Justice Watch Support JW "White's Basis III" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... White's Basis III, mary99, 19:24:14, 4/29/2001 Clarification of alleged libelous statements, mary99, 19:37:03, 4/29/2001, (#1) Mary, Ginja, 20:28:04, 4/29/2001, (#2) Answers, Ginja, 20:33:01, 4/29/2001, (#3) Ginja, watchin', 20:45:48, 4/29/2001, (#4) I can just picture it..., Country Girl, 21:06:00, 4/29/2001, (#9) gross cg, v_p, 21:08:19, 4/29/2001, (#10) watchin, v_p, 21:03:34, 4/29/2001, (#6) watchin, Ginja, 20:57:09, 4/29/2001, (#5) Air is clear now ;-), watchin', 21:20:38, 4/29/2001, (#13) Don't worry, Msracoon, 21:05:40, 4/29/2001, (#8) well hell, v_p, 21:05:08, 4/29/2001, (#7) Ginja, mary99, 22:27:12, 4/29/2001, (#18) Well dang, v_p, Ginja, 21:16:31, 4/29/2001, (#11) Recations, Ginja, 21:17:12, 4/29/2001, (#12) pul-eeze, Ginja!!, mary99, 04:15:19, 4/30/2001, (#22) ROTFLMAO, Mare, Ginja, 12:02:39, 4/30/2001, (#45) V-P, watchin', 21:28:27, 4/29/2001, (#15) Duh, Ginja, 21:21:46, 4/29/2001, (#14) Bett'r than Clear ;-), Ginja, 21:50:57, 4/29/2001, (#16) Ginja #16, watchin', 22:07:55, 4/29/2001, (#17) Ginja, Florida, darby, 23:16:29, 4/29/2001, (#20) Uh..., Holly, 22:47:48, 4/29/2001, (#19) Holly, Ginja, 12:39:13, 4/30/2001, (#47) ginja, another reply for you :-), mary99, 00:01:16, 4/30/2001, (#21) Mare, Ginja, 18:06:45, 4/30/2001, (#55) Just catching up with these threads, A.K., 06:04:07, 4/30/2001, (#23) watchin, v_p, 06:34:01, 4/30/2001, (#25) I didn't hear, 1000Sparks, 06:28:34, 4/30/2001, (#24) Psst Sparky,, Florida, 06:37:04, 4/30/2001, (#26) Florida, 1000Sparks, 07:00:42, 4/30/2001, (#27) AK, Morgan, 07:12:07, 4/30/2001, (#28) AK, Holly, 08:45:00, 4/30/2001, (#38) Mary99, Florida, 07:24:38, 4/30/2001, (#29) FL, Holly, 08:48:43, 4/30/2001, (#40) Florida, mary99, 07:35:17, 4/30/2001, (#30) florida, mame, 07:54:44, 4/30/2001, (#32) Actually Mary99, on, Florida, 07:54:14, 4/30/2001, (#31) yes, but , mary99, 08:02:54, 4/30/2001, (#34) AK, mame, 08:00:38, 4/30/2001, (#33) Mary99, why, Florida, 08:18:55, 4/30/2001, (#35) FLA, Morgan, 08:37:51, 4/30/2001, (#37) when, Florida?, mary99, 08:29:27, 4/30/2001, (#36) Truth, Morgan, 08:46:49, 4/30/2001, (#39) What the Whites actually said, Florida, 09:25:53, 4/30/2001, (#41) not the same thing, Florida, mary99, 09:43:58, 4/30/2001, (#42) I read it all..., Pedro, 10:07:01, 4/30/2001, (#43) Well Pedro, Morgan, 11:32:43, 4/30/2001, (#44) Morgan..., Pedro, 12:22:08, 4/30/2001, (#46) LOL Pedro, freebird, 13:02:05, 4/30/2001, (#49) Freebird!!!!, Pedro, 13:26:27, 4/30/2001, (#50) Mary, I think, Florida, 12:50:56, 4/30/2001, (#48) a few thoughts, fly, 14:01:06, 4/30/2001, (#51) fly., Holly, 14:05:39, 4/30/2001, (#52) Florida...., Voyager, 14:22:53, 4/30/2001, (#53) context, fly, 14:33:46, 4/30/2001, (#54) Well since you brought, Holly, 18:39:47, 4/30/2001, (#57) au revoir, mary99, 18:26:20, 4/30/2001, (#56) Mare, Ginja, 18:49:27, 4/30/2001, (#58) You're right, Mare!, Ginja, 19:14:57, 4/30/2001, (#59) I think SEX OFFENDER, Holly, 20:35:12, 4/30/2001, (#69) SHADOW announcement at another , Holly, 19:38:58, 4/30/2001, (#60) umm, does that mean, mary99, 19:43:45, 4/30/2001, (#61) FBI report......, rose, 20:17:15, 4/30/2001, (#64) context, fly, 19:47:46, 4/30/2001, (#62) fly., Holly, 20:02:24, 4/30/2001, (#63) tsk tsk Holly, v_p, 20:19:19, 4/30/2001, (#65) The Rammers, Holly, 20:31:06, 4/30/2001, (#67) oh and mary, v_p, 20:20:50, 4/30/2001, (#66) thanks, v_p , mary99, 20:37:37, 4/30/2001, (#71) WOW Mary, freebird, 20:42:57, 4/30/2001, (#72) Holly, Scully, 20:34:24, 4/30/2001, (#68) Scully., Holly, 20:36:21, 4/30/2001, (#70) yep, Scully, 20:52:31, 4/30/2001, (#73) freebird, v_p, 20:58:19, 4/30/2001, (#74) Anyone Who Wants To!!, shadow, 23:02:24, 4/30/2001, (#75) ................................................................... "White's Basis III" Posted by mary99 on 19:24:14 4/29/2001 Carry on... [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Clarification of alleged libelous statements" Posted by mary99 on 19:37:03 4/29/2001 With all due respect to Ginja, I'm re-posting my comments from thread 2 because in some of her inaccuracies she paints a different picure from what was actally done or said. A reply to Ginja's post 54, Fleet's Basis,part 2: You said: "This entire situation rests with the media who ran blindly with a "lurid" story that was not in the vital interest of the public." Sorry, the paper, imo, didn't run 'blindly' ... they reported what came from the DA's office in a news conference. The nature of the allegations themselves may be 'lurid' but the news media is (currently) under no legal obligation to self-censor or independently investigate or verifiy what the District Attorney announces to the press -- whose role is to inform the public. You said: "The media printed stories alleging Fleet White was a sex offender." This is where you consistently get it wrong. May I rephrase that statement to be closer to the actual circumstances? It would read, imo: The media printed a story based on information given to DA Hunter in which a woman alleged the death of JonBenet could be the result of sex ring activity. The media also printed that the woman's family is related to the Whites through a godfather relationship. You also said: "They did not take into consideration whether or not the allegations were true.....what the media did was maliciously attack a citizen with outrageous, unverified criminal allegations. They disregarded their responsibility to truthfulness, integrity and ethics and instead went for the fame and fortune in ruining a man's reputation. Wrong, Ginja, they neither attacked the man personally (they did not repeat attacks on hin either) nor did they need to consider whether the allegations were true. They reported what came from the Dictrict Attorney's office of Boulder Colorado, where DA Hunter, as a duly elected official is free to speak to the people of Colorado through the press in matters of public interest. Whether you think it is tasteful or kind of him or the BDC to do so is irrelevant. In murder cases such as this one, there is an overriding public interest and no historical basis for self-censorship of the press. Only in the most corrupt communities would a story such as this never see the light of day. You said: "What did he do in the Ramsey murder case to afford him the title "public figure". Yesterday I posted he wrote letters and visited the governor." Yes, those letters and public appeals to remove Tracy and appoint a special prosecutor do make him a public figure. But aside from his 'concerned citizen' public figure status, what makes him a public figure irregardless, is his presence at the crime scene, his eternal and irrevocable status as the one human being who was with John when the body was discovered and his automatic inclusion as a result in any case discussion. (Comment to Fleet: Next time you are called to a crime scene, STAY HOME!) On defamation, you said: "The allegations the media made about Fleet White were false..." Wrong!! The allegations were made by Nancy Krebs!!! The BDC did not allege that Alex Hunter held a press conference, he DID hold a press conference. "...the BPD investigated the charges and found the charges had no basis or merit..." That is irrelvevant to whether the paper could print the story as the charges had not been investigated at that point; the press conference was to announce the new investigation into those allegations. The BDC is fully protected if what they printed was in fact 'straight from the horse's mouth' meaning Hunter and even if later proven to be incorrect -- which as long as the FBI investigation continues, it has not necessarily been proven to be -- it was printed to inform the public of new developments and as such there is no implied guarantee that it is to be taken as gospel. DA's often give the public information which later proves to be incorrect, but at the time it is given, it is what they believe to be true. The double murder of the Vermont professors has had such twists and turns several times already. Again, Ginja, you envision a world where no media outlet can utter a single thing unless there is a conviction to back it up! Not in this country at this time! You finish off with malice as applied to White: "Did the media act with malice in printing untrue, scandalous allegations against White? By their own code of responsibility and ethics, the people involved in spreading these stories did not validate their allegations." The newspaper did not allege, Ginja, it reported allegations! BIIIG difference! G: "They did not seek out the truth. In doing so, they totally disregarded White's rights to privacy." They did not pretend to be investigating this story, Ginja, they brought the information as detailed by Hunter to the public. Simple. G: "And where is the support in responding to the public's vital interest? What vital interest to the public was served?" There is an overwhelming public interest in the Ramsey case. Some go so far as to say, too much interest in the Ramsey case. Do you propose a media blackout until a trial and conviction? G: "Did the public really need to know that someone from another state made outrageous, unfounded claims against one of its citizens?" First, yes, the public has a right to know...that does not mean everyone MUST know it, but is free to choose to read or not. The NYT presents a wide variety of news daily. By doing so it assumes that someone, somewhere may be interested in reading it. That does not mean every reader is going to be interested or find it newsworthy, though. You then go on to characterize the allegations made as "inflammatory" and "outragous". Sorry, those are your personal reactions to the material. I saw nothing "inflammatory" and "outragous" in the details presented except for the nature of the allegations themselves, which if true, are sickening, but that is again an emotional reaction to information presented in a neutral manner. If a paper reports allegations of governemnt corruption, for instance, is the paper guilty of being "inflammatory" and "outragous" ? Or are the alleged perpetrators of the corruption the rightful targets of your reaction? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Mary" Posted by Ginja on 20:28:04 4/29/2001 You ignore the law, you ignore the responsibility of the media, and then have the gaul to say I'm inaccurate? Get ready, because you're about to get hit! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Answers" Posted by Ginja on 20:33:01 4/29/2001 You never really answered the questions I posed yesterday. I thought I had. I didn't think you were someone who needed a line-by-line explanation/response to each of your questions. You may have had several questions but they were all basically asking the same thing. The view you take regarding Fleet's libel case is full of your own bias. Spare me, Mare. Look who's calling the kettle black! You, Mame, Hol, Morgan, Darb, watchin...you guys really are having a problem comprehending the issue. Two threads and several posts by me explaining that this is not a Nancy Krebs issue, yet you all want to have answers to questions regarding her! Just look at all your questions that follow. You brand me with making all kinds of assumptions as regards Nancy. Hello? How many times do I have to say it? This (these) thread(s) are to discuss the legal issues and ramifications of Fleet White's libel complaint against the media. Where in that sentence do we see anything about Nancy Krebs? If there's any bias in these threads, it's yours and the previously named forcing the issue that Nancy Krebs take precedence here and be discussed. Call it what you want. I call it an intrusion. Make that biased intrusion. Number one, you ASSUME she is not telling the truth. No assumption, Mare. From a Boulder City press release issued May 22, 2000: "Boulder Police spent about 11 weeks investigating the allegations, which included conducting 22 interviews, reviewing medical and psychological records, reviewing photographs and recordings, consulting with a forensic psychiatrist, and comparing the allegations against physical evidence and current knowledge of the case. As a result, Boulder Police and prosecutors working on the case have concluded that other than the woman's statements, there is no evidence to support this theory of JonBenet's murder. "The Boulder Police have spent a significant amount of time investigating the claims made by this woman and her attorney," Prosecutor Mike Kane said. "There is simply no credible evidence to link anything she alleges to the death of JonBenet. The expenditure of additional police and prosecutorial resources is unwarranted." Boulder Police have made no judgments or conclusions about abuse the woman may have suffered in prior years in California. It is well established that she was a victim of sexual abuse in 1979-80, for which a suspect was arrested and convicted. However, the current investigation did not find any connection between the abuse she suffered and the death of JonBenet Ramsey. This is the second time Boulder Police have investigated the possibility of JonBenet's death being connected to a "sex ring" or pornographic operation involving numerous people. On each occasion, no credible evidence was found to support such speculation. "We needed to take the time to complete a thorough investigation," Police Chief Mark Beckner said. "Unfortunately, the allegations have led to speculation that Fleet and Priscilla White, former close friends of the Ramseys and hosts of the 1996 Christmas party, were somehow involved in the sexual abuse and death of JonBenet. We have no evidence whatsoever to support this and have never had evidence to support such an allegation. Nor do we have any evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation." You go on to call her a 'possibly mentally disturbed' woman'-- with the implication Fleet did not sue her civilly because he felt sorry for her - another assumption. There are two questions/statements here. As regards her mental health, go to the web and search on sexually abused women/children and mental health. As the results are in the thousands, I'll shorten it. Every site visited that is an organization set up to help sexually abused children and/or women include a staff to tend to the mental health needs of these patients. All the sites visited that merely talk about treatment and needs of the sexually abused child/woman includes a section or chapter on the mental disorders associated with the abused child/woman. All sites visited that simply listed bibliographies or papers or seminars or conferences all had sections or at least included the mental health of the sexually abused. Mary, you do not go through a life of sexual abuse, pimped out by your own mother from the age of 3, passed around to men at parties being tortured and mutilated, where that abuse continues well into your adult life, including more than ten years of therapy, and come through without mental health problems! Of course, if that's not enough "proof", then let's just ask her lawyer: In the 2/26/00 Daily Camera article, Hill said: "...the California woman has been in therapy for years as a result of the abuse." As regards the Fleet statement, you certainly got that ass backwards! Actually, your whole statement there is ass backwards! I didn't remember calling this woman mentally disturbed. I did a search in this thread and found that it was Holly who first claimed I called Nancy mentally disturbed. And that's how rumors start. Because I never said any such thing from my searches. In the first thread, in my first post, I was making a case for Fleet going after the media. I ended the post with these words: "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?" So, you misquoted me, ergo your accusation is false. I was setting up a hypothetical question, probably rhetorical. Do you do this? Or do you do that? Do you go after the party who didn't defame you? Or do you go after the party that did defame you? You assume that Fleet is not a public figure - though he himself admitted he is one (presumabling in context of the Ramsey case) Once again, you're misquoting and misrepresenting! In the first thread I spelled out why he could be considered a limited purpose public figure. In this thread I stated I had thought about it and it's possible he may not fall into that category. As regards what Fleet said, again, it was no admission! He said he "believed he might be a limited purpose public figure." You assume there was NO EVIDENCE presented to the DA by Krebs and her attorney. I most certainly did not! You're assuming that I assumed! As a matter of fact, I posted that the press ran with the announcement from Hunter that he was handing the information over to the BPD for a full investigation. Now if I assumed she hadn't presented him evidence, then what would he hand over to the police? You assume Nancy knew 'of' the Ramseys vs KNEW the Ramseys. Again, you're making assumptions that I'm assuming. Where is there any mention of Nancy personally knowing the Ramseys? In the police reports quoting the articles, and in the articles themselves, she says she knows the Ramseys through the Whites. How? She knows the Whites, so when she sees Ramsey's name and White's name together, it clicks? Oh? I know the Whites, therefore I know the Ramseys! You assume Fleet 'didn't know what hit him'. Actually, that was Mame who assumed in Post #71 in the first thread. At least, that's the first occurrence of "didn't know what hit him". ;-) How do you know Fleet knew what was going on before Nancy's story hit the papers? The reporter contacted Fleet the night before, informed him the story was going to be in the morning paper, and did he have any comment to make. You assume he never threatened or harrassed her directly or through a third party prior to her coming forward. LOLOL...good grief, Mare...the only one assuming here is YOU! Where is your proof that Fleet White contacted Nancy Krebs and threatened or harassed her? The police conducted an 11-week investigation into Fleet allegations. That means, the police contacted and interviewed Nancy. If she told the police Fleet had threatened her, then that information would have been included in the police investigation report. If Fleet White threatened or harassed Nancy, the press would have been on it in a heartbeat. They had no qualms printing anything Nancy reported without verifying it first, including charging Fleet as being a sex offender. Hell! If he had threatened her, that would have really sold the papers! My two posts regarding the media and the 'way we get our news' clearly pointed out that there is an overriding public interest in reporting allegations made in a high profile case...I cited Ramsey, Eisenberg and Skakel as examples. Try again, kiddo! There were dead bodies where those names appear! There are no dead bodies in Fleet White's house! You said the media shouldn't be able to report allegations until they have been proven to be true. Does that include police or DA's office press conferences? What you don't appreciate is the constitutional right to privacy! What you don't appreciate is the journalist's responsibilities, which include: · Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. · Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. · Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges. As far as reporting allegations, that is as regards public officials. Not public figures, but public officials. What's vital to the public is whether or not the state tries to control us or trample upon our constitutional rights. As regards press conferences, there was no harm with the press reporting that a woman came forward with information that could have an impact on the Ramsey murder investigation. But until her allegations were verified, they never should have been made public nor should Fleet's name have been dragged through the mud. If a story comes from the DA's office, it can be published! Where do you think the Ramsey case would be right now if this so-called media gag was in effect? Just because a 'story' comes out of the DA's office doesn't mean carte blance approval for publication! Why do you think the Ramsey case is on the shelf? If this media gag had been in effect from the beginning, the Ramseys wouldn't have had the police investigation and evidence handed over to them on a silver platter! They wouldn't have been able to "cook up" a story. IOW, it's highly likely this case would be solved today if the media, and the DA's office, had acted responsibly. There would be no newspaper coverage at all! Don't be an idiot! LOL Okay, so according to you, the only news fit to print are unsubstantiated criminal allegations against citizens. Statements like that Mare make you look a bit looney! ;-) You did not fully answer the question I posed because you are, simply, wrong. You continue to post long, legalistic exositions on the law, defamation, libel, etc. etc. but in doing so you are simply off on a tangent. And this is what Morgan thought deserved a response from me? Jeesh! You do not fully understand the topic of this thread! If you did, I wouldn't have had to post long, legal explanations on the law, defamation, libel, etc., etc., etc. I'm not the one on a tangent, Mare. I'm not the one making assumptions. I'm not the one who doesn't understand the difference between journalistic integrity and yellow journalism. The Daily Camera reported a story. Oh really? From the police report: "The story discusses the meeting between Alex Hunter and X. This meeting, according to X, occurred at X's residence. The author X was also present. X recounted the woman's story to Hunter. Later in the story, X writes about how the story was initially publicized: ""The next day, however, X called. He'd decided that the woman's best protection would be to publicize her story. Then, if anyone made a move against her, he'd draw attention to himself. X X and Hunter were against the idea, but X remained convinced that this was the best way. And that's how a brief outline of the woman's allegations hit the newspapers."" They did not quote Nancy Krebs nor did they go any further than what the DA's office itself said. No, they didn't quote her. They just told her story in print, on the radio and on the 6 o'clock news. They did not posit an opinion about what the information might mean in the Ramsey case. Titles: 2/26/00: Charges Shed New Light on Ramsey Case 2/26/00: Ramsey Case Link Checked (Woman Claims Sexual Molestation as a Child 2/28/00: Credibility Questioned in Ramsey Case 5/19/00 editorial: Another Theory Shot Down They did not defame Fleet White...in fact, he was asked to comment and DIDN'T. No? TV, radio and newspapers tell the tale of a woman who has been sexually abused her entire life, pimped out by her mother since age 3, is the victim of a child pornography ring, and is still be abused today...this woman's family has ties with the Whites since the 1930's, she alleges JonBenet Ramsey attended a sex party at the Whites, was sexually abused and then murdered...at the Whites. She says her abusers were at that party. So what you're saying, Mare, is it's okay for the media to broadcast that you're a sex offender and murderer, that you harbor criminals in your home, and you're a member of a child pornography ring. Right. No defamation there! As regards Fleet giving a comment...again, the purpose of contacting the subject of scandal is to ask and then include any comments in the article or broadcast making the allegations. There was no diligence here on the reporter's part when he called the Whites at night asking for a comment when the article had already been sent to the press. You are trying to re-write a new version of the constitution. Not me! If