Justice Watch Support JW "60 MINUTES Part Five" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... 60 MINUTES Part Five, Holly, 07:18:13, 4/03/2001 Note to AK -, Holly, 07:39:54, 4/03/2001, (#1) I have lied to the forum, RiverRat, 07:43:52, 4/03/2001, (#2) sob, sob..., Greenleaf, 07:54:16, 4/03/2001, (#3) out of the loop, mary99, 08:03:22, 4/03/2001, (#4) R.I.P., RiverRat, 08:07:55, 4/03/2001, (#5) darby & RiverRat, fly, 08:23:41, 4/03/2001, (#6) LOL, Greenie., Holly, 08:37:29, 4/03/2001, (#7) Here's my latest thought, A.K., 08:59:42, 4/03/2001, (#8) Experience..., Country Girl, 09:24:27, 4/03/2001, (#12) Thanks CG, Holly, 10:19:10, 4/03/2001, (#19) AK & Holly, fly, 09:23:49, 4/03/2001, (#11) fly., Holly, 14:20:05, 4/03/2001, (#40) AK, darby, 09:18:24, 4/03/2001, (#10) LOL., Holly, 09:16:05, 4/03/2001, (#9) More in the actress evolution:, Grace, 09:27:08, 4/03/2001, (#13) Part 2, Grace, 09:29:03, 4/03/2001, (#14) Deep thoughts, mary99, 10:33:18, 4/03/2001, (#22) Geez., Holly, 09:50:49, 4/03/2001, (#16) Amazing, Grace, mary99, 09:44:07, 4/03/2001, (#15) Bottom line, repeated, darby, 09:54:44, 4/03/2001, (#17) darby., Holly, 09:57:33, 4/03/2001, (#18) Thanks, Grace, janphi, 11:33:48, 4/03/2001, (#31) AK, Morgan, 10:41:54, 4/03/2001, (#24) More Bottom Line, RiverRat, 10:30:02, 4/03/2001, (#21) be brave, fly, 10:26:42, 4/03/2001, (#20) fly., Holly, 11:03:10, 4/03/2001, (#26) Forget FW, fly, mary99, 10:35:42, 4/03/2001, (#23) Fly, Morgan, 10:46:57, 4/03/2001, (#25) Holly,, Country Girl, 11:10:05, 4/03/2001, (#28) FW, Holly, 11:33:28, 4/03/2001, (#30) LOL, Morgan., Holly, 11:03:59, 4/03/2001, (#27) darby and Holly, FT, 11:11:24, 4/03/2001, (#29) Oh, sorry FT I missed the other parts- , Holly, 11:49:39, 4/03/2001, (#33) I never knew much, Holly, 11:36:05, 4/03/2001, (#32) FW connection, mary99, 12:05:15, 4/03/2001, (#36) FT, darby, 12:03:38, 4/03/2001, (#35) Thanks, Holly, FT, 11:59:53, 4/03/2001, (#34) standing pat, fly, 13:22:54, 4/03/2001, (#38) fly., Holly, 14:13:48, 4/03/2001, (#39) clarification, mame, 12:58:14, 4/03/2001, (#37) mary99, fly, 14:20:09, 4/03/2001, (#41) fly, mary99, 20:52:17, 4/03/2001, (#63) Fly, Grace, 15:15:31, 4/03/2001, (#46) fly, Holly, 15:00:49, 4/03/2001, (#44) still curious, Edie Pratt, 14:34:41, 4/03/2001, (#42) Holy Cow!!, shadow, 15:00:04, 4/03/2001, (#43) Who said lake is a reliable, Holly, 15:07:53, 4/03/2001, (#45) Mame!!!, Nedthan Johns, 15:26:16, 4/03/2001, (#47) Holly..., shadow, 15:57:49, 4/03/2001, (#48) No, Holly, you didn't say, FT, 16:22:20, 4/03/2001, (#49) Convoluted though it may seem., Holly, 21:37:07, 4/03/2001, (#68) FT, LurkerXIV, 16:42:28, 4/03/2001, (#52) Mame...., rose, 16:29:11, 4/03/2001, (#50) ned and rose, mame, 16:41:45, 4/03/2001, (#51) mame, Greenleaf, 17:07:02, 4/03/2001, (#53) Holly, Greenleaf, 17:13:34, 4/03/2001, (#54) sorry and thanks, darby, 17:52:01, 4/03/2001, (#55) Fly, my dear ..., v_p, 18:56:11, 4/03/2001, (#56) Good..., Pedro, 19:02:25, 4/03/2001, (#57) love letter from A.K., mary99, 19:21:18, 4/03/2001, (#58) What I've learned from 5 threads, Scully, 21:36:22, 4/03/2001, (#67) Scully., Holly, 21:50:37, 4/03/2001, (#74) Scully, mary99, 22:11:55, 4/03/2001, (#76) Scully,, LurkerXIV, 22:21:27, 4/03/2001, (#78) Scully, JR, 21:40:14, 4/03/2001, (#69) JR, Scully, 21:45:22, 4/03/2001, (#72) Scully, JR, 21:47:51, 4/03/2001, (#73) tsk tsk mary99, v_p, 20:15:11, 4/03/2001, (#59) That's not an email, v_p, Holly, 21:40:25, 4/03/2001, (#70) you no like?, mary99, 20:27:45, 4/03/2001, (#60) Mary99, RiverRat, 20:33:32, 4/03/2001, (#61) {{{v_p and RR}}}, darby, 20:49:36, 4/03/2001, (#62) AK's post, Morgan, 21:18:10, 4/03/2001, (#64) darby, FT, 21:26:44, 4/03/2001, (#65) Well, FT, darby, 21:35:53, 4/03/2001, (#66) FT, darby, 22:02:50, 4/03/2001, (#75) Thread number 6, Holly, 22:13:00, 4/03/2001, (#77) my bad mary & (((darby)))), v_p, 21:42:36, 4/03/2001, (#71) Scully, darby, 22:25:46, 4/03/2001, (#79) Scully , FT, 22:46:11, 4/03/2001, (#80) darby, FT, 23:01:40, 4/03/2001, (#81) speaking of vampires, Gemini, 00:24:26, 4/04/2001, (#82) Darby, RiverRat, 06:26:58, 4/04/2001, (#83) ................................................................... "60 MINUTES Part Five" Posted by Holly on 07:18:13 4/03/2001 Carry on. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Note to AK -" Posted by Holly on 07:39:54 4/03/2001 It's only a smear, if it's not true. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I have lied to the forum" Posted by RiverRat on 07:43:52 4/03/2001 MW called Lee Hill from a payphone, I'm not sure if it was a cell phone or a rotary phone that she called in for Mame's interview. There that wasn't soooo hard. I highly recommend everyone to cleanse their soul. Don't hate me cuz I'm beautiful - hate me cuz I make you look in the mirror - RR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "sob, sob..." Posted by Greenleaf on 07:54:16 4/03/2001 http://a1060.g.akamai.net/f/1060/597/30minutes/www.zing.com/picture/p702c140feef016b1c105fd01fba1d6e2/feafbdd4.jpg.orig.jpg [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "out of the loop" Posted by mary99 on 08:03:22 4/03/2001 Yikes, I just realized poor A.K. was left out of the loop while 60 MINUTES was planning a documentary/expose on the NK/FW bombshell! Could her sources be drying up? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "R.I.P." Posted by RiverRat on 08:07:55 4/03/2001 until the next resurrection........ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "darby & RiverRat" Posted by fly on 08:23:41 4/03/2001 RiverRat - Sorry to "resurrect" and again ruin your ending, but I need to respond to darby. darby - You posted: The 60Minutes journalist told mame that the show couldn't happen if Fleet White was tipped off, so yes, mame probably didn't announce it to the forum for that reason. If you believed that 60Minutes (a fairly reputable news-o-tainment show) had found evidence that would promote justice for an abuse victim as well as expose her abusers, you'd probably keep quiet as well. Although you seem to think my comment was a slam, it actually was completely consistent with your comment above. Sorry not to respond sooner. Real world work kept me out of JW most of the rest of the day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "LOL, Greenie." Posted by Holly on 08:37:29 4/03/2001 Yeh, some of these threads just go nutz. Well, I have to admit I've sort of enjoyed the whole thing - and learned alot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Here's my latest thought" Posted by A.K. on 08:59:42 4/03/2001 If I were pitching the NK story to a news outlet (and believe me, I wouldn't!), 60 Minutes is the VERY LAST place I'd go. Even a casual observer of the program knows it's not their kind of story, and Don Hewitt has stated at every annual news convention (picked up in the media) that he doesn't ever intend to cover the Ramsey case. Further, to imagine Mike Wallace, of all their anchors!, might be the right person to approach is insane. Unless there was a tobacco angle, that is. Perhaps you guys are the ones who pitched this to someone at 60 Minutes and are pissed now that it was delved into and found faulty. THAT makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Regardless of what happened, if it did at all, any professional with investigative skills and contacts will find the hollow center of this tale soon enough. Why would any broadcast outlet risk its reputation on a potentially libelous scenario? It's not a story for anyone. And it's REALLY not a 60 Minutes story. And now I shall join Greenie at the gravesite. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Experience..." Posted by Country Girl on 09:24:27 4/03/2001 I can share a RL experience with NBC's 'Dateline' and I believe that during the time it happened, I mentioned it in chat. Anyway, 'Dateline' is one of my favorite programs, and I was online one night, on their web page and they had a blurb about a story they were working on. Don't laugh, it was about short term memory lapse, and some type of herbal remedy. Their web page asked people to respond, and so I did. A few days or a week later, a producer from 'Dateline' called me at home and asked me a series of questions relating to the story. She explained the story and how, if chosen to participate, asked if I would be willing to take part in this herbal study, etc. She called back again a few weeks later, then I never heard from her again, and I don't remember 'Dateline' ever doing the story, but I could have missed it. (LOL-I don't remember!) Anyhow, there was no guarantee I would be in it at all and she never called me back to say either way. The only reason I bring this up is not to give the so-called producer any validity, but to show that even up-and-up producers/programs do research and not every story makes the cut. I have to agree with AK that '60 Minutes' is not the type of program to do an expose on JonBenet. And, if I had not been the one to personally write 'Dateline', I would have immediately checked out this person with NBC before I disclosed anything to her. I didn't have to because all the information she had I had provided to them on their web site. If this was in reality a scam, I think it behooves whoever has the evidence (letterhead, etc) to send copies to CBS so that they can investigate for themselves, if they choose. In the future, if someone contacts you and they are not willing to give you the name of their supervisor and a phone number that truly belongs to the network, etc., consider it a hoax. Here's how to get in touch with 60 Minutes. Address: 60 Minutes 524 West 57th St. New York, New York 10019 Phone: (212) 975-3247 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Thanks CG" Posted by Holly on 10:19:10 4/03/2001 The involved and interested parties have contact information and are considering their options. FWIW, I might want to alert Hewitt just as a heads up to understand the lack of ethics of this individual. They have worked with her on a past project. Maybe they'd like to personally chew her ass. Like mame said, she received numerous calls and requests form the media people interested in the case. When I was in Boulder she was quite the popular lady with PEOPLE and DATELINE, for example. She had no reason to imagine the producer was bogus. She had numerous calls, messages and so did others. But having searched The Fleet till the cows came home, I was just pissed that 60 MINUTES had the dirt that has eluded me and others. :-) So that is the reason I wondered if the entire bogus effort was to artifically frustrate Nancy's supporters to the point of urging her to do the interview. Enter the forum. It was an excellent tool to piss off Nancy's supporters, raise the hysteria level, float falsehoods, and encourage Nancy bashing. And I cannot ignore The Fleet received all of the posts courtesty one of his fans at CS. And may have included them in his August criminal complaint filing. So I guess the goal was accomplished. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "AK & Holly" Posted by fly on 09:23:49 4/03/2001 A.K. - Given that I have no desire to be a Supreme Crt Justice, I'll say... OK, so you wouldn't shop a MW story to 60Minutes. If you were the scam artist Holly and mame are describing, might you claim to be with 60Minutes in order to give yourself credibility for doing an expose' even if you intended to shop the story to NE or one of the "tabloid TV" shows instead, or whatever non-60Minutes use was intended? I think that is what Holly and mame imply. Holly - Repeatedly saying that you've never named AK as the person you believe is the scam artist had about as much credibility as mame's claims that she never asked anybody to believe MW. Technically, both might be correct, but the implications were strong enough for a blind man to see. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "fly." Posted by Holly on 14:20:05 4/03/2001 Aha. Here is the problem. You think I am being less than genuine regarding whether AK is the shameful producer/journalist. Think what you want. I'm clueless. I have only hunches. If she wants to reveal her name to me privately, I can at least tell the members that the names differ - and I'd be delighted to do so. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "AK" Posted by darby on 09:18:24 4/03/2001 Your 2nd paragraph was uncalled for. I agree that 60Minutes probably would never have bought the video--unless FW himself had appeared on it. The journalist was lying about everything else, so that's no surprise. However, I'm certain that the journalist would have tried to sell the story to the highest bidder, whether TV or tabloid. Otherwise, why go through the trouble of making the video at all? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "LOL." Posted by Holly on 09:16:05 4/03/2001 We already found the hollow middle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "More in the actress evolution:" Posted by Grace on 09:27:08 4/03/2001 This is long and only meant for those who have an interest. Please don't feel compelled to force yourself to read it. During the time A.K. was "joking" about Mary99's pushing the Satanic Ritual Abuse angle at a NOVA conference, she posted the following on the daily thread. Due to the length, I'm going to divide this into two parts. In part two, A.K. continues the evolution of her actress theory. Form your own conclusions about the SRA/actress connection coming up only after she decided Mary99 (Mary Bienkowski, she apparently thought) was part of a group pushing SRA as the motive for the crime. It might be worth noting that A.K.'s information/theory about Mary99 was thoroughly discounted after Holly called and got the details on the conference participants. -------------- Posted by A.K. on 23:09:07 8/12/2000 "The 'truth'??? HAHAHA" Here are the two posts I wrote on CS. Hopefully this will clear up the matter and this entire unfortunate angle will be relegated to the dumpster it belongs in. ----------- Why am I not shocked that people with an agenda would work so hard to cover their distortions? The title of the speech was Satanic Ritual Abuse. Period. They can characterize it after the fact whichever way they wish (and I can guess why), but the paperwork reflects the true title and scope of their mission. I never said either "therapist" was named "Mary." But it's no secret what their real names are. Curious that Holly didn't post those names since she feels no shame about naming other people. I, however, will take the high road. It's true that one is from CA, the other from Utah. (I had mistakenly said both were from CA.) I believe their names have already appeared in print. They were known by attendees from Boulder who encountered them there. These attendees knew their "theory," so it's no surprise the two were confronted with it at their seminar. Fleet White and his family were mentioned, by name. This was brought up during the seminar, and continued during social gatherings later that night and the next day. It was deeply offensive to the people who heard it. It'll be interesting to see if these two get invited back next year. It's a small, academic community, but most participants have an acute sense of decency -- and many are still angry at the attempt to poison their environment with such nonsense. ---------- Con't in part 2 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Part 2" Posted by Grace on 09:29:03 4/03/2001 of A.K.'s 8/12/2000 post: --------------------------------- The SRA folks have been around for years, in various forms. I can't say how long these two "therapists" have been part of the scene. Don't know, don't care. They cropped up during the OJ trial, during the investigation into Princess Diana's death -- in short, in any major case where there are unanswered questions and they can get a dialogue going with a new audience. Most of the time they are properly ignored. If you search the web, you'll see their presence via the responses from other groups denouncing their activities and theory. I have no idea how many of these anti-cult cultists are linked together. For all I know they could hold their own conventions, LOL. Clearly any attention paid them in one regard helps them in others. Speaking of the SRAers, in general, one wonders how they stay "in business." Given the fact that their imaginations are running overtime and then some, certain members try to cash in by attaching their theories to media. They constantly pitch Satanic cult-angles to news magazine shows, leave rambling messages on the answering machines of real investigative personnel and journalists, as well as try to get screenplay writers or celebrities to come on board to expand their concepts. Hollywood has a need for flamboyant storylines with some kernel of truth, so it's a match made in, well, Hell. Showbiz insiders see data about pitched ideas long before movies are in theaters, or even made. The number of films that make it into the movie houses or onto TV is a mere fraction of the ones developed, or pitched from treatments. Professionals publish private lists of treatments purchased, the prices paid and the names involved -- and no one thinks much about it when those same concepts don't end up in theaters in a year or so. Most die off for reasons like a similar film comes out and tanks, the stars/producers find a better project, etc. People attached with the Nancy business may certainly not be aware of all the machinations going on behind the scenes with regard to her "story." In fact, I would bet they're not as who needs to share more pieces of a pie and get more people in agreement? One might well assume that if a project were to be made, Nancy herself would be left out of the loop -- giving her one new thing to feel "abused" about. The reasonable guess would be that some screenwriter has been circulating a treatment based ROUGHLY (so as not to step on toes, legally) on this woman's story and its relation to a major case. If the parties sending this around get a nibble, they might or might not involve others who have promoted the story (I can't see why they would, frankly). But it's unlikely to get that far since other factors have come up to make this idea a loser. Just like some of us have identified it from the beginning. I can't say I know what motivates the two women who went to Miami -- presumably they have to earn livings and are functioning on some level in a professional way. I also don't know what portion off their business is dedicated to SRA, but they chose that topic for their speech, so one could conclude it's of importance to them. It's believed they gave their speech to drum up support for the "FW as abuser" idea, but didn't expect that people there were familiar with not only them, but their scurrilous linkage. It is completely fitting that they be challenged for their reckless behavior and maniacal bleatings. The Devil didn't make them do it. It's pure human evil that inspired this, egged on by bored people who don't have the stomach for handling long and complex cases. The bottom line is: None of this was very difficult to figure out. It just took understanding of the background and a bit of research with a mind that wasn't preconditioned to believe everything a so-called victim states without putting her under a strong microscope and questioning her motives. As far as I'm concerned, this topic has been exposed and nullified. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Deep thoughts" Posted by mary99 on 10:33:18 4/03/2001 Does this sound like journalism or flamethrowing? Given the passage of time, it's interesting how "the manaical bleatings" "midwifed" (that was a recent A.K. expression)by "handlers" with a "Satanic Ritual Abuse agenda" seemed to fan the flames. Perhaps that was the purpose? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Geez." Posted by Holly on 09:50:49 4/03/2001 That IS interesting. What extraordinary knowledge of the production process AK shared. So I guess the hunch was that the two advocates, who do lecture BTW, in the context of the BIG sexual abuse picture, on worldwide Satanic sex abuse among alot of other stuff, are aspiring screenwriters? This makes no sense, with what I know about them. I thought they were victim advocates who have developed a forensic program about ritual sexual abuse for the use of law enforcement. Is there some screen treatment registered with the WGA or on the Works in Progress list that involved Nancy? Am I supposed to believe that the washed up actress latched onto the project? Interesting when you think about it... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Amazing, Grace" Posted by mary99 on 09:44:07 4/03/2001 I will let others comment on the substance of A.K.'s speech. Thank God for Grace. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Bottom line, repeated" Posted by darby on 09:55:30 4/03/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:55:30, 4/03/2001 There are very few circumstances under which lies and deception are helpful. That the perceived damage to the Whites caused by forum speculation about MW seems the greater evil to some does not justify using intentional fraud in an effort to "help the Whites." Indeed, the tactics used (by the journalist) involved a lie that the Whites were proven scum by 60Minutes. I don't think the Whites would appreciate "help" of that sort. In fact, I think they ought to be told exactly what this journalist did. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "darby." Posted by Holly on 09:57:33 4/03/2001 Maybe they already know. And hence the retreat on the legal complaint front. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Thanks, Grace" Posted by janphi on 11:33:48 4/03/2001 I didn't read the Daily for a long time, so I must have missed that part of the saga wherein the poster A.K. discredited the Mystery Witness Nancy. I see, it was by falsely attaching her experiences to those of people who claim to have taken part in satanic rituals at the behest of their parents and/or guardians who were into all this magick, hooded robes, animal sacrifice, devil, pentagram stuff, right? That doesn't make any sense. Nancy's story was horrifying enough--who decided to enhance it and add all that other junk? I know there are some fundamentalist Christians who believe anything as evil as what happened to Nancy IS considered "satanic" and should be called such--and I understand where those people are coming from, believe me--HOWEVER, it doesn't apply in this case. It is now more of a "quasi-legal" description, maybe even a "quasi-medical" description for a psychological phenomenon that has nothing to with Nancy. There may be some cases of SRA somewhere in the US that might have happened and that might be told to me in certain ways to convince me that they happened, but until then, I simply won't believe it. No, plain old "ordinary" everyday run-of-the-mill multi-generational incestuous molestation no longer shocks the audiences, so it had to be stepped up a notch to satanic. What Nancy claims was done to her is awful enough all by itself and I resent what has been done here--trying to align this with the other baseless debil stuff. Only someone who is thinking of the "audience" would do that. Or maybe a defense attorney. In my mind, it just simply isn't true. The "rituals" in this case were not devil-worship rites--the "ritual" adjective means that this molestation and abuse happened repeatedly and regularly, according to certain "rituals" that were part of the sick perpetrators' mindsets and timeframes. They happened when "workingmen" were off work for long holidays and didn't know what to do with themselves. They happened when certain conditions enabled the opportunity to arise to allow the men to be alone with the "weakest link." Nancy seems to have been the "weakest link," and I mean that in a very objective way. As the oldest, she was an "only child" during her formative years, 0-3. At some point shortly thereafter, her abuse began. First, she had learned to get along in the world by trusting and obeying her parents; then she had learned to survive in the world by using that skill to submit to something she had no way of judging the wrongness of. Whether or not her natural father was involved in any of this remains to be seen. I've never been able to ascertain where he fits in the scheme of things. He would be the one related to Rex Krebs, if there is a family connection--and I still don't have any idea if there is. April 17th is the date when the sentencing phase will start with all the family testimony. Mackey Boykin was in Nancy's life starting around that time (age 3), she said. Of course, this may or may not be totally correct. He did apparently work or have some regular business very near to where Nancy's parents lived at the time, but I still don't know how or if Gwen & Don both knew Mackey or Thomas. Nancy spent time in Trona as early as age 6 or 7, a full 8 years before she moved there with the stepfamily. The Boykins are not the only family friends back then who had connections to Trona, but appear to be the only ones who ended up living and working there. Maybe Nancy has answers to some of this; maybe she doesn't. I have no idea when FWSr. was supposed to have gotten together with the family or with Nancy and/or her mom alone. She didn't tell those details in the interviews that were published. That part of the story was for law enforcement on whichever level was appropriate. I wish the people like A.K. and those at CS who state so EMPHATICALLY that Nancy's experiences are false and that is the end of the subject would just once post SOMETHING that convinced them of the truth of the statements they are making. I've asked and asked and no one ever does. I get double-talk like Patsy's answer to the "did you kill your child" question. She always says something like "You know what I always tell people who ask me that? No, blah blah yada yada." She doesn't actually ANSWER the question. She deflects it, but leads the listener to believe she answered it. Same with the FW thing. They claim that if Steve Thomas says it's not true, then it's not true. Well, come on, Steve and FW are friends. I would expect him to stick up for his friend. But how do we know FW isn't somehow covering for JR in some way? Sure, it APPEARS that FW thinks the Rams are somehow involved, but that has never been actually stated. He WAS his best friend, so wouldn't FW do for JR what ST is doing for FW? Ugh, tired of thinking about it right now. Will not comment on the "60 Minutes" part of all this. Oh, about Ally Walker. Her name is Allene Walker, not Allison. Yes, she starred in "Profiler" and I used to watch that nearly every episode. All of a sudden, one season somebody else was playing Samantha and that confused me, as a passive viewer, so I quit tuning in. Apparently, Walker is her real last name and her father's name is James J. Walker, who lives in Santa Fe, NM, and runs several companies that engineer products for such industries as aerospace and medicine. I have no idea who "Pooper" was--that was long before my time--but I wanted to comment on whether the actress is related to FW. IF this "PS" is "TJ," who said that Ally was his cousin and that James was his uncle, but they grew up together like brothers, then the Walker family would have to be related to "PS/TJ/Sp"'s mother's family, not father's. He never knew his father; his father left MN as late as 1948, possibly long before, to live in CA. Don't know where PS/TJ grew up with James Walker, but it probably wasn't CA, or PS/TJ would've probably known or met his father. Perhaps it was still in MN. Or maybe PS isn't TJ. At any rate, Albert Sprague didn't officially enter the Krebs family until Nancy was 9 years old--though he may have been a friend of the family before that. Don't know. My point is that I'm having a hard time correlating all these people knowing each other, including FW. Don't even know if FWSr. knew AS before 1971. OK, my piece for now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 10:41:54 4/03/2001 Pretty lame try. So the last place you'd take the Nancy story would be 60 Minutes. Well, yes, that was the point, wasn't it? Remember, it was a SCAM. The producer obviously felt comfortable naming that show because she worked with them on another story, but no doubt she is now persona non gratis there. 60 Minutes took quite a beating on that one. BTW, Grace, good work. That's quite a load of crapola from the All Knowing one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "More Bottom Line" Posted by RiverRat on 10:30:02 4/03/2001 If it had not been for Lie #1, there would have been no Lie #2. Sounds like tit for tat...... Is Lie #3 a shift of blame? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "be brave" Posted by fly on 10:26:42 4/03/2001 Holly - If you are suggesting that FW was involved in this scam, be brave and say so. I don't think I'm the only person here who is pretty tired of insinuations intended to CYA and provide deniability. darby - I think many here see the misrepresentation as bad, and important. However, you are about the only one of the scam-busters (and that term is not intended to be derogatory, BTW) who can keep that thought for more than 30 seconds, it seems. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "fly." Posted by Holly on 11:05:09 4/03/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:05:09, 4/03/2001 As I have said elsewhere in these hundreds of replies, Fleet used posts off the internet to support his libel claim. Now do you imagine he used the Limerick threads? A poster at another forum actually admitted sending posts written by "Fleet bashers" to either the BPD or Fleet - or maybe both. This was an effort to have Fleet consider suing posters. If you need to refresh yourself regarding that unsavory episode, try the archives at another forum. Do I think FW had a hand engineering this project? Well if it's true that he had close tab connections, as the former poster lake insisted, I guess somehow he could have been in on it if a tab story was the BIG media event. Did he directly set up the 60 MINUTES scam? I sure hope not. And I never said he did, BTW. I think I only claimed, he BENEFITED from it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Forget FW, fly" Posted by mary99 on 10:35:42 4/03/2001 What about A.K.'s own words? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 10:47:39 4/03/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:47:39, 4/03/2001 Be brave to Holly? What a joke. Any man would envy her set of brass balls. What she is, is smart. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Holly," Posted by Country Girl on 11:10:05 4/03/2001 But having searched The Fleet till the cows came home, I was just pissed that 60 MINUTES had the dirt that has eluded me and others. :-) Did it ever occur to anyone that there might really NOT BE any real dirt on Fleet? Did MW file charges against FW (like MB) that perhaps the authorities ignored? I hope you truly don't believe that because AK has knowledge of production means she is involved. By those standards, I could be suspect. I have been in Tv, Radio, Production and Advertising since 1968 and have a good deal of knowledge. Doesn't mean I am involved with a scam. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "FW" Posted by Holly on 11:33:28 4/03/2001 not involved. Anything is possible. Once again, I never said AK is the shady producer/journalist. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "LOL, Morgan." Posted by Holly on 11:03:59 4/03/2001 Which part of your post did you edit? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "darby and Holly" Posted by FT on 11:11:24 4/03/2001 Jeff Shapiro used lies, deception and intentional fraud, too, but do we need to keep repeating that what Shapiro did was wrong? Please help me understand. I'm curious to know whom you are trying to persuade. Holly, are you now saying that the former poster known as lake is a credible source? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Oh, sorry FT I missed the other parts- " Posted by Holly on 11:49:39 4/03/2001 Persuade? On the first thread, which seems like I posted it a lifetime ago, I said - "This is a true story". And then I offered, at the end, that I see it as a "cautionary tale". If it is repetitious, it's because I'm trying to keep discussion focused. If this information and discussion has resonated with anyone, or seemed interesting and productive, I'm happy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "I never knew much" Posted by Holly on 11:36:05 4/03/2001 about lake, but I thought alot of his FW posts found in archives interesting. And I remember some of his banter with Panico. I guess he doesn't post anymore. If this topic didn't bring him out of lurk mode, prolly nothing would. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "FW connection" Posted by mary99 on 12:05:15 4/03/2001 I never stated that I believed FW was behind this scam, either, only that the timing of forum events and flamefests synchronized mysteriously will the filing (no surprise there) AND he dropped his libel complaint around the same time the 60 MINUTES hoax was exposed. Can anyone blame me for wondering if he was somehow 'tuned into' the efforts to discredit Nancy Krebs? LOL, I'm sure someone will. FW, I believe, was acting as his own attorney in the libel complaint. At least that's what I inferred from candy's post the other day that FW and PW went to the BPD to file the complaint themselves. (How quaint for a millionaire, btw.) And no attorney was ever named in the numerous articles on the doomed complaint. So what prompted him to drop the complaint? Because he knew he couldn't win and media/journalists were scrutinizing his failure to sue NK for libel? Or was he tipped off that the 'discrediting' effort was a flop? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "FT" Posted by darby on 12:03:38 4/03/2001 Sheesh, this thing was only made public a few days ago. I haven't even begun to repeat it as much as I'm capable of. But yes, I felt it important to repeat it because it appears to me that a lot of folks have missed what I feel is the point. If I had MY way, I'd like to see an acknowledgement that what was done was wrong (which you did), and second, I'd like to see some discussion regarding what sort of person might have been motivated to do something so extreme. I rarely get my way, however. BTW, if I had a dollar for each time something has been repeated on these forums, I'd be rich. (The PLA alone could secure my retirement.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Thanks, Holly" Posted by FT on 11:59:53 4/03/2001 Actually, the first part of that post was meant for darby, but I forgot to put her name in front of it. As far as lake goes, you say you never much about him, but you use his posts to vaguely support your suspicion that FW had "close tab connections." Surely you can see the absurdity and danger of that correlation. At least I hope you can. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "standing pat" Posted by fly on 13:22:54 4/03/2001 Holly - Sorry, but I stand by my comment. If you are so afraid of getting sued, keeping your mouth shut is much more appropriate than hiding behind insinuations. Morgan - Sure, Holly is smart, but I don't see a lot of brass. However, given you also are prone to relying on insinuations, maybe your opinion as to what constitutes bravery is rather different than mine. Mary99 didn't think it was very nice for AK to post insinuations about her. Especially given they were false. Why is it OK for you and Holly to act similarly just because FW is the target, rather than a friend? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "fly." Posted by Holly on 14:13:48 4/03/2001 What makes you think someone is suing someone? To what insinuations are you referring? You have me confused. Are we still talking about the 60 MINUTES scam? Or have you morphed that into something else and I missed it? If you are talking about my comment that the irritated parties may want to pursue something with 60 MINUTES, that is a true statement. In what way do you think of this as CYA? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "clarification" Posted by mame on 12:58:14 4/03/2001 i did some searching this morning and spoke with a reporter in california...with access to public records. california records show that mary bienkowski does not own 1248 Laurel Lane nor has she ever owned 1248 Laurel Lane. She appears to have rented 1248 Laurel Lane...moving out in January 2000. Any transactions have to do with Don Allen (current owner) and Rose McKeen(former owner). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "mary99" Posted by fly on 14:20:09 4/03/2001 mary99 - Unless AK's previous posts prove something about whether she was involved in the scam, I'm not all that concerned with them, because I'm already aware that AK is not God's gift to forumkind. But because you asked me to, I took a closer look and will make a couple of comments. I'm rather at a loss as to what is so significant about AK's old post. We already know she denied saying mary99 was one of the therapists. Of course, I know she at least strongly insinuated she meant mary99, but this post (at least) doesn't prove she explicitly named her. Now, using Holly's rules, that means she gets a pass, and according to Morgan, possibly should be considered smart and the possessor of a set of big brass balls. ;-) Contrary to Holly's suggestion, I don't believe that AK said the two therapists were aspiring screenwriters, either. The post clearly refers to SRA's "in general" (i.e., not necessarily the two therapists). Of course, "in general" might just be another ambiguity ploy, but see above. Also, it doesn't even say NK was necessarily part of or aware of any such machinations. It portrays her as a possibly out of the loop in any deal. It does say that the therapists might have been trying to promote the "FW as abuser" concept, but that could be said of a lot of JW folks' posts too, I suppose. Is the damning aspect of AK's old post, from your perspective, the fact that she mentioned shopping an idea for a show? Or the idea that NK might be essentially a pawn? And thus, that this is "proof" that she is Holly's "unnamed" scammer who was also shopping a script/story idea? I suppose that is one interpretation. Hardly convincing proof, IMO, but one interpretation. It would be easier to evaluate if a bit more of the context for the post were included. Or am I completely off, and missing something? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "fly" Posted by mary99 on 20:52:17 4/03/2001 >mary99 - Unless AK's previous posts prove >something about whether she was involved >in the scam, I'm not all >that concerned with them, because I'm >already aware that AK is not >God's gift to forumkind. Fly, we shall see. I agree her credibility is somewhat ragged around the edges. >I'm rather at a loss as to >what is so significant about AK's >old post. We already know >she denied saying mary99 was one >of the therapists. Of course, >I know she at least strongly >insinuated she meant mary99, but this >post (at least) doesn't prove she >explicitly named her. Fair enough, fly, this post doesn't spell it out, but as you are already aware, A.K. very rarely spells anything out, preferring to drop confusing/conflicting 'hints' and as Grace proved by producing the original blue-eyed actress reference, even A.K. isn't always sure of what factoids she posted. >Contrary to Holly's suggestion, I don't believe >that AK said the two therapists >were aspiring screenwriters, either. The >post clearly refers to SRA's "in >general" (i.e., not necessarily the two >therapists). Of course, "in general" >might just be another ambiguity ploy, >but see above. Exactly, fly. She had several 'themes' running at once and to me it seems she merged them into one general plot which encompassed the blue-eyed actress, the movie script being trolled, the SAR agenda, and the attempt to place me at a Florida convention where I obsessed on Fleet White. Now, what this says to me are these are the 'hot spots' A.K. is trying to inflame, and all the allusions to manaical bleating, midwifery, demons, handlers, cults, agendas, triggering (the shiny object passed in front of the actress) speak to her device of taking the focus off the real issue and morophing it into something else entirely. We know this case is evil, why make it worse? >Also, it doesn't even say NK was >necessarily part of or aware of >any such machinations. It portrays >her as a possibly out of >the loop in any deal. Yes, while making another 'dig' by saying it would give Nancy "one more thing to feel abused about". >Is the damning aspect of AK's old >post, from your perspective, the fact >that she mentioned shopping an idea >for a show? Or the idea >that NK might be essentially a >pawn? And thus, that this is >"proof" that she is Holly's "unnamed" >scammer who was also shopping a >script/story idea? Fly, my take on this is that A.K. set out to set off a flame war and succeeded. She injected so much B.S. of her own making while pretending to be knowledgeable, not opinionated, knowledgeable all hir followers jumped on the bandwagon and started trashing Nancy and her allegations by example. Many threads are lost in cyberspace due to the disruption of the forums after A.K. started trashing Nancy Krebs and making these smarmy comments. I think that speaks for itself as far as whether she had an agenda. >Or am I completely off, and missing >something? I think we agree more than disagree--it's not necessary to decide whether the Nancy allegations are the key to this case, or not, to see where the harm was done to the pursuit of justice and civil discussion. There is no doubt (in my mind) that if A.K. is not the producer hirself, she knows exactly who is and yes, I will go out on a limb and state my opinion---A.K.'s agenda and the 60 MINUTES hoax are a match. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Fly" Posted by Grace on 15:15:31 4/03/2001 Holly can answer for herself, but from my point of view, I put A.K.'s reposts here to continue last night's discussion about how her original actress comment had changed to fit her changing theories (IMO) -- starting with Stephen Singular and progressing to SRA theorists. To be fair to her, I included both her above posts which were posted together, even though, the first one wasn't that relevant. For a better understanding of the SRA/Mary99 stuff, search the archives at CS for the "Important News about Justice Watch" thread. This topic was discussed on numerous other threads, but I know some of it is on that one. I haven't reread it, so I hope I'm sending you in a productive direction. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "fly" Posted by Holly on 15:00:49 4/03/2001 "That IS interesting. What extraordinary knowledge of the production process AK shared. So I guess the hunch was that the two advocates, who do lecture BTW, in the context of the BIG sexual abuse picture, on worldwide Satanic sex abuse among alot of other stuff, are aspiring screenwriters?" As you can see, the portion of my post that seems to trouble you, ended with a "?". I don't know what the hell she's talking about. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "still curious" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:34:41 4/03/2001 for all here who believe or don't believe NK's tale of abuse at the hands of FW, what would it mean to the case? If FW was a child's worst nightmare, how would this affect JFJBR? Or, if he's the knight in shining some of you insist he is, then what does that do in the way of finding JFJBR? (Of course, keep in mind, the parents are still responsible for killing JB, but have a friend like FW, for good or bad) Anyone care to venture? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Holy Cow!!" Posted by shadow on 15:00:04 4/03/2001 We are now citing Lake as a "reliable source" for stuff discussed on the internet? Lake who had his/her "facts" wrong concerning FW's son for over a year - "facts" that were used in his/her theory that FW's son (and Burke) killed JBR? I know his/her theory later changed, but I wouldn't use Lake to add credibility to my position on anything. BTW, the FBI "broke" a child prono ring last week - several people were arrested, with more arrests to come. Could any be in Colorado? Wait and see... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Who said lake is a reliable" Posted by Holly on 15:32:19 4/03/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:32:19, 4/03/2001 source? I said I read a reference in forum archives where lake was claiming AK was connected to the tabs. I know absolutely she is. And she won't deny this. So I guess on this point, in fact, he is reliable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Mame!!!" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 15:26:16 4/03/2001 Are you there? Check you e-mail Important [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Holly..." Posted by shadow on 15:57:49 4/03/2001 You're right, I misunderstood your post. Sorry... However, as far as Lake is concerned, a stopped clock is right twice a day! :-) shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "No, Holly, you didn't say" Posted by FT on 16:22:20 4/03/2001 ### "I read a reference in forum archives where lake was claiming AK was connected to the tabs. I know absolutely she is. And she won't deny this. So I guess on this point, in fact, he is reliable." Rather, in post #26, you said: ### "Do I think FW had a hand engineering this project? Well if it's true that he had close tab connections, as the former poster lake insisted, I guess somehow he could have been in on it if a tab story was the BIG media event." This leaves some unconnected dots in between FW and AK, not to mention the unconnected dots in between AK and Mystery Producer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Convoluted though it may seem." Posted by Holly on 21:37:07 4/03/2001 I was saying that the big event to which AK alluded and never detailed, might have been a proposed tab story that was the result of the 60 MINUTES scam. Of course it could also, I suppose, have been the 60 MINUTES scam. Dunno. That could have been fed to her by her tab buddies and she may have had no idea of the behind the scenes activity. It does not necessarily follow that I am suggesting that AK IS the producer who efforted the scam. And you certainly read how stupid a concept AK says it was. So, if that is her statement... Again, AK can send me her name and I will announce immediately that the names differ. In fact, if AK can provide a sitting or retired judge who will agree to accept the name from me and her name from her and deliver a verdict, I'm game. That way the producer's/possible poster's name is protected from exposure and so is AK's. AK will understand this type of judicial participation, because a retired judge did something like that for the Dream Team when the tabs (I think) announced that a hideous stiletto had been purchased just prior to the murders by OJ. Simpson. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "FT" Posted by LurkerXIV on 16:42:28 4/03/2001 I'm going dotty from all those unconnected dots! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Mame...." Posted by rose on 16:29:11 4/03/2001 Thank you for clearing up the Bienkowski matter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "ned and rose" Posted by mame on 16:41:45 4/03/2001 i found your email and have responded... rose, thank you for being kind enough to say thanks. for me it's not about who is right and who is wrong...it's about taking secrecy out of this case. the only possible way we can get anywhere, and prosecute anyone is to continue to sleuth and discuss. somehow i believe truth will float to the top... while i know chris has to deal with unbelievable torment when the forum gets hot...and some who have posted here want it all to go away...i am reminded of living in boulder...where everything is practically perfect...beautiful people...beautiful foothills...always politically correct...no outrage...no questions for their public officials...i never want to be like that, EVER!!! outrage, even if it involves a flamefest IMO is good...intelligent folks bantering with their minds and ideas. sometimes it ain't pretty..but, jonbenet's vicious death wasn't either. also, a kind thanks to shadow and greenleaf who oppose this line of investigation...but, always do so with manners and intelligence. that's who i want to sit on the couch with... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "mame" Posted by Greenleaf on 17:07:02 4/03/2001 What a lovely thing to say! Thank you very much. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Holly" Posted by Greenleaf on 17:13:34 4/03/2001 Thank you. You're a good sport. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "sorry and thanks" Posted by darby on 17:52:01 4/03/2001 Thought I'd continue this spirit of kindness... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Fly, my dear ..." Posted by v_p on 18:56:11 4/03/2001 >>Of course, I know she at least strongly insinuated she meant mary99, but this post (at least) doesn't prove she explicitly named her. Now, using Holly's rules, that means she gets a pass, and according to Morgan, possibly should be considered smart and the possessor of a set of big brass balls. ;-)<<< Sometimes, even if you do swat my hand once in a while, you're priceless... carry on... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Good..." Posted by Pedro on 19:02:25 4/03/2001 ...we are getting better, we ain't sick, almost!!! Darby, Mame, Holly, Gl, Shadow, you make me happy today !!! :-). Now, I am not in to the net search, so advice me how to get the information on this issue, I am not goign to disregard anything with out looking at it myself or having somebody doing it for me!!!!! Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "love letter from A.K." Posted by mary99 on 19:21:18 4/03/2001 Since she addressed it to me among others, I don't feel remiss in sharing it with the rest of you... AK 08-25-2000 To Lying Nancy, Lee Hill, Stephen Singular, Mary Bienkowski, Barrie Hartman, Steve Jackson, Plasket, McKinley, Mame, Mary99, Holly, Darby, Morgan, and others I will refrain from naming... (To paraphrase Alex Hunter) You have stripped me of any mercy I might have felt at the beginning of this case. The system will see to it that justice is served and that you pay for what you've done to this REAL witness and his family. I warned many of you that you were stepping in fields where there were landmines, but your arrogance and need to feel important superseded your judgment about keeping this case on track. Nice goin'. P.S. The Bush campaign can use your help. ========================================= tsk, tsk, A.K., you sound like you're making a threat. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "What I've learned from 5 threads" Posted by Scully on 21:42:17 4/03/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:42:17, 4/03/2001 The 60 Minutes threads have been a learning experience for all of us. It will be remembered as the #1 topic which drew more responses than any other topic in recent history. Here are some of the things I learned: - there is a mean-spirited poster (or friend of a poster) at JW who posed as a journalist and approached a producer at 60 Minutes to do a story on MW in order to tarnish FW's reputation. This sent the White's scurrying to the BPD to file a libel suit which he withdrew when nothing materialized. Some mean poster has sent FW a list of posters on the forum who have said unkind things about him so he could use their names in his libel suit. - an aging, blond actress with blue eyes and a SAG card and saggy facial features hoped to resurrect her acting career by playing MW in a movie that never got off the ground. - several posters have birds as pets and clean their cages between postings. - Pedro said we were all sick or diseased. LOL - Holly apparently never eats or sleeps. - AK might be a homicide detective. - Holly, mary99, Morgan, and mame are probably close friends outside the forum. - Everyone pretended they knew the true identities of the parties involved in this mystery based on the hints and veiled accusations that were repeatedly mentioned on the threads. - In thread number 4, it was raining where Holly lives. - Mame went to the site of a plane crash in Aspen, CO. She was accused of starting a rumor that Kevin Costner was one of the passengers. - many posters have a lot of free time on their hands. - You can be banned from the forum for mentioning a posters "real name". Holly and AK both chickened out even though Pedro gave them his permission to share the identities of some of the people involved in the scam. Gemini lectured everyone about forum rules and someone told her she should consider going to charm school. - Holly says "prolly" a lot...v_p uses the word "k" (as in okay) and should stop this practice immediately. - darby is dedicated to this case....she'll be here speculating until there is a resolution in the Ramsey case. - some posters use other posters as "credible sources". - Google is used by many here as a search engine for research on the Ramsey case and each other. - we need to keep posting about MW on a daily basis until the day we drop dead. - v_p purchased a new keyboard. - it would be risky to go any type of internet gathering within the next week or two. If it cannot be avoided, every poster should be frisked at the restaurant entrance and carry a can of Mace on their person. - FT offered to clear the whole matter up in a matter of seconds but no one responded to her offer. - AK was accused of being a tab reporter, a spy, a heathen, a wretch, the mastermind behind the 60 minutes scam, a communist, and a Bush supporter. That's just to name a few. - everyone is hugging, kissing and apologizing to each other for their bad behavior now that the threads are coming to an end. - (edited for multiple spelling errors) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Scully." Posted by Holly on 21:50:37 4/03/2001 You got your very first point wrong. Again - the producer/journalist, IMO, is a poster or is close to a poster. I did not say a poster marketed the idea to a producer. And if you can find where I did say that, it is because Mr Holly has been negligent in providing me with iced tea so I can stay glued to my keyboard. I'm dehydrated. :-) That darn Morgan warned me this would go into multiple parts. I didn't really think it would be that controversial or provoke so much response. Even with the goofy stuff, I think it has been interesting discussion. At least I hope it has. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Scully" Posted by mary99 on 22:56:12 4/03/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:56:12, 4/03/2001 Scully, nice analysis, I wish I could condense as well as you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Scully," Posted by LurkerXIV on 22:21:27 4/03/2001 I plead guilty to pretending to know the true identity of one of the players. I was bluffing. But then, Poker is my favorite card game. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Scully" Posted by JR on 21:40:14 4/03/2001 Thanks for the re-cap...reminds me of study sessions in college. ;O) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "JR" Posted by Scully on 21:45:22 4/03/2001 Shoot. Looks like I was a bit premature...I logged back in to see that everybody is still arguing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Scully" Posted by JR on 21:47:51 4/03/2001 Go immediately to "Scroll," do not pass go and do not collect $200 arguments...LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "tsk tsk mary99" Posted by v_p on 20:15:11 4/03/2001 sharing an email on a public forum is totally tasteless no matter what the content. I guess that ends the "nice" portion of this thread-a-thon...lol. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "That's not an email, v_p" Posted by Holly on 21:40:25 4/03/2001 I think I read that as part of a post/position piece at another forum last August. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "you no like?" Posted by mary99 on 20:27:45 4/03/2001 I liked the landmine part, it's kind of like playing Twister :-) (((((hugs)))) Is dat better, vee-pee? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Mary99" Posted by RiverRat on 20:33:32 4/03/2001 Would you care to elaborate now or stretch it out for another three or four threads? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "{{{v_p and RR}}}" Posted by darby on 20:49:36 4/03/2001 That wasn't AK's email, it was a post she made. I guess mary99 did nothing tasteless, nor did she end the "nice" portion of this thread-a-thon after all. I guess all we're left with is the rather tasteless and not-so-nice content of AK's post, eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "AK's post" Posted by Morgan on 21:18:10 4/03/2001 was kinda like a valentine from a vampire. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "darby" Posted by FT on 21:26:44 4/03/2001 FWIW, I think what we're left with are some not-so-nice posts and some unconnected dots on both sides of the MW issue. What's the point of pots and kettles calling each other black? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Well, FT" Posted by darby on 21:35:53 4/03/2001 Why are you asking just me? Why not ask v_p and RiverRat as well, who pounced rather quickly on mary99 for posting an email, when in fact she didn't even do that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "FT" Posted by darby on 22:02:50 4/03/2001 I like you and I don't really want to (just) play games. I'm not here to defend everything that was ever done which may have tarnished Fleet White's name. The only one I can really speak for is myself. I saw--and still see--a woman whose claims were never proven true OR false. That's all I've ever seen in terms of MW. And that's at the core of everything I've ever said about her on these forums. For that, I've been called every name in the book by a few people, folks who have salivated in glee at the thought of my being sued or put into prison. And now I can see that a lot of people want to end these threads and sweep this 60Minutes scam under the rug as if it never happened. Well, it did happen. If mame's crime was that she was "gullible," then I have to say that deliberate and malicious fraud is far worse than that. If both kettles are black, then one is far blacker than the other. What I find curious is that you (in general) aren't as perplexed as I am that someone actually went to such amazing lengths in an attempt to pull off this whole 60Minutes scam. The biggest question: Why would someone feel driven to do that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Thread number 6" Posted by Holly on 22:13:00 4/03/2001 is meant to tidy up any loose ends. It just seems after nearly 500 replies that this particular hurricane has expended its energy. Unconnected dots, warts and all, this has been very good discussion - at least IMO. Thanks everyone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "my bad mary & (((darby))))" Posted by v_p on 21:42:36 4/03/2001 It looked like a duck and quacked like a duck ... so, ya know? Scully, ROFLMAO, that about does it, don't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Scully" Posted by darby on 22:25:46 4/03/2001 That was hilarious. Anyone reading that re-cap would call us all insane. I think they'd be right. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Scully " Posted by FT on 22:46:11 4/03/2001 Without putting too fine a point on it, that was one of the three funniest posts I have ever read at JW. And I don't remember what the other two were. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "darby" Posted by FT on 23:01:40 4/03/2001 I didn't know if you would want to carry this over to Thread Six or not, so I am putting it here. I had addressed you personally because it was the best way I could think of to get to the heart of the matter and stop beating around the bushes. Being so close to the issue yourself, you may not realize that most of us were clueless as to the details that are so well known to you, mame, Holly, Morgan, mary99, etc. We were playing catch up not only on factual information such as real phone calls placed by independent producers, but also on contextual information such as Holly's comment that Lake was considered by some to be a reliable source on certain subjects. Please forgive us our shortcomings. It has been a lot to absorb and evaluate for those of us on the periphery. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "speaking of vampires" Posted by Gemini on 00:24:26 4/04/2001 Darby, what are those things around v_p and RR? They look like bats coming in for a landing. LOL Scully : ) ... you've still got it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Darby" Posted by RiverRat on 06:26:58 4/04/2001 Take me out off your brackets - maybe you could also read my question to Mary99 again, it had nothing to do with posting a private e-mail. And it looks like I have my answer. Now she wants to condense Scully?!? Gave me the kool-aid. Someone needs some anger management courses, too bad somebody else was given the scarymary nickname. See ya on part 6(66) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]