Fantastic new article from Alan Predergast of Westwood One

[UKGuy]

What FW and Priscilla did make clear was the interchange between them and the R's immediately following JB'S funeral was to encourage them to return to Boulder to talk to police since both JR and PR were telling them they were not going back, even though JR said he knew they should. Also Priscilla made it clear that PR was very heavily medicated at that time, but was standing firm on not returning to Boulder. This fits with JR's later comments either thru an interview or one of his books (sorry, brain fade) that he and FW did not have a big showdown, as it was printed somewhere. Rather it seems it was a serious discussion between best friends with them not coming to full agreement.

Thought it interesting that FW takes no responsibility for the CNN interview and instead suggests Westmoreland might have had a hand in that. It took someone with a good deal of networking capability to get the necessary strings pulled, that's for sure and it's clear PR wouldn't have had the mental capacity at that time due to the medicating that was involved.

midwest mama,
I come away from all this thinking JR was cleaning up a mess made by PR. So much so PR was deliberately medicated to prevent any discussion on the matter.

At all the critical points of this case JR or his acolytes seemed to have intervened to remove, destroy or prevent any exchange of forensic evidence. Think phone call records, which again I remind people are never really destroyed. Your favorite security agency keeps a copy in perpetuity, same with your internet visits, all ISP's, all time forever.

The aftermath of JonBenet's murder was a professional job, everything about the case tells you this, if you work in the media the telltale signs are like signposts!

.

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,
I come away from all this thinking JR was cleaning up a mess made by PR. So much so PR was deliberately medicated to prevent any discussion on the matter.

At all the critical points of this case JR or his acolytes seemed to have intervened to remove, destroy or prevent any exchange of forensic evidence. Think phone call records, which again I remind people are never really destroyed. Your favorite security agency keeps a copy in perpetuity, same with your internet visits, all ISP's, all time forever.

The aftermath of JonBenet's murder was a professional job, everything about the case tells you this, if you work in the media the telltale signs are like signposts!

.

ITA, UKGuy. And thanks to SD's great book, I'm sure there are many others in the "pro-job post haste fiasco" camp.

The tragedy of all this as Christmas nears, is that justice, for an innocent little girl who simply looked forward to a magical Christmas celebration, still remains unattainable. I hope FW will continue to grant special interviews with credible sources and give us some glimpses of what he and PW think could have happened.

AP made it clear in his article that FW is still not content that he has no access to the Krebs files. Though his family was "sullied" in her story, what does he think he can do from this point forward to rectify that by having the information? At this late date her story can't be changed. It seems to me that FW might better serve the situation by letting it all just become part of the rest of the history of this case....cold, cold, cold.

Just can't figure out why he wanted that second exoneration and is so desperate to get those Krebs files, unless it's because he feared something Paula Woodward would have said against him, in her now canceled book, that might have been taken seriously by someone who might be able to make this case move off the cold case shelf. FW knows that powerful people have the ability to make things happen, so maybe it isn't so much about clearing up things in the past with regard to his family, as it is keeping things from happening to his family in the future?

 

[mjak]

I have a different take on Mr. White. I believe he thinks he knows what happened to Jonbenet and believes he has valuable information to shed light on that. He is determined to make sure what he knows is not compromised by releasing in the wrong venue. He wants to see a court hear the case so he can tell what he knows under oath and in an indisputable setting. I think his focus on having himself exonerated is more about that being a topic he feels comfortable talking about and he uses it as a way to keep poking at the real issue which is his desire for justice for Jonbenet. I think he and his wife are totured by what they believe in their hearts about Jonbenets death.

 

[andreww]

ITA, UKGuy. And thanks to SD's great book, I'm sure there are many others in the "pro-job post haste fiasco" camp.

The tragedy of all this as Christmas nears, is that justice, for an innocent little girl who simply looked forward to a magical Christmas celebration, still remains unattainable. I hope FW will continue to grant special interviews with credible sources and give us some glimpses of what he and PW think could have happened.