anyone's trying to rewrite the laws, it's you! I'm not rewriting anything, Mare. I'm just interpreting. What I see is that some posters have total disregard for the rights of others. They only seek out their own lurid curiosity and think it's called ethical reporting! LOLOL There IS freedom of the press and the BDC actly with great care in not going any further than what the law allowed. There is NO responsibility to verify information presented to the public by the DA except in your own idealized, but unrealistic view of the law. Excuse me? Are you serious in saying the DA doesn't have to verify information? That it's okay for him to make outrageous claims? It's okay for him to shoot first, ask questions later? If that isn't the most idiotic thing I've ever heard! You want that kind of government, kiddo, you need to pack your bags and head for China or Iraq or Iran or any of those places where there is no free press, only a state controlled press that says what it wants with total disregard for the truth! How the hell can you and others trample this place demanding the truth, and then turn around and proclaim the DA doesn't have to verify facts before releasing them to the public? What on god's earth are you smokin' tonite!!!! LOLOL Sorry to have to say you are wrong, but this issue is important to me and others and you seem to have been appointed a leader of sorts. Leader of the thread, if anything; and that's only because I opened it. Otherwise, I brought up a topic for discussion (which is being totally ignored by you!). Any leadership skills here is to try to keep to the topic. What do you make of Fleet's utter refusal to ever try to correct the newspapers or media, to right the wrong by going on the record to say it's a lie? Oh what? Now you want my opinion? After you've insulted me paragraph after paragraph? What makes you so sure I won't "assume"! Imho, he did the right thing. He collected the evidence. The war against Fleet White was fought on several fronts, not just the Daily Camera. He was flanked on all sides by television news, print media, and radio broadcasting. The media declared war, not Fleet White. He shouldn't have had to defend himself. If he had, it would have been nothing more than he said/she said. He did it the right way...he consulted an attorney. Is not his silence to be construed as possible guilt? I think a judge would ask that very question if this were to go to court. "When you became aware of the allegedly defamatory material, Mr. White, did you contact the newspapers to inform them it was a lie?" You've got it all assbackwards again! The judge doesn't ask the questions! The burden of truthful reporting isn't his. It was the responsibility of the media to make sure the stories they were broadcasting or printing were true. The only question before the Court would be whether or not the allegations were true and if they were verified as such before being made public. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Ginja" Posted by watchin' on 20:50:08 4/29/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:50:08, 4/29/2001 Leave me out of your rantings and group classifications. I NEVER asked you to explain a damn thing about anylegal complaints. I dealt with legal eagles too many years to expect a straight answer about the weather, so I would't waste my time with anything really important. No tongue in cheek here and it is not meant to be a humerous remark. I can defend MW's situation without connecting her to FW and I have done just that on very few posts. I only have two gripes in this matter. One: People want to dictate who can be discussed in this case. Two: I find it strange that FW did not go after his accuser. I would not have to mention this again if you had read the post on the other thread. I have NEVER associated or implicated FW in any wrong doing. If you take exception to me finding humor in a person searching the airwaves and internet posts for any INFERENCE to him or his family, that is your problem. Other than that, I am NOT involfed in what you are so desperately trying to stomp out or explain away with your legal mumbo-jumbo. I have had enough of the legal double speak and theatrics in real life to last me a life time and I don't need it here, especially when I go out of my way to avoid your postings. FACT: FW is AVOIDING his accuser. That is my one and only point and I just may make it a signature post. Get back! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "I can just picture it..." Posted by Country Girl on 21:06:00 4/29/2001 Somewhere in Boulder Alex Hunter is sitting in his hot tub with a big fat 'showed-you' smile on his face. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "gross cg" Posted by v_p on 21:08:19 4/29/2001 he's dressed, right? His day is coming ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "watchin" Posted by v_p on 21:03:34 4/29/2001 >I can defend MW's situation without connecting >her to FW and I have >done just that on very few >posts. Thing is, this is the JonBenet Ramsey forum... not the Nancy Krebbs forum ... why are you defending her here when her story has been investigated and by all accounts has nothing to do with the JBR murder case. >I only have two gripes in this >matter. >One: People want to dictate who can >be discussed in this case. Who is dictating who can be discussed? >Two: I find it strange that FW >did not go after his accuser. Who is his accuser watchin?? Where is a quote? (don't worry, I don't really expect an answer) >Other than that, I am NOT involfed >in what you are so desperately >trying to stomp out or explain >away with your legal mumbo-jumbo. Maybe if people would stop coming back with assinine arguments, she would stop having to explain it over and over again. IMO, in some instances, the horse is real dead. As for legal mumbo-jumbo, it takes time and energy to acutally research and then post the things Ginja has posted. It wouldn't hurt some others to do a little research as opposed to going off half-cocked all the time. >I have had enough of the legal >double speak and theatrics in real >life to last me a life >time and I don't need it >here, especially when I go out >of my way to avoid your >postings. Weren't you the one who said a person should scroll if they don't like a post or poster? Yeah, theatrics, hate 'em myself ... written or otherwise. >FACT: FW is AVOIDING his accuser. That >is my one and only point >and I just may make it >a signature post. Get back! who is his accuser and what did she/he accuse him of? Quotes would be nice. Avoiding would not be taking your entire family to the police station with all the crap that's been written about you to file a complaint that will, as has been proved, become public knowledge. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "watchin" Posted by Ginja on 20:57:09 4/29/2001 No humor intended here: Get a life! See something you don't like, scroll! If you're not up to legal mumbo-jumo, what the hell are you doing here? Get lost! Your last post was a typical whiner. The only nice thing I have to say to you is that I'm sorry I inadvertently included your name. That was a mistake. Perhaps a simple line to me stating such would have sufficed. Whine, whine, whine. Someday when you grow up you might learn how to make a correction. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Air is clear now ;-)" Posted by watchin' on 21:20:38 4/29/2001 >No humor intended here: >Get a life! >See something you don't like, scroll! I usually find something of value in ALL posts. I rarely scroll. What I DON'T like is having you putting names together in a group meant to cause others to view them in a bad way so this topic will stop. you had no reason to put my name there. Get a clue! ">If you're not up to legal mumbo-jumo, >what the hell are you doing >here? Get lost!" Sounds like you think you are the only 'legal resource' and if I am not up to buying into some of your bias, I should leave? A bit grandiose, don't ya think? ">Your last post was a typical whiner. This statement is typical deflection. When called on an issue blame it on 'whining'. What is was ginga was my annoyance at your iresponsible postings while you chastize others for the same thing. > >The only nice thing I have to >say to you is that I'm >sorry I inadvertently included your name. >That was a mistake. Perhaps >a simple line to me stating >such would have sufficed. You have given me no reason to think 'anything simply stated' would be understood. >Whine, whine, whine. Someday when you >grow up you might learn how >to make a correction. Calling corrections 'whining' is a smoke screen and a bit dramatic. I can understand why you put my name there. You must have seen the initials FW in a post and ASSumed I was connecting him to the murder or something equally as evil. That is the mindset here. No one can discuss him without being labeled and I resent it and stated that...clearly, I hope. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Don't worry" Posted by Msracoon on 21:05:40 4/29/2001 one day "all things hidden in darkness will be revealed by God's light..." It is written. I find all the voluminous writings reference the law quite amusing actually, having been in the legal field since 1978. I must confess, however, that I have scrolled 99% of it. Still, I find the writings along with arrogance amusing. Pride always cometh before a fall... Ms.Rac. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "well hell" Posted by v_p on 21:05:08 4/29/2001 that was a lot easier than all the crap I just wrote, lol. I shouldn't have spoken for you ... you do just fine yourself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Ginja" Posted by mary99 on 01:01:45 4/30/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:01:45, 4/30/2001 You could be a fine advocate for JBR and the side of justice but for some reason you see this libel case in terms of a perceived injustice to Fleet White. Whatever, it's your call. I'm not going to get into a debate, because it's clear you aren't about to change your mind about whether FW is good or bad, but I do want to share the notes I made while reading your reply to me: On Bias: Ginja, you take the law to extremes to find Fleet in the right. You neglect to note he made no attempt to correct the percieved wrong civilly, as he was advised to do by the BPD, nor did he ever attempt to go 'on the record' in the media to state that the allegations were lies! A lawyer may defend a client who chooses not to follow common practice or make a media statement, but a judge would not overlook the fact White never ever defended himself properly as he would if the statements were,in fact, false. Good luck to him with a libel suit in which he refused to correct the falsehoods! I have never, btw, pretended to be a legal expert, so I have no obligation to be unbiased or impartial. You, otoh, present 'legalistic spin' tilted in White's favor as a legal opinion on his case. That is what I meant by bias. On Truth: The BPD is not the sole arbitor of truth, btw, but you need to re-read this comment again, carefully: Mark Beckner: We have no evidence whatsoever to support this and have never had evidence to support such an allegation. Nor do we have any evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation." Please, don't play us for fools because it's clear Beckner is saying that there could be evidence that points to the White's involvement in a sex ring! He left them out of that completely! On Mental Illness: You quote the damage done to victims of sex abuse and assault. Fine, but there is a biiig difference between being in therapy and being mentally disturbed--and you indicated she was 'possibly mentally disturbed' --the same words Nancy's detractors have used to discredit her-- i.e. delusional, psychotic, etc., all completely untrue but incidentally exactly how people who don't even know her