So, what would you do if Danny Casolaro asked for your help?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby American Dream » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:22 pm

I'm trying to understand what you've been saying, c2w, and the honest truth is it's still not completely clear to me.

Could you please briefly state:

1) What is it that you feel I have done (is it believing a certain thing or things based on VM's word? If so, what things in particular?)

2) Why you think this situation in particular is notable enough to warrant a specific warning from you.

3) Why would knowing her biography make a particular difference over knowing her written record in this case?

It is true that I wasn't sure what you wanted or where you were going but I am hereby suspending all suspicion in the spirit of genuine goodwill.


P.S. If you want to drop a little knowledge on us here or elsewheres about what you consider good basic techniques for researching people's life stories, feel free to do so, either now or later.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:35 pm

American Dream wrote:I'm trying to understand what you've been saying, c2w, and the honest truth is it's still not completely clear to me.

Could you please briefly state:

1) What is it that you feel I have done (is it believing a certain thing or things based on VM's word? If so, what things in particular?)

2) Why you think this situation in particular is notable enough to warrant a specific warning from you.

3) Why would knowing her biography make a particular difference over knowing her written record in this case?

It is true that I wasn't sure what you wanted or where you were going but I am hereby suspending all suspicion in the spirit of genuine goodwill.


P.S. If you want to drop a little knowledge on us here or elsewheres about what you consider good basic techniques for researching people's life stories, feel free to do so, either now or later.


The only thing you need to do right now is get back in touch with VM and ask her why she lied to us here at RI and stated, not an opinion, but seemingly a statement of fact that desertfae was an actress in an ARG.

I trusted VM up to that point and I am at loss as to why she would put her credibility on the line like that re: who desertfae really was. If she didnt know for certain then she should have let us know that it was only her opinion but in fact she didnt state it as an opinion, but again, it was seemingly a statement of fact. So would you kindly ask her to clarify this statement, in the spirit of goodwill of course.

This was the statement in question, FYI:

Virginia McCullough wrote:

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.



Then her most recent statement suggests the authorities are somehow using desertfae as some sort of informant and that she doesnt like pissing matches:

As far as the DesertFae thread on Rigorous Intuition....it has always been my belief that "pissing matches" between posters or authors and readers are a waste of energy and no one really wins. Riverside Detective John Powers tells me that he has seen DesertFae's birth certificate and he says she is who she says she is, but I have asked him to send me the certified birth certificate and he has declined. I still have enough conspiracy blood left in me that I can see a potential scenario whereby DesertFae is a well paid informant and/or puppet used by law enforcement and/or the Riconosciuto camp and put forth to act as a sponge obtaining information and reporting back to someone or some agency.


Can you further ask her if she has any evidence to back this up or is this, once again simply her opinion and if it is her opinion you may want to further ask her why she is involving herself in a pissing match with desertfae since pissing matches are such a waste of energy according to her.

Let us know.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:53 pm

I have heard very briefly from VM today- she tells me that she is very busy right now working on things related to emerging aspects of this case. I believe she is, or at least has been, reading the content on these threads, so I imagine she'll see your comments here, and if I get anything from her for posting, then post it I shall. If not today, I'll make sure these comments are forwarded.

Also, if anyone can get in touch with desertfae and get her either to come to this board and/or give us a clear statement on things, that would be helpful, too.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

horse whisperer

Postby hava1 » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:39 pm

The VM name appeared, i think, in the Hamlin situation here on the board, with DE running a pathetic "questioning", virtuoso style in connection with the newsmakingnews website. I hope i am not mistaken, but this brings up the pathetic situation again, and the website mentioned has poor graphic and muddled information rich with details that points to nowhere.

Learning now that this outlet specializes in the iran-contras affair, things become clearer.

at last, i get a better grasp of why the sense of this being a honey pot and how "sponges" operate.
hava1
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:07 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:42 pm

Hava, could you state your case in a little more detail?

It's not really clear, as is...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:37 pm

I really like VM and appreciate all the hard work she has done to expose corruption at the highest levels which is why I am so concerned about what she said about desertfae, it is totally out of character for VM to involve herself in such petty things.

