Go back to previous page
Forum URL: http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi
Forum Name: more and more JBR
Topic ID: 1174
Message ID: 4
#4, Nancy threatens lawsuit
Posted by jameson on May-30-03 at 08:34 PM
In response to message #3
Nancy called Tricia from another forum and threatened a lawsuit. I had opted to ignore the situation as I don't think it is going to help solve the Ramsey case - - but some want to talk about it - a guest started a thread that quickly dissolved into flames. I cleaned out the worst flames, the points made on the thread that do seem reasonable will be carried here - - I really would like only one thread on this side bar at a time.


Smokey wrote:
If anyone has a right to sue for what's been said about them, she does. Posters who equate defaming Nancy with perceived defamation of Fleet White as a tit-for-tat type thing are wrong on at least three

1 ) Nancy has never written letters, appeared in public or otherwise made herself a public figure. Her
name has never been published by the BPD.

Fleet White Jr. is a public figure. He wrote letters, filed suits and appeared before the Boulder City
Council demanding release of the BPD transcripts of her interviews.

2 ) Nancy was cleared by Lou Smit when he asked for her whereabouts on Dec. 25 1996. She was
never a suspect, and her identity was protected as a witness.

Fleet, on the other hand, was one of the top three suspects and "fair game" for discussion. He is still a
suspect until the crime is solved.

3 ) Fleet had the opportunity to pursue civil claims against posters, journalists, Nancy herself and
anyone else after the Daily Camera printed the allegations made by Nancy in Feb. 2000. He chose not
to follow the simplest path, as advised by the BPD, instead choosing a circuituous criminal libel claim
which was ultimately dismissed. Thus, one can't say he "was defamed" because in fact, that finding
was never made and the case was closed.

Nancy on the other hand, was called names, insulted, threatened, harassed, and her real name and
history of abuse were bandied about as if it were a big joke. I expected the vile comments to cease
when Bob Harward's report came out clearing her of any wrongdoing and making no finding for
conspiracy or lying, yet the clowns continued.
I am surprised anyone who has followed this case seriously would dismiss her allegations considering
the extent to which Nancy's documented abuse pre-dates what happened to JonBenet the night she
was murdered.


Helena said:

When Nancy's story became known, the naysayers couldn't look at her story objectively because they have to have a Ramsey take the fall for JB's murder. Nothing else doing.

That being said, I still am amazed at how vicious they became.

They don't want justice. They need the reassurance that they are right about something for once in their life. It's too bad they will be wrong once again.


The greatest resistence to the truth is definitely coming from the BORG camp, but they were never known for being critical thinkers anyway.

There are others who never read the transcripts or took the time to evaluate her allegations in an
unbiased way, who didn't intend to be hurtful but have convinced themselves she must be a sick
person for saying these things. But, not one investigator has ever said she lied. Her story is
heart-breaking not only for what she endured before coming forward, but for what she's endured in
the aftermath.

Sher: (The quotes were from Tricia's post)

"I told Nancy that she is a public figure. She said her attorney said she wasn't. I explained to Nancy
that as soon as Mame, Lee Hill and others put her out to the public she became a public figure."

Beep! Wrong! The BPD put Nancy's name out there against Nancy's will. Mame referred to her as
mystery woman or Bridget.

"I told Nancy to make sure her attorney knew what he or she was doing. To really research this and
make sure she is not being used to run up attorneys fees."

If Nancy's attorney is willing to file a criminal complaint against a poster, he knows what he's doing.
Tricia needs to be concerned with Tricia and her forum, not someone who's job it is to handle legal
matters. I noticed Tricia treats Nancy like she's a child. Nancy is an adult who knows what she's
doing. Nancy is up for the challenge. She has always told the truth. Nothing to be afraid of.

"How can Nancy asked to have anything with her posts removed after what has been done to Fleet
White. You can't have it both ways."

What? Does this make any sense, you ask? No. Next!

"Interesting that this is happening closely behind my support of the petition don't you think? How long
have we discussed the Krebbs issue? Only now do I get this phone call."

What the hell does this have to do with the petition? Tricia is so obsessed with her precious little
project that she's becoming paranoid that someone is going to steal her thunder. Because, we all know
the petition is all about her, and doesn't have a thing to do with caring about JonBenet.


Mame wrote, "Nancy has an outstanding civil rights attorney retained to handle this and other legal matters. It is routine to
ask a forum to kindly remove the posts...to cease and desist. Nancy chose to make the request by
phone herself...in a mannerly respectful fashion. She is NOT a public figure. The BPD has never
released her name due to the fact she is a sexual abuse victim.

I applaud her actions and the way she is handling this very serious issue. She was told by Tricia the
best thing she could do was to become a member of FFJ and enter into a chat situation. That is not
an option Nancy chooses to pursue!

Nancy came forward with courage and conviction to give truthful information to authorities. She left
Boulder three years ago. Since that time she has not spoken publicly to anyone regarding her role as a
witness in this case.



I dont think this case has a chance. People are allowed to speak their mind. I dont even think they
could be charged for libel either, since the forum is considered a place for opinions and such.

If any of them live outside the US it will be very hard to bring them to trial.



BobC, RiverRat, AK, WY, Ginja, RS and others need to seek legal counsel. Tricia's business associate, Marcia Thomas, is an attorney specializing in internet law - so Tricia nees to have a heart to heart asap.

There is no argument to counter the reality that Nancy was NOT a public figure, not even a limited
one. There is no argument I can imagine that sustains Tricia's stated belief, that she and others are
within their 1st ammendmant rights to speak the vilest, most offensive, most damaging drivel possible
about Nancy Krebs and others they hate.

A first step is to ask the moderator or poster or server to remove objectionable threads and posts. It
does not matter if a lawyer or "victim" makes the request. The request was made and still Tricia is
spinning her wheels. I think maxi immediately took her forum down, prolly to examine content.

The suggestion Nancy join the forum to "defend herself" is proof that Tricia Griffith is moronic beyone
belief. The format of FFJ is the least poster friendly. The chosen few are allowed to post w/o having
to debate the truth of anything they say. We, the public, may only READ. I know of people who
applied to join FFJ and never received a membership. So Tricia has created her own monster.

If I were Tricia, I would disallow any further mention of Nancy. I would remove ALL material that
mentions or remotely refers to Nancy. I would have done that while talking to Nancy. There is no value
in resisting her request. None.


Don't be to quick to call Nancy Kreb's allegations a side show.
They are part of the Ramsey case file and Mark Beckner fought to keep her interviews from being
released to Fleet White. The Krebs material may be what helps solve the case.



If the Krebs file is part of the Ramsey case file, then it belongs to the public. If Nancy Krebs is to be
part of the Ramsey case, then she is also a public figure.

I am not BORG and never have been. I only have the interests of this forum at heart. You are using
jameson to promote your MW theory and flame others who don't post here. It can only bring trouble to
this forum.



>If the Krebs file is part of the Ramsey case file, then it
>belongs to the public.

The taxpayers paid for the investigation, so it does belong to the public in that sense. However, it
does not follow that all police files in an open murder investigation should be made available to the
public. Confidential police files are not public records.

If Nancy Krebs is to be part of the
>Ramsey case, then she is also a public figure.

Wrong again. She is a witness whose name was never published by the BPD, though it was not
redacted in the interview files released to Fleet White in his only successful suit to date. A witness
has a right to privacy, do you disagree? If witness interviews and names are made public by a police
department, other witnesses may be afraid to come forward. If witnesses were automatically
considered public figures by virtue of contacting police, few witnesses would choose to expose
themselves to possible public ridicule or invasion of privacy.



How can Nancy claim a right to privacy when it was she who did an interview with Mame to be shared
with the forums. Mame and some other posters talked incessantly about Nancy on the forums,
implicating Mr. White Sr. and Jr. in her sexual abuse and saying many damaging things about them. Did
any of you think that Nancy's real name would not be discovered? What I witnessed on the forums
was that some posters wanted everyone to believe that Nancy was sexually abused by Fleet White
and others asked for more proof before they joined in their fight to string Fleet up from the highest

The mystery woman debate went on for years, with both sides writing degrading posts about the
other side. From what I've read on the forums, it appears that the side requesting more information
decided for themselves when the Nancy transcripts were released that Nancy was not telling the
truth. Whether right or wrong, I don't know, but to now threaten to sue someone because they
responded in a mocking way to something they believed to be false seems petty to the extreme. It
almost seems vindictive because Nancy didn't get the reception from her interview with Mame that she
thought she would get and she doesn't like the fallout.

I'm just an observer looking in from the outside. I have no stake in this and will not argue the point
with you. There is no lawsuit here that I can see, only sour grapes.



It is 9:24 est and this is the first glimpse I have had of this thread. I did see this subject discussed
yesterday on various other forums and opted not to carry it here - - but it is here now and I see no
reason to delete the thread.

I do NOT believe Nancy Krebs is a public figure - - but her situation (and her name) has been public for
some time. Discussing her is not, to my understanding, illegal since she would be what is called a
"vortex public figure".

That does not mean that anyone can tell lies about her - and I think this group has been careful to
discuss things honestly, relying on interviews and public documents for our facts - - brainstorming the
issues and voicing our opinions - - and all that is perfectly legal.

This forum has no "private area" - - no secret group is orchestrating the path of the discussion. Other
forums seem to be run that way - - we don't do that here. Mame, a good friend to Nancy, knows far
better than I do what happens in some of those private areas. What I do know, from posts on public
forums, is that people who post in those private areas often are welcomed with open arms, become
comfortable, trusting, are encouraged to bare their souls - - and sometimes regret it when they fall
out of grace with the powers that be.