AP made it clear in his article that FW is still not content that he has no access to the Krebs files. Though his family was "sullied" in her story, what does he think he can do from this point forward to rectify that by having the information? At this late date her story can't be changed. It seems to me that FW might better serve the situation by letting it all just become part of the rest of the history of this case....cold, cold, cold.

Just can't figure out why he wanted that second exoneration and is so desperate to get those Krebs files, unless it's because he feared something Paula Woodward would have said against him, in her now canceled book, that might have been taken seriously by someone who might be able to make this case move off the cold case shelf. FW knows that powerful people have the ability to make things happen, so maybe it isn't so much about clearing up things in the past with regard to his family, as it is keeping things from happening to his family in the future?

BBM. From the interview I get the feeling that Fleet personally gives a crap about whats in those Krebs files. What he wants to come out is the reason why the DA gave the impression that Krebs was truthful (even though he knew she wasn't), thus ensuring the story was published. I don't think Fleet has any info as to what happened that night, but I believe he is certain that it involved the Ramseys, and that Alex Hunter did everything he could to stifle the case. I think at this point in his life he's pretty aware that John is probably the only person on the planet that knows exactly what happened (maybe Burke too), and that neither of those guys will ever talk. So justice for JBR isn't likely to ever happen. However, I think he's very confident that there is enough evidence out there to at least go after all those people that helped with the coverup.

 

[CorallaroC]

I listened to the interview. And came away with the feeling that FW and his wife PW are still sincere in wanting to do the right thing to help the JBR case if they possibly can at this late date. No one should expect the W's to do anything more than try to clear their names and expose/counter the many lies told about their family IMO. Yet for years the W's have used their own money to fight a legal battle that was never their battle in the first place. IMO they have done this for justice for JBR. altruistic? yes IMO they are being altruistic.

the "court of public opinion" on this case is so wildly divided and misinformed, I can't even think of a better answer for these people (the W's). If they asked for donations to help in the battle just to get the remaining GJ indictment pages which we have not seen (what is it another 14 pages we still have not seen?) - then would the critics accuse the W's of trying to make money from this? what a total travesty!

Now I will say this, I do think that PW is a better speaker than her husband, he simply pauses too much in his speaking and comes across as being distracted by too many answers he wants to give JMO.

Also, I would sure like to know what the community "atmosphere" is like in Boulder this Christmas 2014. Any WS'ers near Boulder, I would love to know what your thoughts and feelings are.

 

[andreww]

Fleet can do what he wants to help shed some light on this case but the truth is he is fighting a battle he can't win. There is corruption from the governors office right down to the district at attourny's office, and protecting those people's legacies is far more important than finding justice for some six year old girl. I think at this point Fleet is more intent on uncovering the corruption, hoping that eventually that will lead to some justice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadpole12]

Peter Boyles Show
December 18, 2014
Fleet and Priscilla White along with Alan Prendergast of Westword

http://peterboyles.podbean.com/e/peter-boyles-show-dec-18-2014-hr-4/

@3:31

AP: Well, I mean part of the context of this,
this is five, six days after their
daughter was found dead.

They have not yet spoken to the police,
given any formal interviews.

That had been fended off, when they were in,
before they left for Atlanta, the funeral,
saying they just weren't up to it.

So they haven't sat down with the police
but they're talking directly to American about,
you know, the fact that they feel,
they need to defend themselves.

And this is right after, of course,
the Whites having talked to John
Ramsey about the need to come back
to Boulder and talk to the police.

The way this is spun later is that
it was Fleet's idea to go on CNN.

I guess Fleet can address whether
that's true or not.

FW: Ah, no.
We had no idea of, about the CNN
appearance until we,
after, this would be on,
would have been on,
January the first of 1997.

That's when we had our conversation with,
with John at the Paugh's home.

And then the and after which
John indicated that, yes, you're
right, Priscilla and Fleet, we do need to
go back to Boulder.

And, ah, so we were invited
to come over to the Paugh's house the next
the next day to, you know, to have
some, you know, food
that had been brought over,
and so forth after the funeral.