have tried to discredit her! On Public Figure Status: I will not waste bandwidth arging whether FW is or isn't a public figure, although you said at one point he was a private citizen; I now think that issue has been put to rest. Other Assorted Comments: ;-) ** As far as my comment that you seem to think there was no evidence presented to the DA, it's true you did not state as much. However, in light of your characterizations of the allegations as 'inflamatory' and 'outrageous', subjecting him to ridicule, ruining a man's life, etc. I can't help but infer that you find the allegations preposterous and are not concerned that they may be, in fact, true. Ginja, you forget the threatening phone calls placed from Boulder to Nancy's grandmother in CA. You forget the phone calls to the therapist from the grandmother...these calls were taped and the BPD did not review them , source them,or in fact investigate them...if they had investigated them , it's possible the BPD would have reached a different conclusion at the end of their 11-week investigation. (That's why I'm here fighting for Nancy Krebs, because what should have been done wasn't done and the BPD's word isn't good enough for me until and unless they do a proper investigation!) ** You say because Fleet had no dead bodies in his house, he is exempt from scrutiny? LOL The Skakels had no dead bodies either, Ginja, and it took twenty-five years but the truth caught up to him anyway! ** You cite Fleet's constituational right to privacy. Show me where a public figure, a limited purpose public figure such as Fleet, is protected from having allegations reported in the course of a DA's press conference which may reflect on his family. ** You say if a media gag had been in place this case would or could be solved today. True or not, you are not quoting the 'actual freedom of the press' you are quoting an idealized view of 'what it ought to be' --but there is no media gag in place right now in the press. ** You go on to call me looney (haha) by saying I would only like to see unsubstantiated allegations in the press. Not true at all and please play fair! I simply said there is no responsibility on the part of the press to investigate or substantiate allegations reported by the DA's office in a press conference. It would no longer be the 'NEWS' if it was old news by the time it was reported. This 'libelous article' was announced as a new development in the Ramsey case, and obviously to expect them to investigate it for 11 weeks before reporting it is just...silly. ** As far as the nature of the allegations, go back to square one and wonder why Fleet NEVER EVER said in public, for the record, it was a LIE. Too dignified to comment? Fine, go ahead and think so. I know there were media people and journalists waiting and wondering when he would speak up and then when he didn't, more conclusions were drawn. It frankly would have been very prudent of FW to make an early and public denial of the allegations and I have to wonder if his silence affected the continuing coverage in a way unfavorable to Fleet. ** Hunter was not the topic when I said that the newspaper isn't under any obligation to verify the allegations it reports. You switched the focus to say Hunter should be the one verifying allegations because it was easier than admitting that in this instance, I'm right. LOL. Now Hunter can't announce a new development until he has investigated it and seen it go to a trial and conviction? LOL. ** You say judges don't ask questions. The judges I've met do ask questions, and would ask probing questions in a case such as this where no civil libel was pursued nor was there an across the board denial of the allegations made by the alleged libel victim to the media. Just consider this, Ginja: White goes to trial. White wins his case based on the shaky grounds you cite. He never denies the allegations, nor is he asked to. Barry Hartman, et al, go to jail. One year later, the FBI arrests numerous parties involved in a Boulder sex ring and Fleet White is one of them. Do you see now why it is extremely important before letting Mr. White take Mr. Hartman et al to trial, for a judge to verify whether Fleet White has acted in his own best interests from day 1 by making an across the board denial of all the allegations? Where he publically denies the allegations? And that failure to do so could imply guilt? And when a newspaper editor is on trial, if White did in fact bring a libel suit while knowing the allegations were true, it's a perversion of justice to let the editor go to jail because White was offended (at the truth being reported)? And if White refuses to take Ms. Krebs to court civilly, he IS hiding from confronting the source of the story, a fact which will not pass unnoticed before a judge. So, you should at least allow that FW is his own worst enemy and by his inactions and silence inflamed speculation concerning the allegations. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Well dang, v_p" Posted by Ginja on 21:16:31 4/29/2001 Give a girl a chance, eh? You got here before I did! That said, I came in to post a thank you to you anyway. I think you did just dandy! Finally, someone posted a longer post than me. LOLOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Recations" Posted by Ginja on 21:17:12 4/29/2001 Hol, you asked in the other thread if I knew the names that were blacked out. Not off hand. Some I can guess at. A little research and the dates could be matched to the various articles and broadcasts. But what amazes me is this. In three threads we've talked about the rights to privacy and at the heart of the issue is the fact White's name was put in print and in broadcasts. Here we are, all posting to a 20+ page police report that's been released to the public. And guess what? All the names and places have been redacted. Journalistic integrity at its best? So the newspapers, the reporters, the televisions stations, the anchors, the radio stations, the commentators and talk show hosts, the lawyers and the California woman....all their names redacted, their privacy protected. And to think...nothing in those 20 pages alleged any criminal acts. Just a simple police report. Are their rights to privacy more valuable than White's? Evidently so, considering the only two names in those 20 pages that were not redacted were White and Ramsey. I have a question: Who redacted the report? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "pul-eeze, Ginja!!" Posted by mary99 on 04:15:19 4/30/2001 Hey, what are YOU smoking, girl! The police redacted the police report, like they ALWAYS do no matter who or what the case is, they redact the name of every single person except a public figure or the party who requests the police report. AHA! So if Fleet White himself did not request the report, the police have pegged him as a public figure! Could that be the case, Ginja, LOL? I do know this much...I can read an article in the newspaper which gives the details of a horrendous drunk driving accident in which a friend was involved. The name of the offending drunk driver is listed, provided he or she is over 18, along with the names of witnesses and other injured parties. Why ? Because it's in the public interest. It's called reporting, :-). BUT, when going to the police station to pick up the police report to submit to the insurance company, my friend notices something strange! ALL THE NAMES ARE REDACTED, the injured parties, the witness, even the drunk driver, who is certainly guilty. Why? What have they done wrong? The answer, as I'm sure you know already, is absolutely nothing. The redaction of names in the FW criminal libel police report is a uniform police department policy having nothing to do with what can be reported in the press, nor is it to be used as a barometer of guilt, innocence or sordid allegations. So don't confuse apples with oranges! It only has to do with the desire of police departments to edit out what they believe is 'none of our business' while providing us with what they legally must give us. You must concede that news articles give details of allegations by name all the time, and actual police reports if obtained at the police station would have the names redacted. This has nothing to do with Fleet! See Mrs. Brady column every single day for untried suspects named along with lurid allegations prior to conclusive investigation of the claims made against them, btw! Bite the bullet, Ginja! You can't make Fleet White right! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "ROTFLMAO, Mare" Posted by Ginja on 12:02:39 4/30/2001 >Hey, what are YOU smoking, girl! Going back and forth with you, I need SOMETHING! LOL >police redacted the police report, like >they ALWAYS do no matter who >or what the case is, they >redact the name of every single >person except a public figure or >the party who requests the police >report. Cool, cool. It was a simple question. I wasn't trying to insinuate or blame. I started out by saying: I have a question. That is allowed, isn't it? Ginja CAN ask questions, can't she? Or is she expected to know everything! ;-) >I do know this much...I can read >an article in the newspaper which >gives the details of a horrendous >drunk driving accident in which a >friend was involved. The name of >the offending drunk driver is listed, >provided he or she is over >18, along with the names of >witnesses and other injured parties. Why >? Because it's in the public >interest. It's called reporting, :-). Yuk yuk...try again, kiddo! On the spot reporting where it lands on the news at 6 or 11, usually live, the reporters will say that there's been a horrific accident. BUT...they do not release the names of persons involved yet. If they interview witnesses on the scene, they don't give their names or addresses. They just hold the mike in their faces. When the story is printed in the paper the next day, if the names still aren't listed it's because the paper went to print before information was verified (morning edition). By evening, the drunk driver has been arraigned, and his name is released. As to victims, especially if there's a death, those names aren't released until next of kin is notified. >You must concede that news articles give >details of allegations by name all >the time, and actual police reports >if obtained at the police station >would have the names redacted. This >has nothing to do with Fleet! The only time names are released prior to arraignments, indictments, arrests, etc., is when the person charged is a public official. Note, official, not public figure, although in some instances the title is interchangeable. The mayor of Providence is both a public official as well as a public figure. But no...otherwise details of allegations are not released to the press until the charges have been filed and/or the person arrested. > >See Mrs. Brady column every single day >for untried suspects named along with >lurid allegations prior to conclusive investigation >of the claims made against them, >btw! Yes, the suspects are awaiting trial. However, they've already been proceesed through the system, either by arrest, arraignment, indictment, sting, whatever...they've been printed and photographed. IOW, they've formally been charged with an offense. >Bite the bullet, Ginja! You can't make >Fleet White right! I asked a simple question, that's all. You're trying to one-up me and that's not going to work. I've been in the business for almost 30 years! I've never seen a police record for a car accident (your example) redacted. The only times I've seen redactions are on documents gotten through FOIA requests because the record you're asking for has nothing to do with you personally. IOW, the persons named in those reports are redacted because of their rights to privacy. Something you're still having trouble recognizing and acknowledging! So there! :P [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "V-P" Posted by watchin' on 21:28:27 4/29/2001 I don't think anyone should scroll when they have been dragged into a personal argument as a member of a 'group'. I find something of value in ALL posts. Yepper, I learn something from each and every post I read. I just kon't like to se the community split simply because we have differing opinions or labeled and blackballed for expressing those opinions OR seeing posters here carry gossip and redicule to another forum. I am up front and not a behind the back gossiper. If I have a porblem with someone, you will see it here, not carried over to that other forum where they feed on gossip and redicule. back to case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Duh" Posted by Ginja on 21:21:46 4/29/2001 Redactions! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Bett'r than Clear ;-)" Posted by Ginja on 21:50:57 4/29/2001 Like I said, watchin, a simple correction would have sufficed. Actually, this could turn out to be a fine test. We're talking rights to privacy vs the public's right to know. Fleet White's name gets smeared all over the place, and when he responds with requesting an investigation into criminal libel and slander, the forum splits into two factions: (1) those who think it was inexcusable publicizing his name, especially when coupled with charges of child sexual abuse and murder; and (2) those who believe it was the only way to get to the truth, regardless of an 11-week investigation that came up with no evidence to verify (2)'s "truth". So then I posted who are in those "factions", listing the names of posters in group (2) (it's a very small list). Unwittingly, I included a name that shouldn't have been there. And did everyone see the reaction - and re-reaction? ;-) My, how the tide turns. It was a simple oversight, watchin, I meant nothing by it. And fyi, the rest of the names in that group I posted are posters I know, I've met, and argued face-to-face til we were all blue in the face! Mare can tell you I almost throttled her last weekend. But I was driving and so we just screamed at the top of our lungs. I have a screensaver of a picture of Holly and me with duct tape across our mouths. We aren't bashing each other. This is just a very lively discussion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Ginja #16" Posted by watchin' on 22:07:55 4/29/2001 I would like to respond to your post, but it is late and I'm still working. Just a note, what I see is not just two issues or groups, but sub groups having other issues regarding both Nancy and White but it gets heated and complicated because maybe some are seeing this as a polorized, black or white issue when it is branched in different directions. Back at ya tomorrow? You are correct. I could have simplified my post and this is a very complicated and sensitive topic. But Ginja, if everyone who has an objection here 'gets lost' who will ya spar with? humm? nite all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Ginja, Florida" Posted by darby on 23:16:29 4/29/2001 Ginja's verdict: "you guys really are having a problem comprehending the issue." Wow. For someone who recently misinterpreted a common usage of the word "forensics," you sure have become quite condescending to your fellow posters. Anyway, ditto watchin': Leave me out of your rantings and group classifications! You presented your opinions on FW's filing a criminal libel case and his status as a public figure. I found a Denver attorney who seems to have a different opinion. So what? I didn't even say he was right and you are wrong. I only said that there are other views in the legal community (besides yours) of Fleet White's criminal complaint. Florida--LP's information from Inyo County DA Phil McDowell is one of the reasons I haven't decided that Nancy Krebs' information is reliable. One would certainly think he'd remember a mention of a child sex ring! I weigh that against everything else, including her therapist's vouching for her pre-murder documentation, and come up with a resounding "I don't know." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Uh..." Posted by Holly on 22:47:48 4/29/2001 Ginja. Please go to your initial post on the first thread. Now find toward the end, the part where YOU say Nancy is possibly a "mentally disturbed" woman. Now get a grip. You said those exact words. Not a Holly rumor. Not a mis-statement. Your exact words. Yes, there are facilities that will address the mental health needs of victims. They do not say we will address the needs of mentally disturbed victims. It's a small point, but when I see "mentally disturbed", I'm reminded of that old insult -- so and so is a mental case, head case etc. If you are certain your phrase choice is appropriate, why not write to Mary Bienkowski and ask her to confirm? If Bienkowski sees her patient/client as "mentally disturbed", then Nancy shall be, in any mention of her emotional well being that I ever address, "mentally disturbed". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Holly" Posted by Ginja on 12:39:13 4/30/2001 >Ginja. >Please go to your initial post on >the first thread. Now find >toward the end, the part where >YOU say Nancy is possibly a >"mentally disturbed" woman. >Now get a grip. You said >those exact words. Not a >Holly rumor. Not a mis-statement. > Your exact words. Holly, I've got the grip...you're the one obviously "loosing it". :-) First, if you're going to quote me, then put the quotations around the right words. In your comment above, you inadvertently (?) left the word "possibly" out of the quotation. Yes, when Mary first said I posted such, I went back to get it all in context, and so I searched for the words. And as I noted in my response to her here in this thread (see post #3), I said the first time it came up was in your post. So I wound up going through my entire post to find what she was talking about. I explained that all above in post #3. In case you've missed it for a second time (obviously), here the full quote again: "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?" You know, posters get pissed at me for writing such long posts. Many times I get stuck writing big ones because I have to go line by line and explain everything in minute detail. Do you not recognize a hypothetical when you see one? Am I now going to have to re-explain that same exact hypothetical as I did in post #3 responding to Mary? Which part didn't you understand the first time? Which part didn't you understand the second time? Should I now waste time a third time to explain again? >Yes, there are facilities that will address >the mental health needs of victims. From the search I did yesterday on the internet, Hol, every single site, paper, thesis, clinic, all of it...they all included mental health. >It's a small point, but when I >see "mentally disturbed", I'm reminded of >that old insult -- so and >so is a mental case, head >case etc. That's putting it mildly. Then again, "mental health" is a relatively "new" word used to cover all "head" problems, from depression to anxiety to insomnia, etc. If you can't see it or put your finger on it, it's referred to as "mental health". My apologies for not phrasing my hypothetical in a more polictically correct way. However, I'd like to point out how you are all over my case for using the words "mentally disturbed" to describe a possible condition of Nancy Krebs...but it's A-okay for you to drag White's name through the mud as a child molester, sex offender, murderer. At least Nancy has a history (10 years alone with Bienkowski) of seeking some form of mental health therapy, so I wasn't way out of line using the words mentally disturbed. But where Fleet's concerned...there was nothing, absolutely nothing to point to him with such scadalous, outrageous charges...and yet you have no concern as to the words you use to describe him. This playing field is not level! >If you are certain your phrase choice >is appropriate, why not write to >Mary Bienkowski and ask her to >confirm? Perhaps you should write to Fleet's attorney and question him as to the words being used to describe him? >If Bienkowski sees her patient/client as "mentally >disturbed", then Nancy shall be, in >any mention of her emotional well >being that I ever address, "mentally >disturbed". And if Fleet's attorney sees his client as a child molester, sex offender and murderer, I'll have no problem referring him to such. Sounds like we have a plan, Hol. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "ginja, another reply for you :-)" Posted by mary99 on 02:19:37 4/30/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 02:19:37, 4/30/2001 It's way up there, post #18. Look, I don't want to belabor the point, as I see Holly just posted the first reference you made to Ms. Krebs being 'possibly mentally disturbed', but I went back and found this on post 69, on your original thread "White's Basis for Criminal Allegations": You said: 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! (bold added by you) On this thread, in bold, you have my remark: You assume Fleet 'didn't know what hit him'. and your reply: "Actually, that was Mame who assumed in Post #71 in the first thread. At least, that's the first occurrence of "didn't know what hit him". ;-)" Now why the wink, Ginja, unless you knew you phrased the comment as 'never knew what hit him', and did a 'Find on Page' for 'didn't know what hit him'? Else where, you said the papers called Fleet a sex offender, it just isn't so!! I'm truly offended that you substitute your own words and perceptions for what was actually written and call it truth or imply it is quoted verbatim from the text of the article! Be careful, these little ploys approach what I would call a cheap shot in a pool hall. ;-) As far as you saying this isn't a Nancy Krebs thread, or it keeps turning into one by the actions of a few, I would like there to be a discussion of Fleet without Nancy Krebs coming into the discussion too, but alas, the main tactic I see to defend Fleet or his actions is to instead question the truthfulness, actions, mental health, motives, etc. of Nancy Krebs. When and if we can ever discuss Fleet's Criminal Libel complaint without impugning Nancy in the process, you will find me more than willing to do so. And as long as you discuss Fleet's libel complaint while making inaccurate statements about Ms. Krebs, I will attempt to try to correct you. ;-) Now, try to separate your emotions and perceptions of what was said and done from what was actually said and done and we can all try to find neutral ground! Edited to add post references. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Mare" Posted by Ginja on 18:06:45 4/30/2001 >Look, I don't want to belabor the >point, But you have and will continue to belabor irrelevant points, to wit: >as I see Holly just >posted the first reference you made >to Ms. Krebs being 'possibly mentally >disturbed', but I went back and >found this on post 69, on >your original thread "White's Basis for >Criminal Allegations": Let's just skip to the chase. YOU quoted me as saying something. As I've already pointed out to you, to Holly, and now back to you again (hello?), I searched on the words you "quoted". Using YOUR QUOTE, it came up the first time by another poster. Regardless, I STILL tried to explain to you the point of what was said, the context it was said, and in short...I explained it clearly over and over and over. What is the problem? You'd think you'd never been given, read, or heard a hypothetical before. I clearly did NOT make a statement that Krebs was mentally disturbed! Read it and weep. I posed a hypothetical. Put in another form, it's called logical reasoning, another way to look at it is analytical thinking. If A then B; or, do you do A or do you do B? So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Holly: which part don't you understand? Which time didn't you understand it? The first time? No...so again I explained. Did you understand it the second time? No...and then Holly jumps in because SHE doesn't understand it. So I repeat the same thing a third time. Did you understand it then? NO! And so now for the fourth goddam time, get over it. I'm not explaining anymore. Take off the dunce cap and take a course in logical reasoning, analytical thinking, or philosophy. This is absolutely the very last time I explain what was meant. Another problem with it is that you just pick out the words you disagree with. That's all there is to it. You, Holly and whoever else...you don't read anything in context. You probably don't even finish reading! You see words like "mentally disturbed" and you'd think it was a rabbit being dragged around the track and you were the greyhound in hot pursuit! You ignore clairifiers, such as "POSSIBLY". You ignore the question: DO YOU DO THIS OR DO YOU DO THAT? It's over, Mare. No more. I understand your passion in this matter. But if you're going to attack hypotheticals, then all your passion is wasted! Does the ridiculous nitpicking end there? No. Then you go on to point out that I said "never" and denied the statement completely because your "assumption" misquoted me once again when you accused me of saying "didn't". Cut the BS! The response was still the same, whether the word was "never" or "didn't". But nooooo....you could give a chit because you're still hung up on vocabulary! Where the hell is the passion in that! The bottom line is that my response to your accusation and assumption was that the media failed in its responsibility of due diligence in allowing Fleet not just to comment, but to INCLUDE his comment in the libelous article. Period! As regards the winks and smiles, the only reasoning behind those is to ensure the discussion remains "friendly" between the posters even if we're in total disagreement. It's unfortunate you see something sinister in those. Therefore, I will no longer use them. Your nitpicking and irresponsible discussion and belaboring of irrelevant points tells me there's no need to "soften" things. You aren't paying attention to the core discussion and will find fault with vocabulary instead of the topic or response. >Else where, you said the papers called >Fleet a sex offender, it just >isn't so!! Oh puleeeeze. Page 15, which I have already cited in this thread, goes far beyond insinuation yet just holds back from explicity using the term sex offender. Another legality I'm sure you're not aware of is the difference between explicit and implicit. Throughout the 20 page police report, the implicit accusation appears. There's no need to mention White's name...the press simply referred to him as a close friend of Ramsey or the friend whose home included guests such as the Ramseys (as well as Krebs' abusers). Her explicit message is that child pornography rings meet at holidays for the specific purpose of sexually abusing very young females, where those abusers thump kids over their heads and put rope around their necks. The explicit message is that her abusers were in Boulder, they were in Fleet's home, the Ramseys were in his home with JonBenet, and it was Christmas. The implicit message, therefore, is that Fleet was holding one of these wild sex parties to abuse little girls, JonBenet being one of them. Wake up and smell the coffee! >I'm truly offended that you substitute your >own words and perceptions for what >was actually written and call it >truth or imply it is quoted >verbatim from the text of the >article! We're talking two points here: (1) the hypothetical where the words "mentally disturbed" were used and (2) my comment that Fleet "never" (or was that "didn't"?) knew what hit him. In neither situation were these quotes or cites from the police report. These were my words and as far as I'm concerned, I'll use whatever words I want to make a point! I implied nothing! I commented and I hypothesized. Big difference from citing from the police report. The only one screwed up on perceptions here is you. Pay attention to what I write and stop chasing the goddam rabbit around the track! >Be careful, these little ploys approach what >I would call a cheap shot >in a pool hall. ;-) If anyone is throwing cheap shots and low blows, it's you. You're way off base with your irrelevant nitpicking of vocabulary. Don't perceive...READ! >When and if we can ever discuss >Fleet's Criminal Libel complaint without impugning >Nancy in the process, you will >find me more than willing to >do so. And as long as >you discuss Fleet's libel complaint while >making inaccurate statements about Ms. Krebs, >I will attempt to try to >correct you. ;-) Do you understand the concept of libelous statements? Do you understand what's happened? No. You're out in East Cupcakeland without a clue of what's happening. Let me try one more time to explain the situation: Nancy Krebs came to town and made certain allegations against Fleet White. Those allegations were taken to Hunter to investigate. He handed it over to the BPD to investigate the charges. In doing so, he announced it to the media. The media picked up the story and it wound up in print, on television, and on the airwaves. Any citizen has the right to lodge a complaint or make allegations against another person. There was nothing wrong with Nancy doing what she did. But due process demands that before those allegations are made public, an investigation into the charges be made. When the charges are verified, the person alleged to have committed the wrong is arrested and processed. It is then, and only then, where the media has the right to make public that information. So (1), the media was wrong in publicizing the information before charges were brought; and (2) the media was wrong for not even checking to see if those allegations were even true! Hunter turned the information over to the BPD. The BPD conducted, under the guidance of Mike Kane, a full investigation that lasted 11 weeks. At the end of that investigation, the BPD released a statement that they found nothing...absolutely nothing to confirm the allegations as true or that any of the information provided to them by Krebs had any link to the Ramsey murder case. Two issues there: (1) No evidence the allegations against Fleet White were true; and (2) No evidence or links to child pornography and JonBenet's murder. However, the BPD didn't just throw the case out the window. They did find that there was abuse. Nancy was an abused woman. But she was not abused by Fleet White or any Ramsey. She was not a resident of Boulder. Her abusers were not residents of Boulder. It was not in Boulder's jurisdiction to follow-up on Nancy's own abuse or her abusers. So the BPD handed the information over to the FBI. And as far as I know, the FBI is still investigating her allegations of her own sexual abuse. As regards the phone calls to Bienkowski's office that you pointed out in Post 18...I remember those quite well. What did they have to do with Fleet White? Those calls threatened Nancy with being harmed if she went to Boulder and told her story. When she came to Boulder and told her story, what else did she allege besides the Fleet White angle? She alleged that her abusers were in Boulder. She alleged that her abusers had brought a small child to Boulder to abuse. So yeah, Mare...I kinda think that whoever that abuser was was certainly pissed to find out she was going to Colorado to rat on him. Does it have anything to do with Fleet White? Fleet didn't make those calls, Mare. Fleet didn't threaten Nancy Krebs nor did he harrass her. You kick me from Kingdom Come because you say I make things up or misquote the truth. Hello? Practice what you preach, girlfriend. As regards Fleet White going after Nancy Krebs. Why would he? On what grounds? She went to police with allegations. An investigation was conducted and the allegations could not be proved. She didn't go to the press. She didn't publish her allegations. If we were to follow yours and others logic, then anyone who asks the police to look into what they think are unlawful acts, if it's found those allegations are unfounded, then the person who was alleged to have committed unlawful acts should go after his accuser. Even though he's not been charged. Even though police found he had done nothing wrong. I really think that would totally screw up our legal system. IOW, don't report anything! If you think your neighbor is abusing their child, don't call police! The kid might have just been raising a ruckus because she didn't want to take a bath! If you're being stalked, don't tell police! The stalker hasn't committed a crime yet! If your boss pats you on the ass, don't turn him in. It's his word against yours. Do you see the ridiculousness in that logic? >Now, try to separate your emotions and >perceptions of what was said and >done from what was actually said >and done and we can all >try to find neutral ground! Like I just said: Practice what you preach. You're so entrenched in emotion on this topic that you can't see the forest for the trees. You need to step back and take a deep breath. I'm trying my very best not to offend you, even though your post was quite offensive. 'nuff said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Just catching up with these threads" Posted by A.K. on 06:04:07 4/30/2001 Ginja, you're back and better than ever. To think I almost gave up on ya there for a while. My god, your skill for explaining things is awesome, and a thousand thank yous for taking the time. I know the sane among us understand exactly what you're saying. Holly asked: Are you suggesting the media should assume the role of detective and not report this information until they investigate her story. And I'll answer: HELL, YES. If they are investigative reporters they take the time and do it right. If they are stumblebum internet sleuths or state fair-quality reporters, they should keep their traps shut and leave the work to the big guys. ESPECIALLY when they are told they're meddling and causing problems. This mame school of journalism is the most irresponsible thing I've ever seen in years of covering crime. Just like her view of grand jury evidence "belonging to the people" -- I mean, REALLY! She's like a petulant three-year-old who doesn't understand why she can't drive a car when she has arms and legs! It's called MATURITY -- look into it. The New York Times and 60 Minutes worked for 2-1/2 years before they sprung the story about Bob Kerrey's Navy SEALS. That's how it's done. I go back to my conundrum: stupidity or malice???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "watchin" Posted by v_p on 06:34:01 4/30/2001 You have referred to some of us going to the other forums to talk about the posters here and you don't like it. Well pffffffft, don't go to the other forums then. 1) We are more limited here in what we are allowed to say than on the other forum, if for instance, I were allowed to call a certain poster here an idiot, I would, but I can't, so I go there ... still didn't call anyone an idiot, but I'm thinking it 2) there are posters at the other forum whom have been banned from here and I, for one, go there to talk to them 3) How did you reach the conclusion that where the rest of us go to post is any of your business? 4)May I see your forum-police badge? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "I didn't hear" Posted by 1000Sparks on 06:28:34 4/30/2001 Smit mention Whites name at all...if he's involved I would think Smit would have mentioned this [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Psst Sparky," Posted by Florida on 06:37:04 4/30/2001 he's not involved.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Florida" Posted by 1000Sparks on 07:00:42 4/30/2001 Thank you very much. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 07:12:07 4/30/2001 You are quite the authority on lousy journalists, very heartfelt, kinda like been there, doin' that! Give Gil Garcetti a big smooch for me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "AK" Posted by Holly on 08:45:00 4/30/2001 Do tabloids always fully investigate scoops before they report? You should know, right? Or is a case of a libel suit is worth the scoop? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Mary99" Posted by Florida on 07:24:38 4/30/2001 When and if we can ever discuss Fleet's Criminal Libel complaint without impugning Nancy in the process, you will find me more than willing to do so. And as long as you discuss Fleet's libel complaint while making inaccurate statements about Ms. Krebs, I will attempt to try to correct you. ;-) The affirmative defense for criminal libel is truth. How can you possibly discuss the criminal libel complaint when the basis of the complaint is the veracity of the story reported in the paper? In effect and in actual fact, Ms. Nancy Krebs is being called a liar. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "FL" Posted by Holly on 08:48:43 4/30/2001 The story was true. A woman came from CA and discussed her years of abuse and how she found similarities to the Ramsey case etc, etc. Isn't that what the CAMERA reported? Is that NOT true? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Florida" Posted by mary99 on 07:35:17 4/30/2001 There is a differnce between FW calling the articles written about him libelous and him calling NK a liar. In fact, he has not done so. His libel complaint, as I hacve tried to point out, implies that she is a liar because he is suing the paper for libel. But in actuality, he has never made the assertion her statements are in regard to sex rings are false and in fact, in the police report, he admits some parts of her story are true; specifically the familial relationship, among other things. I still believe that to expect his case to go to trial, he had to refute or deny what he felt was false in the media reports. It's called making a 'good faith' effort to correct a perceived wrong. The defenses of Fleet's actions which get mixed up in stating inaccuracies about NK are in his silence, for instance. The most common rejoinder is "he felt sorry for an obviously mentally ill" woman, which is not based on truth but on wishful thinking. In fact, nobody knows WHY Fleet did not publically deny or refute the allegations and it's presumptous of us to assume how he felt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "florida" Posted by mame on 07:54:44 4/30/2001 you have no idea whether he's involved or not! mr. smit will not mention a single lead or individual involved in those leads on the today show. this smit stint is about the evidence...and his theory. to suggest anyone is in the clear because they are not mentioned is not appropriate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Actually Mary99, on" Posted by Florida on 07:54:14 4/30/2001 Page 19 of the complaint he does call her a liar. "We also discussed the affirmative defense to Criminal Libel - that the statement is true and factual. Mr. White told me that the relationship between the Whites and the woman from CA is true and everything else she claims is absolutely false." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "yes, but " Posted by mary99 on 08:02:54 4/30/2001 did he ever make that statement to the media? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "AK" Posted by mame on 08:00:38 4/30/2001 spent years defending the tabloids and their right to publish just about anything they want. so for her to suggest any wrongdoing in what i have covered and reported IS ridiculous. AND, she never uses examples of my reporting. covering a witness who came forward in a murder case is tame for the tabloids. what this all tells me is that some very important people are very, very nervous. hey, why spend time on me if i'm so damn bad? seems like high powered (cough-cough) journalists like AK wouldn't be ruffled in the least over the works of a would be, knock off journalist. it's been a year since nancy krebs said a word publicly about this story. why a year later does mame cause such a bitter, vicious stir? because she touched a raw nerve of truth... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Mary99, why" Posted by Florida on 08:18:55 4/30/2001 should he? He's stated in the complaint that is part of the official record that she lied about everything she said other than the fact that his father is Gwen Boykins Godmother. Why would it make it better if he said it to the media? Actually, now that I think about it - he did say it to the media! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "FLA" Posted by Morgan on 08:37:51 4/30/2001 As a public figure, which even FW admits that he is (check my post where I've put up the legal defs) he is assumed to have the ability to avail himself of the media, to counter any statements he considers libelous. The legal implication is that he is expected to do just that, and if he doesn't, than it is his choice to allow libelous statements to remain uncontested. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "when, Florida?" Posted by mary99 on 08:29:27 4/30/2001 I have never heard that he responded to the articles in any way except to write a letter or maybe more than o0ne letter of protest to the BDC. But again, in that letter, he protested the reporting and to the best of my knowledge, never said the objectionable pert of the allegations were false. Clearly he sought no restraining order or injunction against Nancy either. That is what the BPD advised him to do, btw, but he wanted to pursue Criminal charges, which not only carry a 'malice' standard of proof but are virtually unused in this day and age. Did you read Andrew Cohen's comments on the feasibility of a criminal libel case and the subsequent termination of it on thread two? He says that a judge would first have to determine whether the First Amendemnt would be infringed by finding against the media, and Mr. Cohen believes the law as it sits on the books is not only outdated but unconstitutional. Truth is a defense but neither Mr. White nor Ms. Krebs would be required to testify as FW has put the State in the position of prosecuting the media by filing this type of suit vs a civil suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Truth" Posted by Morgan on 08:46:49 4/30/2001 From the source I quoted previously: "There are a number of defenses against libel. These include truth, fair comment and critcism, and privilege. Truth is a complete defense against libel, but it is rarely used because truth may be difficult to prove and expensive to establish. Fair comment and criticism is a more common and attractive defense to libel because of the value the Court has placed on the principle that debate on public issues should be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide open'" Times v. Sullivan [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "What the Whites actually said" Posted by Florida on 09:25:53 4/30/2001 about being public figures is on page 19 & 20 of the complaint: Fleet and Priscilla White believe they could be considered "limited purpose" public figures in regard to the Ramsey Case, but the homicide was over 3 years ago. In regards to the more recent media exposure, the White's state they had no involvement in the case - that a woman (with a distant famialial relationship) came forward with information that was totally unsubstantiated and the false informaion was dissemiated by the media therby causing the White's name to be tarnished. The Whites belive it is wrong that a newspaper can "create" a public figure, then be held to a lower standard in regards to libel issues. Mary, I meant they have responded to the media by filing the criminal libel charge. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "not the same thing, Florida" Posted by mary99 on 09:43:58 4/30/2001 as directly making a statement to the public through the press that the sex ring allegations were FALSE. As Morgan said, to allow the allegedly libelous statements to go uncontested in the media and then file a criminal libel complaint against the media while not seeking out the source, NK, shows a less than diligent attempt to stop the allegedly libelous material where it originated. Also, silence can be perceived as agreement. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "I read it all..." Posted by Pedro on 10:07:01 4/30/2001 ...the whole thread, I read the Police papers too. I think we're all disease, except Ginja!!! Sparky, could you ban Ginja? sanity isn't of any help!!! :-). Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Well Pedro" Posted by Morgan on 11:32:43 4/30/2001 so you think it's healthy to scramble up a lot of assumptions, dimestore legalese, and reasoning minus the logic and come up with media libel goulash. Maybe the fact that this muck is being served up with such overbearing panache is what you find so appealing. Enjoy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Morgan..." Posted by Pedro on 12:22:08 4/30/2001 ...I read it and I understand each and every point made by each one of you. I didn't post my personal opinion on this issue as my position is well known, it serves no interest for me to post it again. I think MW was severely abussed and I think her case isn't related to JBR's murder. However, I am reading very much interesting posts by everybody here without reach the excesses of personal confrontation we reach in the past on each side of this MW fence. About my post, read it all, it's all there...Ginja seems sane to me, but I ask who need sanity, it is up to you the way you read my posts. Take care. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "LOL Pedro" Posted by freebird on 13:02:05 4/30/2001 "I think MW was severely (abussed) and I think her case"... Ha ha that dang bus has hit everyone :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Freebird!!!!" Posted by Pedro on 13:26:27 4/30/2001 LOL..bus? I haven't been hit but by this gorgeous day here :-). To a good reader, few words are enough!!! Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Mary, I think" Posted by Florida on 12:50:56 4/30/2001 he contested the articles in the proper way - writing letters of protest and asking for retractions from the editors and publishers of the media outlets that published the articles. Now he's filed a criminal complaint because he truly believes his family has been wronged. I hope he is successful. He doesn't owe the public a statement or anything else because all it would do is help fuel the titillation train. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with you guys. As far as the public and media is concerned this story is now dead except to a few people on the internet. As far as I'm concerned I hope it Rests in Peace. Amen and out... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "a few thoughts" Posted by fly on 14:01:06 4/30/2001 So you've all gotten into another brawl over the weekend, making it tough to catch up. After reading all the "Basis" threads and some of the complaint, I'll toss these thoughts into the mix. (1) Ginja, I think you did a good job laying out the reasoning behind FW's complaint. (2) Florida, I agree with you that FW did, indeed, not let the stories pass without comment. The letters to the paper(s) might not be the only way to handle things, but they are certainly IMO one of the things absolutely required. (3) Those who continue to say that this approach allows FW to avoid confronting his accuser are ignoring that fact that the investigation stimulated by his complaint would likely open up any can of worms FW has buried out in the backyard. (4) The issues here clearly fall in the grey area between libel/personal privacy and the rights of a free press. Although FW's complaint may ultimately go nowhere, I'd say it has at least as much justification as some of the civil lawsuits we've seen filed against the Ramseys and that have been applauded widely here. Whether Ginja's view is the correct one or whether the columnists' is, time will tell. (5)I agree with those who say that the media has a duty to check out a story prior to publishing it. To argue that they were only accurately reporting what somebody said ignores the need to ensure that that person's story can reasonably be assumed to be truthful. Afterall, we don't see news reports about every person who walks in and offers a confession, accusation, or solution to a crime. Whether or not the press crossed the line legally, they used lousy judgement, IMO. (6) Maybe reading the Daily Camera is where mame learned to insinuate and imply without actually saying something directly. :-) Although BDC didn't explicitly name FW, it was quite clear who they meant. (7) There are two sections in the criminal libel materials linked somewhere on the "Basis" threads that addresses the "truth" defense: ...the trend of the law is toward the recognition of substantial rather than absolute truth as a defense to allegedly libelous statements. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). Where the defendant asserts truth as a defense in a libel suit the question, a factual one, is whether there is a substantial difference between the allegedly libelous statement and the truth, that is, whether the statement produces a different effect upon the reader than that which would be produced by the literal truth of the matter. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). Although I'll guess the emphasis here is on removing the need for 100% literal truth in order to apply the truth defense, I'll suggest that they are relevant to the opposite situation. That is, a literally true statement can be libelous if it is likely to be understood in a way that does not represent the true situation. If that is correct, then FW's complaint would appear to have a better chance of success than some credit it. (8) Holly, my memory suggests that the context of that "morally empty" remark gave some insight as to what Beckner really meant, and it wasn't that FW was an abuser or killer. (9) Like WY posted, darby's posts concerning the NK/FW issues for quite some time have tended to be pretty reasonable, balanced posts. I think it is time to take her off the oft-cited list of rabid proNK folks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "fly." Posted by Holly on 14:05:39 4/30/2001 OK. I'll bite. What context? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Florida...." Posted by Voyager on 14:22:53 4/30/2001 I heartily agree with your well thought out post....fly you make many good points.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "context" Posted by fly on 14:33:46 4/30/2001 Holly - Context as is what was being discussed at the time the comment was made. Context as in what ST was discussing in his book at the time he cited the comment. Quite some time ago somebody provided that context, and I remember thinking a very likely interpretation of Beckner's comment was rather different from what others were implying. Perhaps my memory is wrong. Feel free to provide the context. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Well since you brought" Posted by Holly on 18:39:47 4/30/2001 it up, I thought you already knew. IF I ever read ST's book again, I'll note it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "au revoir" Posted by mary99 on 18:26:20 4/30/2001 Ginja, the inaccuracy you repeat contstantly that offends if not a little nitpicky thingee as you tried to make it, but actually a more serious misreprentation of truth: you said the papers called Fleet a sex offender, and in fact they did no such thing! So my pointed comment that you tend ...to substitute your own words and perceptions for what was actually written and call it truth or imply it is quoted verbatim from the text of the article...is also a little remider to keep you honest. Now, LOL, are you ALWAYS right? Do you ALWAYS talk down to posters who disagree with you? Think about it! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Mare" Posted by Ginja on 18:49:27 4/30/2001 You didn't read what I wrote about implicit and explicit. :P [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "You're right, Mare!" Posted by Ginja on 19:14:57 4/30/2001 Mea culpa for putting words into the articles and broadcasts that weren't there! I'm ashamed of myself. How foolish could I be. You really are brilliant, being able to pick out my deception! Clearly you have a handle not only on the English language but also this case. So with all due respect, I'd like your opinion on the following: From the police report: Pg 12 (broadcast): Boyles show. Speaker interviewed Nancy and said on the show: "I would say it is a child sex, child porn ring. She says she was born into the ring, kind of, I would say, manufactured to provide sex for adults. All of her life, she says it happened all of her life. She is thirty-seven now. She says her first memory of it was when she was three and it happened with she says people we know from the Ramsey case. She says Fleet White Senior was one person who abused her all her life and that Fleet White Junior was part of it also. Peter Boyles responds: "See what is interesting is that when I was told by another source that she was tagging Fleet White, when I had her lawyer on who represents her, X, he denied that on the air. But I know that she has told people about Fleet and Fleet White Junior which is just, I mean its so despicable." Pg 15 (newsprint): "There are letters and photographs, even a name in her baby book that proves she and her family have a long connection - dating back to the 1930s - with the family of men she says sexually abused her, including the man who has been a family friend of the Ramseys. Again, you're absolutely right. No mention of the words "sex offender". From reading the above excerpts that were published or broadcasted, what word(s) would YOU use to describe Nancy's description of Fleet White Junior? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "I think SEX OFFENDER" Posted by Holly on 20:35:12 4/30/2001 is a label you receive AFTER you are convicted of a sex offense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "SHADOW announcement at another " Posted by Holly on 19:38:58 4/30/2001 forum. He says he was told months ago that the FBI had concluded their investigation into Nancy Krebs' claims. The well connected Shadow suggests that he was not told the outcome of the FBI investigation. I don't see where he made the announcement here. Maybe I missed it. This will be very interesting news to Nancy and her representatives. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "umm, does that mean" Posted by mary99 on 19:43:45 4/30/2001 we are free to go? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "FBI report......" Posted by rose on 20:17:15 4/30/2001 Can FW get an FBI report? Can the BPD get one? This could end this nasty discussion about an innocent man caught in the cross hairs of insanity. No wonder none of the people who were close to JonBenet came forward to champion her cause, they were afraid the same thing could happen to them that happened to White. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "context" Posted by fly on 19:47:46 4/30/2001 Holly - I don't remember the exact context, but as I said, whatever it was made me think that the quote possibly was being stretched quite a bit. My memory is that it was quite possibly more in reference to FW's turnaround concerning cooperating, rather than in reference to some general state of his morals (the implication you prefer). For somebody who quotes that sound bite so often, I'd think you'd be able to find it in the book without rereading the whole thing. I don't have the book, so I can't provide it for you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "fly." Posted by Holly on 20:03:53 4/30/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:03:53, 4/30/2001 I think you can resolve your context question by reading p 331 of the hardcover edition. Prolly available at your local library. Beckner apparently offered that assessment of the Whites with a slanted context provided by Steve. ST offered the Beckner statement in the context of the Whites supporting another candidate for Chief of Police as the reason for Beckner's comment. In general, it appears the Whites did not wish to testify before the grand jury because Beckner wouldn't fork over their previous statements. But if they weren't suspects and told the truth, why would they need to see their previous statements? And it also seems Beckner wanted to lock up the Whites on more than one occassion. Who knows? maybe someday he will have his chance. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "tsk tsk Holly" Posted by v_p on 20:19:19 4/30/2001 >>In general, it appears the Whites did not wish to testify before the grand jury because Beckner wouldn't fork over their previous statements. <<<< Again, out of context. You know the reason FW was pushing for his previous statements was to make a point ... the Ramseys were afforded their previous statements and he felt he should have been as well. >>>But if they weren't suspects and told the truth, why would they need to see their previous statements?<<< If they weren't suspects? What does that mean? What is your implication? lol [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "The Rammers" Posted by Holly on 20:31:53 4/30/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:31:53, 4/30/2001 weren't testifying for the gj. So the fact they saw their original police statements - if they did - is not relevant to the grand jury process but is relevant to the May "password" interviews. What I mean is, the Rams are under the umbrella of suspicion - not the Whites. So if they fumble over some point or two they can be forgiven, because no one suspected them of anything anyway. Now if the Rams had been given all their prior statements in preparation for the grand jury, that would have been a different matter. And that is prolly what they whined about. "What if they DO testify"? I think they have now revealed they have a real fear of producing a PUBLIC RECORD. Gee. Why would that be? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "oh and mary" Posted by v_p on 20:20:50 4/30/2001 yes, you're free to go ... :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "thanks, v_p " Posted by mary99 on 20:37:37 4/30/2001 I was waiting for my marching orders from Shadow. Too bad it's all over, time for me to get a life, huh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "WOW Mary" Posted by freebird on 20:42:57 4/30/2001 Does that mean your only here for the Nancy? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Holly" Posted by Scully on 20:34:24 4/30/2001 Under what pretext would Beckner use the opportunity to "lock up FW?" Are you predicting that MW will be filing a criminal complaint against FW in the near future? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Scully." Posted by Holly on 20:36:21 4/30/2001 I was imagining his car insurance might be about to lapse again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "yep" Posted by Scully on 20:52:31 4/30/2001 Yeah, bet he's got one hell of a rap sheet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "freebird" Posted by v_p on 20:58:19 4/30/2001 how very perceptive of you ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Anyone Who Wants To!!" Posted by shadow on 23:02:24 4/30/2001 can go, Mary... you don't need my permission. I was out of town for several day - got back Sunday. The very same things being said here and now about MW/FW were being said the day I left. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]