Justice Watch Support JW "well, well, well..." [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... well, well, well..., mame, 11:55:07, 5/09/2001 Certainly, Morgan, 12:37:52, 5/09/2001, (#1) Things have gotten very ugly over there,, Cassandra, 13:36:25, 5/09/2001, (#2) I just don't get it., Holly, 13:37:06, 5/09/2001, (#3) Holly......., Mee Too, 14:05:24, 5/09/2001, (#4) Mee too, darby, 14:12:10, 5/09/2001, (#5) Thanks Darby......others, Mee Too, 14:23:31, 5/09/2001, (#6) Thanks for confirming that, darby, janphi, 14:24:48, 5/09/2001, (#7) Hi janphi.....Re'Bootmans name and INFO , Mee Too, 14:32:16, 5/09/2001, (#8) Right, that's where we heard about him., Cassandra, 14:40:36, 5/09/2001, (#9) Hi Cassie..... and others, Mee Too, 15:01:29, 5/09/2001, (#10) Cassie, Grace, 15:26:38, 5/09/2001, (#11) His name first, Holly, 15:29:34, 5/09/2001, (#12) Thanks Holly... , Mee Too, 15:45:52, 5/09/2001, (#13) Thank you MeeToo and Grace., Cassandra, 15:59:53, 5/09/2001, (#14) Cassie, darby, 18:08:04, 5/09/2001, (#15) Darby..., Pedro, 18:26:53, 5/09/2001, (#16) "Demolition Darby" lol great name!, Cassandra, 06:57:49, 5/10/2001, (#17) cassie, mame, 08:50:01, 5/10/2001, (#18) I'm disgusted too, mary99, 08:57:25, 5/10/2001, (#19) I just have to, Holly, 10:59:23, 5/10/2001, (#20) Pedro, darby, 11:23:17, 5/10/2001, (#22) Sure..., Pedro, 19:10:19, 5/10/2001, (#45) You're welcome Mame...&...Holly, Cassandra, 11:06:08, 5/10/2001, (#21) Darby, Florida, 12:01:57, 5/10/2001, (#26) i have written, mame, 11:47:43, 5/10/2001, (#23) Love that socks and underwear promo, MrsBrady, 11:49:54, 5/10/2001, (#24) mame, darby, 11:58:23, 5/10/2001, (#25) Florida, darby, 12:16:20, 5/10/2001, (#28) Jeez Mame, Midnight_Wolf, 12:14:49, 5/10/2001, (#27) what?, fly, 12:44:45, 5/10/2001, (#29) Fly..., Pedro, 19:20:44, 5/10/2001, (#46) fly, darby, 13:08:58, 5/10/2001, (#30) darby, fly, 13:11:08, 5/10/2001, (#31) fly., Holly, 21:43:16, 5/10/2001, (#51) Fly, mary99, 13:19:29, 5/10/2001, (#32) Mary99, Midnight_Wolf, 13:34:38, 5/10/2001, (#33) Where has , Florida, 13:39:05, 5/10/2001, (#34) FW Criminal Libel case, mary99, 13:49:15, 5/10/2001, (#35) mary99, fly, 15:17:45, 5/10/2001, (#37) fly, darby, 15:13:38, 5/10/2001, (#36) I don't get it, Scully, 15:49:51, 5/10/2001, (#39) Scully -, Holly, 22:38:11, 5/10/2001, (#56) darby, fly, 15:22:04, 5/10/2001, (#38) Fly and all, Gemini, 16:09:23, 5/10/2001, (#41) fly, darby, 16:07:10, 5/10/2001, (#40) Darby, Gemini, 16:10:26, 5/10/2001, (#42) Gemini and fly., Holly, 22:46:09, 5/10/2001, (#57) Yes Holly, Gemini, 23:34:55, 5/10/2001, (#59) Gemini., Holly, 04:57:12, 5/11/2001, (#60) more thoughts, mame, 16:28:31, 5/10/2001, (#44) and, if it matters, Gemini, 16:21:31, 5/10/2001, (#43) Well Gemini., Holly, 21:44:06, 5/10/2001, (#52) umm umm, Gemini, 23:33:06, 5/10/2001, (#58) Gemini., Holly, 05:31:33, 5/11/2001, (#61) Maybe FW could, v_p, 19:47:30, 5/10/2001, (#47) You are full of wisdom, Msracoon, 20:42:12, 5/10/2001, (#49) Question..., Pedro, 20:33:48, 5/10/2001, (#48) Good Post Pedro, JR, 22:02:31, 5/10/2001, (#54) I feel very well..., Pedro, 07:54:30, 5/11/2001, (#64) No, Pedro, Lacey, 20:48:05, 5/10/2001, (#50) Lacey knows, Holly, 21:45:56, 5/10/2001, (#53) Ms Lacey ..., Mandarin, 22:17:35, 5/10/2001, (#55) Yes, Mandarin..., Pedro, 07:53:42, 5/11/2001, (#63) Long Time No See, Lacey, 06:00:30, 5/11/2001, (#62) I Have Serious Problems With This Thread, LoriAnn, 09:23:07, 5/11/2001, (#65) HOlly , fly, 09:50:06, 5/11/2001, (#69) fly., Holly, 11:43:56, 5/11/2001, (#93) Holly, fly, 12:08:30, 5/11/2001, (#106) Details, janphi, 10:21:28, 5/11/2001, (#73) YES!!!!!!!!!, Pedro, 10:45:48, 5/11/2001, (#80) LoriAnn, darby, 09:46:19, 5/11/2001, (#68) Lorianne., Holly, 09:39:18, 5/11/2001, (#67) Is This Another Teaser?, LoriAnn, 09:52:34, 5/11/2001, (#70) Lori!!!!!!!, Pedro, 11:23:06, 5/11/2001, (#87) Good grief Lorriane., Holly, 09:59:48, 5/11/2001, (#71) Holy, LoriAnn, 10:17:56, 5/11/2001, (#72) OK, Lorianne, Holly, 10:30:59, 5/11/2001, (#76) Am I Reading this Right??, Harley, 09:36:19, 5/11/2001, (#66) Harley, LoriAnn...!!!., Pedro, 11:06:15, 5/11/2001, (#84) Interesting, watchin', 10:29:14, 5/11/2001, (#75) Holly, Florida, 10:28:07, 5/11/2001, (#74) Maybe., Holly, 10:32:08, 5/11/2001, (#77) janphi and watchin', fly, 10:53:35, 5/11/2001, (#81) Holleigh, LoriAnn, 10:45:17, 5/11/2001, (#79) As soon as they are provided to me, Holly, 11:03:38, 5/11/2001, (#83) Phil MacDowell, Florida, 10:40:54, 5/11/2001, (#78) FL, Holly, 11:18:40, 5/11/2001, (#86) Hollee, LoriAnn, 11:03:24, 5/11/2001, (#82) LoriAnn., Holly, 11:14:03, 5/11/2001, (#85) Holly.., Pedro, 11:37:09, 5/11/2001, (#91) Offenses, LoriAnn, 11:35:59, 5/11/2001, (#90) LoriAnn, Holly, 11:42:53, 5/11/2001, (#92) Excuse Me, Holly, LoriAnn, 11:58:59, 5/11/2001, (#100) Uh, Lorianne., Holly, 12:09:05, 5/11/2001, (#107) Duh, Holly, LoriAnn, 12:15:41, 5/11/2001, (#113) HOlly, fly, 12:14:23, 5/11/2001, (#112) fly., Holly, 23:04:45, 5/11/2001, (#131) Lorianne., Holly, 12:06:49, 5/11/2001, (#104) Lori!!!!!!!, Pedro, 12:01:19, 5/11/2001, (#102) What Lovely Pigeon actually, Florida, 11:35:57, 5/11/2001, (#89) BTW -, Holly, 12:16:43, 5/11/2001, (#115) Boykin's probation , Florida, 12:25:55, 5/11/2001, (#119) FL, Holly, 11:48:02, 5/11/2001, (#94) He didn't answer questions about , Florida, 11:58:34, 5/11/2001, (#99) Wrong, FL., Holly, 12:13:23, 5/11/2001, (#111) I disagree, Holly, Florida, 13:14:28, 5/11/2001, (#122) Ok..., Pedro, 11:33:41, 5/11/2001, (#88) Forget 25 years ago -, Florida, 11:49:41, 5/11/2001, (#96) FL, Holly, 11:53:11, 5/11/2001, (#98) Holly..., Pedro, 11:49:27, 5/11/2001, (#95) If you mean the Boykin stuff,, Holly, 11:52:25, 5/11/2001, (#97) Holly..., Pedro, 12:00:04, 5/11/2001, (#101) Oh., Holly, 12:05:13, 5/11/2001, (#103) LOL!, LoriAnn, 12:13:15, 5/11/2001, (#110) Lori!!!!!!, Pedro, 12:16:32, 5/11/2001, (#114) With all this mess.., Pedro, 12:08:21, 5/11/2001, (#105) Pedro, Holly, 12:09:58, 5/11/2001, (#108) Holly..., Pedro, 12:12:35, 5/11/2001, (#109) THIS IS TOO RICH!, LoriAnn, 12:21:38, 5/11/2001, (#118) LoriAnn, Holly, 12:47:37, 5/11/2001, (#120) Sure, Holly, LoriAnn, 13:03:46, 5/11/2001, (#121) Well, Lorianne., Holly, 13:16:04, 5/11/2001, (#123) Pedro., Holly, 12:18:01, 5/11/2001, (#116) Ok, Holly..., Pedro, 12:19:54, 5/11/2001, (#117) holly, v_p, 18:23:55, 5/11/2001, (#124) Well, FT, 20:52:15, 5/11/2001, (#125) FT, Holly, 22:35:03, 5/11/2001, (#130) Oh my, Morgan, 21:34:28, 5/11/2001, (#126) Well, Morgan, FT, 21:37:51, 5/11/2001, (#127) FT, Morgan, 21:55:52, 5/11/2001, (#128) Glad you agree, FT, 21:58:01, 5/11/2001, (#129) BTW, FT., Holly, 23:30:33, 5/11/2001, (#133) Morgan, Scully, 23:15:21, 5/11/2001, (#132) ................................................................... "well, well, well..." Posted by mame on 11:55:07 5/09/2001 i just stopped in our cyber sleuthing world and found several emails with copies of posts from the cyber version of alcatraz concerning moi, and my, my....the posts contain sexual and personal references. on the highest level i could care less! it only shows me what degree of power and fear exists at the present time. there seem to be big reasons for those erroneous and vile posts to be written. if nancy krebs is so unimportant what brings such vicious attacks? why would anyone, regardless of how bored and mentally unstable to take the time to continually attack a woman and a little journalist for a story that hasn't been in the news in a year? those are the fascinating questions to ponder here in the "land beyond the jonbenet ramsey murder"? all posts about nancy krebs and myself are being archived and forwarded to a powerful legal team who find every word written of interest... and when appropriate to the FBI. for those asking for case characters to look into and investigate me...have at it! it's a snore... [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Certainly" Posted by Morgan on 12:37:52 5/09/2001 your lawyer would have no problem proving malicious intent. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Things have gotten very ugly over there," Posted by Cassandra on 13:36:25 5/09/2001 and I'm sorry to see it. I just posted that I was very disappointed in what I was reading there. I didn't even see those things yet, Mame. I'll go read them. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "I just don't get it." Posted by Holly on 13:37:06 5/09/2001 I lurk elsewhere and Fleet White is consistently discussed as a potential suspect - even having nothing to do with NK. They are serious and interesting discussions. And they do not dissolve into verbal slugfests. The posts you mention are authored by people who seem very, very threatened. Two posters spent the morning at the other forum grandstanding about the irresponsibility of posting a public record. This after a few posts, loudly congratulating candy for posting the URL of the irresposibly posted records. Huh? I see the posting of public records as responsible because they contribute to our case knowledge. They were provided by the Boulder District Court upon request and payment received. And all the record does is chart the interesting course of White's criminal libel complaint, with documents filed at the Boulder District Court. I guess they like the information super highway, but only if the information has nothing to do with FW. And the documents were posted EXACTLY as the court sent them. When the FW address and telephone number became an issue raised at the other forum, I immediately cropped the White's own letterhead out - even though the Court left it intact. I did that because it was a legitimate concern and the White's own lawyer described them as "unartful", so they may not have realized all they included is a public record. I urge everyone to go to that forum and read what the two posters are afraid to say here. It's perplexing. And they won't be posting the same threats here, because of the potential consequences, IMO. Add to that the very personal attacks on mame - even to the point of a pornographic spin regarding mame's May 2000 JW interviews with Nancy Krebs. Any efficient forum moderator would have deleted that post. When I last checked, there was speculation that Judge Bailin and I share notes and an evil agenda. One poster suspects collusion and a mis-use of judicial authority by Bailin. And another opined that there was something supsicious about me because I provide the names of my sources when I post conversations or documents. Consider the logic - suspicious behavior when sources are named, or their title given. I guess it's inevitable that these scurrilous and threatening posts should be forwarded to someone's legal team. The attacks have just gone too far. In truth, I don't begrudge anyone who used the May BPD Press Release as the benchmark to drop Nancy Krebs and her information from topics to be seriously considered. But many of us have a cynical view of how the BPD actually investigated the claims and our information comes from NK and the BPD - not speculation. And the BPD has a track record of lousy police work. It's not necessary for anyone to share our views. Any comments or challenges that are offered, respecting the House Rules, encourage lively and productive debate. And I am certain that someday, our efforts to keep this case alive by sharing information and "arguing" our positions, will lead to the truth and justice for JonBenet at last. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Holly......." Posted by Mee Too on 14:05:24 5/09/2001 Correct me if I'm mistaken.....But wasn't it Jams that posted Bootmans info (real name etc....) not you as someone is stating...... Re:A good investigative reporter could find a solid story....Hmmmmm I didn't know All Knowing is an investigative reporter.....I must have missed something..... .......Mee [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Mee too" Posted by darby on 14:12:10 5/09/2001 Yep. Bootman's name was first brought to us by someone over yonder. Not Holly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Thanks Darby......others" Posted by Mee Too on 14:23:31 5/09/2001 Just as I thought.....more BS from the peanut gally...... Just like the "OLD" J7 days if someone was posting to CLOSE to the truth the BS attacks would start.. If you can't Convince them ...Confuse them.........Harry Truman .......(Mee Too) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Thanks for confirming that, darby" Posted by janphi on 14:24:48 5/09/2001 That's what I thought, too. I remember when hir did it. Prolly got a copy of the post around here somewhere. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Hi janphi.....Re'Bootmans name and INFO " Posted by Mee Too on 14:32:16 5/09/2001 I too believe I have a copy of Hir's post around here...As I recall some of her posters (in the beginning) were upset that she posted Bootmans name and info...... ......(Mee Too) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Right, that's where we heard about him." Posted by Cassandra on 14:40:36 5/09/2001 I remember, too. I think this business of going to CS to complain about JW is disloyal, and it saddens me. Cassie Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Hi Cassie..... and others" Posted by Mee Too on 15:01:29 5/09/2001 Thank You for posting at CS I read your post....it saddens me also to see the bashing of JW and some of our posters by some of the very posters I like/liked alot ....I can't figure out WHY and WHEN CS became CandysLand...... .....(Mee Too) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Cassie" Posted by Grace on 15:26:38 5/09/2001 You have my greatest admiration for having the guts to say what you did. I've been trying to get up the courage since yesterday, but couldn't. I guess none of them read Mrs. Brady's page, or they would have seen where Candy got her scoop -- from Holly. And maybe they would have figured out that the reason the phone number and address were redacted, in what Candy posted, was because Holly redacted them. How else would they get that way in Holly's album? Thanks for stepping in. You're MY hero. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "His name first" Posted by Holly on 15:29:34 5/09/2001 appeared at Jameson's forum. Later - maybe days, I put up a thread discussing the BPD investigation of Helgoth. I don't find it inapporpriate. The BPD announced that lab tests were underway. And a burglary had occurred where the perp said information pertinent to the Ramsey case was found at a Helgoth relative's home. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Thanks Holly... " Posted by Mee Too on 15:45:52 5/09/2001 Yes...that's how I recall it... I still have questions about Bootman,the "suicide" etc.....Has anyone heard anything else..... ......Mee [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Thank you MeeToo and Grace." Posted by Cassandra on 15:59:53 5/09/2001 That's very nice of you. I couldn't hold my tongue, or fingers, any longer. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Cassie" Posted by darby on 18:08:04 5/09/2001 I agree with the others, and you are one strong woman to go over there and tell them politely that they are off base on a couple of things. I agree that posters who run to CS to complain about JW are disloyal...and more. To me, such posters are going against the whole spirit of the rules here. JMSO, demolition darby [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Darby..." Posted by Pedro on 18:26:53 5/09/2001 ...haven't you and, even myself, do that in the past? Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. ""Demolition Darby" lol great name!" Posted by Cassandra on 06:57:49 5/10/2001 Thanks. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "cassie" Posted by mame on 08:50:01 5/10/2001 thanks for showing such character and independence. i have no further comments on this, it's so beneath further comment. just sad... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "I'm disgusted too" Posted by mary99 on 08:58:24 5/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:58:24, 5/10/2001 what else is new? Thanks for speaking up, Cassie, though they seem not to care about the difference between posters and case figures...or even know the difference. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "I just have to" Posted by Holly on 10:59:23 5/10/2001 wonder why they are so threatened - and so ill informed. What? They think Chief Judge Bailin faxed a court record to me? A poster who likes both sites actually suggested "collusion" between Judge Bailin and hideous Holly. Any idjut can call the Clerk of Court and request records. Judges wouldn't be caught dead engaging in clerical work. It cost $22.50 BTW. Funny how the tide turned when they realized candy wasn't the info provider. Hideous Holly and Mr Hideous Holly did that. And candy further mis-states court procedure, by wondering if I left the address in to purposely complicate the lives of the skittish thoroughbreds. Well, if the Court didn't remove the address and that is the Court's representation of a public record, then... Then another famous mis-stater opined that it was damaging to sensitive witnesses. Look again sweetie - in the criminal libel complaint Fleet and Priscilla White function as complainants. This is not the BPD vs the media - it's the Whites vs the media. Still, I'm happy I cropped it out and wish I'd thought of it before someone else spotted it (gleefully apparently) even sooner. For the record, only a coupla hundred hits saw any personal info. 1800 hits later and no one ever saw an address or phone number. A fact conveniently overlooked elsewhere. And in fact the same address is given for a business - Fleet Oil. So the update from the outback is that "abra" who is not unknown here, posted the website for the Courts of MD and offered assistance in finding where Holly is listed. And that proves what? While you're at it abra, take a peek at Article 27 of the Md Annotated Code. Tread carefully. It took the webmaster 10 hrs to take it off. Bottom line. The day I got the records up, I saw and thanked candy for providing the link to fellow sleuths. Rather than accept the gesture as good will and a nod meant to acknowledge mutual sharing of investigative goals, she and others twisted it beyond recognition. Reminder - the filing of a criminal libel complaint by the Whites or anyone is news for JB case watchers. Rather than rely on often slanted interpretations, scrutinizing a public record is the route I prefer. And Mr Holly and I were willing to put the hours in so everyone could see the facts of the criminal libel case. Facts which revealed, among other things, that no internet poster was named. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Pedro" Posted by darby on 11:23:17 5/10/2001 In a word, no. I've never run over to CS for the sole purpose of using that forum to complain about any JW poster. I realize that some of the posters over there can't post here because they've been banned. But we're talking about the posters who currently post at both places--you know, the ones who bash JW posters at CS, mainly because poster-bashing isn't allowed here. (And y'all know how I feel about that, LOL!) dd [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Sure..." Posted by Pedro on 19:10:19 5/10/2001 ...Darby, you're right ;-). Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "You're welcome Mame...&...Holly" Posted by Cassandra on 11:06:08 5/10/2001 Mame: I hope things settle down, but apparently some people don't want that to happen. Holly: Thanks for gathering that info. As I've told you before, you've got big brass ones and can talk to anybody! You constantly amaze me! lol Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Darby" Posted by Florida on 12:01:57 5/10/2001 the ones who bash JW posters at CS, mainly because poster-bashing isn't allowed here. (And y'all know how I feel about that, LOL!) Mame called Real Stormy a Baby Raper Hench Person which is a lot worse than anything mames been called at CS. In the past she called those of us who have questioned Nancy Krebs story the same thing. You don't call that poster-bashing? Mame has clearly broken JW House Rule #8 three times. all posts about nancy krebs and myself are being archived and forwarded to a powerful legal team who find every word written of interest... and when appropriate to the FBI. and again today: due to security issues with my children and family i will most definately take any and all legal action to halt such personal comments if need be. She threatend legal action last week on another thread. Do you really think Mame will have to pay the consequences for clear violations of the house rules? Others have been banned or put on a time out for bending a rule. This is the reason for the animosity. House Rule No. 8: Lawsuits belong in the courthouse, not here Any poster who wishes to bring suit or consider bringing suit against a poster on this or related forums will be asked to discontinue his or her membership in this forum. Threats of lawsuits will be presumed to be serious and posters who make them will lose posting privileges. Nothing is more deadly to a free exchange of ideas than constant threats of legal action. By the same token, posters need to remember that they are responsible for what they say and do here, and that their liability is the same here as anywhere. This rule is not an attempt to limit or question anyone's right to sue. We simply ask that discussion of lawsuits take place elsewhere. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "i have written" Posted by mame on 11:47:43 5/10/2001 to skydog and asked that he remove any posts and threads that discuss me personally. hopefully, he will choose to clean up any and all personal references to me through this personal request. i have no reason to believe skydog won't honor my request...while he obviously disagrees with me, we have met and always had a nice relationship in the past. due to security issues with my children and family i will most definately take any and all legal action to halt such personal comments if need be. i doubt i'll have to do that...i'm sure skydog is out of town, or busy with work, and must not have seen what's happenning on his forum. while i respect anyone who disputes my opinions, stories or anyone who just plain doesn't like me...there is no furthering of justice achieved by making up lies and telling vile tall tales! the underwear thread is priceless... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Love that socks and underwear promo" Posted by MrsBrady on 11:49:54 5/10/2001 Mame and I'm glad to see that you haven't lost your girlish figure! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "mame" Posted by darby on 11:58:23 5/10/2001 That IS a cute picture of you! Glad your new job is a success. (Kudos to candy for speaking up against the posting of posters' personal information.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Florida" Posted by darby on 12:16:20 5/10/2001 I already voiced my opinion about the name calling--I don't agree with it, and mame knows it. The lawsuit thing is another matter. The spirit of that JW rule has to do with posters being threatened by other posters with lawsuits due to various opinions about Ramsey-case figures. The posting of posters' personal info is an entirely different matter--It's totally taboo--and we ALL know it. Beyond that, I'm not mame, so take it up with her, if you wish. BTW, I have no control over who gets banned. I wish I did. ;-) dd [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Jeez Mame" Posted by Midnight_Wolf on 12:14:49 5/10/2001 Are you starting to feel like FW or what? I'm sure he didn't feel good about all the chit posted about him either. That never seemed to stop you however. Doesn't feel good when the shoe is on the other foot does it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "what?" Posted by fly on 12:44:45 5/10/2001 mame - You're asking skydog to remove any posts that discuss you? You, Ms. anti-censorship, First Amendment crusader? Unless it was edited before I read it, nothing there disclosed any personal information about you that wasn't already highly public. I'm totally against posting anybody's personal information (phone, address, name, etc.), but that's not what is going on at CS, and I don't think you are limiting your request to that. Even so, you've always crowed about your openness about your identity, and you posted about your job and your tie-dye socks fundraiser yourself. Seems to me that you're getting yourself in a lather with little justification. darby - Are you saying you agree that mame has violated the ban on threats of lawsuits, or are you suggesting that JW rule doesn't apply in this situation? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Fly..." Posted by Pedro on 19:20:44 5/10/2001 ....ain't you an alien too? remember that movie?...with Sigouney Weaver (kind of hard to remember how to type her name). Fly, type with me 3000 times *I will say only Yes m'am*...you been a bad *whatever your gender is* :-). I am not talking about the MW folks in this sentence ok?...*some members of this forum have disclose, post and created a forum dedicated to me with my name, last name, my wife's name and last name, my picture, details of our lifes and our ex-spouse, however they didn't do it in JW* So whatever anyone does in other forum is that forum business and that forum moderator's business, not JW nor JW moderators business. Anyway I think have them advertising the product of their wrong doings isn't much decent, but..."this is only my opinion and I could be wrong" :-) And remember folks *What is good for the goose is good for the gander*. Mame, Darby, Mary and Holly have never done wrong to me other than the normal arguments between posters, here or anywhere else. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "fly" Posted by darby on 13:08:58 5/10/2001 My opinion is that the JW lawsuit rule is meant to encourage freedom to express any and all opinions about the Ramsey case--without worry about potential lawsuits. I don't think the rule was ever meant as a license for posters to freely broadcast personal information about other posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "darby" Posted by fly on 13:11:08 5/10/2001 darby - Sorry, but I don't see any limitations as to the focus of any lawsuit. Can you point me to the place where personal information was posted? I guess I missed it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "fly." Posted by Holly on 21:43:16 5/10/2001 You missed it because skydog took it down. The FW address which is also listed in public records as Fleet Oil, was taken down by 7:20 am and that was after taking 20 minutes to figure out how to do it. Only a couple of hundred hits were logged at the time compared to the 2000+ now. Please don't try to make it sound as though it was up for a loooooong time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Fly" Posted by mary99 on 13:24:54 5/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:24:54, 5/10/2001 Clue #1: posts on threads at the yellow tape forum aren't numbered. Clue #2: see Holly's post above. edited to add: why has discussing Fleet become verboten at JW and CS yet other case figures are still being discussed in a way that could be called an invasion of privacy, for those sensitive to the feelings of murder suspects and their friends? Which none of the posters being discussed happen to be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Mary99" Posted by Midnight_Wolf on 13:34:38 5/10/2001 I still don't see where any personal info has been posted regarding Mame. If you mean her real name, it has been online for longer than the 3 years I have been online. I know absolutely nothing about her family. I don't know if she is married or not. I don't know how many children she has. I don't know her address. I don't know her phone number. I do know she has a noisy dog. Is that narrowing down the field any? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Where has " Posted by Florida on 13:43:53 5/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:43:53, 5/10/2001 Mame's personal information been posted by the posters at CS? Mame posted that newspaper article herself months ago. Her name is certainly no secret as she uses it in her "web" broadcasts. She had pictures of herself and her dog posted at CS for years - what personal information is anyone posting there? I believe this is the JW forum for Fleet discussion, Mary and the thread at CS is about the FW libel case. Mame has been the major internet reporter on the NK/FW subject so discussion of mame on the subject of NK/FW is no different than a discussion of Peter Boyles or Chuck Green. Edited to add: on the subject of NK/FW [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "FW Criminal Libel case" Posted by mary99 on 13:49:15 5/10/2001 ...not too many are discussing the FW libel case though. Mostly bashing the posters who questioned Fleet's actions and motivations. And, for what it's worth, they are taking their wrath at those posters (who weren't targets of the Criminal Libel suit after all!) out on the posters instead of questioning, perhaps, why Peter Boyles was named as a defendant. I think it's beyond explaining if the conflicted emotions of the defensive posters who are on the offensive aren't readily apparent already. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "mary99" Posted by fly on 15:17:45 5/10/2001 mary99 - Rather than posting clues, why not just come right out and post what you mean? I don't see anything in Holly's post that is relevant. FW's personal information (phone, etc.) was originally not redacted in Holly's posting of the legal papers. As far as I can tell, mame's personal information was not posted. If by unnumbered posts at CS you are insinuating that somebody deleted an entire post, leaving no trace of it, why not say so. I had read the threads before mame's claim, and didn't see any personal info then. Plus, I thought deleting a post there still left remnants. Discussing FW is not forbidden at either JW or CS. If people at CS choose not to discuss it, that's their choice. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the current issue: mame's claims that she is being threatened, having her personal information posted, and having sexual stuff being said about her, and her response involving her own threats toward others and her call for censorship. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "fly" Posted by darby on 15:13:38 5/10/2001 "Nothing is more deadly to a free exchange of ideas than constant threats of legal action." This is one reason why I think the JW lawsuit rule applies the way I think it does. Anyway, I'm going with the spirit if this rule, not the letter. (Technically, I suppose you are correct.) I would hope that "free exchange of ideas" does not include someone's lame "idea" of posting personal information about another poster. In fact, I'm GLAD that the L word got brought up in this instance...and I have a feeling you are too (secretly). Hopefully, this might discourage others from following "Abra"'s example. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "I don't get it" Posted by Scully on 15:51:02 5/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:51:02, 5/10/2001 Chris went to a lot of time and trouble to provide you with a free and open forum for the many posters who wished to continue discussion relating to the FW/NK/sex ring connection. To my amazement, those of you who were frothing at the mouth last week and insisting that the FW/MW connection was relevant to the JBR case are barely discussing the issues at all. Instead, you have chosen to take up your arguments with posters from a different forum altogether. May I ask why the hell you put Chris through all this trouble? Why don't you just join the CS forum and debate the same old crazy crap regarding FW, NK, FW's libel case, and mame's problems with posters over at the other forum? Now that you have no one here to debate your claims that FW was a pedo-sex ringer, it seems to me you grew bored in a hurry and made haste over to CS to find someone to argue with. Whether those arguments concern FW/NK or sex rings or complaints of posters being trashed seems not to matter to you. Are you guys nuts or something? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Scully -" Posted by Holly on 22:38:11 5/10/2001 Get it straight, please. Posters did not say that about White - Nancy Krebs did. Posters have debated the information. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "darby" Posted by fly on 15:22:04 5/10/2001 darby - I'll ask again: Where was truly personal information about mame posted? Was it completely deleted soon afterward, as I think mary99 is insinuating? Who did it? Exactly what was posted? Did you see it yourself, or are you just assuming mame is calling things accurately. And while you're at it, where was she threatened? Somebody said they hoped she'd get sued, but that isn't a threat IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Fly and all" Posted by Gemini on 16:09:23 5/10/2001 I din't see any personal information about mame we didn't already know, either. I did see a post that said something about some JW posters deserving to be "punished". That was kind of weird and kinky, but nothing I'd take seriously if I were the posters in question. History is a wonderful teacher. It hasn't been all that long ago that the poster now known as Criminy got her feelings hurt and brought down the BNF forum via threats of lawsuits. Surely nobody wants to see a repeat of that mess. If any of us opt to be controversial, we have to be ready to ride out the storm. I don't thiink it's the responsibility of any of the JBR forum owners to protect us from the bumps and potholes in the route we choose. What did y'all think about the West Word article? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "fly" Posted by darby on 16:07:10 5/10/2001 I'm inferring from posts here and from CS posters, notably candy (who I trust), that personal info got posted at CS. (My guess is that some, if not all, of those posts got deleted.) I personally don't know anything concerning threats. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Darby" Posted by Gemini on 16:10:26 5/10/2001 But, I don't think it had anything to do with mame. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Gemini and fly." Posted by Holly on 22:46:09 5/10/2001 The "personal" information was not just her picture etc, it was a very inappropriate and sexually explicit post about sodomy and mame and Nancy Krebs. It may still be there Disgusting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Yes Holly" Posted by Gemini on 23:34:55 5/10/2001 That was a creepy post by a creepy poster who has stooped to similar crap many times before ... but I'd hardly call it "personal information". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Gemini." Posted by Holly on 04:57:12 5/11/2001 I think you can understand how offensive it is, though. And then a thread just to show mame's picture and employment location. Tacky. And it is personal information posted just because they could. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "more thoughts" Posted by mame on 16:28:31 5/10/2001 i could care less about the jabs and mild comments...i certainly have taken my share and could care less. the posts concerning my interview with nancy referring to sexual references and also the comments concerning types of underwear beyond plain old socks is not acceptable in my mind. for those who believe i deserve this for covering nancy krebs story...clearly it's NOT the same...if you think any jounalist who writes or covers a story you don't like deserves to have their personal life invaded to "see how it feels" is appropriate or ethical, think again. it's one of the strongest rules in journalist...a line not crossed hardly ever. and when it is rarely done the rath of reporters and editors is upon the source. the ramsey family and ANY person close to them most especially those in the house that day or who had contact with jonbenet ramsey are still open to comment and scrutiny. i have never named names...however, a huge part of journalistic archives show stories with exactly that content and the same amount of scrutiny. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "and, if it matters" Posted by Gemini on 16:56:35 5/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:56:35, 5/10/2001 I'm not in favor of any "bash White" rhetoric ... my personal value system says it's wrong. And, while I'm also not thrilled with seeing forum posters bashed, surely you can see that in the minds of some, this has turned into an "eye for an eye" kind of thing. Each of us has to follow our own conscience ... just don't be so surprised if some folks out there decide to throw it back at you. Wish everybody would just let it go and move forward. (edited to fix it : ) ... never good to skip the preview) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Well Gemini." Posted by Holly on 21:44:06 5/10/2001 Can you provide me an example of a Fleet bashing post? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "umm umm" Posted by Gemini on 23:33:06 5/10/2001 Holly, I've seen fleet-bashing threads, and so have we all. But no, I'm not gonna get dragged back into that maelstrom. Chris is not comfortable with the squabbling, and I have no intention of wrangling back and forth with you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Gemini." Posted by Holly on 05:31:33 5/11/2001 Here's why I asked. Darby and I talked to the wee hours last night in part trying to figure out exactly what "Fleet bashing" is? Is it a discussion of Nancy Krebs claims, that by the nature of the claims, is pretty unpleasant? Is it a discussion of the over the top behaviors that caused the Paughs to call 911 and conceal a gun? Or the discussion of Fleet attributed to Beckner via Steve Thomas? Isn't Mark Beckner a "basher" too? In truth, I don't see Fleet bashing if bashing is just talking about the issues. Or posting information. If there is discussion of his court FTA - that's not bashing. It happened and the conversation led to a couple of calls that eventually set the record straight. I think people are over reacting. But I'd change my mind if someone could repost some of the offensive, bashing discussion. I just don't see it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Maybe FW could" Posted by v_p on 19:47:30 5/10/2001 get an appointment with said legal team?? >>>all posts about nancy krebs and myself are being archived and forwarded to a powerful legal team who find every word written of interest... and when appropriate to the FBI.<<< [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "You are full of wisdom" Posted by Msracoon on 20:42:12 5/10/2001 Mame. I am glad you are standing up for all that is good and right, specifically your family. It is not unusual for the devil and all of his cohorts to be upset with you my friend. When one is walking in the same direction as the evil (along side of him), one is not threatened by him. Do good and help others and all hell is upset. Same for revealing his darkness, for helping others and for speaking truth. So do not be amazed at all of the evil spirits that are active and attacking you and other true seekers of Truth, for it is to be expected. Do not be discouraged, we must be doing something right. Something is about to break wide open concerning all of this darkness. Take care of your children and yourself. God bless you all. Love, Ms.Racoon P.S. Noticed today that someone (can't remember who and not important) stating that old phrase "you're crazy", "you're nuts". Jesus help us, that's the oldest mind controlling statement on the books. It's old. It won't work, and I do not receive such words in the name of Jesus! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Question..." Posted by Pedro on 20:37:45 5/10/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:37:45, 5/10/2001 Has anyone threat with legal actions to a JW member for posts in JW?. I don't know how to read the house rules properly, could be: 1.- legal threats to a JW member for posts in JW 2.-legal threats for posts anywhere else against a JW member. 3.-or just legal threats to a JW member posted in JW regardless of the where and why. I think there's people who is here to make those decissions and decide the correct reading of the house rules. I think would be better if the persons feeling threated refer the post with the threat to Chris for her consideration than keep arguing over it. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Good Post Pedro" Posted by JR on 22:02:31 5/10/2001 I hope you are feeling better. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "I feel very well..." Posted by Pedro on 07:54:30 5/11/2001 ...thanks. Getting some time for myself. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "No, Pedro" Posted by Lacey on 20:48:05 5/10/2001 I don't think we should threaten Chris. That would be bad. It's possible I misunderstood what you said? ;) And I see miz mame is a-dropping names, again. FYI mame, the FBI considers yourself a certifiable nut-case, so notify away! That's entertainment. LOL Perhaps we all need to chill. Seems appropriate Lacey [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Lacey knows" Posted by Holly on 21:45:56 5/10/2001 the FBI? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Ms Lacey ..." Posted by Mandarin on 22:17:35 5/10/2001 You are so gutsy AND funny! BTW, I think Pedro meant to say that "people who are or feel threatened should refer the alleged threatening posts to Chris for her review. Is that what you were saying, Pedro? Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Yes, Mandarin..." Posted by Pedro on 07:53:42 5/11/2001 ...that's it. Lacey, bite me,as my wife say often. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Long Time No See" Posted by Lacey on 06:00:30 5/11/2001 Thanks, Mand, my friend. I've returned a kindler, gentler person and seriously do try to avoid the Fleet-bashers but, confussed (lol) by the new forum format I simply and quite innocently stumbled upon them and issued my comment accordingly. Because you see I see they are still up to their same ol' slanderous slime. And although they theem thick as thieves, I believe they would turn on one another in a heartbeat. Business as usual for people like "that." I'm about ready to drop off the radar anyway. Not expecting any further progress in the JBR homicide.. Due to budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel will be out. Unfortunately. Know the FBI? Yeah, about as well as Mame. La Lacey [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "I Have Serious Problems With This Thread" Posted by LoriAnn on 09:23:07 5/11/2001 I have no intention of getting involved in this convoluted mess, but I have serious problems with "good Christians" lumping all the FW supporters into the imps of Satan category. I think some people, myself included, are holding out for some substantial evidence to be provided before we start pointing fingers at Fleet White. I have no doubt that Nancy Krebs is a troubled woman, but we have yet to see one ounce of evidence to support her claims that Fleet White's family was involved in the heinous offenses that she reports. Until then, could we please refrain from banishing those of differing opinions to HELL for having the audacity to want more than hearsay? That said, I have serious problems with a woman who has suffered abuse her entire life who refuses to press charges against those responsible for the abuse. The story is out, the secret has been revealed, and yet we still have no charges filed against anyone to date. Could someone please explain the reasoning behind this? I can understand that she is fearful, but the story has been told and she truly has nothing to lose and everything to gain by prosecuting the responsible parties. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "HOlly " Posted by fly on 09:50:06 5/11/2001 HOlly - I had read the relevant threads before mame posted about threats etc. - certainly long before the time you quoted. Still a chance I missed it, but I'm surprised nobody over there posted about the deletions - you know who some there caterwaul whenever any censorship is involved. Sorry, but stating an opinion that mame's interest in the details of NK's abuse has a purient aspect to it is hardly posting her personal information. I can't recall getting that sort of vibe from mame's interview, but I will say that I have from some of the other posters here who have posted in explicit detail what they think happened to JBR. They've sometimes seemed to get a thrill from posting some particularly "juicy" possibility. It isn't an outrageous thing to think, IMO, although posting it might be rather rude. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "fly." Posted by Holly on 11:43:56 5/11/2001 Sigh. And where does it get us? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 106. "Holly" Posted by fly on 12:08:30 5/11/2001 Holly - Where does what get us? Obviously not to a straight answer from you or mame as to those threats or the supposed personal information that was posted (other than stuff she had made public) and has mame sending stuff to her lawyers and the FBI, and demanding all posts about her be removed from CS. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Details" Posted by janphi on 10:21:28 5/11/2001 I am one of those posters who goes into great detail about the physical evidence concerning JonBenet's abuse and death. It took me several months of reading constantly about all aspects of the case before I could even think about the sexual part of it. Once I got to that part, I went into just as much detail as I had about everything else. Why wouldn't I? I'm a detailed person. I'm also a verbal person, not a visual person and I can't/don't/won't allow any of the words or imagery to get to me--not from an emotional standpoint, as in crying a lot, like I did the first few months of studying all this, or from a sexual standpoint. I truly had to go wash my hands when I first started looking up research on all the sexual aspects we were discussing. I'm still not completely de-sensitized, but my God! I would've never even thought of anyone "getting off" on this stuff--but we had a poster who used to be here who accused Nancy supporters of that (like they accused mame & others on CS the past few days) and now someone else had brought that up. Aren't we all adults? Are there some on these fora who are so juvenile that they actually think like Beavis & Butthead? Heh heh heh, you said vagina! All it tells me is that the people who think that stuff up are the ones with the mental masturbation problems, not the ones whom they are accusing. Some people have no boundaries and I'm guessing they are the ones who get these porn pix in their heads. I've noticed they also don't post much about case-related things. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "YES!!!!!!!!!" Posted by Pedro on 10:45:48 5/11/2001 .we're like Beaves&Butthead, hehehe huhuhu...you say vagina!!!!!!! B&B. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "LoriAnn" Posted by darby on 09:46:19 5/11/2001 I agree. Posters should be treated as individuals. Nobody should be accused of being part of a coven, a satanic group, etc., etc. I, too, am interested in more information before making any conclusions about anyone, including FW. Furthermore, I think it's correct to assume that FW is a good guy unless solid proof shows something contrary. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Lorianne." Posted by Holly on 10:28:19 5/11/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:28:19, 5/11/2001 How do we know she didn't seek charges 25 years ago or since? A prosecutor may have decided they just didn't have enough to prosecute. And no one has to criminally charge someone to convince me of their sincerity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Is This Another Teaser?" Posted by LoriAnn on 09:52:34 5/11/2001 Are you saying that she filed charges against members of Fleet White's family some 25 years ago and it was dismissed? Since I have seen NO DOCUMENTATION OF SUCH FILING, I must admit that this seems hinky and makes me say, probably not. I think this is one of the problems with this discussion. Those "in the "know" (Holly, Morgan, Mary99, and Mame) don't seem to know anymore than anyone else, but these little innuendos have kept the whole argument afloat for over a year now. If there is proof, please post it. If you are just speculating, please say so. Stop with all the "I know something you don't know" crap. If it was so damned important to dredge up this woman's entire life history, state the facts and let the chips fall where they may. And I must tell you that as a healthcare professional, I hear truckloads of bullshit every single day, so I do require a bit more proof than just someone's word in instances such as this. You would be surprised at the number of virgins who come into the office pregnant as hell. You would be also be astonished at the number of virgins who come in with every STD known to man. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Lori!!!!!!!" Posted by Pedro on 11:23:06 5/11/2001 .....You scientifics don't get it!!! Those are MIRACLES!!!!!! ;-) Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Good grief Lorriane." Posted by Holly on 09:59:48 5/11/2001 I'm just wondering. It was a quarter of a century ago. If she was providing testimony about Boykin, maybe she also talked about other stuff. I know another poster claims to have called the DA, but I'm suspicious a DA would instantly recall the details of a 25 year old case, and discuss a sex crimes case involving a juvenile victim with a phone caller. I'd really like to see what the DA's investigator's notes were. I think you are over-reacting to this. IMHO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Holy" Posted by LoriAnn on 10:17:56 5/11/2001 I'm overreacting??? FLOL! Whatever. And how would you quantify your reaction to this entire line of discussion? Nuclear reaction? You have taken this woman's story to the outer limits and have jeopardized the integrity of the Justice Watch forum without even a shred of remorse on more than one occasion. I'm just obnoxious enough to call you on it. ONCE AGAIN, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF SANS DRAMATIC INTERPRETATION? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "OK, Lorianne" Posted by Holly on 10:30:59 5/11/2001 What proof are you talking about? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Am I Reading this Right??" Posted by Harley on 09:36:19 5/11/2001 If we disagree with Mame and the MW crap we are cohorts of the devil? Well darn in my 8 years of Catholic schooling they never taught me that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Harley, LoriAnn...!!!." Posted by Pedro on 11:06:15 5/11/2001 ...that's a NO NO in the catholic church. Did you read the work *The Santitate NKnenssis* by Monsignore Ratzinger...?... This attitude will clearly send you to hell in company of the unnamed Follen Angel !!! Your enemies will be allow to destroy your life and hurt your reputation and good name, yes, after you are marked with the ignominious sin, you are history!!!. Anyone from that point on, can spit, defecate, and lie about you and yours, don't expect the forces of good to help you, because you deserve whatever you get from whoever you get it. And remember, after this unnamed sin, there's no redemption at all, they let you forget it, but you'll always pay for it!!!. The warriors of God will cooperate with Babilon's Prostitute (Bible words textualy) to erase your existance from the universe. heh. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Interesting" Posted by watchin' on 10:29:14 5/11/2001 The very peop0le who DID NOT WANT to be involved in NY discussion of MW or FW started that very same topic in the yellow tape forum and go the the very 'room' that was isolated for such topics.. Considering all the discussion AFTER the discussion it seems obvious to any rational person that these folks love the conflict more than FW, otherwise they would avoid this room and reduce the bandwith over there where there are more discussions UNrealted to the murder of Jonbenet than on any other forum. Just an observation.;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Holly" Posted by Florida on 10:28:07 5/11/2001 I know another poster claims to have called the DA, but I'm suspicious a DA would instantly recall the details of a 25 year old case, and discuss a sex crimes case involving a juvenile victim with a phone caller. I'd really like to see what the DA's investigator's notes were. If you read what Lovely Pigeon wrote - she talked to him AFTER he was questioned by the BPD. He must have refreshed himself on the case at the time he spoke to them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Maybe." Posted by Holly on 10:32:08 5/11/2001 But what competent DA would talk to LP to begin with? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "janphi and watchin'" Posted by fly on 10:57:45 5/11/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:57:45, 5/11/2001 janphi - Sure, some people might be projecting, but I'll stick with the idea that some are also getting some thrills by posting sexual scenarios (and I'm talking about detailed scenarios, not just discussing the facts of the case). BTW, I'm not a projector. Remember, I'm the humorless, emotionless, cold-fish fly. Those scenarios don't do a think for me. And remember, mental masturbation, at least as I've always used it and heard it used, does not refer to sexual matters. It refers to the apparent pleasure obtained by debating or discussing things that are not exactly important to the issue at hand (minutia, matters of principle, or tangential matters). Edited to reinsert the comment to watchin, given that I forgot to delete the reference in the subject line.... watchin - I never thought the split would end the debate, because I figured it would be hard for some folks to ignore what they sincerely disagree with. However, mame's issues were what got some people active here, not the NK story itself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Holleigh" Posted by LoriAnn on 10:45:17 5/11/2001 Two can play this game, no? The proof I'm looking for is 1) Proof that Fleet White, JR was involved in any of the crimes committed against Nancy Krebs; 2) Proof that Fleet White, SR was anything more than the godfather of Nancy's mother (ie. proof that he was one of the people who sexually abused Nancy Krebs); 3) Proof that Nancy Krebs has filed charges against any of her abusers other than Mackie Boykin; 4) Direct quotes of allegations made against the White family by Nancy Krebs. If you can provide me with these four items, I might be more inclined to champion the cause of Nancy Krebs. Until then, I will continue to assume that this is all just viscious rumor and unsubtantiated bullshit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "As soon as they are provided to me" Posted by Holly on 11:03:38 5/11/2001 I'll pass them on. Any public record I can find -as in the complete court provided Macky Boykin record, I'll post. I assume you are just being amusing. You do know that we have always based speculation on the information provided by the media. I've never talked to Nancy, emailed her, met her or anything else. I said it all last March when I posted a thread LEAP OF FAITH. Until someone proves her a liar or fraud or the BPD charges her with the crime of FALSE STATEMENT, she has my interest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Phil MacDowell" Posted by Florida on 10:44:06 5/11/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:44:06, 5/11/2001 District Attorney of Inyo County. ADA at the time of Nancy Krebs complaints against Mackey Boykin. Are you calling L.P. a liar Holly? Are you saying she made up her conversation with him? Edited for clarity [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "FL" Posted by Holly on 11:18:40 5/11/2001 If you were a juvenile victim of rape and sex crimes, would you imagine the day when the DA who prosecuted the case, would discuss it in detail with a stranger on the phone? Particularly after (as you claim) they had a heads up from AH? I'm saying it does not make sense to me. If that equals calling someone a liar, I'd say that is the inference you wish to draw. I think that it was either overstated or misunderstood. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Hollee" Posted by LoriAnn on 11:03:24 5/11/2001 I am certainly no fan of Lovely Pigeon's and I have disagreed with her on almost every single facet of the JonBenet Ramsey case, but I find her to be as credible if not more so than you are, Hollee. At least she did post her findings along with documentation of such, which is more than I can say for you or your cohorts who work 24/7 jerking us around with rumors and vague innuendo. Furthermore, I have also lost a tremendous amount of respect for Mame. Was she not bitching last week about censorship? Now she is trying to censor a forum that she doesn't even post on. I read at Cybersleuths, but I do not post there. I found no personal information about Mame on that forum that she hasn't revealed herself on more than one occasion. And lawsuits? For what? Speaking out about injustice is not a crime in this country and I find her threats to be baseless and immature. She wanted to be sued by Fleet White for crissakes! Begged for it!! She put herself under the bus and now she wants to know why she has tire tracks on her back. Where is the logic in that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "LoriAnn." Posted by Holly on 11:14:03 5/11/2001 LP posted 2-4 pages of an incomplete record including a probation report. Later Chris put up a website, and posted the complete record, I obtained from the court. I think the offense was a comment about sodomy followed by a news article about the socks and undies drive. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Holly.." Posted by Pedro on 11:37:09 5/11/2001 ...I don't remember very well, Did LP posted those reports about NK here?. I haven't read the post by Chris' with the report, I am lossing my memory or you are mistaken? Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Offenses" Posted by LoriAnn on 11:35:59 5/11/2001 I was equally offended by Mame's remark about baby rapers in reference to those who are in support of Fleet White's position. I have yet to see a public apology for that comment from her. In consideration of your concession that no documentation of Nancy Kreb's claims exists to your knowledge, I think it is imperative that Mame post an apology for that ludicrous and inflammatory statement. This forum has been bloodied and battered beyond recognition due to NK zealots such as yourself, who now admit that they have no proof whatsoever as evidenced by your post above. I think an apology is the least that could be offered considering that my dear friend Chris does not deserve this bullshit from ungrateful individuals who have taken advantage of her latitude on this subject. I'm angry as hell that her reputation has been bastardized for allowing this discussion and now to find out that it was all for nothing infuriates me to no end. There are many good posters who were driven off this forum due to this ongoing war and those people deserve more than an apology, but I think that would be a step in the right direction, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "LoriAnn" Posted by Holly on 11:42:53 5/11/2001 I am not speaking for mame. I'm speaking of the forum in general. The colloquial WE. Don't forget some of the media people who reported the story discussed 1 or 2 tapes of evidence, documents, photos etc. I would say mame had a far different relationship with Nancy. Why don't you address your ruined forum concerns in an email to Chris? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Excuse Me, Holly" Posted by LoriAnn on 11:58:59 5/11/2001 But I didn't realize that you were in charge here. If Chris has a problem with my posts, I'm sure she will let me know. Until such communication is directed to me by Chris, I am perfectly comfortable speaking about my problem with your "leap of faith" right here in the open for the whole world to see. Did I say that you have ruined the forum? Not in so many words, but that could be my opinion. However, you should let me speak for myself in the future instead of putting words into my mouth. The same could be said for Nancy Krebs. I would like to hear her speak for herself instead of having to depend on your interpretation of what she said or what she meant or what she should have said. Likewise for Mame. I would like to hear NK's story sans Mame's commentary or interpretation. However, since Nancy Krebs has chosen to handle her problems outside a court of law, I guess that will not happen. Therefore, Fleet White is exonerated from all wrongdoing until proven otherwise and this whole line of discussion is a waste of time, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 107. "Uh, Lorianne." Posted by Holly on 12:09:05 5/11/2001 Nancy Krebs spoke in two Toppcat taped interviews last May. Her own voice, her own words. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 113. "Duh, Holly" Posted by LoriAnn on 12:15:41 5/11/2001 I heard the interviews. How else would I know that Mame dominated the whole thing with her constant interruptions and interpretations? Don't underestimate your opponent here, sister. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 112. "HOlly" Posted by fly on 12:14:23 5/11/2001 Holly - At least one of those interviews contained very little of NK's story out of NK's mouth, and a whole lot of NK's story out of mame's mouth. I don't remember if the other one where NK got to talk a bit more had much detail about the supposed crimes. Seems like it was mostly about how she was treated by the officials. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 131. "fly." Posted by Holly on 23:04:45 5/11/2001 I think NK talked about her neice and an episode in a car. She talked about the BPD pretty extensively. She talked about the Boykin case and detailed her journey to Boulder. She also talked in detail about the physical assaults. And then she explained a bit about why she came forward. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "Lorianne." Posted by Holly on 12:06:49 5/11/2001 Listen to Pedro. It's a good thing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "Lori!!!!!!!" Posted by Pedro on 12:01:19 5/11/2001 Reconsider!!!!!! You are going to loss your soul!!!! :-) Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "What Lovely Pigeon actually" Posted by Florida on 11:35:57 5/11/2001 posted were the charge sheets and the sentencing and probation sheets. The end result was the same thing you came up with. Further, I don't think the following sounds like she is overstating or misunderstanding. She emailed him a copy of her post and asked him if he had any corrections and he did not. She made the effort to contact him, got through to him and got the facts. Maybe you're just a little miffed you didn't! Callie = Nancy Krebs I just got off the phone with Inyo County DA Phil McDowell, a very pleasant sounding man. He's been working (his way up) in the District Attorneys office in Inyo since 1975. He was deputy DA in 79-80 and prosecuted Macky Boykin, along with then DA Gibbons. I told him I would be writing and asked him not to tell me anything I couldn't repeat. I didn't want to be stuck with knowledge I couldn't share.Here's what he said, in answer to my questions: The BPD contacted McDowell a few months back and asked him about Callie and the Boykin case. He has not been contacted by FBI. A reporter from Boulder called him, also, but he didn't learn anything about Callie's recent claims until I told him. (I am emailing him the urls to the Callie stories.) The only person Callie accused when she spoke to DA was Macky Boykin. There was no mention of any sex ring, no childhood abuse by anyone. No abuse claims of mother or relatives or friends or anyone. No stories of others having sex with her. No involvement with social services. The evidence against Macky was simply her claims. Her mother and her step-father (who is Macky's brother) were very supportive of Callie then. They believed her, and stood behind her to press charges and prosecute. It was difficult for the Boykin family, being as Macky was the step-uncle of Callie. Protective services were not available from state or counties until recently, so any claim that Nancy made about being out of state in protective custody would have been family arrangments. McDowell was not aware of any arrangements made for Callie. Any contact by Macky to Callie would have immediately revoked his probation, and caused a hearing. No contact was ever reported by anyone regarding Macky having further contact with Callie. McDowell was not aware of Callie's 1991 claim against Boykin in San Luis Obispo. McDowell had some awareness of the JonBenét Ramsey case ("How could anyone avoid all the media attention!") but Callie had never mentioned any Fleet Whites when she made her claims in 1979. He was not aware of Callie's mother's connection as godchild of Fleet Sr. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 115. "BTW -" Posted by Holly on 12:16:43 5/11/2001 "Any contact by Macky to Callie would have immediately revoked his probation, and caused a hearing. No contact was ever reported by anyone regarding Macky having further contact with Callie. McDowell was not aware of Callie's 1991 claim against Boykin in San Luis Obispo." Does that mean someone lied when they told the forum Nancy had filed a false report that caused 100 hours of police work? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 119. "Boykin's probation " Posted by Florida on 12:26:24 5/11/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:26:24, 5/11/2001 ended in 1985/6. The SLO thing was in 1991 - I don't understand what you mean. SLO was investingating this and found he was out of state. SLO would have dealt with the ISD not the DA's office. Why would McDowell have been aware of it? McDowell was not aware of Callie's 1991 claim against Boykin in San Luis Obispo." Does that mean someone lied when they told the forum Nancy had filed a false report that caused 100 hours of police work? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "FL" Posted by Holly on 11:48:02 5/11/2001 Thanks for that refresher. It's more gruesome than I recalled. What a blabber mouth. What extraordinary detail about a case involving a minor as the victim and shared with a perfect stranger. Isn't there a law in CA about that? There certainly should be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "He didn't answer questions about " Posted by Florida on 11:58:34 5/11/2001 what IS IN the record Holly, he answered questions about what IS NOT IN the record. There's nothing wrong with that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 111. "Wrong, FL." Posted by Holly on 12:13:23 5/11/2001 he stupidly discussed a case regarding the rape of a minor. He said he could not recall peripheral discussions regarding abuses by others and even expressed wonderment at Gwen Boykin being goddaughter to FW. Why would he care, if he'd never heard of FW anyway? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 122. "I disagree, Holly" Posted by Florida on 13:14:28 5/11/2001 he stupidly discussed a case regarding the rape of a minor. He said he could not recall peripheral discussions regarding abuses by others and even expressed wonderment at Gwen Boykin being goddaughter to FW. Why would he care, if he'd never heard of FW anyway? He was asked if there was anything in the record regarding allegations of generational sexual abuse - Nancy's charges - he said there is nothing like that in the record. All he is obligated to do is not answer questions about what is in the record, Holly, he has every right to say what is not in the record. McDowell had some awareness of the JonBenét Ramsey case ("How could anyone avoid all the media attention!") but Callie had never mentioned any Fleet Whites when she made her claims in 1979. He was not aware of Callie's mother's connection as godchild of Fleet Sr. How is this "expressing wonderment" at Gwen Boykin being FW, Sr's godchild? He told LP he didn't know about it - sounds to me like he'd never even heard of any Fleet Whites until asked by LP. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Ok..." Posted by Pedro on 11:33:41 5/11/2001 ...Did I understood this well? People have been put throw this and Nk story has been told to the public and nobody has ask her when and where did she fill a complain-charges whatever against whoever? Or is it that nobody has asked NK if she has filled complains or charges against her abussers of 25 years?. After all, we have been told that she has been continuosly abused until recently. Regarding prosecutors not prosecuting children sexual rings 25 years ago, well, did any of you hear of Kern Co. Ca? In any case, good job folks :-). Beaves&Butthead. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Forget 25 years ago -" Posted by Florida on 11:49:41 5/11/2001 Talk about a year and a half ago. I've asked if anyone has been arrested and charged for the horrendous abuse she claims occured around the time she came to Boulder. She apparently was in such bad shape she was hospialized in Denver. Mame said she had stun gun marks with acid poured on top of them that went to the bone. HAS ANYONE BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS?? Surely one of you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "FL" Posted by Holly on 11:53:11 5/11/2001 I don't know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Holly..." Posted by Pedro on 11:49:27 5/11/2001 ....where was that raport posted? I am checking the archives and I can't find it. I search by LP and Chris. Thanks. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "If you mean the Boykin stuff," Posted by Holly on 11:52:25 5/11/2001 it was pre-October meltdown. Chris might have saved it and I have the hard copies obtained from the court. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "Holly..." Posted by Pedro on 12:00:04 5/11/2001 ...those you make reference in your post # 85, sorry I read it wrong, according to your post Chris posted those raports in a different website that according to you she created for that pourpose. Sorry, I understood your post wrong, I was looking for them here and couldn't find them. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Oh." Posted by Holly on 12:05:13 5/11/2001 So are you saying you never saw them? Do you want to see them? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 110. "LOL!" Posted by LoriAnn on 12:13:15 5/11/2001 If what I have posted here today is going to send me straight to Hell, then I won't be the only one going South. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 114. "Lori!!!!!!" Posted by Pedro on 12:16:32 5/11/2001 Good, kill the unpracticall bitch!!! You'll find many friends in hell doing a beeeg party!!! Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "With all this mess.." Posted by Pedro on 12:08:21 5/11/2001 ...I don't know which ones are those raports Holly. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 108. "Pedro" Posted by Holly on 12:09:58 5/11/2001 Lemme know if you want to see the docs, I'll figure something out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 109. "Holly..." Posted by Pedro on 12:14:58 5/11/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:14:58, 5/11/2001 ...before I close an option, I like to read the information available. I have an opinon and my opinion can be only based upon the information others share with me. I don't remember those reports here or in CS nor Jameson's public forum, those are the only places I can read. I couldn't form a proper opinon without all the information be dissclosed. Edit to add: Yes, I would like to read that. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 118. "THIS IS TOO RICH!" Posted by LoriAnn on 12:21:38 5/11/2001 Holly has a problem with someone talking with Lovely Pigeon on the telephone about the rape of a minor, but Holly has no qualms about broadcasting every salacious detail of Nancy Krebs entire abused life on the forum at every opportunity. Talk about gagging on a gnat and swallowing a camel. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 120. "LoriAnn" Posted by Holly on 12:47:37 5/11/2001 I'm afraid you've lost me on this one. I don't discuss "salacious" details of any victim's abuse. Can you post an example of such a post? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 121. "Sure, Holly" Posted by LoriAnn on 13:03:46 5/11/2001 And I'm Cindy Crawford. If you have the nerve to say that you haven't dissected this woman's entire life in minute detail on this very forum, abuse and all, then I guess you will be in Hell along with the rest of us poor sinners. This is ridiculous. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 123. "Well, Lorianne." Posted by Holly on 13:16:58 5/11/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:16:58, 5/11/2001 Didn't think so. I might discuss the players or the libel case, or maybe the Boykin crimes, but I don't discuss or dwell on salacious details. Salacious defined as - appealing to sexual desire or imagination. No, Lorianne. If that is what you think you have read posted by me, you are mistaken. But I will stand corrected if you are able to refresh my memory with any offending posts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 116. "Pedro." Posted by Holly on 12:18:01 5/11/2001 Maybe Mr Holly will crank up the scanner and add these docs to my PhotoPoint Album. Check the album site on Sunday. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 117. "Ok, Holly..." Posted by Pedro on 12:19:54 5/11/2001 ....thanks, I will. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 124. "holly" Posted by v_p on 18:23:55 5/11/2001 I did see the boykin documents you put up ... all the details of the case ... therefore, I don't get the following statement ... what's the difference? 111. "Wrong, FL." Posted by Holly on 12:13:23 5/11/2001 he stupidly discussed a case regarding the rape of a minor. He said he could not recall peripheral discussions regarding abuses by others and even expressed wonderment at Gwen Boykin being goddaughter to FW. Why would he care, if he'd never heard of FW anyway [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 125. "Well" Posted by FT on 20:52:15 5/11/2001 Surely you all know by now that "Double Standards" is a whole chapter in Holly's Playbook for Forum Posting. Case in point from this thread, Holly says in reference to Nancy Krebs (post #67), "No one has to criminally charge someone to convince me of their sincerity." But Holly uses the fact that Fleet White has not sued Nancy Krebs for slander/libel as "evidence" of his supposed guilt of crimes against her. And, Holly, don't bother asking me to hunt and peck for your exact posts on that subject; they're out there, you know it, I know it, we all know it. In fact, that is another whole chapter from your playbook -- "Post something unproven/negative/inflammatory, pretend you can't remember doing it, and then tell those who call you on it to go and find the injurious posts." And are you forgetting that you, Morgan and mary99 posted extensively about Fleet White's supposed "arrest" on a traffic violation without checking the facts first? And that you had the nerve to tell those who questioned your bald-faced assumptions to request the actual records themselves, after your damage was already done? Another trick from the Holly Playbook that I've noticed on this thread ... "If you Can't Discredit the Message, Attempt to Discredit the Messenger" (e.g., Inyo County DA Phil McDowell). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 130. "FT" Posted by Holly on 22:41:29 5/11/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:41:29, 5/11/2001 You said you would provide the exact story of whether FW was arrested on a trafic stop. Did you? Or is it your bald faced assumption that he was not arrested and did not post a $200 bail bond on an FTA in the case, contrary to the public record? If you can't find them, FT - they aren't there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 126. "Oh my" Posted by Morgan on 21:34:28 5/11/2001 I think I hear the snorting of skittish thoroughbreds! Or would that be the hee hawing of jackasses? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 127. "Well, Morgan" Posted by FT on 21:37:51 5/11/2001 It's certainly not the sound of intelligent debate on your part. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 128. "FT" Posted by Morgan on 21:55:52 5/11/2001 You're the expert. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 129. "Glad you agree" Posted by FT on 21:58:01 5/11/2001 . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 133. "BTW, FT." Posted by Holly on 23:30:33 5/11/2001 I called McDowell and was told he probably wasn't going to talk about anything related to old cases. I left a number, in case he changed his mind - but he never called. I think mame tried to reach him also. No luck. I spend as much time as I can trying to track down stuff and provide a little extra to a topic or issue. Why are you so critical? "Case in point from this thread, Holly says in reference to Nancy Krebs (post #67), "No one has to criminally charge someone to convince me of their sincerity." But Holly uses the fact that Fleet White has not sued Nancy Krebs for slander/libel as "evidence" of his supposed guilt of crimes against her." I've never once uttered FW is guilty of anything except odd behavior, IMO. And I have stated he seems to have trouble appearing in court. I have simply wondered why on earth he didn't go to the heart of the slander? What is to prevent Krebs from writing a book, or selling a screen treatment? Then what? A lawsuit against a publisher, film studio? Why not just sue HER? No damages need be requested, just a gag order from the court. A cease and desist order. Harassment charges. Anything the court can provide. I suggested a restraining order. I am perplexed that in the 14 months since Krebs' arrival, FW has done nothing, but seek criminal charges against the media for reporting a story. I just don't get it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 132. "Morgan" Posted by Scully on 23:15:21 5/11/2001 I hear the distant thunder of a braying jackass that I fear might be coming from your diseased snout. Hope it is not a case of "hoof and mouth disease" because it is known to be rare in humans. If you have traveled abroad recently I understand that they are disinfecting the feet of travelers who are trying to regain entry into the U.S. Please consult with your sister, Holly, about this disease process because in rare moments I must say I agree with Holly during various arguments as long as her husband supplies her with a healthy supply of iced tea. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]