Basically I just want to know the truth, if desertfae who she says she is or not and why did VM insist desertfae is merely an ARG actress. What exactly is going on here?
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:40 am

American Dream wrote:I'm trying to understand what you've been saying, c2w, and the honest truth is it's still not completely clear to me.

Could you please briefly state:

1) What is it that you feel I have done (is it believing a certain thing or things based on VM's word? If so, what things in particular?)


I don't feel that you've done anything. You tell me that you correspond with VM. You also both show and tell me that you regard her word on highly disputed, multiply false-flagged subjects as both good and authoritative. I don't know that it isn't. However, I also don't know that it is. WRT particulars that raise questions about how good or how authoritative her word may or may not be: There are none that specifically put me on high alert or anything like that. It's more like there are any number of minor and incidental particulars that taken together raise enough questions about the goodness and authoritativeness of her word that I find it questionable. In the same fairly routine and non-dramatically dangerous kind of a way that I do with pretty much anyone and everyone who habitually makes a point of representing their own word on such subjects as authoritative in any way that goes beyond just letting the work speak for itself. In fact...

2) Why you think this situation in particular is notable enough to warrant a specific warning from you.


....if you look at what I wrote prior to getting hit with the question...

why specifically you are implying that it was such dangerous act to have contacted her when questions about Desert Fae arose?


...I think you'll see that I really wasn't implying anything of the kind. In support of which, please find below one heavily qualified paragraph that never says and never implies that contacting Virginia McCullough when questions about desertfae arose was such a dangerous act:

even though I really do have no opinion one way or the other wrt Virginia McCullough, it makes me a little worried for your safety that you feel comfortable corresponding with her and putting your faith in her word without knowing what her bona fides actually are. Extensive knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair and other deep-political machinations isn't in itself a very good indicator of how personally trustworthy someone with claims to internet authority is. It's more like an indicator that you should proceed with caution until you can find out whether the answer to that question is "Very trustworthy" or "Very dangerous," in fact.


What that says and what it means is that given that (a) she's as much of an unknown entity to you as she is to me; and (b) she covers highly disputed, multiply false-flagged subjects, I find it a little worrying that you take her word as authoritative without knowing much about what it's based on or who she is. And that consequently, while fully conceding that the potential for danger is unknown to me, I hope that you'll proceed with caution.

And honestly, AD. While I don't want to cause you alarm, offense, or any other unnecessary upset, I don't really know what you want from me. I mean, it's not like you needed to tell me that you believed I was acting with bad will. Although I very much appreciate it that you did, btw. Thank you for your directness, your honesty and your respect. But I already knew and had been nothing but dismayed to see that ever since you chose to express it indirectly in your first reply by telling me I seemed to be leading in a certain direction without grounding my statement in a very clear expression of what I was actually saying. Which really can't be read in any other way than as a hostile implied accusation of some kind of ill will that's sufficient to justify asking a question as hostile and confrontational as:

What are you really saying here, and where are you going with this?


I mean, what choices are you really giving me there? I could have pointed out that you were clearly and very strongly implying -- if not outright flatly saying -- that my expression of mild concern was a fraudulent cover for some kind of dishonest and devious agenda, and asked you what led you to believe that I was. But my previous experience with you when you're harboring cloaked suspicions of some kind is that asking you what exactly you suspect and why you suspect it only leads to an infinite impasse of non-denial denials. Which make it pretty much impossible for me to know how I might succeed in letting you know that I like and respect you in any way that won't strike you as a highly dubious statement that only discredits me further. So I sought instead to respond with the following simple, defusing clarification:

Nothing very complicated. And, seriously, nothing that I didn't say. There are no hidden implications. She's a stranger without portfolio who writes about subjects that are dangerous and full of landmines. So I find the really very unusual absence of information about who she is and where she came from notable enough to merit some caution.

Apart from that, I have no reason at all either to suspect her or to not-suspect her. I don't presume to know better than you do whom you should trust, or anything of the kind. However, I personally am very, very strongly in favor of erring on the side of caution wrt un-portfolio-having people who are in the same general vicinity as subjects that are dangerous and full of landmines. So I read your reply, felt concerned, and wanted briefly to express those concerns for what they were worth, just to be on the safe side. That's really about all there is to it. In short: I wasn't being cryptic. I just really didn't have that much to say.


