20:58] dilela1> Hi xxxx. [20:58] > hello dixie/dilele1 [20:58] > Hi Di [20:58] dilela1> You would have gottenan explanation mark but I don't recognize your name :) [20:58] LuvyPigen> Peterson didn't say much about McR involvement..so we don't know [20:58] dilela1> Good work on the list today Luvy. [20:58] > Did he ever sy Bill or was it a family connection? [20:58] > say [20:58] LuvyPigen> after that news conference fiasco, Peterson disappeared [20:58] *** xxxx has joined #webbsleuths [20:58] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o xxxx [20:58] LuvyPigen> from press, anyway [20:58] > Hi all [20:58] LuvyPigen> hi xxxx [20:58] dilela1> Hi xxxx [20:58] > Hi xxxx [20:58] > i really find the description of the intruder to be very interesting [20:59] LuvyPigen> so do I xxxx [20:59] * xxxx ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ Hi xxxx!!!! ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ [20:59] dilela1> Question, you know I wonder if there was a police artist's sketch of the perp in the 14 year old's case. [20:59] LuvyPigen> I find the whole story "interesting" [20:59] dilela1> And if so, if MM has seen it. [20:59] dilela1> I find it encouraginge. [20:59] dilela1> encouraging. [20:59] dilela1> But disturbing. [20:59] LuvyPigen> I want it to be encouraging, but I'm not sure [21:00] dilela1> Well it is discouraging in thinking that other children have been harmed and he is still at large [21:00] > the locations are quite distant [21:00] LuvyPigen> only 2 miles [21:00] > Two miles is not that far [21:00] LuvyPigen> that's not far [21:00] > it irks me that the police haven't done much about the second case [21:00] dilela1> Xxxx, these guys sometimes go from state to state, 2 miles is close. [21:00] > LP, but it is across town [21:00] dilela1> Very close. [21:00] dilela1> So what? [21:00] LuvyPigen> across town? I thought it was Universty Hill [21:00] dilela1> I used to run 2 miles and it was nothing. [21:01] dilela1> It was University Hill Luvy [21:01] > no I think they are referring to Mapleton Hill area [21:01] dilela1> Jams says University Hill and MM did not disagree with it. [21:01] > it is on the other side of downtown [21:01] dilela1> I'm guessing he's right. [21:01] LuvyPigen> Brennan and Coffman checked it out well, since April 2000, before writing about it [21:01] dilela1> But again, so what? What is 2 miles? [21:01] > i heard this story a year or two ago [21:01] > directly from Frank [21:01] LuvyPigen> he got the police reports in April, I believe [21:02] > university hill is not 2 miles across [21:02] dilela1> gees, Luvy bet even with MS you and I could at least hike 2 miles. [21:02] > I don't think he thinks it was a boyfriend or he wouldn't be going with the story. [21:02] > It's nothing. [21:02] LuvyPigen> I can walk 2 miles in 20 min [21:02] dilela1> It wasn't a boyfriend. [21:02] dilela1> Yup, Luvy, and I can't even walk so good anymore and I know I could do it. [21:02] LuvyPigen> Frank doesn't think it was, but I have my doubts [21:02] dilela1> Imagine how easy for a young healthy man. [21:02] *** xxxx has joined #WebbSleuths [21:02] LuvyPigen> hi xxxx [21:03] dilela1> xxxx! [21:03] > hi [21:03] > wb Xxxx [21:03] dilela1> Loved your last post. [21:03] LuvyPigen> but just being in Boulder is a coincidence [21:03] dilela1> It's more than a coincidence. [21:03] > you mean xxxx last post? [21:03] LuvyPigen> have to consider that the young lady might be doing the "copy cat" [21:03] > «H»«E»«L»«L»«O»« xxxx «H»«E»«L»«L»«O»« [21:03] dilela1> xxxx was good but I loved yours about xxx, etc. [21:03] LuvyPigen> there are questionable things about the story [21:03] > thanks [21:03] *** LuvyPigen sets mode: +o xxxx [21:03] *** LuvyPigen sets mode: +o xxxx [21:03] dilela1> Luvy, I think you have never been assaulted before. [21:04] *** LuvyPigen sets mode: +o xxxx [21:04] dilela1> If you had, you wouldn't even let that go through your mind. [21:04] LuvyPigen> wouldn't matter if I had or not, dixie...it wouldn't make this story true or false [21:04] > are we talking about if this girl is lying or not? [21:04] dilela1> If it wasn't genuine, the first the the BPD would have done was say "it is suspicious" [21:04] dilela1> They didn't. [21:04] dilela1> Luvy has questions, I do not. [21:04] > Why was it in the Dallas paper instead of Boulder? [21:04] LuvyPigen> the BPD did very little about this, dixie [21:04] dilela1> Luvy, this kid was a victim. [21:05] > charlie no longer works for scripps howard [21:05] dilela1> Like that shocks me Luvy??? [21:05] LuvyPigen> they investigated, then dropped it [21:05] LuvyPigen> Charlie writes free-lance [21:05] dilela1> Luvy, I'm sorry but your logic is disturbing and I just can't deal with it tonight. [21:05] > ap picked up the press release this afternoon [21:05] dilela1> I was raped and rape victims do not need to be victimized further. [21:05] dilela1> Night guys [21:05] *** dilela1 has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving) [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 24 . "You left out the part" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 02:16 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 02:26 PM (EST) where others left right after I did for the very same reason. You implied that the girl AND her mother are liars by saying it could have been a copy cat (you had no evidence whatsoever, nothing, not one shread, to accuse the child or her mother of something like that). You implied that MM didn't do a good job because he works part time. BS. The "other person" I refer to implied that because it wasn't in the Boulder paper (which it was) that it probably wasn't true? This person didn't even KNOW that it had been reported in the Boulder papers, yet the person just chimed in with that rhetoric. You implied that it was dropped by the BPD therefore unbelievable? Do you know that it was "dropped"??? No, you just said it. What you did, perhaps without realizing it, was to me and others who left that chat (you are not the only one who logged it - I have copies of all the stuff you chose to leave out) was to further victimize this victim. You were not alone in doing that. Others did it too. Dixie >[21:03] LuvyPigen> but just being in Boulder is a coincidence >[21:03] dilela1> It's more than a coincidence. >[21:03] > you mean xxxx last post? >[21:03] LuvyPigen> have to consider that the young lady might be doing the "copy cat" >[21:03] > «H»«E»«L»«L»«O»« xxxx «H»«E»«L»«L»«O»« >[21:03] dilela1> xxxx was good but I loved yours about xxx, etc. >[21:03] LuvyPigen> there are questionable things about the story >[21:03] > thanks >[21:03] *** LuvyPigen sets mode: +o xxxx >[21:03] *** LuvyPigen sets mode: +o xxxx >[21:03] dilela1> Luvy, I think you have never been assaulted before. >[21:04] *** LuvyPigen sets mode: +o xxxx >[21:04] dilela1> If you had, you wouldn't even let that go through your mind. >[21:04] LuvyPigen> wouldn't matter if I had or not, dixie...it wouldn't make this story true or false >[21:04] > are we talking about if this girl is lying or not? >[21:04] dilela1> If it wasn't genuine, the first the the BPD would have done was say "it is suspicious" >[21:04] dilela1> They didn't. >[21:04] dilela1> Luvy has questions, I do not. >[21:04] > Why was it in the Dallas paper instead of Boulder? >[21:04] LuvyPigen> the BPD did very little about this, dixie >[21:04] dilela1> Luvy, this kid was a victim. >[21:05] > charlie no longer works for scripps howard >[21:05] dilela1> Like that shocks me Luvy??? >[21:05] LuvyPigen> they investigated, then dropped it >[21:05] LuvyPigen> Charlie writes free-lance >[21:05] dilela1> Luvy, I'm sorry but your logic is disturbing and I just can't deal with it tonight. >[21:05] > ap picked up the press release this afternoon >[21:05] dilela1> I was raped and rape victims do not need to be victimized further. >[21:05] dilela1> Night guys >[21:05] *** dilela1 has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving) > [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 27 . "Please" Posted by nelda on Aug-02-00 at 02:50 PM (EST) don't try to read something into what posters are saying that they may not intend. We go to chat to discuss things. It defeats the purpose if people get mad and leave when they disagree with something. I didn't get all that from what Lovely Pigeon said. I was very surprised when both of you left the way you did. Surely we can discuss different points of view. All of us have probably been upset from time to time, but for the sake of what we want to accomplish in the forum and in chat, let's try to be understanding. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 28 . "Nelda, that should apply to everyone" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 02:52 PM (EST) >don't try to read something into what >posters are saying that they may >not intend. We go to chat >to discuss things. It defeats >the purpose if people get mad >and leave when they disagree with >something. I didn't get all >that from what Lovely Pigeon said. > I was very surprised >when both of you left the >way you did. Surely we can >discuss different points of view. >All of us have probably been >upset from time to time, but >for the sake of what we >want to accomplish in the forum >and in chat, let's try to >be understanding. < We left because what we were hearing made us sick. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 39 . "Nelda" Posted by Sweebie on Aug-02-00 at 04:33 PM (EST) It defeats >the purpose if people get mad >and leave when they disagree with >something. I didn't get all >that from what Lovely Pigeon said. > I was very surprised >when both of you left the >way you did. Surely we can >discuss different points of view. I left because I did not want to discuss the veracity of the girl's claims, nor get into another discussion (yes, there is a history of chat discussions about victims and revictimization) about that issue. Leaving chat in and of itself is not an affront to anyone. If someone isn't comfortable with a discussion, they can leave. Dixie and I were not comfortable with it, so we left. Allowing others who remained to continue to discuss the issue. It is >All of us have probably been >upset from time to time, but >for the sake of what we >want to accomplish in the forum >and in chat, let's try to >be understanding. Understanding goes both ways - ususally. When it doesn't - there is a communications/relationship breakdown, on that I agree. There are many undertones to this discussion, and layers that may or may not be obvious in the chat log. Some people believe they can say or do no wrong. That doesn't lend itself to understanding anyone. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 29 . "Do tell, dixie" Posted by LovelyPigeon on Aug-02-00 at 02:55 PM (EST) I only posted what you brought up between me and thee. You'll need to explain about what was said by whom after you left. I have more log, but you weren't in it, so I didn't post it. I didn't explain what I meant about "copy cat" since I wasn't given a chance. How 'bout you don't put words in my mouth, and just stick to what's there. I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything...I said I have questions and I do. I didn't say anything about MM not doing a good job, or that he worked part time. Where the heck did you get that? Brennan works free lance...is that what confused you? MM is the one who stated, yesterday, several times, on our forum and others, that the story had never previously gotten into the paper. He was mistaken, and realized that, and said so. The BPD did investigate, and then dropped out. That's why the family hired private investigators. That's why the story is just now a story, 2 1/2 years later. And it's one of the reasons I have questions. And others have questions. I didn't say "unbelievable" anywhere...I said I have questions. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 30 . "Tell you what Lovely" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 02:58 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 03:08 PM (EST) You know exactly who left and you know it was for the same reasons. So I hardly think I was the only one offended by what went on in that chat room. How about "you" not putting words into my mouth? Did I say you "accused" Nope. I said you "implied", now what else were you doing if not implying that the mother and daughter were liars, etc.? Go ahead, explain that if you can. You cannot explain why you said "you have to consider the copy cat thing" (whatever) if you were not implying that these people were lying. You may have a right to your "suspicions" but not to make this type of implication, I think Sweebie set them out quite nicely in her post. How about you being a bit more sensitive and perhaps I will be a bit less sensitive. That is a street that goes two ways. I don't have a thing more to say about this. You're wasting bandwidth. Dixie >I only posted what you brought up >between me and thee. You'll need >to explain about what was said >by whom after you left. I >have more log, but you weren't >in it, so I didn't post >it. >I didn't explain what I meant about >"copy cat" since I wasn't given >a chance. How 