Justice Watch Support JW "60 MINUTES scam Part Six" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... 60 MINUTES scam Part Six, Holly, 21:57:43, 4/03/2001 Holly, darby, 22:40:27, 4/03/2001, (#1) I am dedicated .., LurkerXIV, 22:51:59, 4/03/2001, (#2) Here we go........, RiverRat, 06:59:15, 4/04/2001, (#3) LurkerXIV, Scully, 07:27:08, 4/04/2001, (#4) Holly,Darby,Mame,Morgan,Mary 99,Janphi,etc., Cassandra, 08:09:15, 4/04/2001, (#5) RR, darby, 08:56:23, 4/04/2001, (#7) River Rat, Greenleaf, 08:44:22, 4/04/2001, (#6) I need help here GL, RiverRat, 09:04:31, 4/04/2001, (#8) River Rat, Greenleaf, 09:31:36, 4/04/2001, (#9) Edie Pratt, post #42, thread 5, mary99, 11:03:54, 4/04/2001, (#10) Hi, Mar!, Edie Pratt, 11:08:10, 4/04/2001, (#11) Edie, is this what you're looking for?, Greenleaf, 11:34:43, 4/04/2001, (#14) Edie P, mary99, 11:34:00, 4/04/2001, (#13) GL, RiverRat, 11:33:46, 4/04/2001, (#12) thank you kindly, GL and Mary, Edie Pratt, 13:11:26, 4/04/2001, (#15) Depends, janphi, 13:22:44, 4/04/2001, (#17) Oh my, Edie, RiverRat, 13:19:48, 4/04/2001, (#16) why, RR?, Edie Pratt, 13:27:17, 4/04/2001, (#18) No problem sounding off for me, RiverRat, 13:32:17, 4/04/2001, (#19) alright then,, Edie Pratt, 13:46:38, 4/04/2001, (#24) If this were, janphi, 13:42:28, 4/04/2001, (#21) What???, Gemini, 13:34:51, 4/04/2001, (#20) Like I said, janphi, 13:44:28, 4/04/2001, (#23) Okay, Edie, Grace, 13:43:58, 4/04/2001, (#22) Hi, Grace, janphi, 14:17:15, 4/04/2001, (#32) janphi, Grace, 14:57:39, 4/04/2001, (#41) I've just read this far,, Holly, 23:42:32, 4/04/2001, (#69) Sorry, miscue, janphi, 15:07:08, 4/04/2001, (#43) janphi, Grace, 15:11:23, 4/04/2001, (#44) Since she doesn't have one, janphi, 15:20:44, 4/04/2001, (#46) I know janphi, Gemini, 13:49:37, 4/04/2001, (#25) I'e seen it, too, Gem, Watching you, 13:55:22, 4/04/2001, (#26) sorry WY, Edie Pratt, 14:01:01, 4/04/2001, (#28) Mame has?, janphi, 14:00:28, 4/04/2001, (#27) Grace, Gemini, 14:15:03, 4/04/2001, (#31) Edie, Watching you, 14:04:26, 4/04/2001, (#29) WY, Gem, mame, janphi, Grace, 14:12:32, 4/04/2001, (#30) thanks, Grace:-), Edie Pratt, 14:26:12, 4/04/2001, (#34) RR and Grace, Gemini, 14:22:22, 4/04/2001, (#33) Gem, Grace, 14:30:32, 4/04/2001, (#35) Edie, watchin', 14:42:00, 4/04/2001, (#36) hey, Watchin', Edie Pratt, 14:48:15, 4/04/2001, (#38) AND HENCE the STALEMATE, Edie Pratt, 15:12:03, 4/04/2001, (#45) what?, mame, 14:48:10, 4/04/2001, (#37) Thank you, Grace, janphi, 15:00:45, 4/04/2001, (#42) oh good, Gemini, 14:53:18, 4/04/2001, (#39) Qualification, Watching you, 14:56:26, 4/04/2001, (#40) FW about LHP's lawsuit, janphi, 15:41:03, 4/04/2001, (#50) SRA, fly, 15:27:07, 4/04/2001, (#48) Janphi, interesting story, Cassandra, 15:22:08, 4/04/2001, (#47) still haven't read , mame, 15:44:48, 4/04/2001, (#51) Fly, Gemini, 15:37:46, 4/04/2001, (#49) fly, mame, 15:47:22, 4/04/2001, (#52) Con v Con, watchin', 16:19:51, 4/04/2001, (#53) EXACTOMUNDO!, Edie Pratt, 16:44:11, 4/04/2001, (#54) Edie, Greenleaf, 17:13:48, 4/04/2001, (#55) Hi, Greenie!, Edie Pratt, 17:17:45, 4/04/2001, (#56) SRA--a MW/mary99 myth, darby, 18:05:54, 4/04/2001, (#61) Did , mary99, 18:02:32, 4/04/2001, (#60) Gem & Darb, RiverRat, 17:56:52, 4/04/2001, (#58) Good, v_p, 17:41:05, 4/04/2001, (#57) Yeah Veep, RiverRat, 17:58:29, 4/04/2001, (#59) Questions, darby, 18:27:16, 4/04/2001, (#62) RR, watchin', 18:59:20, 4/04/2001, (#63) hmmm ..., Gemini, 19:28:41, 4/04/2001, (#64) Sorry watchin, RiverRat, 19:53:48, 4/04/2001, (#66) Gemini, mary99, 19:52:11, 4/04/2001, (#65) darby, FT, 21:17:13, 4/04/2001, (#67) Having decided, Real Stormy, 21:31:24, 4/04/2001, (#68) ................................................................... "60 MINUTES scam Part Six" Posted by Holly on 21:57:43 4/03/2001 OK. First let me say that despite some raw moments, I thought the discussion here was excellent. There is not much reason to continue the thread unless someone wants to add a thought. In fact, if someone wants to question or bark at me, but also wants the thread to sink, email me at holly156@bellatlantic.net. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Holly" Posted by darby on 22:40:27 4/03/2001 Had it not been for RiverRat's desire to see more of these threads, I'd have tried to talk you out of a Part 6. Here's something fair and productive: Anyone who may have concluded that Fleet White is bad based solely on Nancy Kreb's claims should not have done that. (Anyone who HAS concluded that, please speak up and tell us all about it.) AND Anyone who may have falsely claimed that 60Minutes had uncovered dirt on the Whites just so she could tape and sell an interview with Nancy Krebs should not have done that. (Anyone who knows anything about this--or if you ARE the person who did it, please speak up and tell us all about it.) I bet we'll get ALL kinds of responses to the above. LOL--talk about the ultimate thread killer. BANG! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I am dedicated .." Posted by LurkerXIV on 22:51:59 4/03/2001 ..to keeping these threads going until we reach post #1000, which I reserve for darby. I'm just curious as to what will happen to darby on a THOUSANDTH post! ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Here we go........" Posted by RiverRat on 06:59:15 4/04/2001 A test for Darby: BLACK Betcha she saw WHITE. Let me be the first one to thank Darby for reigniting my fire. When I left the forum last night, I had every intention of coming back with a handshake and my sincere offer to help Mame and Co. with any research, as it is very apparent that the original crew needs a break and someone with an open mind. It is not necessarily Nancy Krebs that many here have a problem with, it is your constant "you do not know what we know and you are an idiot for not knowing" attitude that ruins any possible chance of people looking past you. You have my e-mail address, you could have sent me any top secret info in hopes of swaying me at anytime, but you would rather do it this way. GEMINI - Did you really just resort to name calling? Speaking of Vampires? V.P. and RR? Blood suckers? Suck this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "LurkerXIV" Posted by Scully on 07:27:08 4/04/2001 I agree. This thread deserves no less than l,000 posts although I'm fearful of what will happen to darby. Hopefully, she takes vitamins. Were you really lying when you said that you pretended to know one of the major players in the scam? And here I trusted you for all these years. Holly: I knew I wouldn't be able to keep the story straight. You're right about one thing. These threads have stimulated discussion and brought many people out of the woodwork to add their own personal touch to the 60 Minutes threads. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Holly,Darby,Mame,Morgan,Mary 99,Janphi,etc." Posted by Cassandra on 08:09:15 4/04/2001 are walking case files. (I can't even remember all their names!) I could never remember all the facts they have at their fingertips. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "RR" Posted by darby on 08:56:23 4/04/2001 I thought your post 61 on thread 5 referred to mary99's post and v_p's comments immediately before your post. Now you tell me I made the wrong assumption. So, I'm sorry for that and for my mistake in including you in the hug I gave v_p. :-) My mention of you demanding another thread (above) was all in fun. What is it that you want to know about the 60Minutes thing? Other than the name, I think Holly told the whole thing in the very first post. It's as much a mystery to us as it is to you. We don't know why this person did it. Personally, I think the journalist must know (or actually is) someone on the JBR forums. Otherwise, how in the heck would she even know about MW? I think sharing the truth of what happened was a very wise move, though I don't necessarily like the way these threads have unfolded. PS--I was all for sharing the real name, but I got vetoed. It's not my place to reveal it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "River Rat" Posted by Greenleaf on 08:44:22 4/04/2001 Guess who? http://a1060.g.akamai.net/f/1060/597/30minutes/www.zing.com/picture/p49f618c8933d8de36a5400d4fdd211b4/feaec378.jpg.orig.jpg [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "I need help here GL" Posted by RiverRat on 09:04:31 4/04/2001 If that's me, I obviously need help. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL RiverRat ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "River Rat" Posted by Greenleaf on 09:31:36 4/04/2001 Oh, No, River Rat, it's NOT you! Dear me. Read the last sentence of your #3 post on this thread and you'll have it! LOL! I was just trying to illustrate your succinct, funny comment. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Edie Pratt, post #42, thread 5" Posted by mary99 on 11:03:54 4/04/2001 I'm curious too. If you can bring that post to this thread, maybe someone will try to answer your question. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Hi, Mar!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:08:10 4/04/2001 I don't know how, lol. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Edie, is this what you're looking for?" Posted by Greenleaf on 11:34:43 4/04/2001 42. "still curious" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:34:41 4/03/2001 for all here who believe or don't believe NK's tale of abuse at the hands of FW, what would it mean to the case? If FW was a child's worst nightmare, how would this affect JFJBR? Or, if he's the knight in shining some of you insist he is, then what does that do in the way of finding JFJBR? (Of course, keep in mind, the parents are still responsible for killing JB, but have a friend like FW, for good or bad) Anyone care to venture? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Edie P" Posted by mary99 on 11:37:46 4/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:37:46, 4/04/2001 Go to that thread, find the post, left click the mouse, highlight the post text, then click 'copy' on the edit tab, go back to the main thread list, come back to this thread, hit 'reply', then when you see the reply window, go to edit, click 'paste'. It's easier than it sounds. Edited to add, make sure the cursor is in the reply box before pasting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "GL" Posted by RiverRat on 11:33:46 4/04/2001 Just checking! Many thanks for all that you do, what would the world be like without a visual?! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "thank you kindly, GL and Mary" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:11:26 4/04/2001 yup, that's it, and I see it's getting the same replies it did yesterday, LOL! I am serious, tho, what does FW and his pecodillos/or not, do to this case? I in no way believe FW had a hand in JB's demise, I think the Ramsey's had all the hands they needed to snuff her, but where does FW come in that would matter either way to finding justice for JonBenet? Can he be discounted as a witness should a criminal trial ensue? If I smuggle pot, and witness another smuggling cocaine, is my testimony worthless? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Depends" Posted by janphi on 13:22:44 4/04/2001 on who's the attorney and who's the DA. Main thing is, would you testify? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Oh my, Edie" Posted by RiverRat on 13:19:48 4/04/2001 It IS very quiet in here all of a sudden. Nuff said? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "why, RR?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:27:17 4/04/2001 is there something you don't like about that question? I don't understand you, I'm not saying anything against or for FW, I'm only asking what his part in this could mean, regardless of how we "feel" about him. How important is he in the "grand scheme of things"? That's all, nothing bad, just curious's all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "No problem sounding off for me" Posted by RiverRat on 13:32:17 4/04/2001 but it was the lack of certain others that I was refering to. I think that Fw plays a very important part as an eyewitness that morning. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "alright then," Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:46:38 4/04/2001 what can he do for this case if he has something in his closet that's best left rattling alone? If it goes to trial, won't he be discredited if he is not above reproach? I'm just wondering if he got so agitated for fear of discovery, or if he really felt targeted by John Ramsey. Didn't he refuse to give blood and hair until JR did, or was that someone else? For him to say JR went directly to the room, cried out before turning the light on, etc., seems to me, makes him a valuable witness. However, if he is a pedophile, and that's revealed, will it nullify his testimony against JR? I would think there'd have to be an arrest and a trial of FW before his past could be tossed out there for jurors in the Ramsey's case. IOW, he could be the biggest perv around, but it won't matter unless he's caught first. I just don't know why he hasn't been a louder advocate for JB, why he hasn't done everything in his power to assist the authorities, regardless how Hunter "felt" about him. Had he lent his voice to this campaign, I think we'd be discussing today's witnesses and the Ramsey's lawyer's shenanigans, not praying for a trial instead. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "If this were" Posted by janphi on 13:42:28 4/04/2001 the "public forum," I could sign in with the hat, "Chopped Liver." But it's not. So I didn't. I'm changing the subject (that's SuBJeCt for the people who think the BPD is withholding the info that SBTC is SBJC, ha ha) for a minute, then you can all have it back. Heck, it's just me, writing in invisible ink. Oooh, EdieP, that reminded me of a story. Maybe if Patsy reads this, she won't mind going to prison. I had an acquaintance in junior high school. I moved away and never saw her or heard from her for many years (like 20). Then I moved to another city and joined a hobby club. So did she. We got re-acquainted and did our hobby together from time to time. At some point, I sort of let her drift away, or so I thought. Two years later, she called me and she had been in PRISON!!! Egad! I didn't know ANYONE who had ever gone to the big house! Not only that, she needed a place to live and a job, so her parole officer would give her brownie points or something (I don't know how that works). I said NO! She told me the story--she and her boyfriend had conspired with others to smuggle in a bunch of coke. Actually, I knew all the others, but they didn't get caught, evidently. She and the boyfriend did--boyfriend big time, because he was wanted on some other things. His part was all in the newspaper--hers wasn't. Anyway, she went to one of the softy executive-style prisons in another state and got off early because she had worn a wire and gotten some of the higher-ups in Miami. (Not sure I believe that part.) She had found religion, lol, but the main thing she had to tell me about her country club experience was that she was "in" there with one of the Gucci's and he had sent over $10,000 worth of handbags and shoes to her Mom's house for when she got out! LOL!!! So maybe Patster's waiting for someone like the Max Factor dude to get sent up before she'll confess, so she can get some jailhouse loot, too!!! LOL! OK, carry on, my wayward sons... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "What???" Posted by Gemini on 13:36:34 4/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:36:34, 4/04/2001 (ref. post 3) RR has this upset you so much you've totally lost it? ... sense of humor and all??? Go back and look again. Somebody had "vampire" in their post title, and then I saw the funky ((hugs)) in the title of the next that looked like little bats. It was a JOKE f'goodness sake. Guess I'd weigh in more on the side of the skeptics about this anyway. Not that I don't think NK had some bad things happen to her, but back in the 80s, I watched an HBO special about the so-called Satanic Ritual Abuse. It made a huge impression on me (it was actually an expose of the therapists who lead patients down that garden path). Everytime I see this issue tied in with SRA, my eyebrow twitches up again. So, I would not be the one to give you a hard time about your position. I don't know what the particulars are ... tho I certainly wish NK well in getting on with her life ... but doubt it connects with the JBR case. However, it does not bother me if these folks want to check out things that seem in need of more info, and don't see why anyone would get upset about that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Like I said" Posted by janphi on 13:44:28 4/04/2001 invisible ink. Where is the word "satanic" used in conjunction with NK's abuse? Not posting my whole diatribe again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Okay, Edie" Posted by Grace on 13:43:58 4/04/2001 I'll answer. (Actually, I see you rephrased your question while I was writing, so I didn't really answer what you were asking. But, I'll post this, anyway, since I wrote it.) First, I have no idea what I believe about MW. But, if it turned out FW, or even FW, Sr., had garroted and sexually abused children in the past, it would be inconceivable to me that that wasn't related to this case. I keep seeing people say, "Maybe Nancy's information about the White's has some truth to it, but it has nothing to do with this case." That would too big a coincidence for me to accept. If Fleet is innocent, and I have no real reason to think otherwise, any harm to the case that speculation about MW could do, has been done, IMO. I see no reason, from that standpoint, not to discuss this subject. Sometimes, sweeping something under the rug makes it feel more sinister than talking it out. Maybe I'm crazy, but I've always thought that if people could talk about this civilly, and openly, FW would likely look better, not worse. As an aside, if we could do that, those who know MW's story might be more willing to share it. I, for one, would love to know more about her evidence. I would also like to know whether the people who lean toward believing her ever find her story just too "pat" -- the being hit in the head, saying the parties were on holidays, saying she had a heart drawn on her hand, got pictures of teddy bears -- that stuff. That's what hangs me up. But if we could talk about it ... (Sorry for getting sidetracked.) As for Fleet being the most important witness in the case, I'm not sure I see it. But I don't really know what he would have to say, so maybe he is. For all I know, he saw john hiding a roll of tape. P.S. Last night I sat here and laughed for 5 minutes at your post to Jams on the red shirt thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Hi, Grace" Posted by janphi on 14:17:15 4/04/2001 About the "pat" story. You know, as I listened to her, I didn't get a sense of that at all. It wasn't until people started putting it in "bullet points" and "talking points" that it bore any resemblance to JonBenét's torturous last hours, in my mind. The hearts and Santa and teddy bears aren't important, I don't think--they're so common. I believe by the time she had told her story to Hill and Jackson and the BPD and others, which was all before we heard her interview with mame, that the little people-pleaser in her had perhaps thought up some more items in common with the JBR story to add. They were TRUE, but irrelevant, I think--perhaps encouraged out of her by the questioning of others. I think that the others were either so horrified by what she had to say or so blasé about sexual crimes in general that they probably just sat there, expressionless. Because NK had been conditioned (some could say mind-controlled or even Mind-Kontrolled, which of course she was, but she made no accusations like that) to please authority figures, she simply wanted their approval. I think she was honest about the basics, and that's what I continue to believe. I think her mother is not the typical "mother" that most of us think of, nor was her grandmother, and a lot of what has been used as "info" to "discredit" her was told to her by her mom. I had never heard of "scarfing" before--that's my word I found researching on a deviant psych website, not hers--and so, for that alone, I am grateful that she came forward. I still don't "get it" about doing it to kids, but I get the gist of what she was saying. Honestly, how many of you here had ever heard of this before NK told her story? Honestly? Eeek, I better split this up. Every time I finish a post, there are already 10 more below it. BBL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "janphi" Posted by Grace on 14:57:39 4/04/2001 Thanks! This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping to get. What you say makes a lot of sense to me -- especially in regard to the hearts, Santa, the bears, and parties on holidays -- the common things. I can see how Nancy might suddenly give significance to those things, when maybe they had none at the time. The head blow thing still sounds so far out, to me. But then, the whole thing sounds that way. And, no, until she came forward with her story, I was completely naïve about this kind of thing. You said, you saw something about scarfing on a deviant psyche website, "not hers". Does she have a website?! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "I've just read this far," Posted by Holly on 23:42:32 4/04/2001 but here is my thought. When NK came to Boulder she was mainly concerned with what her mother told her about being in CO with the niece and that she knew alot about JB's homicide. And this made Nancy very worried for her niece. She thought she might have dots the cops could connect. She was wrong. But I'm not sure that makes her a fraud. For years, her therapist had documented the abuse experiences she shared as part of her therapy. My understanding is that Bienkowski had no problem opening all of her records for the BPD detectives, so that they could understand Nancy's long, long history - most of her documented experiences pre-dating JB's murder by years. Her experience is repeated so it is ritual. Satan has NOTHING to do with it and I never heard that name uttered before AK's meltdown over the NOVA conference. Remember Nancy's interview with mame? NK had a bad episode with her niece who had a frightening reaction to a Barbie image. Nancy expressed concern that the family behaviors were involving her niece. She didn't give alot of detail. She says she suffered abuse that the White family was involved in, for years. Some of the elements were similar to the JB experience. She recognized, in particular, garotting. She told of sexual abuse at the hands of a step-uncle and proved it with court docs. She brought materials that proved her family's decades long relationship with the Whites, because she thought the police would need convincing. She brought medical records, photos, cards, letters, pictures, her baby book. Her therapist stood ready to answer as many questions as necessary. As she was interviewed over the days and weeks, she would occassionally acknowledge a detail that was familiar- but she makes no claim that the bears and hearts mean a thing. She recalls a storage chest painted with hearts, for example - so what? She says the sex ring planned parties. Men she called "Uncles" sexually abused little girls, provided by her mother and others. Holidays were favorite times for gatherings that, she thought, would explain lots of cars parked in front of the party location. Actually, that is what I think, is a good example of childlike logic. What adult would give a rat's ass if it was the holidays and the street looked like a parking lot? But in a child's mind that might make sense. She described head whacks to enforce compliance. She told of years of family control and abuse continuing into adulthood. If you do not think that is the case, I think with some diligence you can find accounts in abuse literature. In my own experience the local cops who have attended training seminars at the FBI and other facilities, tell me that there is a sickening culture of ritual abusers. They have investigated countless cases of sex abuse and brought down a mini-sex ring in 2000. And they all say the richer the participants, the harder to track and prove the crimes. I talked to an aide to a victim lobbyist in MD. She told me there are sex rings ritually abusing kids all over the country. She also said many groups are wealthy, the victims very young and the venues hard to track and research - vacation homes in the middle of nowhere, luxury yachts, hotel suites. Places that little kids just cannot provide much specific detail about. And she told me this over a decade ago. Mr Holly can confirm that when I ran into her at a restaurant about a month after Nancy's arrival, she listened sadly to what information I knew at the time and how it might impact the JB case and just shook her head and said it's sadly, a familiar scenario. Her suspicion years ago, was that some rings were generational and the young victims, unless they are observed by very alert adults, just remain - well - victims. Then the floodgates open years later when they are in therapy. And I'll say something here about conviction rates in my county. There have been dozens of ritual and non-ritual sex crimes against kids charged over the years. The defendants are now in their 60s and 70s. The proof is the victim's sworn statement - and the conviction rate is surprisingly high. My theory is that as they inch closer to the end of their lives, these defendants are often ready to meet their abusive and secretive pasts. You'd be surprised. In MD we will charge abuses that go back decades. In Boulder, CO, Mary Keenan prosecuted a family sex ring that made headlines. Why should any of this surprise her? Can I prove Nancy's claims are true? None of us can. She tried to supply dots she thought would connect the elements of the crime for cops - they didn't. So I still reserve judgement and hope the FBI or other federal agencies mentioned by Hunter continue their investigations. In my book FW was a piece of work long before Nancy showed up. As it stands now, I'm glad ST is brimming with confidence that White is so heroic, because he said in his book that Beckner found White morally empty and wanted to throw his ass in jail for obstrucion. What a creep, to act like a petulant brat and require a DA and the police commander to lobby to get him in front of the grand jury. I remember someone in Boulder telling me that he asked FW what his big problem was and why he refused to testify for the grand jury? FW complained that he wouldn't participate in a grand jury run by Hunter. "What about Kane", the Boulderite asked, "he's a good guy, isn't he?" No answer, FW had to go. I won't believe he testified until someone testifies to it in court. So, pardon me if I don't see White as a hero. Nope. He's a creep. And he was a creep way before Nancy Krebs came to town. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Sorry, miscue" Posted by janphi on 15:07:08 4/04/2001 > The head blow thing still >sounds so far out, to me. >>>>>>>I haven't resolved that completely in my mind, either, but too many things to think about and check out at once! >You said, you saw something about scarfing >on a deviant psyche website, "not >hers". Does she have a >website?! >>>>>>>>>No, no! Pardon my dangler there. I had written that it was MY WORD for the sexual practice, not hers--then I inserted where I had found the word. Sorry for the misunderstanding. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "janphi" Posted by Grace on 15:11:23 4/04/2001 Oh heck! I was hoping sombody would give me the URL in exchange for editing that out of my post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Since she doesn't have one" Posted by janphi on 15:20:44 4/04/2001 I would normally tell where I did find that stuff, but not on this forum. It's really icky, icky. It is all text, no pix, thank the Lord--all written about the "-philia's" by psychiatrists and by people who have the sickness. Once you find the asphyxophilia stuff, it's pretty straightforward, if you just sort of shut out what you're actually reading, but what you have to go THROUGH getting to it is not something I would recommend to others. Maybe there is new stuff since I looked last year and it's more "consumer-friendly." Maybe try that WORD in a search engine--just hold your nose and peek through splayed fingers till you find it! LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I know janphi" Posted by Gemini on 13:49:37 4/04/2001 and I realize some of you are denying that connection, but, darn it, mame brings it in every so often and did that on one of these continuing threads. I don't save posts but do have a pretty good memory. Some of you deny it, then others bring it into the mix. And, like I said, every time I see it my right eyebrow does this little twitchy dance : ). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "I'e seen it, too, Gem" Posted by Watching you on 14:14:28 4/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:14:28, 4/04/2001 several times, in fact. Edited to remove incriminating evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "sorry WY" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:01:01 4/04/2001 I don't post anywhere but here. Not that I'm a snob or anything, but I am, lol. I never post elsewhere because 1) I can't remember more than one hat 2) I don't think I'd be welcome since they all read here and know who I am 3)I get too mad reading that tripe, NOBODY can be that stupid and make a living:-) Now, who do you think is me? And, how do you get to the public forum y'all talk about? I have only found the one where you must register to post, and NYL's. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Mame has?" Posted by janphi on 14:00:28 4/04/2001 That's news to me. Several water-muddiers have, but I didn't realize mame had, too. It honestly has nothing to do with anything NK ever said or any of the stories written about her. Nothing. Nada. But as we all know, I'm not told everything. Oh, I need to write something else about the "patness." BBL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Grace" Posted by Gemini on 14:15:03 4/04/2001 Speaking of FW, I wonder what his position is on NYL's lawsuit for L H-P? In one of his many letters, he seemed very upset at the fact that the law that allowed the GJ to file a report if there was no true bill, could be utilized. I got the distinct impression he didn't want GJ testimony made public. I don't think it can be denied he's an important witness, simply because he was with the Ramsey family the night of the 25th and early morning of the 26th. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Edie" Posted by Watching you on 14:04:26 4/04/2001 Oh, I thought Grace said she laughed at your post there, and I wondered who you were. It's just a public forum the head honcho added where anyone can post. I don't post there either. :-}. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "WY, Gem, mame, janphi" Posted by Grace on 14:12:32 4/04/2001 WY, Edie's post is here on the red shirt thread. Start at the beginning of the thread to appreciate it. Gem, I never saw mame mention SRA either, but I miss a lot. Mame, can you address this, please? Janphi, I printed your post out and read it with great interest. I meant to say so, but forgot. I really appreciate your sharing what you know with us. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "thanks, Grace:-)" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:26:12 4/04/2001 thanks for your support! I was kind of hoping hir would present hirself, but I'm a dreamer... I don't recall Mame ever mentioning the FW thing in the same breath as the SRA thing. I think FW's deal is an old family "business" issue, whereas SRA uses some sort of "spiritualism" to justify and draw in participants. Both have in common the secrecy issue, and "who'd ever guess?" aspect. I get the impression NK's situation involved picture taking and gift giving, nothing like satanic ritual abuse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "RR and Grace" Posted by Gemini on 14:22:22 4/04/2001 RR, my apologies. I went back to thread 5 for a look and guess I took the "vampires" reference from GL's thread title. I was half asleep last night but meant it with a smile ... not in the way you took it. Grace, the mame post that ref. SRA is somewhere back in the previous "60 minute" threads and not the first time she's mentioned this. I can't dig it out right now, but in's in regard to the research she's done about SRA - and seems to give this aspect credibility. I'm sure she'll reply when she sees these posts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Gem" Posted by Grace on 14:30:32 4/04/2001 Thanks, I'll go look at the first 5 threads. Ugh. Interesting question about FW's opinion of the LHP suit. I wonder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Edie" Posted by watchin' on 14:42:00 4/04/2001 "If I smuggle pot, and witness another smuggling cocaine, is my testimony worthless?" Sad to say, but your comment pretty much sums it up where attorneys are concerned. It's the smae mentality that argues a prostitute can't be raped. Isn't that what the whole MW argument is about? Someone said her high school friends though she was amoral and did drugs so she is not believable. (paraphrased). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "hey, Watchin'" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:48:15 4/04/2001 I see your point, sort of, but in this case, the prostitute doesn't exsist. It's more like two rapists, I think. Or, let's say this, would you believe a con's word against another con's? They can't say diddly about FW at a trial for the Ramsey's, UNLESS he's tried first, and found guilty. That's my final answer, I think... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "AND HENCE the STALEMATE" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:12:03 4/04/2001 IF there is any truth to the FW thing, could be neither he nor the Ramsey's can be tried without the other going to court first. Make sense? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "what?" Posted by mame on 14:48:10 4/04/2001 this thread is one i guess you can't scan over...i'm totally confused...i'll read more thoroughly and then post... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Thank you, Grace" Posted by janphi on 15:00:45 4/04/2001 That's for what you said back up there somewhere. I was trained on my first two msg boards not to make chitchat (wasting bandwidth), so I'm really bad about not thanking someone for a compliment until and unless I have something else to add to the discussion. Thanks! Uh, I bet Gem and maybe others (who was it? WY?) are thinking of the Franklin Cover-up references that include SRA among all the other crud those people did. The main thing that's important about Franklin is not so much the details, although those ARE important, it's that certain allegations of child sexual abuse that SOUND outlandish when first presented HAVE BEEN successfully proven and prosecuted and have resulted in convictions. In that case, it was a "ring," so to speak, but not multi-generational molestation/incest such as NK reported. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "oh good" Posted by Gemini on 14:53:18 4/04/2001 Mame, I usually remember things really well ... but right now, there are so many things going on to take my attention away from JW, I won't discount the possibility of being wrong. Have you posted about your research into SRA with positive opinions about those who work with perceived victims? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Qualification" Posted by Watching you on 14:56:26 4/04/2001 I do make them sometimes, you know. I don't know who said it. I read too fast, I guess, and didn't see the reference to mame. I only know I saw it several times over the course of the MW discussions. Sorry about that. NO, I'm not CMA, you y'all can get over it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "FW about LHP's lawsuit" Posted by janphi on 15:41:03 4/04/2001 Heck, I wish knew all kinds of things that FW might think about all kinds of other things. What a mystery. When I came to JW a year ago, I asked people just to tell me something about him. I'm still waiting! I know lots of good rumors and lots of bad rumors, but not a lot of facts, except what I've sleuthed and posted and what others have. They don't tell much at all. That is, to me, one of the biggest holes I see in the whole story. The biggest is the complete and total lack of any kind of narrative concerning John's everyday worklife. There is NOTHING! I've asked till I'm blue in the face--we'll just say this is my monthly questioning right now. Where did he go on trips? What did he do there? Who did he have breakfast, lunch and dinner with? Did he call on people? What people? Who were their clients? Did he visit the outlying offices? Did he make presentations? Did he go to receptions? Did he sit in his hotel rooms and watch pay-per-view? Is it true the Whites went to Mexico City with the Rams family? Is it true JR was being forced out of AG, or THOUGHT he was? How was he trying to buy it back? How often did he go to Bethesda for meetings? Who was his closest "friend" at Lockheed? John was GONE almost 75% of the time--what was he DOING? For crying out loud! Now, about FW and the LHP suit. I didn't know-- until mame posted about her source's "doubts"--that there was a question whether FW and/or PW had even testified before the GJ. If they didn't, or if HE didn't, what does that mean? That he really doesn't have anything pertinent? Or that he DOES and he wants to "save it" for a dramatic Perry Mason moment? Is it about HIM or about PR or about JR or is it about Alex Hunter? I don't know. Just wish we knew what was in there that he might not want publicized. I'm particularly interested in the mystery guys from CA, because they were supposedly strangers to JBR and because I'm not so sure that the "two gentlemen" weren't the reference in the ransom note. Written by one of the Rams, of course--but I'm still working on figuring out what was top-of-mind for either or both of them that night. Those guys might have been. Without knowing who the two redacted people are, I wonder about the fact that one had a language school--were foreign words and terms being discussed and used that Christmas night? Did this make the Ram note-writer think of a "foreign faction"? I don't know, but I want to! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "SRA" Posted by fly on 15:27:07 4/04/2001 Pin that one on mary99. :-) Most recently she has denied that SRA has ever been an issue in discussions of NK etc. However, back during the original brouhaha over AK's insinuations that mary99 was at that conference talking about SRA, mary99 posted quite clearly that she did not see anything far out in SRA connected to this case (or something to that effect). She made clear she was a believer. This resulted in quite a bit of discussion of SRA and its possible relation to this case, as I recall. In other words, SRA is not an issue that has not been discussed as a potential part of NKs story. NK has not claimed that in anything that I've read, but others here have certainly tried to link it. Man, I sure wish I'd kept copies of everything. But who would have thought we'd be at this this long? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Janphi, interesting story" Posted by Cassandra on 15:22:08 4/04/2001 about your acquaintance. Good thing you stayed well out of it. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "still haven't read " Posted by mame on 15:44:48 4/04/2001 the whole thread. however, nancy's abuse does fall in the category of "ritual abuse"...which means abuse that is similar each time. garoting, etc. i have not done much research into this area...except early on when i was first in denial it could happen at all...and then after speaking with medical professionals, law enforcement agencies, and victims...i found out it is absolutely done...and done throughout our society. with the rise in child pornography...this type of abuse is more prevalant and sought in these days of rampant child pornography. i may have some other links and a written statement by abuse advocates relating why nancy's abuse is considered "ritual" in nature. i'm at my crazed little radio station right now...i'll find more info when i get home. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Fly" Posted by Gemini on 15:37:46 4/04/2001 I remember that, too ... but also remember it came up as a part of mame's research. some little shoulder debbil tells me email may be a-buzzin' . Wish I could wait around to see how this turns out, but I gotta take my Bonnie Tyler remix and move on for awhile. maybe later tonight .... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "fly" Posted by mame on 15:47:22 4/04/2001 yes, you are right. i don't remember myself where or if i referred to it. i believe i did around the time of the BPD press release concerning nancy's story. there is a difference between "satanic ritual abuse" and "ritual abuse"...i have a report somewhere from a california county investigation with details about such abuse. i'll post it when i find it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Con v Con" Posted by watchin' on 16:19:51 4/04/2001 Edie, I understand your point and a god one. In reality a good example would be informants. Those who are on the other side of the law but supply evidence against their own. It takes a seasoned and very sharp investigator to determine the reason for informing and then verifying that information. In this case, I think the 'con' knows the reality of spaking out. That gets them investigated chewed up and spit out in court. Best way for someone with something to hide to get by untarnished and unprosecuted is to remain silent, kep a low profile and don't draw attention to self. Look familiar? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "EXACTOMUNDO!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:44:11 4/04/2001 that's what I was trying to say, Watchin'! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Edie" Posted by Greenleaf on 17:13:48 4/04/2001 What is SRA? Thanks. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Hi, Greenie!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:17:45 4/04/2001 SRA is satanic ritual abuse:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "SRA--a MW/mary99 myth" Posted by darby on 18:05:54 4/04/2001 As a matter of fact, I do believe that AK was the first one to bring Satan up in terms of MW, claiming in a knowing voice that he (Satan) was at the root of MW's claims, and then ridiculing her for that. I don't think mary99 ever referenced Satanic ritual abuse in connection with MW but just said that she felt that SRA is a problem and shouldn't be totally dismissed. AK must have taken this as mary99's confession that she had attended the Miami Satan conference, because AK then asked mary99 if she had had fun at it (or something to that effect). I think mary99 didn't even entertain what AK had said at first, possibly because it didn't register that AK could possibly think that mary99 had attended the conference. Nonetheless, more and more was said about mary99 going to that Miami Satan conference, and more and more posters went freak'n nutz believing not only this, but also that Nancy Krebs had been crying Satan--all because AK had said so. This thing grew and grew, taking on a life of its own, spreading like wildfire from JW to CS. The flamefest almost made me think that Satan himself had infiltrated the forums. I covered my eyes (but peeked), half-expecting that at any moment one of the threads would burst into flames. I was appalled, not only because I happened to know that mary99 had attended a Santana (Note: not Satan) concert during that Miami conference weekend but also because I had never heard the word Satan come up in terms of MW--even in all my talks with Holly about her--until AK made the claim. As far as I know, AK was the first to bring him (Satan) up. The next day, I emailed the director of that Miami conference to ask if Fleet White, MW or JBR had even been mentioned at the conference. NO, said he. I even posted his email. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Did " Posted by mary99 on 18:02:32 4/04/2001 Sorry about the title, I hit the enter button while composing. First off, I have no real 'belief' that Satanic cults even exist, other than what I read in the Franklin Cover-up. But that one book alone paints a convincing picture, for me anyway, of 'the way things are' when public officials, blackmail, pornography and millions and millions of dollars are mixed together. Satanism in the form of secret closed ritualistic societies with bizarre cultish behavior never seemed to be the course du jour in Ramsey, but who knows? I just read at CS that PR wore a black gown at Melinda's wedding in memory of JB. It's weird stuff like that which leaves a question mark in my mind. NK's ritual abuse allegations and the JBR case do seem markedly similar, but the commonality between what happened in Franklin and what goes on, or went on, in Boulder, is not the type of abuse as much as it is the behavior of the public officials who deny, deny, deny there is a problem in the community while assisting in the 'deep sixing' of evidence, torpedoing witnesses, burning the case files (figuratively speaking) and general foot-dragging patterns; what we have seen in Boulder for 4 years. So, the short answer is, I don't think Satanism has anything to do with JBR or NK -but Franklin has a lot in common with Boulder and JBR, and by extension with NK, as she was the one to explain what very well might have been going on with JBR and also definitely stated pornography was a big part of it, which I and many others also have suspected for quite a while. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Gem & Darb" Posted by RiverRat on 17:56:52 4/04/2001 Come on guys, we need a big legit group hug here. The heat of the moment posting mustn't overide case. watchin - WOW, betcha spent a lot of time putting that profile together. Too bad the Whites didn't think of sucking up to John and Patsy since they have told the world that the Whites are not suspected of any wrong doing. If the White family, as it sounds like you are suggesting, was involved in this murder, wouldn't it have been smarter for them to stand in the Stines shoes? timing, timing, timing........... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Good" Posted by v_p on 17:41:05 4/04/2001 Gawd ... and so it goes and goes and goes and..... want me to turn out the lights? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Yeah Veep" Posted by RiverRat on 17:58:29 4/04/2001 but let watchin answer first. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Questions" Posted by darby on 18:27:16 4/04/2001 Why do some of Fleet White's defenders feel the need to use lies, fraud and subterfuge to defend him? Why do they need to make things up about Nancy Krebs and mary99? And why on earth would one of them stoop so low as to call up Nancy Krebs, Lee Hill and Mary Suma pretending to be a 60Minutes producer, claim that 60Minutes had uncovered something vile about Fleet White, and then hound them day and night in an effort to get an interview with Nancy? Isn't there a better, more honest way to secure justice for Fleet White? If Fleet White has any integrity at all, I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate these underhanded things that have been done, supposedly to defend him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "RR" Posted by watchin' on 18:59:20 4/04/2001 profile? Missed something there River. Edie andI were discussing whether a druggie or a con was 'credible' if they were conning and selling. I checked my post again and darn if I can see where Ieven implied FW. I certainly didn't use the name. River, sometimes a friggin' cigar is just that...a cigar. ;-) ((((hugs)))) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "hmmm ..." Posted by Gemini on 19:30:27 4/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:30:27, 4/04/2001 Maybe it was Mary99 (Mary, you're skirting around it very adeptly in the above post), but for some reason, I have a thread drawn between mame and Densen-Gerber in my detail clogged, compartmentalized brain and can't think of anything else that would create such a link. The best way to settle it once and for all and be absolutely fair is simply to ask you, mame, for your opinion about sra. If you've never posted about it (and I'm totally aware that ritual abuse is not the same thing), I humbly apologize for bringing it up. But, my recollection is you did give it credibility in conncetion with your research. Possibly the reason I connected it to one of your posts on these extended threads was because you mentioned said research. To me, sra is unavoidably connected to repressed memory therapy, so if you and Mary99 think one is credible, it follows you're comfortable with the other (and gives A.K.'s claims a leg up). Hoping to get this out in the open and documented once and for all so there'll be no more confusion about who thinks what. As information about the JBR case and it's sideshows (like the 60 min mess) starts to pour in, heavier and heavier, it's clear to me I need to take a spring break and wait for a lull in my job and the sca weekend to come and go in order to give JW better attention. (edited for spelling and still probably missed some) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Sorry watchin" Posted by RiverRat on 19:53:48 4/04/2001 I must have read this wrong: "In this case, I think the 'con' knows the reality of spaking out. That gets them investigated chewed up and spit out in court. Best way for someone with something to hide to get by untarnished and unprosecuted is to remain silent, kep a low profile and don't draw attention to self. Look familiar?" It's been a long conversation and it looks like all I have done is read everything the wrong way, so I'll give it a break. Parting thought after all of this, maybe 60 Minutes should do a show on us. Scary. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Gemini" Posted by mary99 on 19:52:11 4/04/2001 FWIW, I think therapists who push their agendas through use of repressed/recovered memory therapy have been pretty much discredited. Not that that type of therapy has anything whatsoever to do with NK's type of treatment. It was clearly stated, early and often, that MB does not do RMT (repressed memory therapy) and MB herself was highly respected for her work in her community, working with a county DA's office, I think it was, at one point. True, abuse survivors often repress (compartmentalize?) the memory of their abuse until a certain age or life (JR's magic 40 or so?)but from what I've read, RMT relies largely on hypnosis and equally tricky tactics to 're-cover' memories, making the subject extremely vulnerable to suggestion and necessarily tainting whatever is 'revealed'. Which is why MB & NK have said over and over (mentioned in BOTH interviews) that there was NO repressed memory/recovered memory therapy nor was there anyhypnosis. I could be wrong, but that's the way I recall it. It was specifically asked by the BPD, "What type of therapy do you do?" to MB, and imo, they were trolling for an 'out' which would make it possible for the BPD to not review the MB case notes of the allegations pre-dating the JBR murder. And having worked with law enforcement in the past, I would think MB kept excellent records of who-said-what and when exactly they said it. But from what I gleaned from the 2nd interview, which is transcribed on a thread in the WOR, The BPD asked a lot of questions about the type of therapy but never reviewed the files MB had preserved. How pathetic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "darby" Posted by FT on 21:17:13 4/04/2001 Could we please deconstruct your last post. <<1) Why do some of Fleet White's defenders feel the need to use lies, fraud and subterfuge to defend him?>> Which Fleet White defenders are you talking about? What lies, fraud and subterfuge are you talking about? Could you please be specific rather than making leaps of logic behind the scenes that leave many of us scratching our heads? <<2) Why do they need to make things up about Nancy Krebs and mary99?>> Were they making things up or were they drawing conclusions in the same way that, say, Holly drew conclusions about Fleet White based on posts by Lake? <<3) And why on earth would one of them stoop so low as to call up Nancy Krebs, Lee Hill and Mary Suma pretending to be a 60Minutes producer, claim that 60Minutes had uncovered something vile about Fleet White, and then hound them day and night in an effort to get an interview with Nancy?>> How do you know -- for sure -- that the Mystery Producer was a Fleet White supporter? What is your evidence? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Having decided" Posted by Real Stormy on 21:31:24 4/04/2001 To have no further part in this nonsense, I must say that what FT has pointed out occurred to me too. Those of us who insist on fair play are accused of being Fleet White supporters with no evidence other than the type in Darby's post, which is really just a figment of her imagination. This kind of thing with the "60 Minutes producer" happens all the time. It just happened to the Countess of Wessex--a person posing as a sheik and a prospective client got some juicy tidbits about Sophie's opinion of the Royal family. So what? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]