Justice Watch Support JW "California MW" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] --------------------------- Table of Contents ............................ California MW, watchin', 21:10:00, 12/05/2000 ??, arvada, 21:40:29, 12/05/2000, (#1) Okay, RiverRat, 21:55:11, 12/05/2000, (#2) Watchin, Msracoon, 22:01:05, 12/05/2000, (#3) watchin, Pope38, 22:05:00, 12/05/2000, (#4) Where Do We Look?, shadow, 22:07:06, 12/05/2000, (#5) Conspiracy, Msracoon, 22:35:50, 12/05/2000, (#6) Rude behavior, watchin', 23:09:37, 12/05/2000, (#7) one tidbit, mary99, 23:10:25, 12/05/2000, (#8) Here is an 8 page, pinky5, 03:08:55, 12/06/2000, (#9) watchin', darby, 04:14:53, 12/06/2000, (#10) Lee Hill and his ex and his girlfriend., Holly, 07:08:17, 12/06/2000, (#11) watchin, Pope38, 08:33:22, 12/06/2000, (#12) Geez. . . , freebird, 08:56:31, 12/06/2000, (#13) freebird, darby, 11:12:23, 12/06/2000, (#15) hmmmmmm, mame, 11:06:05, 12/06/2000, (#14) Darby, watchin', 13:30:52, 12/06/2000, (#20) Beeper, Edie Pratt, 13:42:18, 12/06/2000, (#21) mame, glad you posted, janphi, 12:45:57, 12/06/2000, (#16) not sure...., mame, 13:15:09, 12/06/2000, (#17) "things" happen, Edie Pratt, 13:25:12, 12/06/2000, (#19) thanks mame, Pope38, 13:24:13, 12/06/2000, (#18) Edie, watchin', 14:44:28, 12/06/2000, (#22) watchin', mame, 16:22:19, 12/06/2000, (#23) mame, watchin', 16:43:03, 12/06/2000, (#24) watchin'/beeper, Edie Pratt, 16:46:50, 12/06/2000, (#25) edie, mame, 17:00:08, 12/06/2000, (#26) thank you, Mame, Edie Pratt, 17:14:39, 12/06/2000, (#27) i'd say, mame, 17:34:35, 12/06/2000, (#28) aaaaah, Edie Pratt, 17:41:27, 12/06/2000, (#29) ............................... -------------------------------- "California MW" Posted by watchin' on 21:10:00 12/05/2000 Sorry folks for the new thread but I did not want this to get lost in the Kim Ballard thread. If anyone thinks the the abused woman from California has nothing important or RELEVANT to the Ramsey case, it's time to get serious here. The Ramseys do not want tohear what she has to say.Why is that? The DA's office and the BPD do NOT want to acknowledge her as credible. Why is that? If you read on the thread of Eller and Koby, you might understand how this may be working. If someone does not want information to be heard they are discredited! Now for the worst part. If there are any serious sleuths here who want to know just how important her information is, check out what happened to her attorney Lee Hill, former Federal DA in San Diego, who represented her when she wasgiving this information to the BPD. Check out what happened to his girlfriend and his former wife..ALL within a six week period AFTER Boulder investigators left California. After you see what happened here, come back and tell us all that there is NO cover up going on and every official wants this case cleared just as much as we do. It won't happen. watchin (aka Beeper) [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 1. "??" Posted by arvada on 21:40:29 12/05/2000 Why not tell us here what happened? I have a slow connect tonight. It might take me hours. (o: [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 2. "Okay" Posted by RiverRat on 21:55:11 12/05/2000 I do admit to being more than a little curious as to why MW was not given the full Ramsey treatment of wanted posters, psychic sketches, burglaries for the sake of "evidence", etc. You seem to have info that some here do not and that is a forum favorite around here. Lay it out as much as you safely can and the people will come. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 3. "Watchin" Posted by Msracoon on 22:01:05 12/05/2000 Where, do tell, would we check it out? That is, where would we check out what happened to Lee Hill and his family? Please? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 4. "watchin" Posted by Pope38 on 22:05:58 12/05/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:05:58, 12/05/2000 This is not a clue game if you have information share it or direct me to it or PUT A SOCK IN IT! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 5. "Where Do We Look?" Posted by shadow on 22:07:06 12/05/2000 The X-Files? Maybe we should check the Tabs? Check with Hunter and his merry men? I assume you will tell us in time? When you do, will you please explain how something so well-known as this can go on for almost a year with virtually nothing in the newspapers or even the Tabs... I mean this is one huge conspiracy! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 6. "Conspiracy" Posted by Msracoon on 22:35:50 12/05/2000 Definition: A combination of confederacy between TWO OR MORE PERSONS formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act... A conspiracy may be a continuing one; actors may drop out, and others drop in; the details of operation may change from time to time; the members need not now each other or the part played by others; a member need not know all the details of the plan or the operations; he must, however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. Source: Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Conspiracy: sunomosia denotes lit. "a swearing together" (sun, "with", omnumi, "to swear"), a "being leagued by oath, and so a conspiracy." Acts 23:13. Source: Vine's Dictionary. Conspire: 1. To join in a SECRET agreement to do an unlwaful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end 2. To act in harmony toward a common end. Conspiracy: The act of conspiring together. Source: Webster's Dictionary. Call it what you will, there are things hidden in darkness. Of course it appears that TWO OR MORE have conspired and of course it is and has been done in SECRET. How else could it be a conspiracy? It's in the dark, in secret, obviously. And to me and many others: obviously there have been old and new "actors" to the play. However, "all things hidden in darkness will be revealed by God's light". Source: The Word of God. MsRac. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 7. "Rude behavior" Posted by watchin' on 23:09:37 12/05/2000 I am not a rude person and I do not respond to rude persons. I am giving a lot here, not just on this thread but others and other forums. What I am seeing is a lack of interest to investigate and a desire to come here and discuss someone elses theory or comments. This is far too serious to toss out to be discussed when NO ONE wants to check it out themselves. I gave you a name, I gave you a place. I do not wish to discuss this further because whatever anyone says, this woman is forever discredited and that is a crime in and of itself! If anyone is really interested in truth, you know how to find this info. I just did not want her and the efforts of her attorney to fade to black without someone looking for themselves insteadof believing gossip on the internet. I have read posts here long enough to know there are some of you who are sincere and intelligent and really interested in investigating WHY every bit of evidence presented is met with the 'credibility factor' POPE... this is most definately NOT a clue game for me. If you read my posts you will see the focus of my own investigation and it is not limited to the cellar or graphic details of what might or might not be on the body of a 6 year old child who was never allowed to be just a child. I have no concern what you think of me or my posts. I do know for a fact that there are lurkers who DO KNOW what my posts mean. If they are not to your liking then I suggest you just-> S C R O L L watchin' (aka Beeper) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 8. "one tidbit" Posted by mary99 on 23:10:25 12/05/2000 of info...In a Westword Weekly article, Lee Hill was interviewed at length and the woman from CA, Nancy K. was mentioned briefly near the end. Of course, the impetus for the article may have been Hill's representation of the woman in her conferences with the BPD. Shortly thereafter, a month or so later, another brief mention of Hill was made in an CO news article entitled approximately, "Packing Heat", in which the number of lawfully owned and carried handguns in Boulder County was discussed. Hill apparently carried a 357. on his person as I recall. I remember this because I was wondering if the purpose of him sharing that info in person with a journalist was to 'put on notice' anyone who may have been threatening him or his client. Sorry I can't give more details. Mrs. Brady's page had a link at the time. Verrry interesting opening to a thread, watchin'! *********************************** [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 9. "Here is an 8 page" Posted by pinky5 on 03:08:55 12/06/2000 Westword article link which mentions Lee toting a gun: http://www.westword.com/issues/2000-03-30/ feature.html/page1.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 10. "watchin'" Posted by darby on 04:14:53 12/06/2000 Just prior to Nancy's emergence, I came to an epiphany: Either an intruder did this, or these parents are monsters. By fully realizing the brutality of the garroting and sexual assault done to that child, I could no longer go with the belief that this was a one-time rage accident by otherwise good parents. After that, I figured that with parents like that (if they in fact did it), the sky's the limit on what sorts of unspeakable things could have been done to JBR throughout her short life. Then Nancy came along. And though I truly still don't know what to make of her information, I am of the opinion that there was not enough investigation into it. watchin', I don't know if you're going with a hunch or if you actually have found some things out. I wish you'd share whatever it is with us, but be sure to tell us whether this is just your opinion or if you have uncovered some real facts. Opinions are fine, so long as you label them as such. watchin', I'm listenin', and with an open mind. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 11. "Lee Hill and his ex and his girlfriend." Posted by Holly on 07:08:17 12/06/2000 I don't know much. What I have been told is that Hill had serious financial problems in CA that may have been a factor in his divorce. What else can you tell us, Beeper? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 12. "watchin" Posted by Pope38 on 08:33:22 12/06/2000 Your crediblity is at stake if you are unwilling or UNABLE to be more forthcoming with regard to your information. You should not be disappointed if its value is discounted. You were asked in the first three posts to be more fortcoming with information and you only responded when I choose not to play your game. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 13. "Geez. . . " Posted by freebird on 08:58:26 12/06/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:58:26, 12/06/2000 Am I the only one not getting this whole MW thing? I would love to hear the whole true story and not just dismiss her yet in the year or so since she first 'came out' I have yet to actually hear or know what the frig is going on cause those who say they know refuse to tell the rest of us. I assumed that JFJB meant that all of us here were walking the same road. I would expect that those who know how and do find information concerning this would gladly share that with the rest of us so we could all be on the same page. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 15. "freebird" Posted by darby on 11:12:23 12/06/2000 My guess: People can't repeat it without putting themselves at risk of libel. MW's information is pretty damning to her alleged abusers, and we don't know if it's true or not. Repeating false information, even if someone else actually said it first, is considered a very bad thing in the eyes of the law. MW's therapist, Mary Bienkowski, holds the key to finding out whether or not MW told the BPD the truth about her alleged abusers. It's either there in MW's pre-murder documentation or it isn't. Both MW and Bienkowski invited the BPD to view that documentation. As far as I know, the BPD never even looked at it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 14. "hmmmmmm" Posted by mame on 11:06:05 12/06/2000 haven't been to JW in awhile...boy, am i out of the loop! i'll keep checking in on this thread... we're having our on air auction at the station so life is hectic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 20. "Darby" Posted by watchin' on 13:30:52 12/06/2000 You are correct in that there has not been enough investigation into her allegations. I want to make it clear that I am not in any way saying that Nancy's group of perps have anything to do with the murder of JonBenet. There are many problems with this information. If we look at her painful, sadistic abuse and try to draw a comparison, it seems not only unlikely there is a connection but it seems impossible. When we polorize events and see only in black and white, rather than shades of gray then we tend to choose one or the other rather than looking at what the gray area means. If her claims against one particular person in Boulder are not true, and I believe that are NOT true, then what is the importance of her information? I think the main problem lies in the fact that abuse, especially sexual abuse is completly misunderstood. The subject is given little attention in police academys and even in social services, their ultimate goal it to keep the family together once they think the home is safe. That is insane! So the abuser gets a few counseling sessions, vows to be a good parent and the child is returned. There are followups to determine the safety of the child but WHO can see the injuries inside the mind of an abused child. They are forever wondering when 'it' will happen again. In most if not all cases of abuse,it is not uncommon to see what appears to be a fabrcation of events. Does this mean the person deliberately lied? Not necessarily. The victim sees everyone and everything as a source of pain and in that fear, in some cases is not cabable of makeing reasonable judgements about people and events. Nancy was a victim of the most brutal kind. Sadistic ritual abuse. There are other forms of sexual abuse not related to what Nancy went through. When we think of the word "abused" we have images of bruises,cuts, and other visual signs. The most predominant form of sexual abuse (check DPT. of Justice stats)is molestation by a parent, yet it is often the situation that does not get reported until late in life because of repressed memories. Former Miss Amer Marylin VanDeber is a good example.She was the daughter of a prominant man in Colorado and was abused until the age of 18. To better understand sexual abuse, I would recommend reading her story. Between the in-home silent sexual contact between parent and child and the type of abuse Nancy experienced are many, many other forms of sexual abuse. A common form is child exploitation for sexual gratification. It is labeled child pornography. Sometimes what Nancy experienced is depicted in these photos but many