Justice Watch Support JW "The 60 MINUTES scam" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... The 60 MINUTES scam, Holly, 12:42:47, 3/30/2001 Holly, momo, 13:03:59, 3/30/2001, (#1) wow, Holly, that's just, Edie Pratt, 13:06:56, 3/30/2001, (#2) Holly, fly, 14:36:46, 3/30/2001, (#3) Fly, momo, 14:44:37, 3/30/2001, (#4) what interview?, Edie Pratt, 14:48:07, 3/30/2001, (#5) EdieP, Holly, 23:13:56, 3/30/2001, (#32) Edie , momo, 14:51:04, 3/30/2001, (#6) Nancy, Scully, 15:12:34, 3/30/2001, (#7) Scully, JR, 11:53:00, 3/31/2001, (#91) Hmmm, Country Girl, 15:30:51, 3/30/2001, (#9) CG., Holly, 23:16:28, 3/30/2001, (#33) What a shameful thing to do, Cassandra, 15:23:21, 3/30/2001, (#8) This shameful, Morgan, 15:50:34, 3/30/2001, (#12) Scully, starry, 15:38:25, 3/30/2001, (#10) starry, Scully, 15:44:17, 3/30/2001, (#11) No, Scully, starry, 15:55:33, 3/30/2001, (#13) FBI, mame, 16:23:01, 3/30/2001, (#14) Not only did the FBI, Holly, 23:20:12, 3/30/2001, (#34) mame, starry, 16:41:38, 3/30/2001, (#15) Con Game, Real Stormy, 17:05:22, 3/30/2001, (#16) Real S, Holly, 22:13:26, 3/30/2001, (#29) Real Stormy, Edie Pratt, 17:12:12, 3/30/2001, (#17) A couple of things, v_p, 17:45:04, 3/30/2001, (#18) holly's, mame, 17:55:50, 3/30/2001, (#19) I just want to reiterate, Msracoon, 18:45:30, 3/30/2001, (#20) Nancy's safety, Edie Pratt, 18:49:01, 3/30/2001, (#21) Why wouldn't we, momo, 19:00:31, 3/30/2001, (#22) My only question is, Starling, 19:55:20, 3/30/2001, (#25) Sence?, SDean1, 19:53:59, 3/30/2001, (#24) Well, Sue., Holly, 23:25:39, 3/30/2001, (#35) Man's Inhumanity to Man..., Pretzel, 19:44:15, 3/30/2001, (#23) uhhhhh, mame, 20:59:54, 3/30/2001, (#26) mame, FT, 21:21:14, 3/30/2001, (#27) hey FT..., mame, 21:59:42, 3/30/2001, (#28) mame, Holly, 22:36:24, 3/30/2001, (#30) fly., Holly, 23:07:56, 3/30/2001, (#31) Day late Dollar short, Imbackon, 06:06:00, 3/31/2001, (#36) eerie parallels, mary99, 06:29:43, 3/31/2001, (#39) Imbackon, Watching you, 06:18:08, 3/31/2001, (#37) The REAL MW scam, darby, 06:26:36, 3/31/2001, (#38) Imbackon, darby, 06:42:33, 3/31/2001, (#41) darby, mary99, 06:40:21, 3/31/2001, (#40) I guess, janphi, 07:00:36, 3/31/2001, (#43) janphi, mary99, 07:29:25, 3/31/2001, (#48) Fleet White involved?, darby, 06:54:09, 3/31/2001, (#42) Darby., Holly, 07:47:29, 3/31/2001, (#58) Okay, enough, Watching you, 07:07:36, 3/31/2001, (#44) WY, Holly, 07:37:56, 3/31/2001, (#52) WY, RiverRat, 07:31:10, 3/31/2001, (#49) RR, Holly, 07:41:30, 3/31/2001, (#54) RR, mary99, 07:39:10, 3/31/2001, (#53) WY, darby, 07:22:18, 3/31/2001, (#46) Darby, Watching you, 07:43:30, 3/31/2001, (#57) Watching you, mary99, 07:16:49, 3/31/2001, (#45) Mame injected herself, Watching you, 07:36:33, 3/31/2001, (#51) FWIW, mary99, 08:18:07, 3/31/2001, (#70) I'm not, Watching you, 08:41:56, 3/31/2001, (#77) my opinion, Imbackon, 07:36:05, 3/31/2001, (#50) Besides, WY, darby, 07:28:13, 3/31/2001, (#47) Just for the record,, Cassandra, 07:42:16, 3/31/2001, (#56) I remember when, Holly, 07:50:24, 3/31/2001, (#60) And, now, Watching you, 07:42:08, 3/31/2001, (#55) As a matter of fact, WY,, Holly, 07:56:21, 3/31/2001, (#62) agenda?, darby, 07:48:03, 3/31/2001, (#59) aHa, Darby, Watching you, 08:03:45, 3/31/2001, (#66) Cassie, darby, 07:50:36, 3/31/2001, (#61) Wow, Imbackon!, Grace, 07:59:22, 3/31/2001, (#64) Gosh, Grace., Holly, 08:02:16, 3/31/2001, (#65) Good Grief!, Holly, 07:57:37, 3/31/2001, (#63) Okay, WY, darby, 08:07:45, 3/31/2001, (#67) I still didn't know, Holly, 08:09:29, 3/31/2001, (#68) Holly, not only, Watching you, 08:15:16, 3/31/2001, (#69) Only ONE, Holly, 08:23:20, 3/31/2001, (#73) maybe this, mame, 08:20:16, 3/31/2001, (#72) Is the trial of Rex Krebs, Holly, 08:25:02, 3/31/2001, (#74) One more thing, WY, darby, 08:18:43, 3/31/2001, (#71) the jury is out, mame, 08:29:47, 3/31/2001, (#75) Mame, Suhila, 09:47:48, 3/31/2001, (#84) Darby, you're already, Cassandra, 08:33:19, 3/31/2001, (#76) My final word - going to buy some fish, v_p, 09:23:48, 3/31/2001, (#79) v_p, Holly, 09:28:00, 3/31/2001, (#81) v_p, mary99, 10:06:28, 3/31/2001, (#86) A shy #76, Greenleaf, 09:07:16, 3/31/2001, (#78) oh greenie, mame, 09:45:13, 3/31/2001, (#83) No flame here, Greenleaf., Holly, 09:23:57, 3/31/2001, (#80) v_p, Morgan, 09:45:06, 3/31/2001, (#82) Where is Nancy now,, LurkerXIV, 10:16:42, 3/31/2001, (#88) what bone?, mame, 09:51:45, 3/31/2001, (#85) mame, listener, 10:09:00, 3/31/2001, (#87) WY, mame, 10:30:22, 3/31/2001, (#90) Hey, y'all, janphi, 10:25:03, 3/31/2001, (#89) ................................................................... "The 60 MINUTES scam" Posted by Holly on 12:42:47 3/30/2001 This is a true story. When Nancy Krebs brought her story to the BPD in February 2000, a bomb went off. No one knew if her information would answer questions or raise more issues. White family members involved in a sex ring! Distressing - especially to Fleet White. All of us wondered two things. Were the claims true and how would the information impact the investigation into JonBenet's murder? Not surprisingly the lines were drawn pretty quickly - Fleet White supporters and a faction of posters who had a nagging feeling that Nancy Krebs was telling the truth. Fleet White did nothing. No restraining order. No public statement. No denial. For a man who addressed the people of CO and took Tracey and Hunter to task, White's silence was out of character. Nancy returned to Boulder in May 2000 and learned the BPD was finished with their investigation. After a 12 week probe, none of the dots connected. End of the story. Or was it? Where was Fleet White's outrage when the information directly impacted his family? Where was the statement to the People of Colorado that the claims were baloney? Where was a restraining order against Nancy Krebs? In 3 months White did nothing. Where was he when the BPD concluded the information did not implicate Fleet White in JB's death? What about a statement of gratitude and a stern warning that Nancy Krebs could expect to see him in court? But, before the end of the summer ,something interesting developed. A journalist/producer for 60 MINUTES contacted people close to Nancy Krebs and made some inquiries. Incredibly, the nation's top investigative show wanted to give Nancy a voice. They had investigative resources and no concern about legal fall-out and Mike Wallace was eager. They wanted to sneak up on White, so it was imperative that the effort be kept entirely quiet. Day after day, the tenacious producer called and called - establishing the goal of a video taped meeting in Los Angeles. Mike Wallace would do the story, she said. And again, DO NOT tell a soul. For weeks no one else knew a thing. The calls to get Nancy before the 60 MINUTES cameras became more intense. Nancy, was wary, but there was confidence among her supporters, that 60 MINUTES and Mike Wallace would do the segment with honesty and credibility. By the time of last July's MD BBQ, it seemed the taping was close. Meanwhile, the forums were erupting. At JW, any mention of FW or Nancy provoked an endless stream of diatribes, threats and cryptic messages. Some posters seemed particularly vicious. It wasn't just an attack on Nancy Krebs, her credibility or her information, it was open season on internet posters who wanted to see the information fully investigated. The intensity of of forum discussion seemed to match the intensity of the 60 MINUTES producer/journalist so eager to tape Nancy, so that her interview could be reviewed by Mike Wallace. In retrospect that may have been by design. An energetic campaign to convince members that Nancy was a liar, might have the effect of urging Nancy to go forward with the 60 MINUTES interview. mame had countless conversations with the producer. The producer was very focused on specific information. - bullet statements she wanted on tape. mame wanted the woman to understand the complexity of Nancy's story. She wanted the producer to peel back the layers and understand the complete picture. But the producer seemed less interested in that and more interested in Nancy confirming select parts of her story. So at the end of the summer Nancy called 60 MINUTES - and learned the producer/journalist, was NOT working on a project there. The news stunned her friends and supporters. Nancy was confronted with a bitter reality. The producer was pulling a scam. Who was this woman? Why would she undertake such an elaborate hoax? At the same time, JW was being titillated with the promise of a BIG media event concerning White. Post after post attacked Nancy. In early August, at the height of the 60 MINUTES effort, Fleet filed his complaint with the BPD. Nancy detractors rejoiced. What better environment to push Nancy in front of a video camera in LA? There were threats and promises that posters would need lawyers. Assurances from one poster that names had been turned over to Team White. There would be big time payback for anyone who doubted White's hero status. Fleet forces were out for blood. It seemed clear, that someone thought that a scam would put Nancy in a compromising position. So it was time to start digging. Who was this producer? What was the purpose of the scam? You won't remember, but a thread went up that was nothing more than a message to the person responsible for scamming Nancy. I and others believe that journalist/ producer is either a member of the Justice Watch community or connected to a member. We believe the forum was mis-used by someone who was, in effect, an agent for Fleet White. We can't prove it absolutely, we just think the evidence is there to support that conclusion. And it was interesting to note who suddenly took a sabbatical. In the end, this scam artist should know, that Nancy is not a liar as far as any of us can tell. Despite the beliefs of some, many of us were open to any valid exposure of Nancy as a fraud. This is a search for the truth. Right? Within weeks, Fleet White wrote to Judge Bailin saying he wanted his complaint against the media withdrawn. Then he told the DAILY CAMERA he never made that request. Judge Bailin's clerk told me there was no question White wanted the complaint dropped. And White never appealed Bailin's decision. And he never filed a civil suit, never had his lawyers go after posters. The forum threats, just like the 60 MINUTES segment, were baloney. But what is most important, White never denied anything Nancy said. No one heard from the bogus 60 MINUTES producer again. But research into her writing/producing credentials discovered a years old co-production credit at 60 MINUTES. If the woman was legitimately pursuing a story, she stepped over the ethical line, lying every step of the way. To my knowledge, 60 MINUTES never verified she was working on something for them. They didn't know what I was talking about, when I called. While I think it is acceptable for investigative reporters to "go undercover" or use other techniques to nail the bad guy, it seems they should be able to convince there IS a bad guy. If pro-White forces thought ,or think, they have the goods on Nancy, tell the BPD. Tell a law enforcement agency who can take action - even the FBI. Then do an expose'. But a behind the scenes scam to put an emotionally bruised but courageous woman on tape, answering personal questions about her experiences, "to be reviewed by Mike Wallace", who is waiting to present the truth, is despicable. This is also a cautionary tale. There are agendas out there. And the forums are a fine place to float mis-information and theories. A little pushing of poster hot buttons and you have post after post and thread after thread of "public" discussion that could be manipulated into pages of support of a libel/slander claim. And most of it may have been manipulated for exactly that reason [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Holly" Posted by momo on 13:03:59 3/30/2001 One thing I'll never, ever understand is why people claim to want justice for a brutally murdered little girl yet they won't "go there". A good detective, amateur or not, follows every lead, no matter where that lead goes. Oh, and BTW, I'm pretty sure I know which person it was who did that dastardly deed and he/she ought to be ashamed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "wow, Holly, that's just" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:08:17 3/30/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:08:17, 3/30/2001 nevermind:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Holly" Posted by fly on 14:36:46 3/30/2001 Holly - Very interesting story. A few random comments and questions: (1) I assume this is the more complete story alluded to previously by you or Morgan concerning AK's bad behavior? If so, I guess I should conclude that you are suggesting that the person pulling the scam is AK? If so, why not just come out and say it? (2) Is there some reason you can't give the name used by the person you think was running a scam? (3) You strongly imply, if not directly state, that the person running the scam was working for FW. Other than the timing issues that you think are important, do you have any evidence this is true? The timing might be very telling and as you say, or it might be coincidence, or FW's actions might have influenced it, but not intentionally on his part. If we are to believe FW is directly involved and the bad guy (multiple aspects) you suggest, it would be helpful to have supporting evidence (just as it would have been helpful in the case of Nancy's story). (4) You seem to suggest that the heated discussions that occurred at JW were intentional and designed to further the progress of the scam, presumedly by the "producer." You also seem to suggest that more than the "producer" was working toward that aim. If I haven't misinterpreted, I'm rather skeptical and offended. While it might be that the "producer" was doing this, I seriously doubt that the posts of the JW folks were part of that conspiracy. (5) While I don't condone the kind of subterfuge you describe, I do have to wonder how this scam would put Nancy in a "compromising position" if her story is the truth? (6) I can't believe 60Minutes would be pleased that somebody would falsely claim to be a 60Minutes producer and that Mike Wallace was involved. Did this get investigated by them, and did they check to see whether anybody had given the go-ahead to begin to work the early development of such a project? I'm pretty skeptical that 60Minutes would be interested in Nancy's story, but who knows? (7) A little more objectivity concerning the JW events might have been a good idea. "Out for blood" is a bit over the top, as is your general portrayal of the situation. (8) You imply guilt when FW doesn't continue to scream in protest, but where are Nancy's screams of protest in this. Afterall, months have passed since this went down. Why wait so long to reveal this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Fly" Posted by momo on 14:44:37 3/30/2001 I wonder why someone would be secretive about it? If Nancy's story is true you can imagine how she feels. I'd be scared and wondering what that person might have in mind other than an interview. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "what interview?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:48:07 3/30/2001 the whole thing was a ruse. Now, the question is, why the ruse? Who benefits? Who pays? so many questions, so few answers...for now:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "EdieP" Posted by Holly on 23:13:56 3/30/2001 Exactly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Edie " Posted by momo on 14:51:04 3/30/2001 I have to wonder if there was any danger to Nancy if she had shown up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Nancy" Posted by Scully on 15:12:34 3/30/2001 Didn't the FBI interview and investigate Nancy's allegations and decide to dismiss her claims when her story didn't pan out? If they conducted an investigation and found any credence to her story, might they not have suggested she enter a "witness protection program" for her own safety while they continued to investigate her story? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Scully" Posted by JR on 11:53:00 3/31/2001 Seems to me they chalked her up as a fruitcake - but then lot of women molesed as children get the same rap from what I have read. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Hmmm" Posted by Country Girl on 15:30:51 3/30/2001 Why wasn't this '60 Minutes' producer checked out before any information or interviews were given out? That would have been the first step, not the last IMO. I'm sorry, but why not post the name of the so-called producer? FW's name is mentioned over and over and over. The fact that he hasn't sued MW means what? Foster hasn't sued SB but do we doubt that his personal and professional reputation has been assailed? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "CG." Posted by Holly on 23:16:28 3/30/2001 If the "producer" is a poster at JW, that would be a violation of the House Rules. And yes, if I had been among the people originally contacted, I would have been my usual suspicious self. Like I said to fly, sometimes what seems to good to be true - is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "What a shameful thing to do" Posted by Cassandra on 15:23:21 3/30/2001 to that poor woman. I'm glad you are exposing it, Holly. Shocking the things people will do to each other. Was she after a story or on a vicious power trip? I wonder what other cases she has inserted herself into, and if she has interfered in the pursuit of justice? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "This shameful" Posted by Morgan on 15:50:34 3/30/2001 failed scam on a woman who has already suffered so much might have put Nancy who any manner of danger, we'll never know. There was only one producer involved and if, as is VERY likely, the producer is a poster on this forum, we don't want to put up anyone's real name. As Holly mentioned, the woman who contacted Nancy on a daily basis for months, actually co-produced a 60 Minutes story as an independent. She recieved criticism for her questionable ethics by media members and others, for her role in that story. She represented herself to Nancy as a producer employed be 60 Minutes, which is not true. Hopefully, other posters can provide more detailed info on this scam. Concurrant with this woman's efforts to persuade Nancy and her therapist to participate in what was described to be a taped interview, the poster AK led a vicious attack on Nancy on this forum, which was/is? known to be read by many players: lawyers, journalists, witnesses, etc., in this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Scully" Posted by starry on 15:38:25 3/30/2001 I believe it was the BPD who said that there was nothing to Nancy's claim, not the FBI. To my knowledge, the FBI hasn't issued any statements about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "starry" Posted by Scully on 15:44:17 3/30/2001 My bad. For some reason I thought there had been involvement on the part of the FBI. Guess I'd better stick to the hoof-and-mouth thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "No, Scully" Posted by starry on 15:55:33 3/30/2001 You're not bad. It seems to me that the FBI has had plenty of time to investigate it and if they haven't found any evidence to back up Nancy's claims then they are the baddies. They should issue a report when it's concluded, but hey!, if only I ran the FBI, right? In a perfect world... there wouldn't be the need for investigations like that.... if only I ran the world... But, hey, one child at a time.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "FBI" Posted by mame on 16:23:01 3/30/2001 not sure where anyone got the information that the FBI ruled out nancy's information. they met with her a year ago for several hours, treated her with the utmost respect, and told her that their investigation could take 12-18 months to complete. the case was given to at least three different FBI's offices around the country. that's the last word anyone has heard. the BPD moved on quickly...there's hope the FBI did not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Not only did the FBI" Posted by Holly on 23:20:12 3/30/2001 talk to Nancy for hours, but Hunter turned over information to the FBI and other agencies relevant to Nancy's information after the BPD exited. I could be wrong, but I don't think Hunter had authority to turn over the results of the BPD investigation, that the BPD said went nowhere. So I'm thinking it is possible that Hunter turned over information he had regarding the Whites. It's just a hunch. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "mame" Posted by starry on 16:41:38 3/30/2001 I didn't think the FBI had ruled out Nancy's claims. Just said that I thought they have had plenty of time. (IMO, course, I am rather impatient, being a Gemini and all). I'm glad to hear they treated her with the utmost respect. After all that she's had to endure she deserves that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Con Game" Posted by Real Stormy on 17:05:22 3/30/2001 When a person is out to con, it's easy to be conned. Sorry the Brooklyn Bridge is sold. I might be able to get you a good deal on the Golden Gate,though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Real S" Posted by Holly on 22:13:26 3/30/2001 What is your proof that Nancy was conning anyone? Or is this just a theory? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Real Stormy" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:12:12 3/30/2001 who's the con? Nancy or the bogus producer? If you mean Nancy, she took a pretty dicey chance by injecting herself, and I have yet to see how she could benefit if FW had come out swinging. As for the other one, not a very good con if she didn't achieve her goal, hence, noone was conned. Guess you better hold onto your bridges for a while more. Not a seller's market now, anyway:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "A couple of things" Posted by v_p on 17:46:39 3/30/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:46:39, 3/30/2001 Holly, you wrote: "We can't prove it absolutely, we just think the evidence is there to support that conclusion. And it was interesting to note who suddenly took a sabbatical. Who's we? mame had countless conversations with the producer. The producer was very focused on specific information. - bullet statements she wanted on tape. mame wanted the woman to understand the complexity of Nancy's story. She wanted the producer to peel back the layers and understand the complete picture. Can you spell gullible?? No offense, well, maybe some, but mame, sheesh, you had "countless" conversations about something so important to you and this fragile Nancey person and you didn't even check this so-called producer out? Makes it even harder to believe you checked out much of Nancy's story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "holly's" Posted by mame on 17:55:50 3/30/2001 post speaks for itself. the person purported to be a REAL jounalist who had done stories for 60 minutes. the REAL journalists i know say who they are and don't lie. it's one of the strongest codes in journalism. the moment i began reporting the ramsey story here...even in a small way...i asked toppcat to post my real name. i felt an obligation to do so. this thread i doubt was posted to start yet another pissing match. however, it became clear the person was not who she said she was...and now begs the bigger question...WHY? why did a so called "fruit loop" cause such a stir? why the internet onslaught? to me that's even a bigger story! why did fleet white choose to stay out of a courtroom meeting this so called "crazy" face to face? reclaiming his family's good name? why deal in such sketchy, dark destructive ways? gullible? if you choose to write that in your own personal version, be my guest. i've never, ever had to question another journalist's identity. i hope i never have to again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "I just want to reiterate" Posted by Msracoon on 18:45:30 3/30/2001 that I believe Nancy. I also believe that the subject matter thereof is of such a dark magnitude that, yes, of course, her life could be in danger - without a doubt. Wake up America, please. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Nancy's safety" Posted by Edie Pratt on 18:49:01 3/30/2001 I think she should hide in plain sight. I think Boulder would be an excellent choice, because if anyone's going to lay another hand on her, the WHOLE WORLD will know who did it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Why wouldn't we" Posted by momo on 19:00:31 3/30/2001 want to know more? Don't children who have become adults have the right to tell their story? If Nancy were still a child you might not have jumped to the conclusion so quickly that she was lying. That coupled with the fact that she knows Fleet White is what keeps her story from getting recognition. And whether she is telling the truth or not, at least it makes us more aware of what kind of horrors children are having to endure in this country. It's sickening and revolting! That said, I am not trying to ruffle any feathers. I think this can and should be a civil discussion. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "My only question is" Posted by Starling on 19:55:20 3/30/2001 My only question is this. Where was Nancy's lawyer, Lee Hill, when all this was supposedly taking place? He was instrumental in getting her to Colorado, and then aided in getting her story to the paper - it just seems like he would have been right on top of all this. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Sence?" Posted by SDean1 on 19:53:59 3/30/2001 Would it make sence that Nancy could just be a former Mistress? Maybe J&P knew about an affair Nancy and Fleet may have had; and they paid her to say those things. That would explain her personal knowledge of Fleet and his family. It could also explain Why Fleet wanted the charges dropped against the media. Sue [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Well, Sue." Posted by Holly on 23:25:39 3/30/2001 I dunno. I can't figure out if Nancy was anyone's mistress. I don't think there is evidence of it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Man's Inhumanity to Man..." Posted by Pretzel on 19:44:15 3/30/2001 how sad that we choose to kick someone in the gut when they are at a low point in their life! Nancy has no reason to lie...she has nothing to gain---in fact, she has much more to loose. How unfortunate that some people find great satifaction in trying to damage the integrity of someone else for their own gain. This is lower than a "snakes belly" and is a sad state of affairs. Whether you believe Nancy or not, NO ONE has the right to scam..take advantage of..kick the guts out of her..and think that they are doing something great! We are all seeking JUSTICE---not underhanded deceit for personal gain. Shame, shame, shame on the person who perpetrated this inhumane act. Apparently, some of you know who it is. Thanks Holly for bringing this to our attention. Beware...who is going to be next?? Pretzel [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "uhhhhh" Posted by mame on 20:59:54 3/30/2001 "affair" is an interesting term to use for any relationship between fleet white and nancy... this story is such old news for me...haven't thought about it in months. in fact i didn't think much about it at the time. lee hill will have to speak for himself...however, he was recovering and still is from a closed head injury caused by an auto accident where foul play with his vehicle is suspected. that damn holly get's me in trouble AGAIN...and then leaves for night court...LOL wait til i talk to her... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "mame" Posted by FT on 21:21:14 3/30/2001 With all due respect, I can't imagine Woodward and Bernstein not questioning whether a random caller was a legitimate journalist or a mole. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "hey FT..." Posted by mame on 21:59:42 3/30/2001 nice to see you. many folks were involved before me...several were professionals...and frankly, the faux journalist was quite professional too. a professional con that is! she went as far as fedexing letters on 60 MINUTES letterhead to several professionals, including other journalists. i was contacted for background and info on boulder...it wasn't the first time a national journalist contacted me for background and surrounding details...local color...names and contact info on local authorities. had i been collaborating as a "team journalist" maybe a woodward/bernstein approach would have been appropriate. acting in a research capacity is much different than covering or investigating a story. hell, it's a sad state of affairs when the investigative journalists take to investigating the investigators...not a road i plan to take now or in the future. several professionals who have knowledge of this scam would like to take criminal action...60 minutes has been contacted...frankly, i don't plan on being involved such plans. i could care less about the behind the scenes shell game...the tal jones and other imposters and henchmen (and women) of the darkside are not of interest to me at all. there are real people, real tradgedies and far too many little courageous voices that continue to need a voice. that's where my heart and mind takes me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "mame" Posted by Holly on 22:36:24 3/30/2001 Your restraint is admirable. But I don't blame the extremely irritated parties, if they consider legal options. It's hard to imagine what exactly this "producer" was trying to accomplish. Any legitimate evidence or testimony that Nancy Krebs was a fraud should have been turned over to the BPD. If I had discovered any, I wouldn't have wasted 2 seconds alerting Beckner. As it was, they told Nancy that many of the individuals questioned during their investigation spoke very highly of her. If someone supplied damning information, I guess the cops forgot to mention it. All that I can come up with is that the whole sham was meant to create an environment of internet postings that Fleet White could use to his advantage, in support of his short lived criminal libel complaint. Who else would benefit from Nancy bashing? And I agree with the comment that a thorough examination of the "producer" was needed at the very start. But mame says this woman was tenacious, friendly, professional and always trying to optimistically move the project forward, so that Nancy's voice would be heard. I'm not sure that anyone was imagining sinister motives. But sometimes what seems too good to be true - is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "fly." Posted by Holly on 23:07:56 3/30/2001 >Holly - Very interesting story. A few >random comments and questions: >(1) I assume this is the >more complete story alluded to previously >by you or Morgan concerning AK's >bad behavior? If so, I >guess I should conclude that you >are suggesting that the person pulling >the scam is AK? If >so, why not just come out >and say it? I don't think confirming or denying any particualr poster's possible involvement is appropriate. I do note that besides AK, several other members at JW and at least one other forum were unrelenting in their assault on Nancy Krebs. >(2) Is there some reason you can't >give the name used by the >person you think was running a >scam? My suspicion is the person is a poster or closely associated with a poster. For that and other reasons the producer's name is not being used. >(3) You strongly imply, if not directly >state, that the person running the >scam was working for FW. >Other than the timing issues that >you think are important, do you >have any evidence this is true? > The timing might be very >telling and as you say, or >it might be coincidence, or FW's >actions might have influenced it, but >not intentionally on his part. If >we are to believe FW is >directly involved and the bad guy >(multiple aspects) you suggest, it would >be helpful to have supporting evidence >(just as it would have been >helpful in the case of Nancy's >story). Excellent points, fly. I guess we tried to "back engineer" this event to try to figure out the WHY? So far as evidence, I have not seen the letters sent to case figures, but they would certainly qualify as evidence of fraud, if 60 MINUTES had no part in them. There may be tapes of phone messages. But there is nothing I can say has FW stamped on it except his well timed libel complaint. >(4) You seem to suggest that the >heated discussions that occurred at JW >were intentional and designed to further >the progress of the scam, presumedly >by the "producer." You also >seem to suggest that more than >the "producer" was working toward that >aim. If I haven't misinterpreted, >I'm rather skeptical and offended. While >it might be that the "producer" >was doing this, I seriously doubt >that the posts of the JW >folks were part of that conspiracy. It's sort of like floating a theory to provoke discusssion, only with a nasty edge. I don't think this scam had more than one orgainzer and perhaps a couple of people who agreed to keep the heat on because it might help with behind the scenes efforts. Nearly everyone who participated, IMO, did so in the spirit of venting, bashing or supporting Nancy Krebs/Fleet White and were not directly part of a conspiracy to manipulate the forum. > >(5) While I don't condone the >kind of subterfuge you describe, I >do have to wonder how this >scam would put Nancy in a >"compromising position" if her story is >the truth? You are asking the wrong person. >(6) I can't believe 60Minutes would be >pleased that somebody would falsely claim >to be a 60Minutes producer and >that Mike Wallace was involved. >Did this get investigated by them, >and did they check to see >whether anybody had given the go-ahead >to begin to work the early >development of such a project? >I'm pretty skeptical that 60Minutes would >be interested in Nancy's story, but >who knows? I called and asked for some information and the person I spoke to knew nothing about it. Eventually, some further digging may occur. Depends. It is interesting to note that after the call was made by Nancy, the effort ended. >(7) A little more objectivity concerning the >JW events might have been a >good idea. "Out for blood" >is a bit over the top, >as is your general portrayal of >the situation. Perhaps you don't recall some of the hateful language and non-stop viciousness that swept over the WOR. It was brutal. >(8) You imply guilt when FW >doesn't continue to scream in protest, >but where are Nancy's screams of >protest in this. Afterall, months >have passed since this went down. > Why wait so long to >reveal this? A thread was posted that sent a message to the person suspected to be involved. And the poster took note and blew a major gasket - on another thread. From that day until February, the poster vanished. I would have left it with the "message" thread, but the bashing recently began afresh. So far as implying guilt, I don't know. I just feel that the prolific White complained that he had been libeled and slandered and presumably his reputation in Boulder compromised. Yet just days later, he was confident and unsullied enought to share his anti-Mary Keenan view with his fellow Boulderites in a letter to the DAILY CAMERA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Day late Dollar short" Posted by Imbackon on 06:06:00 3/31/2001 As usual I write on threads that are nearly dead, but I found a strange coincidence today. Remember long ago when AK was writing about the washed up actress who was also a sag member who was supposedly purpretrating(is that a word?) some sort of lie regarding mystery woman? Well, today I discovered that there is a Nancy Krebs who is a Christian music singer, who of all things is also an emmy award winning actress and sag member. Now I know that this can't be the same Nancy as everyone who met her implied MW was basically homeless and the Nancy above is obviously not, but is this a bizarre coincidence or what! Just who was the washed up actress that AK was talking about??? Enquiring minds wanna know. Imbackon [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "eerie parallels" Posted by mary99 on 06:29:43 3/31/2001 I know the comparisions between Fleet White's behavior and John Ramsey's behavior drew heat before, but this whole incident is remniscent of the ongoing manipulation of the public's focus perpetrated by the Ramseys over the years since the murder. I often think both the Ramseys and Whites agendas can be compared to burning a candle at both ends...in many ways. There was no doubt in my mind after seeing this thread that there is a White agenda, and it prefers to work in the background, while remaining out of sight. Only the most devout White fans could think he has no personal agenda, IMO, after this latest expose. What would motivate a person to slash and attack an abuse victim as a liar without 'proof'? Needless to say, if there was 'proof' Nancy was a liar, taking that 'proof' to the NE, the BPD, the Daily Camera or the FBI would surely have provided the ego gratification and fan adulation this imposter so evidently craves. Methinks there was never any purpose other than to surround the discussion of revelations made by Nancy Krebs with such controversy they became UN-discussable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Imbackon" Posted by Watching you on 06:18:40 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:18:40, 3/31/2001 What? Yeah, well, I'm not beating on this dead horse anymore, so get over me, hahahaha. The only reason I posted here was to help Imbackon with perpetrating. Intermission's over. Carry on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "The REAL MW scam" Posted by darby on 06:26:36 3/31/2001 The person who tried to pull this off is a real journalist who has done freelance work for 60Minutes in the past and has written numerous articles for various publications. Her name can be found on internet searches as having authored many published articles. Caller ID confirmed to Lee Hill and Mary Suma that the journalist was who she said she was--or someone with the exact same name. 60Minutes letterhead was used in FedExed correspondence (apparently unbeknownst to 60Minutes). Whoever called mame gullible--60 lashes. mame DID figure it out! The scam never got down to anything as serious as signing contracts. Everyone was just at the talking stage, and before it went anywhere, it was all figured out. Fortunately, the "60Minutes journalist" who did this is not all that bright--she wasn't particularly clever at covering all her tracks. If Fleet White knows nothing of this, then maybe someone ought to tell him. The journalist who did this used her name and credentials to lie to an internet reporter and a lawyer who had become a Ramsey case figure, claiming that 60Minutes had uncovered all kinds of dirt on the Whites! I don't think that Fleet White would be pleased a bit to hear that this journalist had told such a lie about him and his family. Besides, mame could have easily decided to tell JW all about it. She could have said told everyone that a 60Minutes investigative reporter had actually uncovered dirt on the Whites. I'm sure she was tempted to do just that when thread after thread went up on various forums bashing her. It's a good thing for everyone concerned that mame never did. No matter what side of the MW fence you find yourself, this 60Minutes charade needs recognition for what it is--a horrible scam, a LIE, and something that never could have furthered anyone's cause. The journalist who did this deserves to get blackballed by all the media for posing as a 60Minutes investigative reporter and then spreading lies. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Imbackon" Posted by darby on 06:42:33 3/31/2001 Holy toledo! I think you may have just figured out what has had many of people--especially "our" Nancy Krebs--scratching their heads for the longest time! Is this singer/sag member with the name Nancy Krebs also a blonde? If so, then I think we have our answer. AK may have done some premature and incomplete sleuthing when she reported to the forum some vague ramblings about a washed-up blond actress. With what you posted above, I have to wonder if AK didn't jump to the conclusion, at least at that time, that Nancy Krebs didn't even know the Whites and was in fact the singer/actress you found. AK might have done a few internet searches for the name Nancy Krebs and assumed that the singer/actress she discovered by that name was MW. This is all just a guess on my part. AK, perhaps you'd like to set us straight on this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "darby" Posted by mary99 on 06:40:21 3/31/2001 There have always been Kool-Aid drinkers, and instead of one flavor, we now have two. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "I guess" Posted by janphi on 07:00:36 3/31/2001 the poster was too busy with real life tab jobs to read all the threads about Nancy. I posted a list one time of all the Nancy's she WASN'T and that singer/SAG actress was one of them. (Nor the respected pediatrician in Boulder with the same M.I. nor the CA Parks & Wildlife ranger, nor the 3rd grade school teacher, on and on.) Couldn't have been all that long ago, though, because it was after her whole name had been posted. Couldn't do it before that. Or maybe I did it without stating the names--that's probably it. I thought AK meant either Cybil Shepherd (for several good reasons), Farah Fawcett or Goldie Hawn (also for good reason). Maybe some others, but those were my top 3 guesses. AK CLAIMED this actress was "bothering" AK for a part in MW's story, or something to that effect. I thought AK was just trying to make the point that he/she was "sought after" by movie stars, so much so that they were nuisances. Suppose AK was trying to sell a screen treatment of some type as well? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "janphi" Posted by mary99 on 07:29:25 3/31/2001 Does Bless the Child ring a bell? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Fleet White involved?" Posted by darby on 06:54:09 3/31/2001 For the record, there is no concrete evidence that Fleet White has any knowledge of what this "journalist" did. My opinion is that the journalist is basically out to make a name and a buck for herself and has no loyalties to such basic values as the truth, let alone to Fleet White. mary99 - Kool Aid? Not sure what you mean by that, but it's probably true. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Darby." Posted by Holly on 07:47:29 3/31/2001 Dunno about that. There is no evidence either way. The only person who knows the answer is the producer. And I am only saying that my belief is that the producer or someone close to the producer may have had a hand in manipulating the forums. And that the result was page after page of material for FW to use in support of his defunct criminal libel complaint. And - this thread did not state there was proof of an association between White and anyone, just an undeniable timing issue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Okay, enough" Posted by Watching you on 07:07:36 3/31/2001 what happened to the house rules? I thought prolonged discussion of other posters, especially this kind of prolonged discussion, was off limits. Isn't AK a poster here? Isn't she entitled to the same protection that others are entitled to? If y'all want to discuss MW and FW, I'm not interested, but you're certainly free to do so. OTOH, posting crap about another poster, especially on the JBR forum, goes against house rules. And, I didn't make the rules. On a personal note, I think this attack on AK has agenda written all over it. Let the flames begin. Y'all know I don't care. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "WY" Posted by Holly on 07:37:56 3/31/2001 I wouldn't say this thread is an agenda. It was meant as more of a cautionary tale. And also an insight into a behind the scenes episode that underscores the perils of advocacy. IOW - supporting Krebs had it's price. No one can deny that the assault on some posters was brutal. AK or anyone else who would like to clarify information or offer an opinion may. This is what happens when we make promises, drop cryptic clues then don't deliver a thing. Eventually someone might take you to task. The behind the scenes scam can't be ignored. The fact that it was timed exactly with the early August FW complaint, that was supported by hundreds of pages of internet postings, cannot be ignored. Can it? No one has called AK a name. No one has been vicious or cruel. And AK and anyone else who would like to add to the comments certainly can. If Chris feels this examination of an event is in violation of her rules, Chris will take appropriate action. But so far, I just think it's been an informative discussion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "WY" Posted by RiverRat on 07:31:10 3/31/2001 Just let them play by themselves. At paragraph 4 I said this is BS, but some people just take longer to catch on. Award winning again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "RR" Posted by Holly on 07:41:30 3/31/2001 You make that statement, but on what is it based?. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "RR" Posted by mary99 on 07:39:10 3/31/2001 Help yourself to the Kool-Aid, it's on you-know-who. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "WY" Posted by darby on 07:22:18 3/31/2001 No offense, but where were you when everyone was attacking mame? I've asked AK many times to clear up who the actress is that she spoke of many moons ago. She never has, so all I can do is guess. Imbackon found something that may be the answer. And I did invite AK to clear this up for us so we can quit having to guess. WY, there is no agenda here, at least not from the standpoint of those who are accounting what happened. One can believe that Nancy Krebs is delusional or even a scam artist herself and still see that the journalist who pulled the scam on her is/was totally unethical. This is probably seen as possibly agenda-driven because it's hard to believe that a journalist tried to pull a scam of this magnitude. But this is really what happened. It's the truth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Darby" Posted by Watching you on 07:43:30 3/31/2001 please don't be obtuse. You know very well where I was - right there questioning with the others. Right there to jump in when they attacked her dad. Where were you when that happend, BTW. I'm trying to clean my fish tank. Leave me alone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Watching you" Posted by mary99 on 07:16:49 3/31/2001 I think since there were many threads attacking mame here and elsewhere, under the guise of seeking out the 'truth' after she 'injected herself' into the case--it's not fair to declare AK off limits. Besides, she is well equipped to wield her mighty internet pen if she cares to answer. Were you aware of the mame-bashing when it went on? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Mame injected herself" Posted by Watching you on 07:36:33 3/31/2001 Mary99, as did you and others. I am well aware of what happened then, as you well know. I know several posters left the forum because of it. What you and others considered mame bashing were posters asking for more information, questioning, so on and so on. I also remember those threads were taken to the WOR. Here's my opinion, Mary99, for whatever it is worth. That was one of the lowest points ever for JBR forum, and I believe it's the closest we ever came to having the forum shut down. There were a lot of angry posters, a lot of damaged relationships, a lot of bad things said - on both sides, not just, as you claim, by the mame bashers. Did mame get bashed? Yes, she did. So did you. So did I. Healing over that episode has been a long time coming, and now this. I'm all for exposing lies and deceptions, but this thread is only deepening the lacerations from a year ago. There are no proofs offered here - only more of the please believe me posts. I honest to God hate to see this happening again. Many of us have worked hard to heal the rifts that developed from that time. That doesn't mean we agree, it means we think people should not hurt one another over disagreements. It means I don't want to see all the JBR forums drawing the blood of our posters. I will never agree with the way Mame handled this. I will never agree with the frenzy of posts that sought (IMO) to sway the rest of us with the you have no compassion taunts. But, that's okay. I don't have to agree with you. I have a fundamental morality in me, Mary99, that prevents me from feeding at the bones of another human being. AK doesn't need my assistance, and neither does mame. But, I'll be damned if I will stand by and watch someone pick at AK's bones without at least trying to voice my displeasure over it. As for mame, I disagree with her stance. You bet your boots I do. But, I don't hate her. I still have a very difficult time controlling my animousity toward her, and I admit that. That is my problem, no one elses. I will, under no circumstances, allow another poster to verbally attack any member of her family without giving them some of the worst I have in me. That's the way I'm built, Mary99. I see a lot of hatred here. I don't like hatred. I have a temper, and it runs on a short fuse, but I've learned to leave certain things alone. I'm leaving the MW/FW issue alone, at least until I have something more concrete to go on. What is boils down to is this, in my most humble opinion, BTW - I didn't take offense to Holly's post. She mentioned no names, although I'm sure most of us knew whom she was talking about. I'm not really taking offense to any of the posts, except the naming of AK. That's what I am objecting to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "FWIW" Posted by mary99 on 08:18:07 3/31/2001 >Mary99, as did you and others. >I am well aware of what >happened then, as you well know. > I know several posters left >the forum because of it. >What you and others considered mame >bashing were posters asking for more >information, questioning, so on and so >on. I also remember those >threads were taken to the WOR. > WY, I feel sorry for anyone who felt so uncomfortable with the level of intensity of the discussions that they left JW over it. However, what they become unfortable with in discussions of ritual abuse or revelations about case-related figures is not reason to stop those discussions, IMO. >Here's my opinion, Mary99, for whatever it >is worth. That was one >of the lowest points ever for >JBR forum, and I believe it's >the closest we ever came to >having the forum shut down. >There were a lot of angry >posters, a lot of damaged relationships, >a lot of bad things said >- on both sides, not just, >as you claim, by the mame >bashers. Did mame get bashed? > Yes, she did. So >did you. So did I. > Healing over that episode has >been a long time coming, and >now this. Well, speaking as a cynic, the wounds have never really healed, they merely stopped bleeding in public. As far as the forum being in a state of chaos, not only were the revelations extraordinarily painful to contemplate, but they implicated a case figure who had achieved hero status and thus split posters into groups of those who felt Krebs was truthful, those who felt White was off limits, and those who to this day remain undecided. Needless to say, since this is a discussion forum devoted to an unsolved and violent murder, IMO no person at the Ramsey house the AM of the 26th should necessarily be given a pass. However, some feel differentlyand I can accept that. What I don't agree with is collecting here to discuss the murder of JBR and declaring some parties beyond suspicion, especially in light of the revelations made by Nancy Krebs, nor do I approve of condemning ANY sexual abuse survivor or their integrity simply because their story is shocking or implicates a case figure. >I'm all for exposing lies and deceptions, >but this thread is only deepening >the lacerations from a year ago. > There are no proofs offered >here - only more of the >please believe me posts. I >honest to God hate to see >this happening again. Many of >us have worked hard to heal >the rifts that developed from that >time. That doesn't mean we >agree, it means we think people >should not hurt one another over >disagreements. It means I don't >want to see all the JBR >forums drawing the blood of our >posters. You say there are no proofs offered here, but there is little one can do to convince you apparently without actually posting scanned documents or real names-neither of which is going to happen. If you choose not to accept what is said by anyone here, or for that matter, what Mame, Lee Hill or Barry Hartman said, that's your choice. >I will never agree with the way >Mame handled this. I will >never agree with the frenzy of >posts that sought (IMO) to sway >the rest of us with the >you have no compassion taunts. >But, that's okay. I don't >have to agree with you. >I have a fundamental morality in >me, Mary99, that prevents me from >feeding at the bones of another >human being. To me, 'feeding on the bones' of a person can only happen when they are unable to defend themself. As far as I know, JBR is the only person who has been discussed who is unable to defend herself, and Nancy Krebs has come the closest to giving her a voice since I started following this case. >AK doesn't need my assistance, and neither >does mame. But, I'll be >damned if I will stand by >and watch someone pick at AK's >bones without at least trying to >voice my displeasure over it. Do you know for a fact that what has been said is not true? I can't equate 'picking at AK's bones' with exposing a hoax, and an agenda-driven hoax at that. Also, AK has been asked to substantiate her allegations and has chosen not to, leading me to choose to believe she is the liar, not Nancy. >As for mame, I disagree with her >stance. You bet your boots >I do. But, I don't >hate her. I still have >a very difficult time controlling my >animousity toward her, and I admit >that. That is my problem, >no one elses. I will, >under no circumstances, allow another poster >to verbally attack any member of >her family without giving them some >of the worst I have in >me. That's the way I'm >built, Mary99. I see a >lot of hatred here. I >don't like hatred. I have >a temper, and it runs on >a short fuse, but I've learned >to leave certain things alone. >I'm leaving the MW/FW issue alone, >at least until I have something >more concrete to go on. Well, if you believe these forums can serve any purpose at all in the quest for justice, as I do, my deepest wish is not to foment hatred but to bring attention to the lies and secrecy which has left this case unsolved after almost 5 years. If one should find themselves attacked, or hated even, in the process of defending their point of view, as I have, then it's up to that person to either cease posting or continue to press for justice. We can examine another's point of view or scroll. >What is boils down to is this, >in my most humble opinion, BTW >- I didn't take offense to >Holly's post. She mentioned no >names, although I'm sure most of >us knew whom she was talking >about. I'm not really taking >offense to any of the posts, >except the naming of AK. >That's what I am objecting to. > AK has not been named. She may well be a victim of the cruel hoax for all I know. Let her speak up and tell us as she told us about 'Lyin' Nancy.' She has presented herself as a 'connected' person and now is the time to prove it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "I'm not" Posted by Watching you on 08:41:56 3/31/2001 getting into this crap, Mary99, except to say, look again. AK most certainly has been named in many posts here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "my opinion" Posted by Imbackon on 07:36:05 3/31/2001 First off, thanks for the spell check WY :) Also, Yes, the Sag member Nancy Krebs is a blonde. I have no agenda whatsoever but from all that I have gathered in reading this and other forums over the years, I believe that the only reason why the name Fleet White has ever been mentioned in any malicous (spell check again) manner has been because he is a victim of circumstance. He was called over by a "friend" one morning because his friends daughter was missing and his name has been published and tied to this crime now forever. Same goes for all the other people who's names have been associated with this case eg; McReynolds, Fernie, Meyer etc... Just names. I believe that all are innocent in the murder of Jonbenet with the possible exception of two people and those people go by the names of John and Patsy Ramsey. JMHO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Besides, WY" Posted by darby on 07:28:13 3/31/2001 This thread is NOT about AK. This thread is about the journalist who pulled a horrible scam on Nancy Krebs, Mary Suma, Lee Hill, Mary Bienkowski and even Fleet White. Any connection between AK and this particular journalist has not been established--though it's tough to control what people might be thinking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Just for the record," Posted by Cassandra on 07:42:16 3/31/2001 the pediatrician's wife was an actress, too. Blonde, too, I think. Just tossing this in. I think imbackon is right on the money. That must be the one the "producer" thought she had in her sights. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "I remember when" Posted by Holly on 07:50:24 3/31/2001 Janphi and maybe another poster or two discussed Nancy Krebs the singer. I saw that on a GOOGLE search also, but it just seems the producer could have easily researched her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "And, now" Posted by Watching you on 07:42:08 3/31/2001 I'm going to go clean my damn fish tank. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "As a matter of fact, WY," Posted by Holly on 07:58:05 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:58:05, 3/31/2001 I recall your support of many posters and especially your support of Chris during the JW bashing at another forum. :-) And I like you immensly, broken tooth, injured eyebrow and all. But I think the forum mistress will keep a close eye and that this thread, in the end, will be very informative. You are supposed to CLEAN fish tanks. Oh... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "agenda?" Posted by darby on 07:48:03 3/31/2001 What Holly said about what that journalist tried to pull is the absolute truth. Even if there were some sort of agenda here--and I'm not saying there is, it's still the truth. Besides, not all agendas are dishonest or mean-spirited. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "aHa, Darby" Posted by Watching you on 08:03:45 3/31/2001 but I didn't say the agenda here was bad. We all have agendas - some of them good, some of them bad, some of them sort of neutral. Our agendas are formulated on our opinions. We may not see them as agendas, but they are. There are agendas here, Darby. I did not say that to mean everyone here has an evil agenda - I don't even think that. But, saintly or evil, the agendas are all here. Even mine, which is to leap tall buildings in a single bound, bend steel with my bare hands, and now clean the damn bird cage. And then I have to dust and vacuum and all the woman's work that is never ever done. But, I won't be far away, so y'all remember that. Yeehaawwwww. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Cassie" Posted by darby on 07:50:36 3/31/2001 Dr. Beuf's wife is a sagging blond actress? Hmmm. Wish AK would clue us in on the truth behind what she meant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Wow, Imbackon!" Posted by Grace on 07:59:22 3/31/2001 I think the actress mystery is solved! I remember A.K. awkwardly trying to back out of the actress story by saying the Satanists (led by Mary '99) had been shopping a movie based on Nancy/FW/JBR. The washed-up actress hoped to get the leading part. But she implied that Stephen Singular, who perpetrated the MW hoax, was unaware of the film-to-be due to an effort by the Satanists to get all the money. Holly, thanks for putting this out here. There's a lot to think about. It could certainly help explain some very odd things that went on here. I tend to agree with you, darby, that the journalist's motive is likely to be a name and a buck. On the other hand, IMO, there was a display of anger at Nancy that just seemed beyond what would be normal. So, I don't know ... Grace (AKA hareen) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Gosh, Grace." Posted by Holly on 08:02:16 3/31/2001 You have been missed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Good Grief!" Posted by Holly on 07:57:37 3/31/2001 Where is the Daily? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Okay, WY" Posted by darby on 08:07:45 3/31/2001 You DID defend me. Thank you again. I think I may have said what I said because I'm still astonished at how viciously mame was attacked-not by you but by a lot of people. I'm sorry I projected this on you--it was just too tempting. I'll work on becoming more acute. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "I still didn't know" Posted by Holly on 08:09:29 3/31/2001 you have to clean fish tanks, except to wipe the sides with that long handled sponge thing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Holly, not only" Posted by Watching you on 08:16:12 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:16:12, 3/31/2001 do you have to clean the damn fish tank, you use the dirty fish water to water you plants. Bet you didn't know that, did you. Haha, listen to Mother WY, you'll learn a lot. Right now, I am doing just that - my plants thrive on dirty fish tank water. Then, I'm cleaning the damn bird cage. Love my bird, though, even if he makes a mess. Edited to say, Holly, you ARE kidding aren't you? Are any of your fish still alive? hahahaha [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Only ONE" Posted by Holly on 08:23:20 3/31/2001 little bugger - for 4 years. The others didn't seem to adapt too well when Mr Holly dumped 2 gallons of tap water into the tank accidentally. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "maybe this" Posted by mame on 08:20:16 3/31/2001 is coincidence too... http://web.sanluisobispo.com/content/slo/2001/03/28/home/slo42383.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Is the trial of Rex Krebs" Posted by Holly on 08:25:02 3/31/2001 over? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "One more thing, WY" Posted by darby on 08:18:43 3/31/2001 and then I'm off to a fun day in Denver. Okay, we agree on agendas. I have to admit that I actually do have one: For truth, justice and the American Way. :-) Honestly, we all do have agendas, whether we admit it or not. (Yours is currently to clean that fish tank.) I did get a bit defensive when I felt you meant that this thread has an EVIL agenda. Truth is, you never said EVIL agenda, just agenda. My feeling is that if there is an agenda on this thread, it's to expose a scam and promote the truth. Not a bad thing, in terms of agendas. I'll continue to work on getting acute. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "the jury is out" Posted by mame on 08:29:47 3/31/2001 http://web.sanluisobispo.com/content/slo/2001/03/31/home/slo42432.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Mame" Posted by Suhila on 09:47:48 3/31/2001 Is Rex Krebs related to Nancy? What is that about having bizarre fantacies related to his childhood mean? Could he have been abused the same way Nancy was? Inquiring minds want to know! This is just too coincidential not to have something to do with Nancy's story. Wow, as my grandmother used to say, "Murder Will Out". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Darby, you're already" Posted by Cassandra on 08:33:19 3/31/2001 pretty cute! lol Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "My final word - going to buy some fish" Posted by v_p on 09:27:36 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:27:36, 3/31/2001 >>>They wanted to sneak up on White, so it was imperative that the effort be kept entirely quiet.<<< This was fine with you? LOL, but damn it when someone sneaks up and sabotages you! Mame: Mame - why did fleet white choose to stay out of a courtroom meeting this so called "crazy" face to face? reclaiming his family's good name? why deal in such sketchy, dark destructive ways? Is you are or is you ain't saying FW was behind this? Mary99: Also, AK has been asked to substantiate her allegations and has chosen not to, leading me to choose to believe she is the liar, not Nancy. And then you write: AK has not been named. ~*~*~*~*~* I don't recall the poster AK coming here after the BBQ in MD starting the crap about MW and FW. Someone brought back a bone from the bbq and threw it out for the rest of us to chew on, no real substance, just something to titilate ... we just got sick and tired of the FW insinuations, (much as is being done here toward AK). My friend WY is so much more diplomatic than I am, I admire her for that. I will try to learn. Meanwhile, mame, I think you want so badly to be a major player in this little girl's death that you would do just about anything... that, IMO, is why you were scammed. I never BASHED Nancy, I simply don't believe her entire story and I'm entitled to my opinion. Maybe she was abused, but I don't think her abuse is linked to the murder of JBR. Again, I'm entitled. Holly used to make me laugh with her scenarios about the intruder and I enjoy Darby's posts and momo's posts and I LOL at almost all of Edie's posts ... but on this I wish we could simply agree to disagree. Wy is right, a lot of hurt feelings were finally being resolved. edited cuz my space bar sucks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "v_p" Posted by Holly on 09:28:00 3/31/2001 I'm not sure I understand your first statement. I was talking about 60 MINUTES wanting to sneak up on FW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "v_p" Posted by mary99 on 10:06:28 3/31/2001 I don't quite see what harm can come from asking AK to substantiate her 'Lyin' Nancy' allegations, nor do I understand why you believe AK's version of the 'truth' over Nancy's, unless you have access to some info the rest of us are lacking. The actual name of the faux producer has not been posted. And that is what I meant when I posted to WY that AK has not been 'named'. AK is welcome to give her version of events and clear up any doubts which all but her most ardent supporters might be experiencing. As Darby said elsewhere, it's not who she be, it's what she do that's in question here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "A shy #76" Posted by Greenleaf on 09:07:16 3/31/2001 I do not particularly like posting at the bottom of threads, but here, I'll make an exception. Maybe this post won't be seem by too many and the flames will be less severe. I enjoy reading all clues associated with the Ramsey case. Sometimes, even the seemingly obscure and/or ridiculous give pause for consideration. Of all the characters, even remotely connected to this case, I have found Mystery Woman to be the strangest, and, in my humble opinion, the epitome of indecisiveness. Forgive me, but I cannot reconcile her story with a cohesive pattern of rational probability. Every time her name comes up, there is confusion, vagueness and nothing much to grab a hold of. Her story seems too elusive for this poster to give it "legs." I know that many of you believe otherwise, but that is how I see it. Flame away. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "oh greenie" Posted by mame on 09:45:13 3/31/2001 nothing, but nothing about this case is rational. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "No flame here, Greenleaf." Posted by Holly on 09:23:57 3/31/2001 The whole Nancy story IS profoundly bizarre. I wish her dots had connected. Many credible people found substance to her story. If McKinley and Plasket are trusted on other stories, why not this one? White never denied it and when he filed his motherlode, he didn't charge Nancy. I still support a complete investigation. The BPD couldn't connect anything, but remember in their press release, they did not say FW had never been involved in a sex ring, only he didn't kill JB, or somethng like that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "v_p" Posted by Morgan on 09:45:06 3/31/2001 If you're into blaming the victim why not say that JB was asking for it by being so cute and innocent? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Where is Nancy now," Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:16:42 3/31/2001 and what is she doing? Did she land on her feet, or did she go back to that awful situation in CA? FWIW, I wish her a good life. As for Fleet White, perhaps more information about his part in all this will come out in the various lawsuit depositions. I'm confused about one thing...is AK the journalist who swiped 60 Minutes stationery, or not? This sounds a lot more like a tabloid reporter's scam...someone like Jeff Shapiro, who joined a church and dated a girl, all under false pretenses, to get a story. My impression is that AK is, and has been, a legitimate true crime reporter for many years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "what bone?" Posted by mame on 09:51:45 3/31/2001 was thrown out after the bbq? hell, it was fun but i don't remember anything earth shattering happening there! i have never said here that fleet white was behind this...my reference to a courtroom is in regards to any wrongdoing white feels took place with this story. the simple fact remains...if this woman is as crazy as some think...THEN WHY ALL THE FIRE? there have been scores of circus acts in this case...it's nothing new...if this was just another sideshow...WHY THE HELL ALL THE BACKLASH? i'm willing to bet it's because it touched a nerve of truth... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "mame" Posted by listener on 10:09:00 3/31/2001 Bingo! &.....thanks for the recent article. I was happily aware that they caught the murder suspect of those two girls, but never paid attention to his name. Wow,..it needs looking into. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "WY" Posted by mame on 10:37:23 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:37:23, 3/31/2001 i'm sorry you feel animosity towards me...when you choose to report a story such as this...animosity, hatred, discrediting and in this tech age "flame fests" are part of the package. obviously, my passionate advocacy for this woman and others like her trump the bad feelings toward me. it's all part of the package...little personal battles pale when fighting against baby rapers...a little name calling and petty hatred seems like small irritation compared to the daily pain and torture inflicted upon the tiniest children. i do enjoy you WY, and support you difference of opinion. i hope one day to meet you and discuss this crazy little case called ramsey. i'm cleaning gracie and harriet's litter boxes today...a fish tank seems tame. last fish tank i had was a saltwater tank...home to "pickles" the eel...i miss the old boy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Hey, y'all" Posted by janphi on 10:25:03 3/31/2001 Can we continue on Thread 2? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]