WilT was the first one I watched suffer under the persecution of the Just Us Witches. They loved him
until he told them he had met me and liked me - - and then he was attacked, his sexuality became an
issue - - they ripped him apart. It was ugly, I had warned him, andwas notsurprised. I even advised
him to renounce me - - make his life easier - - and he did. They "forgave" him and welcomed him back.
That was fine with me - - I didn't feel betrayed until he started lying about what happened when we
were together,accused me of things I did not do. But I did understand.

BobC is a hero in one place, torn apart in another.... same thing with others.

I think Nancy did a wise thing refusing to become part of their private forum - - a victim of the group
in chat. Once something is written in private, it can be taken out of context, twisted... Chats can be
edited easily - - I have been a victim of that game. She can't possibly gain anything by that.

I am not particularly interested in Nancy's story - - I have repeatedly stated that I think she was a
victim, I think she is looking for attention, I think she is not completely honest and I think she is
absolutely wrong about what happened to JonBenét. Those are my opinions and I do have a right to
express them - - absolutely nothing illegal about those statements.

Having said all that - - if Nancy has something to say to me, she should email me - - I would verify
the email address with Mame. If she wants to post, I will set her up with an account and password
and promise to let her have her say unedited as long as she followed forum rules.

I will allow ONE active thread at any given time for Nancy Krebs discussion - - I think that is fair.

Nancy did try to keep her name out of it - - I called her Callie to start, Mame called her Bridget, other
forums called her MW or Mystery Woman.

But once legal documents were filed and the public was hearing about this sex ring and the
accusations against Fleet White (that were neververified).... I don't remember how her name came out
- - but I do remember feeling like that was only right. The law says the accused has the right to face
the accuser. With the accusation SO public, I felt - and feel - that it was right that the public also
see the accuser - - to be able to check into who she is and determine for themselves if she was

Others can disagree with me - - that's fine.

We didn't put her name out there, I don't know of anyone maliciously lying about her on this forum. I
don't believe we have broken any law and I see no reason to remove this thread.



There is no reason to believe Nancy is requesting that all further discussion of her allegations cease,
as far as I know. The forum in question whose owner she contacted was not discussing her allegations
so much as engaging in vicious, cruel attacks, too tasteless and ugly to even post portions of here.
Many jokes were made about the electrical burn injuries she suffered and there were insensitive
remarks made about her sexual history. All of those lies were sheer speculation and not based in any
way on documented facts. If there are few facts known, that does not mean posters should make up
their own version of events and post it as fact. Some posters deliberately made up lies about Nancy
and forwarded them in email to others who believed what was said. I believe that is malicious libel.

I appreciate you being willing to let the topic be discussed here. If her allegations were untrue, I think
her second interview with the BPD would have taken an entirely different course.



These are the same posters who made cruel comments about Patsy's illness, bought into the all the
tabloid garbage about the Ramseys, accused Patsy of making JonBenet wear contact lenses and false
teeth, etc. The Ramseys have less recourse against those flamers because they have appears in
public and are at the center of the case. Nancy never wanted to be known by her real name, nor did
she want her interviews released to Fleet White. She has always wanted to protect her privacy.

Comparisions being made elsewhere between her and Fleet White are unfounded, IMO. Fleet White's
name has been part of the Ramsey case since Day 1. Regardless of whether someone agrees or
disgrees with disussion of him as a suspect has no bearing on whether Nancy "deserves" to be
defamed in retaliation for perceived damages to Fleet White or his family. He had the opportunity to
take civil action against her and chose not to.

Posters at the other forum seem to be under the impression it's OK to defame Nancy now on behalf of
past unlitigated damages to Fleet White's reputation. It's not, and they are mistaken.


"I also thank you for allowing a civil discussion on this topic to take place. This is an important issue not only
to this witness, but to other witnesses who hope to come forward in any case.

Contrary to what some believe, I am not behind this. Nancy is an intelligent woman who makes her
own decisions. Some are prone to believe their own conjured up depiction of this outstanding woman.
Their depiction is wrong. While Nancy has a group of outstanding friends and advisors...she is more
than capable of making thoughtful, intelligent decisions.

Nancy and I are dear friends. However, I have never asked the name of her attorney. I know he is a
Top 100 California civil rights attorney who is taking this very seriously.

Those who think Nancy is "being used" are quite mistaken. Used for what? Fame and glory? Money? I'm
smiling at the kind of money and fame and glory those close to Nancy have received!



The interviews are public documents.


unregistered user
May-30-03, 02:27 PM (EST)

34. "About Nancy"
In response to message #33

Everyone would have forgotten all about this woman if Mame and a few others weren't obsessed with bringing her up all the time. ..........

MW is not, and has never been part of the Ramsey case in any way. All discussion of her
should be stopped so she can get on with her life


Sorry for the editing - - I did my best to get the thoughts across, remove the flames and add nothing