And so we did,
arrive there in the morning
and we were told, I can't remember
who, who told us that John and Patsy
were waiting for a car
that was going to be coming to pick them up
to take them into, into Atlanta to, to make an
appearance on CNN.

And, of course,
we had no idea, and,
I think at that point
Priscilla and I had just said,
well that's...

Ya, we weren't filled in
or clued in on how that had happened.

Uhm, I think it's been speculated,
I guess it's the best way of putting it,
that perhaps, Ron Westmoreland had
arranged, had actually made the
arrangemets ... CNN.

But I don't know that to be true.

So, at that point, Priscilla went in,
and I think helped Patsy out,
getting ready to go to the, into town.

And I just kind of sat with John.
He had, he had very little to say
about it. And I didn't ask.

And so the car came and
they got in and drove into Atlanta to do
the show.

And of course we, you know,
the rest is history on, on the CNN interview.

But to answer your question Peter, no.

We had no knowledge of the CNN interview.

 

[Tadpole12]

fmi,

re: Stephen Miles v. John Ramsey (1998)
John Ramsey under oath
JonBenet's father talks about Fleet White, the media in deposition for civil lawsuit
February 6, 2000

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/020600ramsey.html

As another example, Ramsey cites White's insistence the Ramseys do the Jan. 1 CNN interview days after their daughter's death. The CNN interview, aired together with footage of JonBenét's beauty pageant contests, fueled national interest on the case. Many thought the interview was the idea of the Ramsey's public relations team. "That was done entirely because of Fleet White's angry and/or, emotional insistence that we do it," Ramsey says. "He was strongly promoting it.

 

[andreww]

fmi,

re: Stephen Miles v. John Ramsey (1998)
John Ramsey under oath
JonBenet's father talks about Fleet White, the media in deposition for civil lawsuit
February 6, 2000

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/020600ramsey.html

As another example, Ramsey cites White's insistence the Ramseys do the Jan. 1 CNN interview days after their daughter's death. The CNN interview, aired together with footage of JonBenét's beauty pageant contests, fueled national interest on the case. Many thought the interview was the idea of the Ramsey's public relations team. "That was done entirely because of Fleet White's angry and/or, emotional insistence that we do it," Ramsey says. "He was strongly promoting it.

From that article,

Although published reports have cited sources who allegedly witnessed the dispute in Atlanta, Ramsey denies in the Miles lawsuit deposition that the argument took place.

"There was no altercation," Ramsey says in response to a question.

When Miles' attorney, Lee Hill, asks again if there was a "dispute" or "argument" where police were rumored to have been called, Ramsey answers: "I am not aware of any of that."

I've seen John and Patsy interviewed where they've described in detail how Fleet went nuts in Atlanta, to the point where they were asking if they had a gun to protect themselves. So under oath John changes his story?

From Patsy's statement:

