A poster on WS claims to have gotten some emial from Lin Wood... Here's my take on them: A Closer Look The first email: LLWood47@aol.com Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:13:33 EST (no subject) troys_email@yahoo.com Why is this dated February 16, 2000? No subject?? "I represent Burke Ramsey and his parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. Please contact me at my office" ... No threat here.... NUMBER 2: LLWood47@aol.com Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:17:29 EST Burke Ramsey troys_email@yahoo.com This looks ok, but the message is questionable. "Please send me your address. I am the attorney for Burke Ramsey. I have correspondence for you that I am sure you want to receive. Thank you. ".... No threat here.... NUMBER 3: LWood47@aol.com Re: Burke Ramsey Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:53:54 EST troys_email@yahoo.com Ok... One day later...On Superbowl Sunday, no less: Now the threat appeaers? "I want your address so that I can have you served with summons and complaint for your libelous website falsely accusing Burke Ramsey of the murder of his sister. I would assume you are perfectly willing to defend your accusations in a court of law." What no Cease and Desist request? Heck, even knew enough to use that terminology to get someone off my back! Also notice the email address now only has one L ******************************** LLWood47@aol.com Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:17:29 EST Burke Ramsey thisishowsimple@hotmail.com I represent Burke Ramsey. If all of you at Forums For Justice don't stop posting right this minute you will be sued by the Ramsey's. Here's the header that came with it: X-Apparently-To: thisishowsimple@hotmail.com via web11606; 03 Feb 2002 07:53:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (205.188.157.35) by mta499.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Feb 2002 07:53:57 -0800 (PST)Received: from LLWood47@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.c1.1b357a78 (3972) for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:53:54 -0500 (EST) From: LLWood47@aol.com | Block Address | Add to Address Book Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:53:54 EST Subject: Re: Burke Ramsey To: thisishowsimple@hotmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c1.1b357a78.298eb712_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10551 Content-Length: 532 ************************************************** OK that's a joke.... but it's easily done and if you look at the From line in the header.... there is an address blocked... |Block Address| ************************************************** I'll wait for a response from Lin before I'm convinced....
First thing I did was check the Gorgia State Bar... So you know that is Lin's email addres.... Mr. L. Lin Wood Jr. L. Lin Wood, PC 100 Peachtree St., N.W., Suite 2140 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 404-522-1713 Fax: 404-522-1716 E-Mail: llwood47@aol.com Status: Active Member in Good Standing ******************************************
Look before you Leap Lin's first response was: "I have not sought to intimidate Mr. Cowan or any website owner into taking down a website" That seems to indicate he was not responsible for the email to tc... which was my initial reaction. If you read Lin's email, he is very articulate... another indication he didn't write the email tc posted. I have frequently discussed the BDI theory with many posters and can see their points. I would like to believe he had nothing to do with this other than having John and Patsy for parents!! I have to agree with Lin about this website. We have to use some judgement here. If this child is innocent, hasn't he been hurt enough? Consider this.... You have a nasty neighbor. He decides to get at you through your child. He puts up a website with his THEORY that your child was molesting the neighborhood kids..... It's his THEORY, so he's entitled to it. Now all your neighbors and the kids school are looking at this website...... It's legal... but is it right?? We have no evidence that Burke was involved. Steve Thomas said: Believe me when I tell you the boy didn't do this, and the story goes so long, we could talk for hours -- he didnt have the wherewithall, as a 9 year old kid, to pull of this whole scenario, including the staging, the patently bogus ransom note, the cover up, etc. All I can say is, Burke did not do it, and besides, a 9 year old in Colorado has no criminal culpability, i.e. there would be no reason for a cover up, he couldnt be charged. It goes beyond that, but allow this short answer to suffice for now.
