A Call For Protection - Rachel Cooke

Discussion in 'The Search for Rachel Cooke' started by RC, Apr 8, 2002.

  1. RC

    RC FFJ Senior Member

    This thread

    I have just one question for everyone. Is this thread going to accomplish anything?

    Sure the Ramseys could do more with their money than a poor Software Engineer like me can afford but it doesn't do any good to argue about it.

    There are hundreds of thousands of missing people out there. My daughter Rachel is one of them. That should be where the focus is.

    I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. I don't mean to flame anyone.
  2. fly

    fly Member

    of course not

    RC - Of course this thread won't accomplish anything. Darn little on this or any other JBR forum will (or ever did) accomplish anything because it is mostly just a discussion forum.

    I'm sorry you're facing such a tragedy.
  3. Camper

    Camper Banned


    It has been obvious to me that words are worth nothing unless being paid for by a publisher, of a piece of paper or a book, particularly about this case.

    I have been ignored primarilly, essentially because I did not get into a battle of semantics, like what 'is' means.

    You are right, more energy should have been expended by the Ramseys on their daughters behalf, lips do not cut it for me either. I do however like fly swatters and I am an expert shot.

    Hitting with a swatter expends my personal pent up energy for an offensive insect, a pest strip just does not personally serve me well, plus the insects just dry up and fall into your soup.

    My sincerest admiration for you and your family for working so hard on your daughters behalf. I cannot even begin to imagine the heartache involved with this horrendous situation that you all find yourself in. My prayers are with you all for your beautiful and wondrous and innocent daughter. God love you all.
  4. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member


    You are right in that slamming the Ramseys will not accomplish anything other than to perhaps help people who feel an injustice has been done release some of their anger.

    That said, some of us keep hoping that the Ramseys will eventually get the message that if in fact they are innocent and if in fact they want justice for their child, then they must do exactly what your family, the van Dam's and other families have done. They must sit with the BPD and answer every question as honestly as they can. They must submit to polygraphs that have not been bought and paid for. Only when they do these things, can the BPD remove them from the umbrella of suspicion.

    If the Ramseys focused half the energy they have expended on media spin and sueing people, assisting the BPD with the investigation into their child's death, then perhaps this case would get solved and we would see justice for a six-year old child who was brutally murdered.

    I have personally seen the pain your family is experiencing because your daughter disappeared and to date you have no closure. I have also seen your family spend endless energy in doing what ever you can think of to try to locate her. You have made the decision less than 3 months after Rachel disappeared to start a foundation in hopes of drawing attention to children over the age of 12 who go missing. You are making plans to continue having fund raisers to keep that foundation as a going-concern.

    On Saturday, we discussed the fact that the lifestyles of Rachel, Janet and yourself will be challenged when and if there is a trial to punish the person/s who may have been involved in Rachel's disappearance. That tends to happen in every case. Sad, but true. However, in the Ramsey case, they have chosen to spend their dollars on attorneys to protect "their good name."

    Perhaps had the Ramseys spent those same dollars starting a foundation 5+ years ago, that foundation could have been yet another resource to bring Rachel and others home. In 5+ years, perhaps that foundation could have changed the laws and the manner in which the existing organizations look at people over 12 that do go missing. IMHO, the Ramseys blew a prime opportunity to proactively assist people like yourself and the van Dams because they cared more about "their good name," than anything else.

    The only reason I even bother to post on these types of threads is that I know that the Ramsey Spin Team reads here. I keep hoping something will strike a chord with them and wake them up to some of these things. To quote the Ramseys themselves, "Tell it often, tell it loud."
  5. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    RC I live in Austin and I would like to help you in your efforts to find Rachel. How can I help? I see flyers and billboards everywhere and it's gratifying that so many people have jumped to help. I helped the parents of the girls in the Yogurt Shop murder case a long time ago. I'm a computer artist/illustrator if that can help in any way. My website is bobcooksey.com and you can e-mail me at bcooksey@austin.rr.com. I am so sorry about Rachel.
  6. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    One final comment

    Regardless of differences of opinion here, if organizations which are not proactively doing anything to get laws changed or to help parents of missing and murdered children are exposed on forums like this, perhaps people who have the resources to contribute to organizations will make sure their funds go to those organizations such as Texas Equuasearch who do actively try to help.