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Didn't say, didn't
13 say. So that was like the second little thing.
14 So then, let's see. We were at --
15 we were at my parents, and we had different
16 friends who had come in from Colorado and my
17 friends in Atlanta were putting them up in homes
18 and what not, and my understanding is that Fleet
19 and Priscilla had been invited by my brother and
20 sister-in-law Jeff Ramsey to stay in their home.
21 So I was in bed, and somebody,
22 either my sister, or another friend who was
23 staying there or something, said that Jeff had
24 just called to my parents' home, and said that
25 Fleet was totally off the deep end, had like
0077
1 gotten my brother-in-law and my brother-in-law
2 is -- you think my husband is docile, my
3 brother-in-law is, you know, very docile. Non-
4 confrontational. So Fleet got hold of Jeff's
5 collar, you know, like this, in his face, you
6 know, being very confrontational.
7 TOM HANEY: Is built --
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Sorry?
9 TOM HANEY: Is Fleet a pretty good
10 size?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, he's a large
12 man. And anyway, Jeff had called and said to my
13 dad, they are on their way to your house. Do
14 you have a gun? And I mean for Jeff Ramsey to
15 say something like this in pretty wild. So I
16 just remember, you know, somebody scooping me up
17 and Burke up and my mom and all this and we went
18 downstairs to our basement where my mother had
19 set up some temporary beds and then like, you
20 know, like thrown on the beds, like "don't
21 anybody say anything" and you know, John and my
22 dad were going to try to calm them down or
23 something. You know. Just --
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. What do you mean
25 again, what did--
0078
1 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know, Jeff
2 was saying that Fleet is just crazy. He is
3 crazy, he is coming over there, I don't know
4 what's happened. You know, he's off his rocker.
5 TOM HANEY: Did he give you a clue
6 though? I mean here your good friends--
7 PATSY RAMSEY: See, I don't know,
8 because I wasn't -- wasn't having this --
9 TOM HANEY: The conversation?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: I am like hearing
11 this thirdhand.
12 TOM HANEY: Okay.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: All I know is there
14 was like some big hubbub here about Fleet and
15 Priscilla were going nutso and they were coming
16 over and somebody just crazy, he is crazy, he is
17 coming over there, I don't know what's happened.
18 You know, he's off his rocker.
19 TOM HANEY: Did he give you a clue
20 though? I mean here your good friend's--
21 PATSY RAMSEY: See, I don't know
22 because I wasn't, I wasn't having this
23 conversation.
24 TOM HANEY: The conversation?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: I am like hearing
0079
1 this thirdhand.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: All I know is this
4 was like some big hubbub here about Fleet and
5 Priscilla are going nutso and they are coming
6 over and everybody is afraid of them and
7 da-de-da-de-da.
8 TOM HANEY: So do they come over?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: They came over. I
10 do not see them, but John I think called down or
11 something, Jeff Ramsey said he did not want them
12 staying with them. I think John Ramsey and my
13 dad somehow got them to stay in a hotel or
14 something. There in Montreux (phonetic).
15 Then my dad said, you know, I don't
16 know what day this was, all these days were
17 running together. But then my father said that
18 Priscilla called, I guess they were on their way
19 back to Colorado, she called, my dad had just
20 reamed him out, said that she didn't like what
21 she saw in Atlanta one bit. She thought that
22 everything -- that all our friends were, you
23 know, hoity-toity, rich snobs and blah, blah,
24 blah. I mean, just like crazy things.

 

[Tadpole12]

ty Andrew,
sometimes, not so easy to keep track as the Ramseys' truth fluctuates.

 

[andreww]

ty Andrew,
sometimes, not so easy to keep track as the Ramseys' truth fluctuates.

That's something about this case that most people just don't see. If you read enough interviews and books there are just so many places where the Ramsey's lie or change their story. The media never picked up on it and LE seemed to be oblivious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CherCher]

That's something about this case that most people just don't see. If you read enough interviews and books there are just so many places where the Ramsey's lie or change their story. The media never picked up on it and LE seemed to be oblivious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know that LE was oblivious. I don't think they were. I think that LE's hands were tied, at least the first responders at the crime scene. You know how they were ordered to treat the Ramseys.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know that LE was oblivious. I don't think they were. I think that LE's hands were tied, at least the first responders at the crime scene. You know how they were ordered to treat the Ramseys.

CherCher,
ITA. The instructions from above were: wear kid gloves, in other words bias was evident from the 911 call onwards. To describe it as collusion might require evidence of prior phone calls etc, but why not, if JR can access the then Governor of Colorado and get an audience then why not?

IMO officials were corrupted in the JonBenet case from lowly legal representatives to District Attorneys which allowed the case to be internally disrupted, i.e. no evidence can be found, quotes etc.

Money talks and JR found its limits when he wanted to become a candidate for the Republican party, even they recognized how he had fallen under the spell of the dollar, and its ability to influence people, when they rejected his candidacy, despite his dollar promotion.

Even the responding officers to the Ramsey homicide must have wondered why are we sitting here waiting for backup, whats going on?

.