'bout you don't >put words in my mouth, and >just stick to what's there. I >didn't "accuse" anyone of anything...I said >I have questions and I do. > >I didn't say anything about MM not >doing a good job, or that >he worked part time. Where the >heck did you get that? Brennan >works free lance...is that what confused >you? >MM is the one who stated, yesterday, >several times, on our forum and >others, that the story had never >previously gotten into the paper. He >was mistaken, and realized that, and >said so. >The BPD did investigate, and then dropped >out. That's why the family hired >private investigators. That's why the story >is just now a story, 2 >1/2 years later. And it's one >of the reasons I have questions. >And others have questions. I didn't >say "unbelievable" anywhere...I said I have >questions. < [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 32 . "call me codependent...but" Posted by bilas on Aug-02-00 at 03:11 PM (EST) it is the "dog days of summer" and irritability is alive and thriving in all good people. LP and Dixie, you guys both help me with this process so much, hate to see anything get in the way. Anyway, as to MB being ...whatever.... I do have a thought on the false pride of police or the fear of being wrong or whatever. IMO, OJ may or may not have "done the deed", but I believe some of the police guys feel they "knew he did it" and went about doing, planting, whatever they did, to make sure he didn't get away with murder. I believe the Ramseys had nothing to do with JB's death, but I have come to believe that some of the Boulder police chose to ignore some evidence and chose to make their umbrella only large enough to fit two people under it so as not to "look bad." Its about CYA CYA CYA. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 31 . "My two cents" Posted by mBm on Aug-02-00 at 03:02 PM (EST) I haven't been posting much lately and wasn't in chat the other night. But since the transcripts were posted, I'll try to be objective in posting my view of them. First, I didn't see anything out of the way. If Dixie perceived that LP was taking a jab at her, I didn't see it. Maybe Dixie is a little thin-skinned due to her having been in the same shoes some time in the past. I can understand why she would be. But by the same token, LP and others should be allowed to say what's on their minds without getting feathers ruffled. I happen to agree with Dixie that the so-called rape of the 14-year-old was not a "copy cat" case. Many factors, I think, indicate that it was for real. Without listing them all, I think the fact that the parents hired a PI to investigate it tells a lot. This, because the BPD refused to try to link it to the Ramsey case. This would have all happened during Koby's tenure as Chief, not Beckner's. They refused because, as we all know, they had already made up their minds that John and/or Patsy were guilty. Now, this brings up the term "idiot" to describe Beckner. I doubt if that term would be quite accurate. I think that saying he is "obstinate" or "bull headed" would be more correct. Other posters have him (them) pegged right: They don't want to even consider the notion that an outsider might have committed the JonBenet crime because then they would have egg on all their faces. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 33 . "Chat" Posted by Sweebie on Aug-02-00 at 04:08 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 04:10 PM (EST) I left after Dixie. I left and posted the post that jams used to start the "Rush to Judgment" thread. After having been around the block a dozen or so times about the Callie victimization issue, I was not in the mood to listen to what IN MY OPINION were undecorous comments about the then 14 year old assault victim, and so I left. Period. So I said I wasn't in the mood to discuss it and I left. I didn't "bash" anybody. Sometimes people ARE sensitive about certain issues. When someone is hurt by comments that are made, intentionally or not, it is nice for that person to hear an apology - or SOMETHING that indicates their feelings are important and valued, and not dismissed out of hand. If someone has been hurt, why NOT apologize??? I don't think it diminishes anyone to say they are sorry if someone is hurting. I suppose if someone feels that they did nothing wrong, then they would feel they have nothing to apologize for. I, on the other hand, believe it is better to apologize and in doing so acknowlege that someone IS hurting, than to worry whether or not I have been misunderstood, and then proceed to justify my remarks. But that is just me. Sometimes, you have to walk in the victim's shoes to understand them. Words and feelings and attitudes in chat can be subtle or obvious. I am sure that this can be resolved between adults, and these postings and "arguing" are a way of resolving it - one way or the other. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 34 . "mBm" Posted by candle on Aug-02-00 at 04:08 PM (EST) > > They don't want to even >consider the notion that an outsider >might have committed the JonBenet crime >because then they would have egg >on all their faces. Your right, they are obstinate, and bullheaded. But if you read the above comment and consider that THIS is their reason for putting innocent little childrens lives in danger seems to me "idiotic" fits in there too. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 35 . "Unhealthy Skepticism" Posted by TeamRamsey on Aug-02-00 at 04:13 PM (EST) I am a relative newcomer to this forum, but there is a real skepticism among some posters which is impossible to ignore. Skepticism is invaluable - if we weren't skeptical, we would all be BORG and posting over at JW. Most things should be greeted with some skepticism, but, IMO, it is at times misguided. As more info emerged about Callie, many on this form doubted her story AS IT RELATED TO JONBENET. But when her story first came out (I was a lurker then), most here were at least willing to hear her out. In this latest development, some posters are questioning whether or not the 14-year-old girl was even assaulted. To me, (and I think Dixie is even more frustrated by this) this is overly-skeptical. So far, there is every indication from people close to the incident (including the BPD) that this is genuine, so let's not start to question just yet whether or not it actually took place. If evidence emerges to the contrary, then we can question or dismiss this girl's story, but to do so now is taking skepticism to ridiculous lengths. Btw, Dixie: I truly don't think LP meant to offend you. I for one didn't even know you had been victimized in such a way [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 38 . "Sounds like a good compromise to me..." Posted by Sweebie on Aug-02-00 at 04:24 PM (EST) Dixie said, "How about you being a bit more sensitive and perhaps I will be a bit less sensitive. That is a street that goes two ways." Reasonable and fair, IMO. I hope that will be the case. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 44 . "feminazis on campus" Posted by Bluefire on Aug-02-00 at 05:22 PM (EST) TeamR posted: "....so let's not start to question just yet whether or not it actually took place." This is exactly the first thing we should question!! Masked Man and Jameson posted some persuasive posts in reply to the questioning. If the questions were never asked, we never would have recieved any answers. ~~~~~~~~ Not directed at anyone in particular: The debate here isn't even about what happened, It appears to be an attempt by the thought police to force skeptics (and objectors to certain wild theories) from stating their thoughts, questions and opinions. I see the same crap from the feminazis here on campus. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 37 . "Thanks mBm but I'll respond point by point" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 04:21 PM (EST) >First, I didn't see anything out of >the way. If Dixie perceived >that LP was taking a jab >at her, I didn't see it.< Lovely Pidgeon at no time took a personal jab at me. That did not happen. I am not and was not the only person horribly offended at this 14 year old child being in anyway implicated in some type of a ruse. I wasn't alone, am not alone in this mind set and did not leave that chat alone. > Maybe Dixie is a little >thin-skinned due to her having been >in the same shoes some time >in the past. I can >understand why she would be.< I am certainly sensitive, but in this case, not for myself, but for an innocent child whose honesty and integrity (not to mention her mother's) was being in a rather round about way (if that's how you want to see it) questioned. Innocent children do not deserve this. Since no one was taking jabs at me, my feelings had to do with the child and only the child. >But by the same token, LP >and others should be allowed to >say what's on their minds without >getting feathers ruffled. < And by the same token, neither I nor anyone else who left that chat, had to listen to it. >I happen to agree with Dixie that >the so-called rape of the 14-year-old >was not a "copy cat" case. > Many factors, I think, indicate >that it was for real. >Without listing them all, I think >the fact that the parents hired >a PI to investigate it tells >a lot. This, because the >BPD refused to try to link >it to the Ramsey case. >This would have all happened during Koby's >tenure as Chief, not Beckner's. >They refused because, as we all >know, they had already made up >their minds that John and/or Patsy >were guilty. >Now, this brings up the term "idiot" >to describe Beckner. I doubt >if that term would be quite >accurate. I think that saying >he is "obstinate" or "bull headed" >would be more correct. < Those terms are also very appropriate...obstinate...bull headed and indeed may be even better than "idiotic". >Other posters have him (them) pegged right: > They don't want to even >consider the notion that an outsider >might have committed the JonBenet crime >because then they would have egg >on all their faces. < More like a few dozen eggs. Thanks for the post mBm, I wanted you to understand that Lovely said nothing whatsoever at any time directed towards me. She was not the only person in that chat room who was implying that this child was dishonest. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 40 . "I hardly ever make " Posted by candle on Aug-02-00 at 04:41 PM (EST) it to chat but last night I Knew I didn't want to go. I didn't want to see any victim blaming. This is no different than what has happened to John and Patsy. People that don't even know them have judged them. They are victims of the man who killed their precious daughter, and victims of all the strangers out there who are just sure John and Patsy are making up a lie about what happened to their daughter. This girls mother saw the intruder. Think about it hard. Why would the girl have been terrorized, why would the guy have run. She was terrorized because 'she was a victim' he ran because 'he was an intruder.' Perhaps even a murderer. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 45 . "MM & others" Posted by Lilac on Aug-02-00 at 05:35 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 05:35 PM (EST) Personally, I don't give a rats behind if an intruder is in my house for 4 hours or 4 MINUTES before going to my daugher's (if I had one) bedroom and inserting his finger where it doesn't belong. Maybe I should say that I didn't mean to call Beckner an idiot (as I don't know him), but should say that his thinking that the two cases are not very similar is the most moronic, stupid, in-denial IDEA/THOUGHT that I've ever heard in my life. I can't help but wonder why he would say that. Is there more to the story? Like the "intruder" was a "visitor"? That would make a big difference. But as the story is told, sounds like the 2 cases are similar, prints or no prints. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 46 . "Lilac" Posted by Bluefire on Aug-02-00 at 05:40 PM (EST) What if your daughter wanted this guy to..... [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 48 . "Bluefire" Posted by Lilac on Aug-02-00 at 06:02 PM (EST) Well, first of all, thank GOD I had boys! But that's what I was saying in my above post. When I read that Beckner says the 2 cases don't have much in common, then of course I go off half-cocked. But if there's more to the story, like he was invited in, but they were caught and the girl made up the story (entirely possible, but I'm not saying it happened that way) then of course Beckner must know something we don't. So, who to blame? I KNOW!! How about the media? Why did the guy who wrote this article point out that Beckner made the comment about no connection? Did Beckner make that statement or did he actually preface it by saying, "I'm not at liberty to discuss this case, but from the evidence the BPD has found..." etc? How can we find out the real story? If the girl was attacked (most likely), then the BPD, those wonderful people, need to get off their blue butts. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 42 . "A hoax from Arizona" Posted by Bluefire on Aug-02-00 at 05:10 PM (EST) Well, does anyone remember after Mikelle Biggs was allegedly abducted... later two 11 year old neighbor girls reported to the police that a "man on a bicycle' had tried to abduct and sexually assault them. Police sketches were released. It turned out to be a hoax. The wierd thing is that the sketches are still floating around. Apparently some of the same people here who scream "victim blaming" are the same ones who have no compunction calling McReynolds, Fleet, Simmons et al pedophiles and suggesting they are monstruos enough to have murdered a child. Or support the right of those who do post about Santa's "pedophilic tendencies' or that Fleet is involved in a child sex ring to do so and get all upset when someone like myself points out its garbage. Victimizers! The fact is its a wierd crime: Why did the perp wait in the house after the victim went to sleep for FOUR hours before assaulting her? What did he do all that time? Really! Why was he engaged in cunnilingus and fondling and allowing the victim to moan and whisper and whatever else when he must have realized from casing the joint that the mother slept in the next room and that a single peep from the victim would likely get him busted? There are plenty of fourteen year old girls who have sex. They hang around town, take their boyfreinds home, or go to a party, or out in a car, or to their boyfreind's house have have the same kind of sex adults do. They fall in love in a way that is probably emotionally stronger than most adults do... at least the way they feel it. They choose partners of all ages. The laugh and cry about it. People who think that most fourteen year old girls are innocent angels who think about Barbie's really need some reality training. And how do most parents treat it? Like it was some sort of criminal act.... and how does a teen "cover-it-up". They lie about it. They have to because like slaves they are the property of their owners i.e parents who have complete control of them. When I grew up, girls who had sex were sent to juvenile detention centers as "whores". Major sexophobia. I don't know anything about the family dynamics in the "Lucy" case. I do know that in one of the threads I posted in Coffee, replies suggested that some posters here would cause major problems if they caught their daughter having sex with anyone, much less a twenty year old. From Masked Man's posts I am inclined to believe the story as being what it appears to be, a sexual assault. Nevertheless I have, and will continue to ask questions and support Lovely Pigeon or whoever else's right to ask them gently. In the meantime, in spite of sexophobe feminist propaganda, its bullchit that any time a woman or girl reports a rape it is automatically and inconvertably true. And don't pull out the victim card on me or this 'you are a male and thus don't know what you are talking about' chit. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 41 . "sure you did, Dixie" Posted by LovelyPigeon on Aug-02-00 at 04:59 PM (EST) Did you say LP "accused"? sure you did, and that's why I put it in quotes. From your post above >>(you had no evidence whatsoever, nothing, not one shread, to accuse the child or her mother of something like that)<< Personally, I think the mother reported exactly what she was told by her daughter and what she saw. What I wonder about is whether the teen might have acquired a too-much-older, improper, unapproved of, unknown male friend who snuck in, got caught, and copied an intruder story to explain. The case is not solved, no DNA found, alarm didn't go off, teen didn't scream for mom...there are things to wonder about.If it's insensitive to wonder, then I'm insensitive. The chat log portion that you, and Sweebie, were a part of, is posted in my post in this thread. It records every word that was said while you were there. It doesn't say I claimed MM didn't check it out well...I said he and Charlie DID check it out. It doesn't say because it wasn't in the Boulder paper it wasn't true. Someone asked why it was in Dallas paper first, and they were answered...Brennan doesn't work for Boulder paper any longer. Shoot me if you want, call me insensitive, but I wondered. I still wonder. I'm not calling anyone a liar, I'm just wondering aloud. Everyone is welcome to wonder aloud, on these threads, and in chat. You might not agree, but we can't all always agree. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 43 . "LP. Exactly what I wonder" Posted by Bluefire on Aug-02-00 at 05:14 PM (EST) Lovely posted, "Personally, I think the mother reported exactly what she was told by her daughter and what she saw. What I wonder about is whether the teen might have acquired a too-much-older, improper, unapproved of, unknown male friend who snuck in, got caught, and copied an intruder story to explain." Exactly what I wonder. So what do we have here... the thought police? Candle posted, "I didn't want to see any victim blaming." Could you please define what you are talking about as "victim blaming"?? I don't get it from the context of what has been said on these threads. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 47 . "Maybe she should" Posted by Ashley on Aug-02-00 at 05:43 PM (EST) be given a lie detector test! I don't know if she's lying or not! And believe me, none of you will make me feel bad or guilty for questioning this girl's story! It could have happened the way she says. But common sense says:it did not. I've also been a rape victim, so I'm not being insensitive here. I have a lot of questions as well, and while I feel terrible for the girl if it happened, if it didn't, she should be ashamed of herself for filing a false report when there are real women and girls who are really raped and murdered... to lie about something like that to save your butt, is sickening. Yes, people lie! Not saying she's lying,but people lie to get out of trouble,or to get attention! What in the world did this guy do for 4 hrs? BIG RED FLAG there! I'd also like to know how in the world Peterson connected McReynolds to this case, if the perp was a young 20 to 30 yr.old male???? AND, there's no dna. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 50 . "Skepticism" Posted by TeamRamsey on Aug-02-00 at 06:20 PM (EST) Blue: If you're questioning whether or not this happened at all (as you have said you are), what is your verdict? Surely you'll agree that SOMETHING happened to the girl, that someone got into the house without triggering the alarm, and made his way to her bedroom. What do you THINK they did together, have a tea party? Now, if the police on scene had felt that the girl was not genuinely traumatized, then there is reason to be skeptical. But as it is, and based on what we've been told, the girl was assaulted. For the time being, I see no reason to question that. I mean, one could go through life "trusting no one", but it wouldn't be much of a life. Btw, Is it really that unusual for someone not to scream when they've been threatened by an aggressive stranger? [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 54 . "TeamR." Posted by Bluefire on Aug-02-00 at 06:45 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 06:50 PM (EST) Considering that I am about the only person around here who has repeatedly said that JonBenét might not have screamed when she awakened in her bedroom.... I don't see how all of a sudden the opinion can change to another immature, but older girl not screaming. I mean the whole arguement has been that JonBenét was stun-gunned in her sleep (not part of my theory btw se my webpage)to keep her from screaming. Now all of a sudden we are comparing a crime where the perp not only didn't stun-gun the victim, but didn't even bother to keep his hand over her mouth while he assaulted her. But then I have never agreed with the stun-gun in bed theory anyway. I think (if the crimes are related) we have a seductive type who blows a fuse when the victim shows resistance. A tea party!! LOL. Naw. I think some creep either assaulted her, or she let the guy in for a bit of late night sex, got caught and lied to protect herself and her lover. MM makes a strong arguement for the first, but there remain unanswered questions, especially the four hour wait. This guy goes in to rape a girl and waits four hours with lights out before he takes his victim? It is rather difficult to believe. No, I don't think a struggle and blow to the head in her bedroom. Still have to deal with the pineapple for one thing. Also the amount of bleeding in the head wound. Also the hearts and dictionary game in the study. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 49 . "Then I apologize Lovely" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 06:03 PM (EST) You insinuated and "strongly", my apologies for using the word accuse. I do not agree with how this issue was handled by some either here or in chat. The child is 14 and no evidence existed whatsoever for anyone, not even you, Lovely, to "insinuate" that she had done anything wrong. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 51 . "Now that the coast is clear??" Posted by Afton on Aug-02-00 at 06:29 PM (EST) I wasn't in chat and leaving out the names of those besides Dixie and LP, may give the impression that I or others were there that were not there. Don't assume folks, I read the log and have this pearl to add to all the other pearls dropped here. LP and I have agrued to the point dreading to open a thread and see our answers that follow one another, but we have never told each other that we cannot express our thoughts (although we felt like duct taping one another' mouth at times) and I hope no one wants to squelch debate here. I did not get the idea that LP did anymore than question as she has on the Callie threads that we went head to head on. No one called a name that I am aware of in this case and no one laughed at the victim. What I saw was questioning the circumstances surrounding it and Dixie you went to great lenghts to explain why no DNA and that is what the forum is about. There are a couple of other circumstances such as the alarm and his exit and a few more things that got pushed aside with no answers when the bullets started flying. And Dixie may I comment that Blue is not with you on this and I haven't seen you go after him...... [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 53 . "Blue wasn't in Chat last night and" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 06:43 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-00 AT 06:44 PM (EST) I didn't go after anyone. I left "chat" last night because there was way too much "insinuating" on the part of certain people that this child was a liar. You will notice that I have continued to post to Blue today just as I always do. You must not be reading the forum. I left "chat" not the forum and if Blue had been in chat and doing the same thing, I would have left just as quickly. >And Dixie may I comment that Blue >is not with you on this >and I haven't seen you go >after him...... Now, I am ending this stupidity right now. I am absolutely ashamed at how some of the people here on this forum and last night in chat have questioned the honesty and integrity and morality of an innocent 14 year old child when they had no reason whatsoever and NO EVIDENCE (as per JAMS AND MM) to do so. What in the world possesses some people. Again, I think the only thing that would have made some of you "believe" this kid's story is if she had turned up dead in the basement. Why not quit using her for a whipping boy and THANK GOD IN HEAVEN she is alive. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 56 . "Dixie" Posted by Afton on Aug-02-00 at 06:46 PM (EST) I know Blue wasn't in chat when you were there and that was not my point---I also know how much you like Blue and I have read all the posts today. My point was TIC and light hearted. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 58 . "Afton re: Blue" Posted by Dixie on Aug-02-00 at 07:25 PM (EST) >I know Blue wasn't in chat when >you were there and that was >not my point---I also know how >much you like Blue and I >have read all the posts today. > My point was TIC and >light hearted. I have responded to Blue today and you're right, I like him and I like him a lot, not because I always agree with him but because if you have a chance to view his web site you will see that Blue's opinions are not anti-child but the other way around. AND when he thinks he's wrong, as he did over the MM and Beckner isn't an Idiot" thing, Blue admits it and corrects it. Something others would rather crawl for a mile on a razor blade than do. That is totally admirable to me even if I don't agree with a particular part of a theory. I don't have to agree with someone to think highly of them. God knows MM and I have gone round and round but I think he's terrific and I would never question a single thing he writes as suspicious or as having been "unsubstantiated". We ain't exactly pardners (who is that Masked Man TIC = light hearted) but I respect him and if he writes it as "fact" I believe it as fact cause he is a stickler for verifying his sources. If Blue been in that chat last night and a part of what