desertfae?

[compared2what?]

Cheers, Rachel. Nothing can detract from or diminish your accomplishment, so don't let the vagaries of the internet get to you. For the most part, they're not even really about you, as I'm sure you know. Anyway, I wish you smooth sailing and as little emotional duress as possible for the rest of the process, and hope that whatever spectacular achievements you set your sights on next will be both joyous and crowned with glory. You rock.

[Dr_Doogie]

Looks like Rachel was able to respond even before I had the chance to ask her, though her response is what I expected. Sources, even ones that are not 100% reliable, are still of value and bridges should not be burned to satisfy the curiousity of others. Rachel would not have been able to accomplish what she has by only talking to boy scouts.

(BTW: Thanks, Rachel, for the kind words.)

[compared2what?]

I think there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that it is a very, very bad idea to trust either Ted Gunderson or Michael Riconosciuto in a sensitive conspiracy expose'.

An abundance of evidence to that effect has already been posted on this board.

Dr. Doogie, since you are in touch with Desert Fae would you be willing to ask her for a statement regarding this very, very important issue?

It seems reasonable to be quite concerned about what is going on in this regard...

AD, if I were investigating a story that evil and treacherous men such as Gunderson and Riconosciuto knew something about, I'd definitely want to talk to them. If possible, for hours and hours and on a daily basis, quite conceivably. Sources are sources, and you need to find out what they've got. It's not always a pleasant job, but someone has to do it. Preferably someone who knows what he or she is doing well enough to know that accepting money, valuables, favors, or other private benefits from sources is out of the question, as is offering or -- god forbid -- giving them out. Especially in exchange for information. And....You know. There might and almost certainly would be practically an infinite number of circumstance-specific lines you should know better than to cross when dealing with dubious or dangerous or untrustworthy characters in the course of investigating stories that largely took place in their milieu.

There are also sometimes people you just shouldn't deal with at all, for sure. But that's a judgment call about factors that only the person making it is really in a position to know. Which is very fucking stressful when you happen to be that person, if you take what you're doing seriously. Anyway. I'm not trying to argue or disagree with you or anything like that. I mean, obviously, I do disagree with you. But I'm not saying that your position is wrong and mine is right. I'm just stating mine. It's not really a one-size-fits-all issue, by my lights. And although I'm not sure I understand why it is by yours, they're your lights and you've got a right to them. So. That's my stupid two cents on the matter.

[compared2what?]

Looks like Rachel was able to respond even before I had the chance to ask her, though her response is what I expected. Sources, even ones that are not 100% reliable, are still of value and bridges should not be burned to satisfy the curiousity of others. Rachel would not have been able to accomplish what she has by only talking to boy scouts.

(BTW: Thanks, Rachel, for the kind words.)

Dammit! Once again, I should have just waited for someone to say it in fewer than 9,000 words.

But fwiw, I meant: Seconded.

I just didn't know it yet.

[Hugo Farnsworth]

A while back, i found an online book entitled "The Last Circle" by Cheri Seymour aka Carol Marshall. It seemed well-researched and documented. I may have found the link to it here at rigint, i cannot remember.

Is this book still considered good information?

NM, i found deserfae's and others comments on it in the Danny Casolaro thread.

[American Dream]

desert fae wrote:

You've got to be kidding right? After how you and others treated me, you think I OWE you something, let alone a statement. Here's your statement....
I think you've aligned yourself with VM to try to get info for her. You're a VM puppet (to use her wording).

Nope, not true. I asked for you to say something about how you feel regarding Michael Riconosciuto and Ted Gunderson at nobody's instigation but my own, and whether you can "hear" it or not with concern both for you and for the ongoing investigation. Clearly, you don't want to make any statement about it here.