Troy speaks Troy has posted this at the murky bog: (I have XXXXXXX'd out the murky bogmistress's name only because I don't want it dirtying up our forum, thank you very much. 5 . "Lin Wood's mess" Posted by troy on Feb-05-02 at 10:52 PM (EST) XXXXX, I now believe that Lin Wood was trying to scare me off without having any real intentions of suing me. Contrary to your efforts, XXXXXX, the BDI theory is gaining supporters every day. My BDI theory will remain on the net as long as I believe the site will make a difference and help bring justice for JonBenet. Isn’t that why you are here, XXXXXXX? Isn’t that why we are all here? Each in our own way, traveling different paths, trying to make a contribution to justice. And, XXXXXXX, if at any time you have information that demonstrates that Burke did not and could not have killed his sister, tell me, and I will remove my site immediately. Until such a time, you must understand that I sincerely believe that Burke killed JonBenet. In the beginning I was a supporter of the Ramseys and my site worked for them in gaining insight and understanding about their unfortunate circumstances. That is why I believe the Ramseys put my URL address in their book DOI. It was a win, win situation for them. If you believed the Ramseys were innocent and disagreed with the ideas in the site, your support for the Ramseys remained strong, possible increasing your feelings of outrage for those that attack the victims. If you agreed with the site you went away with feeling of sadness for this poor unfortuniate couple that lost a daughter and were now trying to protect their son. My sympathy was with the Ramseys until Nancy Krebs came along and I realized there was more to the story than parents protecting their son. Now I see this thread and I have no knowledge of anything that you have stated. And frankly it is quite confusing. I have never said I would consider taking my site down at the request of Lin Wood. I said that if the Ramseys asked me to take it down saying it caused them distress, I would consider it. But, that was before Lin Wood got involved. If I received a letter from the Ramseys now, it would be a most difficult decision for me. I believe, at this point, it would be disingenuous. ************** What say ye?
Ahhh...that explains volumes... ...I wasn't aware that the Ramseys reference tc's site in DOI. So, they're in the awkward position of being on the record of supporting a certain URL...that now has content they don't support. And, tc's in the awkward position of being told his new belief is not acceptable to the Ramseys via Leroy Lincoln.
Actually, dun I don't believe that's what happened. Here is the quote from DOI: "We were also disturbed that a "Burke Killed JonBenet" home page still exists on the Internet. One of our researchers sent us a copy of this bulletin board in 1999, long after Burke had been exonerated. At the time the Web site (http://geocities.com/athens/forum/7615) had received over 72,708 hits since January 20, 1998. In graphic detail the poster of this site portrays how Burke murdered his little sister. How could anyone so malign a boy who was nine years old at the time? As we have said, evil is alive and well and breeding on the Internet." (DOI - p. 312) It looks to me as if Mr. Troy put his own spin in that post, Dun.
At any rate while I agree that Troy has gone over the line with his website, it is equally true that jameson has been guilty of the same on her forum. The Ramseys glorified her site in their book of fiction - a website that posted a pornography picture of a female minor child and a grown man, not once, but several times. I don't recall jameson having any qualms about comparing the female child to Arianna Pugh and the male in the picture to Arianna's father. If the Rams were outraged by Troy's website, should they not have been just as outraged at the exploitation of Arianna Pugh and her father on Jameson's website - the site they praised in their book? I don't like double standards, I don't like hypocrites, and I don't like sanctimonious do-gooders. Jameson's forum has ventured into pornography photos and other controversial pictures/subjects that have done great damage to many innocent people. What a jerk!
WY WY - I generally agree. Still, perhaps the Ramseys should be allowed to generally support a website without necessarily approving everything done on it. Maybe you're different, but there have been things posted on each of the forums I have supported that have made me moan in dismay. I would still support and approve of those forums because the forums as a whole were good. Think the Ramseys might be in that position, too?
Nope although I see your point, Fly. I saw things happen at JW that just - well, you know, and I still supported it. But, the owner of the forum was not instigating it, at least not publically. I might even agree with you if jameson's forum were anything but an attack forum against anything not Ramsey. Is this really how good Christian people think - that it is okay to attack others because they don't agree with jameson? That is, after all, what they are supporting when they support her website. All anyone has to do is read her threads there now. Go back and read her old threads - they are available - jameson is always on the attack against anyone who threatens the intruder theory. The ONLY reason the Ramseys support jameson is because she is the only forum that is solely pro-Ramsey and woe be to anyone who naysays her. It is (they think) in their best interest to support her, but she has really done them no good. She hasn't changed the masses' minds, but she has alienated a lot of people, and that alienation also rubs off on the Rameys. If they think she has helped them, they are sadly mistaken. So, while every forum has moments not to be proud of, jameson's forum runs the other way - there are few moments to be proud of but many to be ashamed of. MO
