Michael James Riconosciuto

[OP ED]

when OP ED began taking this seriously, it took OP ED less than twenty minutes to verify desertfae's identity to OP ED's satisfaction. OP ED is not a professional journalist, but OP ED has google, and a phone...

[American Dream]

Dr._Doogie wrote:

So your "two year" arguement does not hold water. Long after Rachel's identity as Boger's daughter was no longer in dispute - if it ever was in doubt by anyone other than you and your NMN buddies - Virginia continued her agenda of innuendo against the daughter of a murder victim.

So this woman who claims to be Virginia McCullough and claims to be a journanist should apologize through this entity known by its internet handle as American Dream who claims to not be Virginia McCullough. (See how easy it is to be "not false", yet slanderous by subtle innuendo and selective wording?

Firstly, you yourself have crafted what is allegedly "my" argument into something that is so distorted as to be a straw man.

Secondly, irregardless of what your demands are towards VM, I'm not interested in mediating those conversations. So don't expect me to do your bidding.

[DeltaDawn]

Not that my opinion means a damn thing to this thread, but ditto OP ED...just don't get it, with little but fervent research, it looks like Rachel is EXactly who she says she is.
I 'get' that there are 'games' I don't understand but wouldn't you think the law applies here also? In other words, innocent until proven guilty? She seems to have gone above and beyond in revealing her story, just to have a place to toss around thoughts and get some 'productive' feedback.

Since RI seems to be the center for a lot of 'players', wouldn't we all learn more and maybe be more of a help to some, if we quit spending so much time making this thread (and others) flow as we want it to, and just let it flow?

I personally hope that Rachel gets justice and that "Octopus" get exposed, thus, maybe solving lots of things we should know about, but sometimes get in our own way and never figure out.

Sorry, just been following for awhile and Want to learn More.

[OP ED]

That i had figured it out so quickly, privately that is, was my reasoning back when i attempted to resurrect thee olde infamous octopi thread(s) to begin with. or rather i'd become interested in watching the various participants.

see i had icky spider sensations as well... i just think i'd initially misidentified their source. made me feel reactionary, and played. plus my tiny conscience was bugging me that rachel was being screwed too. y'know.

[search for it, i've had to link it too many times, and i don't have the attention span right now]

[desertfae]

I 'get' that there are 'games' I don't understand but wouldn't you think the law applies here also?

The game is called Character Assassination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination
Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

For living individuals targeted by character assassination attempts, this may result in being rejected by his community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are often difficult to reverse or rectify, and the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can last a lifetime or, for historical figures, for many centuries after their death.

In practice, character assassination may involve double speak, spreading of rumors, innuendo or deliberate misinformation on topics relating to the subject's morals, integrity, and reputation. It may involve spinning information that is technically true, but that is presented in a misleading manner or is presented without the necessary context.

In other words, innocent until proven guilty? She seems to have gone above and beyond in revealing her story, just to have a place to toss around thoughts and get some 'productive' feedback.

Well, generally, if I were on trial that would apply, but I'm not
I'm not the criminal here, and I've done nothing illegal, at all, in my investigation.
Also, I come here specifically to offset the above referenced 'game'. I 'have a place to toss around thoughts and get some 'productive' feedback' at my own forum on my site.

Since RI seems to be the center for a lot of 'players', wouldn't we all learn more and maybe be more of a help to some, if we quit spending so much time making this thread (and others) flow as we want it to, and just let it flow?

RI is not the center of a lot of players. I came here in the beginning because I noticed someone had been talking about me here, so I just joined in and tried to keep people updated, until everyone started attacking me. I realized pretty fast that I was in the 'vipers nest' because NMN started in on the attacking and above referenced 'game'. They had already been doing this offline before they started it here. I decided at that point to let everyone who wanted to listen to lies have at it, and I continued my investigation regardless. I only came back after that point to offset lies, twisting of things and such against me. Anita, from what I can see, is only doing the same.
The only 'players' that come here for anything other than to defend themselves are the NMN women.

I personally hope that Rachel gets justice and that "Octopus" get exposed, thus, maybe solving lots of things we should know about, but sometimes get in our own way and never figure out.

Sorry, just been following for awhile and Want to learn More.

Thanks DeltaDawn, welcome to the madness. I'm limited in what I can say here due to the protection of the NMN women, but I have no problem stating exactly what is going on at my own forum.

[Dr_Doogie]

Ad, let me link again to your exact post:

Also, you keep suggesting that Virginia "should have known" two years ago that desertfae really was Rachel. Please explain what you are saying about when exactly she should have known, and why exactly she should have known, i.e. specifically how she should have had access to solid evidence proving that this is so.

And now my post:

As of 11/16/09 (three months ago), Virginia posted in an article:

"Media publicity since Hughes’ arrest has centered on the strange partnership formed between Riverside County Sheriff Cold Case Detective Powers and a woman who identifies herself as the daughter of one of the people killed in the backyard of Fred Alvarez’s home, Fred Boger. The woman is Rachel Begley who uses the internet handle Desertfae (Desertfae.com). "

So after John Powers and local media had identified Rachel as Boger's daughter, Virginia was still playing the "woman who identifies herself as the daughter" game. This sentence could have (and should have) read:

"Media publicity since Hughes’ arrest has centered on the strange partnership formed between Riverside County Sheriff Cold Case Detective Powers and a woman who is the daughter of one of the people killed in the backyard of Fred Alvarez’s home, Fred Boger."

So your "two year" arguement does not hold water. Long after Rachel's identity as Boger's daughter was no longer in dispute - if it ever was in doubt by anyone other than you and your NMN buddies - Virginia continued her agenda of innuendo against the daughter of a murder victim.

So this woman who claims to be Virginia McCullough and claims to be a journanist should apologize through this entity known by its internet handle as American Dream who claims to not be Virginia McCullough. (See how easy it is to be "not false", yet slanderous by subtle innuendo and selective wording?)

Your response:

Firstly, you yourself have crafted what is allegedly "my" argument into something that is so distorted as to be a straw man.

Secondly, irregardless of what your demands are towards VM, I'm not interested in mediating those conversations. So don't expect me to do your bidding.

Maybe by seeing the posts in order without other posts, you may grasp how pathetic your last post is. You asked how could VM have known two years ago that Rachel is who she says that she is. I pointed out VM was continuing to insinuate that Rachel's identity was a question mark as recently as three months ago - after other media and law enforcement had obvious answered that question to their satisfaction.

You asked "when exactly she (VM) should have known"? Answer: Long before three months ago.

You asked "why exactly (should) she should have known"? Answer: Because the Riverside Sheriff's Department and the California Department of Justice (two entities who do not participate in ARG's) moved forward with the case and evidently had no issues with Rachel's identity.

You asked "specifically, how she should have had access to solid evidence proving that this is so"? Answer: Absent any solid evidence, VM never should have made the claims she did. Is this her usually journalistic style - make unfounded accusations and then demand "solid evidence" to disprove the accusation?

AD, let me make myself clear. I refuse to give you the luxury of playing stupid. You fully know what you are doing and are fully aware of what role you are playing. All of your claims of me creating strawmen from your positions are ludicrous. You clearly stated a bogus "two years ago" argument and I showed that VNM was still doing it as of three months ago. "Two years" was the strawman - three months is the simple fact.

[compared2what?]

I'm not suggesting an ego-trip, or even a lingual trip like c2w? would fall over herself to perform...

Ahem.

Definition of Lingual

1. a. Of or pertaining to the tongue;

I don't think I even want to know where you heard that one, psynapz. But come on, have a heart, will you? Because seriously. It's just not true. I swear it.

Why me, Lord? Why?

[compared2what?]

Sounder wrote:

Journalists check their ‘facts’, its part of the job.

I understand what you are saying, and I mostly agree.

What part don't you agree with?

I think Virginia might rest in the position that she didn't get to see Rachel's documents and then verify them. That said, if you don't know, or aren't sure, the best position to take is something like "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". The statement about Rachel being an actress in an ARG was misleading and did very much add to the confusion here.

It was evidently a flat-out falsehood. And a potentially defamatory one. As a matter of the barest-bone, rock-bottom lowest acceptable news-reporting standards there are, unless she had rock-solid evidence proving that Rachel wasn't who she said she was, she was obligated to call or write to Rachel requesting comment before asserting it as an unqualifed truth.

barracuda wrote:

She should have known before making a public statement

I essentially agree. See my comments above.

Per your comments above, one can't really blame a writer who doesn't know whether what she's reporting is true for reporting a falsehood because, after all, how could she possibly have known what she was talking about?

That's not called reporting, AD. It's called unfounded and malicious rumor-mongering.

[compared2what?]

Hmmm.... So you won't retract your allegations but neither will you substantiate them?

This does not suggest reliability, at all.

It's perfectly compatible with it, under the circumstances, imo. I wouldn't trust you with any information that I thought your NMN friends could exploit either. If I had any. Which I don't. (Subpoenas. Avoiding them.)

Can you really not see why people about whom they'd repeatedly written in scornful and vicious terms might prefer not to answer your questions?

[American Dream]

Doogie, we are talking apples and oranges here. My question, which I asked several times over several weeks, concerned when Rachel and Virginia first became aware of each other (and how), and what this might have meant in terms of verifying desertfae's identity, way back when.

Your issue concerning VM's writing of three months ago is a very different matter. When the arrest of Jimmy Hughes was first announced four months ago, I decided that Rachel must be who she said she was. I said that I would publicly apologize for doubting her identity, which I sincerely did, right here on this board. That was before you came here but if you look over the archive you will see that this is so.

So, in terms of questioning Rachel's identity since the arrest was announced, I don't agree with it- it does not represent my position. So the language in the article that you cited does not at all reflect how I would portray things and that should be clear from the record here.

Also Doogie, more than once you have just palin ignored my question regarding what your position actually is vis a vis Michael Riconosciuto. Please show me the courtesy of responding to the question when you do reply.

[barracuda]

Your issue concerning VM's writing of three months ago is a very different matter. When the arrest of Jimmy Hughes was first announced four months ago, I decided that Rachel must be who she said she was. I said that I would publicly apologize for doubting her identity, which I sincerely did, right here on this board. That was before you came here but if you look over the archive you will see that this is so.

So, in terms of questioning Rachel's identity since the arrest was announced, I don't agree with it- it does not represent my position. So the language in the article that you cited does not at all reflect how I would portray things and that should be clear from the record here.

Let's examine that heartfelt sincerity embodied by your apology to desertfae.

viewtopic.php?p=289753#p289753

Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:23 am

Well, it's sure looking like I was wrong about desertfae, although I think that if you read the previous 17 pages it's not hard to see why there might have been doubts.

Anyway, it's looking like it's time for this:


Rachel, I'm truly sorry if I made you feel unsupported and unbelieved and I wish you many, many great successes in your future battles with the Octopus.

I'm hoping that this is only the beginning and that some serious Justice and Truth will be the ultimate outcome from all of this.

Sincerely,

American Dream

Touching. But since that cold day in October when hell froze over, how, exactly, have you contributed to making Rachel feel supported and believed? I mean, if, in fact, your apology was sincere and all, one might expect the sentiment embodied there to last past one post.

[American Dream]

More to the original topic of this thread, I am extremely concerned that the presence of people in the Riconosciuto posse (and/or the Gunderson posse) do not bode well for the Jimmy Hughes trial, especially for the goal of "exposing the Octopus".

I have said many, many times both here in this thread and elsewhere that I think Rachel's intentions are honorable and that it is completely legitimate that she want justice for the murder of her father. That really does reflect my sentiment, and is a voluntary and completely sincere expression on my part. My apology for doubting Rachel's identity was completely sincere and does represent my thinking ever since.

However, look back over this thread and you will see Anita Bryant coming on saying that I should be banned from this board, etc. It is things like that which add to the polarization.

Please note also that I did remove the link to the post she complained about and did reformat the article so that it could be posted here, minus the information which she complained about- information which I did not know she had a problem with until she came on here, demanding my head on a platter.

[barracuda]

I don't think anyone has seriously considered banning you on Anita's request, AD. Let's just not confuse sincerity with grudging obligation.

[American Dream]

As to me getting banned on Anita Langley's demand- yeah, obviously it did not happen. However, in terms of her pushing for this to happen, it is very polarizing- that is my point.

As to Rachel, I do think it is honorable and reasonable to want to work for justice for the cold-blooded murder of your own father. How could I not? I've said this many times before, too.

Where I do differ now, and have differed from the very beginning is in my estimation of Gunderson and Riconosciuto and their close associates. I don't see these people as having a strong likelihood of moving things forward on exposing the head of the Octopus. I just don't, and never did- not two years ago and not now.

So where does that leave things? It is inevitable that I will continue to have opinions that won't be agreeable to everyone here. But around these issues, it might be possible that I could negotiate a personal co-existence pact, at least.

[barracuda]

Your co-existence has never been the issue here. It is the existence of individuals like Rachael, who is distinctly in real-life peril of being targeted by the worst elements on the wrong side of this case, that is worrisome. And this aspect of this case has never seemed to be important to NMN in any way.