Justice Watch Support JW "well, well, well, II" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... well, well, well, II, v_p, 23:15:45, 5/11/2001 Well Darby, v_p, 08:28:58, 5/12/2001, (#1) v_p, Holly, 08:45:12, 5/12/2001, (#2) FT - , Holly, 08:47:50, 5/12/2001, (#3) Search results for FT, Holly, 08:51:35, 5/12/2001, (#4) Is it working, Holly, 09:07:15, 5/12/2001, (#5) darby's post from first thread, Grace, 09:09:38, 5/12/2001, (#6) I think you might , Florida, 09:32:40, 5/12/2001, (#7) Interesting thred, watchin', 10:11:58, 5/12/2001, (#8) watchin, v_p, 10:22:43, 5/12/2001, (#9) IMO, the forum is awkward , Holly, 10:44:36, 5/12/2001, (#10) The moderator, Florida, 10:52:17, 5/12/2001, (#11) Demolition Darby...the road to hell..., Cassandra, 14:30:27, 5/12/2001, (#13) Darby, A.K., 14:26:14, 5/12/2001, (#12) And some of us, Holly, 23:14:16, 5/12/2001, (#21) Holly , FT, 16:42:39, 5/12/2001, (#14) FT, Holly, 23:10:37, 5/12/2001, (#20) FT, v_p, 19:09:42, 5/12/2001, (#16) You are simplifying Grace, JR, 16:55:55, 5/12/2001, (#15) JR, Grace, 19:48:40, 5/12/2001, (#17) Grace, JR, 20:37:58, 5/12/2001, (#18) No problem, JR., Grace, 07:04:08, 5/13/2001, (#28) Darby - you are simplifying - sorry Grace, JR, 20:45:39, 5/12/2001, (#19) I would like to see, Holly, 23:19:35, 5/12/2001, (#22) Holly..., Pedro, 00:38:02, 5/13/2001, (#23) Pedro., Holly, 06:15:26, 5/13/2001, (#26) Only..., Pedro, 01:09:16, 5/13/2001, (#25) I'm not sure, Holly, 07:12:55, 5/13/2001, (#29) Don't worry, Holly!, A.K., 01:02:30, 5/13/2001, (#24) AK -, Holly, 06:16:49, 5/13/2001, (#27) I remember one post, Florida, 07:50:33, 5/13/2001, (#30) I cannot, Holly, 07:54:49, 5/13/2001, (#31) Why don't, Grace, 08:19:05, 5/13/2001, (#33) which is worse..., mary99, 08:18:23, 5/13/2001, (#32) Mary..., Pedro, 21:41:43, 5/13/2001, (#39) v_p, Florida, darby, 10:05:15, 5/13/2001, (#34) Darby, JR, 12:24:07, 5/13/2001, (#35) JR, Morgan, 12:38:36, 5/13/2001, (#36) Morgan..., Pedro, 21:50:25, 5/13/2001, (#40) Pedro, smellthecoffee, 23:47:17, 5/13/2001, (#46) Smellthecoffe..., Pedro, 09:55:00, 5/14/2001, (#50) Morgan, JR, 12:55:21, 5/13/2001, (#37) Ringleader:, Lacey, 19:16:44, 5/13/2001, (#38) Reasonable Questions, watchin', 22:24:56, 5/13/2001, (#42) Pedro, JR, 22:09:02, 5/13/2001, (#41) Watchin, JR, 22:46:03, 5/13/2001, (#43) JR.., Pedro, 09:56:48, 5/14/2001, (#51) Very true JR, watchin', 23:03:11, 5/13/2001, (#44) watchin'..., Pedro, 09:58:21, 5/14/2001, (#52) Watchin, JR, 23:15:21, 5/13/2001, (#45) JR, mary99, 10:01:27, 5/14/2001, (#54) Mary99, JR, 11:45:30, 5/14/2001, (#60) smellthecoffee, JR, 00:47:57, 5/14/2001, (#47) watchin', darby, 08:29:37, 5/14/2001, (#48) JR, mame, 08:41:54, 5/14/2001, (#49) Yes Mame..., Pedro, 10:00:18, 5/14/2001, (#53) Pedro, mary99, 10:18:32, 5/14/2001, (#55) Mary.., Pedro, 10:28:20, 5/14/2001, (#56) Pedro, Morgan, 10:41:52, 5/14/2001, (#57) Morgan, JR, 11:46:56, 5/14/2001, (#61) Yeah.., Pedro, 10:49:56, 5/14/2001, (#58) Pedro, watchin', 11:41:57, 5/14/2001, (#59) wachin'.., Pedro, 13:16:44, 5/14/2001, (#68) Watchin', Morgan, 12:11:23, 5/14/2001, (#62) Morgan..., Pedro, 13:19:35, 5/14/2001, (#69) Absolutely morgan!, watchin', 12:33:32, 5/14/2001, (#63) Good Question..., Florida, 12:50:45, 5/14/2001, (#65) Florida..., Pedro, 13:21:23, 5/14/2001, (#70) Watchin', Morgan, 12:49:00, 5/14/2001, (#64) It depend..., Pedro, 13:23:23, 5/14/2001, (#71) Morgan., Holly, 13:09:19, 5/14/2001, (#66) The way it's supposed to work:, mary99, 13:12:11, 5/14/2001, (#67) "The way it's supposed to work?", JR, 23:52:32, 5/14/2001, (#96) JR, mary99, 06:12:19, 5/15/2001, (#97) Well Mary99, JR, 22:01:47, 5/15/2001, (#103) A company..., Pedro, 13:27:23, 5/14/2001, (#72) Pedro, Morgan, 13:40:39, 5/14/2001, (#73) Yes Morgan..., Pedro, 13:45:05, 5/14/2001, (#74) Pedro, mary99, 14:04:12, 5/14/2001, (#77) Mary99, Morgan, 14:10:45, 5/14/2001, (#79) Morgan, mary99, 14:16:39, 5/14/2001, (#80) Pedro, Morgan, 14:01:39, 5/14/2001, (#76) Morgan, Pedro, 14:45:29, 5/14/2001, (#85) Pedro, LOL!, Morgan, 14:53:32, 5/14/2001, (#89) Morgan..., Pedro, 14:57:36, 5/14/2001, (#91) ah, excuse me, Edie Pratt, 14:01:34, 5/14/2001, (#75) The shrink.., Pedro, 14:47:40, 5/14/2001, (#86) That's right, EdieP, Morgan, 14:09:15, 5/14/2001, (#78) Remember AM Radio?, watchin', 14:52:55, 5/14/2001, (#88) What about this..., janab, 14:29:08, 5/14/2001, (#82) janab., Holly, 09:59:45, 5/15/2001, (#99) janab, mary99, 06:48:29, 5/15/2001, (#98) Janab..., Pedro, 14:49:33, 5/14/2001, (#87) Janab, Morgan, 14:43:52, 5/14/2001, (#83) And there's..., Pedro, 14:53:43, 5/14/2001, (#90) Pedro., Holly, 10:01:21, 5/15/2001, (#100) Holly..., Pedro, 10:29:47, 5/15/2001, (#102) Gee, Morgan, Edie Pratt, 14:26:09, 5/14/2001, (#81) Edie P, Morgan, 14:44:53, 5/14/2001, (#84) Don't you all, Florida, 15:35:18, 5/14/2001, (#94) FL, Holly, 10:05:16, 5/15/2001, (#101) Actually , darby, 15:29:11, 5/14/2001, (#92) Darby.., Pedro, 15:32:05, 5/14/2001, (#93) Pedro, Morgan, 16:11:07, 5/14/2001, (#95) ................................................................... "well, well, well, II" Posted by v_p on 23:15:45 5/11/2001 I started a thread about nothing once ... at least it was nothing to everyone else, I, on the other hand, was ticked... anyhow, I came back to find the thread had been moved, toot sweet, to the WOR where I came away with just a teeny tiny bit of my a$$ left. Most of the posts were making fun of me for starting such an absurd thread about nothing ... And look at this one ... just keeps going and going and ... lol [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Well Darby" Posted by v_p on 08:30:47 5/12/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:30:47, 5/12/2001 When you make statements to the following: >>It all started out with one side thinking that Nancy Krebs could possibly be telling the truth about her alleged abuser vs. the other side thinking that it's wrong to even discuss it publicly, since she probably isn't.<<< you unwittingly, or maybe wittingly, I can't tell anymore, add fuel to the fire you so proclaim you would like to see put out. Who on this forum ever said they didn't think NK's story should not even be discussed at all publicly? I don't think anyone here cares if NK's story is discussed .. in fact, we begged for the story to be moved to the missing and abused children's forum ... where people concerned for victims of abused children go to read and give their input. But NO, it still has not been done ... is this out of spite? I think so ... how does this spite further NK's cause? I think it has become a matter of ego now and doesn't have a damn thing to do with NK ... if it did, these forum advocates would re-direct all that misguided energy used here heralding her plight to go out and help the woman in RL. You also asked why we don't just go ahead and kill each other ... I, for one, would not even like to meet a couple of the posters here, much less waste my time and energy killing them, and I mean that in the best possible way... ~*~*~*~*~* JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "v_p" Posted by Holly on 08:45:12 5/12/2001 M&E might be appropriate, except that she has claimed a possible relevance to the Ramsey case. She rightly belongs on Forum B as a peripheral story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "FT - " Posted by Holly on 08:47:50 5/12/2001 Nothing revisionist at all. Anything is possible. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Search results for FT" Posted by Holly on 08:51:35 5/12/2001 Justice Watch Support JW Search Result: No Match [ Login ] [ Help ] Your Keyword(s) "Fleet White + molest" did not match. Please try again Keyword(s): *Search Which Forum(s)? The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey (Private)Beyond JonBenét Ramsey (Private)Murdered, Missing & Exploited Children and True Crime (Protected)Front Porch (Protected)Work Out Room (Private)JonBenét Ramsey (Private)Search All Forums **Search how many days in the past? 1 day3 days5 days10 days20 days30 days90 days1 year Search the Archive? ***Include Private Forums? *Note: Searching every forum may take a while. **Note: Searching all threads m I searched and I don't think that question using those terms exists. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Is it working" Posted by Holly on 09:07:15 5/12/2001 ? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "darby's post from first thread" Posted by Grace on 09:09:38 5/12/2001 134. "good intentions" Posted by darby on 07:59:57 5/12/2001 The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This has never been more apparent than in what I've observed in this whole FW/NK debate. What a mess. If the people behind these opposing forces were to meet face to face, what would happen? Would we actually try to kill each other? Going by these verbal exchanges, it sure looks that way to me. I don't know why I should be so gifted, but I have always understood exactly where both sides are coming from. It all started out with one side thinking that Nancy Krebs could possibly be telling the truth about her alleged abuser vs. the other side thinking that it's wrong to even discuss it publicly, since she probably isn't. One side saw an abuse victim getting victimized even worse than she already had been, while the other saw an innocent man victimized in the worst of ways. Can't everyone understand this one thing? When this whole debate started out: BOTH SIDES HAD GOOD INTENTIONS. Neither side had evil intentions. Neither side was Satan's spawn. You might say that it doesn't matter what the intentions were, what matters is the effect these discussions have on real people. I do agree that the effect matters. But what I'm also trying to point out here is that something else matters--or at least it should. Can't we all see that both sides were trying their very best to do what they felt was the right thing? Both sides were operating out of good intentions, following their consciences, trying to avoid rather than seek out any kind of malice. Nobody set out to destroy anyone! Obviously, things have changed. But it's no longer so much about Fleet White or Nancy Krebs, but about posters trying to destroy each other. It has become a war of words, where posters pounce on each other with glee at every possible opportunity. It seems that the goal is to use words to hurt each other in the most painful way possible--sometimes with blatant put-downs, but more often with ridicule and belittling--always followed by multiple encouraging high-fives from those without the guts to say such things themselves. I have seen posts at both JW and CS that make me question the very humanity of of the people behind those posts. Things have been said that I will not ever forget, nor will I ever forget who said them. If this is really what we are all about, then maybe we should go ahead and kill each other. At any rate, this whole thing has become so hurtful that I honestly don't know why any of us would want to continue conversing with each other about anything. Nor do I know how we will ever be able to put this thing behind us. It has gone way too far to ever forget. And forgiveness seems to be just some meaningless cliche that nobody would ever even think to consider. Our words have the potential to destroy us. Maybe they already have. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "I think you might " Posted by Florida on 09:32:40 5/12/2001 have overstated the problem, Darby. If you go to the other forum there are many discussions going on discussing different issues in a civil manner with no problem whatsoever. As an example - Mary99's political posts last year expressed, eloquently, my own thoughts and political philosophy. I thought her posts were wonderful and I would love to spend time discussing politics with her. However, we are polar opposites on the NK/FW subject and should not even be in the same room, building, city or country discussing this subject. There are many people who I totally agree with on the NK/FW subject - people like VP, WY, RR and Sparks but I read their political posts and know we are polar opposites and would have vociferous arguments on that subject. The subject that seems to really divide us is anything NK/FW related and that's why the beyond JBR forum is a good thing. It keeps the nastiness confined here and not next door. We can come over and read and post or stay away - it's not in your face if you don't allow it to be. I just thing we have to take this for what it is -an anonymous internet forum - people have passionate views on different subjects and sometimes express those views in hurtful, sarcastic, cutting ways. Because of the anonymity afforded us by a keyboard and computer screen we say things in ways we never would to a persons face. One of the problems with this particular subject is that it has dragged on for so long and our responses are so predictable we are now just punching at each other like tired boxers who refuse to leave the ring. I see people at JW mostly getting along and posting without rancor with the exception of ONE SUBJECT. And in the overall scheme of things that's not too bad. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Interesting thred" Posted by watchin' on 10:11:58 5/12/2001 I just read this thread and wanted to comment. It is interesting for many reasons and it provided insight as to why another place is so superficial and lacking in evidence discussion in exchange for self-righteous ramblings. It is not about free speech but about having a place just to be nasty. Just pondering...a "mental patient" CAN'T be a witness? hummm Guess it taught me the difference in fact and ignorance too. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "watchin" Posted by v_p on 10:22:43 5/12/2001 If the other place is so lacking in information and is so distasteful to you, why do you continue to read there? Why don't you post what you think about them over there? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "IMO, the forum is awkward " Posted by Holly on 10:44:36 5/12/2001 and the posts aren't numbered. And I think the moderator is MIA. Still, I go lots of places looking for tidbits. I don't seek forums to complain about posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "The moderator" Posted by Florida on 10:52:17 5/12/2001 is definitely not MIA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Demolition Darby...the road to hell..." Posted by Cassandra on 14:30:27 5/12/2001 You reminded me of a map our youngest drew one time for us to find Isle of Capri near Marco Island on the west coast of Florida. Her instructions on her map: "Don't take the first road. It leads to hell." lol Every time we pass it, we say that. lol Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Darby" Posted by A.K. on 14:26:14 5/12/2001 I hope you don't believe that you'll avoid being remembered as one of the chief White critics. Some of us have extremely good memories about your contributions. Perhaps my amanuensis Grace will be so kind to post some of your more flamboyant offerings. You're thick as thieves with the rest o' em, despite your attempts to revise history. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "And some of us" Posted by Holly on 23:14:16 5/12/2001 have pretty good memories about other things, AK. FW is NOT off the hook in my book. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow if there is not good reason to eliminate him. Until this case is charged, he is going to be examined. If you don't want to participate - don't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Holly " Posted by FT on 16:42:39 5/12/2001 The archives at the old JBR forum apparently only go back to April, so I couldn't locate the post where you stated that you believe Fleet White abused Nancy Krebs. If Chris can point me in the direction of older archives, I am sure that I can find it. Nevertheless, I am curious to know why you would now deny the post. Have you changed your mind? Do you have some form of amnesia (no offense intended)? Or do you still believe that Fleet White abused Nancy Krebs? And, fwiw, here is one of the posts where you stated (without proof) that Fleet White had been arrested for a traffic violation. ***** 39. "FT" Posted by Holly on 09:15:26 5/04/2001 He may have been ONVIEW ARRESTED. That means the arrest was part of the traffic stop and not the result of any court action. He was then released and given a court date to appear. However, his FTA on that case resulted in an FTA warrant with a bond of $200. The warrant was served, so presumably the court ordered arrest took place. So TWO arrests for the same case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "FT" Posted by Holly on 23:10:37 5/12/2001 "He may have been ONVIEW ARRESTED" That's right, FT - MAY HAVE been arrested onview. It was my attempt to explain how you can be arrested without a warrant. And the court record that vexes reflects a further FTA and bond of $200 posted the same day. If you are stopped and found to be driving uninsured a cop can arrest if that is a jailable offense in Boulder, CO as it is in MD. You promised to find out what the booking procedures were to find out if he was actually processed on an arrest. Or he may have been let go, as in a "station release". Carol McKinley revealed on Peter Boyles that the Whites Jr and Sr were the alleged sex ring members who molested Nancy. If that is true, then obviously I agree he may have molested Nancy. v_p If you have found a post where I declare FW molested Nancy, please post it. At leasst that is if that is the information FT seeks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "FT" Posted by v_p on 19:09:42 5/12/2001 Email me ... I might have what you're looking for. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL v_p ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "You are simplifying Grace" Posted by JR on 16:55:55 5/12/2001 Some of us asked for sources and got none. Aside from that, it isn't a matter of believing or not. Personally, I believe the lady was probably abused. I just don't think the vicious attacks on FW are warranted unless there is solid proof he abused NK and I have not seen any. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "JR" Posted by Grace on 19:48:40 5/12/2001 What? I haven't even posted on this thread, except to bring darby's post over here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Grace" Posted by JR on 20:37:58 5/12/2001 My apologies - I saw you name and not that the post was from Darby. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "No problem, JR." Posted by Grace on 07:04:08 5/13/2001 I'm flattered that you'd think I wrote darby's post. It reflected my feelings almost exactly, which is one reason I brought it over here. (easier than posting myself) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Darby - you are simplifying - sorry Grace" Posted by JR on 20:45:39 5/12/2001 Some of us asked for sources and got none. Aside from that, it isn't a matter of believing or not. Personally, I believe the lady was probably abused. I just don't think the vicious attacks on FW are warranted unless there is solid proof he abused NK and I have not seen any. Reposting this because not everyone reads messages addressed to others. JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "I would like to see" Posted by Holly on 23:19:35 5/12/2001 an example of a vicious post regarding FW. And I would define "vicious" as a post approaching the level of hatred aimed at Fleet examiners. IOW, a post where a so called Fleet basher called FW a name, or told a lie about him, or threatened him or warned him, or described him in viciously unflattering terms without qualifying the attack. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Holly..." Posted by Pedro on 00:38:02 5/13/2001 .... I have read here posts where people have try to connect FW with pornography just because a company he works with is in the same town as a pornographic publisher, nobody did say that but they did imply it clearly. We can play with words, but behind the words is a meaning that all understand. Holly, you better than nobody, with an education and a professional of the law, knows that presumption of innocence is a right. However I agree on the fact that FW and anyone related to this case should be investigated upon evidence or testimony presented to the authorities. I agree on have the proper law enforcement agencies looking up to Mr. White, as they should do with anyone else in the JBR environment. Holly, the investigators looked up and checked FW and did clear him as a suspect. Some time later NK shows up and present testimony with allegations involving FW in JBR's murder, because you can use the words you want, that's what NK did or did try to. The authorities did check NK story and the story were disregarded. So far FW is innocent and there's no reason valid for us to think otherwise. Unless further information is disclosed to us, right now there's nothing. I have heard about the policemen visit to NK's mother or grandmother and how short in time it was, and this visit been so short has been use to proof how unprofessional the investigation of the NK allegations was. Well, Did anyone think that the short time of that visit could be because that Lady interviewed by the policemen did show them or told them clear proof of NK's allegations been not true? Couldn't be because she could proof false some of the details NK told the police about the Christmas party as i.e. the people invited? Could be that when the policemen meet that lady they already had lots of confirmed information that contradict NK's information? I am trying to be open, however at this time I have questions: 1. -Why NK has neither fill a complain against her abusers to the authorities before nor has she named other abused individuals to the authorities for them to confirm her story? 2. -Therapists are suppose to keep the confidentiality with their clients. However, in this case, the therapist should have inform the authorities without break the confidentiality as a doctor should contact the authorities if a woman battered by her husband goes to the ER, because it protect her client's life and well been, further more, in this case they would have protected many alleged abused minors. Which human will allow those individuals to continuously abuse his/her patience for more than 20 consecutive years at physical, mental and sexual levels? Knowing that they were doing that to many more victims? 3. -That alleged sexual abuse ring, if true, will be too big to be ignored for any prosecutor and law enforcement agency after NK allegations. 4. -Experience tells us about how law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, if anything use to over react in sex ring cases and to be more than willing to believe witnesses of these atrocities even tho' many times there no evidence at all to support such allegations, I refer you to Kern Co, CA cases more than 20 years ago. 5. - I am open to read any information about NK and look at it, but we must be clear on something, I don't like word games, no matter the words she used, she implicate FW and his father, because these last two individuals are the only connection between JBR and NK, you don't have to include the words *if alive* when you say *humans breath*. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Pedro." Posted by Holly on 07:22:02 5/13/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:22:02, 5/13/2001 I think you are talking about an "artists" website we discovered while trying to figure out a company owned by JOHN RAMSEY - The Studio Group. And yes, one of the searches into the company NAME yielded a porn photographer. And I have said over and over even Mr Morgan can be found at that website. I think Starling then posted what JR's Studio Group did - PR for Access. And besides JR was the topic - not FW. The Fleet you refer to, is the defunct Fleet Photo of Baltimore. I stated I didn't see any FW connect or even the name except that defunct company. Remember the discussion was about a PR firm Access had - not FW. My interest was whether the alleged JB "sled" photo may have been shot at a studio owned by JR. I bought the sled and every person I've shown it to says it is not JB. So case closed on that topic. Mary Bienkowski received full permission from Nancy to share her entire therapy history with the BPD or any investigating agency - they were more interested in the type of therapy etc. She might have talked about it in her taped interview, I think. No corruption of the patient/therapist privacy privelege occured. I have not heard if Nancy filed charges against her most recent (Feb 2000) abusers. I think that was what the BPD meant when they urged her to seek charges in CA. Yes, I would agree she implicates FW and his father in her life long abuse - that is what is reported. And I agree that police tread lightly around areas involving sex ring activity - especially if the witnesses are little kids. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Only..." Posted by Pedro on 01:09:16 5/13/2001 ...Honest and righteous people as myself call a lie a lie, and not a *not true statement*, call liar to a liar, and not * author of a not true statement* and most people don't like it at all. When come to law issues, words have a meaning on themselves and we can protect ourselves by the use of euphemisms not to incur in default, but the meaning of a whole paragraph, a bunch of words, goes beyond those uses and conceptual meanings we all sometimes use *not to tell what we want others to understand by our words*. Yes, FW has been called a child abuser, a liar, a rapist, and a sex predator, porno consumer and if my recollection is correct an individual connected to the porno industry, a murder.... That's what those believing NK's allegations about FW are calling him, which's what NK called him. If someone gets mad at me because I say this, this is what I say, and I am not afraid of anything, because it is the truth. And this is the simple and clear truth, no euphemisms, no bull shit. It is about time we all begin to act responsible. I have expend time researching NK, and I couldn't find anything supporting her allegations, further more, not even regarding the abuse on herself other than my personal feelings that make me believe those who say are abused. Should I say I am honest and righteous? I don't see why I shouldn't say this, when I know I am and if anyone disagree with me I don't care because I know better! Sometimes one has to use the proper words and call a liar, liar, a lie, lie and a reptile...snake :-). And I am right too when I say we live in a world where forms have taken away the essence. Forms are important to allow us to have a civilized and organized society, but we must not forget that the importance is more in the essence than in the shape. How are future generations of humans going to know what's right or wrong when we don't consider essence anymore but only shallow form? How are we going to explain the difference between good and evil when the essence isn't considered and these to concept are proper of the essence and not of the form? Forms are important, however when somebody use the right words it is acting right and not wrong. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "I'm not sure" Posted by Holly on 07:12:55 5/13/2001 I completely agree with what you are saying. Are you referring to public records not being as important as the material/essence that yeilded the record? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Don't worry, Holly!" Posted by A.K. on 01:02:30 5/13/2001 You're still in the mix. You start the clock anew each time you make a comment as the above -- so your statute won't ever run out. Of course, if you and the others really cared about Krebs, you'd be doing your so-called sleuthing in private mail. But that wouldn't give you the attention you seek, and so you continue to malign an innocent man and his family in a public way. For no good reason. The others are just gossips, but you are an officer of the court and should be held to a higher standard. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "AK -" Posted by Holly on 06:16:49 5/13/2001 there are House Rules. I guess you didn't read them. This is a free exchange of ideas and opinions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "I remember one post" Posted by Florida on 07:50:33 5/13/2001 in particular - Momo returned from the get together at Holly's house last summer and flat out called FW a "pervert". This really set off the war but unforutunately, those threads are not available. There were many others that might not have gone that far but certainly pointed in that direction. Mame called people who have asked for proof of Nancy's allegations "baby raper henchpeople" (this was a collective term she once used for NK questioners, lately Real Stormy was called this to her face) The meaning was very clear - Fleet's "minions" supported "baby rapers". There are many more slanderous posts by different people but they are unavailable in the archives. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "I cannot" Posted by Holly on 08:00:17 5/13/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:00:17, 5/13/2001 account for momo's words. It's nothing I ever said. Edited to add - momo is certainly entitled to her opinion. If you are suggesting that she arrived at that conclusion as a result of attending the BBQ, I think that is an assumption I'm not willing to make. Between the FBI Field Supervisor and our discussion about how to help victims led by erica and sherry, I'm not sure we talked that way about White or anyone in terms of being perverts. I do think that momo can reasonably voice that opinion if we, or anyone, was discussing the reports that FW and his father were possibly part of a sex ring. By any definition, that would be perverse behavior - IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Why don't" Posted by Grace on 08:19:05 5/13/2001 all you people who're trying to prove that so-and-so said such-and-such, way back when, just call Fleet White and get the posts you're looking for? He has them all, doesn't he? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "which is worse..." Posted by mary99 on 08:18:23 5/13/2001 calling someone a murderer or a pervert? I don't get it...we don't know if the Ramseys (individually or as a couple) are, in fact, murderers or not, or if they sexually abused JonBenet or not (individually or as a couple), but they have been called these things many times. I can see how, if they are the main suspects, people feel free to use these words to describe the Ramseys, but still, until there is 'proof' or they (one or both) are convicted at trial, they are presumed to be innocent. Since we have felt free to voice our opinion on Ramsey guilt in the past, perhaps the discussions surrounding allegations of sex ring activity were based on the same concept: that as long as we were speculating about the Ramseys, we could speculate about their friends, too. I think a unspoken double standard was in effect but we were unaware of that until it was too late. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Mary..." Posted by Pedro on 21:41:43 5/13/2001 ...the diference is: There's evidence and indication in order to consider the parents suspects. There's no evidence and there's no indications in order to consider FW suspect. There's no double standard, we apply the same to all, and according to that standard, the R's are suspects and FW is not. There's a difference between a killer and a perverted killer, because JBR is dead. Mary it isn't killer vs. perverted, it is killer vs. perverted killer. You are so focus on the sexual abuse issue that don't remember often enough the fact that, sexualy abused or not, JBR was murdered for sure. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "v_p, Florida" Posted by darby on 10:05:15 5/13/2001 No, I wasn't trying to add fuel to the fire, at least not wittingly. Maybe I was wrong to say that some people didn't want to see the FW/NK thing discussed. Let me attempt to re-word my statement without causing problems: It all started out with one side thinking that Nancy Krebs could possibly be telling the truth about her alleged abuser vs. the other side thinking that she probably isn't. Is that better? Florida, hopefully, I have overstated things a bit. Maybe I'm a bit of a "skittish thoroughbred" myself when it comes to posters' verbally berating other posters. And AK--How could you possibly know my status vis-à-vis anyone else? Answer: You couldn't. Furthermore, as the queen of "flamboyant offerings," you haven't a leg to stand on concerning anything I've ever said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Darby" Posted by JR on 12:24:07 5/13/2001 You clarified by saying: It all started out with one side thinking that Nancy Krebs could possibly be telling the truth about her alleged abuser vs. the other side thinking that she probably isn't. You are missing a faction here - I personally don't know who is telling the truth and simply wanted ligitimate sources which allowed me to read up on the situation myself. No one would supply them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "JR" Posted by Morgan on 12:38:36 5/13/2001 I and others consider Nancy Krebs the legitimate source. However, if someone could provide proof that she is a lying, scheming profiteer we would all rethink our positions. None of us would support a fraud. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Morgan..." Posted by Pedro on 21:50:25 5/13/2001 ...I think you have it wrong again. NK is the one accusing FW of been involved in sexual abuse and murder, and I don't give a sh*t if she has say this in a direct manner or not, the wording is bull shit, the meaning of her words was this and the meaning of many of yours too. Is about time to be direct and cut the crap. NK is the one who MUST supply proof or let the authorities find it, the problem is the authorities have found nothing. NK isn't credible at all, she could never be use in a trial as are well known her personal problems, the worst defense lawyer will destroy her and her testimony in 3 minutes and the most stupid prosecutor will never use her as a witnesses. You can belive what you want, but anyone with a brain can see that with what we know so far, you are wrong. This isn't an opinion, this is s fact. If you don't like this fact, have your star witness giving any proof because until today the investigators have found none. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Pedro" Posted by smellthecoffee on 23:47:17 5/13/2001 Trying to catch up on jbr discussions and I can see I have a lot of reading to do. Please believe what I am about to tell you...for the last six weeks I was kicked out of a forum at compuserve for saying no sh-t sherlock to some insane woman named jameson. I believe it was PR or a wannabee. I also believe the Ramsey's have people volunteer as monitors in forums looking for unsuspecting fools like us, and wham you're out. No, you haven't offended anyone, but please be aware of what they put me through. By the way, I'm still locked out of there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL smellthecoffee ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Smellthecoffe..." Posted by Pedro on 09:55:00 5/14/2001 ...I think you are new or something, so welcome. I been moderator of this forum for some time until 5 or 6 days ago and my wife since it was created. I been posting about JBR for many years. I know who jameson is, she's the head of the R's side in the internet and I have a very good relation with her considering our differences, and she is the webmaster of a forum call WS. I don't expect any intent from Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey to hurt me. I have been banned only from ACR because BJ got P*ss at me after I took sides in a forums war during which her lies were proven and I was banned from Szapatas/midnite too after I disagree on case with the moderator. However those 2 forums are of no significance at all. Smellthecoffe, trust me on this one, from names to pictures, even a website dedicated to me, I have been attacked on any and each way people could and the only thing they did acomplished was P*ss me off and make thing worst for themselves as they are brainless pittiful reptiles. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Morgan" Posted by JR on 12:55:21 5/13/2001 I have yet to be provided with a legitimate source as to what NK said. Does that make my postion any more clear? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Ringleader:" Posted by Lacey on 19:16:44 5/13/2001 You keep asking for the same things over and over again. The fact that Nancy Krebs filed false police reports and that her tales of abuse lack consistency are valid enough reasons to write her off as irrelevant in regard to the Ramsey case and any connection with White. You women are vicious trolls. Obviously, you will never let go Lacey [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Reasonable Questions" Posted by watchin' on 22:24:56 5/13/2001 There are some of us who have NEVEr...repeat...NEVER accused FW or implied that FW is a pedophile or member of a sex ring. Some of us kep researched info to ourselves in certain discussions. Having said taht, I have a serious and reasonable question and NO ONE wants to go there. I am doggin' the authorities in this case. As a former police officer I NEED to understand the state of our justice system! I need to understand HOW a woman can get in the middle of what may be the most infamous murder case in history, make false statements, muddy the waters, manipulate this case, lie to authorities and NOT BE prosecuted? Is that so bad to discuss? If as, most believe, she is lying why in hell does she walk free and be exempt form any criminal or civil liability??? Something is very stinky in this mess! If NK was in Texas and gave a FALSE NAME on a traffic stop she would go directly to jail without passing go and pay a fine and/or she would spend time behind bars and have a misdemeaner charge on her permanent record. IF a 'mentally ill person is arrested, there are porvisions for them as well, so don't toss in that bit of excuse. Either her story has such an element of truth to it