Nancy knew the White family from the time she was born. She gave historical details, provided photos and other documents that indicted a very close relationship with the Whites, and she did not, as far as I know, have physical evidence of any relationship with John Ramsey.

Thus I cannot say she was as credible in her allegations about John Ramsey. I do believe she was abused by someone she knew as "Uncle Johnny" but I wonder if she first connected the person she knew as "Uncle Johnny" to John Ramsey when she saw him on TV when Ramsey's videotaped deposition aired in early 2000.

In her interviews, she describes John Ramsey as doing business with her family, but the BPD never asked her if she knew him as John Ramsey then. It's my impression she only knew that person as "Uncle Johnny" and only in early 2000 thought he was John Ramsey.

I'm not sure if she was confused or not about the actual identity of "Uncle Johnny." She had no confusion about who was who in the White family, though. She knew them by their real names, not as "Uncles."

The BPD did a half-assed investigation into her allegations, never once asking for phone records, airline records or interviewing the people she thought they would want to talk to. The BPD had a strong interest in not finding evidence to support her allegations because had they found proof of Nancy's abuse by her family or the Whites, or even john Ramsey, their carefully crafted "Patsy did it" theory would fall apart. As Steve Thomas said (paraphrasing) why fill up the case files with junk that doesn't point to the Ramseys?