times there is ONLY the suggestion of pain and torture through 'staging'. With me so far? This kind of abuse is no less harmful or degrading. Evil sells. The suggestion of evil sells. Either way, any child who is exploited and /or molested in any way is the most horrific of crimes and must stop! What Nancy brought to the investigation was her own experience. She sees the garrote and sexual assault as ritual sexual abuse with numerous perps. That is nancy's reality and it should not be dismissed an a lie or irrelevant. It should have made everyone involved sit up and take notice. They didn't. Most everyone knows there is big money in pornography. Even staged scenes of bondage with sex seem to attract more attention. Supply and demand is the bottom line in making money through child exploitation and pornography. There are some not interested in making money. They are satisfied with the images behind closed doors and the feeling of power at supplying the commody. No one wants to open this door and explore the relevance in this case. Someone should. I hope everyone will take the time to better understand child sexual abuse. There are many oridinary ooking girls in your own neighborhoods who are victims. This must stop! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 21. "Beeper" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:42:18 12/06/2000 unless the child was molested from day one, how does a parent suddenly use their child for sexual pleasure or someone elses pleasure, and look at that child in the eye the next day? I mean, from my own experience, my abuser fell from grace the second he laid a hand on me, and I was NOT shy about displaying my disgust and repulsion. I went in one days time, from an innocent adoring little sister, to an angry, sometimes violent adversary. If these things were happening to JB, before the night in question, wouldn't she have displayed some sort of aversion to whomever did those things to her? Even something as simple as saying, "don't sit next to me"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 16. "mame, glad you posted" Posted by janphi on 12:45:57 12/06/2000 I thought "mame" could answer some of the questions we have about "beeper's" post and the "things that happened" to Lee Hill and family in the six weeks after the CA visit. "mame" was in touch with LH during that time; so tell us what happened, "mame"! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 17. "not sure...." Posted by mame on 13:15:09 12/06/2000 "things" happened to many of us who were close to nancy...i'm not quite sure what "things" are being referred to here. due to my busy life i haven't talked to lee since i left boulder. i do know he was in a very bad car accident this summer. for those who covered and supported finding "truth" in the MW story...libel is and was the least of their worries. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 19. ""things" happen" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:25:12 12/06/2000 Mame, do you think the same person/persons responsible for "things", were the same ones responsible for the "things" done to LArndt and ST's front doors and lawn? That has been a mystery unsolved and unexplained from the very onset, it really bothers me. Who would be so cruel as to slaughter a cat and drop it off in a cop's yard? The case wasn't even a month old when these "things" happened, WHO wanted them silenced/intimidated? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 18. "thanks mame" Posted by Pope38 on 14:43:48 12/06/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:43:48, 12/06/2000 I am only able to come up with the name of the woman that Lee Hill was engaged to Julia Yoo. His first wife could have had the last name Faurolo. edited to correct my mistake in confusing the two women. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 22. "Edie" Posted by watchin' on 14:44:28 12/06/2000 The mind of a child expecially regarding molestation and other forms of abuse is very complicated. I recall seeing a woman being handcuffed and taken from her home on charges of physical abuse (not sexual). Her little 5 year old girl, though badly bruised, burned, malnourished and cripled from a previous beating, was screaming for her 'mommy'. She did not want to be separated from the very person who hurt her the most. Children need their parents. Their world revolves around them. In cases of abuse including sexual abuse sometimes the child's mind cannot understand or accept what is happening to them although they know it is 'bad'. They have a 'split' or break in personality. One which allows them to cope with the abuse yet not be a part of it. Some are not consciously aware of the sexual abuse but will act out in behaviors that are telling, if anyone is paying attention to the signs. Usually and this is very cruel and scary, the victim is told that if they tell the 'little secret' something bad will happen to mommy or someone else close, even their pet. It is a sick and complicated bond which is no fault of the child. It is easier to get a child to talk if the perp is a stranger. In a case of say, father molesting daughter without knowledge of the mother (usually the case) the child is silent until the molestion progresses into some other form other than 'secret' time with daddy. The child then becomes more agressive in behavior and not as cooperative. When this happens the child becomes a threat to to the family. Even sicker to note: some mothers feel great contempt for the child rather than helping them deal with what has happened. That only adds to the mental pain and emotional damage to the child. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 23. "watchin'" Posted by mame on 16:22:19 12/06/2000 what makes you believe the claims against certain people are NOT true? please tell us how you came to that conclusion? since you admit her claims were not looked into properly, how can you be so sure that this part of her allegations are not true. as far as i know this part of her information was not looked into with anymore vigor than the rest... thanks for posting. 24. "mame" Posted by watchin' on 16:43:03 12/06/2000 Sorry that my post was not clear. I do believe her claim of abuse. Personally I don't believe that a certain man named here previously and in the cellar was a part of that abuse. I base that belief on the type of abuse she experienced. That is a specific sadistic form of sexual abuse. There were no signs of burns, cut marks body carvings, etc. that go with that type of abuse noted on JonBenet's body. However,I believe that the system wanted her hushed because they ALL calim there is NO 'ring' of pedophiles or child pornographers in Boulder and they wish to maintain that fairy tale. That is why she was not heard andthe matter not pursued. There is porn in Boulder. There is or at least was at the time an organization of parental child mollesters in Boulder at that time. Is Beckner, Thomas, the DA ALL lying or are they just ignorant of what is going on in their town? I will post about this group as I get time. Thanks for the chance to make this clearer. watchin' (aka Beeper) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 25. "watchin'/beeper" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:46:50 12/06/2000 thanks for your thoughtful reply:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 26. "edie" Posted by mame on 17:00:08 12/06/2000 i sure don't know if the "things" that happened to arndt and thomas were done by the same people. i do know one thing, there were several who found their way into this case (many were well known on the internet) and claimed to be there for sound reasons. they have been found to have other motives for being involved. if we look back at activities over the years, it's quite clear there was an effort to control even the smallest amount of information. i think the old poster "spade" is a prime example of this. while i was never involved, or knew much of him...he was well known not only here but in many areas of this case. to find out his connection to nancy was shocking for all. she had no idea of his full role on the internet or the case. i think watchin' is right about the grey areas. it's so much easier to try and make things black and white...but, sadly it's not that easy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 27. "thank you, Mame" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:14:39 12/06/2000 your post reminded me of a movie I watched the other night. "Twin Peaks; Fire Walk With Me", I think it was called. I know it's a fantasy about good and evil and murder, from the genius of David Lynch. However, it was chock full of "gray" areas, meaning a young girl was being molested by her father, who morphed into an evil fellow named "Bob", or maybe it was Bob who became her father. Anyway, I thought it was somehow relevant to this case, and the very real fact that things are not always as they seem. Understament of the year, huh? Anyway, this case seems to have lifted every rock out there long enough for "interested parties" to come crawling out. I would love to know why that is, and really, what's it to Spade and his ilk, anyhow? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 28. "i'd say" Posted by mame on 17:34:35 12/06/2000 "henchmen" might be the word... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ------------------------------ 29. "aaaaah" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:41:27 12/06/2000 on WHO's behalf? JR's? Or someone else we all know and, and, and...lol, can't say it. The Ramsey's haven't pointed at the "usual suspects" since they suggested their housekeeper needed money and Fleet knows how to tie a knot. They went after people they didn't know, and probably didn't worry the police would arrest those strangers. If someone in their circle knows more, and the R's nolonger speak with the circle, who's afraid of whom? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]