Justice Watch Support JW "60 MINUTES Part Three" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... 60 MINUTES Part Three, Holly, 05:53:00, 4/01/2001 BTW -, Holly, 05:58:04, 4/01/2001, (#1) BBQ bone?, Holly, 06:10:39, 4/01/2001, (#2) Holly, mary99, 06:40:16, 4/01/2001, (#4) mary99, Holly, 07:20:34, 4/01/2001, (#7) Scully., Holly, 06:36:22, 4/01/2001, (#3) Journalistic ethics, mary99, 06:48:57, 4/01/2001, (#5) janphi., Holly, 07:08:30, 4/01/2001, (#6) This is pathetic, kids, Watching you, 08:11:50, 4/01/2001, (#8) Watching You, Greenleaf, 08:59:01, 4/01/2001, (#10) Mary99, Watching you, 08:42:04, 4/01/2001, (#9) uhhh, read thread 2, mary99, 09:50:12, 4/01/2001, (#11) Then why, Mary99, Watching you, 10:13:25, 4/01/2001, (#13) WY, Holly, 12:34:05, 4/01/2001, (#22) Bone, v_p, 09:58:05, 4/01/2001, (#12) v_p, Holly, 12:18:50, 4/01/2001, (#20) It appears, Real Stormy, 10:15:23, 4/01/2001, (#14) RS, Holly, 21:11:12, 4/01/2001, (#79) Oh, and haha, BTW, Watching you, 10:18:45, 4/01/2001, (#15) My OWN view of this, darby, 10:24:19, 4/01/2001, (#16) A.K.,, Grace, 11:24:38, 4/01/2001, (#17) Kevin Costner, DuBois, 11:47:15, 4/01/2001, (#19) DuBois., Holly, 12:36:51, 4/01/2001, (#23) How did, Grace, 11:32:49, 4/01/2001, (#18) Grace., Holly, 12:19:51, 4/01/2001, (#21) ROFLMFAOOOOOOOO, v_p, 12:43:36, 4/01/2001, (#25) v_p, Holly, 14:24:16, 4/01/2001, (#32) Grace and Holly, starry, 12:39:00, 4/01/2001, (#24) Holly and Darby, Watching you, 13:18:00, 4/01/2001, (#27) starry, Grace, 12:55:37, 4/01/2001, (#26) WY, darby, 13:58:47, 4/01/2001, (#30) So, Morgan, 13:46:25, 4/01/2001, (#28) Morgon, 1000Sparks, 13:58:54, 4/01/2001, (#31) Trust me, Morgan, Watching you, 13:57:10, 4/01/2001, (#29) Darby, v_p, 14:42:47, 4/01/2001, (#33) dispelling a few myths is all, mary99, 15:01:19, 4/01/2001, (#36) V_P, JR, 14:45:30, 4/01/2001, (#34) v_p, darby, 15:17:52, 4/01/2001, (#43) 1000Sparks, Morgan, 15:02:35, 4/01/2001, (#38) Morgan, Watching you, 15:12:33, 4/01/2001, (#40) AS far as I know, Holly, 15:02:26, 4/01/2001, (#37) Hot Damn, Holly, Watching you, 15:13:50, 4/01/2001, (#41) WY -, Holly, 21:24:35, 4/01/2001, (#84) v_p, Grace, 15:00:26, 4/01/2001, (#35) Grace, Morgan, 15:03:53, 4/01/2001, (#39) mary99, Scully, 16:21:46, 4/01/2001, (#55) Scully, mary99, 16:53:44, 4/01/2001, (#60) Grace, v_p, 15:24:30, 4/01/2001, (#45) To the point.., Greenleaf, 15:21:21, 4/01/2001, (#44) Byt, just exactly why, Watching you, 15:16:55, 4/01/2001, (#42) why are we even here, then?, mary99, 15:39:53, 4/01/2001, (#47) Mary99, Watching you, 15:59:04, 4/01/2001, (#52) lurid scenarios, mary99, 16:21:07, 4/01/2001, (#54) Mary99, Watching you, 16:44:31, 4/01/2001, (#58) I'm sure the accuser would prove it, Edie Pratt, 15:43:55, 4/01/2001, (#49) I just don't get it, Edie Pratt, 15:30:43, 4/01/2001, (#46) You know what, v_p, 15:42:11, 4/01/2001, (#48) Edie Pratt, Greenleaf, 15:55:16, 4/01/2001, (#51) That was very nice, GL, Edie Pratt, 16:03:08, 4/01/2001, (#53) but, Edie Pratt, 15:54:05, 4/01/2001, (#50) Real World?, shadow, 16:29:37, 4/01/2001, (#57) Does anyone else wonder, JR, 16:27:30, 4/01/2001, (#56) and that's just it, JR, Edie Pratt, 16:50:03, 4/01/2001, (#59) Yeah, but, darby, 17:05:15, 4/01/2001, (#61) Lying, Conniving, Real Stormy, 18:01:23, 4/01/2001, (#65) Really?, Holly, 21:15:32, 4/01/2001, (#81) Ah, Holly, it was Candy, mary99, 21:44:56, 4/01/2001, (#87) Wor Room anyone?, watchin', 17:47:02, 4/01/2001, (#63) That's what I thought., darby, 17:40:21, 4/01/2001, (#62) Not so fast, Darby, Watching you, 17:53:11, 4/01/2001, (#64) Thanks for responding, WY, darby, 18:05:25, 4/01/2001, (#66) Darby, mary99, 18:42:23, 4/01/2001, (#69) Real Stormy, darby, 18:40:11, 4/01/2001, (#68) Darby, v_p, 18:36:04, 4/01/2001, (#67) Even though, Ruby, 19:04:08, 4/01/2001, (#71) Real Stormy, v_p, darby, 18:51:04, 4/01/2001, (#70) the vultures..., mame, 20:03:16, 4/01/2001, (#73) Wow,, v_p, 20:13:36, 4/01/2001, (#74) shall we level the playing field?, mary99, 20:50:45, 4/01/2001, (#77) Ruby, v_p, 19:45:24, 4/01/2001, (#72) Darby, Mary and Mame..., Pedro, 20:26:20, 4/01/2001, (#75) Pedro, mary99, 21:29:56, 4/01/2001, (#85) Thanks, Pedro, darby, 20:47:47, 4/01/2001, (#76) Darby..., Pedro, 21:03:02, 4/01/2001, (#78) Mame...., rose, 22:32:27, 4/01/2001, (#90) Pedro said..., shadow, 21:19:51, 4/01/2001, (#82) wow, freebird, 21:14:24, 4/01/2001, (#80) Yep..., Pedro, 21:53:31, 4/01/2001, (#88) Darby, Penguin, 21:44:24, 4/01/2001, (#86) Pedro, darby, 21:23:08, 4/01/2001, (#83) Darby.., Pedro, 21:55:50, 4/01/2001, (#89) more random thoughts, fly, 09:40:03, 4/02/2001, (#91) fly-#5, darby, 10:37:09, 4/02/2001, (#97) fly, you are ever the voice of reason., LurkerXIV, 10:07:15, 4/02/2001, (#94) Lurker, mary99, 10:30:36, 4/02/2001, (#96) mary99, LurkerXIV, 10:47:13, 4/02/2001, (#98) fly, mary99, 10:07:02, 4/02/2001, (#93) Don't be so hard on each other., Cassandra, 10:02:41, 4/02/2001, (#92) Please, somebody, kill this thread!, Greenleaf, 10:20:51, 4/02/2001, (#95) ................................................................... "60 MINUTES Part Three" Posted by Holly on 05:53:00 4/01/2001 Carry on. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "BTW -" Posted by Holly on 05:58:04 4/01/2001 Isn't a HOMICIDE PROFESSIONAL a hitman/hitwoman? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "BBQ bone?" Posted by Holly on 06:10:39 4/01/2001 "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" v_p on the first thread FYI - Last year's JW BBQ was held the first weekend of July, v_p. Nancy's story first appeared in February 5 months earlier. What bone are you talking about? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Holly" Posted by mary99 on 06:40:16 4/01/2001 V_p must be confusing her independent research with public knowledge. She alluded to 'knowing' for sure Nancy was a liar 'way back on the last California/MW thread (IV or V) but never posted exactly what that 'evidence' might be. From her comments on the last thread, maybe something to do with Richard Gere? IF A.K. is a HOMICIDE PROFESSIONAL, then I'm the Easter Bunny. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "mary99" Posted by Holly on 07:20:34 4/01/2001 My hunch is that justice for JB might be better served if we just ignore the urge to speculate re who the producer is. I'm only suggesting that I THINK the timing of certain things indicated the producer might be a poster or someone close to a poster. We should prolly be careful not to attack posters. * I'm just making a general comment here. * I want to promote productive discussion. I was wondering if any other poster might know something that would shed light. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Scully." Posted by Holly on 06:39:11 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:39:11, 4/01/2001 Scully inquiring of Holly - "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" ********************** Thanks for making my point. FYI, many people were willing to offer opinions as to the scam and didn't need to know, in fact, even ask, for a name. Here is exactly what I am talking about. The timing of the 60 MINUTES effort and the Nancy/poster bashing of last year may have not have been coincidental. I speculate that JW and other forums may have been manipulated to provide fodder for FW's well timed August libel filing which was supported by hundreds of pages of internet posts. And I wondered if the bashing had the effect of trying to force Nancy and her supporters to present Nancy in LA for the sham 60 MINUTES interview. Why was it a sham? Well, the producer led Nancy and others to believe that there was a national interest in her story - a claim which is unsupportable. And that Mike Wallace wanted to review tapes of her interview. Another statement I find bogus, because I can't see why 60 MINUTES or anyone other than case followers would care. And she stated that 60 MINUTES had investigative resources that knew things about FW that were damning. Like what, we wondered? That is what this thread is about, Scully. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Journalistic ethics" Posted by mary99 on 06:48:57 4/01/2001 Some here are not very concerned over the hoax perpetrated by the faux producer. Apparently they feel that in the game of tabloid entertainment, anything goes. However, 60 MINUTES might feel differently about having their letterhead and name bandied about. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "janphi." Posted by Holly on 07:08:30 4/01/2001 I was wondering about starting a Rex Krebs thread because it is a great true crime topic. On the 60 MINUTES thread - it's lost. Since the jury is deliberating a verdict may be near. And if there is a possibility that this guy is related to NK, the nature of the crimes and his comments about his childhood are very interesting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "This is pathetic, kids" Posted by Watching you on 08:11:50 4/01/2001 it really is. It is reminiscent of all those MW/FW threads a year ago. Most of us here have absolutely no way of knowing anyone associated with these stories. This is ludicrous. Scully was not wrong when she said many of us do not know what's going on. Holly, you have attempted to explain it to us, and that is all well and good, but it's like, just more information to store with the other information we've acquired. Since many of us may have had a great deal of compassion for Nancy Krebs but believed it was a separate issue from the JBR case (and that is our right, BTW), this newest bit of information does not hold the same fascination, and might I say, fanaticism, for us that it holds for you. I honestly do not know who AK is, but I will tell you this much, her posts are credible and professional. I have always believed that about her, if it truly is a "her." Now, I know that great offense is going to be taken by some by my uttering those words, but it shouldn't be. I have the right to ferret out what I think is credible. All the rantings and ravings of those who call her a liar and whatever other things she was called only serve to bolster my belief that she is the rational one and others are less than rational. Does that mean I think those ranters and ravers are not honest? Nope. I think they are dedicated to their beliefs (agendas). Problem is, I'm not. I can't speak for others on this forum, but the plain fact is, I'm not interested in what some nefarious should be/would be reporter from 60 Minutes did. This shit goes on all the time. The fact that it was brought out on the forum, when I don't think many really give a shit, is showing me it IS important to those who want to discuss it. You know what? Perhaps therein lies the problem. What seems like a burning issue to some is not even an ember to others. Yepper, I know I'm going to hear that I'm insensitive to the sexual abuse of children and yada yada yada, but y'all might as well not even go there, because that horn's been tooted all over the forums and it's effect has worn off. You know it isn't true, but certain of you still persist. It only serves to make you look pathetic and incredible. It just seems as if the reasonable thing to do would be to post whatever is bothering you, as Holly did, then everyone chime in with their thoughts, as many did, and let it go at that. But, that doesn't seem to be enough. When the subject matter does not achieve the originally-desired effect, a more intense effort is undertaken to in an attempt to inflame the emotions of other posters and get them to join in the fanatacism of a select few. When someone finally does pipe up to object to the tactics being used, that someone is beset upon by the fanatic few and attacked. Well, you may deny it, but that's what's been happening. That is what happened a year ago. It is freaking stupid, and many of us see through it and those of us who do are the ones who get attacked the most. I am all for new information. I didn't get all upset when Holly started the original thread. It was information, I stored it in this still quite usable brain of mine, I wondered about it, but it was a perephial issue to the JBR murder and as such not filed in the critical issues file. But, someone wanted it to be critical, and that's when the crap started flying. All I know is this thread probably now belongs in the WOR, healing wounds may have been opened again (not mine, BTW, mine are intact, I'm not mad at anyone over this). I am saying it the way I see it, others may see it differently. All I really know for sure is, this issue simply is not important to me. It may be to some, it isn't to me. Finis Have at it, kids. I'm taking a shower. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Watching You" Posted by Greenleaf on 08:59:01 4/01/2001 You wrote: "I am saying it the way I see it, others may see it differently. All I really know for sure is, this issue simply is not important to me. It may be to some, it isn't to me." You so eloquently stated my feelings exactly. Thank you, Watching You, for that succinct, coherent, brilliant,and courageous "manifesto." This is, in no way, meant to be a personal attack on anyone. I have absolutely no animosity toward any of my fellow posters, here at JW, albeit their passions may differ considerably from my own. Whenever I see an outstanding post, especially one which is reflective of my views, I feel compelled to respond. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 08:42:04 4/01/2001 If you feel this strongly about this issue, perhaps you should be the one to tell 60 Minutes about this hoax. Or do they already know? I may have missed that part. There is no need to continue to make veiled threats about what 60 Minutes might like to know. Tell them. It's that easy. And, you will have followed your conscience. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "uhhh, read thread 2" Posted by mary99 on 09:50:12 4/01/2001 Phone calls were made to 60 MINUTES to confirm the project/producer's participation, at which time the hoax was revealed. My somewhat cynical POV is that similar transgressions by the Ramseys would not be taken this lightly, nor would the actions of the swampmistress, for that matter. Also, since was visciously flamed and left JW over the A.K. info from her 'excellent sources', I am somewhat bitter to see that most her believe her to still be credible regardless of her malfeasance. Nobody except a few who know well how wrong A.K. was about me, and have stated she was wrong, have asked her to admit she was on a big-time fishing expedition--nor has she described the MW/Singular hoax as another goof. Instead of exposing her for a liar, at least about me, she has emerged pristine as a newborn babe and instead I was left with the impression most here would prefer I take my tired agenda and go home. Insinuating I would choose to harm Justice by questioning 'star witness' Fleet White's actions on the eve of the multiple trials for which he might be called as a witness is the most twisted logic yet, by far. Why has this case not been solved if White was there at the Hellhole and if White is dedicated to seeing Justice served? Sorry, I see him as manipulative and self-serving and possibly a major hindrence to solving this case. By all means, I would like to see him answer questions under oath. But no matter how many times it's said or discussed, everybody's preconcieved notions are getting in the way. Bottom line--this case has NO heros, this case has no one fighting for the truth...it's all about CYA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Then why, Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 10:13:25 4/01/2001 do you make statements like "However, 60 MINUTES might feel differently about having their letterhead and name bandied about." If they already know, let them worry about it instead of saying they might feel differently... Either they care or they don't. So, the hoax was revealed. Who was damaged by it? You? I wasn't. Why is it so critical that you hammer on this isssue. Is it personal? I think so. You are pissed at AK, and that is a personal thing. Perhaps it should be taken to e-mail. This statement: "Also, since was visciously flamed and left JW over the A.K. info from her 'excellent sources', I am somewhat bitter to see that most her believe her to still be credible regardless of her malfeasance." is silly. I'm not sure you meant this, but what this statement says is, because you were viciously flamed and left JW over the AK information, because you left, you believe the rest of us should find her incredible, in spite of what you call her malfeasance. That does not make sense. Your decision to leave proves nothing except that you decided to leave. You have stated AK is wrong. Okay. Saying it over and over again is not going to change a thing. AK is either wrong or she is right, but there are very few of us here who give a damn. Once again, it is a personal thing with you and AK. There have been a lot of hoaxes perpetrated on the forums. Trouble is, none of us outside the major players knows what is hoax and what isn't. That's why we don't get real excited about it. You have called AK a liar, at least about you. Once again, it's personal. Go beat the shit out of AK if you want to, but don't get mad at the rest of us if we don't put the same importance on it as you do. This is your view of things. AK has another. We aren't freaking Solomon, well, I am, but most of us aren't. We can't say one is telling the truth and the other one isn't. So, we just disregard it, because it isn't important to us. Why do you think we should take your side against AK? I have not taken sides, I have said these things don't belong on JBR forum. Your desire to expose anyone as a liar is only to satisfy and soothe your own ego. Your insinuations about FW are well known. No one has the right to accuse anyone of such a henious crime as FW was accused of without definite bona fide proof. No one had that proof. That was a sad time for JW. When you have proof that FW is a pedophile, let me know. Until then, expect to get told about it every time his name is brought up in this vein. ** Why has this case not been solved if White was there at the Hellhole and if White is dedicated to seeing Justice served? When did you stop beating your husband? Another dumb question, and I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. Clarification is needed for further analysis. It is perfectly okay for you to see FW in whatever light you wish. It is not okay for you to get in everyone else's faces when they don't see him that way. I disagree with. I have that right. You may distrust him all you want. I think he is one of the few who really wanted justice for JBR. Maybe I'm wrong, and that's okay, too. But, until someone shows me substantial proof he is not on the up and up, and I mean PROOF, then all attempts to slander his name will be met with the same answers: prove it. As for preconceived notions, you have a few of your own. Bottom line, you'd better be damn sure of your facts before you start accusing people of things that may very well not be true. Now, I am going to my mother's to talk to someone who makes sense at her 85 years of age. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "WY" Posted by Holly on 12:34:05 4/01/2001 I really don't think mary99 is off base. She was kicked around pretty bad in the WOR last summer. It would be nice to hear an apology. You probably noticed that the Satanist junk about mary99 made it to other forums, and was very hurtful to her. Jokes about ample thighs and other dumb stuff. mary99 - there won't be an apology. Perhaps you or I - and, I think, WY - would say, " A thousand apologies. I erred." But it's not going to happen. I don't know how others will choose to pursue this with the 60 MINUTES staff - if at all. I'm not in favor of pursuing it. I saw this event as a cautionary tale. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Bone" Posted by v_p on 09:58:05 4/01/2001 >>By the time of last July's MD BBQ, it seemed the taping was close.<< I'll bet mame was really excited about the taping being near as she attended the BBQ. You all came back and denied there were any secrets/developments while at the same time cock-sure FW was involved in the MW ritual abuse BS. The "60 Minutes" scam explains it. That's the bone. As Wy said, the novelty of this thread has worn off. AK came in, addressed the issue, which many of you said would be enough for you, and you still won't let it go. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "v_p" Posted by Holly on 12:18:50 4/01/2001 Perhaps you could talk to Earthangel, Jerryz and Yellowbird, sherryf135, ericasf, momo, PegB and other attendees to confirm your suspicion. To refresh your memory -- an FBI agent from the Annapolis office discussed the internet and kids at risk. He answered some of our questions -- but not really about JB. We then spent alot of time with Toppcat making a JW video with Starry's husband playing Fleet White. We all pored over articles and printed materials about the case and Panico. Later in the evening sherry and erica led a discussion of ways to help Nancy Krebs and victims in general. Mame reviewed the status of the information. If someone recalls any talk of 60 MINUTES, that's news to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "It appears" Posted by Real Stormy on 10:15:23 4/01/2001 To me that someone was having a bit of fun at the expense of a certain few posters. Despite arguments to the contrary, it seems to have considerably enlivened that meeting in MD. I remember well the breathless excitement about FW's imagined role in an imagined "sex ring." But hey, "We didn't discuss this at all." Oh now I get it Mary99--It's all about "me." It's also comforting to know that MW is now among "People who love her." How long will that love last if they are also accused of rape and other unspeakable crimes? I don't think it matters at all what AK says. These people have a mind-set that cannot be changed. Don't bother them with facts. While I know nothing about AK personally, judging from her posts, she is an extremely talented writer with excellent sources. Deal with it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "RS" Posted by Holly on 21:11:12 4/01/2001 What I said was - mame reviewed the status of information. I have no doubt that review included all the stuff she knew about case goings on, as well as things concerning FW and his family's alleged sex ring participation and nancy Krebs. What it didn't include was 60 MINUTES. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Oh, and haha, BTW" Posted by Watching you on 10:18:45 4/01/2001 I'm leaving, but I will be back. I think I'll talk to a couple of horses while I'm gone, too, they have more sense than some people. Dogs, too. Cats, too. If you talk about me, realize I am sensitive to those kinds of things so there could be consequences when I return. So long, she said, as she walked away scratching her head and chuckling. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "My OWN view of this" Posted by darby on 10:24:19 4/01/2001 Fact: A real, known journalist told mame and Lee Hill that 60Minutes had investigated and dug up dirt on the Whites. I think we can all agree that this was a lie and a scam, not only unfair to "pro MW" people but also unfair to the Whites. Right? Opinion: My opinion is that this person probably is either on one or more of the JBR forums or is in close association with someone who is. Who else on this God-forsaken planet would care or even know about "Mystery Woman"? I have an opinion on who the forum connection might be, and it's just that--an opinion. It hasn't changed. Fact: Some (not all) of the folks who feel certain that MW herself is a scam think this other scam is fine and even justified. Apparently, it's okay to "scam a scam," as someone put it. This standard of ethics is well below my own. Opinion: Like many of the bizarre JBR sideshows, I think this one was worthy of sharing with the forums. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "A.K.," Posted by Grace on 11:24:38 4/01/2001 This isn't anything new, but I'm struggling to figure out what you mean in post #35 (thread 2) when you say: "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." What "clumsy dopes" have been assessing intelligence? Are you referring to darby's post #35 on thread 1, in which she states: "Fortunately, the "60 Minutes Journalist" who did this is not all that bright-- she wasn't particularly clever at covering her tracks." If so, it seems odd that you'd be moved to make a snide comment about that. But it appears in keeping with your other comments defending this journalist/producer. Maybe members of the media stick together? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Kevin Costner" Posted by DuBois on 11:47:15 4/01/2001 rumors can be hurtful to many people. As some of you know, when i posted after this past thanksgiving about my brother spending thanksgiving with Kevin Costner and his girlfriend. When i read the daily thread after the plane crash, i was shocked to see this rumor. I quick turned on the tv to see if this was true or not, and i heard nothing about this rumor. I called my brother, i told him about the rumor and he was frantic. He made several calls and said that the rumor had no basis. He then told me that i shoud not pay attention to such nonsense. It did put quite a scare into him and his partner as his neice is Kevin's girlfriend and could have been on the plane. Rumors are very dangerous! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "DuBois." Posted by Holly on 12:36:51 4/01/2001 mame was only reporting information she and others were told at the scene. Right up front she said it was a rumor. I was still calling Mr Holly at 3:30 the next day to hear if that had been confirmed. Maybe I missed your post that dispelled that scare. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "How did" Posted by Grace on 11:32:49 4/01/2001 that last paragraph in my post get in italics? I don't know how to fix it, because I did it right the first time. But it's not darby talking. It's me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Grace." Posted by Holly on 12:19:51 4/01/2001 I wish I could figure out how to do italics. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "ROFLMFAOOOOOOOO" Posted by v_p on 12:43:36 4/01/2001 >>>She was kicked around pretty bad in the WOR last summer.<<< I clearly remember poor little mary99 being "kicked around" in the WOR. I also remember being kicked around by mary99 and Darby and tinky and winky and kinky and gawd knows who the hell else ... but I certainly remember mary99 shelling out her jabs and barbs. Please, now we have to apologize for chit we say in the WOR. Get over it mary. No one has any proof whatsoever that AK is the producer and yet not one apology has been given to her. Holly, about the 60 minutes story, when did you become aware of it? You said you made several calls, right? Maybe all this was discussed in emails. Who knows, who CARES? Mame doesn't want to pursue it, according to her, yet there are 3 flucking threads, so far. Dead horse walking... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "v_p" Posted by Holly on 14:24:16 4/01/2001 I started sensing something was weighing on mame's mind in July and started nagging her. She gave me some details throughout the summer and I think I knew most of what was going on by the end of August. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Grace and Holly" Posted by starry on 12:39:00 4/01/2001 to start and stop italiacs: to start: type [i] but use <> instead of [] to end: type [/i] but use <> instead of [] Same if you want to bold something. [b] and [/b]; but use <> instead of []. Hope that's clear for ya's. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Holly and Darby" Posted by Watching you on 13:18:00 4/01/2001 First, Holly. I respect your opinion on what went on in the WOR. However, I have an opinion about that, too, and my memories of that time tell me Mary99 was right in there with some of the most vile posts I have ever read on a forum. She got back what she gave. I'm sorry if she couldn't handle that, but that's what the WOR is for. Posters go in there because we are not allowed to behave like brats here. We can there, and we mostly do. For the most part, unless I temporarily lose my cool, which I do now and then, I try to temper my responses. I can't recall ever being as bad as I can be, because I can be a miserable bitch, and it isn't anything to be proud of, but if anyone ever had it coming, it was Mary99 at that time. If she was offended by getting it back, then I guess she shouldn't have been in there slugging it out with the rest of us bruised ones. We all got beat up then, not just Mary99. It's just that the rest of us have moved on and don't carry all that baggage with us. Darby: Your facts may indeed be facts - to you, but do you see how many of the rest of us don't know these things as fact at all? You tell us they are fact, but it is hearsay, every single fact you stated. I do not think we can all agree on anything we don't have knowledge of other than someone said it. Do you understand what I'm saying (and not saying well, I know). Not for one second do I think you would lie; but, that does not mean whoever told you these things got it right. So, no, I can't take that as Fact, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever to you by saying that. It is my way. Now, you opinion. I probably have more respect for your OPINION right now than I did that fact you quoted. You may very well be right about this mysterious person maybe being on the forums. I don't feel threatened by that, though. There really isn't much any of us can do about it. It's a free country. Your next Fact, that some (not all) of the folks who feel certain that MW herself is a scam think this other scam is fine and even justified. Darby, please please understand something. I do not know if MW herself was a scam. I have made no judgment about that. I simply don't know. No scam is ever justified IMO, and it's still fair to say that two wrongs don't make a right. I wish MW no harm, never did. My gripe was with the way FW's name was bandied all over the internet with the label pedophile attached to it. Whatever, WY is not a vindictive person and would never think a scam against MW was justified. Opinion: Like many of the bizarre JBR sideshows, I think this one was worthy of sharing with the forums. Well, Darby, I agree with you. But, it was going off in directions leading to unjustified and unwarranted attacks on other posters. That was my beef. The horses were grand. Foxy Nad, poor thing, was gelded a few days ago and he is pretty sore. My daughter's boyfriend thought she was talking to him when she was really talking to her horses. He said, "what did you say?" She said, "I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the horse, he's more interesting, anyways." hahahahahaha, I thought I'd roll down the hill laughing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "starry" Posted by Grace on 13:38:30 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:38:30, 4/01/2001 Thanks. That's what I did. For some reason, the last paragraph came out in italics even though the symbol was at the end of the paragraph before it. I'm tempted to try to edit it, but if it comes out right, none of these posts will make sense, so maybe I'll just leave it. LOL. Edited to say -- now I understand why you used [] instead of <>, since that disappeared in my post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "WY" Posted by darby on 13:58:47 4/01/2001 I hate the direction that these three threads have gone into as well. All *I* care about, for the purposes of the 60Minutes scam, is what I said in my last post. FWIW, My second "fact" was addressing the fact that there are some on this forum who celebrate the idea of "scamming a (believed) scam." Just look through these three threads for yourself to see who they are. Lots of people are like that, in real life as well as on the internet. I neither care for nor trust such people. And I never stoop to their tactics myself. WY, even though we sometimes disagree, I know that YOU have never been such a person. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "So" Posted by Morgan on 13:46:25 4/01/2001 where is the All Knowing one? When an apology is politely asked for she disappears. BTW WY, if you think it is a matter strictly between Mary99 and All Knowing, then butt out. Still, if her posts are read carefully, after weeding out the latest overblown claims of her grandosity and professionality, and the fresh jabs at "Lying Nancy" she gives a darn good imitation of a confession. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Morgon" Posted by 1000Sparks on 13:58:54 4/01/2001 Who is giving a confession? Sorry I didn't understand that post. Mary99 is confessing to something? What? Or is Watching You? I think I believe NYL and what he had to say about this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Trust me, Morgan" Posted by Watching you on 13:57:10 4/01/2001 I would love to butt out. Trouble is, this is a public forum, and by posting it here it was made public. BTW, you butt out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Darby" Posted by v_p on 14:49:09 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:49:09, 4/01/2001 >>FWIW, My second "fact" was addressing the fact that there are some on this forum who celebrate the idea of "scamming a (believed) scam." Just look through these three threads for yourself to see who they are. Lots of people are like that, in real life as well as on the internet.all the others.<<< I've looked through all the threads and can find only one such comment about "scamming the scammer." This is just how the MW threads went down. Just because some of us didn't believe Nancy's past, whatever it may or may not have been, had anything to do with the murder of JBR ... which, btw, is why we're here ... we were accused of calling her a liar, having no empathy for victims of abuse, etc., etc., which was not the case for the most part. Morgans insipid post on one of the other 60 min threads, addressed to me, said something about me feeling JBR deserved to be killed or whatever. It didn't justify an answer ... and it was definitely uncalled for, but typical of her, and others retalliatory comments when they don't get the response they're looking for. You all keep asking AK to prove Nancy is a liar ... why should that be up to her ... why don't you prove she isn't? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "dispelling a few myths is all" Posted by mary99 on 15:01:19 4/01/2001 V_p: You all keep asking AK to prove >Nancy is a liar ... why >should that be up to her >... why don't you prove she >isn't? Well, if A.K. lied about me, why not think she may also be lying about other things she has posted here as fact from her excellent sources? To me it's clear that there will always be those who just ignore what they'd rather not confront. There was no Stephen Singular plot to boost sales of his book using Nancy Krebs. There was no Satanic cult presentation attended by me where I was laughed out of the workshop. There was no Media event ever planned to focus on the Fleet White/Nancy allegations. A.K. never attended or reported on the details of the Ramsey/Paugh private party in Parkersburg for PR's HS reunion. Y'all can believe what you want, but to me that is proof of shoddy reporting combined with pomposity in not admitting her 'sources' were, uh, less than accurate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "V_P" Posted by JR on 14:45:30 4/01/2001 Good question. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "v_p" Posted by darby on 15:17:52 4/01/2001 I don't agree with everything Holly, Morgan, mary99 or mame says, and they don't always agree with each other. FWIW, I was of the belief that the real name of the journalist should have been used, as she's a public figure. That idea was vetoed by someone in charge at JW because there's a good chance the person is a forum member. I, personally, have never once asked anyone to prove Nancy is a liar. My personal view is that as an abuse victim, the worst she could probably be is delusional. That's one of the reasons I thought it was despicable for the journalist to attempt to get and sell a videotape of Nancy and then present her as a scamming liar to the whole world. Someone (fly?) wondered why, if Nancy told the truth, should she have anything to fear from this journalist. Well, I have to think that a journalist who would stoop so low as to use deception in order to get Nancy to talk in the first place might not have an agenda that is all that fair-minded. I agree that if Nancy made up her whole story, that needs to be revealed--in fairness to Fleet White. But not that way. I would hope that we could all agree that what this journalist did was wrong, regardless of the truth about "Mystery Woman." While I may have gone too far in saying that the scam is being celebrated on these threads, I don't see much in the way of outrage from certain posters over the tactics that were used. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "1000Sparks" Posted by Morgan on 16:20:02 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:20:02, 4/01/2001 First of all Holly began the 60 Minutes thread as a cautionary story and has not named AK of being the producer nor have I. The posts I am referring to are #'s 35 and 57 of 60 Minutes part 2. v_p-so let's just go around name calling everyone-liar, thief, bimbo, slacker, etc-until they prove that they aren't. WY--I just thought if you butted out you could avoid being hypocritical. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Morgan" Posted by Watching you on 15:12:33 4/01/2001 Perhaps you would care to explain hypocritical? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "AS far as I know" Posted by Holly on 15:02:26 4/01/2001 you can't prove a negative. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Hot Damn, Holly" Posted by Watching you on 15:13:50 4/01/2001 but, isn't that just what the FW bashers have been asking him to do? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "WY -" Posted by Holly on 21:24:35 4/01/2001 All I ever thought FW should do was, in lieu of criminally charging the media for reporting a story, just issue a brief statement denying Nancy's information. And why wasn't Nancy cited in the legal complaint? She is the story provider. He refused to sit down with media people to discuss the "bogus" story, then got pissed when the story was not balanced with his comments. FW doesn't have to prove his innocence to me. All I hoped for was a statement denying Nancy or even the continuation of his libel complaint. I have had problems with White for years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "v_p" Posted by Grace on 15:00:26 4/01/2001 While I agree that I'd like to see somebody prove Nancy was telling the truth, the reason people keep asking A.K. to prove Nancy is lying is because A.K. says she has that proof. I'm among those who are mystified as to why she is so concerned about Fleet White's damaged reputation and yet refuses to restore it. The ability to do so is apparently in her hands. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Grace" Posted by Morgan on 15:03:53 4/01/2001 You've gone right to the heart of it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "mary99" Posted by Scully on 16:21:46 4/01/2001 Why do you have difficulty understanding why the JBR hasn't gone to trial? Cummmmm on....you know that every scrap of circumstantial evidence was contaminated. Any idiot defense attorney with an I.Q. of 50 could obtain a hung jury decision on this case. And on another note, you need to be reminded that FW was not present at the Ramsey household the night of the murder, therefore, he is not considered a suspect in this case. So why do you want to see him interrogated on a witness stand? He was home catching some zzzzzzzzz's when Patsy made her frantic call to the White's. One last thing: if you were accused of being a part of a Satanic cult then the person who made that false accusation should apologize to you. (unless it's true --which I highly doubt) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Scully" Posted by mary99 on 16:53:44 4/01/2001 FWIW, Fleet White's actions on the 26th were highly suspicious, in that he touched the tape from JB's mouth, didn't see her body when he said he peeked into the hellhole, moved the suitcase under the window and touched the glass--all in addition to disobeying the direct order of a polic officer when he was told to 'stand guard' at the hellhole door after the body was discovered. And, if the crime scene was hopelessly contaminated, it was due in part to FW's actions as described above and his very presence in the house. Not only is the BPD to blame for allowing a crime scene graze-a-thon, but those who participated as the 'invited guests' deserve extra scutiny for their mass lack of judgement. Surely it must have dawned on at least one of these supposedly bright people that if a child was kidnapped, they should usher the Ramseys away from the home and let the police go through the house with a fine-toothed comb? But apparently in the need to offer comfort and consolation, they just made themselves at home and settled in for the duration. So I do blame multiple parties for the case not going to trial, and not just the actions of the Ramseys themselves. contamination is why there will be no justice for JBR. And those who were there contaminated, whether innocently or not. Also, A.K. did not accuse me of being a Satanic cultmember, she accused me of being Mary Bienkowski (I am not, btw) and presenting a Satanic Ritual Abuse-laden agenda at a workshop attended by therapists in Florida, where I named Fleet White and was jeered by the crowd. Although she may make light of it by not addressing me, she carried on for a week and didn't let up, asserting she had proof and was there, too. The forum's chioce to not call her on this has been enlightening to say the least. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Grace" Posted by v_p on 15:24:30 4/01/2001 >>I'm among those who are mystified as to why she is so concerned about Fleet White's damaged reputation and yet refuses to restore it. The ability to do so is apparently in her hands.<<< What damaged reputation. There are only a few internet posters, mostly here at JW, who believed any of the crap that was started about him. There was also an irresponsible report in a newspaper, but other than that, I think his reputation is still in tact. Exactly right holly ... you can't prove a negative... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "To the point.." Posted by Greenleaf on 15:21:21 4/01/2001 http://a1060.g.akamai.net/f/1060/597/30minutes/www.zing.com/picture/p337da802b22e6be33d9f7227a0ae233a/feb181f9.jpg.orig.jpg [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Byt, just exactly why" Posted by Watching you on 15:16:55 4/01/2001 does FW (or AK) have to prove anything to anyone on these forums? Will somebody kindly tell me that? Those who made the accusations toward him have the burden of proving it. I don't care who has the ability to disprove it, it isn't up to them. It is up to the accusers - you make the accusations, you prove it. Always has been. Always will be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "why are we even here, then?" Posted by mary99 on 20:25:22 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:25:22, 4/01/2001 WY: [Why] does FW (or AK) have to prove anything to anyone on these forums? Why should Patsy Ramsey or John Ramsey or Nancy Krebs have to prove anything to the forums, either? WY: Those who made the accusations toward [the person/s] have the burden of proving it. Nancy gave her info to the BPD and FBI. Only some believe the BPD didn't do their best in both the Ramsey investigation or the Nancy allegations investigation. WY: I don't care who has the ability to disprove it, it isn't up to them. Isn't that what the Ramseys and their mouthpiece(s) have been saying all along? WY: It is up to the accusers - you make the accusations, you prove it. Always has been. Always will be. Yes, that is the way the prosecution works in a court of law. But this case has never reached the point of being prosecuted and the internet forums have served a useful purpose in keeping the focus on the case. Nancy asked for an investigation and until I hear differently, I assume it is being investigated by the FBI, A.K. notwithstanding. It was never incumbent on Nancy to present us with her evidence for our evaluatiuon or investigate her allegations in order to prove her credibility. This hoax has convinced me there are those who would like to discredit her but can't do so within the criminal justice system, so they resort to the court of public opinion tossing out rumor as fact, hinting of evidence which is never revealed and attacking posters who want to see our duly elected and appointed officials do their jobs. Is that the whole point of being here? To expose the lies and secrecy that has plagued this case? The manipulation of public opinion that has characterized the Ramseys also characterizes the attacks on Nancy Krebs and her allegations. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 15:59:04 4/01/2001 you are absolutely right. The Ramseys are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone on the forums, either. Who ever said they had to? The BPD and FBI are being paid to officially investigate cases. That is their jobs. That you think they haven't done their jobs as you think they should does not change the fact that they have the obligation to gather evidence and try to pull together a prosecutable case. There isn't one here, and there probably never will be. But to compare law enforcement agencies with internet posters is foolish. What the Ramseys and their mouthpiece have been saying all along is they didn't do it. They have spun and spun, but they didn't have to do that. No one asked them to go on TV for interviews and write a book. That wasn't their obligation or responsibility. I will agree with you that the internet forums have served a useful purpose in keeping the focus on the JBR case. It still does not give anyone the right to implicate and slander a man who was never accused or suspected of being involved in JBR's murder except by a few internet posters. **It was never incumbent on Nancy to present us with her evidence for our evaluatiuon or investigate her allegations in order to prove her credibility. Maybe so, she didn't HAVE to present us with anything. But, then, none of us has to believe it, either, right? I mean, it goes both ways. Why is it incumbent upon us to blindly accept what was nearly forced down our throats without questioning it, if the originator of the allegations is unwilling to present us with proof? It isn't as if we pulled her out of a hole somewhere and accused her of something. I mean, I don't even know how much culpability she has in all of this. Someone took what she had to say and ran with it and just blew it way out of proportion. Or did they? Which is the truth? Did Nancy start all these FW rumors? According to sources close to Nancy, she did not. So, who did, Mary99? Who took her words and added their own interpretations to them? Wasn't I. I have no desire to discredit Nancy Krebs. If anyone discredit Nancy Krebs in my book, it will have to be Nancy Krebs. I believe no more of what others say than I believe of what you have said, Mary99, about the MW saga. In a manner of speaking, no one is influencing me one way or the other. I only asked for the people making the accusations (and to my knowledge, Nancy Krebs did not make those accusations) to back them up. I believe you are one of them who made the pedophile accusations against FW. I only asked you to prove it. You can't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "lurid scenarios" Posted by mary99 on 16:21:07 4/01/2001 Well, the scenarios developed over the years with the Ramseys at center stage are no less appalling, IMO. If they are under the umbrella of suspicion because JonBenet was found in their basement, why shouldn't Fleet White's involvement be probed based on what NK has alleged happened to her? He was there too that day. It's been noted that both a FW relative and Ramsey friends follow the forums. Often what is discussed at JW is 'utilized' in convoluted Ramsey explanations for parts of their story that *seem* to be contradictory. If our discussions of NK and FW putt pressure on the BPD or the White spin team leading to a press conference, an interview or an expose, we may see the day when the murder of JBR is tried in court, not an internet forum. Preserving the star witness' credibility should not extend to looking the other way if the NK allegations have merit. Furthermore, since I believe both the Ramseys and the Whites know much more than they are telling, I think some pointed questions on the witness stand might do a world of good. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 16:44:31 4/01/2001 you are ignoring the fact that, allegedly, Nancy Krebs did not accuse Fleet White of anything. At least, that is the way I understood it. She said her godfather was FW Sr. Based on that, exactly what involvement are you talking about that should be probed based on what NK has alleged happened to her? I've never understood this reasoning. I read what NK's allegations were, and nowhere did I read that FW was involved in any pedophilic activity with her or anyone else. FW was there on December 26. He was not, as far as I know and as far as the police know, in that house the night JBR was murdered. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? FW has been cleared of any involvement in this case. What can't you understand about that? His child was not found dead in his basement. His child awoke in her own bed, safe and secure the next morning. He was called to the Ramseys' house by the Rams. He did not just show up unannounced. Your argument just doesn't make sense. The only thing discussions of FW will do is give him ammo for future actions if he so desired, I suppose. So many think FW should defend himself. I've thought long and hard about this and asked myself honestly what I would do if someone accused me of something like that. So, I'll tell you. First of all, I would probably find whoever said it and slam my fist into their mouths. Second, I would say, I will see you in court, you mo fo, bring your proof. Third, I would pay the fine from knocking someone's teeth out of their head, and Fourth, I would get on my computer and copy everything said about me to use in court. That's what I would do. Would I demean myself to stoop to the level of my accusers and defend myself in public or on the internet? Hell, no. No way, Never. Wouldn't happen. Now you know honestly what WY would do. You keep saying the cops didn't do a thorough job of investigating Nancy Krebs, but you were not there, you don't know that, so your claim that they are preserving the star witness's credibility is nothing but your interpretation of what happened, based on more hearsay. **Furthermore, since I believe both the Ramseys and the Whites know much more than they are telling, I think some pointed questions on the witness stand might do a world of good. I don't know if they do or not, but I'll not argue the point with you. I know damn well the Rams know more than they are telling because they have changed their stories too many times. I can't say what FW knows, but I admire him for guarding what he knows in order to preserve its integrity should a miracle happen and this case ever be brought to trial. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "I'm sure the accuser would prove it" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:43:55 4/01/2001 if the accused wanted it proved:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "I just don't get it" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:30:43 4/01/2001 WHY would someone interject themselves into a murder case, KNOWING FULL WELL their accusations would, at the very least, be investigated? And, why wouldn't that person go to the money, ie, the tabs, if they were only looking for fame and/or fortune? This makes no sense to me, because NOTHING is done without an agenda. NOTHING. Yet, here we have a woman who has come forward with very interesting things to say, things that could land her in jail if not true, and the subject of those tales does virtually nothing! Sure, he made a little racket about the Daily Camera, but most people would want to have an eye to eye with their accuser. Especially when the accuser is NOT a stranger. Nowhere does FW DENY knowing Nancy Krebs. Not a single word of denial, only regret at the Daily Camera's practices. I would be livid if someone I KNEW came forward and said I abused them in any way at any time if I did not. Them's fighting words, and God knows FW uses fighting words, except in this instance. How come? Who would/could blame him if he came out swinging? He'd have every right under Heaven, and an open armed audience, to boot. Send in the Fleet! Dare him to stand up to this injustice, show us his outrage, please. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "You know what" Posted by v_p on 15:42:11 4/01/2001 Fleet White has yelled and written letters to be sure ... but they were about justice for JonBenet. He's not plastered his mug all over the TV professing his innocense, he's not writing books or doing interviews with the tabs. Why would he give credence to this woman's claims by yelling in public that he's innocent of her charges? To make a spectacle of himself and plant doubt in people's minds who have never even heard of Nancy Krebs? Edie, believe me, there are women who do these things strictly for the attention ... that's NOT TO SAY Nancy was never abused in any way ... but it happens. I think if there were any truth to the link between what Nancy is claiming and Fleet White, we'd have heard a lot more about it by now, especially with all the lawsuits coming up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Edie Pratt" Posted by Greenleaf on 15:55:16 4/01/2001 I don't pretend to have the answers, Edie, but sometimes, when a rumor is so egregious, it's best not to energize and/or dignify it with comments. However, I agree with you, inasmuch as the overwhelming natural impulse would point towards a loud response, if the rumor were flat out untrue. Nevertheless, given the bizarre nature of this case, with its potentially explosive dynamics, around every bend, I can understand a closed-mouth FW. It is interesting to speculate as to the reason for his silence of late, especially considering the accusations swirling around him, and considering his rather uninhibited free speech in the past. All things considered, I have seen nothing yet to convince me that he had anything to do with JB's murder. I wish him and his family well, and, when all is said and done, I hope he is completely vindicated. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "That was very nice, GL" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:03:08 4/01/2001 and I sure hope so too:-) I want FW back on that horse, lance in hand, just as much as you. Frankly, I don't understand why ALL the "guests" that morning haven't been looked at more. Not one of them has rallied for JB either, and I feel they could have said SOMETHING. Not that they've done anything wrong, who knows, but as human beings, you'd think they'd say "enough is enough" and cry for JB's justice! Hey, WE ARE, and we never met JonBenet. FW and his wife fed JB her last meal, or so they say. What else was in her intestines that would make that statment true? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "but" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:54:05 4/01/2001 he hasn't really cried out on behalf of JonBenet, V-P, not really. He has only asked that Hunter be jousted, and mentioned JB but once. I don't think he so much as attended a JP vigil! If this woman came prepared to prove her accusations, which I believe she did, then gets called a fruitloop by the police, and they call the very people she's included in her accusations, what possible way could she prove it? They don't want to hear it, or look at it. What would it hurt? FW SHOULD BE the #1 witness for the prosecution, if a trial ever occurs, so is it the police don't want their star sullied? If Nancy is telling the God's honest truth, and has pictures or something, then FW's credibility goes straight to Hell. Best not to kick over the rocks along the path... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Real World?" Posted by shadow on 16:29:37 4/01/2001 1st Thread, 85th post - mame: "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..." I'm not attacking mame (I never have), but will someone please show me "ALL THE FIRE?" The "fire" and most of the "circus acts" and "backlash" I've seen concerning Nancy (who was also known as MW) and FW has been on JBR forums on the internet. Does anyone believe this is the "real world?" If so, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you! As I've said before, the JBR forums on the internet is to the "real world" what a fly is to the butt of an elephant. I, for one, would welcome an in-depth report of Nancy's allegations by 60 Minutes, any other national media outlet, even Geraldo. Sorry, folks, but IMHO the MW/FW story that periodically resurfaces on the forums (and causes lots of "FIRE" herein), will never make it to a court room nor the 7 O'clock news - and don't hold your breath for an in-depth report from the FBI of Nancy's charges. Some of us on this and other forums have not attacked MW or her allegations... we have just refused to label FW a sexual prevert without more than just a story tossed around on the internet. When we ask for a little proof for what MW is alleged to have said, and some proof that FW could have been sexually involved with MW, we are lumped into a "group of posters" who don't care about women being sexually abused, and who are attacking those on the forum who "care about MW." I hope Nancy is safe, and that her FULL STORY will someday see the light-of-day - and not continue to just reside on JBR forums. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Does anyone else wonder" Posted by JR on 16:27:30 4/01/2001 Why all allegations of sexual abuse in and around this case are blatantly ignored by the accused? Sort of makes me suspect there is a quiet gag order or something...maybe an on-going investigation? IMO FW would address those against him if they had credibility. He has to know the Tabs will keep digging and if they find an iota of truth his name will be plastered all over the covers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "and that's just it, JR" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:50:03 4/01/2001 tabs can't dig if those in question don't want to be dug up. NK has NOT taken a dime, nor given any statments to the tabs. Where are they going to look? The secretive nature of that world makes the search for truth that much harder. Like, who's going to come forward and help Nancy with this, besides her therapist? Other children were involved, too, it's not something that happened to her exclusively. I need to know what this woman has to gain, I don't see a reward. She didn't know the BPD would react the way they did, for all she knew, they'd go ape and call in the Russian Army! Why didn't the BPD call FW in for questioning? Could someone accuse you and the police would poo poo it? I don't think soooo. The MW and Kim Ballard both leave me thinking Hmmmmm. They popped up like ducks in a shooting gallery, and disappeared as quickly. But why? To what end, when both accused men KNEW their accusers? Strange loons out there, yes, but people who know their targets must have SOMETHING in the way of proof. And, some sort of satisfaction, for which neither got. And, if these women are just a family nut, someone like these ladie's parents should come forward and make excuses for their ravings. Where was Kim Ballard's husband? Shouldn't he at least have stood on the curb with Channel 5 and apologize for his kooky wife's hysterics and lies? Apologize to the Ramsey's? I say, where there's smoke there's fire... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Yeah, but" Posted by darby on 17:05:15 4/01/2001 Regardless of all of this crap we're arguing about, can't we all agree that if the journalist lied to Lee Hill and mame, saying that 60Minutes had investigated--and uncovered--unspeakable dirt on the Whites, that journalist must be a lying, conniving scam artist? v_p? RealStormy? Pedro? Penguin? WY? etc.? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Lying, Conniving" Posted by Real Stormy on 18:01:23 4/01/2001 Scam artist? I doubt it. Probably someone just having a little fun with this story. Bad taste, of course, but not as serious as you seem to think. Have you personally been told by Lee Hill himself, Darby, that this "journalist" spoke to Lee Hill? Is your information second,third or fourth hand? I assume that Mame told you that this "journalist" had spoken to her--Mame doesn't always get things right. Remember Kevin Costner? Remember the "big news" that was to be announced around Valentine's day? A couple of years ago someone called a forum moderator (who shall remain nameless, but apparently lives in a swamp) and told her that she was wanted for an appearance on the Geraldo Rivera show. She was very excited about it, but of course it was also a hoax. Are you one of those who thought it was so funny? This is in the same category. I don't actually think any of these childish games are funny. Nor is it funny to post "Since we know that Fleet White is a child abuser" which is from an actual post from one of Nancy Krebs' partisans on this very forum. She knows who she is and she should be sued for that. To me, AK is an excellent writer and has good sources. She doesn't have to prove anything to me or anyone else, including you, for that matter. At least her vocabulary is good enough that she has no need to resort to trashy vulgarities to make a point. Her stating that she had no part of this hoax was pretty straightforward. A lot more straightforward than this silly MW business. Additionally, Fleet White doesn't have to prove anything to me or to you or anyone else on this forum. Most likely, this forum isn't high on his list of important things. I know that might be difficult for you and some of the others to understand, but you Nancy Krebs fanatics probably aren't that important to him or anyone else, except perhaps, to each other. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Really?" Posted by Holly on 21:15:32 4/01/2001 "Most likely, this forum isn't high on his list of important things..." Real Stormy discussing FW. If forums are not important to FW, then why did he copy hundreds of pages of internet postings to support his short lived criminal libel complaint? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Ah, Holly, it was Candy" Posted by mary99 on 21:44:56 4/01/2001 who boasted that she forwarded them to Sir Fleet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Wor Room anyone?" Posted by watchin' on 17:47:02 4/01/2001 * This will take a few minutes to post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "That's what I thought." Posted by darby on 17:40:21 4/01/2001 . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Not so fast, Darby" Posted by Watching you on 17:53:11 4/01/2001 I posted a resopnse to you long ago, but my internet service is acting up and it wouldn't go. I will try again, though. What I said was, man, don't you hate when that happens and you lose your post? I said, is it possible things were not as they seemed? Could it be someone was playing good guy, bad guy, in order to gain information to be used against the ones who were defaming FW on the forums? I don't know, but that "if" is a big if to me. Oh, damnitalltohell, my daughter wants to play spider on the freaking computer. I have to go. I will return. Brat. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Thanks for responding, WY" Posted by darby on 18:05:25 4/01/2001 Yeah, it's a drag when you try to respond and lose your post. I hate that! Yep, "if" is a big word. But what I'm proposing is a horrible lie, not from a police department, which is authorized to do such things to track down criminals, but from a rather ordinary journalist. The whole focus of this thread should have been that apparent misrepresentation on the part of the journalist, IMO. I think the real point has gotten jettisoned and replaced with arguments about AK and MW--arguments that belong on other threads, if anywhere. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Darby" Posted by mary99 on 18:42:23 4/01/2001 You know more than you think you know! Of course the discussion of the attempted scam by the unethical 'journalist' was doomed to be sidetracked with spam, Fleet hugging, and of course, A.K.'s reverent groupies kneeling at her feet. Fact is, nobody except a very few even feel any slight outrage over this injustice! To them it's a joke! Ignorance is bliss. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Real Stormy" Posted by darby on 19:08:42 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:08:42, 4/01/2001 Edited for double post and to include v_p, below. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Darby" Posted by v_p on 18:36:04 4/01/2001 >>>Regardless of all of this crap we're arguing about, can't we all agree that if the journalist lied to Lee Hill and mame, saying that 60Minutes had investigated--and uncovered--unspeakable dirt on the Whites, that journalist must be a lying, conniving scam artist?<<< I would imagine that by the time this "producer" called mame, Nancy had already insinuated FW in her story. Mame likely jumped at the chance to talk to anyone who would back up the woman about to land mame smack-dab in the middle of the JBR case!! I don't understand all the protectiveness and then spilling the beans to someone they didn't even check out. The name was on the caller id? So, did you check out the name? mame says no...she trusts all journalists because there's some sort of code. Then there's the 60 minutes stationery ... did you check out the return address???? I would like for you to scan the Fed Ex address and return label if you don't mind....and maybe the stationery and what was written on it. Could you do that??? mame fell hook line and sinker for whomever it was and that's that. There was either a legitimate reporter who lost interest due to a lack of information or there was a scammer that new mame was an easy target because of her thirst for fame ... either way, it sounds fishy to me. So I guess the answer is I don't know the answer. I don't know how mame, with all her knowledge of how journalists and their ethics work, could imagine someone from a show like 60 minutes would call HER and spout off dirt on Fleet White in order to obtain information about Nancy Krebs. Yeah, it probably was someone scamming mame, that's what happens when we're gullible. Happens all the time to senior citizens, cancer patients, people wanting to get rich quick and average looking girls falling for a photographer who is gonna make her a movie star. I'd really like to see some documentation. thanx [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Even though" Posted by Ruby on 19:04:08 4/01/2001 you haven't given me a thought since my first post, I would like some documentaion as to where I am the poster you think I am. Because you don't have a sector 4 anymore, maybe you are just jealous of Mame because she seems to have a full life, even thougth it isn't all documented. V_P.......get one! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Real Stormy, v_p" Posted by darby on 18:51:04 4/01/2001 Thank you for responding. RS--Considering that this information was being fed to a known internet reporter, Fleet White's name could have been drug through the coals even MORE than it had already been had she decided to share her (however wrong) information that 60Minutes had uncovered "dirt" on Fleet White and was planning an expose. For "proof," mame might have scanned in the 60Minutes letterhead and gotten people all riled up. I know you were one of the folks who was quite passionate about what the forum discussions of MW were potentially doing to tarnish the White name. So yes, I think this was potentially quite serious, perhaps especially in terms of the Whites. No, I haven't talked to Lee Hill personally about this, but I could email him and ask him. Would you believe it then? This thing went on for quite some time; I have no reason to think that mame was lying all that time. Even if she gets some news stories wrong, I've never known her to purposely deceive anyone. Plus, I don't know what the point would be for mame to make it up. No, I wasn't aware of that Geraldo hoax with that particular forum moderator. Admittedly, I would have laughed my head off had I known about it. But I still know that it's wrong to lie--even to her--and would never do it myself. For many reasons, including what I said in the first paragraph, I don't think the jameson prank is in the same category as this. This is hard, considering what she has said about me in the past, but I'm going to say it: When AK gives a bit of effort, I agree that she is an excellent writer. I have other issues with AK that have nothing to do with her talent, however. In any event, the current issue is not AK but the journalist who tried to hoodwink mame, Lee Hill and Nancy Krebs with the claim that 60Minutes had investigated and found dirt on the Whites. This was a journalist who used her real name on correspondence and was checked with caller ID. There was no reason to think she wouldn't have followed through with the plan to actually send Nancy tickets, fly her to California, and then interview her. I think she would have done it and sold the video to anyone she could have. I agree that Fleet White doesn't have to prove a thing to us or anyone else. But this 60Minutes scam has nothing to do with that. v_p--Even if mame was gullible--and I'm not saying she was--I'd say that this isn't even in the same league as deliberate fraud. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. " the vultures..." Posted by mame on 20:03:16 4/01/2001 circling the carcass, AGAIN!!! ha... bottom line is this...and it's what prevents me from feeling the least bit hurt by the few circling cyber vultures... DIRTY OLD MEN WHO RAPE LITTLE GIRLS AND THOSE WHO ADVOCATE AND SUPPORT THEIR VILE VOCATIONS, INCLUDING MASKED JOURNALISTS WITH AGENDAS, ARE POISONOUS CREATURES IN OUR SOCIETY. THEIR COMMENTS AND ACTIONS ARE SO FAR BENEATH THE COURAGOUS, SILENT TERROR OF THESE CHILDREN...IT'S BARELY WORTH ACKNOWLEDGING...THE ONLY REASON TO MENTION THEM IS TO POINT OUT THE LENGTHS THEY WILL GO TO FURTHER THIS MASS POISON...IF YOU DOUBT SUCH POISON EXISTS...PLEASE TAKE SOME TIME TO READ THE RECENT NEWSWEEK COVER STORY ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. in the last year while researching and investigating sexual abuse and incest i've had the chance to see real character and courage in the scores of women i've communicated with...there isn't a word written or spoken about me for delving into this dark arena that can hurt...REAL pain and torture is felt in those children and those adult women who have grown up to live tortured lives...they all spend most nights reliving these sexual atrocities through "night terrors"...always praying for a voice and justice...always praying for the pain to stop. many of them could use the minds and intelligence of those here who say they watch justice...i hope some will find it in their hearts to advocate for these women and little girls who stay silent...because they are rarely believed. for those many here who work to hide truth and justice by discrediting and demeaning... keep circling... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Wow," Posted by v_p on 20:13:36 4/01/2001 so you do have a caps lock. mame, that entire post was to deflect from what's really being talked about here. You have readabout child, (sexual), abuse ... there are those here who have lived through it ... you are no damned expert. I'm done here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "shall we level the playing field?" Posted by mary99 on 08:31:14 4/02/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:31:14, 4/02/2001 Mame thank you for having the guts to say what I've been feeling, too. I know many posters here profess to be torn between believing what they consider to be unsubstantiated allegations and questioning a case witness. (Although many highly respected people have vouched for Nancy, I know you could care less until you see the evidence yourself). I have no qualms about exposing a pervert or pedophile for the scum that they are. Whether they be married, well-respected, even a father, just read Mrs. Brady's page (and click on the links) to see the breadth of depravity running through our society. Coaches, clergy, teachers, parents...no one sector is exempt because of income, race, religion. An 8 month old baby is in critical condition after being sexually assaulted by a male who was had access to the baby (in the car) while the father was running an errand. Don't preach to me that until we know more, we must give that piece of scum the benefit of the doubt. Over the years, many heated and eloquent essays have been posted about just how evil and depraved the Ramseys are. Please, if you believe Fleet White to be beyond reproach, or are offended by those who question his actions, behavior or motives, honor the same principles in regards to the Ramseys you prefer I grant Mr. White. For the record, I have never called Fleet White a pedophile and anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. Edited to correct relationship of suspected perp in the 8-month old baby sex assault case from Father of the baby to someone who had access. Here's the URL: http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0330i.htm Thanks, Mrs. Brady [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Ruby" Posted by v_p on 19:45:24 4/01/2001 You're starting to scare me... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Darby, Mary and Mame..." Posted by Pedro on 20:26:20 4/01/2001 ..First I would like to ask everyone here to discuss this as adults and not to fight between us. There's no reason for it. I am willing to look and read whatever information anyone is willing to share with me; so far I got nothing at all. I say this because in the past I did argue and come to almost call naming with people I like and I love over this issue, people who been nice and good to me many times, that won't happen again. Mary, Nancy is the one who brought accusations against others. The authorities investigated and disregarded her story as related to the JBR murder. After that point, if we are to believe her story, she MUST bring some prove here, because we can't accept her allegations on her word only after these have been so far investigated and found of no relevance in the JBR case. There's no other manipulation than the one made by those who say Nancy don't have to prove her allegations and if we ask for prove, we are against women, children.... Sorry, come up with some facts, real facts, until then I have the right to be skeptical regarding Nancy's story connection to the JBR case and I have the right to ask for prove. IF you have that prove, Why do you resist so strongly to share your acknowledge with all us? After all her name is public now and there's no security concerns. That's manipulation. About the WOR attacks on you, the WOR is the WOR, you attacked others too. The R's aren't accusing others of anything and when they do, we ask for prove, we do. So why wouldn't we ask Nancy for the same thing? Darby: Yes, I agree, it is an scam and should be checked out by that network for its own credibility, I don't like people who lie to obtain information, not at all. Now, a master of scam...anyone is capable of doing this is really easy, you just have to be a bad person and then you can do something like that. Mame, I agree with your post, however is just a general statement with no value regarding this case, I think the Nancy saga should be in the proper place, true crime forum, not in JBR forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Pedro" Posted by mary99 on 22:36:20 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:36:20, 4/01/2001 Edited for spelling and becuz i sownd dum. >Mary, Nancy is the one who >brought accusations against others. The authorities >investigated and disregarded her story as hold on, Pedro--they said at this time they had no proof the Ramseys were part of a sex ring or Fleet White was a suspect in the murder of JBR. What that leaves out is that the Ramseys, obviously, ARE suspects in the murder of JBR AND they did not clear Fleet White of any involvement in a sex ring. This is a long way to go about saying "There was nothing to her allegations", and they chose their words carefully for those who would read them carefully. >related to the JBR murder. But they did forward her information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which as you know, is a multi-agency bureaucracy which has sweeping jurisdiction encompassing all levels of interstate crime, including kidnapping, child pornography, RICO, and organized crime. >After that point, if we are >to believe her story, she MUST >bring some prove here, sorry to interrupt again, but NO, she does not need to bring her proof her for you and folks like Real Stormy to giggle over. She needs to let the FBI do it's work and we, as a forum, can show support for her and the investigation of those who abused her by calling for a FULL and COMPLETE investigation of ALL her allegations. because we >can't accept her allegations on her >word Others have vouched for her too, several prosecutors among them. Many people HAVE seen what she brought as evidence and it left them shaken to their very souls. >only after these have been >so far investigated and found of >no relevance in the JBR case. Pedro, this is like swampmistress saying there was NO prior sexual abuse, get it? This is like the BPD calling Nancy's mother before coming to her house--and not even reviewing the therapists records. That's what's so wrong with this picture--people have said the BPD is incompetant for 4'/2 years, but now they're credible when it comes to dismissing Nancy! >no other manipulation than the one >made by those who say Nancy >don't have to prove her allegations >and if we ask for prove, You want proof from Nancy; imo, let the FBI work quietly--I want proof from A.K., who already SAID she had the goods on this 'imposter', but doesn't want to back her statements of fact up. >we are against women, children.... No, I never felt you were against women and children. I think some people place too high a standard of proof on a reporting victim, though; like they expect a little kid to collect pubic hairs, DNA and keep detailed records of who did what to whom and when and how the assaults took place. Sorry, >come up with some facts, real >facts, until then I have the >right to be skeptical regarding Nancy's >story connection to the JBR case >and I have the right to >ask for prove. Pedro, ask A.K. for the proof, please. She is the one who says she has it. Good, bad, indifferent to Nancy's case, nobody should say they have PROOF so-and-so is a liar-unless they are prepared to share that proof. Remember A.K.'s 'Lyin' Nancy slurs? IF you have >that prove, Why do you resist >so strongly to share your acknowledge >with all us? >After all her >name is public now and there's >no security concerns. That's manipulation. Sorry, I'm not privy to what her evidence was, or is. I place my trust in Lee Hill, Mame, the former prosecutor who handled her case in CA, and Barry Hartman...who all said she was credible and what she presented was worthy of further investigation. >About the >WOR attacks on you, the WOR >is the WOR, you attacked others >too. The WOR was never the beef, Pedro, it was the lie A.K. told in there. Real Stormy chose to say it was "all about me" and then v-p jumped in with her recollections. WOR flames is not the subject, the subject was A.K. falsely made a deadly serious accusation intended to make me a pariah. Speaking of producing proof, I asked HER to show a scanned press pass to prove she even went to that Florida convention. Guess what? I'm still waiting to see that. Maybe you should bug her a lttle for that? The R's aren't accusing others of >anything and when they do, we >ask for prove, we do. But do they give it? NO. So >why wouldn't we ask Nancy for >the same thing? It's not up to Nancy to be tried before the Justice Watch Tribunal. Not only would some here prefer to see HER on trial, but her case belongs in a courtroom, before a judge and jury, where people like A.K. can be deposed as witnesses. Quando, Quando, Quando? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Thanks, Pedro" Posted by darby on 20:47:47 4/01/2001 Hopefully, the the right people at 60Minutes know about this journalist and what she did. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Darby..." Posted by Pedro on 21:03:02 4/01/2001 ...after all, that person is using 60 minutes name and that name has a prestige that could be damaged. I will protect my business interest if I were them. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Mame...." Posted by rose on 22:32:27 4/01/2001 Did Nancy say to you and the investigators that Fleet White or his father was a pedo? A yes or no answer is alright. Cause that is the impression that was sent out by Nancy's story. The same impression that comes when we are told that Nancy's story was not investigated fully. Same impression that comes up when a bogus reporter calls Nancy and her supporters and says they have info on Dirty deeds done by White and want her story to confirm a report they are doing and Nancy is willing to go along to maybe help in this investigation of White. awarness of child abuse has nothing to do with the questions we on the forum are asking. We know about the evil out there. But did Nancy say Fleet was one of the bad guys? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Pedro said..." Posted by shadow on 21:19:51 4/01/2001 "There's no other manipulation than the one made by those who say Nancy don't have to prove her allegations and if we ask for prove, we are against women, children.... Sorry, come up with some facts, real facts, until then I have the right to be skeptical regarding Nancy's story connection to the JBR case and I have the right to ask for prove. IF you have that prove, Why do you resist so strongly to share your acknowledge with all us? After all her name is public now and there's no security concerns." I agree! Am I the only one here who has felt for many months that some on this forum know a lot more about Nancy and FW than the rest of us? What I find very difficult to understand is why the rest of us, including the country, cannot be let in on the secret... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "wow" Posted by freebird on 21:14:24 4/01/2001 I'm amazed. . . with all the new Ramsey news, LHP & Wolf , Enquirer interview, NY Post demands with Mary K, and now Steve thomas lawsuit, here we sit revisiting old news? it's not even old news with new news. . . it's the same old news. This Nancy sure has upstaged alot of the real news, 3 threads later and none the wiser... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Yep..." Posted by Pedro on 21:53:31 4/01/2001 ...just taking our attention away from the real news, the R's must be happy!!!!!. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Darby" Posted by Penguin on 21:44:24 4/01/2001 Regardless of all of this crap we're arguing about, can't we all agree that if the journalist lied to Lee Hill and mame, saying that 60Minutes had investigated--and uncovered--unspeakable dirt on the Whites, that journalist must be a lying, conniving scam artist? v_p? RealStormy? Pedro? Penguin? WY? etc.? My reason for posting on the second thread was an attempt to get people to think before they hit the "post message" tab. I don't have a problem with what you girls want to discuss, at all. I just think there is a right way and a wrong way to talk to each other, present a point of view, and encourage one another to debate in a civil manner. Time and time again these threads turn into a forum war. Diffusing it, without censoring it. As far as your above question - I don't have any public opinions to offer, on this topic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Pedro" Posted by darby on 21:23:08 4/01/2001 Exactly. I would imagine that this isn't the first time someone fraudulently tried to use 60Minutes' name to gain credibility. And I think the program has an active legal department to protect the show's interest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Darby.." Posted by Pedro on 21:58:49 4/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:58:49, 4/01/2001 ...rigth, I agree on that one too. Now I am going to read Mary's post to me and then decide if it deserves an answer, so far the arguments are just absurd and against any logic and normal way of handle arguments. Mary, sorry but your fanatism make me sad, there's no logic on any of your points other than the one proper of a witch hunt as always. Why can you behave like i.e.,Darby, and try to debate and argue with reasona nd not with empty long and dumb posts than make no sense at all?. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "more random thoughts" Posted by fly on 09:40:03 4/02/2001 These three threads have an awful lot in common with the basketball games I've been watching all weekend: personal fouls, airballs, give-and-go plays, screens (both legal and illegal), Academy Award winning flops to draw a charge, and spin. (1)Having the real story, told with no cop-outs concerning exactly what and who, is always desireable. That way, everybody knows what we're talking about. That is still lacking in both the MW story and in the 60Minutes scam story. Holly, AK has explicitly denied being involved in the scam and gave the go ahead to name the scam runner. Pedro has said go ahead. You refuse, suggesting that because you think this person is a JW poster, that would violate the house rules. To my thinking, if AK is the person you suspect (and absolutely everything you and Morgan have posted has suggested AK and only AK), and s/he says, "Name away," no rules will be broken. We've been told, by name, that certain case people have JW hats, but that was OK because their hats were not identified. Given that no other hat has been linked to the scam idea except AK, we'd have the same situation here. (2)Proof is always desireable, and to ask for proof prior to accepting an assertion as true is completely reasonable. The more bizarre, inflammatory, or contradictory the assertion, the more important it is to have proof. MW's story demanded proof, IMO, but none has been forthcoming to us. (mary99 - who has seen this proof? mame claims she hasn't. The cops have, but haven't arrested anybody.) For me, that was the core issue, not admiration of FW. Some people apparently are still unable to understand that, and now have added the idea that our heated discussions were part of some scam. Charges that MW is a liar demand proof. Holly keeps asking AK to produce that proof. I thought we had already seen some: the second rape accusation against Boykin that was shown to be false. Were the people who posted that information just making it up? The accusations about the 60Minutes scam demand proof - at least in terms of who here was involved and their motives. I don't doubt the scam occurred, but it would be nice to have something other than inferences based on "timing" to support the identity issue. I'm too familiar with the concept of illusory correlation to automatically accept arguments based only on timing. Holly demands AK prove s/he isn't the scammer. As Pedro has said, proving a negative isn't a fair request. How is s/he to do that? Scan in a driver's license? If Holly is so concerned about the house rules, she can't expect AK to reveal her name/address/phone. It would be great if AK were willing, but I can't expect that. I wouldn't do it, I know. (3)Being skeptical of MW's story - especially any relation to JBR - is hardly proof that anybody is unable to deal with the idea that kids and adults are sometimes horribly abused. That red herring stinks to high heaven but it keeps getting put out on the buffet table. (4)Did anybody who was in on the discovery of the scam ever call the "reporter" and confront her, or even ask, "What gives!?!" You had her number, and her name. That call might have produced more rope to hang her, or at least more facts that you could have used to check out her story. (5)Yes, mame could have used the reporter's statement about 60Minutes having dirt on FW to support her position and stir things up even more. I'm glad she didn't, especially since it apparently isn't true. I suspect that rather than concern for JW's health, however, it was a concern that FW not be tipped off that kept her silent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "fly-#5" Posted by darby on 10:37:09 4/02/2001 The 60Minutes journalist told mame that the show couldn't happen if Fleet White was tipped off, so yes, mame probably didn't announce it to the forum for that reason. If you believed that 60Minutes (a fairly reputable news-o-tainment show) had found evidence that would promote justice for an abuse victim as well as expose her abusers, you'd probably keep quiet as well. HOWEVER, with all the full-fledged anti-mame forum campaigns going on, mame could just as easily gotten to the breaking point and let the whole thing out of the bag. Sure, when no 60Minutes show ever came--or perhaps a show, but not the type mame anticipated--the forums would then learn the truth. But that whole process--from interview to airing--might have taken a lot of time. In the meantime, lots of folks could have gotten it into their heads that real evidence existed proving FW to be an evil person. The whole thing was very risky if the journalist was trying to do a favor for the Whites. Since she decided to take that risk, it tells me that she actually had only her bad self in mind to benefit from the video. If indeed this journalist works the forums (as I suspect), she might have thought it funny that mame may have argued for MW's cause from a stance that was bolstered by the belief that 60Minutes had the proof that MW told had the truth. If the journalist is also someone who actually posts (and I'm not saying she is), she might have even had fun provoking mame and others who might have known about 60Minutes. This whole thing might seem funny and great fun to some--but the truth is, the journalist was toying with peoples' lives. Not just MW's or mame's--but the Whites as well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "fly, you are ever the voice of reason." Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:07:15 4/02/2001 Where is the documentation for the accusations, implied and otherwise, on these threads? It is a very serious matter to publicly accuse someone, by name, of pedophilia. The FBI, before releasing names of suspected pedophiles, investigates for months and accumulates a mountain of evidence. That is the difference between a Newsweek article on pedophiles...it is impeccably sourced and the sources are named....and an internet bulletin board story on the same topic. Here we have no authoritative sources and no documentation to validate naming anyone as a pedophile. As far as the Sixty Minutes Scam, I place that in the same category as the Curious Death Hoax and the Tyzano Rape Hoax. Someone is having a jolly good time pulling the legs and pushing the buttons of some of our more gullible posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Lurker" Posted by mary99 on 10:30:36 4/02/2001 This is a discussion forum where opinions are voiced...where attention is brought to things the media won't or can't cover. If you would rather see sourced articles, there's always the New York Times and the Newsweek site. I would rather explore the reasons why this murder hasn't been solved and why the authorities are unwilling or unable to turn over those pesky rocks to see the maggots crawling below. Over and over it has been said that WE at JW are not the investigators, nor should we pretend to be the investigators by demanding proof from the person who reported her sexual abuse and exploitation to the BPD. You may disagree, but I see our role as being the internet spotlight that keeps shining on those who would prefer this subject gets put away in a dark closet, and also as a forum to offer support and encouragement to any investigators who may be reading here. Only the FBI can uncover the truth at this point. By not letting this person's story pass into obscurity, I feel we are also keeping what befell JBR from passing into obscurity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "mary99" Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:47:13 4/02/2001 Please don't misunderstand me. Your dogged pursuit of the possibility of a child sex ring being involved in JonBenet's murder may some day bear fruit. John Ramsey's denial of there being any prior sexual assault of JonBenet leads me to believe the opposite is true. From Day One, many investigators have suspected something "very evil" (did Eller say that?) Don't ever give up your intrepid sleuthing into this angle. Some day you may have the satisfaction of coming back here and posting, "See, I told you so." Then we would all rejoice that yet another pedophile club has been broken up. My post above was just meant as a caveat against prematurely "outing" someone before all the investigative facts are in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "fly" Posted by mary99 on 10:07:02 4/02/2001 Many very good points in your post, btw, which I won't attempt to address as most are beyond my capability. The only point of clarification I might add right now is that I think Mame, BJ Plasket, Lee Hill, Barry Hartman and Alex Hunter all reviewed what Nancy Krebs brought with her from CA, although all parties may not have attended the same meeting at the same time; the videotape of NK's documentation was shown in addition to NK's narrative to the best of my knowledge. On another note, not sure where to ask this, but can anyone point me to the Dave Lucas show radio interviews formerly linked on the ACR site? Thanks in advance. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Don't be so hard on each other." Posted by Cassandra on 10:02:41 4/02/2001 Remember only a few people have all of the information. Some people don't know any of the background, and little of what has happened in the last few years. Some of you are expecting other people to understand your point of view without informing them of what you have gleaned in your research. You are asking them to take a leap of faith without telling them the information you have, and people are either banging heads or choosing to stay out of it. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Please, somebody, kill this thread!" Posted by Greenleaf on 10:20:51 4/02/2001 http://www.xaraxone.com/FeaturedArt/rtk/assets/images/11_rabbits.jpg [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]