Because that was what I was really saying there. Which for some reason nevertheless prompted you to again ask me what I was saying, as well as tell me that I was saying that contacting VM in connection with desertfae was a dangerous act. Which I hadn't said and wasn't saying. As I then went on to try to make clear for the third time by resorting to a neutral simile format. Which at least seems to have convinced you that I'm not evil, in light of which you're apparently at such a loss as to what non-evil thing I might conceivably have been saying that you're now asking me to say it once again. In addition to which:

(a) I have no good answer for your first question as phrased, because I've never been saying that you were doing anything, so I doubt you'll be satisfied with my answer.

(b) Although I was trying to avoid getting into a conflict with you, I now probably really have offended you by making the mistake of openly telling you what problems I'm having communicating with you; and

(c) My entire first post contains the answers to both this, your second question, and the next one. As a result of which....

3) Why would knowing her biography make a particular difference over knowing her written record in this case?


...I don't know how to answer this. I've already told you.

The main reason that I don't have any opinion is that I don't read that site much. Precisely because I have no idea who Virginia McCullough is or what her affiliations and credentials are. And I find it very, very odd that I don't. Because.....Most reporting doesn't really involve any special skills at all, in literal terms. It does (or at least should) involve talent, but anyone can make phone calls, ask questions, knock on doors, et cetera. But investigative reporting -- especially investigative reporting that implicates powerful and dangerous people -- really and truly is skilled work in the classic and traditional sense. Some people have a natural talent for it, obviously. But, you know, that and a nickel. It's still just inherently the kind of work that can't be done any better than you know how to do it. Which requires learned skills.

So it's really pretty anomalous to just come out of nowhere and start producing the kind of work VM does at the level that she does without any explanation at all of how and where she learned those skills, or what her achievements prior to newsmakingnews were, or a single trace or clue anywhere online that might suggest whether she started out as an intern at Knoll or a copy-girl at the Philadelphia Inquirer And her work is totally different from what Mae Brussell did. That wasn't reporting so much as it was figuring stuff out, for which Mae Brussel had a genius that was unique to her. So working with Mae Brussell in some undefined capacity really isn't enough to account for it. Or if it is -- ie, if she did investigative legwork for Mae Brussell, or something of that nature -- why doesn't she (VM) proudly claim her background experience and achievements the same way everyone else on earth does?


IOW, her written record is questionable based on the lack of ordinary biographical information alone, never mind the kind of minor red flags I mentioned in my answer to your first question, the example of which in Percival's post is as good as any other. If you want an example.

That's not a criticism of you and it's not a very strong criticism of her. There's a significant difference between "questionable" and "disreputable." And another significant difference between "disreputable" and "dangerous." If she is reputable, she shouldn't be offended by reasonable questions. And: "Who are you and where did you come from?" is definitely well within the boundaries of reasonable questioning, when you're asking it of someone who's asking you to take her word as bond. Reporters routinely have to provide credentials to people and also to dispel the unwarranted suspicions of sources and readers on a regular basis. It's my opinion -- which is informed but, I would like to emphasize, not authoritative by any means -- that any professional reporter who's not an exceptionally temperamental diva has no reason to be more than very mildly irritated at being asked those things by someone who asks them politely.

It is true that I wasn't sure what you wanted or where you were going but I am hereby suspending all suspicion in the spirit of genuine goodwill.


I very much appreciate it and hope I've managed to retain your good will for a record two consecutive posts in a row. But even if I haven't, you have mine, whether you believe it or not and whether you like it or not.

Best,

c2w
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:15 am

Perhaps I am missing something, and I will admit I do miss a lot, but it seems to be that this whole VM vs desertfae pissing match, for lack of a better word, boils down to one simple thing: greed. It seems to me that this is all about someone wanting to get all the credit, glory attention and fame themselves for doing the work that will bring those responsible for the murders of Mr Boger, Mr Alvarez and Miss Castro, to justice.

I dont know which party is at fault and I am not about to point any fingers but it is obvious both VM and desertfae want the same thing and are both working towards the same objective, so what are we to think when we see them both at eachothers throats claiming one or the other to be doing more harm than good.