that they dare NOT charge her with 'filing a flase report' OR she lied, thereby causing a man to seeklegal relief by suing EVERYONE BUT HER and it is no big deal? Which is it? The 'authorities ain't talkin' and neither is FW! I need to understand HOW this happens and we can't talk about it without being labeled? I aminterested in the actions of the authorities and WHO is exempt form following the LAW. I don't give a rat's @ss about FW who, in my opinion knows a hell of a lot more about that night than he is willing to tell. Cowards are not worth my time. Teh very people who do NOT want this discusssed come over here and stir the pot again just as the soup settles. voyerism? What ever it is, it is meant to attack posters and categorize them into good boxes and bad boxes. Don't put your labels on me, I never put FW in the context of any NK discussion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Pedro" Posted by JR on 22:09:02 5/13/2001 I have to disagree with something you said: "the most stupid prosecutor will never use her as a witnesses." Considering Mark Furhman was on the stand even though the someone had told the prosecution he was a racist, says there might be one or two dumber than a turkey. ;- [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Watchin" Posted by JR on 22:46:03 5/13/2001 You said: I need to understand HOW a woman can get in the middle of what may be the most infamous murder case in history, make false statements, muddy the waters, manipulate this case, lie to authorities and NOT BE prosecuted? I think one thing I have all learned in this experience (reading Mrs. Brady's pages) is that the Boulder DA's office prefers plea bargaining to prosecution. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "JR.." Posted by Pedro on 09:56:48 5/14/2001 ...LOL. ;-) Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Very true JR" Posted by watchin' on 23:07:06 5/13/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:07:06, 5/13/2001 But they are selective in who gets a pass. I want to know why NK got a pass if she made a false report. I know for a fact, first hand that when a case gets this screwed up and so many have lost careers, reputations, evidence and the most elementary of procedures were ignored and the case basically shelved, there are connections between the main suspects and the authorities. That is not a characteristic exclusive to Boulder. When we are allowed to examine EVERYONE connected without fear of being ostracized we may connect some dots or at least make some sense of all this insanity. edited to ask question: What could possibly have bee the bargian in this case. "Shut up and never talk of this again and we won't prosecute you?" That is certainly the sop tactic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "watchin'..." Posted by Pedro on 09:58:21 5/14/2001 ...prosecutors and cops know how dificult is to bring to trial anyone who's mental condition could be in doubt, and I say could, as a result of the abuse NK was subject of for many years. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Watchin" Posted by JR on 23:15:21 5/13/2001 Sorry - can't answer your questions because I have no data. People seem to want to discuss this possible tie to the Ramseys but on one ever posts sources, so I can get educated about the situation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "JR" Posted by mary99 on 10:04:29 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:04:29, 5/14/2001 Try to turn the equation around, and tell me, on what 'data' do you base your high opinion of Fleet White? There is very little actually known about him, imo. His letters are not 'proof' he is a good guy - anymore than the statements of Ms. Krebs 'prove' anything. The BPD cleared him with the reservation they could 'unclear' him later if need be. That, again, is not 'proof', but it has been cited as 'proof' he is above suspicion. Nancy Krebs testimonial evidence may be only her word against Fleet's reputation, but in all honesty, if you demand 'proof' before allowing she may be truthful, you should be equally skeptical of Fleet's integrity until you are presented with equally concrete 'proof.' That the BPD pointedly cleared Fleet in the murder of JBR (but not the Ramseys) and said there was no evidence the Ramseys (leaving out the Whites) were involved in sex ring is a major bombshell. That this information about sex ring activity was forwarded to the FBI when the BPD wrapped up their investigation into her allegations is another bombshell. Picture if you can, Nancy Krebs making these allegations about the Ramseys. The meaning of the two previous sentences would be fully appreciated by the JBR case followers for what it is - yet the real impact of the information in those statements was ignored or subjected to 'spin.' IMO, there is every reason to consider Fleet's actions suspcious, with or without the information presented by Ms. Krebs. How much 'proof' does it take to raise an eyebrow at his behavior? How much 'proof' did we as a forum ever have to his character, his background, his history, his education, to form an concrete,unbiased opinion of Fleet? Just as the FW letters come from him, so Nancy's statements come from her. If you are inclined to judge her statements as unsupported by factual evidence or, at worst, agenda-based, would not Fleet's letters also fall into that category? We can be suspicious of someone without 'proof', can't we? It seems to me we have been doing that for 4+ years with all the case characters at one time or another. You have requested many times for a poster to tell you the nature of the allegations made by NK. There are many articles and even the Criminal Libel complaint to work from if you are interested (see the yellow tape forum). Her interview with the BPD was written up in the BDC, Westword, and here at Justice Watch there were audio interviews, the second of which was transcribed fully and is now on a thread in the WOR. I don't think there is any doubt about what she was saying and about who, but you seem to resent that the newspapers did not spell it out in further detail. From the POV of the editor, the story was handled with sensitivity to the nature of the allegations while fulfilling an obligation to the public to inform them of new developments in the Ramsey case. If you find the disclosures made by the DA's office to be offensive to FW's reputation, why for heaven's sake would you now be demanding even more details before forming an opinion? If you want to choose to not form an opinion, that's fine--but certainly enough was presented to form and opinion and speculate about what it means if the public is so inclined. Obviously, the agencies charged with investigating the allegations are keeping the details to themselves. We, the public, are limited to only a fraction of what was shared. So, to repeat, (bold added) Boulder Police and prosecutors have concluded an investigation that began in February when a 37-year-old California woman reported her belief that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered as part of a child sex ring. The investigation found no additional evidence to support this theory. ..... Prosecutor Mike Kane said. "There is simply no credible evidence to link anything she alleges to the death of JonBenet." ..... Boulder Police have forwarded information to the FBI in reference to some of the woman's allegations regarding the operation of a child sex ring. ..... 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...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." ..... JR, Look what Beckner leaves out! He plainly states that the Whites were not involved in the sexual abuse and death of JonBenet, yet he OMITS their names from his statement...that the Ramseys were not involved in a sex ring. You can view this as a mountain-out-of-a-molehill, but to me that is tantamount to Beckner saying there is (confidential) evidence which points to the Whites being involved in a sex ring. And nowhere does he say he was given bad information or Nancy Krebs lied to the BPD. Surely if the BPD had turned up 'proof' she lied about this, Beckner would publicly refute the earlier statements made by Hunter - especially considering the kid-glove treatment extended to the 'skittish thoroughbreds.' .................... http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/RAMSEY/pr000515.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Mary99" Posted by JR on 11:45:30 5/14/2001 You have assumed all along I have a high opinion of FW. I don't know anything about him, NK or this whole situation and you (the royal you) continue to ignore requests for data. I have no opinion of FW or NK at this point in time except to say NK was probably molested - by whom is all open to hearsay IMHO! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "smellthecoffee" Posted by JR on 00:54:41 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:54:41, 5/14/2001 Jameson is the owner/moderator of that site s she has the right to boot people just at Chris des on this site. Chris is known to be far more tolerant and definately allows for both Ramsey sides to post here. For a quick update check the links in the daily thread. Mrs. Brady's site will lead you to other links. Ruthee's site has some very interesting case analysis and will explain to you exactly who Jameson is. Edited to say: Ruthee's can be located under the links on Mrs. Brady's site see, "Cybersleuths Breaking News" then click on the JonBenet link. Our dear Ruthee has joined JonBenet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "watchin'" Posted by darby on 08:29:37 5/14/2001 Terrific post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "JR" Posted by mame on 08:41:54 5/14/2001 discussions DON'T require sources. when you sit in a coffee shop and discuss local politics are you required to give a source? this is a discussion forum and until it becomes a media PUBLICATION any and all thoughts and ideas are welcomed here. you certainly have the right not to engage in any particular "discussion"...but, to continue to ask for sources is ludicrous. you don't come with a bibliography when sitting in a living room on a couch. plus, half the named sources in this case have turned out to be bogus anyway! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Yes Mame..." Posted by Pedro on 10:00:18 5/14/2001 ...you are right, the problem is when baseless opinions are presented as facts. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Pedro" Posted by mary99 on 10:18:32 5/14/2001 See the post above...there is sufficient reason to put Fleet White under suspicion. We do not need need proof to find him suspicious--but we do need information. And there is a wealth of information about the actions, words and behavior of Fleet White to discuss him as a suspicious person, rather than the star witness. Concrete 'proof' is for the BPD to dig up... forming an opinion based on what we know is perfectly justified. Even if you think the statements of NK are 100% BS, you must allow that his actions on Dec. 26th could be construed as suspicious or questionable. If you don't see him that way, fine, but others do find him suspicious, both that day and in the following period of time. And,if you think the statements of NK are 100% BS, why has the BPD not come out and said so? It would make the Whites very happy for Beckner to call her a liar or a confabulator. Don't you think they would have demanded the strongest possible language condemning her allegations if, in fact, what she said was untrue? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Mary.." Posted by Pedro on 10:30:48 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:30:48, 5/14/2001 ..I agree with you, the problems is: BPD has already clear FW, so they have say so. There's nothing suspicious in FW's behaviour other than the normal reactions when one is involved in his best friend kid's murder. FW movements during Dec 26th. has been investigated already and again he's been cleared. No, we have no reason so far know by me, to consider FW a suspect, I haven't found anything on NK's life to justify that. I haven't say that NK statements are Bs because on many issues they are not BS. I say that is BS to talk with euphemisms when she mean what she mean, she clearly accussed FW of been involved in sexual rings and as its consecuence JBR is dead. She could retract from her accussations or she could have no make those when she did, no big deal. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Pedro" Posted by Morgan on 10:41:52 5/14/2001 The facts don't support your opinion. Read my post on the Arndt thread, where I put up a quote from PMPT. The Whites had become so demanding, that the DA became afraid of losing them as witnesses. They worked out a statement with the BPD to say the Whites were considered key witnesses, not suspects. Hunter did not want the wording to say "cleared" even though another DA, Hofstrom, I believe, said, we can always "unclear" them. The DA's were concerned about the White's behavior in Atlanta. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Morgan" Posted by JR on 11:46:56 5/14/2001 Surely, the White's have been no more demanding than the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Yeah.." Posted by Pedro on 10:49:56 5/14/2001 ...Morgan sure, JBR was murder in Atlanta :-) If we are to use that as a rule for all, what could I post here about NK?..LOL. Morgan the fact don't support other than what I say, you can read those facts in a different way, but that only means that you're wrong :-). Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Pedro" Posted by watchin' on 11:41:57 5/14/2001 I agree to a point. There are far too many cases where the defense has claimed 'insanity' to free a client. The prosecutors challenge that defense tactic and the accused is subjected to profellional psychiatric testing and their mind set is determined in a court of law. Let's leave out NK a moment and consider HER psychologist. She is in a position of trust and power. Obviously she is mentally capable of holding her position, therefore not mentally ill according to the standards set forth by legal difinition. I ask you, WHY is she not held responsible for 'ruining' the life of FW and his family? Why is she above the law and exempt from prosecution for the reported libleous statements? Before you say "she did not accuse anyone", she did indeed bring this accusation to public attention. She is just as culpable if not more so than NK because of her position. She is NOT named in any libel lawsuit is she? These two women (NK and counselor) are the SOURSE of FW's 'pain', the sourse of false reports to the local police and the FBI and yet they are exempt from any accountability? Mental illness is sometimes a defense but what could possibly be a defense for the shrink who supports NK's allegations? Could it be ...truth? That is waht I am looking for wihout accusation. Looking at the INACTION on the part of the authorities is very telling, not only of their desire not 'to go there' but it also tells of their selective justice for favored citizens. If shemade a flase report, she owes FW an apology. If she is truthful, FW needs to follow the law by addressing the SOURSE of the allegations, which is NK and her shirnk. He resuses to do so and the same holds true for the authorities. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "wachin'.." Posted by Pedro on 13:16:44 5/14/2001 ...when I say she did accusse no one I am been an asshole, got it this way? :-). she did accusse FW and her defenders have been denying so for a long time, why? because the hide behind euphemisms, why they do this? because they know NK is not credible at all. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Watchin'" Posted by Morgan on 12:11:23 5/14/2001 And without legal action being taken against Nancy and her therapist, the sources of the allegations, IT COULD ALL HAPPEN AGAIN. At any moment, another newspaper or magazine could publish her allegations, Nancy could write a book, or anything. It's just logic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Morgan..." Posted by Pedro on 13:19:35 5/14/2001 ...and when the defamator is amental case, it can happen at anytime even from the county jail...now research better NK's life :-). I did that, did you? ;-). Is a waste of time sue or prosecute NK because in the best case, she'll end up in mental institution. This is what happen when some one is subject to abuse, the damage is very big and it's hard for that person to have a normal emothional development, so we should help NK and don't allow some folks to use her and abuse her on their will to pervert this case. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Absolutely morgan!" Posted by watchin' on 12:33:32 5/14/2001 I think may miss this point. If one is allowed to 'lie' and ruin a reputation and to screw up a murder investigation with 'misleading information' wihout being held accuntable then we have NO justice system! So why aren't the injured parties making the system work for them and correct this 'wrong'? humm? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Good Question..." Posted by Florida on 12:50:45 5/14/2001 Has anyone been charged and arrested for the horrendous abuse Nancy Krebs suffered that put her in the hospital in Denver last year? Has anyone been charged and arrested for any abuse of Nancy Krebs since Mackey Boykin in 1978? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Florida..." Posted by Pedro on 13:21:53 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:21:53, 5/14/2001 ...has anyone check *someone's* credit card income bills after NK's abuse last year? what about Nk's income? ;-). Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Watchin'" Posted by Morgan on 14:02:56 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:02:56, 5/14/2001 If the White's have suffered so horribly from the reporting of Nancy and her therapist's libelous allegations, why risk having it happen all over again? Here's an analogy: If a person made a video tape of someone doing something embarrassing, without the permission of this victim, and copied the tape and showed it to his friends, the victim wouldn't just take action against those who viewed the tapes and talked about it. The victim would want to make sure the video maker was punished, or at least stopped, and all copies destroyed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "It depend..." Posted by Pedro on 13:28:45 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:28:45, 5/14/2001 ..on how much the *victim* beg$ed for it :-). Edit to add: I asume you are talking about a NK video? am I right? Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Morgan." Posted by Holly on 13:09:19 5/14/2001 Stop trying to talk sense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "The way it's supposed to work:" Posted by mary99 on 13:12:11 5/14/2001 Tom Cruise Files Defamation Suit The Associated Press Thursday, May 3, 2001; 7:40 a.m. EDT LOS ANGELES -- Tom Cruise filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against a pornography actor who allegedly claimed he had a gay affair that broke up Cruise's marriage. Chad Slater told the French magazine Actustar that "he had a continuing homosexual relationship during Cruise's marriage and that the relationship was discovered by Cruise's wife, who ended the relationship," according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court. "Cruise is not and never has been a homosexual" and "does not even know" Slater, the lawsuit said. Cruise's attorney, Bert Fields, said Actustar has agreed to publish a retraction. ................... Holly - LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. ""The way it's supposed to work?"" Posted by JR on 23:52:32 5/14/2001 Says who? Not everybody is sue happy and some don't believe in suing others (for religious or other reasons.) Hurt me, 99% of the time, I will walk away and chalk it up to your low self-esteem. Hurt my child, grandchild or other defenseless and I will come after you with both barrels blazing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "JR" Posted by mary99 on 06:12:19 5/15/2001 We're not talking about whether YOU would file a defamation suit...Fleet White did file a criminal libel complaint, thus he is not adverse to taking legal action. But, his Criminal Libel case was doomed because the media is protected...and the statute is so rarely used, other states have taken it off the books because it infringes on the First Amendment. The BPD told Fleet a civil suit was the way to go, but he didn't listen. WHY? Other public figures have used it to seek relief. If the allegations made by Ms. Krebs are false, why did Fleet not file an ordinary civil suit, to prevent the source of the story from repeating the alleged defamatory statements? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Well Mary99" Posted by JR on 22:01:47 5/15/2001 Perhaps Fleet White had empathy for a person who's life is so screwed up. On the other hand perhaps Fleet White knew that a civil suit would become public fodder for the tabs and maybe he prefers to be a private person. Not everybody is into being front page news. IMHO this is especially true when people have seen what passes for news/investigative reporting since the Simpson case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "A company..." Posted by Pedro on 13:27:23 5/14/2001 ...has to protect its prestige as a source of income, a company has an address and records, NK has nothing of this, not even money, why sue her?. It's better if she goes back home and goes on with her life, some people is human enough to care about her and don't wish her wrong. I would never go against someone like NK, why should FW? What could he acomplish? nothing. As much attention one pay to NK, the worst she gets. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Pedro" Posted by Morgan on 13:40:39 5/14/2001 As far as we know, the White's don't need any money; JR said FW doesn't need to work. The Whites wouldn't be going after Nancy and her therapist for the money, but to prevent possible future libelous allegations. Didn't you read my post? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Yes Morgan..." Posted by Pedro on 13:45:05 5/14/2001 ...I did, and I agree with you, that's why I say there's no way they could avoid future alleged defamations by NK. The only way to avoid that is for the responsable press not to echo NK's allegations. Allegations can be made from the jail or PI institution so by going against NK the Whites will acomplish nothing. Going against the press they did, now nobody will pay attention to NK, don't you see that?. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Pedro" Posted by mary99 on 14:13:36 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:13:36, 5/14/2001 Did you see the Tom Cruise article excerpt above? A porn actor, Chad Slater, told a French magazine he and Tom Cruise had a gay relationship. Tom Cruise sued Chad Slater, the man who said those things, not the magazine they were printed in .... and Tom Cruise stated clearly, as part of his lawsuit he "is not and never has been a homosexual" and "does not even know" Slater. The magazine has agreed to publish a retraction - not even sure they were sued. Cruise went to the SOURCE. OTOH, why is it so hard to see the flaws in Fleet White's strategy? Point by point, this defamation case above is a blueprint for the way Fleet White could have, and should have, handled the allegations made by Nancy Krebs. And most certainly it is cause for suspicion (for those who are attuned) that he chose not to follow the practical remedy for relief - like celebrities do. Complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010503/aponline074039_000.htm#TOP [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Mary99" Posted by Morgan on 14:10:45 5/14/2001 and other public figures! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Morgan" Posted by mary99 on 14:16:39 5/14/2001 Unless they're hiding something! Or want people to think they are! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Pedro" Posted by Morgan on 14:01:39 5/14/2001 I believe if a person were required to pay damages in a lawsuit, legal expenses, etc, this person would not likely do a repeat performance. A lawsuit is most definately a deterrant against future libelous allegations. Many people are puzzled as to why the Whites don't go after the source of the alledged libelous remarks, and do not see the criminal complaint against select media persons as a reason believe the allegations are groundless. IOW, the criminal complaint is not proof that Nancy's allegations are libelous. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Morgan" Posted by Pedro on 14:45:29 5/14/2001 ...Lawsuits are just that, business and that's all. Sometimes people prefer pay the lawsuit than change their business practices, regardless of the fact that sometimes you can settle out of court. FW isn't Tom Cruise and NK isn't the other fella, the damage to Tom Cruise could be much bigger and Tom Cruise has obtain his relief from the correction in that magazine. Remember that we have much strict defamation rules in Europe than you do here where the press is out to use and abuse freedom of speech without consideration to the English common law *protection of truth* concept use and extended by Mr.Madison to attack the Alien and Sedition Acts and to justify the revolution legal wise with in the original frame of the old Saxon law as opposite to the Carta Magna. If that actor is to be sue in Europe, he MUST prove the truth of his allegations, the burden in this case is on the one accused, in the US the burden isn't so clear in defamation cases and not truth but appearance of truth is normally enough to get away with it. The original intent of the legislator has been seriously perverted in my opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Pedro, LOL!" Posted by Morgan on 14:53:32 5/14/2001 Well, that's about as clear as mud and a history lesson to boot! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Morgan..." Posted by Pedro on 14:57:36 5/14/2001 ...it is not history, is law. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "ah, excuse me" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:01:34 5/14/2001 but why not go after the shrink, if not NK? Doesn't she hold some responsibility for NK's coming forward? Didn't she endorse NK's allegations? Hello? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "The shrink.." Posted by Pedro on 14:47:40 5/14/2001 ..is pennyless too. The one who have damaged FW are those who made public NK allegations. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "That's right, EdieP" Posted by Morgan on 14:09:15 5/14/2001 Tom Cruise is suing the porn performer, who's career is likely to be short-lived and not very lucrative. It's not like he's suing Boulder's own New Frontier Media. Nancy's therapist, on the other hand, has a solid profession, which could be destroyed if she was shown in court to be encouraging Nancy to make libelous statements. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Remember AM Radio?" Posted by watchin' on 14:52:55 5/14/2001 I wonder if Tom wil sue the late night amtalk radio porgrams that have talked this topic to death? I doubt it! Tom knows must as any sane person knows, that the SOURSE is the pne to target. Defamation of character is not about money...it's about clearing your name and stopping the lies. Morgan, I understood your analogy and I agree. The only way I can look at this is that FW thinks he is so damn speeecial that he doesn't have to file a civil suit like the average person against the SOURSE of defaming accusations. He can go to his servants, BPD and demand a criminal investighation along with a personal GJ to be seated at his pleasure, and attempt to silence the media. makes sense to me! If you want to address mental issues lets address the delusions of grandeur of one rich and controlling dude! No one wants to get him ticked...he just might develope amnesia if there is a trial in the case of JonBenet. That is my understanding of this whole affair. The BPD is catering to the whims of a wealty controlling 'witness' and NK is not even on his mind. Why should she be? ANYONE who has claimed ot have been abused or raped, even by a stranger is automatically discredited by lawenforcement. They asked for it! Again,for me, this is not about NK or her allegations. It is about citizens who can hold the justice system hostage for their personal gain. SInce this will be my last post on this thread, I want to say for those who think a person is 'mentally ill' because she has suffered at the hands of the perverted, think again! The mentally ill are the perpetrators. The mentally ill are the officers taking statements from the abused who are more concerned with the kind of clothing the victim wore, (if her knees showed, she was asking for it!) investigating her past rather than taking the perp off the street where he wil get his day in court. This discusting tactic can be seen by Blake's lawyers who want the focus on the victim and not the murderer. They want sympathy for the husband..not the victim. The media loves it and themedia supplies what the public demands...nothing more. NEWS FLASH!! EVEN a prostitute can be raped! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "What about this..." Posted by janab on 14:30:49 5/14/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:30:49, 5/14/2001 Tom Cruise is such a public figure that any newspaper/tabloid would have gladly published that story. IOW, Slater could have gone anywhere and told anyone...whoever he told would certainly know who Tom Cruise is and consider what he said to be "news" whether it was in Tom Cruise's hometown or 3000 miles away. But, if NK went to...Nebraska (as an example) and told a couple of people on the street that she thought FW was part of a sex ring that abused her while she was growing up, those people more than likely would not consider that news because they wouldn't have any friggin' idea who FW is. Without the paper printing the story, NK could have told whoever she wanted to and it probably would not have done diddly to FW's reputation. But, since a newspaper in the town that he lives in chose to publish/broadcast the allegation, they became public knowledge amongst people he knows and that certainly know who he is. I just think there is a real difference between verbal information about FW, whom 95% of the population has never heard of, and printed information that is being targeted to everyone that FW knows (by virtue of being printed in/by his hometown newspaper). Tom Cruise had no choice but to sue Slater because anyone/everyone would have listened to his story. That's not the case with NK. People might pay attention to her story since it has appeared in the newspaper, but no one would have paid attention if she just walked around the street telling people. Ah, nevermind. I don't think I'm explaining this very well. . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "janab." Posted by Holly on 09:59:45 5/15/2001 I'm a bit confused. Are you saying there is a "standard" in law that applies? Isn't the real point that Cruise went to the root cause because he recognized that the paper printed what their source claimed? It's not like the paper made up Slater or reconstructed statements made by Slater. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "janab" Posted by mary99 on 06:48:29 5/15/2001 Nancy Krebs allegations were reported by the media in the context of her meeting with DA Hunter. The allegations were published because they related to the JBR murder investigation, a matter of public interest. You have honed in on the difference between what the porn actor, Slater, did and what Nancy Krebs did. Slater went to the magazine with his story--not to the police. NK did not sell her story to a magazine. One interesting part of the Slater/Cruise dispute is that the magazine has agreed to publish a retraction....iow, they are willing to retract the story independently of a court order or award, to prevent their own exposure to legal penalties. Also note that Cruise incorporates a denial of the charges made by Slater into his suit ... something White did not do. White admitted he knows Nancy Krebs, but nowhere does he say he has never abused her, to the best of my knowledge. Saying the allegations are false is not quite the same thing. Furthermore, the way a Criminal Libel complaint works, the State of Colorado is the plaintiff, not Fleet White. He removes himself from a face-to-face let's-get-to-the truth courtroom meeting with the source of the allegations -Nancy Krebs. It comes down to the State of CO v. the media ... and legal experts, not surprisingly, felt such a venture had NO chance of succeeding. The bottom line: Fleet filed the criminal libel complaint to avoid a face-to-face confrontation with the source, imo. He wanted to appear to be fighting vigorously against untruths published, but his course of action was flawed, imo. There is nothing to prevent Nancy from speaking out in the press, to anyone she chooses, in the future, and repeating what she told the BPD and Hunter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Janab..." Posted by Pedro on 14:49:33 5/14/2001 ...is perfect :-) Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Janab" Posted by Morgan on 14:43:52 5/14/2001 I think I get your point! But, Nancy and her therapist could still make their allegations to the Enquirer or another tab, and get paid, because the story seems to be eternal. The tabs don't lose any sleep over fear of lawsuits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "And there's..." Posted by Pedro on 14:53:43 5/14/2001 ...no way to avoid NK going to the tabs 10 times a day as is her right. However, it is the tabs responsability not to publish not true news or not aparently true news. The therapist is in the same position as NK is, she is free of tell whatever she wants to whoever she wants, the ones who MUST verify the apparnce of truth are the publishers, the ones who made public NK's allegations. You see Morgan, unless the allegations are publish, it's just gossip! Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Pedro." Posted by Holly on 10:01:21 5/15/2001 Are you sure? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "Holly..." Posted by Pedro on 10:29:47 5/15/2001 ...how other could a individual make his/her allegations public than by contacting the media? And to me, NK can tell whatever she wants to whoever she wants, only making those comments public will be a wrongdoing to me. We can't prosecute gossip. Now, if NK open an internet forum and post those allegations in public, then she'll be in default because to me only the part responsable for the publishing of wrong and hurtfull information is to be prosecuted. Reason why a private forum is secure and a public one isn't. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Gee, Morgan" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:26:09 5/14/2001 to think he drove alllll that way and the lawyer didn't tell him his options:-) He could have saved himself the trip, and looked it up online at the public library! Yeah, I'd be hopping mad at the therapist, she's supposed to be credible enough for a courtroom. Somebody didn't do their homework... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Edie P" Posted by Morgan on 14:44:53 5/14/2001 LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Don't you all" Posted by Florida on 15:35:18 5/14/2001 at least wonder why Nancy hasn't had the the abusive person or persons arrested? She claims they harmed her in such a horrid manner that she had to be hospitalized with stun gun burns "to the bone" just last year. She obviously knows who inflicted the damage but she doesn't file any criminal charges against the abusers when she had the perfect opportunity to file? She had protection from her advocates, her lawyer, Alex Hunter, the Boulder Daily Camera, doctors at the hospital, yet she did nothing. She had the best evidence you could have, her abused body, yet she did nothing to take the abuser off the street. She claims to have come forward in order to save another child from what she went through. She could have filed charges against the person or persons who she said abused her from the time she was 3 years old until last year but didn't. She could have stopped it but left this child out there in harm's way. I just don't understand why you think is strange that FW hasn't gone after Nancy but you don't question why she hasn't charged him and the rest of the sex ring with the abuse she suffered last year. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "FL" Posted by Holly on 10:05:16 5/15/2001 I don't know that I wonder about that, because I think that there are lots of reasons abuse victims don't charge their abusers. I'm just not sure that a reluctance to charge = it didn't happen. And since she retained Hill and maybe others, it seems reasonable to think she is following her lawyers advice one way or the other. I also don't know that she didn't report the incident to police - who declined to take action. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Actually " Posted by darby on 15:29:11 5/14/2001 I can understand FW's motivation for suing the media. What's puzzling to me and at least another Denver lawyer (whom I quoted on Ginja's threads) is why FW didn't pursue a civil suit rather than a criminal libel complaint. (If anyone is interested, I'll try to find the URL on that Denver lawyer's opinion again.) Furthermore, I don't know why NK wasn't at least included in the lawsuit along with the media. As has been said many times, no monetary relief would need to be sought from NK. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Darby.." Posted by Pedro on 15:32:05 5/14/2001 ..NK wasn't included in any legal action because she isn't responsable of the public attacks on FW, she didn't made those public, the journalists and media companies are. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Pedro" Posted by Morgan on 16:11:07 5/14/2001 What public attacks? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]