Maricopa Jane Doe 1999 Thread #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I could find out about the article's author, David Leibowitz, he's seems to be a pretty well-known journalist/talk radio host there.

I've also emailed KSAZ Channel 10 about the interview he mentioned with Alonzo Fernandez, and waiting for a reply.
 
From what I could find out about the article's author, David Leibowitz, he's seems to be a pretty well-known journalist/talk radio host there.

I've also emailed KSAZ Channel 10 about the interview he mentioned with Alonzo Fernandez, and waiting for a reply.
 
Meyahna, surely you can understand that without having seen the article, we are believing in the ring's existence solely on the basis of your say-so. It's pretty difficult to keep the faith without any confirmation! Since the ring allegedly had initials on it, this is a BIG piece of evidence!
 
Yes but since I absolutely don't know the person who nicely summarized the rest of the article he/she paid with their money and shared with you freely and there might even be a third person in this thread who saw it and we haven't conspired all together you should believe us all now.
 
The article was from the January 30, 1999 edition of the Arizona Republic, Valley and State Section, Page B1, written by David Leibowitz. That's where I got it and that's all I know about it. I haven't found anything about the ring anywhere else either. It's even possible that the writer had notes from more than one article on his desk and mixed them up.:eek:
 
The ring could have easily been mishandled.. that doesnt mean someone stole it. Ive read a couple of books about the storing of Crime scene evidence and things are lost. If there was a ring and now its gone, thats the most reasonable explanation.
 
I mentionned both possibilities I didn't say one was more possible than the other. Why do people always interprete things the way they want? Beside I find both to be unlikely I just threw possibilities. Some months ago I wrote the Maricopa website to ask them why they didn't have the reconstruction of a man on their site while it was mentionned in an article. And no the writer didn't invent a story about a reconstruction. The fact is the webmasters of this site had no clue that there was a reconstruction for this UID and they were glad I told them about it. Many cases they have might have been handled principally locally beside maybe some new people were recruited and they weren't there at the time the UID was found.
 
What is the problem here? Can you all get your OWN copy of the article, and why aren't the ones who have it sharing???

Come on people.
 
Yes, that'd be good if they bought it themselves since anyway they won't believe it unless they see the article by themselves. I'm glad that was probably the first and last time I send any update to WS. I'm treated like a liar and told I can't write. Why, you're welcome lol. As far as I'm concerned I can't share it, it was sent to me by a third person and I can't risk her account not as if it was mine. Might not have risked mine either for people like that though. I'll keep on sending updates like I usually do directly to the DN and you'll read them there.
 
I greatly appreciate hearing others ideas and thoughts on this case. :) I think anything is possible! hopefully the new info will lead to something!

but anyone who saw the articles did it ever say what time this happened? Early in the morning? evening? late at night???
 
Not sharing?:confused: That's not fair.

"Remember the copyright laws when posting news stories!" is right on the forums front page. The AZ Central newsbank website has a rather lengthy copyright warning message. Another poster asked (directed at the moderators) if I could post the article - no reply. So I paraphrased the whole article.

Anyway, for those who want it:

Arizona Republic
January 30, 1999
Section: Valley And State
Edition: Final Chaser
Page: B1
 
Meyahna said:
Yes, that'd be good if they bought it themselves since anyway they won't believe it unless they see the article by themselves. I'm glad that was probably the first and last time I send any update to WS. I'm treated like a liar and told I can't write. Why, you're welcome lol. As far as I'm concerned I can't share it, it was sent to me by a third person and I can't risk her account not as if it was mine. Might not have risked mine either for people like that though. I'll keep on sending updates like I usually do directly to the DN and you'll read them there.
Click to expand...

Well, if I had bought it I would just share it, I am not understanding the dilemma here. We all have accounts to different things, I may research here (Classmates for example) and provide info, so and so there (Itellius for example) and provide info. What's the big deal? $2? I am not trying to be rude at all. I am just not understanding the ridiculous bickering going on here over an article.

Someone find the article, share it, and be done with it. Move on everyone. Please.
 
fmw63 said:
If the ring was really on her, here's another twist found:

"MDA is known as the love drug in the American subculture because of its reputation for producing loving feelings in groups of people."

http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/rare_and_exotic_drugs/lovedrug.html
Click to expand...

MDMA, also known as Ecstasy, yes...

That puts a new spin on it. I wonder if it was "raver" type piece of jewelry. I know that in 1999, the rave culture was going strong in the Southwest, and MDMA was strongly associated with that culture.
 
oh wow thanks for all the info and links!!! I also was wondering if the initials on the ring had something to do with something other than someones name....
 
Sorry, I just remembered the initials were D.M.A. not M.D.A.:bang:
 
christine2448 said:
Well, if I had bought it I would just share it, I am not understanding the dilemma here. We all have accounts to different things, I may research here (Classmates for example) and provide info, so and so there (Itellius for example) and provide info. What's the big deal? $2? I am not trying to be rude at all. I am just not understanding the ridiculous bickering going on here over an article.

Someone find the article, share it, and be done with it. Move on everyone. Please.
Click to expand...

This is forbidden by the TOS of the site the article was on. Anyway the info was provided, and that they get the full article or not changes nothing you'll always find people who'd think FTW and I wrote it together as a plot against Websleuths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 1,922 (members: 80, guests: 1,842)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
1,842
Total visitors
1,922
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,475
Messages
18,048,308
Members
230,011
Latest member
Ms.Priss74
Back
Top