    For those who are interested, Texas Equuasearch is really hurting for funds right now. You can help them by making a donation or by becoming a member. The cost of membership, $25.00 per year, is affordable by most folks. To print out an application for membership, follow this link:


    To make a donation to Texas Equuasearch in Rachel's name, mail your check made out to Texas Equuasearch to:

    First State Bank of
    Texas, 2415 Williams Drive
    Georgetown, TX 78628
    (512) 868-9023
  7. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member


    If interested in actively searching, contact myself or RC.

    Another way you can help is to get your friends to sign up for the Rachel Cooke Run/Walk which is scheduled for 27 April.

    For more information check out this site:


    RC mentioned on Saturday that they have plenty of volunteers for the Run/Walk, but need walkers and runners. Sure hope I see you and some of our other local posters there.

    RC may have other areas he needs help, such as your graphics talents. I know he is also working on a data base among other things. I will forward RC's email address to you so that you may make your offer to him personally.
  8. fly

    fly Member

    selective amnesia?

    JR - The Ramseys can certainly be criticized for not sitting down with the police a lot earlier than they did. However, they have submitted to extensive questioning by the police. If their position as suspects hinges on taking a police-sponsored polygraph, rather than on the whole body of evidence, I'm going to have to start questioning the competance or fairness of BPD.

    JR, it is wonderful that Rachel's family has initiated a foundation to improve procedures in missing child cases. I hope it proves to be a lot more effective than the Ramseys' foundations have to date. But when comparing their actions to that of the Ramseys, ask yourself the questions: "Were they suspected as strongly or for as long as the Ramseys were? Did they have a realistic fear that they would be charged with the crime? Are the two situations really very similar?"
  9. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member


    RC would be the best person to answer your questions but I will provide what information I feel comfortable in doing so.

    Because the area Rachel disappeared in is not actually city but within the county, the Sheriff's Department rather than the local police, is responsible for this investigation.

    Initially, Rachel was considered a run-away by the sheriff's department. That simply did not make any sense. Rachel is 19. She was home from college for Christmas vacation. She had not gone back to school because a cousin was getting married and Rachel stayed here to attend the wedding, which was scheduled for the day after she disappeared. It doesn't take much to understand that a 19 year old who already lives several hundred miles from home is not a run-away. Further, Rachel took nothing with her except the jogging clothes she was wearing and her walkman. Why would she leave on her own without her purse, money, clothing and so on?

    I am aware hurtful and negative comments were made about the Cooke's "life-style." Most if not all of those comments were fabrications.

    Clearly the fact that the Cooke's were asked to take polygraphs says that at some point, they were considered suspects does it not?

    Other than the fact that no one knows where Rachel is and the amount of time that has passed since anyone has seen or heard from her, makes it hard to even determine what crime/s have been committed here.

    IMHO, the Cooke's had no fear that they would be charged with a crime because they have not committed a crime and they have fully cooperated with the local law enforcement.

    I can't speak for the Ramseys because I have never met them and IMHO, we don't have all the facts. However, the actions of both families immediately after the "loss" of their children speak volumes do they not?

    Come on Fly, the Ramseys submitted to questioning some 4 months after the fact and with their attorney's present for starters. BIG difference here now isn't there?

    Go a step futher here Fly. How come the Ramseys not only objected to the BPD but also to an FBI polygraph?
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2002
  10. Camper

    Camper Banned


    JR, well said, as a parent of many children, I just cannot even believe an innocent parent would behave the way the Ramseys did in the VERY BEGINNING!

    I venture to say ALL parents of missing children are grieving, and ALL parents of murdered children grieve, BUT the big difference, in my opinion, is how they step up to the bat for their children at the very outset when they are struck with the knowledge that it is not someone elses child now but THEIR VERY OWN. Swat, swat.
  11. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Fly said..."The Ramseys can certainly be criticized for not sitting down with the police a lot earlier than they did. However, they have submitted to extensive questioning by the police. If their position as suspects hinges on taking a police-sponsored polygraph, rather than on the whole body of evidence, I'm going to have to start questioning the competance or fairness of BPD."

    Well, yes and no Fly...yes I agree they could have hooked up with the BPD sooner...but there is a lot left to be desired when they did sit down with them...because Lin Wood didn't allow them to answer a whole lot either.

    No I didn't expect them to sit down without an attorney, but think about it...attorneys usually don't allow their clients to answer questions which might incriminate them...

    I don't believe their position hinges soley on taking an FBI polygraph, but it probably didn't help their position either.
  12. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    RC please know that we all are praying for Rachal and the rest of your family. You pain is something no one can truly understand unless you have been through it. Like John Walsh says, "It's like trying to describe a color nobody has ever seen". I do understand how you can come here and read a thread like this and think "what will this accomplish"?