That's your right, and understandable under the circumstances, but I would still urge extreme caution around such people.

compared2what? wrote:

AD, if I were investigating a story that evil and treacherous men such as Gunderson and Riconosciuto knew something about, I'd definitely want to talk to them. If possible, for hours and hours and on a daily basis, quite conceivably. Sources are sources, and you need to find out what they've got. It's not always a pleasant job, but someone has to do it. Preferably someone who knows what he or she is doing well enough to know that accepting money, valuables, favors, or other private benefits from sources is out of the question, as is offering or -- god forbid -- giving them out. Especially in exchange for information. And....You know. There might and almost certainly would be practically an infinite number of circumstance-specific lines you should know better than to cross when dealing with dubious or dangerous or untrustworthy characters in the course of investigating stories that largely took place in their milieu.

I understand, and I agree to a s point. I do think it could possibly be OK, or even sometimes useful, to talk to Riconosciuto and Gunderson. However, I do think that extreme cautions are in order as their stock in trade seems to include disseminating a lot of very clever disinformation, monitoring and manipulating certain investigations, and derailing others.

So I do think very, very serious cautions are in order. Saying so seems to me like the right thing to do, and in the interest of all those concerned.

[compared2what?]

I understand, and I agree to a s point. I do think it could possibly be OK, or even sometimes useful, to talk to Riconosciuto and Gunderson. However, I do think that extreme cautions are in order as their stock in trade seems to include disseminating a lot of very clever disinformation, monitoring and manipulating certain investigations, and derailing others.

So I do think very, very serious cautions are in order. Saying so seems to me like the right thing to do, and in the interest of all those concerned.

Totally. I'd even go farther than that. Because you might not just be putting your integrity at risk. It's dangerous to go around trying to coax shady strangers into giving you confidential information about the large-scale, lucrative underworld criminal activities they and/or their friends, associates, and enemies were or are involved in. So if you don't have a very clear understanding of how you're going to protect yourself from every conceivable potential attempt to undermine, discredit or stop your investigation, as well as an equally clear understanding of what stuff you're absolutely never, under any circumstances, ever even going to begin to idly fool yourself into thinking it might be okay for you to do just this once, don't start one. Serious cautions are in order.

[xsicbastardx]

I really don't have time for this now- but I will just say that I haven't known desertfae to be a participant on this board in the sense that most of the rest of us are- someone who is "around", makes comments on various things, whatever.

and that's most of the reason that most folks lurk here now because they don't want to be part of the IN crowd Which in of itself is a complete and udder contradiction for the climate of this board.

In trying to "prove or disprove" someone's intentions on this board only seeks to provide haven for the bullshit artists and those who seek to derail the information people can access on this board,

[desertfae]

I've linked this thread to the BREAKING: Hughes Arrested for 1981 Alvarez Murders thread: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... &start=315 in an attempt to get that thread back on topic, since AD has decided to interrogate me in that thread and has been asked multiple times to take her interrogation of me to another thread.
I'm posting here now so that I can link the two threads, and so I can get notification if this one is replied to.
As it stands now, it's 1am my time, and I'll be heading to be shortly, so if a reply comes onto this thread, I'll reply to it whenever I get a chance tomorrow (unless the reply is very soon).
Rachel

[Wombaticus Rex]

My best guess has been that Rachel is some kind of ARG player

LMFAO and exactly who is that statement not true for?

[Uncle $cam]

Wait! What is an ARG!?

[compared2what?]

Cross-posted, maybe confusingly, from the "BREAKING: Hughes arrested, etc" thread:

It is absolutely true that I had lingering doubts about desertfae's bonafides until she came out into the limelight with the Jimmy Hughes case. However, I do seem to recall that a bunch of people here had doubts or concerns about this.

However, when she was coming more into the public light, I waited cautiously, and said I would apologize if I was wrong, which I did. That was many months now and I have had no doubts about this since.

However, the whole misunderstanding seems preventible and that's why I'm still wondering what happened, and why...

Well. Given that the misunderstanding was on your side, not hers, if you're still wondering what happened and why, I'd say that you really shouldn't have to look any further than your own backyard. Because if there really was some way of preventing it, if it isn't there, you never really overlooked it in the first place.

Unless, just possibly, it's somewhere in the same uncharted territory in which Virginia McCullough's perfectly good reason for confidently representing her apparently totally baseless characterization of Rachel as, essentially, an impostor, whose fraudulent claims of involvement in the investigation were (via some kind of circularly reciprocal logic) simultaneously proof of and proven by the total thrall in which Michael Riconosciuto and Ted Gunderson had so completely succeeded in keeping her that there wasn't so much as a hint of evidence that she was even particularly allied to them at all.

Speaking of which, I'm still wondering on what grounds Virginia McCullough's forehead remains free of the scarlet "MR/TG" you see on the brow of anyone who hasn't denounced one or both of them in terms strong enough to satisfy you when the entirety of her case for the outrageous injustice that was visited on Richard Hamlin by the court that convicted him is based solely and exclusively on the word of Michael Riconosciuto, with whom Hamlin was put in touch by the PI he hired. Fellow by the name of Ted Gunderson, IIRC.***

So, AD:

Given that nobody other than you seems to feel that Rachel's goodwill is sufficiently in question to justify derailing the whole thread -- "meanwhile, the octopus," and so on -- until you're satisfied that all of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed, I invite you to start a thread on which you can explore those concerns without taking everybody else off-topic.

You have a very different interpretation of what I meant than I do. I am not questioning Rachel's goodwill- quite the opposite.

Is that a fact. Then what exactly was your reason for not only suggesting...

So, let's assume for a second that it actually is possible to build more goodwill here- it is- so a brief explanation as to why you declined to better I.D. yourself before would actually be helpful.

... that more of it needed to be built, but also introducing that suggestion with eleven words into which you somehow let not one, not two, but three (3) rhetorical indicators of with what longsuffering patience and how few hopes you were making it? ("So, let's assume for a second that it actually is possible..."

And just to save a round or two of prevarication, please consider whatever explanations you might have offered for the first two as fully pre-accepted. Just tell me by what logic you arrive at a very different interpretation of your italicization of the word "possible" than I do.

Thanks.

When I have raised the Octopus with the "Meanwhile...", I have always meant, as I explicitly stated above:

we're at risk of spending too much time and energy on relatively small squabbles at the expense of the much more important (and much more challenging) struggle, which should be effectively confronting the Octopus...

I still hold myself primarily responsible for starting the squabbles that cause this to be true.

Fixed.
________________

*** I'm cross-posting to the "NO DEZERTFAE ALLOWED" thread. So fwiw, since I really do wonder about this, if you have an explanation for it, I'd very much appreciate it if you could find a moment to briefly summarize it for me over there. FYI -- and also just to keep myself honest -- I hereby solemnly vow that from now on, I'll take all small squabbles for which I bear the primary responsibility elsewhere.

But in all fairness, since I'm unapologetically off-topic here myself, I certainly couldn't fault you if you opted to respond to this post here. Sauce for the goose, et cetera.

[compared2what?]

Moved from thread where it was adding to the amount bullshit to cut through, in order to reply to it without adding more:

(Sigh...)

The misunderstanding that happened before was created by most all of those who participated near as I can tell, and there were quite a few.

No doubt. But it's been entirely settled since then. And since Rachel:

(a) was never in any doubt about who she was;

(b) has been proven to have been correct in saying that she was who she was and is; and

(c) shook the RI forum dust off her shoes and went about her business without injuring, deceiving or fucking with anybody when that assertion was met with general suspicion

It simply cannot be fairly said that the misunderstanding was created by most all of those who participated in it, as if there were any ambiguity at all about who was misunderstood and who did the misunderstanding. It could be fairly said, as I did in fact say months ago, that it wasn't unreasonable to question her authenticity when it was still an open question and that no one who did so had any reason to feel ashamed of having made an honest mistake. Or any need to justify themselves for having made one.

I don't really know what to add to that. I mean, I guess that if I'd anticipated that you, AD, were going to feel as much need as you apparently do to have Rachel admit that it was her fault that you made an honest mistake, I would certainly have added that you had no reason to. Because you don't. You were mistaken. That wasn't unreasonable. You seemingly can't accept it. And that's your problem. Not Rachel's. Boundaries, AD. Boundaries.

I've invited Rachel to explain why she never documented her I.D. to us better and also to explain to us why she is so negative towards Virginia and Kate. The former she did to some degree, the latter not so much.

As to the former: She's repeatedly explained in detail and with crystal clarity why she never documented her I.D., which is a lot more than she has any obligation to do, especially since her reasons are all readily apparent and easily verifiable to anyone who takes the time to read the Danny Casolaro thread.

And as to the latter....Well, for starters there's this:

I do not believe that desertfae is a "victim" and she has not posted any information that she is who she claims to be. The best evidence of this belief is her removal of her so-called birth certificate from the web. I want to add here that desertfae had absoutely NO influence on the re-opening of the cold case file on the Alvarez slayings. However she is attacking people who are putting their lives in danger trying to solve this triple homicide. What she is doing is particpating as an actress in an Alternate Reality Game. She is a low stage puppet reporting to the puppet master and two or three of his minions.

It's pretty fucking difficult to see how every single one of those multiple mistakes was made honestly, or how they all just happened to reflect very negatively on Rachel as a result of an innocent misunderstanding in which all participants were involved. Plus there's also this:

"She" had nothing to do with getting the Alvarez triple executions re-opened by the Riverside Sheriff's Department. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

And this:

It is more likely that Gunderson and/or Riconosciuto (or his spokesperson Anita Langley or his associate Patrick O'Shea) has made contact with desertfae or that someone like this is controlling her actions.

And this:

Here you see desertfae (or whoever authored this posting) reveal what her motivation is in the videos. She is seeking to act as a sponge - soliciting the net for more documents she can acquire to create more ARGs.

And this:

From personal experience, I can state that Michael Riconosciuto has a small army of sponges that obtain knowledge from the outside and feed it to him on the inside. The unfortunate part is that because Michael limits his acquired knowledge and his army members to only those who swear allegance to his stories, he limits himself to the wider wisdom or actions of those he perceives as his enemies. Remember the old saying, "Keep your friends and your enemies closer."

And this:

This is the standard "disclaimer" put out by "conspiracy buffs" in order to create fear in their readers for the buff's life and thereby, build more confidence in their statements. The theory being, "why would they do this unless it is the truth because their life has been threatened.

And this:

The syntax, spelling, use of larger words, a better flow of English, etc all lead me to believe that this post was not written by the same individual as desertfae's previous posts. I am just speculating but could this post have been authored by Anita Langley or a woman with the initials of BR.

And this:

Again - the sponge is seeking the documents.

Not to mention that whole "she's only in it for the star-witnessing" tune she started playing as soon as the whole sponge/ARG thing had gone bust. Or the unremittingly pessimism and air of petty dissatisfaction with which NMN has approached every step of the story from the moment they could no longer deny it was a reality onward and up until this very day.

And while my heart does belong to Ms. Dixon -- as, of course, you already know -- I'm sorry to say that she's not only been consistently misrepresenting both the law and the legal status quo in every post she's made to this board, pretty much, but also hectoring Rachel for not giving up information that anyone who's watched a fucking Law & Order episode should be able to grasp is not being suppressed, but instead, legitimately and legally kept in abeyance on a temporary basis in the service and interests of justice.

NMN also been doing a lot of minor but systematic NLP-style white-hatting of the defendant. Promoting him from "Jimmy Hughes" to "The Reverend James "Jimmy" George Hughes," for instance. which is not to suggest that the evidence explaining Rachel's negativity toward Virginia and Kate is so sparse that it's really necessary to stoop to that level of detail. I just find that last one interesting.

Anyway. I hope this clarifies the matter for you. But please let me know if any part of it's still as bafflingly opaque to you as it was before, and I'll do what I can to explicate it further.

