Justice Watch Discussion Board "Breaking News: Fleet & Priscilla White file criminal libel charges" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Breaking News: Fleet & Priscilla White file criminal libel charges, puma_overlooking_Boulder, 17:11:04, 8/23/2000 Why am I not surprised?, Gemini, 17:18:47, 8/23/2000, (#1) you beat me to it, puma!, pip, 17:19:38, 8/23/2000, (#2) Good, darby, 17:21:40, 8/23/2000, (#3) LOL!, Gemini, 17:24:33, 8/23/2000, (#4) Oh Goody, momo, 17:24:44, 8/23/2000, (#5) Yes, Momo..., Dunvegan, 17:34:41, 8/23/2000, (#9) Oh Oh!, Seashell, 17:32:27, 8/23/2000, (#7) I was wondering if , Seeker, 17:27:52, 8/23/2000, (#6) Yes!, AutumnBorn, 17:35:12, 8/23/2000, (#10) I guess, momo, 17:32:30, 8/23/2000, (#8) timing, Seashell, 17:46:33, 8/23/2000, (#11) Seashell, Greenleaf, 18:03:44, 8/23/2000, (#13) A question, Ryder, 17:57:42, 8/23/2000, (#12) Ryder, Greenleaf, 18:09:36, 8/23/2000, (#15) Criminal libel vs Civil libel, puma_overlooking_Boulder, 18:13:31, 8/23/2000, (#16) GL, Nandee, 18:13:46, 8/23/2000, (#17) From KNGH, Chris, 18:17:32, 8/23/2000, (#18) oh boy!!, Nandee, 18:20:38, 8/23/2000, (#19) Fleet White Rocks!, Legalbeagle, 18:25:57, 8/23/2000, (#20) The timing..., Dunvegan, 18:45:45, 8/23/2000, (#23) Ryder,, AutumnBorn, 18:40:27, 8/23/2000, (#22) Lawsuit Threats, Chris, 19:00:57, 8/23/2000, (#25) AutumnBorn...., La Contessa, 18:57:29, 8/23/2000, (#24) Right on Chris!, Seeker, 19:13:22, 8/23/2000, (#27) Seeker, Chris, 19:17:43, 8/23/2000, (#28) But..Is this really a lawsuit? , darby, 19:13:14, 8/23/2000, (#26) more questions, darby, 19:40:34, 8/23/2000, (#30) Darby, Anderson, 19:50:28, 8/23/2000, (#32) from the Colorado Revised Statutes:, LizzieB, 19:33:49, 8/23/2000, (#29) Jennifer Bray, Morgan, 20:02:48, 8/23/2000, (#35) Jane Doe, Ruthee, 19:52:56, 8/23/2000, (#33) Thanks Lizzie, darby, 19:49:48, 8/23/2000, (#31) Annotations, LizzieB, 20:55:01, 8/23/2000, (#47) Oh Boy..., rose, 20:11:37, 8/23/2000, (#38) Thanks, Anderson, darby, 20:05:15, 8/23/2000, (#36) Darby, Anderson, 20:08:12, 8/23/2000, (#37) darby, mary99, 19:58:11, 8/23/2000, (#34) LaContessa,, AutumnBorn, 20:16:23, 8/23/2000, (#40) AutumnBorn...I Don't Think So, La Contessa, 08:37:44, 8/24/2000, (#77) Well I'll be a Monkey's Uncle, starry, 20:13:28, 8/23/2000, (#39) Sounds to me, Ribaldone, 20:33:59, 8/23/2000, (#44) So Now It Comes To This, Ruthee, 20:22:48, 8/23/2000, (#41) Just a thought, but, Ribaldone, 20:41:29, 8/23/2000, (#45) ...well ribaldone, jonesy, 21:05:46, 8/23/2000, (#48) I guess I'm dense, ayelean, 20:46:42, 8/23/2000, (#46) To refresh your memory..., v_p, 21:28:09, 8/23/2000, (#50) Ayelean, LizzieB, 21:18:38, 8/23/2000, (#49) Lizzie, ayelean, 21:33:40, 8/23/2000, (#53) Looking for an injunction?, mary99, 21:32:04, 8/23/2000, (#52) Ruthie..., rose, 21:31:30, 8/23/2000, (#51) Fleet White, Aurora, 21:56:56, 8/23/2000, (#56) I'm Confused, frankg, 21:45:19, 8/23/2000, (#54) Hmmm., Holly, 22:34:01, 8/23/2000, (#58) Interesting News, Interesting Thread!, Paralegal, 22:28:19, 8/23/2000, (#57) Paralegal....., rose, 22:50:52, 8/23/2000, (#60) Rose-, Paralegal, 22:59:24, 8/23/2000, (#62) link to BDC article, mary99, 22:50:09, 8/23/2000, (#59) ?, Seashell, 00:32:07, 8/24/2000, (#66) What, Watching you, 07:23:25, 8/24/2000, (#71) LOL, Lacey, 07:27:11, 8/24/2000, (#72) my initial thoughts, fly, 08:06:12, 8/24/2000, (#75) Arghhhhh!, Chris, 07:45:29, 8/24/2000, (#73) From Westwood..., Florida, 08:29:40, 8/24/2000, (#76) Fleet Has A Case, Lacey, 08:45:50, 8/24/2000, (#78) I can only say, Watching you, 08:49:13, 8/24/2000, (#79) Sticking my nose in, Baybb, 08:59:57, 8/24/2000, (#81) Watching You, Chris, 08:58:59, 8/24/2000, (#80) Chris, rico, 09:28:52, 8/24/2000, (#83) Chris,if I could, Watching you, 09:11:06, 8/24/2000, (#82) Barrie Hartman is in deep doo-doo..., LurkerXIV, 09:36:00, 8/24/2000, (#86) The charges made , Florida, 09:35:46, 8/24/2000, (#85) Fair Enough, Chris, 09:34:07, 8/24/2000, (#84) It is much easier to prove libel..., LurkerXIV, 09:40:54, 8/24/2000, (#88) I think, Watching you, 09:37:59, 8/24/2000, (#87) Chris, rico, 10:03:15, 8/24/2000, (#89) WOR thread, Watching you, 10:31:45, 8/24/2000, (#90) ................................................................... "Breaking News: Fleet & Priscilla White file criminal libel charges" Posted by puma_overlooking_Boulder on 17:11:04 8/23/2000 Channel 7 5pm News just announced an exclusive: The Whites working with the Boulder Police Department filed criminal libel charges two weeks ago against the Boulder Daily Camera for Mystery Woman's accusations against the Whites. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Why am I not surprised?" Posted by Gemini on 17:18:47 8/23/2000 Bet they've been seeeeeeeething. Stay tuned for something similar against Lee whatsit ... her attorney. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "you beat me to it, puma!" Posted by pip on 17:19:38 8/23/2000 ...and Craig Silverman says he's astonished that Alex Hunter isn't included in the charges. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Good" Posted by darby on 17:21:40 8/23/2000 Bring the whole thing to light. It's high time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "LOL!" Posted by Gemini on 17:24:33 8/23/2000 He's probably right, but Craig Silverman is soooo predictable. How far would he walk to squeeze in a nasty remark about Hunter (with that "I just sucked a lemon" expression on his face)? Bet he'd circle the planet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Oh Goody" Posted by momo on 17:24:44 8/23/2000 Let the games begin. I can't wait for this one. Every time you turn around there are always twists and turns. This case will never die. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Yes, Momo..." Posted by Dunvegan on 17:34:41 8/23/2000 ...this case is becoming like the generations-long case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, described in Dickens' Bleak House: "This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two ... lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises....The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when [the case] should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world." Hope this case is solved before Burke gets on his horse.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Oh Oh!" Posted by Seashell on 17:32:27 8/23/2000 Just how are the Whites going to prove libel? Why don't they just sue MW? (no money?) Does MW have proof that White SR. offered her a pay off to keep quiet? Hmmmm! Why don't the Whites sue the Ramseys for throwing them under the bus for suspicion of murder, huh? Why aren't the Whites screaming about the Ramseys still being free? Both those families are certainly into restoring their *good* names. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "I was wondering if " Posted by Seeker on 17:27:52 8/23/2000 they were ever going to address this issue. Guess now, maybe, we'll get the truth! About time too! Either way, I hope it's followed... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Yes!" Posted by AutumnBorn on 17:35:12 8/23/2000 May truth prevail! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "I guess" Posted by momo on 17:32:30 8/23/2000 this means that the whole MW saga will finally be revealed for what it is or what it is not. Never a dull moment. The truth will come out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "timing" Posted by Seashell on 17:46:33 8/23/2000 Is anyone else wondering about the timing of this - just before the Ramsey interviews? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Seashell" Posted by Greenleaf on 18:03:44 8/23/2000 Yes, the timing. "Is anyone else wondering about the timing of this -just before the Ramsey interviews?" Could it be, Seashell, that the Whites want to get their law suits filed before the Rams are arrested? I would think that the Whites have more law suits to file; especially against Hunter and the Rams. The Whites must know, that when and if the Rams are arrested, a floodgate of other suits will be filed by scores of mistreated, and very angry people. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "A question" Posted by Ryder on 17:57:42 8/23/2000 I'm wondering why charges would not be filed against the person making the accusations rather than at the newspaper. Can anyone explain? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Ryder" Posted by Greenleaf on 18:09:36 8/23/2000 Could it be that the newspaper is the first of many law suits the Whites are going to file? Maybe they went first with the newspaper to "test the waters." GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Criminal libel vs Civil libel" Posted by puma_overlooking_Boulder on 18:13:31 8/23/2000 The 6pm news clarified (via Craig Silverman) the difference between civil libel and criminal libel: Criminal libel suits are brought by the state, not by an individual, against a publication when it opens up an individual to public ridicule, etc, from one of its articles not based on facts. The clip stated unequivocably that the BPD found no basis for MW's allegations. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "GL" Posted by Nandee on 18:13:46 8/23/2000 I sure hope you're right!!! Let the games begin!! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "From KNGH" Posted by Chris on 18:17:32 8/23/2000 http://www.kmgh.com/news/4035.html BOULDER Criminal Libel 7News has learned that Boulder police are investigating an unusual criminal charge, one that's connected to the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Most people have heard of civil libel cases but it's also possible for police to investigate criminal libel accusations that carry possible prison sentences. 7News has learned that Boulder police are investigating criminal libel allegations involving Fleet White and his family as victims and the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper named as one of the suspects. Boulder police confirm the investigation began two weeks ago when Priscilla and Fleet White Jr. filed a complaint alleging they were the victims of criminal libel. The Whites are former friends of John and Patsy Ramsey and are considered key witnesses in the JonBenet case. In February of this year, the Boulder Daily Camera broke a report that D.A. Alex Hunter wanted police to pursue new information in the Ramsey case. The newspaper reported the information came from a California woman who claimed she was the victim of a child sex ring. She claimed to be close to the White family and alleged that there were similarities between her abuse and the JonBenet's death. The newspaper quoted Alex Hunter as saying the woman was "very believable." But Boulder police say they determined there was no evidence to support her claims. Boulder police confirm the Boulder Daily Camera is named in the criminal libel investigation and they say D.A. Hunter is not. Police say they expect to wrap up the preliminary investigation and hand the case over to the D.A. in the next few days. The D.A. will then decide what, if any, charges will be filed. The Camera's Publisher says they're aware of the investigation but do not have enough information to make any comment. (7News, 8/23/00, 6pm, cpe) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "oh boy!!" Posted by Nandee on 18:20:38 8/23/2000 "The D.A. will then decide what, if any, charges will be filed." Wanna take bets on what Alex "Let's Make A Deal" Hunter does?? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Fleet White Rocks!" Posted by Legalbeagle on 18:25:57 8/23/2000 Hopefully this is just the beginning. Better start brushing up on criminal defense, alex. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "The timing..." Posted by Dunvegan on 18:45:45 8/23/2000 ...is odd. Is the timing of this suit a well-timed legal strategy? Does FW actually want to force the issue in front of Hunter, catch him before he leaves office, and make his office decide on the merits of this case? Police say they expect to wrap up the preliminary investigation and hand the case over to the D.A. in the next few days. The D.A. will then decide what, if any, charges will be filed. (Emphasis mine) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Ryder," Posted by AutumnBorn on 18:40:27 8/23/2000 the paper is liable if it prints slanderous/libelous material. That's how the Rams won the suit against the Star... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Lawsuit Threats" Posted by Chris on 22:37:12 8/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:37:12, 8/23/2000 I certainly hope that this doesn't turn into a bashing thread about suing posters. As it says in the "House Rules" - Nothing is more deadly to a free exchange of ideas than constant threats of legal action. Let's talk about the news...not the other posters. Discussion about other posters, suing other posters, inviting lawsuits for the forum and posters, etc. are not welcome here. Thanks! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "AutumnBorn...." Posted by La Contessa on 18:57:29 8/23/2000 It was never said that the Ramseys "WON" the case against the STAR. "A settlement was reached" is all that was ever said. I, for one, don't think the Rams got a red cent out of the STAR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Right on Chris!" Posted by Seeker on 19:13:22 8/23/2000 Anyone who sincerely believes anyone who posts here are going to get sued needs to rethink their position. Neither the Ramsey's nor the Whites are going to bother with us "small potatoes" anyway. Chris, where have you been! I've been asking about you... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Seeker" Posted by Chris on 19:17:43 8/23/2000 I posted on the tail end of yesterday's daily. Life is kind of...ummmm...weird for me right now. But, I'm holding my own. Thanks for asking! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "But..Is this really a lawsuit? " Posted by darby on 19:13:14 8/23/2000 I'm no expert, but I don't think that this is quite a lawsuit, at least not at this point. Odd that the very D.A. who called the California woman "very believable" is the one who'll be deciding whether charges can or should actually be filed. I'm seeing the words "investigation" and "complaint" but nothing in the way of "lawsuit." Perhaps this really isn't anything. Could the whole thing merely be some sort of a statement by the Whites? Or perhaps a pre-emptive strike? It's been two weeks since the complaint was filed. I wonder who brought this to the media's attention. Guesses? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "more questions" Posted by darby on 19:40:34 8/23/2000 How can Fleet White sue a newspaper for reporting the statements made by MW, Hill, and Bienkowski? (just wondering, here) Maybe he could sue the folks making the statements, but the newspaper itself? And when did the BPD say there was nothing to MW's claims? Their official statement said that there was no connection between the claims and the Ramsey murder, but I don't think the BPD said there was nothing to MW's claims--unless they possibly said so to the Boulder Camera and the Camera neglected to publish this. And after the BPD made that statement, didn't the Daily Camera make some sort of clarification/retraction on MW? I don't think that there were any more followups supporting MW in the Camera after the BPD made the statement--were there? (just wondering) This whole thing seems quite odd. But, at the same time, I will say that it's very, very Fleet White! Hi Chris, and thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 19:50:28 8/23/2000 Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is a lawsuit. There's a big difference between criminal and civil charges. "What is the difference between a criminal and a civil charge? There are a few major differences. For example, a criminal case is always brought by the authority of the state or federal government, represented by the prosecutor (known as the district attorney or United States attorney). Criminal cases seek punishment -- a fine or jail or both - as the outcome. Civil cases, on the other hand, are usually brought by private parties or corporations seeking to collect money damages. Second, in a criminal trial, the defendant, the person accused of the crime, has a right to testify in his or her own defense, as well as a right not to testify under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, in a civil case, the defendant can be compelled to testify against his or her will. In a criminal trial the decision whether or not to testify is made by the defendant with advice from his or her attorney. The third major difference is that in a civil case, the plaintiff (the person who brings the lawsuit) only has to show by "a preponderance of the evidence" that the facts alleged are probably true. In a criminal case, the prosecution has the much heavier burden of proving that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The difference is because of the difference in punishment. Liberty is of much greater value than money. Fourth, once you are acquitted, you can never be tried again for the same crime. The prosecution can't try to overturn your acquittal and can't charge you again for the same crime because the Constitution protects against double jeopardy. However the double jeopardy clause does not protect a citizen accused from more than one prosecution if the alleged conduct also violates both state and federal laws. You can be prosecuted twice -- once by state prosecutors and once by federal prosecutors. Say, for example, someone commits a bank robbery. Under state law, that person could be charged with robbery. Whether acquitted or convicted, the same person could also be charged with the federal crime of robbing a federally insured bank." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "from the Colorado Revised Statutes:" Posted by LizzieB on 19:33:49 8/23/2000 18-13-105. Criminal libel. (1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living. (3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Jennifer Bray" Posted by Morgan on 20:02:48 8/23/2000 returned Holly's call to the BPD. She's a public information officer for the BPD, and spoke on their behalf. Ms Bray said the Whites came to the BPD 2 weeks ago and filed a a complaint of criminal libel against the Boulder Daily Camera, no specific persons named that she knows of. The Boulder police have been investigating the complaint, and are preparing to turn over whatever they have found to the DA. The complaint is a class 6 felony. Jennifer Bray knows of no lawsuit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Jane Doe" Posted by Ruthee on 19:52:56 8/23/2000 I had only one question regarding the sex ring alligations, where is Fleet White. That settles it for me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Thanks Lizzie" Posted by darby on 19:49:48 8/23/2000 There's my answer. #2 is curious to me: "It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living." Does this mean that the newspaper can defend itself if what it reported was true EXCEPT if it was a libel? That makes sense, but what the heck is a libel that tends to expose the natural defects of the living? Natural defects of the living? What, like those of us who have prehensile toes? Can't talk about that sort of thing? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Annotations" Posted by LizzieB on 20:55:01 8/23/2000 Here are annotations from the Colorado criminal libel statute I posted above (18-13-105). These annotations give various legal references, including the case law history of criminal libel cases in Colorado, so give an idea of how the law has been applied in the past. Maybe there's an attorney out there willing to answer questions. http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/co/laws.html Am. Jur.2d. See 50 Am. Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, § 521. Law reviews. For article, "The Law of Libel in Colorado", see 28 Dicta 121 (1951). For article, "Libel as a Limitation on Newspaper Publications", see 25 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 278 (1953). For note, "When the Spoken Word Becomes a Libel", see 30 Dicta 183 (1953). For article, "Emotional Distress, The First Amendment, and "This kind of speech": A Heretical Perspective on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell", see 50 U. Colo. L. Rev. 315 (1989). Annotator's note. Since § 18-13-105 is similar to former § 40-8-12, C.R.S. 1963, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section. This section is invalid only insofar as it reaches constitutionally protected statements about public officials or public figures on matters of public concern and this partial invalidation affects only the application of subsection (1). Truth shall remain an affirmative defense under subsection (2) and article II, section 10 of the Colorado constitution. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). This section remains valid to the extent that it penalizes libelous attacks where one private person has disparaged the reputation of another private individual. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). Purely private libels are in no way impacted by the New York Times v. Sullivan rule that in civil or criminal libel actions brought by public officials, truth is an absolute defense and only false statements made with "actual malice" are subject to sanctions. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). It is inappropriate to require that defamatory false statements must be made with "actual malice", where one private person disseminates defamatory statements about another private individual in the victim's community. Rather, in a purely private context, a less restrictive culpability standard may be used to meet the state's legitimate interest in controlling constitutionally unprotected conduct injurious to its citizens. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). At common law there was a distinction between civil and criminal libel; in the former publication was a necessary element, while in the latter the exhibition of the libelous matter to the prosecutor with intent to provoke a breach of the peace would support the charge. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). The law makes the publication of a libel a crime, not because of injury to the reputation of an individual, but because such publication tends to affect injuriously the peace and good order of society. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). And proof of publication is essential. In a prosecution for criminal libel under this section, the record was reviewed and held not to establish the statutory crime as charged, there being no proof of publication. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). Section applicable to release of autopsy report. The criminal sanctions that may be imposed if a criminal libel results from the release of an autopsy report are sufficient to deter such actions without compromising the legislative policy of open access to public records. Denver Publishing Co. v. Dreyfus, 184 Colo. 288, 520 P.2d 104 (1974). Truth may be shown in justification, but it was otherwise at common law. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). Evidence of the truth of any allegedly libelous statement is admissible, even where the libel is per se, or where the publication is admittedly false. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). And truth is an absolute defense in a libel action, whether civil or criminal, and the trend of the law is toward the recognition of substantial rather than absolute truth as a defense to allegedly libelous statements. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). A defendant asserting truth as a defense in a libel action is not required to justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter; it is sufficient if the substance, the gist, the sting, of the matter is true. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). The burden is on the defendant to prove that the publication was substantially true. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). If not published generally, it must be alleged that libel was sent to party alleged to be injured. At common law where there has been no publication abroad, that is, to the public generally, or to persons other than the one alleged to have been libeled, then it is necessary that the indictment should contain an allegation that the libel was sent to the party libeled with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). Intent is presumed if the libel is not qualifiedly privileged. In prosecutions for criminal libel under this section, if the publication is libelous per se and is not qualifiedly privileged, intent is presumed; but if the publication is qualifiedly privileged, it being the law that intent must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant may introduce evidence on this issue. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). And privilege may be lost if the libelous matter is given wide circulation. In an action for criminal libel under this section, it is held that a letter addressed to the president of a hospital association charging a doctor with criminal and immoral acts in connection with his management of the institution, if privileged, lost its character as such by reason of the wide distribution of copies of the letter by defendant and offered evidence to negative intent, was properly rejected. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). Or where publication was intended to injure. The privilege applying to inter-office memoranda alleged to be libelous is qualified and will be lost where the publishers are actuated by express malia. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972). Questions of law in libel action. The question of whether in a particular libel case a publication is to be deemed privileged, that is, whether the situation of the party making it and the circumstances attending it were such as to rebut the legal inference of intent, is one of law to be determined by the court. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972). Matters of fact in libel action. When considering the question of whether in a particular libel case a publication is to be deemed privileged, the existence of intent, the question of good faith on the part of the defendants, and their honest belief in the truth of the statements put forth by them, all are matters of fact which are to be determined exclusively by the jury. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972). Where the defendant asserts truth as a defense in a libel suit the question, a factual one, is whether there is a substantial difference between the allegedly libelous statement and the truth, that is, whether the statement produces a different effect upon the reader than that which would be produced by the literal truth of the matter. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). Where the publication is a single act, it constitutes one offense, even though it is a libel on two or more persons, and may be charged in a single count without rendering it bad for duplicity. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). For the privilege of judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses, see People v. Green, 9 Colo. 506, 13 P. 514 (1886). Judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. In an action for libel and slander, where the entire complaint is based upon judicial acts or semijudicial proceedings, all matters complained of were within the protection of an absolute privilege and as such they could provide no basis upon which relief could be granted. Renner v. Chilton, 142 Colo. 454, 351 P.2d 277 (1960). Matter published in due course of judicial proceedings and pertinent thereto is within the protection of an absolute privilege. This extends to affidavits although voluntarily made, and to statements referring to persons not parties to the proceedings. Strict legal materiality or relevancy is not required to confer the privilege. Glasson v. Bowen, 84 Colo. 57, 267 P. 1066 (1928). And the publication of a legal proceeding is qualifiedly privileged, but not until it has gone into court and thereby become public. Moreover, the qualified privilege permits only the publication of a truthful statement of the matter as it took place in court. The defendant cannot claim a qualified privilege to say that one has been accused in a legal proceeding when he has not. Towles v. Meador, 84 Colo. 547, 272 P. 625 (1928). Words published of jurors. Words published in a newspaper, which tend to impeach the honesty and integrity of jurors in their office, are libelous. Byers v. Martin, 2 Colo. 605, 25 Am. R. 755 (1875). Charge of attempt to commit murder. Evidence of pecuniary loss is unnecessary to a right of action for a libelous charge of attempt to commit murder. Republican Publishing Co. v. Miner, 12 Colo. 77, 20 P. 345 (1888). A newspaper may state of a candidate for public office that he has no qualifications for the place, and this statement contains no possible reflection upon plaintiff's personal or professional character, but, being confined to a criticism of his fitness for the place sought, is clearly permissible. Knapp v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 111 Colo. 492, 144 P.2d 981 (1943). Evidence sufficient. King v. People, 7 Colo. 224, 3 P. 223 (1883). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Oh Boy..." Posted by rose on 20:11:37 8/23/2000 Ruthie, Ditto...... Dunvegan, I loved that book. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Thanks, Anderson" Posted by darby on 20:05:15 8/23/2000 Just to clarify: Fleet White has not actually filed a charge (or a lawsuit), but has filed a complaint with the BPD to investigate his claim that the Boulder Daily Camera has committed a class 6 felony, namely, criminal libel, and the person who decides whether such a charge can be made is the Boulder DA. Interesting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Darby" Posted by Anderson on 20:08:12 8/23/2000 Exactly. I hope we can all get on the same page with this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "darby" Posted by mary99 on 20:33:37 8/23/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:33:37, 8/23/2000 Excellent, Darby. It has to pass a few tests before it becomes a lawsuit. I think Hunter has a fair degree of immunity if he based his comments on what he saw, and what he was told; which I believe he did. He did not 'make this up'to settle a score with White. I also believe the BDC, likewise, is legally empowered to report any news issuing from the DA's office or from the BPD; the news media is not responsible for determining in advance of publication where an investigation will go. They are not expected to suppress a scandalous story if it issues from the BPD or DA's office. The BPD and DA disseminate information; the newspaper reports it; I don't see where libel was committed by Barrie Hartman. He already semi-apologized for any distress caused by reporting a sensitive topics but affirmed that the newspaper has a right to print what is issued by a reputable source such as the DA or BPD. I think the Whites are barking up ther wrong tree. If the Whites take issue with the SOURCE of the story (as being libel or slander) they must confront MW herself. Which I noticed they are not doing. FWIW, I don't think this will proceed. And not because of Hunter, either. The Whites could have waited till after the new DA is in office if they think Hunter will automatically side againt them. But they're not. So, it seems to be case of the Whites being offended that scandalous things, which may or may not be true, were printed before being fully investigated. As noted, TRUTH is an affirmative defense against libel. But that will mean waiting until the FBI investigation is complete. Certainly the BDC will claim that until the FBI investigation is finished, the story can't be accurately judged for libel. Until the 'X' factor is known, no conclusions can be drawn. I better go back to reading the Franklin Cover-Up; it's becoming more relevant by the minute. Seashell, your observations are right on! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "LaContessa," Posted by AutumnBorn on 20:16:23 8/23/2000 Don't get caught up in the semantics. "Won" vs. settled - doesn't make any difference, it's based on the same legal leg. The Rams wouldn't have settled without getting something, paltry as it might have been. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "AutumnBorn...I Don't Think So" Posted by La Contessa on 08:37:44 8/24/2000 Because all evidence and testimony, in the case, was sealed by the Grand Jury, none of it could have been subpoened. The STAR could have no access to information or witnesses which could support their statement that Burke did it. Because the STAR could not have defended the case, a judge would have no choice but to dismiss it. Before that happened, I believe, the Ramseys agreed, in chambers, to pick up their marbles and go home. No money exchanged hands. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Well I'll be a Monkey's Uncle" Posted by starry on 20:13:28 8/23/2000 I shut off the computer tonight to spend some time doing other things and I miss all the action. All I want to know is, does this mean the Ramsey's will leave Atlanta in handcuffs? Thanks Puma, pip, Chris, Anderson and everyone else for making it so a Monkey's Uncle can understand it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Sounds to me" Posted by Ribaldone on 20:33:59 8/23/2000 like Fleet's a little bit pissed off. And justifiably so. He's filed a criminal libel complaint because he's pissed and he wants someone to pay. If he simply wanted money or a "trial for show," he would have filed a much-easier-to-prove civil suit and lined his pockets. I think this speaks volumes. Go Fleet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "So Now It Comes To This" Posted by Ruthee on 20:22:48 8/23/2000 If Jane Doe's alligations are found to be without merit, who is behind them, and why. I think I have a pretty good idea of the why, it's the who that interests me now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Just a thought, but" Posted by Ribaldone on 20:41:29 8/23/2000 could there be more to this? Wouldn't it be fun to learn that the possible criminal charges were being sought because the powers that be in Boulder wanted to clear up these nasty and unsubstantiated allegations against White so as to keep his name "untarnished" for an upcoming trial? No? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "...well ribaldone" Posted by jonesy on 21:05:46 8/23/2000 ...that do make sense to me - but also it says Fleet White and family - so this will say whether Fleet White is the godfather of xxxxx ? - no ? ..I hope your theory is correct - [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "I guess I'm dense" Posted by ayelean on 20:46:42 8/23/2000 Are we to expect Hunter to rule in favor of White? If he does, he is ruling against himself. Is this suppose to be his greatest dilemma? Are we to expect him to be honorable now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "To refresh your memory..." Posted by v_p on 21:28:09 8/23/2000 "Channel 7 5pm News just announced an exclusive: The Whites working with the Boulder Police Department filed criminal libel charges two weeks ago against the Boulder Daily Camera for Mystery Woman's accusations against the Whites. Go Fleet and Priscilla AND the BPD. Some of you wanted to know why Fleet wasn't saying anything, well, now he is...and still, the spin. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Ayelean" Posted by LizzieB on 21:18:38 8/23/2000 I agree. I think Hunter has a beeeeeeeeg conflict of interest. After all, his initial resounding endorsement of MW's story is probably the only reason the newspaper ran with it in the first place. Certainly, it was a big factor. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Lizzie" Posted by ayelean on 21:33:40 8/23/2000 Is this a clear cut case of libeland Hunter is suppose to see that it is clear cut? Then after all his appearances before his fellow DAs, if he rules against it, he is a laughing stock to all his colleagues? If he rules in favor then because he endorsed MW, the paper is somehow able to bring him in it as sharing in the guilt? Does this case get any stranger? Maybe Fleet and BPD have proof of MW's story being bogus. Maybe Hunter has already agreed on arresting the Ramseys and the case rests on the Fleets' testimony and it has to be squared away. Hunter has to eat crow to bag the turkeys. I think I am having a brain fart. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Looking for an injunction?" Posted by mary99 on 21:32:04 8/23/2000 Perhaps the Whites are looking for temporary relief in the form of an injunction against any further publication of the MW story by the BDC while the FBI investigation continues. That's the only reason I can fathom for the Whites to act NOW rather than wait until the new DA takes office. Which leads me to wonder if there is any news forthcoming they would like to suppress. Perhaps RE: the Ramsey interviews and any subsequent BPD/DA commentary? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Ruthie..." Posted by rose on 21:31:30 8/23/2000 Ditto again. I know the why, but i want to know the who?????????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Fleet White" Posted by Aurora on 21:56:56 8/23/2000 I have always felt that Fleet White was on our side in seeking justice for JB. Rams tossed the Whites under the bus and then...he was dragged ...viciously with the MW...implications. He is going to redeem his reputation and take those to task that would tarnish it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "I'm Confused" Posted by frankg on 21:45:19 8/23/2000 ...again. I thought MW's story only implicated Fleet White Sr. for prior abuse, and the suggestion that the style of the abuse she endured had similarities to JonBenet's murder (the garrote, Christmas, head blow, etc.). Further, I thought Hunter only endorsed the possibility that there could be a connection to JonBenet's murder based on these comments. I don't recall anyone specifically fingering Fleet White Jr. The BPD supposedly looked at the story and found no connection. So exactly who libeled Fleet White Jr? Also, why would Hunter have a conflict of interest? I realize he and White are not best of buds, but thinking a story might have connections to a murder and determining whether a paper libeled someone are not related. V, no spin intended here. Just trying to understand this latest action. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Hmmm." Posted by Holly on 22:34:01 8/23/2000 Interesting. I think Hunter will decline to review the BPD data, since he was mentioned prominently as supporting a complete investigation in the original DAILY CAMERA article. Probably another Asst. DA will decide if the BPD report requires action. My recollection matches yours, frankg. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Interesting News, Interesting Thread!" Posted by Paralegal on 22:28:19 8/23/2000 Well now, isn't this a turn of events? Where is Mame when we need her? Ok, you guys did a great job clarifying the difference between civil libel suits and criminal ones. What whips this into a criminal action is that the alleged libel was published, therefore, injurious to the public good. More legal blah blah blah. If AH were a real man, he'd recuse himself from determining the viability of charges and successful prosecution. But I believe he will hold true to his tail-tucking ways and defer such determination pending completion of the FBI investigation into MW's story. That will see him safely out of office in a non-inflammatory way, eh? I agree with frankg, to the best of my recollection (can you tell I've testified WAY too much?), the article published by BDC wasn't inflammatory to Fleet himself, and furthermore, the article was nonbiased in its reporting of information. No specific allegations were made by the BDC, merely reporting news (and I have no doubt secure in the publication of it given AH's reccommendations that this be thoroughly investigated). I believe what we're seeing is another power play between BPD and AH, and in the long run, don't feel a criminal libel charge, if made, would net a successful prosecution. Why did the Whites wait so long to bring this complaint to the BPD? Good question, and I believe it will be answered following the interviews next week. My first guess is to preserve good will with key witnesses should the Rams ever be prosecuted. The best thing about all this is that it will once and for all force the issue MW brought to the case. The FBI will move forward to complete their investigation and we the public will know what the results are by how this complaint of FW's is handled. We have a lot of watching to do, folks, get the popcorn and settle in-this kind of activity is going to keep us very busy through the end of the year! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Paralegal....." Posted by rose on 22:50:52 8/23/2000 Got my popcorn and will wait for the whole story. I agree this will be very enlightening. Rooting for the good guys to come out on top for once in this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Rose-" Posted by Paralegal on 22:59:24 8/23/2000 Now if we could just figure out WHO the good guys are.... ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "link to BDC article" Posted by mary99 on 22:50:09 8/23/2000 After re-reading the article, I can't see anything remotely libelous. I do see the White name mentioned, but not in reference to the sex parties or sex abuse; only in reference to FACTS; White Sr is godfather to MW's mother, White Jr was with Jr when JBR's body was found, etc. IMHO, this lawsuit was conceived to make Hunter et al look biased against the Whites if it's tossed out for lack of merit. "The woman said she knows the Ramseys through the Fleet White family. She said the godfather to her mother is Fleet White Sr., 86, of California. Fleet White Jr. of Boulder and John Ramsey were close friends until the death of JonBenét. White Jr. was with John Ramsey when JonBenét's body was found in the basement of the Ramsey's Boulder home. White Jr. has since been crusading for Hunter's ouster from this case for refusing to prosecute the Ramseys." and: "Hill, struck by what he heard, traveled to San Luis Obispo near Los Angeles on Feb. 11. He spent five hours interviewing both the woman and her therapist, and he videotaped supporting documents, which included personal notes, cards and family photographs that the woman says are from the Whites, both senior and junior." and: "Police cleared White as a suspect in April 1997." and: "Fleet White could not be reached Thursday." http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1999/25arams.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "?" Posted by Seashell on 00:32:07 8/24/2000 Why is White Jr. taking this action and not White Sr.? It was SR. who was mentioned by MW. The Camera didn't publish that White JR was involved in anything nefarious and the BPD has cleared White in connection to the murder. I'll ask again, why isn't White suing JR, who fingered him as a possible murderer of his daughter? Is it a legal thing, in case this goes to trial? AH will look bad no matter what he does. Is that what White has in mind? The man's a lame duck so why bother? Something's up and this feels suspiciously like dramatic staging to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "What" Posted by Watching you on 07:23:25 8/24/2000 happened to this thread? Some posts missing at the end? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "LOL" Posted by Lacey on 07:27:11 8/24/2000 Yeah, I had a brilliant post but it was removed. You'll have to take my word for it Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "my initial thoughts" Posted by fly on 08:06:12 8/24/2000 Can anybody post links to the MW BDC stories? I can't find them in the Ramsey archive. Well, we now have that missing public outrage by FW in place. I doubt that FW would throw a rock at this hornets' nest if there were any live hornets (MW accusations) in it. I doubt that FW filed this complaint without first having consulted legal counsel. Odds are there is some reason to believe criminal libel did occur. LizzieB - Thanks for the legal summaries. Very interesting. The ones concerning the "gist" of the statement being key, the impact of the statement rather than the specific content as relevant, and the publication of judicial matters prior to becoming a public record seem like possible relevant points in this case. I doubt that Chris, as forum owner, or anybody posting the strongest diatribes against FW will be sued/charged. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Chris were asked to testify at to the forum discussions if this thing ever does go to court, however. What better proof of the impact of the coverage than what has been posted here? Interesting times ahead, it seems. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Arghhhhh!" Posted by Chris on 07:45:29 8/24/2000 http://www.justicewatch.com/jw/jonbenet/91.html#25 The rationale behind the request is that we try to avoid the poster feeding frenzy that has gone on in the past. The idjuts who would suggest that this request has anything to do with my own fear of being sued or whatever should stop and think about the logic in those statements. Pretty stupid at this point. This is an opinion forum and we are simply trying to find a balance that will allow people to express their opinions about the news. If anyone wants to discuss this decision further, feel free to take it to the WOR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "From Westwood..." Posted by Florida on 08:29:40 8/24/2000 The Westwood article was written by Steve Jackson who went to Mames's house and talked to MW while the MW was living there. He wrote the article in Westwood. (I suggest everyone read it.) This passage details how Barrie Hartman of the Camera decided to help make news instead of reporting the news. The story had not been thoroughly investigated by the paper but Hartman ran with it....He was involved up to his eyebrows. Go Fleet and Priscilla! I copied the following passage from a post by LP at jamesons forum. "from Westword: The next day, however, Hartman called Hill. He'd decided that the woman's best protection would be to publicize her story. Then, if anyone made a move against her, he'd draw attention to himself. Hill, Singular and Hunter were against the idea, but Hartman remained convinced that this was the best way." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Fleet Has A Case" Posted by Lacey on 08:45:50 8/24/2000 Good example, Florida. They will find others. Regarding removed posts. Look. No names were mentioned. No posters targeted. Not by this idjut, lol. All I said was that what was done to the Whites on this forum represents proof of the impact of Hunter's channeling the MW story through the BDC: slander and libel. In a balanced discussion of the effect of the media reports, how can this be omitted? With a simple click of the Remove button, apparently. Rico I commend you again for some most excellent posts. Go Fleet. We have been silenced Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "I can only say" Posted by Watching you on 08:49:13 8/24/2000 I am disappointed, and I don't understand. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Sticking my nose in" Posted by Baybb on 09:04:19 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:04:19, 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:01:34, 8/24/2000 Where it is probably not wanted nor needed, BUT, Chris has asked several times to stop the bashing of other posters and only post about the news. The reasons are many and she has posted and reposted it over and over again. If you are in doubt about what she wishes or her reasons, you only need to read her posts. It is still bashing even when you don't name names. 73. "Arghhhhh!" Posted by Chris on 07:45:29 8/24/2000 http://www.justicewatch.com/jw/jonbenet/91.html#25 The rationale behind the request is that we try to avoid the poster feeding frenzy that has gone on in the past. The idjuts who would suggest that this request has anything to do with my own fear of being sued or whatever should stop and think about the logic in those statements. Pretty stupid at this point. This is an opinion forum and we are simply trying to find a balance that will allow people to express their opinions about the news. If anyone wants to discuss this decision further, feel free to take it to the WOR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Watching You" Posted by Chris on 09:03:05 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:03:05, 8/24/2000 So am I. Neither do I. You all are encouraged to use the Alert feature if anything is posted that you feel is inappropriate to this community. It's simply not possible for a handful of people to read and monitor every single post and determine if they are appropriate or not. I think it's a good time to go listen to that new John Prine CD. Edited to add a note that if any of you believe moderating is so easy, you're welcome to email me and give it a try for 24 hours or so. Then report back about how easy it is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Chris" Posted by rico on 09:28:52 8/24/2000 I have emailed you and I welcome a reply. BayBB, I agree with your comments about bashing posters however, many on this forum and many who left this forum will also agree that the real bashing started when we took issue with the unjustified and completely insane allegations that trashed this forum. I was called "a plant with ulterior motives" (and that was the nicest flame!), others were attacked too for simply expressing an opposing opinion. And now we should be silent when FW comes to bat? This is really disheartening. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "Chris,if I could" Posted by Watching you on 09:11:06 8/24/2000 without putting you on the defensive, I truly am baffled. There was nothing in those posts that attacked any other poster - what happened here? I thought it was a good discussion. I simply don't understand, I mean it. And, I am not attacking you or your moderating. I wouldn't be a moderator if you paid me - who needs the grief? There has to be more going on here. There seems to be a lot of points being made - none that I could see that were inflammatory; on the contrary, they were all legitimate points. Maybe I should just go listen to a CD, too, take a rest. I feel as if I am on Mars. Listen, this is your forum, you can do with it as you please. But, free speech should apply to all, shouldn't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Barrie Hartman is in deep doo-doo..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:36:00 8/24/2000 ...and justifiably so. Surely he knew his original article was libelous, absent as it was of hard facts. Pretty soon, Hartman will be able to enjoy the amenities of the BoCo jail, a la Colfax. Poetic justice! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "The charges made " Posted by Florida on 09:38:32 8/24/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:38:32, 8/24/2000 by MW against the Whites have never really gone beyond Boulder and 2 fourms on the internet. This is one of those forums and it has allowed the most dispicable charges and innuendo to be made against the entire White family. In discussing this news and whether this suit is justified or not I believe that the posts made on this forum and another forum have to be considered and discussed because this is really where most of the discussion of the MW and her charges have been. The poster who Lacey alluded to made herself a part of the MW team by allowing her to live at her house and giving her an outlet by broadcasting her "interviews/charges" on the internet. She is a part of this case. Why can't this be discussed? Why was Lacey's post removed? It is extremely difficult to discuss the posts without discussing the posters and their various agendas and attitudes. I have asked a number of people who "kind of" follow this case and not one of them has ever heard of the charges made by the MW. This is basically an internet thing. If there was going to be censorship then it should have taken place the first time someone called Mr. White a pervert or worse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Fair Enough" Posted by Chris on 09:34:07 8/24/2000 I think it's fair to suggest that I have over-reacted ever-so-slightly. Moderating sucks. During much of the Fleet bashing that took place and the stuff that has everyone angry was going on, my life was so hectic that I was lucky to get on the forum long enough to see if it was up. That's why I kept asking people to use the darn Alert feature. Do you know how many Alerts I got about the MW/FW stuff? NONE. Zip! Zero! Zilch! Nada! The people who do help moderate the forum and I have talked at length about some of the problems that came up during the MW/FW stuff. We all agreed that it wasn't right to let all that stuff go. By the time I could get around to reading many of those threads most of them were just plain out of control and trying to prune out the objectional stuff was just too overwhelming. (Can you see where an Alert would have helped here? I could have gone immediately to the offending post, determined if it was appropriate and moved on.) There is this fine line that makes moderating hard. It is when posters use subtle techniques and phrasing that try to dance around what's really going on. For instance, just because you (and I don't mean specifically you, WY) don't name a poster by name, you instead talk about the posters in general, that's still causing the problem that the idea is intended to avoid. The whole goal is to try to get people back on track. Another PIA is when a poster types a very good post and ends it with something that isn't appropriate. I have said time and again that I won't publicly chastise people and tell them to edit their posts. Most people, given a little time will rethink what they wrote and go back and edit it themselves. Others don't and then the job of moderating becomes a hassle. And, no, I am not going to just email people to tell them to edit their posts either. Anyone ever try keeping track of a couple thousand names and email addys so you can search through it for one? I simply don't have the time. I'm sure this is rambling and I apologize. I have a very anxious brand new middle schooler sitting here waiting for his lunch date. I'll edit or add/respond later. I'd welcome taking this discussion to the WOR - not so we can get down and dirty, but so we can talk about the forum issues separate from JBR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "It is much easier to prove libel..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:40:54 8/24/2000 ...when the print media are the culprits. Libel law regarding the internet is still evolving. I think everyone here is covered by the fact that this is strictly an OPINION forum, even if we don't attach IMHO to each and every post. Boulder Camera will get socked hard, and Westword even harder. IMHO ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "I think" Posted by Watching you on 09:37:59 8/24/2000 I would appreciate taking these few posts to the WOR, Chris. I understand what you are saying, and I agree to some point, but I have some counterpoints, too. Thanks. For now, tend to your child. I can wait. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Chris" Posted by rico on 10:03:15 8/24/2000 Thank you for that reply; I respect your position. Still think this forum would be well-served if you let a few posters chew on their own shoe-leather, after all, they opened mouth and inserted foot!! Okay, I'm over it! :-) JfJBR rico [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "WOR thread" Posted by Watching you on 10:31:45 8/24/2000 on Forum Issues is now open. Feel free to go there and express your opinion, but be forewarned that even if it is the WOR, I won't tolerate hateful posts toward Chris. I mean it. I can get real nasty if I have to, LOL> [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE