Justice Watch Support JW "White's Basis for Criminal Allegations!" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... White's Basis for Criminal Allegations!, Ginja, 12:18:21, 4/28/2001 Thank you, v_p, 12:25:20, 4/28/2001, (#1) Yes, Ginga, Florida, 12:27:21, 4/28/2001, (#3) Without a doubt, Ginja, Watching you, 12:26:47, 4/28/2001, (#2) ginja, mame, 12:39:34, 4/28/2001, (#4) And it helped, Ginja, Holly, 12:48:12, 4/28/2001, (#6) Also..., Ginja, 12:49:56, 4/28/2001, (#7) Huh?, Holly, 13:14:23, 4/28/2001, (#10) Ginja., Holly, 12:41:37, 4/28/2001, (#5) Ginja, JR, 13:08:35, 4/28/2001, (#8) I only have the, Morgan, 13:13:01, 4/28/2001, (#9) Yeah, right...., Florida, 13:26:04, 4/28/2001, (#12) Well, FL, Holly, 14:11:23, 4/28/2001, (#22) Not true, Mame, Ginja, 13:25:58, 4/28/2001, (#11) Ginja, Twitch, 13:30:19, 4/28/2001, (#13) Ginja scores again!!, Watching you, 13:30:34, 4/28/2001, (#14) They're , v_p, 13:43:52, 4/28/2001, (#15) the media , mame, 14:04:32, 4/28/2001, (#19) Ginja: Crystal clear...Thank you..., Dunvegan, 13:47:01, 4/28/2001, (#16) V-P, JR, 13:59:23, 4/28/2001, (#17) Ginga, 1000Sparks, 14:05:01, 4/28/2001, (#20) Ginja notes..., rose, 14:01:41, 4/28/2001, (#18) Ginja....., rose, 14:12:35, 4/28/2001, (#23) Ginja, mary99, 14:06:14, 4/28/2001, (#21) Mary99, JR, 14:12:47, 4/28/2001, (#24) Holly, Ginja, 14:24:48, 4/28/2001, (#28) I think it's two, Holly, 14:30:56, 4/28/2001, (#30) Hands, v_p, 14:16:41, 4/28/2001, (#26) Well,, Holly, 14:15:24, 4/28/2001, (#25) missing the point, folks, mary99, 14:37:29, 4/28/2001, (#33) I'll raise my glass, Watching you, 14:21:49, 4/28/2001, (#27) Ginja whomp, Watching you, 14:31:22, 4/28/2001, (#31) FYI, Ginja, 14:28:35, 4/28/2001, (#29) Rose, Ginja, 14:46:43, 4/28/2001, (#36) Pissing contest, Watching you, 14:32:35, 4/28/2001, (#32) a score?, mame, 14:39:59, 4/28/2001, (#34) yes, mame, mary99, 14:59:58, 4/28/2001, (#37) Thank you mame, Watching you, 14:42:13, 4/28/2001, (#35) Scores, v_p, 15:17:39, 4/28/2001, (#39) v_p, mary99, 15:35:11, 4/28/2001, (#41) Thanks, JR, 15:06:48, 4/28/2001, (#38) OMG, v_p, 15:27:42, 4/28/2001, (#40) V_P, Frank, 15:40:56, 4/28/2001, (#44) me too, V-P!, Edie Pratt, 15:43:31, 4/28/2001, (#45) LMAO, Watching you, 15:36:12, 4/28/2001, (#42) Mary99, Watching you, 15:38:30, 4/28/2001, (#43) Beckner is also , Florida, 15:52:32, 4/28/2001, (#48) Wy, v_p, 15:51:47, 4/28/2001, (#47) look it up, vee pee, mary99, 16:07:13, 4/28/2001, (#55) Don't let the door, Watching you, 16:09:28, 4/28/2001, (#57) WY, mary99, 15:50:48, 4/28/2001, (#46) V_P, Ginja, 15:58:24, 4/28/2001, (#52) Hahahahah, Ginja, Watching you, 16:20:38, 4/28/2001, (#60) LOL "frank", v_p, 15:56:24, 4/28/2001, (#50) mysterious V-P, Edie Pratt, 16:11:51, 4/28/2001, (#59) Oh, okay, Watching you, 15:54:26, 4/28/2001, (#49) I suppose though, Watching you, 15:56:48, 4/28/2001, (#51) Back to Mame, Ginja, 16:10:29, 4/28/2001, (#58) V_P, Florida, 15:59:56, 4/28/2001, (#53) wow Florida, v_p, 16:04:11, 4/28/2001, (#54) V_P, Florida, 16:07:26, 4/28/2001, (#56) Mary99, Ginja, 16:39:17, 4/28/2001, (#64) mary and edie, v_p, 16:29:48, 4/28/2001, (#61) Ginja, Watching you, 16:34:49, 4/28/2001, (#63) thanks, V-P, Edie Pratt, 16:33:52, 4/28/2001, (#62) cascading disaster, darby, 18:12:16, 4/28/2001, (#76) Thank you, WY, Ginja, 16:47:21, 4/28/2001, (#67) edie, v_p, 16:45:11, 4/28/2001, (#66) Tap...tap...tap, JR, 16:39:28, 4/28/2001, (#65) Re your 33, Mare, Ginja, 17:01:18, 4/28/2001, (#69) and tap, tap, tap..., v_p, 16:51:56, 4/28/2001, (#68) Ginga--libel law, Morgan, 17:53:31, 4/28/2001, (#74) interesting..., mame, 17:10:49, 4/28/2001, (#71) Addendum to #69, Ginja, 17:09:13, 4/28/2001, (#70) I think..., Ginja, 17:11:19, 4/28/2001, (#72) Ginja I hope you stick around for this!, ayelean, 17:44:41, 4/28/2001, (#73) v_p, Frank, 18:10:11, 4/28/2001, (#75) v_p, darby, 18:30:18, 4/28/2001, (#77) Holly, DuBois, 20:44:34, 4/28/2001, (#79) Ginga, Morgan, 20:39:39, 4/28/2001, (#78) Ginja, Ginja, first things first, mary99, 21:55:02, 4/28/2001, (#84) article re: fleet accused of being member of sex-r..., mapek, 21:47:06, 4/28/2001, (#83) Well, Country Girl, 21:13:05, 4/28/2001, (#81) Ginja, JR, 20:59:33, 4/28/2001, (#80) "frank", v_p, 21:25:24, 4/28/2001, (#82) civil libel, mame, 22:18:40, 4/28/2001, (#88) the FBI, mame, 22:02:37, 4/28/2001, (#87) Did you know?, Country Girl, 22:02:04, 4/28/2001, (#86) Hey v_p, Tricia, 22:00:14, 4/28/2001, (#85) Cautious, watchin', 23:23:18, 4/28/2001, (#91) hey, watchin', mary99, 23:45:58, 4/28/2001, (#93) Analysis of White complaint , darby, 23:15:46, 4/28/2001, (#90) and there's more, darby, mary99, 00:37:20, 4/29/2001, (#99) maypec, Morgan, 22:51:06, 4/28/2001, (#89) Darby and Morgan, mary99, 23:28:35, 4/28/2001, (#92) Let's not forget, Morgan, 23:46:24, 4/28/2001, (#94) and another thing..., watchin', 00:14:53, 4/29/2001, (#95) watchin', mary99, 00:33:48, 4/29/2001, (#97) Smear campaign from hell, Stonegate, 00:27:51, 4/29/2001, (#96) Stonegate, watchin', 00:34:53, 4/29/2001, (#98) Watchin', Gemini, 00:55:54, 4/29/2001, (#100) Hi, watchin, Thor, 04:22:44, 4/29/2001, (#101) watchin', mame, 08:52:04, 4/29/2001, (#103) The point is, Morgan, 08:20:20, 4/29/2001, (#102) Oh please..., Florida, 09:13:15, 4/29/2001, (#104) E(evidence) TICKET, Florida, 09:19:07, 4/29/2001, (#105) PLEASE POST ON, Holly, 09:21:55, 4/29/2001, (#106) ................................................................... "White's Basis for Criminal Allegations!" Posted by Ginja on 12:18:21 4/28/2001 Jeesh! Before you can even have a half-way decent discussion regarding the topic at hand, you ought to understand the law! Times v Sullivan has been discussed and explained enough times here as well as the difference between civil and criminal procedures. Not to mention evidence! (Something you all think is worthy of ridiculing Fleet White for collecting!!!!) Cripes, at least there's ONE PERSON in Boulder who knows how to put together a case! In Times v Sullivan, the Court separates private figures from public figures. Why? Because each have different recourses in responding to defamation in one form or another (slander or libel). As such, it set out that, "under the First Amendment, in other words, the *preferred* response to a defamation problem is to fix it yourself. But since private individuals normally don't have the kind of access to mass media it takes to correct the record, the First Amendment allows the states to use libel law to level the playing field, making it easier for private individuals to counter the damage that can be done to their reputations by mass media." (http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/net_public_figures_godwin.article) Thus, private figures recourse is through the courts and public figures resolve their differences through the media. If public figures choose to use the Court to resolve the matters, then the bar for their standard of proof is set higher, e.g., they have to prove actual malice. As to where the Whites fall (private or public), White did not admit to being a public figure; he admitted there was a possibility that he might be considered a limited purpose public figure. That legal definition is: "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome and who is thus required as a public figure to prove actual malice in a defamation suit." In this regard, White "voluntarily and prominently participated in the public controversy (Ramsey murder investigation) for the purpose of influencing its outcome. He did so by writing letters and meeting with the Governor requesting a special prosecutor be appointed to handle that investigation. Facts highly publicized. The various media played off that 'notoriety' by insinuating, and then outright accusing, without proving the validity of those accusations or the accuser, that Fleet White was a member of a Boulder high society child pornography ring, that he himself was a child molester, and that his family had a long history as members of this ring as well as abusing this particular accuser. These accusations are then "piggybacked" onto White's "notoriety" as a limited purpose public figure in the Ramsey murder investigation. The defamatory accusations go beyond that notoriety, accusing him of unproven 'membership' in child pornography and sex rings and actually accuse him of being involved in JonBenet's murder, contrary to the fact that the official investigation publicly cleared him of any suspicion as to any involvement in that murder. White's defamation issues are with the printed and broadcast media (slander and libel). Those media violated his First Amendment rights by accusing, without basis or proof, that he was a child molester and has a long history in child pornography and sex rings. The media figured it could get away with this for various reasons including statements made by Hunter and Krebbs and White's limited purpose public figure status in the Ramsey murder investigation. Ergo, White's comment that it's possible he could be considered a limited purpose public figure. He is NOT dragging his kids into this! The media did that through its publications and broadcasts. Parents read the news, they watch tv, and they listen to the radio. Considering the ages of the kids, they probably have access to these media and have heard or read first-hand, or the 'topic' came up at home. Those kids then go to school and say something to the White kids. So yeah...those kids ARE affected! In addition, those media accusations elicit public hatred and contempt, as witnessed (and evidenced!) by internet discussions. So it doesn't matter that the Whites personal friends and family haven't ostracized them. It can be said those friends and family know the Whites personally and probably have personal knowledge that the Whites are not child molesters (or murderers). But because the media is public, and has made certain unproven criminal accusations publicly, that they have violated the Whites First Amendment rights -- their accusations have elicited public hatred and contempt. The internet is international....the ball park no longer consists of Boulder residents! This is where the line is drawn and clearly the media is on the wrong side. By the very evidence provided, this is a matter for the criminal courts rather than the state civil courts. Why doesn't Fleet sue Krebbs? Because it goes beyond Krebbs. She told an outrageous story. It's outrageous because there is absolutely no evidence to support her allegations. She has "family" pictures, but those pictures don't show Fleet or any of his family molesting or hurting Krebbs...or JonBenet. These stories and broadcasts should not have been released naming names and making accusations while police and the FBI were investigating. You can't make such criminal accusations public and then when the investigations yield no proof, try to make things better by printing retractions or apologies. The damage is done. Young children have been branded at school, and a family has been smeared, not to mention their rights stripped and violated. Do you go after a possibly mentally disturbed woman who doesn't know better? Or do you go after a media who is charged with acting responsibly and whose responsibility it is to report the news, not create it? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Thank you" Posted by v_p on 12:29:21 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:29:21, 4/28/2001 Ginja, another fine and informative post... Now sit back and wait ... the uneducated barrage of arm-chair litigators will be here momentarily. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Yes, Ginga" Posted by Florida on 12:27:21 4/28/2001 thank you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Without a doubt, Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 12:26:47 4/28/2001 the most important and best post you have ever written. Nonetheless, there will be those who will challenge it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "ginja" Posted by mame on 12:50:57 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:50:57, 4/28/2001 thank you for the research. however, the fact remains that criminal libel is not a direct avenue at justice for a wrongdoing. the press will never be charged with anything as it is their job to report the actions and words of a witness who spent many long hours of interviews with BPD and the FBI. it is the right and the duty of the press to report on this woman and her allegations. just as they have reported on the ramsey's...even though most feel they've lied and spun a false tale. should the press be held liable for allowing the ramsey's to tell their tale? it's the same situation. the civil route to charge someone with libel was meant to serve people just like mr. white. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "And it helped, Ginja" Posted by Holly on 12:48:12 4/28/2001 that you agreed with WY. :-) Don't SCREAM. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Also..." Posted by Ginja on 12:49:56 4/28/2001 ...another reason why Fleet took this to the criminal level via the police department is two-pronged: (1) it's no secret animosity exists between White and Hunter, and (2) Hunter made his position clear that that animosity prevented the DA's office from conducting a valid investigation when he made a statement to the press, in essence, starting the rumor-mongering, inciting malicious disregard for the Whites' various constitutional rights. I believe those to be facts! I realize there will be some who think Hunter probably did so to divert attention away from his own involvement in the so-called Boulder high society membership in sex rings. Also, there's been a lot of talk about posters being sued and whatnot. We've seen no suits and I'm sure the reasoning behind that is the internet would be used as "evidence" of the charges against the media for actual malice and how it elicited public contempt and hatred. IOW, the "proof" lies in these discussions! So let the "conspircy theorists" continue...they only add evidence to Fleet's case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Huh?" Posted by Holly on 13:14:23 4/28/2001 FW took it to a guy (Beckner)who said he is "morally empty" and should be jailed for "obstruction" and who wondered if FW had something to do with JB's homicide. That's what ST says. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ginja." Posted by Holly on 12:41:37 4/28/2001 It's Krebs. Articulate. Insightful. But it's off mark, IMO. FW should not have even warmed to the notion he is a public figure of any kind. He should have followed the detective's direction to provide INDIVIDUAL statements. How was Priscilla White libeled? How was FW libeled? In MD, is it different in CO?, each victim must file criminal charges against the alleged criminal. You need individual statements. And it is very important. Who told you Nancy was mentally disturbed? And how do you define a mentally disturbed person? And who cares if she is in therapy? So is 1/2 the population of Southern CA. It should not prevent FW from addressing her supposed lies. Build a case? Dunno. Yes, cops certainly would like to see some evidence of the crime. But there is no case. What case? They did not charge and sent it to the DA. It could be reasonably expected the Boulder DA would not want to review the claims and Bailin sent it elsewhere. It is not up to FW to dictate where it goes. So he got pissed and asked to withdraw. And if he was successful months ago convincing Salazar to call a grand jury, no one charged has received notice. So my hunch is that failed also. In your view, if someone wanted to minimize the public record or avoid providing a deposition, but still wanted to address concerns of supporters, which route would that individual take? Criminal or civil? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 13:08:35 4/28/2001 Ditto V-P and Watching You - great post and analysis. Sure wish some on here would do some research on sexual abuse and it's impact on the victims. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "I only have the" Posted by Morgan on 13:13:01 4/28/2001 time to address one of Ginga's points, at the moment. You said Nancy has no evidence--only family pix. How do you know? Also, try to avoid trashing Nancy in the process of extolling the virtues of FW's criminal complaint. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Yeah, right...." Posted by Florida on 13:28:03 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:28:03, 4/28/2001 Also, try to avoid trashing Nancy in the process of extolling the virtues of FW's criminal complaint. LOLOLOLOL About the same day you stop trashing Fleet White while extolling the virtues of NK's unproven allegations. When is Nancy going to file a criminal complaint against the person or persons who sent her to the hospital in Denver with horrendous injuries and "stun gun (aided by acid) burns to the bone" when she first arrived in Boulder? When is Nancy going to file criminal complaints against the person or persons who are abusing her niece and other children she is so concerned about? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Well, FL" Posted by Holly on 14:11:23 4/28/2001 are you sure she didn't? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Not true, Mame" Posted by Ginja on 13:25:58 4/28/2001 You aren't paying attention. You should be ashamed of yourself! I ended my post by noting that the media is charged with reporting the news, not making it! You follow up by saying, "the press will never be charged with anything as it is their right and duty to report the actions and words of a witness who spent many long hours of interviews with BPD and the FBI." Only after those interviews have been verified by the BPD and FBI. Don't forget, the first story on this was released because Hunter made a statement to the press that he was sending Krebs to the BPD to investigate her allegations. And then later, the BPD, after looking into the charges, handed it over to the FBI. So don't hit me with this bull that the press only reported this information after spending long hours in interviews. Those interviews hadn't even taken place yet! Okay, so I guess it's okay if I call the Daily Camera or RMN or whatever's local and still in business out there and report to them a hideous story that I have proof that you solicited Krebs to come out with this outrageous story because you can't stand Fleet White. I'm pretty good with the law and know the loopholes. I've met you and Holly in MD where you told me about the hours of conversations you had with Krebs, conspiring to "get even". I have pictures of all of us (except Krebs) that I can show as proof that we all do know each other and have met and partied together. I will then contact local counsel and tell them I have important information in the Ramsey case, of how you and Krebs have insinuated yourselves so as to divert attention away from the Ramseys and onto the Whites. I can print out and show my counsel and the authorities of posts you've written of your interview with Lou Smit, and how Krebs story was created to coincide with Smit's "intruder" theory...that it was no intruder but Fleet White! We know there's animosity between the BPD and DA's office, as well as between the BPD and Lou Smit. We also know that Fleet White is/was very friendly with the BPD and helped them in their search for JfJBR. Delighted with all this "evidence", Beckner will hold a press conference and announce that he has new information that could be very helpful to the case in showing that conspiracies have been in the making to divert attention away from the suspects and blame others. The media gets hold of this new and significant information and goes to town. Your name is splashed all over the print and broadcast media. Your kids come home crying from school because the other kids are accusing their mother as a criminal who's protecting murders. And oh boy! watch all the threads and posts pop up sullying your name and accusing you of obstructing justice and otherwise showing you vile hatred and contempt! What then of the medias' responsibility for reporting the "news"? Again, mame...if nothing else, the media should not have named names and made unfounded accusations before they checked their sources and verified the information to be true. Or would you prefer they ruin your life and your childrens first, and then apologize after they find out I'm a liar! I'm not saying Nancy is a liar. What I'm saying is her story wasn't verified as factual before it was released. Where was the damage control? Or don't you believe in that? And it does't make any difference whether they did this same thing in Ramsey. That's no precedent, for pete's sake! Look at all the lawsuits the Ramseys have in motion today ... or have already settled...because the media ran with the story before verifying the facts! You asked whether the "press should be held liable for allowing the ramsey's to tell their tale? it's the same situation." First, it's not the same situation! In the Rams case, they are telling the story, their story of how they were personally treated by the media. Krebs came out of no where pointing her fingers at someone entirely different. She didn't point and say, I have proof Fleet White is the killer, or involved. She clearly stated that she was a victim of abuse and that White was one of those abusers. She had nothing to link that abuse with JonBenet's death except Fleet's friendship with John Ramsey. That's not proof! That's a malicious attack if it's publicized before being proven as true or false. In the Jewell case, Jewell wasn't a "real" suspect until a former employer pointed his finger and told police to "check this guy out." Her, you've got Krebs pointing her finger and saying she has proof. That's even worse! Without validation by a law enforcement agency to verify her information, the media in essence became her "medium" for spreading unfounded malicious stories. It is the media's responsibility to protect citizens from that kind of abuse. Again, the media's job is to report the news, not make it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Ginja" Posted by Twitch on 13:30:19 4/28/2001 Thanks for another informative post. I love your "Ginja Notes", simple and concise. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Ginja scores again!!" Posted by Watching you on 13:30:34 4/28/2001 2-0 Great post, Florida. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "They're " Posted by v_p on 13:43:52 4/28/2001 baaaaaack, lmao. FW did the right thing. He's a good family man who loves his wife and children. I find it absofluckinglutely hillarious that someone here posted something deragatory about FW spending all his time on the computer poring over internet posts ... hahahahahhahahahahhaha Even FW took time out to go to the BPD ... more than I can say for some whose a$$e$ never see the light of day for being glued to their desk chair, lolol. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "the media " Posted by mame on 14:04:32 4/28/2001 didn't make news...they reported it. they didn't report a thing that wasn't also reported in countless hours of interviews with the FBI and the BPD. in fact, they reported only a small amount of what was told to the BPD and the FBI. ginja, under your theory then nothing should be reported by the press unless it's verified and proven. the job of media is to be a vessel of information for the citizens...the job of verifying (except in investigative pieces) is the job of the cops and other governmental investigative bodies. there have been hundreds of occassions when the rams and countless others have done or said something and the press reported it. steve thomas names dozens of instances concerning the DA's office and the ramseys that he says are true. do we know that they are fact? are you suggesting the press shouldn't report these actions and statements? should they investigate and prove beyond a resonable doubt that patsy, alex hunter, lou smit, or any in the cast of characters said or did something? no, you're confusing the job of the public officials and media. it is the media's job to be the watchdog of public officials. a story concerning a witness such as this informs the public of her presence...it also allows the public to consider and view the process and the interviews she did with THEIR public officials. steve thomas broke your rule completely. he went on national television and told patsy she murdered her kid! whether he's right or wrong...isn't that also considered abominable and libelous? again, this type of complaint and possible charge goes to the root of constitutional law. the fight that is doubtful to ensue is a constitutional/freedom of the press fight. it would do little to stop the perceived lies and little to clear mr. white's name. i have interviewed dozens of lawyers and judicial folks concerning this. the problem is this type of charge and court proceeding would never get to the real truth. you don't pick a fight with those who buy their ink by the barrel and their paper by the ton. if you really want to stop what you believe to be lies, you go to the source..not the media. i chose not to mention mr. white in my reports on this story. ginja, i adore your research and posts...it brings outstanding debate to these forums. have you discussed your stance on this with constiutional lawyers and others? while i can certainly understand anyone involved in this case, like mr. white being disgusted with the media...he picked the wrong group to attack. he should have picked nancy krebs. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Ginja: Crystal clear...Thank you..." Posted by Dunvegan on 13:47:01 4/28/2001 ...You're a formidable litigant, you are. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "V-P" Posted by JR on 13:59:23 4/28/2001 Interesting isn't it, that even though the BPD questioned, finger printed and took hair samples of the Whites while investigating the murder of JonBenet, the Whites filed this complaint through the BPD - you know, that same police department the dead child's parents say is totaly biased? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Ginga" Posted by 1000Sparks on 14:05:01 4/28/2001 Thanks you for winning this arguement. Now if mame, Holly, Mary99 and Darby will see and understand the above, maybe we can all get along again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Ginja notes..." Posted by rose on 14:01:41 4/28/2001 I agree with everything you said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Ginja....." Posted by rose on 14:12:35 4/28/2001 Do you think that FW feels someone has set MW up to discredit him and wants a full legal investigation as to who? That he truly wants the whole story to come out as to who what and where? He made a statement very breifly to the investigator about this. As if MW was as used as he was in this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Ginja" Posted by mary99 on 14:06:14 4/28/2001 LOL, I thought you finally saw FW for the hinky he is...OK, you feel he's been wronged and think his family been put through hell. Let's compare to the Ramseys...why the media reports about the Ramseys if there should be a blackout untilm all is proven before reporting? Can we not and have we not discussed the Ramseys in much the same terms as what offends you about the Whites? I mean, let's at least pretend to be objective here. You want to see a day when there will be no reporting of as-yet-unproven allegations bandied about in the press, on TV, on radio talk shows, in internet forums! Well, say goodbye in general to the JBR forums! The Ramseys aren't charged. There is no proof they were involved, only suspicion. Yakking about what we find hinky about the Ramseys should therefore not be permitted, not should any media coverage until there is a trial and presumably a conviction. People like LHP and others who want to tell us about the Ramseys , what they said or did, should therefore under your interpretation of the law, be gagged until the Ramseys are convicted. Your one-sided view of the FW libel charges (because you think he's the 'good guy') doesn't take into account the fallout from making the defination of a reportable story narrower to accomodate Fleet. Sure, he's ticked off. Just like the Ramseys, the Eisenbergs, Michael Skakel to name a few. We live in a free country where the power of the press is broad. NEWS is news, it comes with no guarantee especially when reported as the BDC story was...a simple report on the appearance of a woman who may have information relating to the Ramsey case. The newspaper may have chosen not to run it, but that doesn't mean it was wrong to choose to do so. They weighed the public interest, against the self-serving interests of FW and chose to go with the report of a press conference by Hunter which never detailed the abuse, btw vs putting a clamp on it so the BPD could bury it. We wouldn't be living in a free country if FW had his way. In China, for instance, we could be jailedfor writing about the government in an unflattering way. What you propose by defending FW is nothing short of living under repression. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Mary99" Posted by JR on 14:12:47 4/28/2001 Can I ask what proof - take it a step further - what "hard evidence" do you have that makes you so sure Fleet White is "hinky?" You certainly don't come across as an unbiased reporter when it comes to FW but you have yet to substantiate your claims with any solid proof. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Holly" Posted by Ginja on 14:24:48 4/28/2001 FW should not have even warmed to the notion he is a public figure of any kind. During the months of "slashing" White to ribbons with total disregard for the validity of Nancy's claims while extolling her virtues as a valid complainant, posters here were also charging those claims were true because if they weren't, Fleet would have come out and said so. I remember all the threads and posts: if Fleet isn't guilty, why hasn't he made a public statement stating such? Well, now we know why. Going through the police's report, he noted that during this time, Fleet collected the evidence (that's something you need to prove any kind of allegation!), he then took that evidence and consulted with his attorney. Ergo, he "warmed" to the notion of his "status" because he already knew the legal ramifications as explained to him by his attorney. He went through all his options as to recourse, which is how he wound up filing a criminal complaint against the media for their libelous attacks. Attacks which were unfounded when made. Unfounded attacks which were later retracted or editorials pointing out mistakes were made. He should have followed the detective's direction to provide INDIVIDUAL statements. How was Priscilla White libeled? How was FW libeled? In MD, is it different in CO?, each victim must file criminal charges against the alleged criminal. You need individual statements. And it is very important. This isn't a suit, it's an investigation. The Whites noted why they didn't want to make full and separate statements. They've already been wronged by the media. Once their statements were made public, they feared the same kind of misrepresentation. What's important would be the complaint itself, as filed with the court. In it, all the charges would be spelled out, including how both Fleet and Priscilla were libeled. Couple that with the fact they submitted to police all the evidence showing the libelous statements and written presentations made to the public. That evidence clearly demonstrates how they were libeled. Who told you Nancy was mentally disturbed? And how do you define a mentally disturbed person. And who cares if she is in therapy? So is 1/2 the population of Southern CA. It should not prevent FW from addressing her supposed lies. Nancy has a history, a well-documented history of abuse and therapy. After 10 years of therapy, she's still being abused. As Florida noted in his/her post, " When is Nancy going to file a criminal complaint against the person or persons who sent her to the hospital in Denver with horrendous injuries and "stun gun (aided by acid) burns to the bone" when she first arrived in Boulder? When is Nancy going to file criminal complaints against the person or persons who are abusing her niece and other children she is so concerned about? The problem lies in credibility. We can go through all the technicalities of how abused women are 'stuck' and can't get away from their so-called "caste" in life. But if she can continue to be currently abused violently by those attackers while at the same time pointing her fingers to another who's not hurt her in almost 20 years (if at all, because there's no proof Fleet abused her), where's the logic? And the credibility? Where is the logic and credibility in ignoring the fact that she knows other children who are being abuse, yet she blows no whistles for them! As regards half the population of Southern California, that's not sound reasoning for "excusing" Nancy for her actions or inactions. Fleet White has addressed Nancy's "lies." He has stated to police that all of Nancy's claims/allegations, except the one about his father being her mother's godfather, are patently false. His recourse his to file a complaint against the media for printing those allegations without confirming their accuracy or validity. But there is no case. What case? They did not charge and sent it to the DA. It could be reasonably expected the Boulder DA would not want to review the claims and Bailin sent it elsewhere. It is not up to FW to dictate where it goes. White dictated nothing. He filed a complaint with the police to investigate Nancy's charges and the media printing those charges without proof or verification. The BPD would investigate the matter, and if they felt there was substance, they would submit it for grand jury consideration. If not, they'd shelve it. Evidently, they found just cause, as did Bailin, who sent it on to Salazar (is that his name?). Salazar, from what I understand, was the special prosecutor for the 'case.' So he got pissed and asked to withdraw. Uh huh...that's what was reported. What happened is that the person assigned the case didn't look at it. It's been sitting on his desk since he received it last year. So yeah! Fleet got pissed. I would have, too! The only cases that get prosecuted in Boulder are in traffic court or barking dog court!!! Malicious slander and murder are ignored! So he requested the Court "act". Bailin did. She took the case back from the inactive prosecutor she assigned it to and then terminated the case. Which is why the case is back in the news. Fleet is appealing Bailin's termination of the case. In your view, if someone wanted to minimize the public record or avoid providing a deposition, but still wanted to address concerns of supporters, which route would that individual take? Criminal or civil? I need more information than that! White's case could be heard in federal court because of jurisdiction (state of incorporation of the various media) and the involvement of a government agency (the DA's statement to the media). Regarding "minimizing the public record or avoid providing a deposition", neither can happen. The only 'agent' who can determine how public or non-public a record is would be the Court. No one can avoid a deposition if they've been subpoenaed. As far as ddressing "concerns", again, Holly...you and Mame are missing the point! The media can and usually is the vehicle for such "addressing". But when it does, it has to validate its sources and the information being provided. If I'm not mistaken, I think the media source has to verify whatever through at least three sources. You have to have proof that what you're feeding the public is true and accurate information. If it's not, you can and most likely will be sued for libel. Even whistleblowers have to show proof before they can blow the whistle! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "I think it's two" Posted by Holly on 14:32:42 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:32:42, 4/28/2001 sources. But I'm not aware that the law includes language about a minimum number of verifying sources. Could be wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Hands" Posted by v_p on 14:16:41 4/28/2001 JR a glass of nice merlot ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Well," Posted by Holly on 14:15:24 4/28/2001 it doesn't help that the Chief of Police wondered to Steve Thomas, if FW had something to do with JB's murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "missing the point, folks" Posted by mary99 on 14:37:29 4/28/2001 Ginja is proposing that the libelling of Fleet was so damaging to his rights that the press should not be allowed to spew such evil without proof. So where does that leave us in regarts to the Ramseys, Eisenbergs, Skakel? they are pissed off mightily too. Does that make it OK to gag the press so murderers can go free? Don't we pride ourselves here at JW as being the internet candle that keeps this case alive to let those responsible know she has not been forgotten? If Ginja's interpretation of the libel law is correct, we should stop talking now as the allegations against the Ramseys are as yet unproven and we are therefore doing grievous hatrm to what may be an innocent family trying to live a peaceful life after a horrible tragedy. Is there no compassion for the Ramseys in all the FW softies here? Or do we wish to pick and choose who these stringent libel laws protect? Sorry, the law doesn't work that way. From the anger expressed here at the Ramseys, it could be argued that if the big bad media had not poisoned our minds, we would not be here defaming the Ramseys on a daily basis. Poor Burke, poor JAR, poor (dead) Beth, poor Melinda, poor Santa Bill, etc. etc. etc. We should all be ashamed for ever watching a libelous TV show or reading a libelous book or news article. Think of the pain and harm we case by our actions! Ah, you say, the Ramseys are guilty, FW is innocent and good. well, how did we arrive at that conclsion? it's the warped media we have tothank. We haven't seen any hard proof like you want to see before discussing fleet...it's all hearsay, theory, specualtion and our interpretation of the statements and reports which under a stricter standard of reporting, would not be available. If we protect one innocent person by clamping down on the media, thousands, hundreds of thousands,maybe millions of other guilty persons will be free to live in peace in our midst while the media remains silent. And without the media to report on the efficiency of the legal sysyem, how long before the legal system becomes more corrupt and the police become more prone to half-assed investigations? It's the concept of oversight that keeps them clean, imo. Is it worth it just to protect Fleet White? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "I'll raise my glass" Posted by Watching you on 14:21:49 4/28/2001 veepee and JR. Here's to justice for JonBenet Ramsey. Oh, thilly me. Wrong thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Ginja whomp" Posted by Watching you on 14:31:22 4/28/2001 Ginja: 3 ratpack: 0 Little Energizer Ginja - wins again!!!! JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "FYI" Posted by Ginja on 14:28:35 4/28/2001 You guys are keeping me busy! LOLOL Just popping in quick to say that all this discussion is purely for the sake of discussion and brainstorming and whatnot. It in no way reflects how I feel personally about any poster or their views. I respect posters and I respect posters' views...even if those views are completely opposite or different from mine. I want to strongly urge that it's recognized this is a lively, healthy discussion....not a pissing contest. :-) Mare, I'll get to you eventually! LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Rose" Posted by Ginja on 14:46:43 4/28/2001 As regards setting Fleet up...who would do it? That kind of set-up would only serve a Ramsey, and the Ramseys aren't touching this. Some would argue that's because there is a sex ring and the Ramseys and Whites are all in on it. For the Ramseys to go follow Nancy, they'd be admitting their own involvement. But it could also be argued that the Rams aren't involved, and have no proof that White is, either. It all lies in the proof...and there is none. There's proof that Nancy's mother's godfather is Sr. and therefore, it's obvious there would be some connection between the two families. As to the rest of her allegations, there's no proof the allegations are true. It's just her word against everyone else's. As regards Bienkowski's notes, those would have to be proven as well because it's possible they could have been figments of Nancy's imagination. She's a victim of abuse and there's her mother, with this wealthy godfather. Growing up, she was beaten and abused while the son of mom's godfather is living the good life and getting everything and anything he wants. So she spins tales. There's no proof of that either. Which is the whole problem with her 'stories'. People do use their psychiatrists/psychologists to spin a different world for themselves. They aren't ready to deal with the real world, so they make one up. Bienkowski could be just as much a victim as Fleet White. As to the rest of your comments, there were 20+ pages to the police report and I don't remember White going into any detail as such; I'd have to go back and reread the report (unless you know exactly and could repost that portion). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Pissing contest" Posted by Watching you on 14:32:35 4/28/2001 Ginja whomp. Who cares? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "a score?" Posted by mame on 14:39:59 4/28/2001 i enjoy ginja because she smart and we can disagree while keeping personal attacks and SCORES out of it. thank you ginja for taking the high road and disagreeing at the same time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "yes, mame" Posted by mary99 on 14:59:58 4/28/2001 Ginja can argue till the cows come home but never stoops to personal attack. And Ginja, whether Fleet's folly ever makes it to a courtroom or not, the issue of his sense of outrage is a moot point. You know he's upset and I know he's upset! My point is that the greater good is served by allowing 'truth' to come out...no matter whether he is hurt along the way. Until and if the allegations are thoroughly investigated, I remain a firm believer in the power of the media to inform the public, the power of the public to discuss important issues and ultimately, in the power of the truth to prevail against evil. Somewhere there is another little girl who is waiting to be heard...I am here for her, not to protect FW from embarrassment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Thank you mame" Posted by Watching you on 14:42:13 4/28/2001 for that enlightening comment. I'm sure I am the better for it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Scores" Posted by v_p on 15:19:32 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:19:32, 4/28/2001 I always score a good debate ... I agree, 3-0. Ginja still loves the posters she 'whomps' and that's a good thing... special, in fact. As for how Beckner feels about FW and the credibilty LS lends to the MW story: May 16, 2000 Boulder police say there is no connection between the killing of JonBenét Ramsey and "Mystery Woman's" allegations that she was the victim of a child-sex ring. Beckner said: "We just haven't been able to come up with any evidence to point us in that direction" Investigators determined the woman, who lives near San Luis Obispo, was sexually abused by a relative 20 years ago - but found no ties to the Ramsey case. "There is simply no credible evidence to link anything she alleges to the death of JonBenét," said prosecutor Michael Kane about Mystery Woman's claims Beckner reiterated Monday that Fleet and Priscilla White are not under suspicion in JonBenét's death. "We have never had evidence to support such an allegation," he said. Boulder detectives did corroborate a link between the Mystery woman's mother and Fleet White's father. "They did know each other and were friends back in California," Beckner said. Investigators were unable to support the Mystery Woman's claim she had met John and Patsy Ramsey Since working the Mystery Woman's claims,the BPD have spent 11 weeks investigation using three investigators interviewed 22 people, reviewed medical and psychological records, and consulted with a forensic psychiatrist Lou Smit was quoted as saying: "I'm sure the police have looked into this thoroughly." If he is sure they looked into it thoroughly, and they found no connection, wouldn't it stand to reason he is sure there is no connection? Or am I reading too much into this statement? Beckner said his investigators have forwarded information about the woman's allegations to the FBI's field offices in California. Beckner wouldn't say whether the woman's general claims of a child-sex ring are credible. Beckner said: "We didn't want to come to any conclusion on that out of respect for her. Our investigation was whether JonBenét's death was the result of a child-sex and pornography ring. We didn't find any evidence of that." Beckner also stated that the Mystery Woman had no direct knowledge of anything that may have occurred the night JonBenét died and that it was her speculation based on what she claimed she went through as a child. (underline emphasis mine) ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ mary, I wouldn't put my posts too close to Ginja's if I were you ... it reminds me of John trying to have an intelligent exchange with Fish on Ally McBeal ... funny but painful... . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "v_p" Posted by mary99 on 15:35:11 4/28/2001 What you are overlooking is the relationship between the BPD and White...a friendship Steve Thomas acknowledged and one which therefore must be suspected of bias. Also, the BPD's theory of the crime has always been, Patsy did it. In spite of evidence to the contrary, the BPD has always focused solely on the Ramseys. So their pronouncements hold no weight, imo, except to verify that they, too, are agenda driven. You forget more than you remember, v_p, what about the involvement of Tal Jones aka Spade in the GJ presention he solicited JW members to attend? He offered the information that he had an insider helping him to get their story presented. What of the threatening phone calls to NK the BPD did not investigate which came from Boulder via a thrid party? What of Fleet's own crime scene behavior, Mark Beckner's "morally empty" comment as reported by ST in his book, Fleet's stonewalling in defiance of the GJ, and a thousand other little clues? Who is Fleet White? A person who is protective of his privacy or one who has a secret to conceal? He and Priscilla didn't file separate statements , imo, for a very interesting reason. Though they were told, even ordered to do so, and the reasons explained, they filed one (1) statement as a couple. Have you any logical explanation for that ? Tell me, I want to hear it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Thanks" Posted by JR on 15:06:48 4/28/2001 Thanks for the vino (hic). Wonder why a direct question never gets answered? Ginja - don't know how you do it but please keep it up! JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "OMG" Posted by v_p on 15:27:42 4/28/2001 honestly, this is too much ... I really try to be diplomatic and throw in a little sarcastic humor now and then ... but attacks??? 34. "a score?" Posted by mame on 14:39:59 4/28/2001 i enjoy ginja because she smart and we can disagree while keeping personal attacks and SCORES out of it. thank you ginja for taking the high road and disagreeing at the same time. ~*~*~*~*~*~* baby raper henchman? restless natives, (which in not politically correct, BTW). Yes, I respect Ginja too, but it's easy not to throw out personal attacks when you are blessed with the gift of being able to debate a subject intelligently. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "V_P" Posted by Frank on 15:40:56 4/28/2001 So....what was the mystery event that happened to you V_P?? I'm very curious. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "me too, V-P!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:43:31 4/28/2001 you had me very curious, I asked about that for days:-) What weren't we supposed to talk about? Who was the woman you referred to? and her friend? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "LMAO" Posted by Watching you on 15:36:12 4/28/2001 Where did you find that article about BPD's investigation results, veepee? I'll have to file that in my necessary articles file. How very uncivilized of you to point it out, though. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Mary99" Posted by Watching you on 15:38:30 4/28/2001 the more you talk, the more you hang yourself. BTW, what does this mean: "In spite of evidence to the contrary, the BPD has always focused solely on the Ramseys. So their pronouncements hold no weight, imo, except to verify that they, too, are agenda driven." Are you saying there is evidence to refute the propaganda that the BPD focused solely on the Ramseys? Yep, that's what you said, all right. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Beckner is also " Posted by Florida on 15:52:32 4/28/2001 quoted on page 14 of the complaint: "Well, unfortunately the public allegations that were made in the case led to speculation that Fleet and Priscilla White were somehow involved in this case and we have just not found any evidence that is the case nor have we ever had any evidence to implicate them in anyway." Also, on Page 16 there was apparently an article in one of the media outlets on 3/14/00 with the title "FBI IGNORES MYSTERY WOMAN CLAIMS". Does anyone have a copy of this article or know where we can get it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Wy" Posted by v_p on 15:51:47 4/28/2001 I'll send the url through email ... the others can spend an hour looking it up for themselves :o) Great line m99: >>What you are overlooking is the relationship between the BPD and White...a friendship Steve Thomas acknowledged and one which therefore must be suspected of bias. <<< Let me rearrange that sentence for you m99: What you are overlooking is the relationship between Lou Smit and the Ramseys ... a friendship, (i'd rather insert relationship here, but then that would ruin the spin, sorry), Lou Smit acknowledges and one which therefore must be suspected of bias. Who is spade? I'm sorry ... is he/she someone essential to this case I haven't heard or read about? Please tell me so I can be brought up to speed.... thanks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "look it up, vee pee" Posted by mary99 on 16:07:13 4/28/2001 for yourself. Now, since Ginja has left the buiding, I'm outta here. And, btw, if anyone had assaulted Ginja verbally the way mame was verbally assaulted, she just might have lost her cool too. Then again, mame has been putting up with this chit for a year and I don't think I could have contained my anger that long. Somebody raped Nancy Krebs when she was a baby, yet you 'folks' chuckle about it. That's sick and makes me ashamed to even argue about who has the moral high ground here. The first volleys were not fired by Mame and y'all can beach and wine all you want but there is truth anhd then there is the RS version. Have it your way, v_p and WY. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Don't let the door" Posted by Watching you on 16:09:28 4/28/2001 well, you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "WY" Posted by mary99 on 15:50:48 4/28/2001 "In spite of evidence to the contrary... {meaning the unidentified DNA, said to be male, in JB's panties, the fingernail DNA} the BPD has always focused solely on the Ramseys... {meaning they alone are under the umbrella...do you know which umbrella I mean?} So their pronouncements hold no weight, imo, {meaning what they say is biased toward Ramsey guilt} except to verify that they, too, are agenda driven." {meaning whatever they say has to be taken with a large dose of salt} Get my drift? If not, hope this helps. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "V_P" Posted by Ginja on 15:58:24 4/28/2001 LOLOLOL...Mary99 and I drove together to last week's spring fling. I'm still horse from screaming! Ain't that right, Mare? LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Hahahahah, Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 16:20:38 4/28/2001 a little horse never hurt anyone, haha. Now, hoarse, that's a horse of a different color. I enjoyed your posts very much. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "LOL "frank"" Posted by v_p on 15:59:42 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:59:42, 4/28/2001 Please keep in mind it is you and one other poster bringing that up here ... not I. I posted all that I cared to post about my experience on the daily thread weeks ago. What happened to me has not one thing to do with this case. I didn't learn anything you don't already know. I am sorry if I led you to believe otherwise. In the heat of the moment I posted on the daily ... I didn't start a thread full of mystery and innuendo, so please get off my case about it. Could I be any clearer? Thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "mysterious V-P" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:11:51 4/28/2001 you may not have started a thread, but you were mysterious enough to pique my curiousity. You said you had some sudden epiphany, that we weren't as smart as we thought we were, or maybe it was you who wasn't so smart, and that there was a particular topic we shouldn't discuss here, tho we all have but thought it too wild to consider, then you said that you wanted justice for your friend's friend and JBR. I did not ask again to be "in your face", I am only curious and asked when I saw Frank ask...you could have at least said which topic it was you were referring to, we've discussed and judged everything and everyone this side of the Rockies! I wonder if you could be more specific, that's all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Oh, okay" Posted by Watching you on 15:54:26 4/28/2001 then you need to word your sentences so they mean what you want them to say. What you said was "in spite of evidence to the contrary, the BPD has always focused on the Ramseys." Literally, what that means is that there is evidence to the contrary that the BPD has always focused on the Ramseys. No harm done, though. Keep digging that hole. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "I suppose though" Posted by Watching you on 15:56:48 4/28/2001 if I had been astute enough, I would have picked up on that. BTW, that statement is not true. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Back to Mame" Posted by Ginja on 16:10:29 4/28/2001 The media didn't make news...they reported it. they didn't report a thing that wasn't also reported in countless hours of interviews with the FBI and the BPD.] Mame, again, if memory serves me correctly here, the media was spewing before the BPD and FBI ever sat down with Nancy. I remember all the posting going on here during that time. Hunter made his statement, the media began "reporting" and we posted like mad. And then there was a lull because it was in the BPD's hands and they weren't talking! The only reason some things got back to us was because Nancy was with you and you were telling us tidbits. I'm almost sure we knew before it was published that the BPD had called the CA police and the CA police told the BPD she was a "nutcase", filing false charges and whatnot. The BPD did their investigation and found no link between Nancy and White; however, they did recognize that Nancy had some major problems (being abused and whatnot), but that was out of the BPD's jurisdiction, so they handed it over to the FBI. Again, plenty has been printed but it hasn't come from the FBI because it's just been in the last couple of weeks posters have talked about hoping the FBI was doing it's job. IOW, the FBI's not releasing any details either. How did the media get all its information? Who did Peter Boyles have on his show? Again, if memory serves me correctly, didn't Nancy's attorney appear? Didn't he make statements to the media? I understand he was trying to light a fire and get an investigation going, but one what grounds? Things his client told him? Things her psychitatrist told him? If they and the media had simply stuck to proclaiming the possibility of a sex ring in Boulder, that's one thing. But to tie Fleet White into it publicly and proclaiming it had a bearing on the Ramsey murder investigation was totally irresponsible and as it's proven out, was libelous. ginja, under your theory then nothing should be reported by the press unless it's verified and proven. the job of media is to be a vessel of information for the citizens...the job of verifying (except in investigative pieces) is the job of the cops and other governmental investigative bodies. You're absolutely right! - nothing should be reported until the press has verified it. That is, as in this case, when publicly leveling charges against citizens. Otherwise, you'd have mayhem. Just as I outlined in an earlier response to you. If someone wants to ruin a person's reputation, or otherwise siq the law on them, all they have to do is go to the press and say whatever they want...as I did in my response to you saying I could swear that you were in cahoots with Nancy and Smit. Even though the charges are patently false, would you just shrug your shoulders and laugh it off the next morning when you opened the newspaper and saw your name splashed in the headlines on the front page? Or turned on Peter Boyles and heard him and his panel talk about you and your 'sins'? Would you worry about how the twins would be treated when they got to school? Would you send them that morning? This is how people get hurt, how reputations are ruined. The idea is not to shoot and ask questions later! there have been hundreds of occassions when the rams and countless others have done or said something and the press reported it. steve thomas names dozens of instances concerning the DA's office and the ramseys that he says are true. do we know that they are fact? are you suggesting the press shouldn't report these actions and statements? should they investigate and prove beyond a resonable doubt that patsy, alex hunter, lou smit, or any in the cast of characters said or did something? no, you're confusing the job of the public officials and media. Actually, you're the one confused. ;-) First, two wrongs don't make a right. So coming back with something like, "well, the Rams did it" isn't justification for what the media did with the Krebs story. As regards Thomas, again, I've read his book twice and many others have noted the same thing...there wasn't really any "new" information in the book except for a few tidbits including JBR defecated in her bed. He repeated much of what was already known and filled in some of the blanks. What he didn't do was come out and make malicious statements against people on entirely different subject matters. He did state that the BPD investigated Nancy's allegations and found nothing as regards any link to who killed JonBenet. Note: he never said her name! He simply referred to her as a woman from California. As the media is not a court of law, a criminal court of law at that, nothing has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But there has to be some basis or foundation for the accusation. In the Ramsey case, the basis of the media attention was a murder in the Ramsey home. Investigative reporting pointed out the mistakes that were made by police and the DA's office. They also pointed out what evidence was found or not found. And they interviewed law enforcement professionals who reported statistical facts as to the various facts surrounding the murder. For example, it's fact JonBenet was sexually abused that night and prior to. That information was made public when the autopsy report was released. The FBI and others have pointed out the statistics where it's more probable fathers would molest their daughters than mothers molesting their daughters. And that's how the media builds its stories. It's taking the facts and then making sense of them (another way of validating) and then reporting the findings to the public. Then, again based on the evidence that there was no intruder coupled with statements by police and psychologist and whatnot, it's no wonder reports of parent involvement are of course relevant. Couple that with the Ramseys actions and you've got a story...news to report. What's wrong, and where you're confused is that there was no "case" of child abuse or sex rings being investigated. It would have been perfectly fine and right for the media to report that a woman came forward with information that there may be a child sex ring in Boulder. But for the news to report that Fleet White was the object of that investigation was wrong. In the Ramsey house, you had the body of a murdered child. There's no evidence of abused kids in the White house. After the police investigation into Nancy's allegations, if it was found there was a sex ring, and that sex ring involved White, and that further, there may be ties to that and the Ramsey murder, then what would have happened is that Fleet would have been arrested and charged. Then the media would have a story to report. it is the media's job to be the watchdog of public officials. a story concerning a witness such as this informs the public of her presence...it also allows the public to consider and view the process and the interviews she did with THEIR public officials. As always, the law and the media clash. Again, she and her story could have been made public by stating so...she was here to report the possibility of a child sex ring in Boulder. There has to be a line drawn as to the public's right to know. There's no question the public has a right to know...but when? The media believes in the now...tell the public everything now. But in police investigations, doing so compromises the investigation. You don't make public announcements that you "think" so and so's a pedophile. What good are the public's right to know where the perp has been warned and gets rid of the evidence! And what of his rights? There's the right to privacy, not to mention the presumption of innocence! You have no idea of the legal technicalities (obviously) and ramifications of going public in deference to an accused's rights. Sure...you identify a rapist. But what good is it when it gets thrown out of court and the perp walks!!! The public has a right to know there's a sexual offender living in their midst. But first, the state has to prove he is, indeed, a sexual offender. And then a court has to convict him of that offense. Yes, it's the media's job to be the watchdog of public officials. Fleet White's not a public official. Public officials allowed themselves to be lobbied by big tobacco companies to stay mum on the dangers of smoking. Now that's worthy of investigation and watchdogging. Because the government is aware of health hazards and keeping them from the public. You're mixing apples and oranges when you confuse whistleblowing government wrongs with persons under investigation for sex offenses. steve thomas broke your rule completely. he went on national television and told patsy she murdered her kid! whether he's right or wrong...isn't that also considered abominable and libelous? No! Again, you're mixed up and confused. The Ramsey case is public! The Ramseys have lived in a fishbowl for more than four years. They've officially been pronounced as suspects in their daughter's murder. This didn't come out of the sky! The Ramseys made it international news themselves on January 1, 1997! They brought attention to it themselves. They also pushed Thomas and demanded he enumerate all the steps Patsy took to kill her daughter. They egged him on national television. He responded. Fleet White woke up one morning, opened the paper and saw a statement by Alex Hunter that a woman from California had come to Boulder accusing White of being a sex offender, a member of a child pornography ring and involved in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey (after he had been cleared of suspicion more than 3 years ago!). Now that's abominable and libelous! if you really want to stop what you believe to be lies, you go to the source..not the media. Hello???? The source for the libelous stories was the media! Nancy Krebs did not make public pronouncements. She went to the DA's office and told her story. The DA held a press conference and told the media he had received a complaint and was referring it to the police for investigation. Hunter never should have done that, number one. And Two, the press never should have run with the story. Both the DA and media were derelict in their duties! i chose not to mention mr. white in my reports on this story. Published stories? Well good for you. You may not understand the law, but at least you didn't trample all over the Constitution! while i can certainly understand anyone involved in this case, like mr. white being disgusted with the media...he picked the wrong group to attack. he should have picked nancy krebs. No where did Nancy Krebs confront Fleet White and accuse him. No where in the media reports was it published that Nancy Krebs accused Fleet White of this or that. The media reported that DA Hunter was handing over information to the police to investigate, they published what that information was, and then the story snowballed from there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "V_P" Posted by Florida on 16:01:35 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:01:35, 4/28/2001 Tal Jones - aka Spade, Gerrymander, etc, etc, father was married to Alyce Sprague ((Nancy Krebs grandmother). Sprague was his last name at birth but he was raised by someone named Jones) He never met his father. He was and is a completely unreliable source. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "wow Florida" Posted by v_p on 16:04:11 4/28/2001 interesting information. So, was his appearance before or after NK? Did he ever implicate Mr. White prior to NK arriving on the scene? Wasn't there something on one of the forums about a rape ... was that Tal Jones? Damn, I can't start googling again, wears me out. Please point me to more info .. if it's worth the time Florida... thanks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "V_P" Posted by Florida on 16:07:26 4/28/2001 LOL, I think you are thinking of the tyzano rape hoax - no connection. I'll email you later about Tal. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Mary99" Posted by Ginja on 16:39:17 4/28/2001 Trying to catch up with all yours posts. The first one is easy cuz I've answered it already with Mame (and maybe Holly). Your post 21 wants to know what the difference is between the Krebs case and the Ramsey case. Easy. On December 26, 1996, police were called to a house in Boulder, CO for a kidnapping. There were no signs of forced entry, a ransom note was left that didn't correspond to criminal profile (note: other notes like this have been written, but the authors were family members or friends of the family...no intruders or strangers), and the kidnappers never called to collect their measly $118K. Simply stated, none of the criminal dynamics of the case meshed. And no wonder. The child's body was found in the basement hours later by the father. As the note hinted to international terrorism, it was Christmas and a media lull, the story hit the news. But it was New Year's Day when the parents went on international television to proclaim they were not the killers. This case took off and it's been in the public eye ever since. As regards the Krebs case, there are no dead children, no ransom notes, no evidence of any wrongdoing. A woman comes in from California and goes to the DA with a complaint that she's a victim of abuse and her injuries are similar to those suffered by JonBenet...that is, such injuries are typical of child sex rings. She then goes on to say her family is linked (distantly by friendship) with the Whites. She then goes on to tell the DA that her mother's godfather abused her when she was a kid and that over 20 years ago she was abused by the father's son. (Mind you, any claims like this that are made by complainants have no foundation as the statute of limitations for prosecution has long since passed!) But she includes in her story that people who abused her were in Boulder the night of the murder, and since sex rings often meet on holidays, then the assumption can be made that Fleet White had these friends in his house, together with the Ramseys, and that JonBenet was sexually abused and murdered at Fleet's. She has no proof. She's made an assumption. She's also repeating something her mother told her...a mother who pimped this woman out from the time she was 2 or 3 years old! Forget the assumptions of holidays, sex rings and murders. What can be made of this story told by a woman who admittedly has been abused her whole life by her mother and/or with her mother's blessing? Top that with the fact her mother's godfather is filthy rich and his son lives in the same town as the family of the most notorious murder of the century. Bottom line, the difference is the Ramsey's were involved in a full scale, public murder investigation, made public by their own doing. The evidence is right there in front of all...the ransom note, the body, the only people in the house. Nancy's story is an allegation she took to the DA for further investigation. There was nothing to show a crime had even been committed! And what was the crime? Sex rings or murder? It was up to law enforcement to investigate her allegations and determine whether or not a crime had been committed and whether or not the Whites were involved in any crimes alleged. Put yourself in the shoes I put Mame in in my first response to her. What if you were the person I went to police and alleged had committed criminal acts. Would you appreciate opening the paper in the morning and seeing your name slandered? Would you appreciate being hit from nowhere with being accused as a sex offender and murderer? And what of your kids? How do you think they'd be treated when they got to school? Like Mame and Holly, you're mixing apples with oranges. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "mary and edie" Posted by v_p on 16:29:48 4/28/2001 mary: >>Somebody raped Nancy Krebs when she was a baby, yet you 'folks' chuckle about it. That's sick and makes me ashamed to even argue about who has the moral high ground here.<<< Please direct me to posts where anyone on this forum "chuckled" at any individual who was raped as a baby. EdieP ... my post was in no way directed toward you, this is about the third time "frank" has asked and I've answered politely the first two times. I stand by my statement that we are not as smart as we think we are ... in some cases we wouldn't be here now if we were. edie, it's not a big deal, promise, it's just personal and I shouldn't have mentioned it, I should only have written about it in an email to those I felt I could trust and needed, in my opinion, to know ... which I did. I would never ever tell someone who has made me laugh with almost every post to get out of my face ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Ginja" Posted by Watching you on 16:34:49 4/28/2001 all kidding aside, now, and aside from the fact that I am in total agreement with every one of your posts on this thread, your posts are sterling this evening. This is not to be taken as a carte blanche approval of all your posts, both past and present, because I have thoroughly disagreed with some of them. I must say you are going to be one tough litigator, if you aren't already. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "thanks, V-P" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:33:52 4/28/2001 I just thought it sounded like we or somebody was in danger. As long as it's no big deal, then okeydoke, I'll forget about it:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "cascading disaster" Posted by darby on 18:12:16 4/28/2001 Alex Hunter--the Boulder DA--called Nancy Krebs "very believable," and maybe that's what the media used as a basis for printing the story. Even though he later called his comment "premature," he never followed up with either a retraction or an affirmation. Maybe the DA's word shouldn't have been considered enough, but the story got printed nonetheless--This fact can never be changed. The story didn't spell everything out explicitly, but it lead to speculation, especially on all the forums dedicated to the Ramsey murder. The BPD later declared Krebs' information irrelevant to the Ramsey murder, but in my opinion, they didn't tell us much else. Because of Hunter's "believable" comment, the media reports, the forum speculation, and the BPD's rather broad statement, I think there is some obligation (though frankly I don't know whose) to bring everything to light, even if Nancy's alleged experiences have absolutely nothing to do with the Ramsey murder. Forget the belief that Nancy's claims ought to remain hidden "out of respect" for her as an abuse victim--There is a greater good to be gained by outing the whole thing. There is a way to get a handle on the truth without just taking Nancy's word for what happened--starting with a look-see into Nancy's pre-murder chronicle. Sure, law enforcement doesn't HAVE to do this, but for God's sake, why haven't they--in the name of justice for whoever deserves it, be it the Whites, Nancy Krebs, perhaps even both? Until that is done, I don't know who to believe. By the way, I can understand why the whole thing raises emotional arguments, but I find the recent name-calling that has gone on wrong, including some of the ones from the so-called "brat pack." This crap has gotten in the way of the real issues. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Thank you, WY" Posted by Ginja on 16:47:21 4/28/2001 "This is not to be taken as a carte blanche approval of all your posts, both past and present, because I have thoroughly disagreed with some of them." Had me lmao on that! I appreciate your honesty! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "edie" Posted by v_p on 16:45:11 4/28/2001 I am only in danger of running out of wine, or "whine," whichever comes first. Good grief, I hope no one else felt there was someone in danger ... not that I knew about anyway... I would go directly to the authorities, not here. Sadly, our kids are in danger every day and around every corner. I hear stories of youth ministers and teachers and I get sick. My daughter has thankfully been one of the lucky young women who has not been confronted with abuse ... the statistics were against her, but she made it this far. Darby mentions on another thread that there was no history, not even a spanking to indicate abuse toward JonBenet... Darby, if you asked our neighbors and my school friends growing up about my family, they'd say we were very quiet and kept to ourselves... normal. There are dirty little secrets behind lots of locked doors ... that's why they're called 'secrets.' I can empathize with NK and hope, for her sake, she finds the help she needs, no matter to what degree her abuse went ... but I don't have to believe FW has anything to do with her abuse to do so. And I don't believe FW had anything to do with it ... do i have a point? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Tap...tap...tap" Posted by JR on 16:39:28 4/28/2001 Still wondering why a direct question is always ignored. Reference post #24. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Re your 33, Mare" Posted by Ginja on 17:03:30 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:03:30, 4/28/2001 The difference lies in the fact that one's an open investigation with more than sufficient evidence a crime was committed. The other is simply a complaint by a private person purporting to have evidence that a crime was committed, but there's no proof, therefore, she requests that an investigation be opened. Two things have to happen: her credibility has to be validated; and evidence has to be effected to prove her allegations. The Ramsey case is public because they, themselves made it so. They hired a press corps for crying out loud to answer calls, run a website and arrange for photo opps of the grieving family! Most of the information released in this case was released via the DA's office to the Ramseys and was then used by the Ramseys to publicly point to police ineptitude. IOW, the Ramseys used the media to divert attention away from themselves and point to other suspects as well as police blundering (in their words). The Rams brought attention to themselves by not cooperating with investigators, hiring their own, as well as hiring lawyers for themselves and all their relatives who lived across the country and had alibis, they held press conferences, hired their own polygraphers and refused to allow certain testing of evidence. Again, they used the media. Fleet never knew what hit him...didn't even know what was going on, until the media used Nancy's story to create their own news! Another word for that, my friend, is defamation. P.S. I said Fleet might be "hinky" but I sure as heck didn't accuse him of being a sex offender! There's a difference, there, too! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "and tap, tap, tap..." Posted by v_p on 16:51:56 4/28/2001 mary: >>Somebody raped Nancy Krebs when she was a baby, yet you 'folks' chuckle about it. That's sick and makes me ashamed to even argue about who has the moral high ground here.<<< Please direct me to posts where anyone on this forum "chuckled" at any individual who was raped as a baby. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Ginga--libel law" Posted by Morgan on 17:53:31 4/28/2001 I'll try to hot link this--http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/comm/libel.htm You need to read this, because you are going off on a tangent with libel that is just plain wrong. Here are some quotes: "Courts consider libel a tort, a civil wrong involving one party against another. A person who is libeled can sue in court to seek injunctive relief to stop the spread of the libelous material, or if the libel has already occurred and caused damage, seek monetary compensation. "In the modern times, most libel cases involve the news media. News organizations often find themselves the target of libel suits because the nature of the news busuness frequently involves reporting on people who may be implicated in events and activities that are illegal, immoral or unethical. In the past, a person who was libeled had only to prove that they were defamed by something the defendant published or broadcast. Damage was presumed. Ther were only a limited number of defenses the defendant could invoke, and consequently, libel law in practice tended to favor the plaintiff. "....In Times v. Sullivan, the Court (Supreme) provided legal protection to the media and others who speak out on public issues by making it harder for public officials to recover damages for defamatory statements. A public official would now have to prove that defamatory statements were made with "actual malice" or knowledge that the statement was false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. "Later in Curtis Publishing Co v. Butts the Supreme Court extended the Times ruling to public figures.... "Over the years the courts have considered access to the media as a factor in "libel-proofing" people who attain public status. The same media attention to which public officials and figures relinquish their anoanymity is also available to them to respond to media criticism.... "the Court has placed (value) on the principle that debate on public issues should be "uninhibited, robust and wide open". The Court has said that under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for it's correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competion of other ideas." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "interesting..." Posted by mame on 17:12:40 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:12:40, 4/28/2001 are we rewriting our own justicewatch version of the constitution? do you know ginja for a fact that fleet white didn't know what hit him? do you know that john and patsy ramsey killed their kid? do you know these things for a fact? there is no difference between fleet white and john and patsy ramsey...or anyone else in this case. they all deserve the same amount of scrutiny until someone is successfully charged and prosecuted for this murder. until then it's the public's courtroom... ginja, the comments you've made about nancy krebs are shocking...do you know this is fact? that the only relationship between fleet white and nancy krebs is a distant familial one? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Addendum to #69" Posted by Ginja on 17:09:13 4/28/2001 And how could I forget about the best use of the media by the Ramseys when they used the media market here in the US and in the UK to promote their crockumentary! And what of their media blitz of television appearances and book signings in promoting their book! Please...this is one case that can't be used as a measuring stick as to how criminal investigations are handled or how the media's responsibility is to report news, not make it! The media has gotten so swept up with the Ramseys' misuse of the media that it's forgotten what's it's true resonsibilities are! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "I think..." Posted by Ginja on 17:11:19 4/28/2001 ...I'll give it a break now and go play some games at iwon.com! And before that, I'm going to sink my teeth into that swordfish I've got cooking! Latah gang! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Ginja I hope you stick around for this!" Posted by ayelean on 17:44:41 4/28/2001 If I ever need an att'y, will you be there for me? Thanx [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "v_p" Posted by Frank on 20:19:43 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:19:43, 4/28/2001 Here is your "Good morning" post. " I had a very strange day yesterday. No, I had a bizzare day yesterday. I'm not so confident of anything about this case anymore. " I have always believed God puts us in the right place at the right time....yesterday may have been a perfect example, there's really no explanation. " I hope someday I can tell you what happened, but its not in the best interest of JonBenet that we tell everything we know on this forum. Lots read here. Suffice it to say that I have a very strong feeling a lot of us have been wrong about some things and its probably best not to make judgements unless you are absolutely certain you know what you're talking about. " Until I know for certain everything there is to know about this, I'm not going to post on the other threads......I'm just not as smart as I think I am. :0) Sorry to be ambiguous, but there are certain people I hope will see this and know I'm absolutey sincere in my quest to find some answers for her friend and JonBenet. Have a great day.... V. -end of post- I'm a very curious person by nature. Some of your comments really got my attention.What I really want to know is what are the certain aspects of the JBR case that you think many of us are wrong about?? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "v_p" Posted by darby on 18:30:18 4/28/2001 Absolutely--I realize that abuse goes on behind closed doors that NOBODY outside of the family ever knows about. I never said that just because nobody knows about it that it doesn't exist. What I'm trying to convey is that while such abuse may very well have happened in the Ramsey case, there is no proof of it to bring into a courtroom--and that sort of evidence might sorely be needed to help prove that the parents murdered JonBenet. Though Hunter has been no angel, I haven't seen much in the way of proof that he is involved in some sort of deliberate corruption of justice. I think that the mundane reason that no charges have been brought is simply that there just isn't enough evidence (right now!) to convict. This might be due to a combination of police error, DA error, moneyed suspects, and rotten luck. But I don't think there is a case against the Ramseys right now. If there was a case, I think we'd see an arrest. (Sorry if that sort of thing happened to you, by the way.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Holly" Posted by DuBois on 20:44:34 4/28/2001 What??? You said "And who cares if she is in therapy? So is 1/2 the population in southern CA. I would like to see your source for this statement. This leap you make goes to show how you make the leap to FW being in a sex ring. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Ginga" Posted by Morgan on 20:42:30 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:42:30, 4/28/2001 You said in your first post that various media ACCUSED FW of membership in kiddie porn and other nasties. Really? I just read the report on CS and your statement is not supported. What's this "limited purpose public figure" phrase of the White's? The man is a public figure, by his own action, and "limited purpose" is an invention of his, without legal basis that I know of. He states that he does not want to pursue this libel matter civilly because he's not looking to make money off of it. Money or not, libel is a civil court matter. You can ignore it if you wish, but I saw no mention that the Whites ever so much as picked up the phone or wrote one of their famous letters to Nancy's lawyer or to Nancy to discuss her allegations, when to do so would be the common sense first step in getting insight into her actions. The failure of the Whites to respond to repeated requests by the media for statements, in regards to Nancy's story, is an important element of this entire situation. As a public figure, the Whites had and have a great deal of media access, which the law recognizes as the proper means to address reporting that they claim are libelous. Sorry I misspelled your name again! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Ginja, Ginja, first things first" Posted by mary99 on 21:55:02 4/28/2001 >>>In Times v Sullivan, the Court separates private figures from public figures. Why? Because each have different recourses in responding to defamation in one form or another (slander or libel). As such, it set out that, "under the First Amendment, in other words, the *preferred* response to a defamation problem is to fix it yourself. Ginja, as others have pointed out, Fleet's first and best recourse, as a private paerson or a public figure, was to contact Krebs or her attorney directly. In your post #1, you said: >>>But since private individuals normally don't have the kind of access to mass media it takes to correct the record, the First Amendment allows the states to use libel law to level the playing field, making it easier for private individuals to counter the damage that can be done to their reputations by mass media." You imply that there was no access to the media yet every newspaper involved offered White a chance to comment. All he had to do was go on the record and categorically state the allegations were false ; he could have gone even further and state 'for the record' he had never sexually abused the 'Mystery Woman" or had any partipation in the activities she referred to. Given that he chose to make no comment it could be implied that she was either telling the truth and he didn't want to 'go on record' lying about something that would come back to haunt him later. You then stated: >>>Thus, private figures recourse is through the courts and public figures resolve their differences through the media. If public figures choose to use the Court to resolve the matters, then the bar for their standard of proof is set higher, e.g., they have to prove actual malice. As Fleet himself admitted, he said he is a 'limited purpose public figure'. So he admits that in the context of the Ramsey case, he is a public figure, but presumably in allegations of sex rings and abuse he is not. First, the allegations made by Krebs came about as the result of NK seeing the Lee Hill deposition of JRon TV. So whatever prompted her to contact Hill, had to do with the Ramsey case in the beginning. Her allegations were that there were sex parties and that her mother attended one which was held in Boulder the same year JonBenet died and that she knew of another child who confirmed that to be true. Read the libel complaint and see that her allegations were reported as possibly having bearing on the Ramsey case when she reported her experiences to the BPD, imo. Whether she or her allegations ultimately have any impact on the Ramsey case is not the point; in the context of the original newspaper article, it was clearly reported as a possible new lead in the Ramsey case. Now that we have determined that Fleet is a public figure first by his own admissions and second by the context in which the allegations were made, proceed to the actual malice standard of proof: If public figures choose to use the Court to resolve the matters, then the bar for their standard of proof is set higher, e.g., they have to prove actual malice. Here Fleet must show actual malice which from his libel complaint he clearly tried to prove. He must show the newspapers knew what they published was false when it was published and reported and yet he declined to comment. He was possibly of the opinion that without a comment from him, they wouldn't run the story, but he was wrong. Not only did they run the story, but included in the article the fact that he was asked to comment. Many times over the course of the Ramsey investigation he contacted the newspapers but in this instance he was unavailable for comment. So, defend him all you want, but it's clearly a case to me anyway, of a person who was given plenty of chances to state the allegations were false and chose not to do so, to categorically deny the allegations but chose not to do so, and who could have definitely gotten equal time in the headlines if he had chosen to respond or deny later. He has no case for complaint, Ginja! You ask, hypothetically, how one of 'us' would react if a newspaper was contacted with false allegations about one of 'us'. Let me tell you! First, if a newspaper was handed a story such as this one and made no effort to contact me prior to publication to comment, refute or deny the allegations, I could charge them with one-sided reporting in a subsequent libel complaint. Second, if the paper did contact me and I refused to comment, and they then ran the story anyway, I would ABSOLUTELY take the earliest opportunity to UNEQUIVOCALLY deny the false allegations. I would not under any circumstances hide from the world while compiling reams of media 'evidence' to build a lawsuit. Third, if the newspaper or media denied me space or airtime to refute or deny the allegations, that would point to malice or intentional knowledge the allegations which they were publishing were false, and build evidence helpful to my case-- that the publication of defamatory material continued in spite of the unequivocal and absolute denial of the allegations on my part. So--contrary to what you believe, Fleet White was given ample opportunity to deny the allegations and nip the story in the bud so to speak. The fallout continued because in his arrogance or guilt, whichever it may be, he thought he need not respond to the charges. I also believe that when he made his libel complaint he and his wife were asked to make a voluntary statement that is a mere formality: to assert that the substance of the libelous material is false. It goes without saying that to file any claim for libel, there must be in writing, an assertion from the reporting party that the statements are false. Did he make such a statement to the police? Under pains and penalty of perjury? Did he make any effort at all to correct what was inccorrect in the newspaper reports by issuing a denial? Did he at any time take advantage of his public figure status to make an accross the board denial to the numerous newspapers and media outlets which were pressing him to do so? Some may think by his silence he has retained his integrity. I happen to think he has lost every shred of credibility or integrity he ever had. His children need not have been harmed by these reports if he had simply unttered the words "What the woman said is a lie". Why do you persist in seeing Fleet through rose-tinted glasses? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "article re: fleet accused of being member of sex-ring" Posted by mapek on 21:47:06 4/28/2001 Florida, here is the article you are looking for (from 3/14/00): http://www.longmontfyi.com/Ramsey/Start_of_00/03_14_00/03_14_00.html Feds won't help accuser in Ramsey case by B.J.Plasket Daily Times-Call DENVER ? In spite of laws requiring it to provide protection and medical treatment to crime victims, the FBI has so far neither offered nor provided help for a woman who fled California three weeks ago after coming forward with accusations of interstate sexual abuse by a group that includes figures in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. etc... Morgan, you wrote (to Ginja): > > You said in >your first post that various media >ACCUSED FW of membership in kiddie >porn and other nasties. Really? See first paragraph of article cited above: "...after coming forward with accusations of interstate sexual abuse by a group that includes figures in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. " [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Well" Posted by Country Girl on 21:13:05 4/28/2001 There is a law on the books in Colorado called Criminal Libel and that's what Fleet White has chosen to pursue. Of course, it's not satisfying to some but it's his right to pursue whatever means he feels he should to stop the accusations being made about him in the press. Why would a civil suit make any difference? And what makes anyone think he won't pursue that in addition to the Criminal Libel charges? It's obvious this has hurt his family and he's not going to just sit back and take it. It seems from what I read he is well aware that the truth is a defense against the charges. Seems to me that by continuing to pursue this he isn't afraid for the truth to be told. http://64.78.178.125/cgi-dos/statdspp.exe?LNP&DOC=18-13-105 BTW, Southern California doesn't have a market on people who need therapy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 20:59:33 4/28/2001 Thanks again for all your posts. See you at iwon. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. ""frank"" Posted by v_p on 21:25:24 4/28/2001 Give it a rest "frank." It's a non-story ~*~*~*~ Ginja, great thread, great job explaining it all in terms most of us understand. ~*~*~*~ Darby, thanks, but nothing close to what happened to JonBenet happened to me ... I'm perfectly healthy and have a wonderful life ... I survived. Thanks for the sentiment though. ~*~*~*~ What I don't get is why not a single soul can answer or point to where the HELL Nancy Krebbs actually accused FW of being one of her abusers. A quote would be grand. Even a quote from one of the law officials would suffice. She, as far as I can tell, didn't say it to the press or the authorities so why the HELL would FW sue HER? Just once I'd love an answer ... tap, tap, tap. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "civil libel" Posted by mame on 22:18:40 4/28/2001 gives the person who claims libel a direct shot at the person giving out libelous information. it cuts off the source and seeks the bare naked truth in determining a charge. there's a big difference between criminal and civil. in a civil suit fleet white and nancy krebs would meet face to face. country girl, i think white's alloted time is up...or close to being up for an opportunity to file for civil libel. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "the FBI" Posted by mame on 22:02:37 4/28/2001 bruce plasket and i appealed to many different agencies for help regarding nancy. i met with the victim rights staff from the boulder county DA's office and with local shelters. plasket met with the staff of the attorney general's office and the attorney general. the FBI story is in regards to protection not investigation. the FBI gave the information to three different FBI offices throughout the country...and took her story very seriously. there is a big difference between "protection" and "investigation". plasket and i were trying to to push for help via janet reno's newly enacted "victim's rights law"... guess colorado doesn't follow those laws. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Did you know?" Posted by Country Girl on 22:02:04 4/28/2001 There is a Criminal Veggie Libel Law in Colorado? Yep, you can go to jail for putting down a rutabaga in Colorado. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Hey v_p" Posted by Tricia on 22:00:14 4/28/2001 How are ya? Just wanted to say thanks to ginja for her wonderful and hard work, plus thanks for putting FW name in the title of the thread. I know what I am getting into when I open it up. Frank, come one now. If v_p wanted to explain anything more about her post on the daily she would have. I think it is obvious this is something she doesn't want to share every detail about and I think we should respect that. Jeesh I'm glad I don't have to explain my wacky posts on the daily. Sometimes I just post what's on my mind and leave it at that. I think we should do the same for v_p. Thanks Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Cautious" Posted by watchin' on 23:23:18 4/28/2001 First of all before my 'hat' is asociated with a group, brat pack or what ever the curent target group is, let me say, I challenge any of you to find a post where I ever discussed FW or even implied he was 'hinky'. Some info an personal opinions I leave out of the public view. Last night I made a post of a visual of FW searching,non-stop for anything that could be a comment about him. I do not apologize. I read the report many times. What I do see is a man who is obsessed and paranoid. Yes, he may very well have a legitimate complaint but as pointed out in the report, it is just a fact that even cleared persons in this will be talked about. It is in there to read. What I found in that report were repeated remarks by the investigating officer that 'no comments were directly about white'. That is a fact! FW is concerned about ANY statements that the public MAY infer to be about him i.e. 'Ramseys close friend". Now that is rediculous! Either he makes a specific comlaint against a specific sourse for specific reasons and gets on with his suit or he shuts the *ell up and stops his whining aobut what people MIGHT infer from comments. That is NOT a cause for suit Jmo and will not debate it. Next. Since White DID admit a connection to NK none of us KNOW what they have talked about, IF they have talked, when they have communicated and what their relationship really is. he admits a connection without details so it is unfair and merely an assumption that NK has NOT accused FW of anything!He convienently left that info out of his complaint and opted to go after the media, which includes TV, the radio, the computer and perhaps he even records the folks in the check out line at the grocery store for taht matter! FLEET WHITE is a KEY witness and was with John when JnBenet was found. He is NOT exempt from discussion, imo. I ahve heard the most vile ASSumptions about John and Patsy, yet we are not allowed to discuss FW? I see the same thing when it comes to St. Thomas. Some groups have their favs and others who enter that sacred territory have their feet held to the fire. What make FW so darn speeeeccial? I can only assume it is that Thomas likes him so he is ok? That's about it for FW. Not that is matters but while I am at it, I will toss in a few words about NK. What ever is going on there, I find it disgusting that she is called "mentally ill". ANOTHER ASSUMPTION! None of us are qualified to make that determination. It's ok to run her down by what the media may say? Ok, then smae if fair for FW. Left over crap from incest and family abuse does not necessarily = mental illness. There are people who visit a shrink or have counseling simply because they can afford it and it is their 'fix' to shed the pressures of the daily grind. That does not mean they are 'menatally ill'. There are church deacons and little league coaches who are adored by the community and yet do unspeakable things behind closed doors. There are some who get stoned or drunk daily and have NEVER been to a counseling session. SOme of these are quite disturbed! So, let's stop with the demeaning remarks about NK. You may not like her or her message but show her some respect as a person. You say she did NOT make these allegations public, taht it was the media? Ok, so take the cue from FW and stomp the media....NTO NK! You can't have it both ways! Lastly, and this comment will probably get me flamed but I doubt I will read this thread after this post. Peresonally, I find it difficult to attempt to engage in a debate or discussion on any topic when I know that if a few don't agree with the discussion, they carry posters coments over to the yellow tape forum to redicule posters here and garneer support in a clique there. Come on guys! That is not fair. That behavior is not condusive to trust and it only causes a break down in group unity. Ican respect a flamer who addresses me out front, right here where I post, but I have no respect for the opinions of those who do it elsewhere. To engage a poster in communication and then use that interaction against them in the form of redicule at another forum shows lack of respect for your community here, for the poster you are egging on and it speaks to a lack of integrity. Sometimes it gets like kindergarten tattle-tale crap and it is neither amusing or appreciated. I am not taking sides..just making a point. I would love to see FW get what he deserves and am hoping (against logic) that his case gets as far as depositions, unless of course, he is exempt from answering any questions then just as he has been up until now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "hey, watchin'" Posted by mary99 on 23:45:58 4/28/2001 I like your straight-shooting style and you speak from the heart. Loved the visual last night too- [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Analysis of White complaint " Posted by darby on 23:15:46 4/28/2001 http://www.wb2.com/News/legal/legal_0825.htm I don't know if this has been posted here before. It's an analysis of the Whites' criminal libel complaint by Denver legal analyst, Andrew Cohen. Cohen says that it's at least arguable that the Whites are public figures. Also, he says that the Colorado criminal libel law is designed to discourage people from injuring the "peace and good order of society," rather than the reputation of an individual. Cohen thinks that since the Whites would have a hard time proving the media violated the "good order of society," they would probably have better luck with a civil suit against the paper. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "and there's more, darby" Posted by mary99 on 00:37:20 4/29/2001 Andrew Cohen seems to have a good grip on the fallacies of the White case; the following URL is on the termination of the libel complaint: http://www.wb2.com/News/legal/legal_1016.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "maypec" Posted by Morgan on 22:51:06 4/28/2001 Exactly. The article does not say that the MEDIA made the accusations. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Darby and Morgan" Posted by mary99 on 23:56:56 4/28/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:56:56, 4/28/2001 Excellent find, darby! I'm off to read it, LOL, wonder if Ginja will tell him he's wrong too! (no offense, Ginja, but you are kidding yourself about this 'criminal libel' complaint being valid 'cause you like White as a witness) Morgan, that's exactly what it boils down to! The news media reports... what someone said privately... as allegations. Whether they choose to call it 'accusing' or 'confronting' or 'making allegations'... they are reporting what someone else did and what someone else said... and using verbs as descriptives. Operative word = reporting. Why, that's so simple even WY could understand it! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Let's not forget" Posted by Morgan on 23:46:24 4/28/2001 the therapist, who from time to time becomes the object of smear campaigns by AK and others. Nancy's therapist, a certified professional, stands by Nancy's claims and has documentation that Nancy discussed the involvement of persons close to the Ramsey case in Nancy's abuse, years prior to the murder of JB. Mary Bienkowski opened up her notes to the BPD who refused to look at them. The backing of Nancy's therapist was an important factor in the media's evaluation of Nancy's story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "and another thing..." Posted by watchin' on 00:29:10 4/29/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:29:10, 4/29/2001 I understand why someone like NK with her particular story would rather hide out and shut up! I have witnessed first hand exactly what can happen when any allegations of wrong doing become public about privledged people and that is not limited to her unique situation. I watched as a woman was taken from the back seat of her car after being stabbed ten times (10) until she died. Stabbed until she finally shut the hell up! She was overburdoned with information of wrong doing and illegal activies involving her husband that spread throughout the law enforcement agency in her town that she began talking. A little here, al little there. She was subjected to a smear campaign from hell. She was rediculed, harrassed and made out the be the town crazy. She did back off out of fear and because no one took her seriously. The 'accused' had friends in very high places. They would shut her up and they did just that. It wasn't good enough that her reputation was ruined, they had to make sure she would never find a person who would support her, protect her and allow her to follow through with her story. Dead at age 29. She took her truth to the grave. NK is NOT to be discounted simply because she has been discredited. When I see that, I automatically want to know the background of those doing the discrediting. What so they have to loose if she is telling the truth? It is amazing what one can learn if they are willing to go the distacne to find out. She has a story. I hope that at least she writes it out....in great detail and puts that info in a safe place. I hope she then stays out of the public eye, tries to get on with her life and leaves the scum bags to their own demise. I am surprised and very very thankful she is alive. Thanks morgan. Great point about the therapist. Thanks Mary. Jut want us to be able to talk about what is important to us and we all have our little pet peeve about this case and mine just happens to be the power brokers. edited 'cause I have a keyboard that types incorrectly. ;-) shalom,to JonBenet, Nancy and all who have suffered in silence nite to all. Hope tomorrow is good for everyone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "watchin'" Posted by mary99 on 00:33:48 4/29/2001 Good post and I agree with you completely except would like to clarify, if I may, your statement of Nancy being 'discredited'. Those who 'discredited' her exist only in the conrtext of the internet forums and have NEVER offered any proof of any kind to back up their wild claims of mental illness, being a Ramsey plant, etc. Ultimately they discredit themselves because they neither know the details to which they claim knowledge of, nor do they analyze Fleet objectively in the context of his prior behavior. Myopia, iow. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Smear campaign from hell" Posted by Stonegate on 00:27:51 4/29/2001 The smear campaign from hell came from a few posters against Fleet White. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Stonegate" Posted by watchin' on 00:34:53 4/29/2001 Humm...Karma comes to mind. He had plenty of time to speak out and stop the presses. It is obvious to me he is special enough to do just that. Where is the sypmathy for 'boot man', LHP,Mervin, Sant, Arianna, Robert, ...to tired to go on with the list of those who are 'fair game'. nite [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Watchin'" Posted by Gemini on 00:55:54 4/29/2001 Just nipping in for a quick read before snuggling under the covers : ) . I'm finding that, the more I read your posts, the more I'm learning to respect you. Now, I don't always agree with everything you say ... hate to see anyone smeared without reasonable proof, and that includes FW and NK, along with the original smearees - the Ramsey parents. But, your words identify you as a person who is intelligent, concerned and caring. That makes me seek you out to see what you have to say, more often than not. Good to have you here at JW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "Hi, watchin" Posted by Thor on 04:22:44 4/29/2001 Yes, I agree Gemini. It's great to read your posts, very interesting. I am fairly new here, just within the last month have gotten my own computer, but have been reading off & on for about a year. This is a very interesting forum and I feel welcome here. Great folks! Please give us more input, would love to know if you have a theory. It breaks my heart about your daughter, I have a 20-year old daughter that still lives at home and I love her dearly. Cannot imagine what you must be going through. I cannot imagine, either, doing anything to harm her and this case just hits so close to home. My daughter, Stephanie, reminds me of JB. When she was six she had long, blonde curly (natural) hair and when I go back & look at pictures of her at JonBenet's age, I just get a queasy feeling. I cannot imagine doing anything like that. Anyway, I will quit rambling, good to have you here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "watchin'" Posted by mame on 08:52:04 4/29/2001 hat's off to you on a sunday morning! darby, i had never seen andrew cohen's analysis of the white criminal libel suit. thanks for finding it and posting it. andrew cohen wrote one of the best pieces on the ramsey case at the end of the grand jury...i'll have to try and find it. i think it appeared in the washington post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "The point is" Posted by Morgan on 08:20:20 4/29/2001 that for those with an agenda (other than JFJBR), it is very important to try to discredit Nancy's therapist, because some of the information in her notes, which MIGHT be revelant to this case, pre-dates JB's murder. In the situation of a person who has been victimized physically, emotionally and sexually, the legal system places value on evidence or testimony provided by a victim's certified therapist. An important strategy in trying to discredit Nancy Krebs would be to go after her therapist. Periodically posters such as AK and Rico have done just that. I had as much faith in the White Knight as anyone prior to the arrival of Nancy. I rationalized the often times perplexing behavior of the star witness (Don Paugh and the gun, Arndt calling 911 to alert police that FW was heading to the Paugh home, FW tampering with the crime scene despite an order from Arndt, FW's controlling behavior around Patsy on the 26th (as described by Pam ?, the costumer), his letters and campaign to promote division among the authorities in the case, his efforts to have Michael Tracy fired, etc). I'm not willing to overlook these things anymore. FW should not get a free ticket because this case needs a hero. Noone else does. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "Oh please..." Posted by Florida on 09:13:15 4/29/2001 Where is the sypmathy for 'boot man', LHP,Mervin, Sant, Arianna, Robert, ...to tired to go on with the list of those who are 'fair game'. nite Put Burke on your list and you will find many of the same people who protest the lynching of FW without any evidence protested when LHP, Mervin, Arianna, Santa (and his wife and children), Bootman, etc. were trashed too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "E(evidence) TICKET" Posted by Florida on 09:19:07 4/29/2001 FW should not get a free ticket because this case needs a hero. Noone else does. No one is giving him a free ticket. Just show us some EVIDENCE he is involved in a sex ring or in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. You need to provide the E-ticket if you expect anyone to believe this. To everyone else (other than a few of you on the internet) this accusation and story are dead. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 106. "PLEASE POST ON" Posted by Holly on 09:21:55 4/29/2001 the new thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]