Justice Watch Support JW "well, well,well, lll" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... well, well,well, lll, Morgan, 16:31:45, 5/14/2001 Morgan,, Florida, 17:39:42, 5/14/2001, (#1) FLA, Morgan, 18:13:29, 5/14/2001, (#2) Oh yes, we would have heard..., A.K., 01:41:13, 5/15/2001, (#3) AK, Morgan, 04:24:24, 5/15/2001, (#4) Really, AK?, Holly, 05:42:28, 5/15/2001, (#5) Holly, JR, 22:10:15, 5/15/2001, (#84) Scintilla Godzilla, Lacey, 06:25:15, 5/15/2001, (#7) A.K., Spencer, 06:17:35, 5/15/2001, (#6) Oh god, another hat, A.K., 06:49:50, 5/15/2001, (#8) Don't think so, AK -, Holly, 10:17:12, 5/15/2001, (#29) AK, Morgan, 07:23:05, 5/15/2001, (#9) Morgan, mary99, 07:49:47, 5/15/2001, (#10) Tab's ignore a hot story?, Florida, 08:12:54, 5/15/2001, (#12) How about, Holly, 09:30:06, 5/15/2001, (#21) No story, Florida, 12:35:12, 5/15/2001, (#58) California..., Pedro, 09:37:46, 5/15/2001, (#24) So what Pedro., Holly, 10:19:30, 5/15/2001, (#31) I agree Holly.., Pedro, 10:31:53, 5/15/2001, (#34) Pedro, Grace, 10:03:49, 5/15/2001, (#27) Stephen Singular..., Pedro, 10:32:30, 5/15/2001, (#35) Sorry, Pedro, Grace, 11:38:42, 5/15/2001, (#47) Ok..., Pedro, 11:40:14, 5/15/2001, (#48) A story about Stehen Singular ..., Grace, 12:23:26, 5/15/2001, (#55) Grace..., Pedro, 12:26:45, 5/15/2001, (#57) Homicide Professional??????, Cassandra, 07:56:59, 5/15/2001, (#11) Perhaps this belongs in WOR, watchin', 08:13:45, 5/15/2001, (#13) watchin', Holly, 12:41:33, 5/15/2001, (#60) Bravo, watchin'!, mary99, 08:48:19, 5/15/2001, (#15) Mary, JR, 22:21:06, 5/15/2001, (#85) Mary, I heard them, Florida, 09:45:29, 5/15/2001, (#25) Makes sense to me!, Florida, 08:28:24, 5/15/2001, (#14) Nancy's story.., watchin', 08:54:35, 5/15/2001, (#16) Thanks Mary, watchin', 09:06:24, 5/15/2001, (#18) Oh please, Watchin', Florida, 08:58:27, 5/15/2001, (#17) FL, Holly, 09:33:58, 5/15/2001, (#22) Holly, Florida, 11:47:11, 5/15/2001, (#50) Hey Florida!, watchin', 09:09:29, 5/15/2001, (#19) Morgan..., Pedro, 09:12:24, 5/15/2001, (#20) Well..., Pedro, 09:36:57, 5/15/2001, (#23) mary99...spencer, janab, 09:56:30, 5/15/2001, (#26) janab, mary99, 10:51:28, 5/15/2001, (#39) Good point, janab., Holly, 10:11:54, 5/15/2001, (#28) I don't get you Holly, Imbackon, 10:35:07, 5/15/2001, (#37) Pssst, A. K. ..., Grace, 10:18:33, 5/15/2001, (#30) Grace., Holly, 10:20:40, 5/15/2001, (#32) Holly, Grace, 10:23:08, 5/15/2001, (#33) JanaB, Spencer, 10:39:47, 5/15/2001, (#38) Is cheaprug, Holly, 10:59:04, 5/15/2001, (#41) Geesh, Holly!, janab, 10:34:38, 5/15/2001, (#36) mary99...spencer, janab, 10:59:12, 5/15/2001, (#42) janab, mary99, 11:23:42, 5/15/2001, (#46) janab. , Holly, 10:58:31, 5/15/2001, (#40) How come, Morgan, 11:02:26, 5/15/2001, (#43) Morgan, Florida, 11:52:34, 5/15/2001, (#51) Morgan, janab, 11:07:43, 5/15/2001, (#45) janab., Holly, 12:03:21, 5/15/2001, (#53) Morgan , mary99, 11:07:40, 5/15/2001, (#44) mary99, janab, 11:46:19, 5/15/2001, (#49) and 'round and 'round we go, mary99, 12:43:48, 5/15/2001, (#61) janab., Holly, 12:07:46, 5/15/2001, (#54) janab, Grace, 12:02:26, 5/15/2001, (#52) ..., janab, 12:24:46, 5/15/2001, (#56) janab-, Holly, 12:37:53, 5/15/2001, (#59) janab, mary99, 12:52:01, 5/15/2001, (#64) mary99...Holly, janab, 12:51:28, 5/15/2001, (#63) WOW, janab, mary99, 13:58:12, 5/15/2001, (#71) janab , Holly, 13:05:59, 5/15/2001, (#66) Spencer, Gemini, 12:46:38, 5/15/2001, (#62) Perhaps, Harley, 13:04:48, 5/15/2001, (#65) Harley,, Holly, 13:07:46, 5/15/2001, (#67) If TMcV..., Pedro, 13:25:30, 5/15/2001, (#69) Holly, Florida, 13:11:36, 5/15/2001, (#68) FL, Holly, 21:45:39, 5/15/2001, (#81) Florida, janab, 13:30:24, 5/15/2001, (#70) Gemini, Spencer, 14:10:49, 5/15/2001, (#72) NK, Spencer, 14:32:56, 5/15/2001, (#73) mary99...spencer, janab, 14:52:29, 5/15/2001, (#74) janab...and Spencer, mary99, 16:06:46, 5/15/2001, (#76) FW Sr., Morgan, 15:53:20, 5/15/2001, (#75) Good post, Mary99, Morgan, 19:06:12, 5/15/2001, (#77) Morgan, mary99, 19:25:58, 5/15/2001, (#78) Complaint, Imbackon, 21:10:02, 5/15/2001, (#79) Imbackon., Holly, 21:44:45, 5/15/2001, (#80) ha ha ha, Imbackon, 21:53:09, 5/15/2001, (#82) ;-), mary99, 21:57:55, 5/15/2001, (#83) ................................................................... "well, well,well, lll" Posted by Morgan on 16:31:45 5/14/2001 FLA, How do you know what action, if any NK has taken against her attackers? She has legal representation and I imagine she has discussed many options with that person. I don't know what decisions and actions she has made, or will make. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Morgan," Posted by Florida on 17:39:42 5/14/2001 I believe we would have heard about it if any arrests had been made. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "FLA" Posted by Morgan on 18:13:29 5/14/2001 I don't know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Oh yes, we would have heard..." Posted by A.K. on 05:05:11 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 05:05:11, 5/15/2001 ...about any arrests of recent alleged abusers of Krebs. She'd be on every talk show in America if that happened. There's a reason she's hiding out. Too many people know she's been exposed as a fraud. The media hear from these kinds of parasites all the time. They hook onto whatever story's hot, and try to connect it with ritual abuse. They came forward during McVeigh (inc. this week), Simpson, Fleiss and others. Only a few people here, lacking ways to corroborate info or hearing it for the first time, take it seriously. I'll admit that the Ramsey case, due to its nature, is a better breeding ground for the connection, but in the end it's baseless. Homicide pros roll their eyes at the mention -- they know not to waste time on these scams. The tabs recently did a story on a celeb who purportedly made a gay pass at someone. As I recall, the story stated the person making the claim passed a polygraph. There have been no lawsuits. Someone with a hot story had better be able to prove it because often months of investigation go into a tipster's story, including scoping out the tipster and why he or she is making such claims. Can you imagine Krebs withstanding that kind of heat? She fears the challenge of a critical media -- not the White family. The tabs admit they pay huge bucks for real stories. That brings out a lot of snakes who slither away when they can't support their charges. And if it pertains to a criminal case that's open, the media have an obligation to turn over intelligence to cops working the case. Might a reporter have tried to suss out Krebs' story by listening to someone who believed it? Possibly. But I doubt any money was spent developing it, because the story broke down too quickly. Anyone who says otherwise should produce a contract or cancelled check. The Krebs' believers are talking to themselves. No one else gives a darn, including the media. Edited to add: LurkerXIV, you are da bomb! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 04:24:24 5/15/2001 "She has been exposed as a fraud." --you wish [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Really, AK?" Posted by Holly on 05:42:28 5/15/2001 If the tabs know that "parasite" Nancy Krebs is a fraud, why didn't they blast the story in headlines? The fact is the tabs don't know she is a fraud - and neither do you. The proof is in the fact that no tab or poster has ever offered a scintilla of evidence she lied. And if there is one thing we know about the tabs, it's their penchant for shocking headlines and exposing people as cheats, liars, frauds, scoundrels -- even to the extent of setting them up for a story. So the plain truth is, AK, you huff and puff and accuse, hint and lecture and do your best to beat the drums - but you can't deliver. Since you are supposedly connected to the tabs, why not sell them your story that a terrible hoax befell the tragic case of JonBenet? Why didn't you already do it in the cause of justice for a little girl? You can't, because it didn't happen. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Holly" Posted by JR on 22:10:15 5/15/2001 To my knowledge, no tab or poster has ever offered a scintilla of evidence she didn't lie nor that she named Fleet White as someone who abused her. JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Scintilla Godzilla" Posted by Lacey on 06:25:15 5/15/2001 LOL, sure she lied, the proof's in the false police reports she filed. Heck, Nancy Krebs couldn't even keep her story straight in the Mame Interviews.. Mame had to keep correcting her!! LOL!!! And this is your credible witness?! Well, whatever. You've heard all this. You know it. But y'all just prefer to dial denial, and that's YOUR problem. Lurker, woman, YOU DA MAN. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, isn't it. We all know there's plenty more where that came from. And it's in the right hands. God, I'll never forget how Morgan tried to fool the forum with tales about Daphne that had absolutely no basis in fact. It was hateful. But that's how they start, that's how "they" operate. Even with these types of discussions, kids should be off-limits. These women, ugh!, they know no boundaries. Gone for the Day Y'all hang tough Lacey [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "A.K." Posted by Spencer on 06:17:35 5/15/2001 If "the Kreb's believers are talking to themselves", why is it that you have to come by daily to debunk these threads? BTW, have you read Ma's thread, "Feed... Forums Strategic Messages"? The content just screams your name, or would that be your initials. LOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Oh god, another hat" Posted by A.K. on 06:49:50 5/15/2001 Holly, why don't the tabs expose Krebs' hoax?, you ask. Because her tall tales lead to a phony story about a key witness. As if you didn't know! Do you hear ritual abuse mentioned in the McVeigh case? Well, I do, or did yesterday. If the media reported 8. "Oh god, another hat" Posted by A.K. on 06:49:50 5/15/2001 Holly, why don't the tabs expose Krebs' hoax?, you ask. Because her tall tales lead to a phony story about a key witness. As if you didn't know! Do you hear ritual abuse mentioned in the McVeigh case? Well, I do, or did yesterday. If the media reported every time these freaks try to glom onto a case there'd be no space for real news. Professionals don't get fooled. But you do! And, hence... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Don't think so, AK -" Posted by Holly on 10:17:12 5/15/2001 maybe the tabs don't report a hoax because they can't prove one. Here is another headline they can have for free - COPS BUST JB HOAX! CA woman tried to implicate star witness in sordid kiddy sex ring. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 07:23:05 5/15/2001 Methinks you protest too much. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Morgan" Posted by mary99 on 07:49:47 5/15/2001 Don't forget, A.K. has described herself as a "homicide professional", as if we should take her seriously! I'm always amused by the threads she is drawn to post her rhetoric in, and yes, it does seem to fit the desription of 'feeding...forums a strategic message'. To bad it isn't working, for all her shrieking and squealing! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Tab's ignore a hot story?" Posted by Florida on 08:12:54 5/15/2001 The proof is in the fact that no tab or poster has ever offered a scintilla of evidence she lied. Instead the tabs ignored the entire story. How many copies do you think this would have sold? "JOHN RAMSEY'S BEST FRIEND IN SEX RING SAYS SURVIVING VICTIM - COULD BE RELATED TO JONBENET MURDER!" Had there been a scintilla of evidence it was true they would have blasted it around the globe. This would have been the hottest story since she was murdered. They ignored it because there is no story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "How about" Posted by Holly on 09:30:06 5/15/2001 SEX RING HOAX IN JON BENET CASE! California woman a fraud! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "No story" Posted by Florida on 12:35:12 5/15/2001 = No Story! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "California..." Posted by Pedro on 09:37:46 5/15/2001 ...woman isn't know well enough for that to sell Holly. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "So what Pedro." Posted by Holly on 10:19:30 5/15/2001 Neither was Kimberly Ballard. I rest my case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "I agree Holly.." Posted by Pedro on 10:31:53 5/15/2001 ...are you expecting journalist to be logic? They are not, and neither are the media owners. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Pedro" Posted by Grace on 10:03:49 5/15/2001 Stephen Singular is. And maybe others behind this spectacular plot that certain "homicide professionals" have known about for over a year. Sounds newsworthy to me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Stephen Singular..." Posted by Pedro on 10:32:30 5/15/2001 ..is what? :-) Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Sorry, Pedro" Posted by Grace on 11:38:42 5/15/2001 Stephen Singular is well-known enough to sell tabloids. I was replying to your post to Holly saying Nancy wasn't. A few extra posts got stuck in between yours and mine, so what I said didn't make sense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Ok..." Posted by Pedro on 11:40:14 5/15/2001 ...Grace. I think a week has to be very bad news like to do *Stephen Singular*. :-). Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "A story about Stehen Singular ..." Posted by Grace on 12:23:26 5/15/2001 I wouldn't be rushing to grab it off the newstand, that's for sure, Pedro. LOL. But how about if the subtitle was: "Most Pernicious Attempt at Obstructing Justice Since Jack Ruby Shot Lee Oswald"? I'll bet some people would look twice at that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Grace..." Posted by Pedro on 12:26:45 5/15/2001 ...You are right. :-) Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Homicide Professional??????" Posted by Cassandra on 07:56:59 5/15/2001 FOFLMAO Is OJ a "homicide professional"? How about Robert Blake? I understand they found the gun in a dumpster. They might just be amateurs, though. I think an assassin would be a "homicide professional", however. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Perhaps this belongs in WOR" Posted by watchin' on 08:20:46 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:20:46, 5/15/2001 (my post) :-) because it won't be pretty! What the hell is a 'homicide professional'? I worked homicide/sex crimes for years and am appauled that one could insinuate they were any sort of porfessional ...well maybe a professional liar, who can write ths crap seen on this thread and the other Arndt thread! One must have an understanding of human nature to be in cetain professions. Yep! Even prostitutes! Nowthese gals have human nature figured out! I can't speak for nancy but the women and children I have seen abused and battered would NEVER put themselves on display for Springer and his perverted followers. They would NEVER parade their pain before the public just so you could have a look into their world! SOme women get proper help. They overcome their false guilt and gain a certain amount of self-esteem and they become leaders. They write books to better help others understand they too can get off the dirty floor and hold their heads high. They bend over to help other abuse victims up...not to slap them in the face. Wheter we are talking about NK with sexual abuse or Linda as a used and controlled woman in a male dominated profession...the dynamics are the same! This use and abuse is about control! It is about hate...a deep seeded contempt for women by impotent weak men who need to hurt women to feel macho. Abused women seldom get to the court room. ANY PROFESSIONAL in police work will tell you why. It is because they are jsut as intimated by the system as they were from their perp. MZ "homicide PROFESSIONAL" can you tell me how many Dick Tracy books you have read? Perhaps the word 'professional' referrs to collecting that crap! You have NO CLUE as to why NK or any other woman would want to hide out! You have NO CLUE what Linda had to deal with as a female in that kind of PROFESSION. I do! Take me on sista'! I damn sure ain't intimidated by the armchair "homicide porfessionals"! edited 'cause I ain't NO PROFESSIONAL TYPEST ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "watchin'" Posted by Holly on 12:41:33 5/15/2001 A "HOMICIDE PROFESSIONAL" is a hit man. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Bravo, watchin'!" Posted by mary99 on 08:48:19 5/15/2001 Back on the 60 minutes threads, A.K. herself said, "I and other homicide professionals..." I agree with your points about why abused women do not seek justice in a courtroom nor do they seek media attention. It's a very shameful and dirty feeling to be an abuse survivor, and the 'system' tends to repeat the syndrome of abuse all over again. Victims are often told by their abusers that nobody will believe them--and often the victim herself has been 'programmed' from an early age to believe that will be the case. As far as tabloids picking the story up, Florida, you might be interested in listening to the Jeff Shapiro tape in which his boss tells him that guilty or not, the Ramseys-as-perps is what sells the tabs, and any stories presenting serious intruder theories would expose them to lawsuits. It would require a complete turnaround for the tabs to proclaim an intruder killed JonBenet, or a sex ring was responsible for her death, because of all the previous stories in which the tabs pin the murder on one or the other of the Ramseys. JR posted the URL for one of the Shapiro tapes on his "Did JR lie at his depostition?" thread, you can find the others there as well. Well worth listening to, as it shows how little truth, innocence or guilt matters to the publishers -- it's all about money. http://www1.mediainfo.com/ephome/news/audio/mullins.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Mary" Posted by JR on 22:21:06 5/15/2001 The tabs didn't hesitate to do a complete turnaround when Columbian Necklaces were the hot ticket of the week/s re the Simpson case. You are 100% right - it's all about money. JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Mary, I heard them" Posted by Florida on 09:45:29 5/15/2001 last year. Sapiro, Frost, Lewis and the rest of them have no morals or scruples as far as I am concerned. They are bottom feeders and will go to any extreme to sell a story. You are absolutely right about the money. The tabs will publish anything that will sell - including trying to destroy a nine year old child after having been told repeatedly he was not involved. That is why I believe if the tabs thought they could tie the murder into a sex ring that included not only John and Patsy but their best friends and others as well it would be explosive and they would go to press with special editions. Sex rings would sell a lot better than another John or Patsy did it story. They ignored the story - there's a reason for that. And I believe it's because there is no story. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Makes sense to me!" Posted by Florida on 08:28:24 5/15/2001 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. The tabs had the story for free for over a year and a half. Do you think they are waiting for Nancy and Mary to come to them so they can pay them? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Nancy's story.." Posted by watchin' on 08:54:35 5/15/2001 isn't TAB material. Nancy's story isn't even back page notation in a main stram news rag. Nancy's story isn't worthy of the time it would take away from the do nut shop to investigate! WHY? Because nancy's story, sad to say, is COMMON...usual...the norm in our sick society! Now if PATSY comes forward with a confession and cries "but I was abused...youmust understand..." THEN everyone will want her story. Yep! Even a murdering slut would get more attention and sympathy than the average abused person. Just look at the name most used in this case. It damn sur ain't Jonbenet. It is all about Patsy. People like the Nancy's of this world go it alone and have to hear wispers of the kind of crap you people dish out here and you have never walked in her shoes. Ihope you,your mothers and your daughters are not victims of abuse and you have to hear the horrible things like is said her about her. Will you put your sexually abused kiddo on display? Tell your story to the tabs? Request an appearance on Springer? Think about it. It could be you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Thanks Mary" Posted by watchin' on 09:06:24 5/15/2001 It is obvious to me that ou have an understanding of the dynamics of abuse. Perhaps that is what pisses people off.;-) Could you kindly point me to the thread you ae speaking of? I would like to read it. Thanks Mary. You and I may disagree on who killed JonBenet but that doesn't make either of us right. You are right on track in that pimping children and other sexual activities ARE INDEED connected to this case. It is important to dog this element until we can find the entrance to this particular hell hole. Keep up the cause and don't be intimidated by those who 'just don't get it'. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Oh please, Watchin'" Posted by Florida on 08:58:27 5/15/2001 if there was anything to Nancy's story in regard to the Ramsey case it would have been frontpage news and sensationalized on the cover of every tab in America. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "FL" Posted by Holly on 09:33:58 5/15/2001 But IF Nancy can be proven a fraud, that too is newsworthy. My point is why don't people who say they can prove she's a fraud, prove it to the tabs? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Holly" Posted by Florida on 11:47:11 5/15/2001 Why would they tabs bother to point out that a non-story is fraudulent? They already know that. That's why it was a non-story. The only place this is even being discussed is on a couple of internet forums. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Hey Florida!" Posted by watchin' on 09:09:29 5/15/2001 How 'bout givin us YOUR dirty laundry and maybe we can sell it to the Tabs to be printed 'all over the country". Humm? Any takers? This is an experiment...do not try this at home ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Morgan..." Posted by Pedro on 09:12:24 5/15/2001 ...sorry I couldn't answer before to your question *What public attacks?*. I am making reference to the public attacks NK and others did on FW. To me those were public attack as were baseless and only driven by off-case reasons. Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Well..." Posted by Pedro on 09:36:57 5/15/2001 ...Right now I still think NK was abused but she has nothing to do with JBR case. I don't know if she did try to insert on this case herself or someone did that for her, you kow, like lawyers, journalists and other people seeking profit of these sad situations and abusing other's weackness, they are in all professions. What about the reward? could they work in order to get the R's reward?:-)...just teasing. Well, I guess is something to do, talk about NK or whatever ... Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "mary99...spencer" Posted by janab on 09:56:30 5/15/2001 mary99, I wanted to reply to one of your posts on the 2nd thread. You said: 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. First of all, the supplemental portion of the White criminal complaint clearly states: Mr. White told me that the relationship between the Whites and the woman from California is true, but everything else she claims is absolutely false. (p. 19) I don't understand how you can say that saying the allegations are false is not the same thing as saying that he never abused her. Can you clarify that for me? If her allegations are that FW, Jr. participated in her abuse, and he says her allegations are false, how can you say that is not a denial of her allegations? ... spencer? Is that really you? Good to see you posting! . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "janab" Posted by mary99 on 11:03:24 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:03:24, 5/15/2001 Yes, there is a difference between saying the allegations were false and making a specific affirmative statement. Edited to add: Perhaps 'affirmative' is the wrong word, and it should be an assertive statement. Anyway, I meant 'affirmative' not as a 'yes' statement, but as a declaration of truth. A specific affirmative statement means that Fleet White would come out and state, "I have never abused Nancy Krebs, nor do I have knowledge of any sex ring activity, as she alleges." As Holly said, if he states the allegations are false, a loophole exists where the allegations could be essentially true but in some small way inaccurate; he is leaving the door open to say he wasn't lying if incontestable proof comes to light. For instance,if Nancy Krebs said JonBenet was killed Christmas Eve and FW chose to interpret that to mean Dec. 24th, he could truthfully say the allegations were false, if in fact, he knew JonBenet was killed Chrstmas Eve, Dec. 25th. He needs to make a "I never..." statement v. a "She's lying..." statement. See the difference? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Good point, janab." Posted by Holly on 10:11:54 5/15/2001 "...everything else she says is false". We need the detective to tell us what he means. What did Nancy Krebs say that White claims is false? If we don't know that, we can't make a judgement if FW is denying the sex ring stuff. Maybe the detective is saying something like - Krebs claims her mother attented a sex party at your house on 12/25/96. And maybe FW is saying that is absolutely false, because (and this is speculation) a sex party attended by Krebs' mother was at another house. See what I mean? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "I don't get you Holly" Posted by Imbackon on 10:35:07 5/15/2001 Your whole point about White is that Nancy claims he abused her. So if he says everything else other than the fact that his family knows her is false, then he is denying any abuse on his part. What could possibly have been the point of your post I wonder. Looks to me like White can't win in any situation with you. I just want to add, that in the past, most posts by posters don't rile me up much. In fact the only poster who writes regarding Jonbenet Ramsey that has gotten me riled up is Sue Bennett. Until now that is... Imbackon [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Pssst, A. K. ..." Posted by Grace on 10:20:39 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:20:39, 5/15/2001 I got it before it was edited. ------ This should have been after post 3. It came out down here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Grace." Posted by Holly on 10:20:40 5/15/2001 Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Got what? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Holly" Posted by Grace on 10:23:08 5/15/2001 See my edit to my post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "JanaB" Posted by Spencer on 10:39:47 5/15/2001 Yes, Jana, it's the real me! Mostly I just lurk when there's something new in the case. Tell CheapRug hi for me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Is cheaprug" Posted by Holly on 10:59:04 5/15/2001 Larry Pozner? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Geesh, Holly!" Posted by janab on 10:35:19 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:35:19, 5/15/2001 You said, "What did Nancy Krebs say that White claims is false?" If you don't know what Nancy Krebs claims about Fleet White, Jr., then what the heck are we doing here and what the heck are we talking about? Edited to say, any why do some of you keep demanding that he deny the allegations? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "mary99...spencer" Posted by janab on 10:59:12 5/15/2001 mary99, perhaps FW, Jr. has as much information about NK's allegations as we do here at JW. If he doesn't specifically know what she is alleged to have said against him, how could he deny it specifically? As far as I know, it has never been confirmed here that NK specifically said that FW, Jr. abused her, isn't that right? No one has shown us a quote from NK, isn't that right? We are just supposed to infer from the articles and interviews that she has said, somewhere to someone, that FW, Jr. abused her, isn't that right? Isn't that what we've been told over and over again? That we ought to be able to read between the lines? If we don't know what she alleges, specifically, from the articles we've read and the interviews we've had the opportunity to listen to, and FW, Jr.'s only knowledge of this whole thing is from the articles he's read and the interviews that he's perhaps had the opportunity to listen to, how would he be more knowledgeable than we are about the specifics of the allegations? ... spencer, I just saw cheaprug this weekend! I will certainly tell her you said hello. Post more often, okay? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "janab" Posted by mary99 on 11:23:42 5/15/2001 Some of your questions to me were covered in other posts but briefly, we don't know if Fleet White was even interviewed by the BPD in connection with Nancy's claims! And it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out they never spoke to him, because as Nancy said in her second interview with mame, the BPD wasn't looking to prove her right as much as prove her wrong (paraphrased). Fleet filed this criminal libel complaint based on what the media reported. Therefore, in his one-time-only denial of the allegations, as part of the criminal libel complaint itself, he limits his denial to what was reported, since that is the basis for his complaint. Essentially, his beef is that it was reported - at all. If it was all false, why not address the suit to ALL the statements made by Nancy, including what was said to the BPD? If everything Nancy said to the BPD was false, why did he not take that up with her? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "janab. " Posted by Holly on 10:58:31 5/15/2001 :-) I know, I think, what Nancy Krebs says - but I don't know EXACTLY what the BPD asked or told FW to elicit that response. There is no reason to assume that the BPD said, Krebs says you are in a sex ring. We don't know if they said that or, ran down a list of Krebs statements that are, in part or whole, false according to FW. They may have constructed their interview questions (and do we know there ever was an interview?) to confirm or deny specifics. I just can't be sure from the BPD report what FW says is false. Is it reasonable to think FW would have remarked, "Why yes, Detective Trujillo, I am part of a sex ring" - or even "no comment"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "I don't get you Holly" Posted by Imbackon on 10:35:07 5/15/2001 Your whole point about White is that Nancy claims he abused her. So if he says everything else other than the fact that his family knows her is false, then he is denying any abuse on his part. What could possibly have been the point of your post I wonder. Looks to me like White can't win in any situation with you. I just want to add, that in the past, most posts by posters don't rile me up much. In fact the only poster who writes regarding Jonbenet Ramsey that has gotten me riled up is Sue Bennett. Until now that is... Imbackon [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Pssst, A. K. ..." Posted by Grace on 10:20:39 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:20:39, 5/15/2001 I got it before it was edited. ------ This should have been after post 3. It came out down here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Grace." Posted by Holly on 10:20:40 5/15/2001 Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Got what? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Holly" Posted by Grace on 10:23:08 5/15/2001 See my edit to my post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "JanaB" Posted by Spencer on 10:39:47 5/15/2001 Yes, Jana, it's the real me! Mostly I just lurk when there's something new in the case. Tell CheapRug hi for me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Is cheaprug" Posted by Holly on 10:59:04 5/15/2001 Larry Pozner? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Geesh, Holly!" Posted by janab on 10:35:19 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:35:19, 5/15/2001 You said, "What did Nancy Krebs say that White claims is false?" If you don't know what Nancy Krebs claims about Fleet White, Jr., then what the heck are we doing here and what the heck are we talking about? Edited to say, any why do some of you keep demanding that he deny the allegations? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "mary99...spencer" Posted by janab on 10:59:12 5/15/2001 mary99, perhaps FW, Jr. has as much information about NK's allegations as we do here at JW. If he doesn't specifically know what she is alleged to have said against him, how could he deny it specifically? As far as I know, it has never been confirmed here that NK specifically said that FW, Jr. abused her, isn't that right? No one has shown us a quote from NK, isn't that right? We are just supposed to infer from the articles and interviews that she has said, somewhere to someone, that FW, Jr. abused her, isn't that right? Isn't that what we've been told over and over again? That we ought to be able to read between the lines? If we don't know what she alleges, specifically, from the articles we've read and the interviews we've had the opportunity to listen to, and FW, Jr.'s only knowledge of this whole thing is from the articles he's read and the interviews that he's perhaps had the opportunity to listen to, how would he be more knowledgeable than we are about the specifics of the allegations? ... spencer, I just saw cheaprug this weekend! I will certainly tell her you said hello. Post more often, okay? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "janab" Posted by mary99 on 11:23:42 5/15/2001 Some of your questions to me were covered in other posts but briefly, we don't know if Fleet White was even interviewed by the BPD in connection with Nancy's claims! And it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out they never spoke to him, because as Nancy said in her second interview with mame, the BPD wasn't looking to prove her right as much as prove her wrong (paraphrased). Fleet filed this criminal libel complaint based on what the media reported. Therefore, in his one-time-only denial of the allegations, as part of the criminal libel complaint itself, he limits his denial to what was reported, since that is the basis for his complaint. Essentially, his beef is that it was reported - at all. If it was all false, why not address the suit to ALL the statements made by Nancy, including what was said to the BPD? If everything Nancy said to the BPD was false, why did he not take that up with her? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "janab. " Posted by Holly on 10:58:31 5/15/2001 :-) I know, I think, what Nancy Krebs says - but I don't know EXACTLY what the BPD asked or told FW to elicit that response. There is no reason to assume that the BPD said, Krebs says you are in a sex ring. We don't know if they said that or, ran down a list of Krebs statements that are, in part or whole, false according to FW. They may have constructed their interview questions (and do we know there ever was an interview?) to confirm or deny specifics. I just can't be sure from the BPD report what FW says is false. Is it reasonable to think FW would have remarked, "Why yes, Detective Trujillo, I am part of a sex ring" - or even "no comment"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "How come" Posted by Morgan on 11:02:26 5/15/2001 no one believes the Rams when they say they didn't kill their daughter, but IF (as Holly points out, we don't know how or if the BPD interrogated FW)FW denied involvement with a sex ring, then it's got to be the gospel truth? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Morgan" Posted by Florida on 11:52:34 5/15/2001 there appears to be a little more evidence the Rams could have been involved in the murder of their daughter than there is evidence FW did anyting Nancy accused him of. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Morgan" Posted by janab on 11:07:43 5/15/2001 I don't think anyone said it was the gospel truth. I think the problem I'm having (lately, anyway) is that some people have been constantly saying, "Why doesn't FW deny these allegations?" And, as I pointed out above, he did deny them. Then, the same people come back and say that denial is not good enough, and point out all the flaws with the denial as stated. Perhaps if NK would enumerate each and every single allegation against FW, Jr., then he could sit down and enumerate his denials? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "janab." Posted by Holly on 12:03:21 5/15/2001 You are right. It's just I'm hung up on why he didn't say - but everything else she said to the MEDIA is false. That omission gives me pause - is he saying it's false in response to what the detectives said Nancy told them? IOW I just don't know what FW says is false. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Morgan " Posted by mary99 on 11:07:40 5/15/2001 Maybe he said, "Don't go there, pal!" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "mary99" Posted by janab on 11:46:19 5/15/2001 In response to your post #46 above... ...and 'round and 'round we go, eh? :-) Okay, according to the supplemental report attached to the complaint, what follows are meetings/discussions between the Whites and one or more representatives of the BPD: 8/2/00 (phone conversation with Detective Spraggs) 8/3/00 (meeting with Detective Spraggs and Sergeant Weiler at the Boulder Police Department) 8/7/00 (phone conversation with Detective Spraggs) 8/8/00 (phone conversation with Detective Spraggs) 8/8/00 (second phone conversation of that day with Detective Spraggs) 8/10/00 (meeting with Detective Spraggs at the Whites' home) These were meetings that were brought on by the libel complaint, but surely you will admit that the subject of NK was discussed (in order to satisfy your statement that "we don't know if Fleet White was even interviewed by the BPD in connection with Nancy's claims!"). Furthermore, in re-reading the complaint, it does state that, "According to Fleet White, [redacted party] was the first to air that Fleet White Sr. was implicated in the sexual abuse, and, later, [redacted party] of [redacted party] was the first to air that Fleet White Jr. was directly involved in the molestation." (p. 18) Since this information appears one page before FW, Jr.'s statement that "the relationship between the Whites and the woman from California is true, but everything else she claims is absolutely false," one could assume that FW, Jr. was specifically denying that he was "directly involved in the molestation." Please, please, please don't tell me that the molestation might be the relationship between them that he is admitting is true, okay? . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "and 'round and 'round we go" Posted by mary99 on 12:43:48 5/15/2001 ;-) Yes, janab, it has taken on a life of it's own, indeed! You listed dates from the criminal libel complaint as evidence FW was questioned in connection with Nancy Krebs allegations. OK, we don't know from reading that, whether or not the BPD ever questioned him way back last year when the 'MW investigation' was pending. We are making a big assumption to assume the BPD actually questioned him, though logic would dictate he be interviewed as he was named specifically in her abuse. BUT, we already know the BPD has always been deferential to the needs of the Whites, clearing them on their request, naming them as 'key witness', etc. Back to the criminal libel interviews--these were done as part of FW's complaint, to share his collected 'evidence' with Detective Spraggs. Do not assume that Spraggs was there to investigate whether there was truth to the allegations, as part of his investigation into the criminal libel...it wasn't his role in the criminal libel complaint to do so, and the BPD had already made the determination there was no proof linking the murder of JBR to Nancy's abuse. In re-reading the quoted text of the media reports which form the basis of Fleet's complaint, it's clear (to me, anyway) that in order for him to deny Nancy Kreb's claims of sexual abuse or molestation while confirming 'the relationship with the Whites' as reported by Nancy Krebs, he must specifically state the exact nature of the relationship; whether it was ever a sexual relationship, whether he or his father was so involved, etc. Also, why was Fleet White, Sr. not a party to the complaint? Was he not libeled by these statements too? Where is an affidavit from FW Sr supporting the falsity of the allegations? What if what Nancy said about FW Jr was not true, but what she said about FW Sr was true? How can FW Jr speak for his father with absolute certainty? Legally, you know that the only person who can state FW Sr never sexually abused Nancy is FW Sr himself, and where is that statement? >Please, please, please don't tell me that >the molestation might be the relationship >between them that he is admitting >is true, okay? I doubt that Fleet would answer (as Holly put it) a direct question about whether he was involved in sex ring activity truthfully, as it goes against his interests to make such an admission, even if true. But, taking the middle ground, where he confirms some and denies other parts of her claims, he is really not elicidating anything. Again, what he needs to do, imo, and it's always done in civil cases, is simply say, "I have never sexually abused not participated in the molestation of Nancy Krebs." Yes, it could come down to the definition of 'molestation' or sex abuse. Remember the so-called Preppy Murder in Central Park? Jennifer Levin was killed accidentally during 'rough sex', was the story given by the defendant. He didn't deny the sex, but he denied the context. Forensics told a different story, and he was convicted of murder. I have no idea what the exact nature of the relationship between the Whites and Nancy is, but from all appearances, he is hiding something, imo. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "janab." Posted by Holly on 12:11:43 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:11:43, 5/15/2001 Uh, I don't know what to say about that. Was he INDIRECTLY involved in a molestation? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "janab" Posted by Grace on 12:02:26 5/15/2001 If it makes you feel any better, I understand what you're saying and agree with you. FW denied Nancy's claims to detective Spraggs when he filed his criminal libel complaint, so it's no longer accurate to say he has never denied it. Right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "..." Posted by janab on 12:24:46 5/15/2001 Grace, thank you! Dear, sweet, Holly... . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "janab-" Posted by Holly on 12:37:53 5/15/2001 Just teasin' you... :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "janab" Posted by mary99 on 12:52:01 5/15/2001 ...OK, he did deny the allegations, but as you can see, I still find fault with his denial. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "mary99...Holly" Posted by janab on 12:51:28 5/15/2001 mary99, you asked why Fleet White, Sr. was not a party to the complaint and in the next breath you say, "How can FW, Jr. speak for his father with absolute certainty." I bet FW, Sr. is not a party to the complaint because FW, Jr. cannot speak for his father with absolute certainty. Perhaps if FW, Sr. felt he was slandered/libeled, he would file his own suit. Perhaps, since he doesn't live in Boulder, he doesn't give a flying flip what the Boulder media prints about him. Maybe if the story had appeared in an Aspen paper, he'd sue them. I dunno. Holly, I knew that. Gee, all this makes me wish I had joined the conversations earlier. Nah. Not really. You guys drive me nuts!! :-) . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "WOW, janab" Posted by mary99 on 13:58:12 5/15/2001 From your post to me: >>mary99, you asked why Fleet White, Sr. was not a party to the complaint and in the next breath you say, "How can FW, Jr. speak for his father with absolute certainty?" >>I bet FW, Sr. is not a party to the complaint because FW, Jr. cannot speak for his father with absolute certainty. Perhaps if FW, Sr. felt he was slandered/libeled, he would file his own suit. Now, that set off a BIG alarm in my head! How indeed can Fleet White deny the allegations made by Nancy Krebs pertaining to his father? How can he say "everything else is false" except for "the relationship with the Whites"? HE CAN'T! Only his father, whether he is a party to the Criminal Libel complaint or not, can assert that the sex abuse allegations are false! Fleet White Sr must file an affidavit whether he wants to be a party to the complaint or not, just to support Fleet White Jr's statement that "the rest of the allegations are false." Where is this affidavit? How could the BPD have missed this? Even if Fleet White Jr's father, to the best of his knowledge, never abused Nancy Krebs, he can't file a Criminal Libel complaint in which he alleges all the statements made by NK are false, except the 'relationship with the Whites', because it's possible that every statement she made about abuse by FW Sr is true! So for FWJr to pursue a criminal complaint, on his own behalf, he must first get his father on record denying the allegations. Whether his father cares to be a party to the complaint is irrelevant. FW Jr can't make a complaint of false allegations when one of the named parties hasn't confirmed or denied the abuse! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "janab " Posted by Holly on 13:05:59 5/15/2001 We drive ourselves nutz too! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Spencer" Posted by Gemini on 12:46:38 5/15/2001 Did you, by any chance, keep a copy of that wonderful post you wrote about the different POV and personalities on the JBR forums? I saved it for a long time, then lost it in a win crash. If you'd repost it (maybe on the daily) I'd be most grateful. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Perhaps" Posted by Harley on 13:04:48 5/15/2001 Fleet White should take out a full time add in all major newspapers stating that he did not abuse MW, etc. etc. etc. Maybe that would suffice. You think? Probably not! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Harley," Posted by Holly on 13:07:46 5/15/2001 Hah! All I wish he'd do, is seek recourse in the Court to shut her up. Restraining order? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "If TMcV..." Posted by Pedro on 13:25:30 5/15/2001 ...can write a book... Pedro. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Holly" Posted by Florida on 13:11:36 5/15/2001 where is she talking? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "FL" Posted by Holly on 21:45:39 5/15/2001 To the media? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Gemini" Posted by Spencer on 14:10:49 5/15/2001 No, I don't have that post saved. Actually, I don't save any of my posts. But thanks for thinking that one was noteworthy! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "NK" Posted by Spencer on 14:32:56 5/15/2001 I think the reason FW hasn't filed charges against NK is because I truly think FW doesn't want "to go there". IF he did in fact abuse NK as a child, and if he did file charges against her, he would have to meet her in a Court of Law and listen to her testimony. Not only would he be listening to her testimony with a Judge and jury present, but also with umpteen reporters from various magazines, newspapers, TV stations, etc. present. Her words would be repeated via every media available, whether they were true or not. I don't think FW not filing charges against NK has anything to do with her not having money. As far as why NK hasn't filed charges against her abusers, I think she hasn't because the statute of limitations has expired on most of them. Once she turns 18, she only has 2 years to file charges against someone who abused her prior to age 18. (Note: this could vary in different states, so I could very well be wrong on California law). More recent crimes against her obviously fall under a different category. However, she filed charges once when younger and saw the way the Courts, her community, her family, etc. turned against her or condemned her. Following an incident like that, it's hard to believe you can win when going against someone so evil as to sexually abuse anyone, no matter what their age. It's even harder for someone who has been abused since childhood because many of the self-esteem building blocks were missing in your development. If you have never known safety, protection, nurturing and comfort, you have literally gone through these hideous crimes alone. You survive however you can. Most survival is done via disassociation to some degree or another. The very thing (disassociation) that saves you as a child haunts you as an adult. When placed on the stand during trial, you blank out, you "go away", you "check out". Seeing your abuser seated not far from you brings back terror that is too large for the body to contain. Your own attorney can ask you questions and you may not be able to even hear him. You have trouble staying focused and hearing what is said to you. You are in fear for your life. You worry about the outcome of the trial. Will your abuser go free and come after you to retaliate? Where can you run? Who can you turn to? If you have never been protected in your life, how is it possible to believe someone will be there to protect you? All in all, it is very difficult for someone abused since childhood to speak on their own behalf in Court. It can be done, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of courage. And then let's don't forget one of the most important parts of filing charges against anyone who has abused you: it's very difficult to prove. Many times it becomes a screaming match between plaintiff and defendant. Neither side can prove anything in most cases. That's why sexual crimes remain one of our society's dirty little secrets, even in this day and age of enlightenment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Spencer" Posted by JR on 22:40:11 5/15/2001 Under California Law she had until she turned 21 unless the law has changed in the past few years. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "mary99...spencer" Posted by janab on 14:52:57 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:52:57, 5/15/2001 (Maybe it's time I copyrighted that subject line?) Mary, I disagree with your post re: FW Jr./Sr. I don't think it's a problem at all for FW, Jr. to file a libel complaint that does not include FW, Sr. He is filing the complaint alleging that the media libeled him, not that everything it printed is libelous. Imagine that a tabloid ran with a story that said Joe Blow (a major star) was drunk at a certain restaurant and caused all kinds of chaos and was making passing at all the waitresses, and in the same story, they reported that Jane Blow (no relation to Joe, but a major star in her own right) was also at this restaurant and, amazingly enough, was also drunk and causing problems. Now, Joe Blow could file a complaint/lawsuit and say that what they said about him was completely untrue and libelous, but he doesn't have to include the fact that what they said about Jane was untrue and libelous, right? Same with Jr. and Sr., I think. ... spencer, very good post. See, that's why you should post more often. . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "janab...and Spencer" Posted by mary99 on 20:02:21 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:02:21, 5/15/2001 Excellent post, Spencer. Wish everyone who questions Nancy's credibility based on her not filing charges against her abusers would take a look at what you wrote. Janab, your analogy is close, but you see, 'the Whites', as a unit, were named in the allegedly libelous articles as her abusers, or the family of abusers. Also, even though FW Sr and Jr are separately named, as abusers, FW Jr can't make the claim that "everything else is false" while admitting a "relationship with the Whites" is true...because his FATHER's past actions are also incorporated into her allegations, his denials, and his confirmations of truth(s) in her statements. Let me try an example: I host a party attended by 20 people, including my brothers. A week later a woman walks into the police station and says she was raped at my party, by one of my brothers. The newspaper reports the story, naming me as the hostess. Well, some of the story is true, but some may be false. Since I don't know about my brother's actions, I can't answer to that, right? Just for this example, let's say I'm outraged at being so linked to such a disgusting thing and vow to file a Criminal Libel complaint against the paper and the radio talk show hosts who jabber about this on the air. I assemble every nasty thing said about my family and my parties and go to the police. I deny the allegations of rape at my party, and confirm that yes, I was the hostess. I'm perfectly confident in my correctness in what I say. EXCEPT, in order for me to make a statement like, "allegations of rape at my party are false", I need backup from the one accused of rape: my brother. And, just to be on the safe side, I'll get a written denial (an affidavit) from BOTH my brothers asserting they did not rape this woman, that night or any night. You see, I can assert that it isn't true, but until I provide a denial in writing from him, as he was so accused, I have denied nothing. What I say doesn't mean anything as long as he says nothing one way or the other. And that is where it applies to Fleet White, Sr. My brother need not be a party to the suit; in fact he could be guilty as sin. If I stick up for him, he could still be guilty unbeknownst to me. And, in another comparison to the pitfalls of FW's denial, what if I said "the allegations that X raped Miss C are FALSE", because I happen to know it was really Y who raped her? Therefore, FW Jr's criminal complaint is founded on unknowns; he makes no assertions about the validity of Nancy Krebs statements in relation to his father, other than to say, "absolutely false"--which is not supported by an affidavit from his father. In my example, I'm complaining of defamatory treatment in the press, but what the reports say could be true, in reference to my brother(s). Although there is no way for me to know whether he(or which one) is guilty, at least my complaint will have an affidavit from both brothers denying all allegations of rape as reported in the media. (and, needless to say, whether the rape is true or not, if the newspaper reported accurately what the police department told them, about the the woman's allegations concerning me, my party, and my brothers, any hope of winning at a criminal libel trial is zero) Gee, I hope this was worth writing. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "FW Sr." Posted by Morgan on 15:53:20 5/15/2001 I hope his alibi was carefully checked for Xmas night. We've got some mystery DNA to account for. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Good post, Mary99" Posted by Morgan on 19:06:12 5/15/2001 I think people tend to link Fleet White Jr and Sr because their names are the same (except for the Jr and Sr of course). In reality, they are 2 completely different people and one doesn't speak for the other. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Morgan" Posted by mary99 on 19:28:50 5/15/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:28:50, 5/15/2001 Do you see the HUGE loophole in Fleet White Jr's criminal libel complaint? He doesn't say anything about the truth or falsity of the allegations made by Nancy Krebs about his father; ergo, his complaint is meaningless with out an affidavit from his father, right? From janab's post: Det. Spraggs wrote: Mr. White told me that the relationship between the Whites and the woman from California is true, but everything else she claims is absolutely false. (p. 19) I wonder if the BPD ever interviewed them, both Jr and Sr as part of the 'MW investigation'. If they didn't, I want to know why not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Complaint" Posted by Imbackon on 21:10:02 5/15/2001 Mary99, I don't hear you saying anything about Fleet White Sr (at least not recently), so really who cares whether or not he is included in the complaint. The target of all these posts has been Fleet jr. The only thing FW Jr. is guilty of thus far that is a known fact is that he happened to be a friend of the Ramseys. Pity him. Imbackon p.s. I honestly am beginning to believe that there is a FW jr. conspiracy, but the conspirators of this hoax are you and Holly. I am sure I am not alone on this one. Imbackon [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Imbackon." Posted by Holly on 21:44:45 5/15/2001 No conspiracy here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "ha ha ha" Posted by Imbackon on 21:53:09 5/15/2001 Using Mary99's and your logic regarding only Fleet White Jr making denials in the complaint and not together with his father, Maybe I should discount your denial as well since the two of you did not respond together? Imbackon [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. ";-)" Posted by mary99 on 21:57:55 5/15/2001 No conspiracy, Imbackon! But you seem to have grasped the point of my post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]