As to Riconosciuto and Gunderson, they are two different people. Riconosciuto may have good information at times, but he also talks a lot of smack, and works his own agenda. Gunderson may be personally opportunistic but he sure has turned some important cases to shit and he seems to pump up the worst tendencies in the Militia Movement.

Okay. Now I'm just confused. Because for one thing, not too many pages ago, you were maintaining that they were evil. And for another, if you concede that Riconoscituo and Gunderson have their uses from an investigative POV, on what are you now basing your decisions about who gets the thumbs-up and who the thumbs-down wrt to the fruitful investigaton of criminal activity on and around the Cabazon's turf?

Because if you've got anything in the plus column for NMN that outweighs the still-unexplained hostility and aggression toward any forward movement on the prosecution of some, as well as the false and unreliable statements made by both VM and Ms. Dixon on and off the site over in the minus column, I'm kind of at a loss as to what it might be.

Whereas on the plus side, Rachel has: actually put her life at risk and years of effort into her quest, which was by no means guaranteed to lead anywhere rewarding for her, to see justice done; has consistently been truthful, amiable, and considerate to all on the board who don't go out of their way to fuck with her; got results that have a hell of a lot more potential to lead to justice for all than holding your breath till your face turns blue does.

And on the minus side, she initially labeled her videos as an ARG, a misstep for which she accounted on something like page 3 of the Casolaro thread. Also, this is the internet, after all. So there's no way of knowing for sure that she isn't actually a servant of Satan. But beyond that, she's got a pretty clean bill of health, afaik.

As to the Hamlin Case- I have no strong opinion on that. I read about it some at the time, but I don't claim to fully understand it.

Okay.

As to Rachel's goodwill, of course I'm assuming she has it. And I know I do. So I can't really validate the assumption that I think Rachel lacks goodwill, in the sense of positive intent. I do believe she has it, and I do want to cut through the bullshit. So that is the basis of my recent comments.

Glad to hear it.

[desertfae]

I've invited Rachel to explain why she never documented her I.D. to us better and also to explain to us why she is so negative towards Virginia and Kate. The former she did to some degree, the latter not so much.

I just have to wonder how many times I have to repeat myself before it sticks for you? Honestly, nothing I can say is good enough to appease you and your interrogation of me. I truely don't care what you think of me, or what you think of my answers anymore. It seems that others on the board can understand what I'm saying when I spell it out for you countless times, why can't you?

Since Rachel laid out what are truly sketchy allegations against VM and KD, and they weren't supported by what you could characterize as solid evidence at all, my mind starts to turn towards Gunderson and to wonder if he has had any influence on Rachel in this regard, since he and VM have some major differences. Not saying this is true, and Rachel could clear things up very easily by stating a clear position regarding Gunderson.

I don't care what you think is sketchy or not, I know what I know, and I"ve said what I've said, period. You don't like it? Don't read it. As far as "clearing things up" with you, it doesn't matter what I say or don't say, nothing will ever be good enough to satsify you. I'm literally at the point with you, regardless if you are VM or not, that I don't care what you think, say, do or anything else. I'm about done with your interrogations of me.

As to Rachel's goodwill, of course I'm assuming she has it.

If so, stop with your stupid interrogations of me.

And I know I do.

haha

So I can't really validate the assumption that I think Rachel lacks goodwill, in the sense of positive intent.

You can't validate anything to do with me. You don't know me. You don't know what I think, feel, or believe (other than what I've clearly stated here), so why are you hassling me all the time?

I do want to cut through the bullshit. So that is the basis of my recent comments.

doubtful.

[Sounder]

OP ED wrote…

this thread, however, is kinda disgusting, and AD amazes me in that he seems to think that someone would wish to willingly leave a statement in what has all the characteristics of an attack thread.

It’s like Wow, why is AD allowed so much rope?

Xsicbastardx wrote…

and that's most of the reason that most folks lurk here now because they don't want to be part of the IN crowd Which in of itself is a complete and udder contradiction for the climate of this board.

This seems likely. Lucky for me, there is little concern that I’ll ever be part of an in crowd.

The question is about AD, not Desertfae.