was happening, I would have split, friend or no. Dixie [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 59 . "I can see both sides" Posted by Sweebie on Aug-02-00 at 07:26 PM (EST) in this argument. I have never been thought of by people who really know me as a feminazi - thank God for my sense of humor, because I had a good laugh at that one! Neither have I ever been accused of being the "thought police", and I am NOT saying anyone here accused me of that either. Is it so wrong, to identify with a 14 year old PERSON, won't add the apparently controversial tag of child or adult or teen to her age...and to want her to be protected from innuendo, gossip and character assaults, too? I don't think that is so terrible. I understand what we are all doing here. We are here to "sleuth". Chat conversations, forum posts and cyber relationship take some compromise, understanding and effort. Being rigid in our views, unyielding, insensitive, arrogant, condescending and pedantic makes for as much friction as being sensitive, too sensitive and asking others to be sensitive to the situation. Being empathetic and compassionate and trying to protect a child from internet gossip is now perceived as trying to police someone's thoughts, squelch debate or propagating a feministic agenda. I can say that is NOT the motivation at all, but I seriously doubt that will make any difference. How about a little understanding on both sides of the fence? If we can agree not to call one side insensitive, arrogant, holier-than-thou, controlling, condescending, pedantic xyzs, then can the other side not be called the thought policing, poster bashing feminazis trying to squelch debate? Let's just try to be aware that we are all in a group and we must TRY to be respectful of everyone in our group. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 52 . "Ashley" Posted by candle on Aug-02-00 at 06:37 PM (EST) I also have been a victim, but not as a young girl. I tend to believe this girls story but I do understand where you are coming from also. I'm not sure this is the same perp as JonBenet. I think this young girl was a victim, if the story she tells is true then it may well be the same perp. However, no matter what, if this guy was 20-30, then she was a victim even if she let him in. A 14 year old girl could easily get herself into a situation she isn't prepared to handle. The man should not have been there, bottom line. And even if she did let him in, he could still be the man that killed JB, and could have intended to kill this girl. I am not good at clarifying my thoughts on this. Just imagine, the girl out of youthful curiousity, and misguided trust did let this man in and then things went too far and she was no longer comfortable with what was happening at the point her mother came in. Hopefully, she would tell the authorities this mans name. He had no business getting this young girl to allow him in, and he could still be the perp in JBs case. I'm sure I'm not being understood here! Anyway I would imagine that this girls parents have gotten counseling for her and I think if she knew the man it would have come out. I don't think she knew him, but I hope someone can understand my point on 'if she did.' A 14 year old girl out of sexual curiousity could get herself in a very bad situation, just like JB could go with someone out of antisipation of seeing santa again. This child is a victim, and speculative remarks are appropriate but should be carefully worded.IMO [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 55 . "candle" Posted by LovelyPigeon on Aug-02-00 at 06:46 PM (EST) Thank you for contributing an excellent post. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 57 . "Bluefire, victim blaming" Posted by candle on Aug-02-00 at 06:49 PM (EST) I stated that I didn't go to chat because I didn't want to see any victim blaming. I didn't go so I'm not sure I'd have felt there was any or not. No one has flat out said "this situation was the girls fault." But some posters remarks do lean towards that direction. This issue has to be speculated on, but with much careful thought. That's about all I can say, I don't have much of a knack for transferring my thoughts to written word. And since I find this a touchy subject I think the less said by me the better. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 60 . "Candle" Posted by Sweebie on Aug-02-00 at 07:35 PM (EST) I think you are doing a fine job of expressing yourself, and being sensitive to both viewpoints, and the victim. I hope you will continue to post your thoughts. I appreciate you taking the time to post them. Not that you need or even want my stamp of approval, and I am not "giving" you one.. but I did want to simply say thanks. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 61 . "Regarding the victim" Posted by violet on Aug-02-00 at 10:59 PM (EST) We can go on forever arguing back and forth about the fact that some fourteen year olds do sneak boys, or older men, into their bedrooms. Or the fact that some people do lie to get out of what they percieve to be even worse consequences for telling the truth. Theoretically, all of the above are true. So to all of the arguments that try to prove why people lie and why girls invite boys/men in, I give a resounding YES. All of that CAN happen. I acknowledge your arguments. As for the fourteen year old girl attacked in her bedroom in Boulder nine months after JonBenet was attacked, I believe her story. I see no red flags here in any of the reported stories. I feel for her, and hope to God that she can one day feel safe and normal again. And if any good can come from her attack it be that it links her assailant to JonBenet's killer. And I fully expect fourteen year old girls to continue to invite men into their rooms and lie about it today, tomorrow and all the nights after. But the fact that they do and will means little to me. I believe Lucy and her parents. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 62 . "Candle" Posted by Ashley on Aug-02-00 at 11:35 PM (EST) Excellent posts! Sorry for your experience! I really want to believe it happened like they say. But... unfortuneatly unlike Violet :) I do see red flags all over the place. I think some people may be ruling with emotion instaead of really giving this thought! But, you're right. No matter what, she's a victim of a child predator, regardless if he was let in by her, or snuck in! My concerns are: The time he would have had to spend in the house. What was he doing, taking a nap? The fact that he knew the father and brother were out of town. How could he have possibly known that? I mean, if he ran from the mother, he obviously wasn't there to murder anyone. There just seems to be a lot of questions! Let's face it, if he was her boyfriend there's no doubt he would have told her how much trouble he could get into being with a minor. That would be enough to cover for him and make up a story, right? Well, I know I'm pissing some people off right now, but I'm entitled to question things that need answers! Not everything is so cut and dry all the time. If it seems suspicious, it usually is... that's how I look at it anyway. Maybe there's something wrong with me... but I don't see anything remotely similar to the Ramsey case, sorry!:( [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 63 . "I'm astounded" Posted by MaskedMan on Aug-03-00 at 00:04 AM (EST) If this weren't a true intruder, don't you think the mother would have been able to tell? Don't you think the whole family would know if it was phony? The mother saw the intruder and she knew he was a total stranger -- not her daughter's boyfriend! Good grief. I'm astounded that anyone would think that this man was a "boyfriend." Wrong, wrong, wrong! The police reports contain gross details about the sexual assault that the girl wouldn't have been apt to make up. She submitted to genital swabbing, which she wouldn't have done if she weren't sexually assaulted. She didn't need to make up this kind of story. The mother could tell that her daughter was frightened. The mother and daughter both fled in terror to a neighbors's house. The strange man was much older than the girl. He wasn't in the girl's age group or peer group. He was a stalker/intruder who still hasn't been identified. The family is still disturbed about what happened. Here is what the victim's father said earlier this year: "It's been terrifying for us... She [his wife] got up, walked into the room. Something just didn't feel right to her. There was a man in the room about to assault my daughter." "The one thing that's clear is it's possible to get into a house with an alarm, with the doors locked, to hide in that house and not know that that intruder is in the house." [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 64 . "Astounded MM? I'm frazzled - where have you been all day?" Posted by Dixie on Aug-03-00 at 00:26 AM (EST) This issue has had me fried all day long. There is no way in hell this was not an intruder. Go read the Geraldo posts. Not even Beckner nor Silverman tried to hem haw around the fact that the intruder was real. I'm astounded that people would 1) imply that this mother and daughter are liars or that 2) you guys didn't do your homework. Where the heck were you all day. I could have used your input. Dixie >If this weren't a true intruder, don't >you think the mother would have >been able to tell? Don't >you think the whole family would >know if it was phony? >The mother saw the intruder and >she knew he was a total >stranger -- not her daughter's >boyfriend! Good grief. >I'm astounded that anyone would think that >this man was a "boyfriend." >Wrong, wrong, wrong! The police >reports contain gross details about the >sexual assault that the girl wouldn't >have been apt to make up. >She submitted to genital swabbing, which >she wouldn't have done if she >weren't sexually assaulted. She didn't >need to make up this kind >of story. >The mother could tell that her daughter >was frightened. The mother and >daughter both fled in terror to >a neighbors's house. The strange >man was much older than the >girl. He wasn't in the girl's >age group or peer group. >He was a stalker/intruder who still >hasn't been identified. The family >is still disturbed about what happened. > >Here is what the victim's father said >earlier this year: >"It's been terrifying for us... She [his >wife] got up, walked into the >room. Something just didn't feel right >to her. There was a man >in the room about to assault >my daughter." >"The one thing that's clear is it's >possible to get into a house >with an alarm, with the doors >locked, to hide in that house >and not know that that intruder >is in the house." [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 66 . "Ashley" Posted by mBm on Aug-03-00 at 00:58 AM (EST) I believe, in several posts back, you wondered how Peterson believed that Santa was JonBenet's perp and yet still be the same person who attacked the 14-year-old girl, if the attacker was a young male. It's my understanding that Peterson was hired by the doctor and his wife to try to find the attacker of their daughter. In his investigation of this case, Peterson checked into the JonBenet case to see if there was a connection, and in doing so, became interested in it even though he felt there was no connection. Is he now saying both crimes could have been committed by the same person (not Santa)? Or, is he saying there were two different perps and Santa is still suspicious? What is he (Peterson) up to now, anyway? [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 65 . "the girl didn't let him in" Posted by Guppy on Aug-03-00 at 00:50 AM (EST) I see there are several members here who think the young girl may have let the intruder in because she knew him. If that were the case, why would she take him up to her bedroom which was so close to her mother's she could be heard whispering? Why not just use the couch downstairs? That doesn't make any sense at all. And it's obvious she didn't leave the door in her mother's room open for him to sneak in through in the middle of the night. There is no reason to believe this didn't go down exactly like the girl said it did. [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 67 . "Dictionary Game?" Posted by BraveHeart on Aug-03-00 at 01:06 AM (EST) ..in the study. What is this? Where discussed previously? [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP] 68 . "Beckner an Idget??" Posted by Sparrow on Aug-03-00 at 01:43 AM (EST) Braveheart I think the reference is to the dictionary folded on the page listing "incest" which may not even be true. A ST theory I presume. Guppy I agree. It's more of the "blame the victim" game. Stupid and sad IMO. MM Can I believe my eyes? Don't I remember a few "decriptive" words you used for NYL?? Personally, I thought they were some of the funniest verbal attacks I've seen. Beckner may be a nice guy but he's no Sherlock Holmes. I agree with Maikai, he needs to seek some professinal profilers and listen to Lou Smit. Also do Boulder a favor and look for a new job. JMO [REMOVE] [ALERT] [EDIT] [SEND EMAIL] [USER PROFILE] [REPLY] [REPLY WITH QUOTE] [TOP]