FYI just added to FINDERS datadump

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: hamlin trial prediction

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:46 pm

In doing a google, I see that Hamlin wouldn't have had to have been a creative writer, with this kind of article on the net:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://educate-yourself.org/mc/mcgensurveyofdidpatients7nov0.shtml">educate-yourself.org/mc/m...nov0.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>It's the same site that Gunderson posts at, too, btw. I wonder which came forst, the chicken or the Gunderson egg?<br><br>I suppose I should go back and locate the Hamlin thread, instead of contining to hijack this thread. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: hamlin trial prediction

Postby Dreams End » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:46 pm

I started the hijacking, chiggerbit. And I'm sorry I did, as the summaries from newsmaking news and the long, detailed replies are worth moving over to the main Hamlin thread. (and to think that she took the time to reply twice, given the computer snafu.)<br><br>One curious thing about all of this is that, if the state does not believe there was a Satanic cult conspiracy, and surely they do not, then how can it not believe that Richard is mentally ill. Those seem the only two options, especially from the state's perspective. If this stuff isn't true, then wouldn't Richard have to be crazy to believe it and to force his wife to believe it as well? Even though we might find gradations of possibilities between those two extremes, I wouldn't expect the state to.<br><br>As I think about it, clearly Richard believes the SRA story. As I said, I think an insanity defense would have been easy for him. And using the news that Susan reported abusing the children as a moment that triggered a breakdown in him would make a lot of sense and be consistent with the facts as understood. Of course, in Catch-22 style, if he was "sane" enough to agree to be declared "insane" then he really wouldn't be "insane" at all. Insane is not a term of psychology, but of law and simply means whether the person was mentally competent to understand the difference between right and wrong at the time the crime was committed. Clearly, if one has delusions that a satanic cult is molesting your children and is out to do you in, then actions taken to prevent this would be consistent with "right" in your mind. So really I don't think he could be tried on this point, unless the prosecutor could find some "sane" motive for forcing his wife to buy into this stuff.<br><br>Susan's first letter is extremely familiar, as it could have been written by my wife to her own father. In fact, she had a conversation exactly like that with him just two days ago, for the exact same reasons (she didn't ask about sexual abuse...that's too tough, but she did ask about physical abuse.) So yes, chiggerbit is right, familiar terrain around here.<br><br>I guess I just can't understand Richard's response, assuming Susan's stories of childhood abuse did surface spontaneously. I understand about gathering data, but my first response, as would most husbands' I think, would be to look after my wife's mental health. If I thought she had been abusing her daughter, I would remove the daughter from the situation. And if I thought her father were involved in a powerful cult with military connections, I'd do what I could to protect my family first, not antagonize this dangerous man. I would fight, yes...but not in a way that further endangered my family. <br><br>As a lawyer, surely he had to know that his approach to Sid was...bizarre. Putting flyers up all over town? Paintballing buildings where abuse was alleged to occur? How about filing charges? How about hiring a private investigator to gather evidence? For the right price, you could have Sid's entire employment history, income history, investments and assets, and probably much more. A few hundred bucks and some investigator clicking a mouse a time or two, and there you have it. No guessing about Indio. No guessing about his past employment. And if there are "gaps" that at least confirms he was doing "off the record" stuff. <br><br>So, I could accept that he came unhinged after the abuse allegations, but unhinged is unhinged and I think that this would have been the defense to present.<br><br>If he wants, on the other hand, to present the broad conspiracy angle, why cut Riconosciuto out of the picture? Does he just expect the jury to take his word for it all? Does he have some evidence we don't know about? I think the whole thing shows a disconnect from reality which was either caused by or led to the whole SRA scenario. <br><br>The Bavaria thing was in a letter to me from Bradley.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>He only had Susan's molestation confessions and her claim that she and her dad were a part of a "Bavarian Satanic cult." I told Rick that sounded like the crazy Illuminati I'd read about and then I told him about MK Ultra and the story really seemed to fit her pattern. All of that came from me. He didn't make it up and didn't discuss it with his wife previously. I also got Ted Gunderson involved, but many people warned us about him and his involvement ceased early on.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I only talked to Richard Hamlin about 30 minutes in the jail, and he had little to say to me, I think, in part, because I am not a fundamentalist Christian. Bradley, on the other, hand was open-minded with me.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Somewhere on the other thread, Bradley downplayed the Christian angle and that it was not as big a deal as Richard had seemed to make it. I had asked, because Richard's feeling that it was specifically about bagging a "trophy Christian" did not ring true to me but sounded more like a religious delusion. While I know nothing of actual Satanic practices or whatever, "bagging a Christian" didn't seem like the kind of thing that a cult that has stayed carefully hidden for hundreds of years would do so casually.<br><br>So Bradley said that religion was, in fact, not that big a part of Richard's life, despite these statements..<br><br>Also, Richard and Susan lived a partying lifestyle, did they not? Am I remembering that correctly? Was there a big conversion experience? Also, and this is important I think, was Richard involved with any particular church or denomination? Although Bradley says it was his own research that led to the "Illuminati" perspective, a fundamentalist church might also have reinforced that idea.<br><br>I have to back off my comments on Bradley...I don't really mean to make him out as a bad guy. I really don't think that any rational person would pin their hopes on getting a guy off the hook by spinning SRA stories. As such, I can't really think of any other reason they'd introduce the concept unless they believed it. And Bradley says he suggested the idea initially, so that would seem to suggest that he simply wasn't buying into a delusional belief system. However the initial claim of a "Bavarian satanic cult" came from Richard who said it was the recollection of Susan. Unless she really was in an actual "Bavarian satanic cult" (which I don't completely rule out but find unlikely) the information had to come from somewhere....<br><br>Oh, I should add this about Gunderson's involvement. Again, via Bradley's email to me (we went back to communicating via the bulletin board...these emails were not about nonpublic info. I'd though I might be able to me of more assistance than I ultimately was, but due to the climate on the board at the time, I didn't know if I could simply post without hostile responses cluttering the thread.) <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I also got Ted Gunderson involved, but many people warned us about him and his involvement ceased early on.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Finally, I want to say about Newsmakingnews. I'm curious to know what that website is about...I mean who started it and why? And I don't mean this in a suspicious way, it is simply a unique site. <br><br>While entertaining these ideas of Satanic conspiracies, it seems a standard of research and evidence gathering has been maintained, with no defensiveness or indignation at other points of view. I see you have the Mae Brussel archives? Does NMN grow from her work or did you simply agree to host her archives. Either way, that alone is a great service. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 1/2/06 12:59 pm<br></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: hamlin trial prediction