    You are right. It won't accomplish a whole lot but it will accomplish something.

    It will, day and night, let the Ramseys know that we are not buying their crap and we will call them on every little phony foundation they try and set up to make themselves look good.

    This forum and other likes it are read by the Ramseys,' their attorney and the swamp thing (long story).

    They know we have kept track of every lie that has ever passed their lips. They can't buy their way out of this. Too much evidence.

    JonBenet is gone. Her murderer should not be given a pass. The rage many of us feel when we see who we believe to be the perps not only walking free, but yapping about their great foundations that never go anywhere, lead us to places like this forum. Why? Because it's all we can do for the memory of JonBenet. Make sure her killer(s) know we are here and watching.

    RC if there is anything I can do. Let me know. I live in Park City UT. I can stuff envelopes, make phone calls what ever you need. JR can contact me if you would like. Or email me at tgrif@xmission.com

    We are with you RC and we are praying.

  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Two, maybe three things

    about this thread.

    Addressing RC's comments about what this thread has accomplished, before his question and BobC's subsequent answer, I would have said "not much." When nothing is going on in the case, these kinds of threads serve mostly as a venting opportunity - anything to relieve the frustration, I guess.

    However, after reading BobC's subsequent post requesting information on how he can help in the search for Rachel Cooke, I have to say this thread has served a purpose, and a good one. I can't think of anyone I would rather have on my side in such an endeavor than BobC. He is strong and he is compassionate and he is smart. He would be an excellent addition to the search efforts.

    I personally think Fly's objections, in this case, are petty and nitpicky - something not commonly associated with my friend Fly (well, maybe once in a while, LOL). That is probably because it is in Fly's nature to be the devil's advocate, I think, and there isn't all that much to pick at on this forum. Yet, Fly has kept us on our toes many times in the past, forced us to look a little deeper into our own motivations. To me, though, Fly's point is weak, and maybe even moot, considering there is no way to approach this issue without bringing in past behavior of the Ramseys.

    Within a very narrow spectrum, one could say, yes, we complained when they didn't do anything and now we are complaining when they did do something, but look at it this way. In court, Fly would probably be right. The black and white question would have to have a black and white answer. Did we complain when the Ramseys "did nothing" with their foundations? The answer, obviously, is yes, some did complain. Are we complaining now that they are "doing something"? Again, yes we are.

    But, now we go to the mitigating circumstances, and there are tons of them in this case. The Ramseys have basically begged for this kind of criticism. They stonewalled (oh yes they did, Fly) the investigation. They underwent (finally) a few hours of questioning by authorities, but they tried to dictate the conditions of those questions several times prior to the actual happening. Bah, I'm not going to list all the reasons why not many people trust the Ramseys, because there are literally hundreds of reasons. In fact, they are second only to OJ Simpson in unbelievability and probably equally despised. Anything they do now will be ridiculed (right or wrong) and discarded as self-serving in light of what has occurred over the past five years. These are those mitigating circumstances that render their pathetic efforts null and void in the real world.

    Perhaps there really isn't anything else to say. We could argue for the next six months on this thread. We've all had our say. We could go on to the next subject where Fly will once again watch over us carefully, landing on anything that doesn't seem fair, and those affected will again try to swat Fly out of the sky, but Fly is a keeper, IMO. Fly keeps us honest. It's up to us to keep Fly challenged with more intellectual disagreements rather than nitpicky ones.

    I have spoken.
  14. fly

    fly Member


    Moab - Lin Wood was not their lawyer when they submitted to questioning by police the first time. This was the most lengthy and extensive questioning. I don't think any of the descriptions of the first extensive questioning indicated they were not allowed to answer some questions, nor that they did anything but try to answer the questions as best they could. Again, they should have done it sooner, but they did eventually cooperate with questioning.

    During the second round of questioning, Wood was their lawyer, and he did object to certain questions. As I recall, it was the police who terminated the questioning. Perhaps they were totally justified in being frustrated with Wood's objections to questions about Burke's security (which I think was the disputed question area), but if there was important new information potentially to be gained, the smart thing to do would have been to perservere, rather than give up.

    WY - Thanks for the words of support.

    However, the issue I raised is not nit-picky. It represents one of the things that has always been an obvious weakness in the anti-Ramsey forum community's behavior. The criticize-the-Ramseys-no-matter-what approach reveals a basic unfairness in how the Ramseys are judged. How can a discussion forum be viewed with pride if it accepts such blatant unfairness? How can people argue that they are not part of a lynch mob if they can't show some objectivity and fairness?

    This isn't anything new, nor is it the first time I've commented on it. There have been countless discussions (mostly on JW, given the relative lack of activity since this forum's origin) that portrayed every small action of the Ramseys as evil, or at least highly suspect. The very worst possible interpretation is almost always the one trumpeted and applauded. It rarely matters whether the interpretation makes much sense or is backed up by facts rather than more assumptions. That sort of behavior is just the negative of the standard mode at jameson's forum. They see no fault; many here see nothing but fault. Both perspectives are inappropriate.

    There are plenty of things for which the Ramseys can be reasonably criticized and plenty of areas in which a healthy skepticism is warranted. Isn't it enough to stick to those issues? Why the need to demonize them beyond that?

    Haven't any of you ever stepped back a bit and looked at what is being said and found it distasteful, unjustified, or rather embarrassing?

    This latest doesn't rise to the levels of some past episodes, but it is still symptomatic of the basic problem.
  15. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    There have been times

    yes, when I have been embarrassed and even really ticked off about some things that were said - particularly when the discussion took the direction of unwarranted accusations against Patsy's father or Burke. This doesn't even come close to being on the same level of those times, though.

    It just seems to me that you are completely ignoring the reasons why posters feel the way they do about the Ramseys' latest scam (yes, I think it's a scam). I think there are times when your arguments have solid ground, but this isn't one of those times, because the example is so non-worthy (IMO, of course). What should have been an opinion (yours) is now a cause based on past actions of posters? I personally understand your point; I just don't agree with it in this case.

    Our scope is not so narrow that we have to eliminate opinions based on posters' beliefs about the Ramseys' past actions and credibility just because their present stance might appear to be positive. Where there is no trust, there can be no credibility. We don't trust the superficial attempts of the Ramseys. What more needs to be said, really?
  16. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Fly…that is true, Wood wasn't their attorney early on, however there were plenty of objections and unanswered questions during those sessions as well, and like WY says, I too see where you are coming from on this, but I still disagree. I am placing more credence on their earlier actions for the basis of my frame-of-reference of their sincerity than you are, and that is ok. They have plenty of time now, to get this new project of theirs off the ground, so let's see if they do, or if it is as I suspect…more lip service from the Ramseys. They can certainly rise above anyone's current opinion of them if they choose to expend the energy.
  17. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    Fly - My two cents

    My objection to all of this is that like the previous two foundation efforts I am concerned this is simply a scam. Having seen the number of scam artists who scammed Belle, I will never hesitate to speak up when I sense a scam in the making. So far, we have seen no action on the Nehemiah Project. I recall hearing about this organization many months ago.

    So far, my research does not indicate it is anything more than a name. I hope I am wrong Fly, but I don't think I am.
  18. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    It will be more lip service.

    The Ramseys, once again, spoke out and tried to make themselves look good. We know from past actions nothing will happen.

    Patsy is sick. That will be the excuse. It's perfect really. Nobody is going to complain they didn't do anything because after all Patsy has cancer.

    What they do is beyond vile.

    Remember the boy who cried wolf?

    Nobody believes them. Yes we will criticize because all they do is talk.

    Talk is not an action when all you have done is talk about your action and made no move to complete or even start said action.

    Hell I can "talk" all I want about how I am going to change the world. But if I offer no blueprint, no businsess plan, if I show no move toward my statement then my statement is not an action. My statement is crap.

  19. RC

    RC FFJ Senior Member

    My comments to everyone

    I sorry that I jumped the gun on this. Before our life was shaken up I used to argue back and forth on forums also. I didn't stop to think.

    JR, I REALLY appreciate all that you have done with the search for Rachel both physical and moral support. So many people have helped us it's been wonderful.

    I'm afraid that when and if this comes to trial they are going to have a hard time digging up things about our family. Other than the fact that Rachel worked as a waitress at Hooters there just isn't much.

    Most people that criticize Hooters have never even been in there. I can name 5 restaurants in Austin where the women wear less and they aren't a topless place either.

    It will be hard for anyone to disbute that Janet
    was teaching school that day and I was working
    35 miles away. I guess they could accuse us of
    paying someone to kidnap her but that's pretty
    far fetched.

    Anyway, I will go back to the Rachel section and
    let you folks debate the issues here.
  20. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member


    IMHO, your post here was important. It was a bit of a wake up call. Please, feel free to debate and add a parent's perspective as well.

    Sometimes we get so lost in our debates we lose track of what is really important and that is justice for the victims.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice