Justice Watch Support JW "60 MINUTES Scam, Part 2" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... 60 MINUTES Scam, Part 2, janphi, 10:22:47, 3/31/2001 BTW, janphi, 10:31:11, 3/31/2001, (#1) Lurker., Holly, 10:59:24, 3/31/2001, (#2) janphi, mary99, 11:32:50, 3/31/2001, (#6) Trying again, janphi, 13:05:40, 3/31/2001, (#17) "you've got...", mary99, 14:55:20, 3/31/2001, (#24) Well, how strange, janphi, 15:51:29, 3/31/2001, (#28) janphi., Holly, 11:09:05, 3/31/2001, (#3) nancy, mame, 11:14:00, 3/31/2001, (#4) just a question, Scully, 11:23:49, 3/31/2001, (#5) do we really need names?, mary99, 11:42:28, 3/31/2001, (#7) Another instance, Morgan, 11:44:54, 3/31/2001, (#8) Lurker, Grace, 11:56:42, 3/31/2001, (#9) Grace,, LurkerXIV, 12:24:35, 3/31/2001, (#13) Lurker, Grace, 13:06:21, 3/31/2001, (#18) Morgan, Scully, 12:05:26, 3/31/2001, (#11) Scully, starry, 13:11:31, 3/31/2001, (#20) Scully., Holly, 12:02:28, 3/31/2001, (#10) Holly, Scully, 12:08:44, 3/31/2001, (#12) Its own thread?, janphi, 12:27:48, 3/31/2001, (#14) don't worry, janphi, mary99, 12:39:08, 3/31/2001, (#15) Mary99, Watching you, 13:01:59, 3/31/2001, (#16) WY, mary99, 13:30:21, 3/31/2001, (#22) And, BTW, janphi, Watching you, 13:08:15, 3/31/2001, (#19) bad things....., rose, 13:26:23, 3/31/2001, (#21) Grace, Morgan, 13:45:03, 3/31/2001, (#23) mary99, Scully, 15:09:16, 3/31/2001, (#25) Scully, ayelean, 15:43:24, 3/31/2001, (#27) Holly, Scully, 15:13:26, 3/31/2001, (#26) AK..., Pedro, 17:39:52, 3/31/2001, (#29) I am.., Pedro, 17:51:30, 3/31/2001, (#30) Holly, Country Girl, 18:06:34, 3/31/2001, (#31) Country Girl..., Pedro, 18:13:17, 3/31/2001, (#32) heh, v_p, 18:23:28, 3/31/2001, (#33) Sigh..., A.K., 20:58:10, 3/31/2001, (#35) As we said AK..., Holly, 21:54:55, 3/31/2001, (#41) "I, and OTHER HOMICIDE OFFICIALS", Edie Pratt, 21:45:56, 3/31/2001, (#38) A.K., LurkerXIV, 21:14:40, 3/31/2001, (#36) CG, Morgan, 20:52:42, 3/31/2001, (#34) AK, Real Stormy, 21:16:23, 3/31/2001, (#37) Now, Morgan, 21:51:54, 3/31/2001, (#40) Morgan..., Pedro, 22:15:46, 3/31/2001, (#44) Pedro., Holly, 22:35:59, 3/31/2001, (#55) Holy..., Pedro, 22:46:38, 3/31/2001, (#61) Pedro., Holly, 23:19:35, 3/31/2001, (#76) Yes..., Pedro, 09:31:32, 4/01/2001, (#86) Thanks AK, v_p, 21:46:10, 3/31/2001, (#39) Back for a quickie..., A.K., 22:29:04, 3/31/2001, (#51) AK, Edie Pratt, 22:49:01, 3/31/2001, (#63) Oh goodie, mary99, 22:21:53, 3/31/2001, (#46) AK, Morgan, 22:15:29, 3/31/2001, (#43) AK..., Pedro, 22:14:50, 3/31/2001, (#42) JMO, mary99, 22:25:31, 3/31/2001, (#48) I think..., Pedro, 22:26:34, 3/31/2001, (#50) well, innocent victims, mary99, 22:31:52, 3/31/2001, (#52) Because of your..., Pedro, 22:43:16, 3/31/2001, (#60) excuse me , mary99, 22:48:20, 3/31/2001, (#62) Sadly mary99,, Holly, 23:00:44, 3/31/2001, (#73) Holly, mary99, 23:06:49, 3/31/2001, (#74) Why..., Pedro, 09:33:30, 4/01/2001, (#88) Apologies, v_p, 09:38:30, 4/01/2001, (#90) No body has..., Pedro, 22:51:02, 3/31/2001, (#66) Pedro--me too, Real Stormy, 22:23:49, 3/31/2001, (#47) what rumor about RGere?, Edie Pratt, 22:20:09, 3/31/2001, (#45) RGere..., Pedro, 22:25:44, 3/31/2001, (#49) your WHAT hurts?, Edie Pratt, 22:34:14, 3/31/2001, (#54) Pedro, Real Stormy, 22:32:31, 3/31/2001, (#53) How's this for an idea?, Holly, 22:49:21, 3/31/2001, (#65) You know that's.., Pedro, 22:54:18, 3/31/2001, (#70) LOL, A.K., 22:38:23, 3/31/2001, (#57) Gee., Holly, 22:52:07, 3/31/2001, (#68) spin away, A.K., mary99, 22:51:28, 3/31/2001, (#67) I think FW and his ancestors..., Pedro, 22:37:45, 3/31/2001, (#56) Miracles..., Pedro, 22:39:32, 3/31/2001, (#58) Well, Pedro, Real Stormy, 22:41:51, 3/31/2001, (#59) Could I..., Pedro, 22:49:18, 3/31/2001, (#64) Pedro, JR, 14:01:41, 4/01/2001, (#96) No Pedro, Real Stormy, 22:53:07, 3/31/2001, (#69) What makes.., Pedro, 22:56:16, 3/31/2001, (#71) I think..., Pedro, 22:57:59, 3/31/2001, (#72) AK, Morgan, 23:19:14, 3/31/2001, (#75) whoa..., mame, 23:22:05, 3/31/2001, (#78) mame..., Pedro, 09:39:42, 4/01/2001, (#91) Morgan., Holly, 23:21:41, 3/31/2001, (#77) AK, Morgan, 23:36:25, 3/31/2001, (#79) IS THERE A FULL MOON???, Penguin, 00:04:37, 4/01/2001, (#80) Penguin, JR, 14:05:30, 4/01/2001, (#97) Penguin, Scully, 03:02:07, 4/01/2001, (#83) No Full Moon to blame, szundi, 01:05:04, 4/01/2001, (#81) nah..., mame, 01:15:07, 4/01/2001, (#82) Mame, Ruby, 09:48:06, 4/01/2001, (#92) Gosh,, v_p, 09:10:53, 4/01/2001, (#84) May I, Real Stormy, 09:27:42, 4/01/2001, (#85) Hi RS, v_p, 09:32:47, 4/01/2001, (#87) lol, Ruby, 12:51:40, 4/01/2001, (#94) Pinguin..., Pedro, 09:37:08, 4/01/2001, (#89) Hi v_p, Real Stormy, 09:48:18, 4/01/2001, (#93) Ruby, v_p, 13:02:40, 4/01/2001, (#95) vee-pea, Ruby, 18:48:04, 4/01/2001, (#101) Real Stormy (ref post #93), Gemini, 16:22:52, 4/01/2001, (#98) Why, Gemini, Real Stormy, 18:34:18, 4/01/2001, (#99) yes, Gemini, 18:44:33, 4/01/2001, (#100) We're..., Pedro, 19:14:56, 4/01/2001, (#102) Pedro, JR, 01:11:03, 4/02/2001, (#103) JR..., Pedro, 08:37:14, 4/02/2001, (#104) ................................................................... "60 MINUTES Scam, Part 2" Posted by janphi on 10:22:47 3/31/2001 I would like to know more about what is being discussed. I'm really curious as to how the Rex Krebs trial fits in with this, as mame posted. The initial phase of the trial has taken place for the past two weeks. The jury got the case at 2 PM Thursday and is currently deliberating. I believe they have the weekend off and will resume on Monday in Monterey. There have been some brief allusions to Rex's childhood and family, primarily that he began having sexual and "conquest" fantasies at age 13 and that these brutal fantasies involved his mother. In another day of testimony, someone else stated that it was age 15. In trying to piece all this together, I have noted that Rex said he was mad at his mother for abandoning him (I think THIS was at age 15) and leaving him with an alcoholic father who tortured him. His father beat him severely and Rex appears to have blamed at least some of his mental problems on a time when his father kicked him in the head. His mother, Connie, is the one who moved with Rex to the San Luis Obispo area from Idaho, in 1987, when Rex was 21. Apparently, Rex grew up in Idaho, most likely in Sandpoint, which is where much of the Krebs family lives, as well as the family of Connie's next husband. Rex's father, Allan, was reportedly in Idaho, free on bail from a Montana meth trafficking charge when Rex was arrested. Elsewhere during trial testimony another witness said that Allan was in jail or in prison in Idaho when the murders were committed. The murders were in 1998 and Rex wasn't arrested until 1999. Once the jurors have returned their verdict on Monday or Tuesday or whenever, the second phase of the trial will most likely begin because there are "special circumstances" involved in these murders. At that point in the trial, during which they will most likely be discussing the death penalty, the family and friends will be called in. At that time, I hope to finally learn how or if Rex Krebs is actually related to Nancy. At this time, I can't put it together, but according to Nancy, her mom, Gwen, said that Nancy's uncle adopted Rex's father many years ago. Like I said, I can't make the math work on this one, but there is one person, who I think will testify unless he has died recently, who can answer this question. Until then, I wait. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "BTW" Posted by janphi on 10:31:11 3/31/2001 On another forum today, a poster wrote that their forum agrees hands down with Steve Thomas when he said in the APB chat that he "believes Fleet White" in the MW story. I was in that chat, have the transcript, and can't find where Fleet White was quoted as responding to anything related to Nancy. Could someone help me out with that? I would REALLY, really like to see the interview or quote. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Lurker." Posted by Holly on 11:11:49 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:11:49, 3/31/2001 Jeff Shapiro, to my knowledge, has no part in this. mame knows the latest about Nancy. I don't think there is an argument from anyone, that AK has tabloid connections. I know she has. If AK or anyone else wants to fess up to knowing or being the producer, be my guest. Love to hear the justification for this sham. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "janphi" Posted by mary99 on 11:32:50 3/31/2001 Janphi, you said: "At that time, I hope to finally learn how or if Rex Krebs is actually related to Nancy. At this time, I can't put it together, but according to Nancy, her mom, Gwen, said that Nancy's uncle adopted Rex's father many years ago. Like I said, I can't make the math work on this one, but there is one person, who I think will testify unless he has died recently, who can answer this question. Until then, I wait." Hey, that's news to me! When you said 'Nancy's uncle', can you clarify that to mean either her biological father's brother (who would be a Krebs) or her step-father's brother, (technically step-uncle) Macky Boykin? I'm wondering/confused because of the reference in the SLO Tribune to 'bizarre fantasies' from Rex Allan Krebs' childhood and the strangulation of his victims, wondering if he was exposed to Macky Boykin or similar practices at the hands of his biological relatives. Adding another dimension to the whole picture is the recollection that according to Nancy, she was abused by MB from an early age--which pre-dated her mother actually marrying MB's brother, so if I'm reading this correctly, there may have been contact between the future step-father, his brother (Nancy's abuser) and the biological father and his brother (RAK's adoptive father). Reading the trial articles left me wondering if he was ever in Boulder! Susannah Chase came to mind among other things. BTW, I never heard of any comments directly attributable to FW from Thomas regarding Nancy, nor am I surprised if Thomas backs FW's version of things-he enjoyed a close relationship with Fleet White prior to resigning his BPD position. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Trying again" Posted by janphi on 13:17:39 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:17:39, 3/31/2001 For some reason, my replies aren't posting below the posts I'm hitting "reply" on--they're going to the bottom instead. This is for Mary99 and Holly's question about the man I hope will be at the trial: Actually, I hope there will be other family members, but the one I'm most interested in is his uncle. He was interviewed last year and gave a lot of family info. I was in a hurry at the time and didn't cut & paste the info. In fact, at the time, I didn't know it related to Nancy at all (if it does). When I went back to copy it, after realizing it could answer some questions I had, that one article--and one other--had been pulled from the SLO newspaper archives (online), because of a media lawsuit alleging too much prejudicial info had already been published. THAT particular piece of info was when Rex referred to himself as a "monster." It's out now, since testimony, so it can be repeated. Anyway, the uncle lives in Sandpoint, Idaho. Uh huh--THAT Sandpoint. Home of Mark Furhman. And a few other entities that I don't want to print in the same post with Mark's name. And also an Arndt, who is an AIDS, gay & lesbian rights, and human rights activist from Boulder, CO. Have no idea if related to Linda. Would LOVE to know. Rex's uncle said that he has had a brother and a sister murdered in another nearby state and the family has known a lot of sorrow. I was very interested to find out how and when these two people died--I'm hoping he will talk more about that in the penalty phase of the trial coming up. Of course, my interest is solely based on whether he truly is related to Nancy, which to me is still up in the air. The only way the story I heard would make sense would be if Allan, Rex's father, was the brother of Nancy's dad and uncle. They were born in CA; he wasn't. If HER uncle "adopted" his brother's children--Rex and 2 others--then is this UNCLE the one who tortured Rex? That doesn't make sense, because Allan is his natural father and all the stories claim that he lived with his natural father all those years in Idaho. No adoption by an uncle as far as I can tell. On the other hand, Rex's uncle in Idaho doesn't go by his full name, I don't think. I believe he may go by his middle name, according to phone listings. His FIRST name is the same as Nancy's grandfather's. So, maybe Nancy's grandfather's brother adopted Allan's father. At any rate, it was a story from Gwen, like the JBR connection and a few others, so THOSE I take with a grain of salt, not so much Nancy's. Knowing the difference is the hard part. All in all, it doesn't APPEAR that Rex spent any time in SLO County when he was growing up. Nancy never mentioned going to Idaho on those family trips in mame's interviews, either. Oregon was the only other state mentioned. HOWEVER, it appears that at least one of Nancy's uncles (since now I'm not sure how many more brothers her dad has/had--he's a mystery to me) and maybe another (if there IS another) did live or still does live in Oregon, in an area that is also part of Washington State. If that all works out, then maybe the murdered brother and sister of Rex's uncle truly ARE related, since some live in the Vancouver, WA, area; some in the Portland, OR, area; and some in the Sandpoint/Coeur d'Alene, ID/Spokane, WA, area. See? Clear as mud!! The main odd point to me is that two of them ended up in rural parts of San Luis Obispo County, not far from each other, with horrid sex crimes in common. As to other crimes committed by Rex, no, he's been in prison most of his adult life. Wasn't even out a year after parole from the 1987 rape (10-year sentence) when he murdered in 1998. I'd just like to know more from whoever knows it. If no one here will tell me, I'll just wait for the rest of the trial to commence. If Allan (Rex's father) has the brothers and sisters that Nancy named (or if Rex does), then we'll know for sure. Edited to correct reported number of Rex's siblings from 4 to 2 and to add another qualifier to the last line [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. ""you've got..."" Posted by mary99 on 14:55:20 3/31/2001 a post addressed to you over where candy parks her hat. I see only ST spinning so don't get too excited. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Well, how strange" Posted by janphi on 15:51:29 3/31/2001 I just asked where the statement was from Fleet White concerning the MW story. The statement. I wondered if it was public and available somewhere where I could see what it said. I just thought I had missed it. I was ASKING people at JW if they knew what it was. A person on another forum responded instead? LOL!! Remote control! Well, now I've read it. As usual, my question wasn't answered. As if I don't KNOW Steve Thomas supports Fleet White!! Of course he does. As if that poster seems to think I don't support Steve Thomas! Sheesh. I just don't agree with his theory. So what? I don't appreciate, however, the poster saying "there is no transcript" of the APB chat, when I'm sitting here looking at it. The question was asked of ST (I'll paraphrase because I don't know about copying) -- "What do you think about the California sex ring theory?" or something to that effect. ST answered (I wouldn't copy it directly, anyway, because he is still working on his typing) that it was unbelievable that Hunter leaked/smeared FW's family with a story that had no grounds whatsoever. Yes, I'm AWARE of this, but that is not a statement by FW that was referenced by the post which said "ST believed FW in the MW story." That implies to me that there is a Fleet White "side" to the story--a statement FW made to ST that ST could "believe"--and then was told by ST to others in that chat. ST didn't state FW's "side" of the story, only that he, ST, hated what Hunter had done and that he, ST, said it had no grounds whatsoever. That's all well and good, but that is not what the poster posted. I want to hear/read exactly what it is that made ST "believe" FW "in the story." What is there to believe? Don't you think it might help ME and maybe some others to ALSO hear what ST heard, so I could also BELIEVE Fleet's "side"? What is it? If this one sentence from a chat is what made an entire forum of individual thinkers BELIEVE that Nancy was lying, then do they all also believe that ST is correct in saying the head blow came before the strangulation? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "janphi." Posted by Holly on 11:12:58 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:12:58, 3/31/2001 Your possible REX KREBS connection prolly needs it's own thread. Who is the maybe dead person? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "nancy" Posted by mame on 11:14:00 3/31/2001 i don't have much contact with nancy these days. we did speak recently by telephone. it was a year ago that we said goodbye as she secretly left boulder after threats and attempts at intimidation to her and my family. she is healthy and doing well given the circumstances. she is surrounded by people who love her and she continues to care for others in need. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "just a question" Posted by Scully on 11:23:49 3/31/2001 Why continue discussing a topic where only a handful of posters are aware of the actual names of the major players in thread #1? This is yet another silly guessing game perpetrated on the forum where only 10% of the posters know what the hell is going on and the other 90% are left scratching their heads. What's the point? Wouldn't it be better if you took your discussion elsewhere so that this subject can be properly analyzed by those of you who are on top of this thing? I don't think I'm alone in my thinking. I bet the majority of posters on this forum don't know what the hell you're talking about which is why most people are opting to clean their fish tanks and bird cages today. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "do we really need names?" Posted by mary99 on 11:42:28 3/31/2001 Scully, don't the actions of that person speak volumes? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Another instance" Posted by Morgan on 11:44:54 3/31/2001 where this forum was trolled by an unethical journalist was the Starry matter. Starry had spent alot of time and money to attend a Robert Ressler seminar in VA, took copious notes, and reported to us here at JW. Soon after, the Globe ran a story that followed Starry's post almost verbatim. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Lurker" Posted by Grace on 11:56:42 3/31/2001 I think the tab scam sounds likely. One thing I'm confused about: I believe I remember a recent post of yours asking if anybody knew whether A.K. was a real print reporter. Is it fair to assume your impression of her as a legit true crime reporter is shaky? For the record, I'm not saying A.K. is the 60 Minutes journalist. I have no idea. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Grace," Posted by LurkerXIV on 12:24:35 3/31/2001 I am just as much in the dark about who AK is as Scully. I have just surmised, from her posts in the True Crime area, that she has a great knowledge of current as well as past sensational crimes. Whether this knowledge comes from actually reporting on the cases for the media (going back to Alice Crimmins and Carl Coppolino, e.g.) or from just being a true crime buff...I have no idea. At any rate, I do not give any more weight to her posts than I do to anyone else on JW. IOW, I take everything with a LARGE grain of salt. (At least now I can figure out what the heck happened to hareen!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Lurker" Posted by Grace on 13:06:21 3/31/2001 Thanks for clarifying! Yeah, I changed my hat, then was afraid to post for fear people would think I was a newbie and jump all over me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Morgan" Posted by Scully on 12:05:26 3/31/2001 You mean "starry" the poster who has a thread named "Did ya' know" about five threads below this one? (WY, can I come over and help you clean out that bird cage?) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Scully" Posted by starry on 13:11:31 3/31/2001 Yes, it was me. I went to the RR seminar in Va in Jan. 2000 at George Mason University and took notes and posted it all on the forum, never thinking some unscrupulous reporter would steal it all and make a buck off of it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Scully." Posted by Holly on 12:02:28 3/31/2001 You don't make sense. Who are the posters you are sure share your feelings? So far, after 100+ posts, alot of people have offered opinions. While it may frustrate YOU not to know names, you are apparently ignoring the House Rule that says personal information about a poster, such as NAME, may not be revealed. If I wish to abide by the rules and not get banned at JW, why would I give out a name? Once again, it is my belief, and I think mame agrees and others, the producer/journalist is either a POSTER or closely associated with one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Holly" Posted by Scully on 12:08:44 3/31/2001 Thanks for finally clearing up all those lingering questions for me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Its own thread?" Posted by janphi on 12:27:48 3/31/2001 Why do y'all do this to me? I've started four-five threads in one whole year and every single one has been criticized in the first post. Why do I bother? The TITLE says "60 MINUTES Scam, Part 2"--the OTHER thread had 90 posts on it and I had a hard time loading it--mame's post #72 SAID it wasn't a coincidence that Rex Krebs' trial tied into this 60 Minutes scam somehow--I wanted to know more about what mame was alluding to. Why would I start a completely separate thread that had nothing to do with anything? THIS does, according to mame. I asked a question. How does this relate to the 60 Minutes scam? I hoped someone else would ANSWER on THIS, the second thread relating to the 60 Minutes scam. If the whole thread is a continuation of the first one, can't people just keep posting their thoughts about the 60 Minutes scam, just like they WERE doing? How long will I have to lurk & post here before I can get the starting of a thread right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "don't worry, janphi" Posted by mary99 on 12:39:08 3/31/2001 We can discuss Rex Krebs if everyone else is cleaning bird cages or fish tanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 13:05:12 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:05:12, 3/31/2001 no one said anything about discussing this Krebs person, so hang it in your ear. Man, you're snotty. Edited to be a little clearer - no one said anything against discussing this Krebs man, so hang it in both ears. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "WY" Posted by mary99 on 13:30:21 3/31/2001 It was Scully who suggested that unless names were provided, this thread was too boring. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "And, BTW, janphi" Posted by Watching you on 13:08:15 3/31/2001 this subject was part of the first thread. You were absolutely right to pursue it on this thread. You did nothing wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "bad things....." Posted by rose on 13:26:23 3/31/2001 1-People who tell lies for profit. 2-people who claim they have a story to tell and won't tell it to everyone with all the details. Tells just enough of the story to smear someones name. just enough to put a question mark in everyones mind concerning a key wittness in a murder case. a story that would ask the listener out of the loop to believe that this key wittness was into child abuse and that it went back at least a generation to his father. 3- a key wittness asked to defend himself when everyone knows that the more you stir defecation the more it sticks. Kind of like the question, do you still beat your wife. No right answer to defend yourself. Yes MW has had a horrible life, no question. We all feel her pain. The person who pretended to be her friend just to get a story for what ever reason was morally wrong and should be outed. Flame away, but until I hear that Fleet White is a monster and he had reason to lie about what he saw and heard on the morning of Dec. 26,1996. That perhaps he had a hand in the murder of JonBenet by introduceing John Ramsey to the Pedo scene ( and that is what the average person gets from the MW story). I will believe Fleet White is a good guy looking for justice for JonBenet an innocent murdered child. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Grace" Posted by Morgan on 13:45:03 3/31/2001 AK has all but announced her vocation more than once. She's boasted that she taught Mame how to be a professional journalist and criticized her for not being a better student. She likes to show up with breaking news, like Nedra's death and FW's filing of a criminal libel complaint. Obviously, she accesses the wire services. During the height of the "Lying Nancy"-her words-cyber war, she triumphantly predicted the legal delimma that would befall her fellow posters, myself included. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "mary99" Posted by Scully on 15:09:16 3/31/2001 How naughty you are. I finish cleaning my bird cage to return here to see that you have been wixing my mords. I didn't say this thread would be too boring if names of the major players weren't provided. I said that is was unfair to force the forum into playing another "guessing game". What's the use of discussing a topic if everyone can't be on the same page? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Scully" Posted by ayelean on 15:43:24 3/31/2001 Scroll [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Holly" Posted by Scully on 15:13:26 3/31/2001 You state there have been l00+ posts offering an opinion on the two "60 Minute" threads. Is this proof that these posters know exactly what you're talking about? Bet if you started a poll you would be shocked to see the number of people who would admit that they don't understand the content of the "60 Minute" threads. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "AK..." Posted by Pedro on 17:39:52 3/31/2001 ...take it easy, pay time is a bitch, but It'll pass, I been there until 10 hours ago :-). Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "I am.." Posted by Pedro on 17:51:30 3/31/2001 ...Foreigner and I know the legal rules are different here than in my country, so sorry if something of this is weird, ok? I think MW should be the one presenting the prove here as she's the one accusing. I think that each time there's any news in this case, the MW followers get all over the place trying to get our attention away from the real issues. ST doesn't believe and has stated the story isn't true. I think the allegations clearly point o Ak and I hope some folks here have more prove than MW did about all her allegations on FW. I think we should let that woman get healthy and I think she has been well take care by FBI and other agencies and still there's nothing she say that can be use or prove as true. This is my personal opinion and you are welcome to disagree, without personal attacks, I still remember that last time a MW questioner did question about her what did he/she got. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Holly" Posted by Country Girl on 18:06:34 3/31/2001 Are you saying that if you posted the name used by the '60 Minutes' producer, it would violate JW rules? I am confused. Did this person communicate with MW's friends using a 'hat'? I am also curious as to the call MW made to '60 Minutes'. Did she have a conversation with one of the producers or researchers there? As you might know, there are many stories at many levels being worked on at the same time. I'm certainly not saying that what MW was told was incorrect. In order to do any independent research with my CBS connections, I would need a name however. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Country Girl..." Posted by Pedro on 18:13:17 3/31/2001 ...this is just a joke, ok?.... She talk with Mr.Gnama...is a nice fella from Titan, here in earth for holidays :-). Those hoax are the most common thing with the network investigative programs, they follow hundred of stories every month and they pick 4, what do you think happen with the otehrs? Do you think the senior stuff check in those *discharged* stories at all? Call me *Helga*. This is the real world folks. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "heh" Posted by v_p on 18:25:13 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:25:13, 3/31/2001 wrong thread ... scuse me [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Sigh..." Posted by A.K. on 20:58:10 3/31/2001 Clearly someone has dropped acid in the JW water cooler. I'd be laughing my ass off if this weren't so tragically unfunny. Last time I looked in here I saw some hints that Holly was spinning out of control, more than usual. There were some bizarre accusations about me being a TV producer who tried to foil Nancy Krebs' "story." Now with this 60 Minutes angle, I see where Holly was going with it. For the record, it's not true. I have nothing to do with that show, any more than I am Cindy Adams, one of the other accusations made about me. What this confirms, of course, is why the cops don't embrace Internet posters as reasonable sources for information. In fact, any gains in respectability for this method of amateur sleuthing have been extinguished, totally. That's a shame because many of the forums include people with brilliant minds and logic -- who, in the Ramsey case, are truly interested in justice and have a panoply of skills to offer. Too often they're shouted down by the attention seekers who want instant gratification and don't realize how the real world works. I'm guessing that the folks at 60 Minutes found out what I and others did -- that the Nancy Krebs' story is baseless, was created by people with a firm agenda to embarrass the White family, and midwifed by clumsy dopes who wouldn't know how to assess real intelligence if it appeared on a silver platter. I and other homicide professionals who have discussed this matter equate it with the Richard Gere rumor that is equally ridiculous but nonetheless did immeasurable damage to his reputation. But we strongly believe that this Krebs' silliness will in no way damage Fleet White's credibility if and when he's finally able to take the witness stand. It is, after all, only a minuscule group of wildly unreliable Internet posters that have even heard of this nonsense, and which is why I'm assuming White chose not to address it in a larger arena. Any real investigative reporter or law enforcement professional does not go off half-cocked when there are scintillating rumors. In fact, that's the time to dig deep and do more work -- real work, borne of long-developed relationships with professionals, not Google searches. And they certainly don't share sensitive information with an anonymous group of people on the 'Net! I'm told mame was at the scene of the Aspen plane crash and announced a rumor that Kevin Costner was onboard. Another example of her careless gossip. Make no mistake, the Nancy Krebs case is CLOSED. If you choose not to believe it, that's your problem, not mine. Today I received from a forensic professional a filing from a district court where a woman, acting as her own counsel, attempted to sue every president since FDR, NASA, and various depts. of government for turning her into a sex-slave robot. Among her requests were that the families of every black woman who died since 1940 be given reparations, and that the sum of $56 billion be deposited into her bank account and an apology be made. The court denied her motion. I have quite a collection of these filings, many of which involve claims of serial Satanic abuse. What's interesting is that the people promoting these theories are not drooling morons -- they are often capable of dealing with the public, giving rational-sounding interviews, and in some cases, acting as their own attorneys for groundless legal claims. They even manage to fool a few people who should know better -- or else see the opportunity to sign on for their own self-aggrandizement. Who knows why, who cares? The need some folks have for attention is an intriguing cultural phenom of our time, and obviously comes in a variety of forms, from lunatic legal positionings to pathetic Internet postings. I learned many years ago to ignore those kinds of bleatings. I hereby give anyone permission to name the person who is involved in the "60 Minutes scam," or whatever you wanna call it. It ain't me! And since I have REAL work to do, don't expect me to read threads here or post frequently. If phony fence-sitters consider that arrogant, they'll just have to deal with it! I know there are some dedicated people here on JW, and it's to them that I disseminate info, when I feel I can do so safely. The irresponsible ones with the flying fingers and big mouths, I couldn't care less about. I wonder if they begrudge the professionalism of Szundi, NYL, or some of the lab folks who work in the medico-legal field, or should I just feel flattered that my presence makes them so jealous?! Just to clear up one other matter, it's absurd to imagine that crime-solving began with the Ramsey case, or OJ, or anything recent. Crime and forensic professionals have long-running associations and don't get their knowledge from the Internet. They wouldn't stay in business very long if they did. To Pedro, China, WY, v-p, and some of the other posters who can tell what's what in this hall of mirrors, you have my appreciation and best wishes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "As we said AK..." Posted by Holly on 21:54:55 3/31/2001 A poster or someone close to a poster is believed to be the journalist/producer. I'm sure you will have no trouble utilizing your superior talents and connections to help us solve this mystery. And I'm sure you still have all of our addies, if you want to share your discoveries. Or better - post them. Here's a clue - the producer shares a funky/artsy LA address with someone who has an interesting last name. It may mean nothing - just interesting. So far as the rest of the discussion mentioning you, I guess alot of people were fed up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. ""I, and OTHER HOMICIDE OFFICIALS"" Posted by Edie Pratt on 21:45:56 3/31/2001 AK, does that mean you're really a detective? You wrote that you and other homicide officials agreed, so I'm guessing you are. Why or where would Holly get info that you're the freelance reporter that made that bogus 60Minutes producer call? Do you know who she's referring to? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "A.K." Posted by LurkerXIV on 21:14:40 3/31/2001 Thank you for your time and professionalism in addressing this matter, and laying another JW rumor to rest. Although I do not know who you are in RL, I wish I did. I would love to sit down with you and discuss all those big cases from the past. Better yet, I would like to hear a debate between you and John Douglas, who bills himself as a homicide professional but is a charlatan. And I was just kidding about Cindy Adams and Barbara Walters! ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "CG" Posted by Morgan on 20:52:42 3/31/2001 Email Holly: holly156@bellatlantic.net [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "AK" Posted by Real Stormy on 21:24:32 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:24:32, 3/31/2001 Well put. Very well put. I picked up on that Kevin Costner thing too and my reaction was "There she goes again." And it is the same with this "60 Minutes" business. Obviously, someone was having fun with gullible people. It was kind of cruel, but at the same time, kind of amusing. I agree with you that there is nothing to this silly MW story. Some of these people are being used to try to diminish FW's importance as a witness. I admire him for ignoring it. I can see no reason why he would respond to these hysterical postings. Good to see you again--it's been a while. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Now" Posted by Morgan on 21:51:54 3/31/2001 we can all bask in the glow of the All Knowing presence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Morgan..." Posted by Pedro on 22:17:05 3/31/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:17:05, 3/31/2001 ...NOw we can all ask you to post the name of the 60 Minutes producer, Ak has give their ok, so no breach of house rules, post it. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Pedro." Posted by Holly on 22:35:59 3/31/2001 Again - and please listen and read carefully - I and others believe the producer/journalist is a poster at JW or close to a poster at JW. A ll K nowing's self congratulatory and bloated valentine to herself disappoints. I certainly never said AK was the producer. How fortunate we are to have someone who contributed her vast knowledge as a HOMICIDE PROFESSIONAL, to tell us that Sneaky Pete Peterson had a press conference, FW would soon appear in a BIG media event, Nedra died, and Nancy Krebs conspired with a fading blonde SAG member, Steven Singular, Lee Hill and others to piss off Fleet White. Perhaps Chris needs to know you take your stage cues from AK. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Holy..." Posted by Pedro on 22:46:38 3/31/2001 ...Chris know everything she has to, because I did e-mail her already. Quit that *Yiu know I know* attitude with me dear, doesn't work, got it?. And quit using Chris to scare people, chris is fair and honest, I know you wouldn't like her to, but she is. I am NOT acting as moderator, that's good, at least people know I am a moderator, I hide nothing. So, post the name, ok? And again, don't ever throw Chris to me, she's more thna you give her credit for dear. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Pedro." Posted by Holly on 23:19:35 3/31/2001 I guess you just don't get it. So here it is again deary - if the producer/journalist IS a JW member, revealing the name would violate house rules. As a moderator, don't you know that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Yes..." Posted by Pedro on 09:31:32 4/01/2001 I get that, however you will be telling his/her name as involved in an scam, not sa JW poster. I am sure Chris could give you better advice, you know I know better. I am convince you were making reference to AK, now if you chnage your mind.... Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Thanks AK" Posted by v_p on 21:46:10 3/31/2001 I think you said what needed to be said, but I doubt seriously it has squelched the rumor...they die hard round these parts. Oh, and I never did believe the thing about Richard Gere ... for one thing, I couldn't work out in my mind the sequence of events that would have to take place to achieve the end result, (no pun intended). V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Back for a quickie..." Posted by A.K. on 22:29:04 3/31/2001 Holly, I truly don't know what you're getting at. If the Whites don't care to pursue it, perhaps it's out of sympathy for Nancy. Then again, maybe they will pursue it. I don't know or care. I have received assurance that her claims were pulled apart, left and right, and are without merit regarding White and the Ramsey case. That's more than enough reason to put it on the garbage heap, alongside Pachaly, Sketchman, Bootman, and a few others. Edie, I am sure you can appreciate why I don't care to be more specific. But I have excellent sources. RS, I can't believe I left you out when I listed the good folks here. And plenty of others I'll think of as soon as I sign off. Damn, that's the problem with mentioning names. Smooches to you too, v_p. There are SO many wonderful posters who I care greatly about. All of you, raise your hands... Not so fast, Morgan! LurkerXIV, I was CRUSHED when you suggested I was as old as Cindy, but I have been doing what I do for a long time. I actually think Cindy's a grand character with an amazing background. She was the only reporter whom ex-Indonesian despot Sukarno trusted, and her book about him is a hoot. One last thing... I wish I could nominate fly for U.S. Supreme Court (you don't need a law degree for that!). Every case needs a serious fence-sitter who doesn't miss a trick. This case has fly, the Internet version of Pete Hofstrum. I have only respect for that POV (despite fly being wrong that I've made mistakes, hrmph! Those were simply the Internet "telephone game" gone wrong and taking a bit of what I wrote and stretching it to points of no recognition...). Bye for now! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "AK" Posted by Edie Pratt on 22:49:01 3/31/2001 I might not have been clear, but I didn't ask for your sources, I only asked that you clarify your statment that you and OTHER homicide officials...that is a loaded statment AK, and you can see why I'd ask, I'm sure. When you write OTHER, it tells me you are ONE, see? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Oh goodie" Posted by mary99 on 22:21:53 3/31/2001 Now it's time for A.K. to apologize for accusing me of leading a Satanic cult presentation in Florida. Any other hoaxes you wish to address? Please be ready to prove what you say if you choose not to retract. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 22:15:29 3/31/2001 Now that you have evolved from journalist pro, who taught mame EVERYTHING (even though she was a bad student) into a homicide pro, do you still get smooched by Gil Garcetti everytime he sees you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "AK..." Posted by Pedro on 22:14:50 3/31/2001 ...I agree with you. Well AK has allow to post the name of the 60 Minutes pruducer even if it's AK's name, no BREAK of HOUSE RULES. Now, post it for all to see. The excuse not to, is gone. AK I loved your post, is about time to puit the Nancy Krab scam to rest. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "JMO" Posted by mary99 on 22:25:31 3/31/2001 I think we should play cutsie with AK until she lays out her 'Lyin' Nancy' 'proof' (including the Stephen Singular smear) or retracts her story. She has so many secrets, and I have very few. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "I think..." Posted by Pedro on 22:26:34 3/31/2001 ...you should post the name of the 60 Minutes producer/reporter/whatever. What's the excuse now? Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "well, innocent victims" Posted by mary99 on 22:31:52 3/31/2001 like Nancy Krebs, Stephen Singular and posters like myself have been smeared by A.K. and yet she has not bowed to pressure to 'prove' anything. Why should I? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Because of your..." Posted by Pedro on 22:43:16 3/31/2001 ....MW obsession? Because you folks has been so insistant that is about time you quit hiding and come with atrue and clean face? because you accuse folks of things that you did first? Because I say so? LOL. AK doesn't come back every month with the same BS. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "excuse me " Posted by mary99 on 22:48:20 3/31/2001 I thought this discussion was about an unsolved murder. Since when are victims of sexual abuse targets for ridicule? Have I fallen into the Fleet White/A.K. fan club? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Sadly mary99," Posted by Holly on 23:00:44 3/31/2001 AK is not credible enough to extend a long overdue apology to you. She is more comfortable spinning her horrific verbal assault of last summer, as little joke. Pathetic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Holly" Posted by mary99 on 23:06:49 3/31/2001 Poor A.K. has an ego problem. Everyone else is called to task but A.K. never needs to say she's sorry. Boy, I'd love to know what other 'little jokes' she's pulled on posters over the years. Maybe she's really a comedian? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Why..." Posted by Pedro on 09:34:24 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:34:24, 4/01/2001 ...didn't anyone acted against AK if she/he did those attacks againts Mary99 in bad faith?. If AK waas wrong and that has been proven already, an explanation and an apology are a must to me, however I am not telling anybody what to do. I would have apologized. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Apologies" Posted by v_p on 09:38:30 4/01/2001 Will they be forthcoming to AK? I doubt it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "No body has..." Posted by Pedro on 22:51:02 3/31/2001 ...been target here but AK and all those who question MW's veracity regarding JBR case. You are the ones doing wrong to MW by insist on insert her in a case where she has no posible insertion. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Pedro--me too" Posted by Real Stormy on 22:23:49 3/31/2001 I'd like to see the producer's name too--assuming there is a producer and a name. This most recent resurrection of this tiresome story does nothing more to prove its truthfulness than any of the other attempts. Likely because there is nothing there to prove. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "what rumor about RGere?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 22:20:09 3/31/2001 I haven't heard anything about RGere that's bad, what are you talking about? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "RGere..." Posted by Pedro on 22:25:44 3/31/2001 ...went to Ganimedae, right next to saturn, and got a nun there, Lordy!!!!! the moanings of the ganimeadiand nun were hear from here!!!! Poor Nun :-) Pedro PS: Ganimediaen nuns aren't like ours, ok? no sacrilegy here!!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "your WHAT hurts?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 22:34:14 3/31/2001 I guess I asked the wrong question :-( [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Pedro" Posted by Real Stormy on 22:32:31 3/31/2001 Now this Ganymedian nun--was she also molested by Fleet White? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "How's this for an idea?" Posted by Holly on 22:49:21 3/31/2001 AK is welcome to post her REAL name and then I will let you know (honestly) if it is the name of the producer. And I can't help but wonder why AK, the HOMICIDE PROFESSIONAL, who has knowledge of how non-credible internet posters are ignored by real law enforcement professionals, justifies her years long involvement in JW and other forums? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "You know that's.." Posted by Pedro on 22:54:18 3/31/2001 not how it works, remember? If someone agrees to have their name posted is Ok to post it. AK has already agree on have that producers name posted. Holy, you know the rules, you know post that producer's name is fine now, AK has releave JW and its posters of any responsability in case is the same name, so go ahead. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "LOL" Posted by A.K. on 22:38:23 3/31/2001 I'm like Columbo -- keep coming back for last words... From what Holly posted it sounds as if the producer was someone who was legitimately connected with that show at one point, then left, and is possibly trying to come back for a big story. That's something that happens a lot. No big deal. If s/he caught wind of Krebs as a potential story, s/he acted totally credibly trying to suss it out before s/he presented it to Mike Wallace or Don Hewitt. Again, this is done all the time. But at some point, s/he reached the point many in the know have -- that the story is BS and deserves no air time. You should know how often this happens in the media! I've heard nothing here to prove that this producer acted improperly. It's only the inexperience of posters who think otherwise that stands out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Gee." Posted by Holly on 22:52:07 3/31/2001 What a telling glimpse into the world of independent producers. I wonder how you are so well informed? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "spin away, A.K." Posted by mary99 on 22:51:28 3/31/2001 What about the apology a so-called professional like you should know enough to make to me? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "I think FW and his ancestors..." Posted by Pedro on 22:37:45 3/31/2001 were teletransported there by a human call Nancy Krab,(just curious, is she from Kern Co?) and AK took the pictures, FW was in his new space suit by Armani while the egregious journalist took notes during *the action*, Ona Zee and Ginger Lynn were invite to supervise the proces to garantee its reliability to future Ganimeadeans. So that's it, Did I talk about D.Bosco the producer? He was there too, search in *booble*. RFLOL. Get a real life!!!!!! Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Miracles..." Posted by Pedro on 22:39:32 3/31/2001 ...of teletransportation and time travel, Mr.Holmes, was there too entertaining the nuns!!! I am killing myself here. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Well, Pedro" Posted by Real Stormy on 22:41:51 3/31/2001 If Fleet White did not molest said nun, I demand that he come to the JW forum and deny it. If he doesn't, I'll know for sure that he is a nun molester. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Could I..." Posted by Pedro on 22:49:18 3/31/2001 ...agree with you on that one? Why nobody accuse me evr of nothing exciting, nasty and dirty? "cause I use glasses, I am ugly and a geek? Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Pedro" Posted by JR on 01:07:26 4/02/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:07:26, 4/02/2001 OK - you asked for it! I accuse you of seducing many of the female posters on JW with your charm and wit. I have seen with my own eyes how many have made innuendos regarding getting to know you well...much better then they have to backtrack and tell Mrs. Pedro they are kidding. To me at least, this is a direct assault on freedom of speach as well! So - stop with the darn charm and wit or else I'll have to talk to NYL about filing a suit against you for harrassment and violation of freedom of speach - a direct violation of constitutional rights by the way. P.S. I bet the geek part was tossed in so we would comment on it then you could chastise us or tell us to prove you wrong! Mrs. Pedro - any comments? :-\ Bump...for Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "No Pedro" Posted by Real Stormy on 22:53:07 3/31/2001 What would you like to be accused of? I'm sure some of these folks would be happy to oblige. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "What makes.." Posted by Pedro on 22:56:16 3/31/2001 ...you think I haven't been there already? The problem is, they never accuse me of something nasty and funnee. ZZZZZZ Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "I think..." Posted by Pedro on 22:57:59 3/31/2001 ...we are all sick!!!!!! RFLOL. Time for bed, thanks for the evening. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 23:19:14 3/31/2001 So you're saying a hungry hack/producer type might legitimately look into Nancy's story to try to sell to a show after "catching wind" of it. Of course Nancy's story is almost completely unknown to the general public, so this producer would have to be someone addicted to the JB chat forums to hear of it at all. BTW, you're last post sounded almost like a confession. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "whoa..." Posted by mame on 23:22:05 3/31/2001 this is the second most hilarious thing i've heard all day...the first was hearing that frank coffman has gone and washed that grey right out of his hair...and now this psycho lithium infested flea turns up and pulls some more bullchit out of her ass...you got some brass balls, i'll give you that much... <"I'm guessing that the folks at 60 Minutes found out what I and others did"> you are absolutely right miss masked maven...they did indeed find out...i fully agree on this point! and it didn't have a damn thing to do with discrediting nancy krebs...whose character and courage is firmly intact. if you or anyone has information proving this woman is not to be trusted...THEN SAY IT IN FULL NOW!!! this information could help clear mr. white's name and put this story to rest once and for all. not to mention helping to thin the herd here at JW...i would applaud and support anyone, including AK, if they offer up the information they so often allude to. why the hell not post it? it can only help the case...no solid information about a would be witness could possibly hurt mr. white...it could only help the path to truth and justice. little ol' mame and her trusty dog sadie could stand tall and say "i was wrong, wrong, wrong miss respected journalist...i should have listened to your wise advice...i would be forced to admit to the internet world i was a gullible grassroots knock off journalist! the forums would love it...cheers and the second annual flame mame fest could begin again... AK, now's your chance to be the internet heroine...riding in to restore mr. white to his former knighthood...it's a job you and your fancy forensic (gag) cohorts can knock out in under ten minutes... oh yeah...the kevin kostner rumour was also reported on network television...mame and the networks said it was a RUMOR!!! i didn't see you out there at midnight crawling around the bloody crash site dahlink... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "mame..." Posted by Pedro on 09:39:42 4/01/2001 ..Nancy is the one who come up with an story discrediting FW, she's the one who must show prove. She hasn't yet. Are you asking the accused, FW, to prove his innocence? RFLOL. We are all sick. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Morgan." Posted by Holly on 23:21:41 3/31/2001 That's a good coherent point for someone up at 2:30 AM EST. I was thinking the same thing myself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 23:36:25 3/31/2001 I know you're still here, despite your many professions. Mary99 has politely asked for an apology. We're waiting...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "IS THERE A FULL MOON???" Posted by Penguin on 00:04:37 4/01/2001 Let me see if I got this right. Holly wants to tattle on Pedro. Pedro is in frenzy mode. Mame is calling someone on the forum a psycho lithium infested flea who pulls things out of her ass..... And Watching You just wants to clean her fish tank, for cripes sake! If I were a hall monitor, I might pull this thread for the name calling. Oh, wait - I am a hall monitor,with a big fat pass, so please stop the name calling. This kind of stuff always brings our forum to a halt. That's not what we want, nor what we need. Please - everyone think before you post. And mame, I'm suggesting you edit your post. Not telling you to - just suggesting it.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Penguin" Posted by JR on 14:05:30 4/01/2001 I will pull my last post to Pedro if you tell me it is untrue and out of line...sheepishly crawling down the thread. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Penguin" Posted by Scully on 03:02:07 4/01/2001 Why should mame alter her post? I admire anyone who has the courage to crawl around on their hands and knees at the site of a gruesome airline disaster. I can also understand how numerous posters were led to believe the sad tale that Nancy Krebs told to a multitude of listeners. She always struck me as a dependent personality who profited from the attention of sympathetic individuals. Since her story didn't seem to pan out or impress the detectives, she probably moved on at the advice of her therapist. I have always had mixed feelings of NK implying that FW was involved in a twisted tale of ritual sexual abuse. And, again, I can't for the life of me believe that anyone truly seeking justice for JBR could be so eager to witness the destruction of FW's reputation. Isn't the JBR case basically a circumstantial case? Isn't most (if all) the forensic evidence contaminated because the crime scene was never secured? Now, let's place our only hope, (the key witness, FW) on the witness stand having to undergo absurd questioning by a defense attorney regarding his alleged involvement in a child sex-porn ring operation. Please. Let the Nancy Krebs tory die a hasty death once and for all. It has nothing to do with who killed JBR so it is a grand waste of our time. You go, AK....for some reason, I believe you. I always enjoyed reading your informative posts in the past and I still do. I also don't care if you're a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. Couldn't care less. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "No Full Moon to blame" Posted by szundi on 01:05:04 4/01/2001 Just checked to make sure--the Full Moon was March 24th and the New Moon is April 7th. Just FYI. szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "nah..." Posted by mame on 01:15:07 4/01/2001 with all due respect penguin, i think i'll leave things as is...i thought long and hard before posting it. feel free to erase at will...but, i'd rather have it go poof with my exact thoughts...not a dialed down version... penguin, are you new? are batman and robin arriving as well? LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Mame" Posted by Ruby on 09:48:06 4/01/2001 I, on the other hand, have been officially designated Hall Moniter by Jonsey and I say it's about time you get alittle fiesty. Such strenth of character you have shown while some people go way overboard in their flaming of you. BTW, is there a class you have to take to learn how to attack someone, spoken in jest of course and then suck up to someone else all in the same post? (not speaking about you) Off to get grocerys and stare at my perennial garden, hoping to see some life. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Gosh," Posted by v_p on 09:10:53 4/01/2001 I'm hearing Cyndi Lauper's "True Colors" for some reason. LOL BTW mame, which irresponsible TV station put out the Kevin C<---ostner rumor? Pedro, you were on a roll last night...too funny. And oddly enough, I understood most of what you posted :o) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "May I" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:32:39 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:32:39, 4/01/2001 Call everyone's attention to Post #78? Such an excellent example of journalistic skill. And, I do believe, a bit of the green-eyed monster. Tomorrow, the world. LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Hi RS" Posted by v_p on 09:32:47 4/01/2001 lol. There is certainly a discernible difference between the two, (and you know which two I mean), posts, isn't there? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "lol" Posted by Ruby on 12:51:40 4/01/2001 Paranoid Delusional lol lol Grow up and leave your seventh grade days behind or better yet why don't you just come out and SAY exactly WHO you think I am instead of hiding behind your imature and cryptic junior high comments. Chris, any way to verify that the lie one of your bored posters is trying to spread is just that, a LIE. You have my work e-mail that reveals my real name (as does my home e-mail) I completely trust you with this info - just wondering if it would help in putting this continued reference of me being someone else to rest. Pedro - love your posts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Pinguin..." Posted by Pedro on 09:37:08 4/01/2001 ...I agree with you. I am not pinguin. I still think we are all disseased and sick :-). Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Hi v_p" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:48:18 4/01/2001 Yes, class and talent are always apparent. Hi Pedro--are you still on a roll? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Ruby" Posted by v_p on 13:02:40 4/01/2001 >>Paranoid Delusional lol lol<< You certainly are. First of all, I wrote "posts," not "posters." I don't care who you are. I didn't answer you in the WOR and I feel dumb for answering you here, but you need to know ... I haven't given you a second thought since the daily almost a week ago...ok? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "vee-pea" Posted by Ruby on 18:48:04 4/01/2001 You want answers from the MW clan because of their unclaimed accutations and I would like answers from you. You have pulled an "MW" so to speak and I would just like an honest answer as to whom you think I am so I can rightfully defend myself - as you would undoubtedly like Nancy Krebs to do, if she were so inclined. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Real Stormy (ref post #93)" Posted by Gemini on 16:22:52 4/01/2001 RS, this isn't to disagree with your general position in this debate because I have some mixed feelings about the issues myself. But, when you suggest "class and talent" equal righteousness, I think you're indulging in some very faulty thinking. Doesn't it have more to do with how these distinctions are used than whether they exist? What's more, (and assuming you mean "better" class) ... I don't see that it applies in this case. Perhaps what you actually mean is that one faction seems, perhaps, a little more articulate and better educated than the other. Yet, again, even if true, so what? Still has nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong - who's more objective or who's more self-agenda directed. So far, it seems to me there's plenty of self-agenda on both sides. Scully, ya know I love you, but what's the point in any efforts to stiffle this arm of discussion? If it isn't important to you, or if you don't understand what they're talking about ... I'm with Ayelean ... why not just skip the thread and let the interested parties carry on with something that seems important to them? The thing that seems most curious to me about this issue/non-issue (depending on the POV) is the continued efforts at censorship. It's already been censured by many of you - everybody here (unless they've been sleeping) knows a number of people object to it. So ... the idea that there's an ongoing effort to Hush it up is more likely to capture my interest than just letting it play itself out. jmo of course [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "Why, Gemini" Posted by Real Stormy on 18:34:18 4/01/2001 How very kind you are to inform me as to what I meant. My use of the term, "class" was meant in the generally accepted use of the term, i.e. occupying a higher position. In this particular instance, I was comparing AK's command of the English language with that of another poster, who claims to be a member of the same profession. AK's talent, of course, speaks for itself. Was there anything else you didn't understand? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "yes" Posted by Gemini on 22:56:26 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:56:26, 4/01/2001 Why you think having the best command of the language, or a better check on the ol' temper is any kind of indication one opinion is more righteous than another. At least, that's the way your post read to me. And, for what it's worth, the word "class" is not commonly used to signify professional catagory or competence. It often (if not usually) means something quite different. But, I'm pretty sure you know that. Not really a criticism. Your comment just surprised me. I think you're such a cool lady when you're not engaging in snobbery. jmo, of course edited so as not to offend th' thug with a possessive pronoun error [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "We're..." Posted by Pedro on 19:14:56 4/01/2001 ....all sick and sick...someone tells me we're disease too.... Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Pedro" Posted by JR on 01:13:46 4/02/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:13:46, 4/02/2001 ... Bump Edited to say - see post #96 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "JR..." Posted by Pedro on 08:37:14 4/02/2001 ...sue me, ok? I'm boried. I think I need the spring to show up and stay!!! We're all sick. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]