Justice Watch Discussion Board "Breaking News - the Whites etc." [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Breaking News - the Whites etc., Seashell, 00:34:18, 8/24/2000 Darn!, Seashell, 01:51:50, 8/24/2000, (#1) Daily Camera 8/24, mary99, 02:26:58, 8/24/2000, (#2) In the long run, pinker, 03:45:27, 8/24/2000, (#3) Thanks, mary99, Holly, 09:26:16, 8/24/2000, (#10) Bump, Chris, 05:01:44, 8/24/2000, (#4) Good Idea, Bobby, 05:33:35, 8/24/2000, (#5) Please combine my White thread 2 with this one, Cassandra, 08:38:54, 8/24/2000, (#6) Combining Cassandra, Chris, 08:45:44, 8/24/2000, (#7) Cassie, frankg, 08:55:20, 8/24/2000, (#8) Thanks, Chris...&...Frank G, Cassandra, 09:04:52, 8/24/2000, (#9) Cassie, frankg, 09:51:47, 8/24/2000, (#15) Sometimes, Watching you, 09:34:44, 8/24/2000, (#12) Boyles?, fly, 09:29:34, 8/24/2000, (#11) Hunter's statement, darby, 09:59:36, 8/24/2000, (#17) Good grief, Darby., Holly, 10:13:40, 8/24/2000, (#23) Holly, , LurkerXIV, 10:28:55, 8/24/2000, (#29) Woops. I forgot to answer your question, Lurker -- , Holly, 11:12:20, 8/24/2000, (#44) Lurker., Holly, 10:30:45, 8/24/2000, (#30) Holly, Twitch, 09:58:12, 8/24/2000, (#16) Well Twitch..., Holly, 10:17:23, 8/24/2000, (#24) Boyles,, Dunvegan, 09:50:39, 8/24/2000, (#14) Hah! I'm glad, Holly, 10:32:26, 8/24/2000, (#31) WY, Ruthee, 09:49:57, 8/24/2000, (#13) Ruthee, Chris, 16:16:53, 8/24/2000, (#66) Ruthie, Watching you, 10:20:24, 8/24/2000, (#25) well, darby, 10:05:23, 8/24/2000, (#20) Ruthee, fly, 10:02:42, 8/24/2000, (#18) Well......, shadow, 10:04:37, 8/24/2000, (#19) shadow, darby, 10:10:53, 8/24/2000, (#22) Shadow, rico, 10:09:47, 8/24/2000, (#21) maybe it took Fleet 6 mos., Edie Pratt, 11:02:28, 8/24/2000, (#39) Holly, Twitch, 10:26:53, 8/24/2000, (#28) Darby, Watching you, 10:26:04, 8/24/2000, (#27) WY., Holly, 10:51:50, 8/24/2000, (#34) Holly, Watching you, 10:57:28, 8/24/2000, (#37) Actually WY., Holly, 11:04:39, 8/24/2000, (#41) darby, fly, 10:22:45, 8/24/2000, (#26) fly., Holly, 10:40:18, 8/24/2000, (#33) Over at CS someone thinks Boyles, Cassandra, 10:36:05, 8/24/2000, (#32) WY, fly, darby, 11:07:51, 8/24/2000, (#42) A Twist?, La Contessa, 10:55:19, 8/24/2000, (#36) Holly, fly, 10:54:11, 8/24/2000, (#35) Just A Thought!, shadow, 10:58:07, 8/24/2000, (#38) Shadow, rico, 11:08:02, 8/24/2000, (#43) Shadow, Twitch, 11:02:43, 8/24/2000, (#40) shadow, darby, 11:27:03, 8/24/2000, (#46) Lacontessa & darby, fly, 11:18:27, 8/24/2000, (#45) Burden of proof...., rose, 12:09:33, 8/24/2000, (#52) and maybe FW didn't say anything, Edie Pratt, 11:34:33, 8/24/2000, (#47) Very odd, Seashell, 12:10:38, 8/24/2000, (#53) Getting Involved,, kdubois2, 11:49:59, 8/24/2000, (#49) it's like they say, KDubois, Edie Pratt, 12:00:37, 8/24/2000, (#50) darby..., shadow, 11:43:00, 8/24/2000, (#48) shadow, darby, 12:05:14, 8/24/2000, (#51) Taking a deep breath, canadiana, 12:43:41, 8/24/2000, (#54) Seashell and Others....., Voyager, 13:13:50, 8/24/2000, (#55) I hear ya Voyager, Ribaldone, 13:22:55, 8/24/2000, (#56) About Fleet, gaiabetsy, 13:36:23, 8/24/2000, (#57) giabetsy...., Voyager, 13:43:37, 8/24/2000, (#58) I'm confused, maxi, 14:17:12, 8/24/2000, (#59) Maxi - The White's, Florida, 14:30:28, 8/24/2000, (#60) maxi ..., shadow, 14:45:27, 8/24/2000, (#61) This party ain't over yet, Ribaldone, 14:57:26, 8/24/2000, (#62) or maybe, Edie Pratt, 15:17:14, 8/24/2000, (#63) Right Edie, Ribaldone, 15:52:52, 8/24/2000, (#64) I'm feeling somewhat hopeful, Cassandra, 15:59:17, 8/24/2000, (#65) White..., rose, 16:33:31, 8/24/2000, (#67) ................................................................... "Breaking News - the Whites etc." Posted by Seashell on 00:34:18 8/24/2000 Good morning. This promises to be a long thread. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Darn!" Posted by Seashell on 01:51:50 8/24/2000 I forgot to say that this is thread II. Carry on (which is what we're good at!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Daily Camera 8/24" Posted by mary99 on 02:26:58 8/24/2000 Libel complaint filed against paper By Elizabeth Mattern Camera Staff Writer Boulder police are investigating a complaint against the Daily Camera that alleges criminal libel in a Feb. 25 newspaper article on the unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey. The article said investigators had testimony from a 37-year-old California woman who had suffered a lifetime of sexual and physical abuse and who suggested JonBenét was the victim of a child sex ring. The article said the woman, whose name was not published, told detectives she believed that JonBenét was killed accidentally when an "asphyxiation technique used to stimulate an orgasmic response during a child sex and porno 'party' went too far." The woman said she knew the Ramseys through the family of Fleet White, a key witness in the homicide investigation. Fleet and Priscilla White filed a criminal-libel complaint Aug. 3 with the Boulder Police Department. The Whites could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Autopsy reports showed that JonBenét, who died at age 6 in 1996, suffered a blow to the head and was strangled. Investigators later determined the woman's allegations had no link to the Ramsey case. Police have not referred the matter to the Boulder County District Attorney's Office. "This is something that's being investigated, but the police have not sent us a case to look at yet," said prosecutor Bryan Quiram. Colleen Conant, Daily Camera publisher and executive editor, said the newspaper has taken "all prudent legal steps with regard to this claim." In response to the complaint, Camera attorney David Giles cited protection of press freedom under the First Amendment. "Any inquiry is a waste of valuable police time because it is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that the government does not investigate the press under criminal libel statutes for statements published in the newspaper," he wrote to police. Initially, District Attorney Alex Hunter said he found the California woman to be "very believable." After detectives spent 11 weeks investigating her allegations, they found no ties to the Ramsey case. Police Chief Mark Beckner said criminal libel charges, as opposed to a civil libel suits, are rare and that he's not aware of any others that have come through the department. Contact Elizabeth Mattern at (303) 473-1361 or matterne@thedailycamera.com. August 24, 2000 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "In the long run" Posted by pinker on 03:45:27 8/24/2000 I don't think the White's are doing this for themselves. It is for JBR. This will have the ability to put to rest and officially/legally debunk any MW association with the murder of JBR. That will be very helpful when the real trial comes to focus. We also have an official pass on any connection with the 14 year old's intruder as the murderer. I think we're down to the last two suspects. Who will SURVIVE the interviews? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Thanks, mary99" Posted by Holly on 09:26:16 8/24/2000 I assume that the WESTWORLD article has no significance in this matter then. This bizarre twist seems a belated effort calculated to FAIL, except in satisfying the need to publicly defend the White family name. It seeks to give the impression that the Whites are outraged and consider the article a crime. Where was that outrage 1/2 year ago? I don't see the BPD filing criminal charges. And it's not real likely the DA will either. But the residue left will be that the Whites, belatedly, squawked about the article. Some will think it means they were eager to provide testimony and undergo cross examination to convict an unnamed newspaper writer/editor/owner. But if that were true, they would have waited for Mary Keenan, who is not the White nemesis Hunter is. Their chances at prosecution would have presumably been a helluva lot better. This effort was designed to be a failure. And it begs the question - why not a CIVIL libel suit? One could be filed instead of attempting a poorly timed criminal case. Or they could file a criminal complaint and a civil case at the same time. Of course, depositions like cross examination can get pretty hairy... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Bump" Posted by Chris on 07:17:26 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:17:26, 8/24/2000 The other thread is getting pretty long. As we start a new day, please remember...let's talk about the news not about other posters. Thanks. Edited to add: Things always get out of hand with the MW issue and asking that you talk about the news rather than the forum and posters is simply an attempt to promote civil discussion. Nothing is more deadly to a free exchange of ideas than constant threats of legal action. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Good Idea" Posted by Bobby on 05:33:35 8/24/2000 This may be the Whites way of laying the groundwork for a full investigation of the DA office. Criminal charges brought against the paper ought to make them sing about their sources-read that AH, PH and others. Their may very well be a groundswell of support for BPD and Sanderson. Once again Owens may be invisible but he may have a hand in it also. Good to for all Justice Seekers. Ever the optimist. . . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Please combine my White thread 2 with this one" Posted by Cassandra on 08:38:54 8/24/2000 anyone who has that skill. I certainly don't know how, being a computer feeb. Thanks! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Combining Cassandra" Posted by Chris on 08:45:44 8/24/2000 "WHITES FILE CHARGES Thread 2 8-24-00 Thurs." Posted by Cassandra on 07:46:13 8/24/2000 Well, you could have knocked me over with a garotte when I saw that news! But...how can Hunter rule on the charges? Wasn't he mentioned and quoted? Only in Boulder! Cassie 1. "While the cat's away..." Posted by MrsBrady on 08:08:45 8/24/2000 Sheesh, I just stopped by to check on the ole hen-house and all hell's broken loose! Maybe they are doing this to smoke out Mystery Woman - she'd be a key witness in the Camera's defense... (dropped off kid #1 at college, home by 9:30 AM, about to leave for beach with kid#2, have to pack, have to pee, have to READ all this chit...) 2. "Maw" Posted by tx_sunshine on 08:22:20 8/24/2000 Good morning!I am glad you popped in!I missed you this morning! Have a wonderfull time at the beach with #2.You really need to get your rest because when you get back CHIT will be flying all over the place LOL. JFJB Tx-sunshine 3. "Maw...hmmmm. good point" Posted by Cassandra on 08:34:13 8/24/2000 A whole new can of worms just opened up. The hunt will be on for the MW. Subpoenas will be flying like bullets, and a slew of people will be going to the mattresses. Things just got even more interesting. How will Alex cover his ass this time? Inquiring Cassandras want to know. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Cassie" Posted by frankg on 08:55:20 8/24/2000 What does Hunter have to cover? All he did was endorse the notion that MW's story could potentially link to the murder. He didn't finger anyone? I also don't think this will unearth MW at all. The charge, if filed, will be against the paper for how they covered the story. I would love to learn more about MW and the FBI investigation but I just don't think this is going to do it. I hope I'm wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Thanks, Chris...&...Frank G" Posted by Cassandra on 09:04:52 8/24/2000 I expect Alex to be backpeddling like a cartoon Daffy to keep from being included in anything where he has to actually take a stand. The word for Alex is "vague". Of course, all I know is his vapid public persona. He may be a human dynamo in person, but somehow I doubt it! If he is a personal hero of yours, I'm sorry. LOL Cassie ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Cassie" Posted by frankg on 09:51:47 8/24/2000 Hunter is no hero of mine... you couldn't be further from the truth. I'd love to see him have to publically defend himself for his behavior in the Ramsey case. But wrt MW, what did he do that would need defending? He said he thought she was believable and that there could be a connection. Many of us said the same thing. There's nothing wrong with that. Now, had he tried to actually tie Fleet White Jr into the murder based on her comments, then I think he would have some serious problems to deal with, but I don't think he did that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Sometimes" Posted by Watching you on 09:34:44 8/24/2000 it isn't what one says but rather what one infers that causes problems. For Hunter to have commented at all in a public forum about the MW investigation was in itself unusual, because we all know what an anal-retentive he is. He wouldn't give any information out about the JBR investigation in all his public media events. By speaking the way he did about the MW investigation, saying, if only a percentage of her claims were true, blah, blah, he gave it credence. It just wasn't like him to discuss ongoing investigations with the press. My first take on it, when I heard what he said, was that there must be something to it. I suspect many people felt that way after hearing him speak about it. The subliminal statements he makes are sufficient to influence some to certain beliefs. He's pretty good at that, actually, unless you're onto his shenanagans. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Boyles?" Posted by fly on 09:29:34 8/24/2000 Did anybody listen to Peter Boyles' show this morning? Can't believe he wouldn't feature this news. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Hunter's statement" Posted by darby on 10:01:38 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:01:38, 8/24/2000 that MW is believable is the main reason many people have felt the whole thing needs a second look rather than a knee-jerk dismissal. I find it ironic (at best) that Hunter's office has the final say on whether charges can actually be filed. I guess FW had no other choice but to use the jurisdiction at hand. But what's going to happen now if Hunter's office says that FW doesn't have sufficient grounds to file charges? Is there anything FW can do to be heard or does he just have to forget the whole thing? I wonder if there is some sort of mediation process whereby a third, disinterested party could make that decision. As it is, there seems to be a most definite conflict of interests. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Good grief, Darby." Posted by Holly on 10:13:40 8/24/2000 FW could have waited for Mary Keenan. Wasn't he standing around when she announced her candidacy? Wouldn't she have provided a "friendlier" set of legal eyes for this attempt to charge? He did it now, because he KNOWS there isn't much chance charges will be filed. He gives the impression that he thinks there is libel that actually rises to the level of criminal behavior, but guards himself against having to undergo a detailed and prolonged cross examination paid for by an insurer and supported in spirit by every other media outlet in the USA. He was asked to comment on day one. He was given opportunity after opportunity, but chose this route 6 months later. Why? In another few months his probable choice for DA would be running the show. Why wouldn't he want this complaint to have the best possible chance for success? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Holly, " Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:28:55 8/24/2000 It never ceases to amaze me how you can be inside Fleet White's head, knowing his every thought and motivation. Neat trick! Do you think you can channel John Ramsey for us? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Woops. I forgot to answer your question, Lurker -- " Posted by Holly on 11:12:20 8/24/2000 I don't know about chanelling JR, but I made a stab at getting into his, uh, head, in JOHN RAMSEY'S ERECTION. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Lurker." Posted by Holly on 10:30:45 8/24/2000 Someone has to play Devil's Advocate. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Holly" Posted by Twitch on 09:58:12 8/24/2000 Do you think the timing has anything to do with the FBI investigation? Maybe the White's were waiting for some response from them before they proceded. Or maybe the timing is somehow connected to the interviews in Atlanta. It is hard to imagine AH pursuing this in any manner unless he is trying to appease them for some reason we don't know. Someone posted earlier that maybe the DA or BPD want to clean up his image if he is to be a key witness at trial. I apologize if this has already come up. There were several threads going on at once. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Well Twitch..." Posted by Holly on 10:17:23 8/24/2000 you make alot of sense to me. This is a calculated move, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Boyles," Posted by Dunvegan on 09:50:39 8/24/2000 ...like every other media outlet in the country, was wrapped up in the finale to the series "Survivor"...that's blown most everything out of the lead news spot. Perhaps tomorrow??? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Hah! I'm glad" Posted by Holly on 10:32:26 8/24/2000 Rich won. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "WY" Posted by Ruthee on 09:49:57 8/24/2000 "And yes, Callie claimed that her mother told her that she knew who killed JonBenet, was there, and was a witness to it. " I've seen this quote from two different people this morning. Do you have any idea where this came from. I heard it during the BBB (big blow out), but have never seen a source. Fleet: I just knew that my gut judgment of this situtation couldn't be that wrong. Why did you make me wait? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Ruthee" Posted by Chris on 16:16:53 8/24/2000 I don't know that MW ever made the claim on one of Mame's audios about what her mother told her. She did tell me, verbally that her mother told her (over the telephone) that XXXX XXXXX (but specifically she did not say Fleet White, Jr. - I think that is one of those rumor/urban legend kind of things) killed JonBenet. This was while her mother was in Colorado. I was told that this happened one or two days after the murder. I have no proof nor any additional knowledge. I am simply relating to you what I was told because I think it's important to correct misinformation. I don't know anything about a witness as was mentioned in the earlier post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Ruthie" Posted by Watching you on 10:20:24 8/24/2000 I saw this statement before, but you know what a radical I've been on this thing - I probably just blew up and didn't read the rest. Anyways, I don't know the source of that statement. I am thinking it may have evolved, as gossip often does, from speculation to *fact.* [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "well" Posted by darby on 10:05:23 8/24/2000 This whole thing hasn't really clarified anything in the FW/MW thing, at least for me...at least not yet. I'm hoping like heck that it will lead somewhere...anywhere. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Ruthee" Posted by fly on 10:09:18 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:09:18, 8/24/2000 I"m not WY, but I think that statement was in mame's broadcast of MW. Edited to add: Dunvegan - Thanks for the info. I'm extremely surprised Boyles didn't cover the MW stuff, at least a little. But then, I'm one of the handful of people who hasn't caught the Survivor bug. Yes, let's hope for tomorrow. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Well......" Posted by shadow on 10:04:37 8/24/2000 From Mary99's Post #34 - "As noted, TRUTH is an affirmative defense against libel. But that will mean waiting until the FBI investigation is complete. Certainly the BDC will claim that until the FBI investigation is finished, the story can't be accurately judged for libel. Until the 'X' factor is known, no conclusions can be drawn." I believe the FBI investigation is complete! In addition, I agree with fly, WY and others on this forum... For many months, some posters made a BIG ISSUE over the fact that the White's continued to remain "strangely" silent as MW's allegations swirled around the JBR case. Now that the Whites have taken action, a new "spin" begins. It now appears that those of us who simply suggested low these many months that we not lynch FW until MW's allegations are thoroughly investigated and proven to be true, should not comment on the new "spinning" going-on. If this is true, color me gone!!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "shadow" Posted by darby on 10:10:53 8/24/2000 It WAS strange for Fleet White to keep silent! It WAS!!! He has written all kinds of letters at the drop of a hat, and then he kept quiet about this thing for more than half a year. IT WAS STRANGE FOR FLEET WHITE TO DO THIS!!! It looked unusual, only because it seemed out of character for this particular man. However, now that he HAS done something, I'll say that this is more like the Fleet White we've all come to know. No spin here, just an opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Shadow" Posted by rico on 10:09:47 8/24/2000 You took the words right out of my mouth!! Thanks for sharing the truth. JfJBR rico [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "maybe it took Fleet 6 mos." Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:02:28 8/24/2000 to complete his OWN investigation? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Holly" Posted by Twitch on 10:26:53 8/24/2000 Everything about the investigation of this little girl's murder seems to be calculated - by everyone involved - and a lot of innocent and not so innocent bystanders have been used as pawns in this sick game that so far has accomplished nothing but a stalemate. Maybe things are going on behind the scene that can propel things forward. Here's praying for JFJB. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Darby" Posted by Watching you on 10:26:04 8/24/2000 you and I have disagreed about just about everything regarding the MW/FW issue. I know you think it was odd that FW did not respond to his accusers, but I don't think it was odd at all. I think FW has more integrity in his little finger than Alex Hunter ever thought of having in his whole body. I think FW has done all he can to keep his potential testimony in a criminal trial untainted. I think he held himself above answering the vicious accusations, biding his time until he could answer in a *meaningful* way. Darby, just because someone accuses one of something does not make that someone guilty of that accusation if they don't respond. Where I come from, that's called game-playing, and we see through it very well. From where I'm sitting, let the accuser prove his case; don't expect the accusee to justify it by responding to (what I think were unjustifiable attacks against this man). That is my opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "WY." Posted by Holly on 10:51:50 8/24/2000 But why do it now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Holly" Posted by Watching you on 10:57:28 8/24/2000 I'm heading out here, but I wanted to answer you first. I think you mean now as in, why now with the interviews coming up? I don't know the answer to that, but I read elsewhere that things in Boulder are very upbeat right now, leading some to wonder if the interviews might be very productive and a lot might be happening. Is there a connection? I don't know. Gol, girl, I'm lucky if I know where I put my head. Gotta run now. See everyone on Monday. I hope you all have a lovely weekend. WY [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Actually WY." Posted by Holly on 11:04:39 8/24/2000 I meant why now ,when the WRONG person to accomplish the task is still in office? I'll sorta' miss you WY. Have a nice break. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "darby" Posted by fly on 10:22:45 8/24/2000 darby - But he wasn't really quiet. He just didn't go public. He apparently was complaining to the paper. We've had statements from the paper to that effect, and that defensive editorial comment was stimulated by somebody's complaints. Actually, FW's pattern is not to come out blasting publically. He blasts privately, and then he then goes public. I'm pretty sure that both his letter to the Gov and to the CU Regents were released to the press some significant time after they were sent to the specific individuals. And as I've said before, in the MW situation he had to tread carefully that he didn't make matters worse by renewing the story - especially when there might be little he could do that would definitely disprove the implied allegations against him and his father (assuming they were false). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "fly." Posted by Holly on 10:40:18 8/24/2000 But who controlled the release of those statements? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Over at CS someone thinks Boyles" Posted by Cassandra on 10:36:05 8/24/2000 received his marching orders to talk Survivor not the FW development this AM. Boyles hasn't watched Survivor, but he was told to watch last night and discuss this AM. I don't remember who posted it, but I found it interesting. Doug G, I was just joshing with you, but I do think Hunter is an ignoramus, to put it mildly. Who is White's lawyer? Nobody has mentioned the Carol McK MW report on Fox that blew our minds in the first place. And now, the JBR case has taken yet another detour! Amazing. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "WY, fly" Posted by darby on 11:07:51 8/24/2000 WY--Yes we have, but I DID conced a certain point a while back by posting that I felt that we can't really read anything (read: guilt OR innocence) into the nonresponsiveness of FW. Give me some credit for that. But that's not to say that such nonresponsiveness has been the norm for Fleet White. Which brings me to... fly-- I do still absolutely think it was odd FOR FLEET WHITE that he didn't respond PUBLICLY to this sooner. He may have written lots of letters to the BDC (which I think you yourself assumed he did NOT want published) and probably screamed and yelled to who-knows-who privately about the MW thing, but this particular complaint is the first seemingly public action on his part. Come to think of it, I don't even know if he even wants THIS ONE known publicly. But if he does, then I think White is being more in character this time. For someone who even went to the trouble of publicly broadcasting his complaints to the world that he would like to see a particular university professor removed from CU, this private stance of Fleet White WAS odd--especially considering the personal nature of MW's allegations. Sheesh, I'm not saying FW is anything less than a saint. I'm just saying that he doesn't usually seem to keep quiet about things he feels strongly about. And there's plenty of documentation out there to prove it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "A Twist?" Posted by La Contessa on 10:55:19 8/24/2000 Is this FW's attempt at an ironic twist? If he had filed a civil libel case, he would have had to pay the lawyers. Filing a criminal libel case requires Boulder's DA to prosecute at no cost to Fleet. Is having Hunter's office pay for the suit Fleet's way of getting back at Hunter? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Holly" Posted by fly on 10:54:11 8/24/2000 A assume FW released them. That doesn't alter my point. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Just A Thought!" Posted by shadow on 10:58:07 8/24/2000 Has anyone considered the fact that the FBI could not investigate MW's story without talking with the Whites? Has anyone considered the possibility that FW has not been able to speak-out until their investigation was completed? Just Food-For-Thought!!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Shadow" Posted by rico on 11:08:02 8/24/2000 Stop making sense!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Shadow" Posted by Twitch on 11:02:43 8/24/2000 I did. See post 16. LOL I hope this means you aren't going anywhere. I enjoy reading your posts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "shadow" Posted by darby on 11:27:03 8/24/2000 To be honest, I hadn't thought of that. But why I've been made to feel like something less than an honorable person because I've refused to assume anything one way or the other about FW is beyond me. MW might have lied or might have been delusional. But then again, she might have told the truth. If she did then it would be a crime to assume she had lied. And YES, if she had lied, it would be a crime to assume she had told the truth. I've been very fair about this, I think, but I've gotten a LOT of criticism by those who are just sure MW's a liar. You all have worried about FW's integrity. I worry about the integrity of the one who has told the truth, whoever that is. And YES, it might just be FW! But at this point, I still don't know which one. And that is why I want more to come to light. The entire mess has not been fully explained, at least in my view. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Lacontessa & darby" Posted by fly on 11:18:27 8/24/2000 LC - That's an interesting observation. darby - Hey, I'm not jumping you. Just pointing out that he didn't sit on his hands the whole time. I'll repeat that he faced a tough decision concerning adding to the publicity. I don't know what I would do, given his position. His previous letters were about others, and that is a rather different matter (even though I think they made FW look like a fool). Again, I think he is actually acting rather true to form - act privately, and then at a later point, pull it out into the open (especially if not satisfied). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Burden of proof...." Posted by rose on 12:09:33 8/24/2000 I think White went the route of going through the judical system instead of the civil system because he wanted to pin Hunter down to an offical statement and opinion. If the FBI and the BPD have investigated this case , then they may have info on Jane Doe, as to whether she came forward on her own or if she was contacted by certain people to come forward to discredit Fleet Whites family. By taking this complaint through the police dept and the DA's office he can state facts and get them out to the public. I think by putting Hunter on the hot seat, he will legitimize the info that has been gathered by the MW investigaters and not come off sounding like a conspiracy nut like he did when he fired off that letter to Gov Romer in 97 or 98. I think it is a smart move on his part, he gets the evidence released through legal channels that can't be put off as White just rambling on again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "and maybe FW didn't say anything" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:34:33 8/24/2000 6 mos. ago, because he saw where public protestations got the Ramsey's. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think he handled himself properly, and would not be surprised if he didn't hire his own investigators. Or, that he's quietly assisted the FBI while they investigated. I'm sure he knows who started this, and why. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Very odd" Posted by Seashell on 12:10:38 8/24/2000 I'm going to assume for a moment that FW and his father are completely innocent of MW's claims. Who then put MW up to this and why? To say that the RST is behind this makes less than perfect sense, for they remained just as implicated as ever with the added twist of being involved with twisted culty sex perverts. So if neither the Ramseys nor the Whites benefit from MW's allegation, WHO DOES? And now, just before the interviews, AGAIN the MW issue raises its head, presumably with the knowledge of FW. Why is he doing this just now? Granted, it may have taken him 6 months to plan this new public display, gathering info, talking with lawyers and FBI, but this release is 5 days before the Ram liathon! Couldn't it have waited til next week? OK, bottom line. He's saying he's innocent of wrongdoing, the Rams are going to say they're innocent. There is now a new target, (the horny boyfriend of the 14 year old girl. (?) Ĺre the Ramseys (yes) and maybe the Whites trying to steer the investigation in that direction? It seems to me that by NOT going after the Ramseys, FW is letting other *suspects* in the door, thereby further muddying the waters. I don't think I made my point. I'm not even sure what it is. But I'd like to know, if MW's story has no legs, who brought her out of the woodwork and why? And are the same people bringing her out again, which would mean that these people have the ability to manipulate FW and the timing of his letters. Or are the people behind the scenes in league with FW? As potential key witness, is FW forbidden to speak out against the Rams in any way at all? If so, then ignore this post. :-) I really should take up caffeine. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Getting Involved," Posted by kdubois2 on 11:49:59 8/24/2000 This case is exactly why people dont stop for an accident, or call the police to report a crime. They don't want to get involved. Is it FW's fault that he was called by his {unknown murdering} friends the morning he took the call to come running over to their home? He wanted to be of some help to the Ramseys. Just by being there when the body was found, has caused him nothing but problems. If you ask me i think he was set up big time. If FW knew what was in store for him, i bet he would never have answered the phone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "it's like they say, KDubois" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:00:37 8/24/2000 NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "darby..." Posted by shadow on 11:43:00 8/24/2000 I realize some on this forum do not believe the MW and have attacked her personally. However, some of us have not been "protecting the intregrity" of anyone - we have simply stated over and over that we believe everyone should wait until all the facts are in before "trashing" FW or MW. I get tired of being "lumped-in-with" those who question MW's character... it appears to me to just be another way of shutting-up all of us who are not willing to label the Whites (or anyone else) sexual preditors without more than the unsubstaintiated word of one person. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "shadow" Posted by darby on 12:05:14 8/24/2000 I agree that FW shouldn't be assumed to be anything. We know nothing about him. If that's how you feel, then you and I are on the same page. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Taking a deep breath" Posted by canadiana on 12:43:41 8/24/2000 Could FW be forcing AH's hand? shadow...you could be right; perhaps the second FW and PW were able to come forward with this charge, they did. Maybe they thought they should wait for a more favourable climate, but then some would question why they didn't make these charges when AH was in office....ie/what were they afraid of with Hunter? So, perhaps with little or nothing to fear, they made these charges now, as soon as they were able. JMO of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Seashell and Others....." Posted by Voyager on 13:13:50 8/24/2000 Fleet White's timing makes perfect sense if, like me, one is feeling optimistic about the outcome of the Ramsey Interviews in Atlanta this coming week. If the interviews go as well as I expect them to go, and there is an arrest of John and Patsy Ramsey for the murder of JonBenet, then Fleet White will become an important witness in the case. Now is the time to fight back against this MW association ( there has never been a formal accusation from all I can understand)....He is bringing his suit against the Boulder Camera forward at this time, to bring to light, IN PUBLIC, that he and his family have nothing to do with MW. Probably it will also be reviewed in the press, that MW has a history of mental problems, and that she has made false/unsubstantiated charges against men in California in the past, and is as a news source, or reliable witness, not viable. This then forces the DA's office, under the direction of Alex Hunter, to at least review the case publicly. There will have to be some sort of decision or closure to this MW rumor/speculation within the peramatures of this suit....most likely favoring the Whites, and therefore restoring their good name and viability as witnesses in the Ramsey case. I feel that they might also at this point be in possession of some other current information either about MW, or the Ramsey case, which has made them choose this moment to speak publicly in their own defense, and to bring this forward in the media again. I am watching this occurrence with great interest and do not take it lightly....the Whites IMHO are very honest and very bright people. They have been consistent, and they know what they are doing.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "I hear ya Voyager" Posted by Ribaldone on 13:22:55 8/24/2000 and I think we're on the same "optimistic" page. Hey Jonsey, sorry I didn't get the chance to respond to your response to me on another thread (?). I've lost track of where it is because we have so many FW threads. As I recall, your post didn't really require a response, but I wanted to respond anyway just to say thanks for responding to me and wouldn't it be wonderful it there was an arrest? I have my fingers crossed (although based on past experience, they might stay crossed for a long time)! Take care. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "About Fleet" Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:36:23 8/24/2000 I'm not sure if I'm just a sucker or not, but Fleet and his wife have never struck me as conspirators in cover-up. No, they're definitely not saints, I'm sure. Money makes demons of us all to some extent. But, they don't "hit me" the way John and Patsy do. I think whatever lies Fleet and his wife tell or have told are rather innocuous. Can't say I feel the same about the Rams. Just from the gut, you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "giabetsy...." Posted by Voyager on 15:18:27 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:18:27, 8/24/2000 You are probably right about that giabetsy....they probably are not saints! I surely don't even know any saints myself....and yes money is a great corruptor....May be why the lord mercifully withholds it from most of us! LOL! But I also agree, I do not think the Whites are part of any sort of conspiracy (sexual cults or otherwise)....They have always seemed pretty straightforward to me, and always on the path trying to find justice for their little friend JonBenet.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "I'm confused" Posted by maxi on 14:17:12 8/24/2000 Why aren't the White's suing civilly? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Maxi - The White's" Posted by Florida on 14:30:28 8/24/2000 haven't filed any suit. They have asked the BPD to investigate whether the BDC has criminally libeled them and if so to charge the BDC with the crime. The state would have to bring the suit if they find it has merit. "Criminal libel suits are brought by the state, not by an individual, against a publication when it opens up an individual to public ridicule, etc, from one of its articles not based on facts. The clip stated unequivocably that the BPD found no basis for MW's allegations." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "maxi ..." Posted by shadow on 14:45:27 8/24/2000 I have wondered the same thing... Maybe the Whites have been cooperating with the FBI and BPD, know something we don't, and want felony charges brought against more than just the newspaper. Or, maybe the Whites have been totally cooperative with the FBI - the BPD has investigated and turned the evidence over to the DA's Office (Hunter). Depending upon what happens next, maybe a little obstruction of justice is about to hit the fan. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "This party ain't over yet" Posted by Ribaldone on 14:58:40 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:58:40, 8/24/2000 As a matter of fact, it sounds like it's just getting started so who's to say the Whites won't file a civil suit? Regardless what the DA decides to do with the criminal complaint, the Whites can still file a civil suit if they choose. And I hope they do. One thing at a time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "or maybe" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:17:14 8/24/2000 the White's don't need the money like some of their auld lang syne. Maybe this IS about justice, afterall. The White's could OWN that newspaper if they wanted to, but instead appear to be taking this where it belongs, on principle. Whether true or not, it was a crime. The White's and every other citizen have the same rights as afforded the Ramsey's. There was no investigation before they shot off their ink, just hearsay and cop gossip. Or, was that DA gossip? Anyway, you go, Fleet! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Right Edie" Posted by Ribaldone on 15:52:52 8/24/2000 and even if the Whites do file a civil suit, it doesn't mean they are doing it for the money. It's quite possible that they just want to seek justice through all available channels. The White name has been irreparably damaged by these unsubstantiated accusations and they have every right to go to whatever lengths they choose to clear their good name. With stories like this, there will always be some people who will continue to believe the lies even after retractions are printed and apologies made (if that be the case). Hence the reference to "irreparable damage." I can't think of anything worse to be called than a pedophile. Everyone hates and fears peophiles because they are sick and evil people. To be maliciously (and falsely) accused of such a heinous act is reprehensible and warrants severe punishment. I say, let the heads roll, Fleet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "I'm feeling somewhat hopeful" Posted by Cassandra on 15:59:17 8/24/2000 about the Atlanta "interviews". Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "White..." Posted by rose on 16:33:31 8/24/2000 I still think White wants DA Hunter on record with an opinion. He has some reason to go the route he is going. I don't think the Whites took the allegations of MW laying down. I feel sure that they have worked closely with the FBI and BPD. There could be a big behind the scenes story coming out very soon ,that will suprise us all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE