Michael James Riconosciuto

[Anita]

Also, you brought up Mae, so I wanted to point out the Mae Sendikson sockpuppet. You are right that her materials are largely public domain, and this is not about a custody fight over her files. She made well organized references and that was an issue. Scattered tapes on people's shelves were not a big concern, curious people looking through her archives and stumbling on an assembly of documents related to Thompson's group is another matter.

[Dr_Doogie]

My take on Mae Brussell is that she was often wrong, but she was right more often than she was wrong.

[Anita]

A Mae quote:
"If I am only 5% right, you'd better be worried"

I always liked that one.

[American Dream]

nathan28 wrote

So--does a significant portion of all this boil down to a fight over Brussels's files?

I'm not thinking that this is fundamentally about the Mae Brussell files. However, I'm still left wondering what does frame and define the conflict. My sense is that it goes far beyond the events that happened here on this board. I don't fully understand even that though- for example when Rachel says she was verified by a background check and that Virginia McCullough therefore should have known who she was.

Michael Riconosciuto and Ted Gunderson have also been players in this somehow but it's not completely clear how much, in what way or, most importantly, why...

More information would be helpful.

If we can get to the point where all these stories really are on the table, it will then be possible to compare and contrast these various explanations about what is really going on and maybe even move things forward in terms of really understanding what is going on.

[Sounder]

AD wrote...

it will then be possible to compare and contrast these various explanations

Virginia is the one that has some explaining to do. One cannot be trusted or even really be called a journalist if they promote false yet easily checkable facts.

You know, sort of like Glen Beck.

[desertfae]

So--does a significant portion of all this boil down to a fight over Brussels's files?

For me, this is not about the Mae Brussel files, although I hear what VM did with them was shady, that is not why I have issues with her.

I'm not thinking that this is fundamentally about the Mae Brussell files. However, I'm still left wondering what does frame and define the conflict.

How many times do you need this explained to you? Can one person really be this dense?

My sense is that it goes far beyond the events that happened here on this board.

Yea, like I've said a thousand times before.. interference in cases. How much more clear does one need to be to get it through your head?

I don't fully understand even that though- for example when Rachel says she was verified by a background check and that Virginia McCullough therefore should have known who she was.

What is there not to understand in what I said? Again, can one person be so dense?

More information would be helpful.

If we can get to the point where all these stories really are on the table, it will then be possible to compare and contrast these various explanations about what is really going on and maybe even move things forward in terms of really understanding what is going on.

Yea, lets get VM's story on the table on why she lied about me, why she's interfering in active homicide cases, and why she's twisting things so much.
As for my side of the story, I've laid it out pretty clearly, yet I've not seen VM do that at all. Instead, she skips around questions, a lot like you do AD.

[American Dream]

Rachel, it doesn't seem that your side of the story is completely clear. Of course you have made most of the assertions above more than once, but that's not really getting at everything.

Here are three questions about issues that don't seem completely clear to me:


When are you saying that Virginia should have known that your identity was incontrovertibly verified, and why should she have known?

When did it become clear that you two weren't getting along, and how did that happen?

Have people tied to Ted Gunderson and/or Michael Riconosciuto played much of a role in all of this?


Giving your answers to these questions would help significantly in getting your side of the story on the table.


Please understand that what I said before holds true:

I certainly do believe that Rachel wants justice for the murder of her father, which is perfectly legitimate, understandable and honorable.

[desertfae]

Rachel, it doesn't seem that your side of the story is completely clear. Of course you have made most of the assertions above more than once, but that's not really getting at everything.

Here are three questions about issues that don't seem completely clear to me:


When are you saying that Virginia should have known that your identity was incontrovertibly verified, and why should she have known?

When did it become clear that you two weren't getting along, and how did that happen?

Have people tied to Ted Gunderson and/or Michael Riconosciuto played much of a role in all of this?


Giving your answers to these questions would help significantly in getting your side of the story on the table.

I've answered all of these before, and I really don't see the need to repeat myself countless times.
How about YOU answer some of my questions.. why don't you go "channel" VM for us again and get the answers to MY questions before you ask me anything else.

1- Why did VM lie about me when she knew exactly who I was?
2- When is VM going to apologize for her lies?
3- Why is VM interfering in multiple murder cases?
4- Why does VM twist everything around?
5- Why does VM attempt to make me out to be some 'bad guy' in her articles or call my motives into question?
6- Why does VM even think she has any right to anything in my case when she has no reason to stick her nose in?

After you 'channel' VM again and get the answers to these questions (not answers that skip around my questions), I may answer more questions, until that time, go look up the answers that I've already given yourself and stop asking me repeat myself over and over.

[Anita]

lols at the inability of AD to recall anything put up three posts earlier, let alone specific explanations from another thread.

While channelling VM, maybe you could ask her who the sockpuppet Mae Sendikson was working for when vandalizing the wikipages of Michael Riconosciuto, Ted Gunderson, Les Coleman, Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, and a few other related pages.

[American Dream]

desertfae wrote:

why don't you go "channel" VM for us again and get the answers to MY questions

This is one of those no-win situations. When I did mediate communications I was attacked for that. If I don't, it's used to justify a different kind of attack.


Anita wrote:

lols at the inability of AD to recall anything put up three posts earlier,

Anyone who wants to can look back for themselves three posts, or three pages, and see that while Rachel responds to some questions she studiously avoids responding to questions about the influence of people allied with Gunderson and/or Riconosciuto on all that is happening.

I think that is important, most especially for Rachel and for the case.

[Anita]

why don't you start a separate thread questioning Rachel's competence with regards to which material witnesses she should trust and stick to the topic, which is Michael Riconosciuto. As an extension of that, I think examining the employed sockpuppets that have vandalized wikipedia pages related to Michael is worthy of this thread, your challenging who Rachel is being influenced by is just another load of crap distraction.

[American Dream]

I think a really worthy topic for this thread concerns the role of people connected to Riconosciuto in the developing story of the Jimmy Hughes trial.

Rachel and/or Anita- you are especially invited to share your thoughts on this...

[desertfae]

Rachel and/or Anita- you are especially invited to share your thoughts on this...

My thought... You still haven't answered questions from pages ago from me and Sounder.
FAIL - try again.

[American Dream]

..

I'll just point out here to others that there really are a number of reasons to be concerned about Mr. Riconosciuto.

..

[desertfae]

..

I'll just point out here to others that there really are a number of reasons to be concerned about Mr. Riconosciuto.

..

Avoidance of previous questions.
FAIL - try again.