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:55 pm

I wasn't very clear on what I meant by my comment on Gunderson's involvement. I wonder if Richard's theory of satanic/cult accusations came before or after he came in contact with Gunderson. Let's face it, that became Gunderson's "specialty" after he "retired" and/or got booted from the FBI. Ugh! Anyway, what I am still not clear on is whether Susan is saying NOW that she was sexually abused. Is this a case of a husband going completely off the rails when informed that his wife was sexually abused by her father? It looks to me like Susan was a sexual abuse victim. The rest of Richard's story looks pretty improbable....except for Susan's first letter. If Susan were Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), then I would have to take a second look at the information. If she were to be DID and also abused by her husband, what a tragedy. I'm trying to imagine the burden of trying to deal with DID, and then having to deal with an abusive husband who is going off the rails. All of this is conjecture, mind you.<br><br>As for Riconosciuto, every time I make up my mind that he is just a brilliant con, some new information will surface to prove he was right on target the whole time. Gunderson though? Anybody notice how many people die who come in contact with him? Why is that?<br><br><br>Your reaction would be totally different than that of most men in this country, DE. You are very well-grounded, stable, insightful and informed. All of those characteristics would be required in order to trigger the kind of response you talk about. The majority of American men are not like you. After all, you are talking about a population that voted for GW Bush. They might not go off the rails exactly, but they might bash the bastard's teeth in. As for Bradley, he sounds like a man who loves his brother in spite of past difficulties. But, he also sounds like a man who is unwilling to suspend all rational judgment, so, there is this balancing act going on all the time in his head. Just my reading, mind you.<br><br>I suspect that the other tragedy here is that Sid Siemer is getting by with murder. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: hamlin trial prediction

Postby Dreams End » Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:22 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I wonder if Richard's theory of satanic/cult accusations came before or after he came in contact with Gunderson.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think Bradley is saying that Gunderson came from him AFTER he heard about SRA allegations from Richard.<br><br>There's another thread around here about AIDS that has a link to a long article about bioweapons research and AIDS. I haven't read much of it, but it has a lot of names, and even includes some scientists who studies zoological and even botanical pathogens. All the names are people involved in covert bioweapons research, so I would recommend K and V at NMN and maybe Bradley have a look to see if any of the names ring a bell. I was also NOT happy to see a link between MKULTRA and bioweapons research, specifically of research designed to create AIDS as well as Chronic Fatique Syndrome. I don't know about the validity of all the analysis in the reports, but the names are probably a very helpful resource. And if I happen to run across Siemer's name...it's game over, in my view, though that is unlikely.<br><br>Nope...no mention of Siemer or too many private companies. Still worth a look for anyone familiar with the industry Siemer is in...I certainly am not. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 1/2/06 3:09 pm<br></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: hamlin trial prediction

Postby anotherdrew » Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:50 pm

newmakingnews seems to be suspecting the Hamlin was working on a divorce deal where he would get everything and the wife would get nothing. His plan then went sour when the cops didn't play along. Maybe.<br><br>for what it's worth, I've found that the whole book (22pages, not much of a book really) I excerpted my addition to the datadump from is on that educate-yourself site, so what I thought was a semi-rare find that named names and licence plates, scanned from a old out-of-print book was, in reality, really readily available after all, so let's let this thread go. <p></p><i></i>
anotherdrew
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Who's who? What's what?

Postby Newsmakingnews » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:21 pm

Hi<br>I am Kate Dixon (Kathryn Joanne Dixon) publisher of Newsmakingnews, PO Box 217, Fremont, CA 94537-2017 and I exclusively own said website and am responsible for its contents. NMN has been operating since October 1999. <br><br>Virginia McCullough, who was a reporter and radio personality, before NMN ever started, publishes some of her articles on NMN, and she is the archivist for the Mae Brussell archives. I try to post as much Mae Brussell material as I can. I am also a reporter who is learning the ropes. Virginia McCullough is covering the Hamlin trial in depth.<br><br>All the stuff I posted on this board was my personal opinion and perceptions only. I had the fortunate opportunity to attend the Hamlin trial for about 3 weeks and, hear and see a lot of Richard's and Susan's testimony and that of the children. I also looked at the court file several times. I never spoke to Susan Hamlin. I understood she did not talk to press in general. During Richard's testimony he stated his belief in Christ, and was rather humble in ways because he did not state he was a Christian Trophy head or some such thing, but admitted to making mistake like everybody else. <br><br>Richard is quite likeable as an attorney and a witness, but he is facing a life sentence and that is a heavy burden. Susan appears like a classy type woman who got caught in a wringer, of her own making, in part, and then in part, of Richard's making. And the wringer spun out of control. Richard made two tape recordings of the sessions, which depict one act of violence by him upon her and a death threat. Without these recordings, the idea of "sessions" would have little meaning. <br><br>I know psychiatrist and psychologists have "sessions" with patients. I know that in the book Candy Jones, her husband had sessions with her to try to cure her of mind control techniques used on her by a Dr. Jensen of Oakland area, California. I know that more recently, in a book by Cathy O'Brien, her husband also tried to cure her of mind control techniques. Both of these books reveal "sessions" where a husband tries to cure a wife and she accepts that and it has some success or evolution. I don't think either of these books mention curing "Satanism" per se, or go to the extent that the Hamlins' sessions went -- into not only Susan Hamlin's recovery of abuse memories (She now denies her father ever abused her sexually), but go into trying to get data on the alleged perpetrator, his associates, his abuse of others, details about ritual abuse, persons, locations. After the Hamlin "sessions" both Richard and Susan would try to confirm the reality of Susan's memories by contacting third persons, looking at books, etcetera. Susan now says much of her activity in this direction was coerced, however her writings are so extensive, one thinks she had a personal involvement in the sessions. <br>Richard Hamlin's use of the "sessions" also reminds one of an attorney preparing a case against his father in law, (barred by the statute of limitations he found out) and then a case by his on children against the father in law with Susan also named as a perpetrator, and then Richard had an interest in proving the father-in-law was trying to kill him in conjunction with Susan and others. So Richard told the jury right out and told the first sheriff investigator that he wanted to really prove up the whole case because people wouldn't believe him if he went to the police with Susan to turn her in as a molester, and reveal the rest of the story, unless he had the proof in perfect order. Richard really believed he had the proof. He was acting as a quasi - district attorney and he was a deputy D.A. in Sacramento for about three years, and prosecuted a cult member, Cornfed Schneider of Aryan nation fame (who had to be tried twice to get a conviction back then.)<br><br>It is true Richard and Susan can be viewed at two persons facing the panic of divorce and struggling to make financial, personal, decisions. For example, I have heard of cases where spouses fight and one or the other calls the police and accuses the other of any number of things, and the other accuses back, and finally, the police may or may not arrest someone for something. Thereby, someone can get an advantage in a divorce situation -- if there is a jailing, or no bail situation or conviction, and claim to a judge they deserve child custody, or control of property, etc. <br>Ironcially, Richard and Susan are talented attorneys and did not file for divorce up until the time Richard was arrested. Later Susan filed and the divorce has been granted. I don't know how much the "Sessions" and topic of Satanism and child abuse and Susan's revelations that she was abused by her father and subsequent recanting of those allegations, (claiming they were caused by Richard's coerction) were involved in simply gaining power or control over a divorce situation, and/or were real. Probably a mixture of divorce panic and serious relationship and personal issues, which exploded when law enforcement was introduced into the equation. <br><br>As for DID, I assume you mean Dissociative Disorder, I believe Richard had a psychiatrist testify as to Susan's mental state. I did not hear that testimony, but I was told it was to try to show she had "multiple personalities". The DA made a motion to have Richard examined for mental competency, claiming he had fixed delusions re: Satanism, etc., but Richard successfully opposed that motion. Richard never introduced any evidence that I am aware of, that he had any serious mental problem or drug/alcohol problems. <br><br>Susan testified and both she and Richard prior to the arrest were trying to write a book. And she testified he wrote some things on his own for the book and she wrote some things on her own for the book.<br><br>Dr. Sidney Siemer has a doctorate in agricultural science, and had until last year, a agriculture firm in Fresno, Siemer & Associates. He has a couple of ag. patents listed on US patents online. I don't know where he is now, or what he is doing. He is about 71 and is married. <br><br>So, I hope I have answered some questions to some degree that were raised by persons on this email thread.<br><br>Kate Dixon, Newsmakingnews.com<br> <p></p><i></i>
Newsmakingnews
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Franklin Scandal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests