BREAKING: Hughes Arrested for 1981 Alavarez Murders

[American Dream]

desertfae wrote:

Well, I can tell you VM, that you just fibbed about the date of your last letter to Hamlin, you know why? Because he sent it to me and I have it.

Here is an email I just received from Virginia McCullough. I will put her comments in italics.

A.D.



I only checked my outlook express for the last letter filed there under Hamlin. I did not take the time to go to the basement and check the hard copy file for Richard, so it is possible that I wrote to him after that. After all, I am in touch with his family – not his ex-wife or children – but other members and I might well have tried once again to get him to respond later than 2-25-08. I am the first to admit that, given the sheer amount of paper in this house, my filing system is fallible. Having said that, at this point, I am glad I made an error, if I did, because it tells me that Richard Hamlin and DesertFae are in touch with each other, assuming that DesertFae is telling the truth. This is very revealing because I know that Michael Riconosciuto and Richard are also in touch with each other, according to what Richard verbally told me when we were still talking.

The way I will handle this is to simply send you the last letter I wrote Richard in my outlook file for your information. I will also give DesertFae permission to post my letter to Richard that she has in her possession if she so desires. It would be nice to have a copy to file for my records. I have nothing to hide….does Richard Hamlin or Desert Fae?




Virginia Lee McCullough
Post Office Box 589
Sunol, California 94586

February 25, 2008

Richard W. Hamlin
#F49561
Calipatria State Prison
Post Office Box 5007
Calipatria, California 92233

Dear Richard:

I have not heard from you since roughly January 2007. However, I have always promised you that if I wrote any article mentioning you or having to do directly or indirectly with your case, I would send you a copy.

Therefore I am enclosing the last two articles that I have written about Michael Riconosciuto and his involvement in the Philip Arthur Thompson case. The articles are the truth and thoroughly documented. I hope that you find them informative, whether or not you agree with them.

I hope that this finds you well and reasonably happy. Feel free to write to me if you so desire. I bear you no ill will and only wish you well.

Sincerely,


Virginia McCullough

Enclosures:

[JM]

I'd venture to guess that Huxley did not believe everything he heard.
Good for you, V. This is the way to get the facts!

[desertfae]

Here is an email I just received from Virginia McCullough. I will put her comments in italics.

A.D.

I am glad I made an error, if I did, because it tells me that Richard Hamlin and DesertFae are in touch with each other, assuming that DesertFae is telling the truth. This is very revealing because I know that Michael Riconosciuto and Richard are also in touch with each other, according to what Richard verbally told me when we were still talking.

The way I will handle this is to simply send you the last letter I wrote Richard in my outlook file for your information. I will also give DesertFae permission to post my letter to Richard that she has in her possession if she so desires. It would be nice to have a copy to file for my records. I have nothing to hide….does Richard Hamlin or Desert Fae?

OOO AHHHH... VM thinks she uncovered a smoking gun! LOL
I've never kept it secret that Hamlin writes me. So what if he does.
Just like anyone else, I don't give him any evidence in my case that will screw up the case, so there's no smoking gun here.
My understanding is that Hamlin and MR aren't in touch anymore.
As far as me passing something to Hamlin from you .. I"m not your messenger nor one of your puppets.
Love how you imply that I'm somehow bad or something with your "does Richard Hamlin or desertfae have something to hide" junk.. LOL
Remember, I'm not the one that lied on this forum and elsewhere VM.
Go have another glass of vodka.

[desertfae]

If you state the facts, back them up with documentation that you are willing to show to people (why are you hiding documentation? Only because you are afraid someone will trump you---or you don't really have it!)

Wow, JM and I agree with each other here.. amazing.
I'd like to see the documentation that VM has to back up her claim that I am "nothing more than an actress".

We need to look into the backgrounds of some of these people; why are they are involved and what are their qualifications? Are they being paid? By whom? Do they have an emotional .

Yes, I'd like to know why some of these people are involved too, their qualifications, if they are being paid, by whom etc... a couple come to mind (VM/KD). You hit this right on the nose JM, thanks!!

I have met so MANY fake experts over the years, I can't count them. Just because someone was close to a situation (by their own choosing or not) does not make them qualified to tell you any facts. And usually these types profess to know -it -all.

Let's see, VM and KD have stated that they were "close to the situation" act like "know it alls" and I don't see any qualifications to say that they know all the 'facts".. yep, right on the nose again JM!

In my experience these people are only seeking attention and have no qualifications to discuss these trials/crimes.

Good call JM, you're batting a thousand with VM/KD here!

They just "play" with other people claiming they are important to a case and even (horrors) make stuff up when they don't know an answer! Makes them feel important, and sadly, useful. Egos are dangerous things.
And one more thing----with them writing volumes and whining about their importance on here you can be sure the real people who really know anything will stay away!

For the most part this is correct in regards to VM/KD, however, the real people who really know at times get fed up with some things that are said and want to set the record straight, although, I did stay away for a period of time due to the lies.

[American Dream]

So Rachel, would you be willing to make a statement regarding any connection you might have to close associates of Ted Gunderson and/or Michael Riconosciuto, as well as directly to either of these two very controversial men?

[Trifecta]

Richard Hamlin gets life http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... highlight=

[desertfae]

So Rachel, would you be willing to make a statement regarding any connection you might have to close associates of Ted Gunderson and/or Michael Riconosciuto, as well as directly to either of these two very controversial men?

Why, so you can interrogate me more? LOL

[American Dream]

Rachel, I've never seen you indicate critical consciousness about Ted Gunderson and Michael Riconosciuto.

Do you have any?


Please note that a dialogue about this topic need not be part of an emotional and/or egocentric dispute, but might actually help to make things better in some very real and significant ways...

[compared2what?]

I'd venture to guess that Huxley did not believe everything he heard.
Good for you, V. This is the way to get the facts!

But for what purpose worth the effort, when she adheres to the same talking points with the same monotonous fidelity from start to finish on every story she covers, without making any perceptible accommodation for the facts she's getting? Such as -- for instance -- reporting the relevant ones fully and impartially?

Please see my post @ 4:26 a.m. on page 23. Because if you can come up with a thorough, thoughtful and fair interpretation of VM's coverage of the Hamlin trial that reveals it to be anything besides a factually sparse and highly melodramatic reiteration of the defense that Ted Gunderson helped him put together, I'd be much indebted to you for sharing it with the board.

I'd do it myself if I could. But no matter how hard I look, all I see is someone whose deeds as a journalist covering breaking news stories are totally incompatible with the empty, principled words she speaks later when nothing's at stake.

You can also explain why your faith in her is unaffected by her comments on the events leading up to Hughes's arrest having all, without exception, been either blatantly and demonstrably false or strongly biased in his favor, if you feel like it.

But please either do one or the other, or hold your fire.

Because, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, with cases that touch on issues of the magnitude that this one does, the consequences of putting your trust in people whose actions are at odds with their rhetoric are simply much, much too serious for any serious advocate for justice ever responsibly to leave legitimate questions about it unaddressed. Both for reputation's sake and for that of the common good.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Rachel, I've never seen you indicate critical consciousness about Ted Gunderson and Michael Riconosciuto.

Do you have any?


Please note that a dialogue about this topic need not be part of an emotional and/or egocentric dispute, but might actually help to make things better in some very real and significant ways...

Please see above. Either justify your comfort level with your pal's blatant, repeatedly demonstrated and unapologetic taste for self-contradictory, untrue or misleading statements or drop the campaign you and she share, A.D.

It's the only responsible course of action, at this point.

[American Dream]

As I've indicated previously, I did follow the Richard Hamlin Case back when it was unfolding. However, I wouldn't claim to have followed it closely, nor to remember all the details about it.

That said, here is an interesting article about the case, as authored by Richard Hamlin himself.

Since the only available copy is on Red Ice, I'll have to link to that:



The Case Against Dr. Sidney Siemer By Richard Hamlin

[JM]

I'd venture to guess that Huxley did not believe everything he heard.
Good for you, V. This is the way to get the facts!

But for what purpose worth the effort, when she adheres to the same talking points with the same monotonous fidelity from start to finish on every story she covers, without making any perceptible accommodation for the facts she's getting? Such as -- for instance -- reporting the relevant ones fully and impartially?

I was not giving a treatise on V's entire body of work, just commenting on the fact that she posted the letter.

Please see my post @ 4:26 a.m. on page 23. Because if you can come up with a thorough, thoughtful and fair interpretation of VM's coverage of the Hamlin trial that reveals it to be anything besides a factually sparse and highly melodramatic reiteration of the defense that Ted Gunderson helped him put together, I'd be much indebted to you for sharing it with the board.

I did read your post. It is very thoughtful (full of thought) and you ask intriguing questions. Since I am not familiar with the Hamlin case I can't comment, though. Her style of writing is different then that of a serious news story. (I would love to know what happened to those!) She definitely personalizes the story. I have not always agreed with everything she has written. When someone adds opinion to facts it does opens up the door to controversy.

I'd do it myself if I could. But no matter how hard I look, all I see is someone whose deeds as a journalist covering breaking news stories are totally incompatible with the empty, principled words she speaks later when nothing's at stake.

You can also explain why your faith in her is unaffected by her comments on the events leading up to Hughes's arrest having all, without exception, been either blatantly and demonstrably false or strongly biased in his favor, if you feel like it.

Again, I don't know anything about Hughes, but I do know and can document most of what she and KD have written in the tlg Data Dump. It was impressive.

But please either do one or the other, or hold your fire.

Because, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, with cases that touch on issues of the magnitude that this one does, the consequences of putting your trust in people whose actions are at odds with their rhetoric are simply much, much too serious for any serious advocate for justice ever responsibly to leave legitimate questions about it unaddressed. Both for reputation's sake and for that of the common good.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Rachel, I've never seen you indicate critical consciousness about Ted Gunderson and Michael Riconosciuto.

Do you have any?


Please note that a dialogue about this topic need not be part of an emotional and/or egocentric dispute, but might actually help to make things better in some very real and significant ways...

Please see above. Either justify your comfort level with your pal's blatant, repeatedly demonstrated and unapologetic taste for self-contradictory, untrue or misleading statements or drop the campaign you and she share, A.D.

It's the only responsible course of action, at this point.

[/b]

[compared2what?]

As I've indicated previously, I did follow the Richard Hamlin Case back when it was unfolding. However, I wouldn't claim to have followed it closely, nor to remember all the details about it.

That's why I asked you to respond to my post, which fully and thoroughly supports my characterization of VM's coverage as having been in the bag for Hamlin's Gunderson-assisted defense, and equally fully and thoroughly contradicts the views she expresses in the email she had you post in response to me.

Please read that post and address the issues in it. It's massively irresponsible and potentially obstructive of justice for you to continue to take any position at all on the subjects being discussed on this thread until you do.

Although frankly, I don't really see what would prevent a seriously concerned and well-intentioned person from taking an hour or so to refresh his memory of the details in question by seeking them out at their source. As I said above, there can be extremely serious consequences to simply ignoring signs that the person in whom you've invested your trust might not be working on the side of your better interests.

There's no room for avoidable error on stuff like this, A.D. Too much is at stake. Among other things, you might not just be putting your own credibility and personal well-being at risk by making one. At least in theory, you're putting the credibility and personal well-being of every single person who trusts you or follows your lead based on that mistake at risk.

You've got an ethical obligation to give thorough, thoughtful and fair consideration to signs that your trusted authorities are untrustworthy, therefore.

So either (a) address VM's credibility issues in a way that explains why you're not bothered by her history of writing highly selective and sometimes inaccurate accounts of various and sundry trials that, practically without exception, aggressively defend and protect the interests she purports to oppose; or (b) drop the subject.

Ignorance is not an allowable defense. If you don't know the details and you're not satisfied that my excerpts fairly represent them, go read the articles yourself. They're not that long. And they totally, utterly contradict the self-righteous, self-regarding and wittingly misleading words she had you post on her behalf.

To summarize:

(1) There's absolutely no good-faith excuse for the kind of sustained willful irresponsibility you'd be opting for by continued refusal to acknowledge that there are any reasons to question NMN's trustworthiness.

(2) Continued evasion of the question on your part doesn't reflect well on anyone.

(3) You're not such a lightweight that you can't handle reading and thinking about some short and uncomplicated articles.

(4) Your disagreement is much too uninformed to be meaningful if you can't take the trouble to do reading so basic that it's more of a precursor to research than it is research itself.

So just do it.

Thanks.

Thanks also for the link.

[American Dream]

compared2what? wrote

American Dream wrote:

As I've indicated previously, I did follow the Richard Hamlin Case back when it was unfolding. However, I wouldn't claim to have followed it closely, nor to remember all the details about it.

That's why I asked you to respond to my post, which fully and thoroughly supports my characterization of VM's coverage as having been in the bag for Hamlin's Gunderson-assisted defense, and equally fully and thoroughly contradicts the views she expresses in the email she had you post in response to me.

c2w, you are mistaken if you think that my comments about Hamlin were meant for you in any way- they weren't, nor were they intended to be germane to your comments just previous.

The honest truth is, I'm not interested in engaging with you here, which is my perogative. So I'd ask that you don't look for responses from me.

That's really all I have to say.

[monster]

p0wned

[Dr_Doogie]

Dr_Doogie wrote:

How can AD indict me for holding a similar to position to Virginia (who AD seems to hold in such esteem) concerning MR when our stated positions are so similar?

Citations please...



I do think that you like to make things up, in that you seem to have a problem of stating your interpretations as fact, when you are actually being a little bit loose with the truth.

For example, you said previously that KD and VM both felt that "TG and MR should ignored." I still don't see what you based this interpretation on. And it's definitely not what I think.

(Sigh)