This is what really sucks about the internets, everyone wants the attention all to themselves, everyone wants to be the first one to break a story and get all the attention, fame and fortune for doing so. But lest we forget this isnt about desertfae nor is it about VM, it is about Mr Boger, Mr Alvarez and Miss Castro, they were silenced, they were killed for knowing things that some people didnt want them to know and that is what the case should be all about, it should be about EVERYONE WORKING TOGETHER to bring to the forefront of justice, those responsible for those murders.

So I think both VM and desertfae, since it is clear in this ARTICLE that desertfae is who she says she is, namely Mr Boger's daughter who is responsible for getting this cold case reopened, need to come together and work together and help eachother bring these criminals to justice, set aside your egos and lust for attention, fame and fortune and do the right thing out of respect for those who died trying to expose those who make this world the shitty place it is.

In fact I would like to see it happen right here on RI, since there is no better place on the internet that has a group of people more dedicated to the truth, so this is a call out to VM, desertfae and any other parties involved to come here and clear the air so that we can all move forward together in our quest for justice for those who died.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:52 am

i love you percy. and i love your optimism.

i find it unlikely though.

FWIW, rachel seemed to indicate to me that she wasn't, at least at the time of her response to me, really all that interested in coming back here, to deal with people demanding copies of her birth certificate.

although she very well may, when she has time, as she explained to me that she is quite understandably very busy, what with the guy she thinks shot her dad having just been arrested and all.

for the record though, percy, if i was her, and you'd just suggested that my interest in my father's murder being solved was motivated solely by "greed", i'm not sure i'd come here to talk to you either...

[cause that is kind of an assholish thing to say]

[just as it was assholish when AD less courageously implied it with his cafepress comment]
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:10 am

Hi c2w-

Not really at my best now, so I'll be brief: Your fundamental premises are somewhat flawed and the special dangers that you are alluding to are somewhat vague. So I'll just acknowledge your words, chew on them further, and let it go at that.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:20 am

American Dream wrote:Hi c2w-

Not really at my best now, so I'll be brief: Your fundamental premises are somewhat flawed and the special dangers that you are alluding to are somewhat vague. So I'll just acknowledge your words, chew on them further, and let it go at that.


I am barely alluding to dangers of any kind. You have fixated on this word and it is blinding you to a very simple expression advising caution wrt the bona fides of someone who's not offering any proof of it. Please try to read what I wrote without any of the distorted perceptions you're bringing to it. Because if you can't understand that I'm saying what I'm saying at this point, it's because you're inferring stuff that's not stated AND NOT BECAUSE I'M IMPLYING IT.

YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, DID IMPLY THAT I WAS BEING DEVIOUS AND DISHONEST.

I like and respect you, AD. I really do. But you're just impossible to communicate with. Totally impossible. I give up.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:25 am

No, c2w- I'm neither thinking nor implying that you are being devious and dishonest. I am saying that the fundmental premises of your argument are flawed. And it is true that I'm still puzzled as to why you made it to begin with.

However, not a problem for me, really. I wish you well.

A.D.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:26 am

Cross Posted on Desert Fae Thread:

This just in from Virginia McCullough:

Wow! 14 pages of talking on this discussion board re "What would you do if Danny Casolaro asked for your help?" and only 2 pgs about Jimmy Hughes arrest for the Alvarez murders. This is disconcerting to me because it is obvious that there is far less interest on Jeff's site than I thought there would be re the Alvarez executions. However, I took the time this afternoon to read all of the 14 pages and I do have some comments.

Pg. 11 fascinated me because of the discussion between Penguin, Percival and Nathan 28 re the reality of the Promis software. Certainly Danny Casolaro became involved in "The Octopus" because of Bill and Nancy Hamilton and the Inslaw case. Behind the introduction of Danny to the Hamiltons was Jeffrey Steinberg of the LaRouche origanization. Therefore the reality of the fabled Promis software and whether or not it was/is truly "the Cadillac" of all software iwas at the core of his investigation, at least it was in its infancy. But like all good investigations, the center of the investigation changes with time and the information obtained. So it did with Danny. I know this because in the months before his murder I often talked to him three or four times a day, evidenced by both his and my phone records in my possession. So the discussion on page 11 clearly demonstrates that over time Inslaw was not everything that was being hyped so intensely in the media and promoted by Michael Riconosciuto in the later part of 1990 and throughout 1991. Most scientists in Silicon Valley the Cobol-based Promis software is old and slow...by today's standards it is a dinosaur. It was Michael Riconosciuto's allegations that turned Promis into the super software of legend. During the last several weeks of Danny's life his attention had clearly shifted to the gold transfers conveyed by various intelligence operatives as so well detailed by Unsolved Mysteries reporter Don Devereaux. The two Unsolved Mysteries programs covering Danny's killing and the misplaced hit intended for Don Devereaux following the Casolaro airing clearly demonstrates the danger in delving into government/mob secrets .

What I see now is the same manipulation of the Alvarez executions, several years after the fact, by the same brilliant individual Michael Riconosciuto. The story that Desert Fae is centering on and conveying to Nathan Baca and to law enforcement is the one promoted by Michael; i.e. the reason that Fred Alvarez was killed is because he was going to expose the Wackenhut/Cabazon Joint Venture and the arms manufacturing and sales that would be generated had that venture been successful. To be totally fair Desert Fae is also now saying that Robert Booth Nichols and his access to CIA funds might have been a motive for murder. In my opinion, based on my knowledge, documents and other books written about the Alvarez murders, there was a far greater, long term monetary incentive for the Alvarez executions. And that motive was control of land and the income it would bring to support our dirty little wars around the globe. I am currently working on a detailed article about this issue but it probably will not be post until next week. In any case, I have seen no proof, aside from Michael's allegations, that Promis was either developed and/or altered on the Cabazon reservation or that Dr. Gerald Bull's work product from Valleyfield ended up at the Cabazon Resevation, as also alleged by Michael.

As for Desert Fae, I can assure you that I know that she, law enforcement and Nathan Baca of KESQ-TV maintain a trilogy by communicating and attempting to control what is released. That is why the term "The Octopus Murders" is being used in unison when these individuals refer to what has historically been known as the Alvarez Executions. I also believe that Desert Fae has high hopes of being a key witness in the event that Jimmy Hughes is ever brought to trial. There is a long way between arrest, extradition, trial and conviction. I am not certain that I would want to rely on what I see available at the present time as evidence and witnesses in the event that Jimmy Hughes is quickly brought to trial. Justice is a brutal task master and it takes many twists and turns once it gets into a courtroom. It is my fervent belief that (1) Jimmy Hughes was involved in the killings, (2) that Jimmy Hughes was not the only shooter, (3) Jimmy Hughes will have very high priced and well versed attorneys, and (4) he will not be easily "turned" to rat on any one else. In spite of this exacting analysis, it is my hope that someone or several killers will eventually answer for the Alvarez executions.

At this point, I will simply let my writings and the documentation I offer be accepted or declined on its merits. My thought process in determining what I believe is true or false is my own based on my own knowledge and experience. As those who read my articles well know, I have been both right and wrong over the years. I suspect that this will continue to be the case because knowledge is an evolving process based on changing times.

virginia mccullough
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

cross-post

Postby compared2what? » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:40 am

Cross Posted on Casolaro Thread:

This just in from Virginia McCullough:

Wow! 14 pages of talking on this discussion board re "What would you do if Danny Casolaro asked for your help?" and only 2 pgs about Jimmy Hughes arrest for the Alvarez murders. This is disconcerting to me because it is obvious that there is far less interest on Jeff's site than I thought there would be re the Alvarez executions. However, I took the time this afternoon to read all of the 14 pages and I do have some comments.

Pg. 11 fascinated me because of the discussion between Penguin, Percival and Nathan 28 re the reality of the Promis software. Certainly Danny Casolaro became involved in "The Octopus" because of Bill and Nancy Hamilton and the Inslaw case. Behind the introduction of Danny to the Hamiltons was Jeffrey Steinberg of the LaRouche origanization. Therefore the reality of the fabled Promis software and whether or not it was/is truly "the Cadillac" of all software iwas at the core of his investigation, at least it was in its infancy. But like all good investigations, the center of the investigation changes with time and the information obtained. So it did with Danny. I know this because in the months before his murder I often talked to him three or four times a day, evidenced by both his and my phone records in my possession. So the discussion on page 11 clearly demonstrates that over time Inslaw was not everything that was being hyped so intensely in the media and promoted by Michael Riconosciuto in the later part of 1990 and throughout 1991. Most scientists in Silicon Valley the Cobol-based Promis software is old and slow...by today's standards it is a dinosaur. It was Michael Riconosciuto's allegations that turned Promis into the super software of legend. During the last several weeks of Danny's life his attention had clearly shifted to the gold transfers conveyed by various intelligence operatives as so well detailed by Unsolved Mysteries reporter Don Devereaux. The two Unsolved Mysteries programs covering Danny's killing and the misplaced hit intended for Don Devereaux following the Casolaro airing clearly demonstrates the danger in delving into government/mob secrets .

What I see now is the same manipulation of the Alvarez executions, several years after the fact, by the same brilliant individual Michael Riconosciuto. The story that Desert Fae is centering on and conveying to Nathan Baca and to law enforcement is the one promoted by Michael; i.e. the reason that Fred Alvarez was killed is because he was going to expose the Wackenhut/Cabazon Joint Venture and the arms manufacturing and sales that would be generated had that venture been successful. To be totally fair Desert Fae is also now saying that Robert Booth Nichols and his access to CIA funds might have been a motive for murder. In my opinion, based on my knowledge, documents and other books written about the Alvarez murders, there was a far greater, long term monetary incentive for the Alvarez executions. And that motive was control of land and the income it would bring to support our dirty little wars around the globe. I am currently working on a detailed article about this issue but it probably will not be post until next week. In any case, I have seen no proof, aside from Michael's allegations, that Promis was either developed and/or altered on the Cabazon reservation or that Dr. Gerald Bull's work product from Valleyfield ended up at the Cabazon Resevation, as also alleged by Michael.

As for Desert Fae, I can assure you that I know that she, law enforcement and Nathan Baca of KESQ-TV maintain a trilogy by communicating and attempting to control what is released. That is why the term "The Octopus Murders" is being used in unison when these individuals refer to what has historically been known as the Alvarez Executions. I also believe that Desert Fae has high hopes of being a key witness in the event that Jimmy Hughes is ever brought to trial. There is a long way between arrest, extradition, trial and conviction. I am not certain that I would want to rely on what I see available at the present time as evidence and witnesses in the event that Jimmy Hughes is quickly brought to trial. Justice is a brutal task master and it takes many twists and turns once it gets into a courtroom. It is my fervent belief that (1) Jimmy Hughes was involved in the killings, (2) that Jimmy Hughes was not the only shooter, (3) Jimmy Hughes will have very high priced and well versed attorneys, and (4) he will not be easily "turned" to rat on any one else. In spite of this exacting analysis, it is my hope that someone or several killers will eventually answer for the Alvarez executions.

At this point, I will simply let my writings and the documentation I offer be accepted or declined on its merits. My thought process in determining what I believe is true or false is my own based on my own knowledge and experience. As those who read my articles well know, I have been both right and wrong over the years. I suspect that this will continue to be the case because knowledge is an evolving process based on changing times.

virginia mccullough


The woman's name is Rachel and her father was murdered. To suggest that she has high hopes of being a star witness first of all makes little sense in itself, in that who the hell dreams of growing up to be a star witness? It's also an extremely hostile and cold-hearted way for someone who's in a position to influence the opinion of other people to characterize someone who's seeking justice in connection with a parent's murder. It has no news value, in itself. If your only point is that the conspiracy is other and/or larger than a case that's only just now in its very early stages, assuming that your documents and knowledge don't include complete access to every single act of a prosecution that hasn't happened yet, I don't really see (a) how you could possibly know with enough certainty to report it in what direction it's heading; or (b) why you couldn't do your fortune-telling wrt the future without insulting a woman who does not have as much clout and influence as you do and who is not a criminal suspect or a part of a conspiracy that happened long ago, but rather the child of one of its victims.

Your tone is inappropriate, unbecoming, and unprofessional. And that does speak for itself, by the way. Thanks.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:54 am

Searcher, maybe you said previously and I missed it, but can you tell us how desertfae first came across your radar screen, back around February 2008?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests