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
#0, Nancy Krebs thread
Posted by jameson on May-27-03 at 02:55 PM
I have been accused of chilling the discussion that had to do with Nancy Krebs. Yes, I did lock the thread - it was long and when that happens I lock the thread and expect if people want the discussion to continue they will start another.

I did say that I did not believe Nancy Krebs' story was at all related to the ramsey murder - - but readily admit the story is certainly a "side show" to this case. How could I not when the BPD investigated her claims?

I want to share the Boulder Press Release that ended their investigation - - then I will make a couple short comments...

City of Boulder News Release
May 15, 2000
Contact: Jana Petersen, Media Relations, (303) 441-3090

Boulder Police end investigation into California woman's report

Boulder Police and prosecutors have concluded an investigation that began in February when a
37-year-old California woman reported her belief that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered as part of a child
sex ring. The investigation found no additional evidence to support this theory.

In February, the woman contacted the Boulder Daily Camera with allegations of a child sex abuse
conspiracy involving her own family members, the Ramsey family and close friends of the Ramseys. The
woman also claimed that some of her own family members were at a party attended by JonBenet Ramsey
and her parents on December 25, 1996, just prior to JonBenet's death. The woman believed JonBenet
was likely killed at the party by adults who sexually and physically abused her.

Boulder Police spent about 11 weeks investigating the allegations, which included conducting 22
interviews, reviewing medical and psychological records, reviewing photographs and recordings, consulting
with a forensic psychiatrist, and comparing the allegations against physical evidence and current
knowledge of the case. As a result, Boulder Police and prosecutors working on the case have concluded
that other than the woman's statements, there is no evidence to support this theory of JonBenet's murder.

"The Boulder Police have spent a significant amount of time investigating the claims made by this
woman and her attorney," Prosecutor Mike Kane said. "There is simply no credible evidence to link
anything she alleges to the death of JonBenet. The expenditure of additional police and prosecutorial
resources is unwarranted."

Boulder Police have made no judgments or conclusions about abuse the woman may have suffered in
prior years in California. It is well established that she was a victim of sexual abuse in 1979-80, for which
a suspect was arrested and convicted. However, the current investigation did not find any connection
between the abuse she suffered and the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

Boulder Police have forwarded information to the FBI in reference to some of the woman's
allegations regarding the operation of a child sex ring. Police also advised her to contact California
authorities with any information she has regarding crimes that may have occurred in California.

This is the second time Boulder Police have investigated the possibility of JonBenet's death being
connected to a "sex ring" or pornographic operation involving numerous people. On each occasion, no
credible evidence was found to support such speculation.

"We needed to take the time to complete a thorough investigation," Police Chief Mark Beckner said.
"Unfortunately, the allegations have led to speculation that Fleet and Priscilla White, former close friends
of the Ramseys and hosts of the 1996 Christmas party, were somehow involved in the sexual abuse and
death of JonBenet. We have no evidence whatsoever to support this and have never had evidence to
support such an allegation. Nor do we have any evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or
participated in a child sex ring operation."

Because she is a sexual assault victim, Boulder Police are not releasing the name of the California

The "California woman reported her belief that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered as part of a child sex ring." It was her belief - - and just one of many such tips - - "I believe" but have NO evidence. In this situation, the person she was poiting to had been with the child so this got a lot of attention - - even more since Lee Hill and Mame were involved and made it public through the newspapers and the Internet.

"The woman ... claimed that some of her own family members were at a party attended by JonBenet Ramsey and her parents on December 25, 1996, just prior to JonBenet's death. The woman believed JonBenet
was likely killed at the party by adults who sexually and physically abused her."

Now we are hearing that she said or meant that the family was at another party in Boulder but not the one at the Whites? You can see why I am hesitant to get involved with this story - - it is changing, mutating, to fit the situation of the day. Simply put, I think Nancy Krebs is a pathalogical liar who is supported, if not encouraged, by her therapist.

Mame heard her story, she was the one who interviewed her - - I know Mame is not stupid - - I don't understand how she can continue to have faith in what Nancy says.

"Boulder Police and prosecutors working on the case have concluded
that other than the woman's statements, there is no evidence to support this theory of JonBenet's murder."

I am going to be honest - - I met with Lee Hill and we spoke about Nancy, I saw some of the papers, he was trying to convince me that her story was real. I told him I felt some of her injuries were self-inflicted (the "brand" on her ankle, for example) and that she was making up stories for some personal reason that we might never understand.

I agree that she was a victim of abuse - I just don't think it has anything to do witht he ramsey case.

Police Chief Mark Beckner said there was NO evidence that the Whites were involved in the sexual abuse and death of JonBenet. I honestly don't think Beckner would have put out that statement without serious consideration - - he didn't have to give a quote for the press release - he did - - and I think it needs to be taken seriously.

I will note he did not give the same blessing to the Ramseys but will pont out that he said there was no evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation.

So carry on the discussion - - just try to document it with quotes, not speculation, please.

#1, RE: Nancy Krebs thread
Posted by Smokey on May-27-03 at 03:44 PM
In response to message #0
I think Nancy was telling the truth about what she knew, but drew some erroneous conclusions about what happened to JonBenet based on her (Nancy's) own experiences. She believed JonBenet was murdered by the same people who had abused her (Nancy) sexually. IMO the same people may be involved, indeed Nancy and JonBenet both knew the White family, but I don't think the murder is as simple as it would appear on the surface if you agree with this theory. For one thing, JonBenet was never raped nor is there physical evidence of sexual assault or abuse other than the injuries inflicted at the time of her death.

#2, RE: Nancy Krebs thread
Posted by Mame on May-27-03 at 04:12 PM
In response to message #1
Before the flames begin...thought it was worth noting I did not complain that the discussion was stifled.

#3, RE: Nancy Krebs thread
Posted by jameson on May-27-03 at 04:43 PM
In response to message #2
Absolutely, Mame and I don't agree on this subject but she has been very agreeable, willing to share information and NOT get into a flame war.

I have NEVER minded debate, welcome challenging discussion.

The only thing I ask of people who bring "side discussions" or "personal favorite suspect" threads here is that they limit themselves to one thread at a time. Frank heard the request, so did RHGC. I won't stifle the Krebs discussion - just ask that only one thread on this be active at any time and that it be clearly labeled so those who would rather not read on the subject can skip it.

I think the forum rules are reasonable and easy to follow and hence the discussion continues.

#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

#6, RE: Nancy threatens lawsuit
Posted by daffodil on May-31-03 at 07:36 AM
In response to message #4
Someone noted above that the BPD advised the Whites to go the criminal libel route. I don't think that is the case. I think the detective and the BPD lawyer wondered why they had not gone the obvious civil route and even explained it to them. I'm pretty sure there is something in the materials about how difficult it would be to sustain a criminal libel complaint - as opposed to a civil suit.

I think Priscilla insisted it was a crime.

#7, Press Releases
Posted by Mame on Jun-04-03 at 05:13 PM
In response to message #6
LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-03 AT 05:15 PM (EST)
To: Ritual Abuse Survivors - Please share with others!
From: Mr. Light & Associates
Date: May 15, 2000
Re: Jon Benet Ramsey Case

Last week Linda and I went to Boulder, Colorado to serve as victim advocates on behalf of a ritual abuse survivor. On Wednesday, May 10th, this young woman was interviewed by the Boulder Police Department for a second time. She gave investigators information describing generational abuse patterns in families near to the high profile Jon Benet Ramsey case. We found her to be very credible and her story consistent with that of other ritual abuse survivors.

While we were there to offer Nancy emotional support, Linda and I also took the time to speak with agencies and investigators. By giving them some basic education on ritual abuse, we attempted to ease the path for this brave woman and increase agency understanding of the information she shared. It was an honor to be there on her behalf.

The following is a message that Nancy would like to share with other

"I needed to be a voice for a little girl who had none. I had to leave everything behind, but I was very empowered by those who reached out to help me. There were people who listened to me and believed me. I wish I could thank them individually. I also felt the strength of other people's prayers and support. We do have a voice. I haven't overcome my fear, I've pushed through it. It has been very frightening, but as more of us come forward, we will gain more credibility. If we can break the silence, we can break the cycle."


Mr. Light & Associates
P.O. Box 12927
Ogden, UT 84412-2927
Jeanne Adams (801) 737-0178
Linda Redd (559) 686-5261
E-mail: mrlight@konnections.com



Jeanne Adams / victim advocate / criminologist and founder of Mr. Light & Associates along with Linda Redd / advocate and criminologist, accompanied the Mystery Witness to her final interview with Boulder Police Department on Wednesday, May 10, 2000.

Jeanne Adams states that having worked as an Executive Director and victim advocate for a national crime victims organization, she saw a great need to bring awareness to the judicial system and other agencies who come in contact with Ritual Abuse survivors. Her firm specializes in Conference Presentations on Satanic Ritual Abuse / Ritual Abuse as well as Case Consultation and Survivor Advocacy.

States Jeanne Adams of Mr. Light & Associates, “We appreciate the courtesy demonstrated by the Boulder Police Department in their second interview with the Mystery Witness. Ritual Abuse claims are particularly difficult for investigative agencies to explore. Such cases present tremendous obstacles and include the controversy that questions the existence of Ritual Abuse itself.”

Jeanne Adams states, “Linda Redd and I met with the Mystery Witness, reviewed her information and listened to her account of her childhood abuse. We found her to be very credible and her story consistent with accounts we have heard from other Ritual Abuse survivors. She has given investigators an historical trail suggesting generational child abuse patterns in families near to the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case. These patterns include child sexual abuse, the use of stun guns and asphyxiation to induce trauma and dissociation in children. ”

#10, .
Posted by jameson on Jun-04-03 at 08:30 PM
In response to message #7
Tricia is not welcome to post here. She would like nothing more than to disrupt this forum - or make it a venom-filled area like her own.

She can keep her thoughts there.

#12, the million dollar question
Posted by jameson on Jun-05-03 at 01:32 PM
In response to message #10
according to some - -"Why hasn't Lin Wood sued Ms. Krebs?"

NK accused John of some nasty sadistic sexual assaults on her person.
But the question is - - even if she was wrong, did she believe she was telling a lie? It seems she may believe her delusion so she would not be guilty of libel.

The press release basically said - - the cops investigated this accusation and found it was not supported by the facts, by the evidence. John was cleared as far as i am concerned - - as far as the Ramseys are concerned.

There is no reason to sue Nancy - - can't change her memories, can't change the facts... NK has nothing so there would be no financial gain. Couldn't put her in jail for it. What is the point of suing?

#13, RE: the million dollar question
Posted by Sparrow on Jun-05-03 at 02:21 PM
In response to message #12
Maybe she's suing because she's been called everything from a liar to
mentally unstable. She's received threats of bodily harm, has to live in hiding, and might be unemployable. As far as her suing the alleged abusers, perhaps there is a statute of limitation, and/or a he/she said situation. It's almost as bad as Afghanistan, when a woman is raped, by their law, without witnesses to her rape she is severely punished for "lying" about her (poor) rapist. Yep, Nancy was taken to the stadium of public opinion, and further tortured, in my opinion.

Mame, thank you for posting the letters. I also read your Mother's Day letter yesterday for the first time. You have my utmost respect for trying to help an abused woman. I also understand why others would try to protect the accused. I think Nancy, like anyone else, could be wrong on names, faces, dates, or places, but I think she spoke her truth quitely, as she knows it. My first instinct was that she was "a victim" and after hearing your interview with "Briget" I was convinced she was telling the truth. "Somebody" abused her from an early age to the time she came forward, but "whom" I don't know.

I didn't know for a looong time what her name was, or whom she was accusing, and in fact, thought at first she may have been referring to the Mc's.

#14, RE: the million dollar question
Posted by jameson on Jun-05-03 at 02:35 PM
In response to message #13
Is NK suing?

She may be - - the lawyers might be happy to be a part of developing Internet laws..... quite the wild west out here.

Do I think she will? You know, at first I thought not but now I think - - why not? I mean she can't have any secrets that she thinks are too horrible to say in public - - nothing can be worse than what we have already seen.

I don't see where Nancy has anything to lose by suing some of the posters.

Then again, I don't think she has much to gain - - what did she lose?

Having said all that..... Internet law is new - - ifanyone can gain here it is the lawyers whose names will be in the lawbooks when new standards are set - - oh - - to have their case cited again and again in the future - - - what a boost to the ego, huh?

#15, RE: the million dollar question
Posted by Ralph on Jun-05-03 at 06:43 PM
In response to message #14
It would be highly interesting to hear what Ms.Krebs says in a deposition or in court. Very interesting, indeed. She wasn't exactly pressed by the police when interviewed and I think a thorough investigation into her claims may be called for.

I disagree that she's not a public figure:

She gave intimate details of her life for an internet broadcast - twice. Whether her name was known or not, she opened herself and her statements up for discussion and analysis. The fact that those statements led some people to form unfavorable opinions about her is a one repercussion of giving interviews.

#16, RE: the million dollar question
Posted by Ralph on Jun-05-03 at 06:58 PM
In response to message #15
And I think that Mr. White and Mr. Ramsey are both being too gracious regarding Ms. Kreb's allegations. Whether she believes she was raped by John Ramsey or not, she needs to be set straight about both men.

#17, RE: the million dollar question
Posted by Smokey on Jun-05-03 at 07:19 PM
In response to message #16
She offered to take a polygraph but the BPD wasn't interested. Ralph, when she did the 2 interviews with Mame, she specified that she was using the name "Bridget" in order to remain anonymous. Surely you don't think that giving an anonymous interview make someone a public figure?

A quick definition of a public figure from the 'Lectric Law Library Lexicon site:

"To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345."

Nancy entered the Ramsey case as a witness. She never gave out her real name. The BPD should have, but did not, redact her name from the interview transcripts Fleet White sued to obtain. By the way, why would he refer to her as "Nancy Jo" unless he knew her?

His first statement to Det. Spragg contradicted his courtroom testimony, if I remember correctly, regarding the length of time he knew her.

#18, RE: the million dollar question
Posted by Smokey on Jun-05-03 at 07:25 PM
In response to message #15
I don't think there's any such thing as an anonymous public figure.

To be a public figure one must be known by name, before any other consideration. If one's name is not known, or is known against the wishes of the person desiring anomynity, then what?

#19, anonymous public figure
Posted by jameson on Jun-05-03 at 07:59 PM
In response to message #18
Sure a public figure can be anonymous - - The Son of Sam was anonymous for a long time but also a public figure.

Same thing with the Zodiac Killer - - still unidentified, but we all know what he did.

How about "Deep Throat" in the Watergate scandal?

MW or Bridget or Nancy Krebs - - it doesn't matter, she went public with accusations and a story that was big news. Thousands of pages about her on the Internet. Stories in the papers. Press release as well.

I think she would be hard pressed to remain a private figure if it went to court - - not because she went to the cops, but because she went to Mame, because her lawyer went to the media.

If I am wrong, perhaps Lee Hill will let me know why.

#20, RE: anonymous public figure
Posted by Smokey on Jun-05-03 at 08:35 PM
In response to message #19
You make a good point about Son of Sam and the Zodiac killer, but they were anonymous at the same time they were being sought by LE for crimes they committed.

It's a little different with Nancy because she was known to LE by her real name, as a witness, not a suspect. I could compare her status to the 14-year-old girl who was molested by an intruder in the case thought to bear similarities to the Ramsey case; her name was never given because she was a sex assault victim and a minor. In the case of the two teenagers kidnapped in Kern County last year, an Amber Alert went out for the girls, but after they were rescued it was revealed they had been raped by the abductor. This caused the media to question whether that should have been revealed because their names had been made public through the Amber Alert.

I don't know the grounds for action Nancy Krebs is taking or plans to take, but I doubt she is a public figure. She may be a limited public figure but again I think if she tried to preserve her anonymity as a sex abuse victim, it will be hard to prove she intended to be a public figure by going to the BPD as a witness, or by giving the two voice interviews with Mame.

#21, RE: anonymous public figure
Posted by jameson on Jun-05-03 at 08:46 PM
In response to message #20
If Nancy had gone only to Lee Hill and LE, I think we would still not know her name. The investigation would have taken place and nothing ever would have been made public - - even the fact that the investigation ended with no evidence found supporting her stories.

The reason the cops went public with the press release was that the story was SO public, it was impossible not to respond to it. FFJ and others were DEMANDING some response - - they got it.

Nancy should not have gone public, giving interviews, answering questions for the forum over there. That's how I see it.

#22, RE: anonymous public figure
Posted by Smokey on Jun-05-03 at 09:27 PM
In response to message #21
She didn't answer posters questions, as far as I know. In fact, Mame's reluctance to act as a go-between caused the ill will that now exists over her allegations.

I *think* she met with Barrie Hartman only after the BPD had given her family her whereabouts, to her extreme dismay. In her first interview, she expressed her distress with the BPD's release of her whereabouts, and her fear that she would be subject to retaliation.

#23, Krebs
Posted by daffodil on Jun-06-03 at 06:37 AM
In response to message #22
does not fit the legal definition of a public figure. Of course all law is subject to argument, but there is no question that Nancy herself did not seek to reveal her name. It does not matter what external articles, or fora debate flowed from her appearance in Boulder. It was always her intention to remain the CA woman. What others did to ultimately expose her does not automatically change her status.

Of course I could be wrong, but my feeling is that a court, upon a hearing of the facts, would side with Krebs.

It has already been determined by a District Attorney that the Whites, despite their argument to the contrary, are public figures. That status could have been argued before a court, if they had sued.

#24, Interview Transcripts
Posted by Mame on Jun-06-03 at 09:32 AM
In response to message #23
I was just alerted to a post "elsewhere" suggesting I obtained the two BPD interviews through unscrupulous means!

The interviews are public documents. I requested, copied and paid for them just like any other PUBLIC document. I encourage those who assume otherwise, go back and check their sources!

There is also a post on another forum that states Nancy Krebs is well known at town meetings for threatening lawsuits in her town, complaining about birds on her trailer property in the desert! Nancy has NEVER attended a town meeting, has never threatened a lawsuit there, she does not live in the desert or in a trailer.

The majority of things being said about this woman are blatant lies.

#25, RE: Interview Transcripts
Posted by Mame on Jun-06-03 at 09:56 AM
In response to message #24
Also, Nancy did NOT "out" herself when she came to Boulder!!! The media did their job in covering the comings and goings of a witness who was present to meet with law enforcement. This is routine and has NOTHING to do with revealing her identity! The BPD never officially released her name. Her rights were violated when recent public documents contained her name without redaction. The first time her name was seen in a news report was a recent article by BJ Plasket. He did so AFTER the public document release.

#26, RE: Krebs is a Public figure
Posted by candy on Jun-06-03 at 10:30 AM
In response to message #25
She's a public figure who inserted herself in a murder case, had her allegations published on the front page of the Boulder Daily Camera and in many other media outlets, gave interviews on the internet, wasted city and federal taxpayer money investigating her allegations against Fleet White.

#28, RE: Krebs is a Public figure
Posted by Mame on Jun-06-03 at 10:36 AM
In response to message #26
I suggest you go back and look through your Law 101 text books. Nancy met OFFICIALLY on two occasions with the Boulder Police Department at their request!

#27, RE: Interview Transcripts
Posted by Mame on Jun-06-03 at 10:32 AM
In response to message #25
LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-03 AT 10:33 AM (EST)
The BPD had nothing to do with the release of the interviews. In fact, Beckner fought to block their release. I suggest Tricia call Tula in the records department of the Boulder Justice Center.

Got my attention? I think not. You lost that a long time ago. Right about the time BobC threatened to garrote, strangle and abuse Nancy. I will not answer your questions. Why? To give you more "material" to spin and spew?

You've got to be joking...

#29, RE:Krebs is a public figure
Posted by candy on Jun-06-03 at 11:01 AM
In response to message #27
Richard Jewell was declared a public figure, after he gave only a couple of interviews on TV at their request. Krebs is a public figure and she has tried to ruin FW's life in public, through the public media for the past three years, through the non stop airing of her allegations by her followers, that have been officially discredited by city and federal law enforcement agencies. She's had no other outlet but the public world wide web, no one else will have anything to do with her or her allegations.

#30, RE:Krebs is a public figure
Posted by MediaWatcher on Jun-06-03 at 11:05 AM
In response to message #29
Candy, get a grip and go back into your library of notes. MW's name was not outed until the BPD released documents and forgot to redact her name.

Jameson is right about you. You do a good job of posting official documents, but when you attempt to interpret, so get things mixed up.

#31, RE:Krebs is a public figure
Posted by candy on Jun-06-03 at 11:14 AM
In response to message #30
LOLOL. Krebs has launched a three year campaign of libel in public (her only platform) against Fleet White, even after she was totally discredited by city and federal law enforcement. The courts will never let her hide behind a private figure fig leaf and try to ruin his life using the public media the way she and her cult has.

#33, RE:Krebs is a public figure
Posted by MediaWatcher on Jun-06-03 at 11:19 AM
In response to message #31
Candy, so why does FW not sue MW? So why did two special prosecutors throw out the crimnal libel case? Your argument is empty just like your interpretation of facts. Please stick with just posting documents.

#32, Conspiracy?
Posted by Mame on Jun-06-03 at 11:15 AM
In response to message #30
LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-03 AT 11:18 AM (EST)
I'd look elsewhere for a conspiracy. FedoraX in a recent post suggests she has seen the videos of the NK interviews with the BPD. That's quite interesting since Nancy and even Judge Montgomery have NOT been provided with, or given an opportunity to see the videos! They were NOT released to Fleet White or the public. Talk about unscrupulous!!!

Interestingly, Fedora claims, "There's a glitch on one of them that wiped out some content, but most of it is intact."

A glitch? No surprise. A recent release of some public documents also states that the 14 photographs taken of Nancy's injuries by the BPD were mysteriously, "damaged".

Fedora and others seem to be walking on thin legal and criminal ice. I'm confident Fedora and others are gonna have some splainin' to do! Does this spell CONSPIRACY?

#34, Nancy Krebs
Posted by Jayelles on Jun-06-03 at 11:37 AM
In response to message #32
Is this the woman who accused Fleet White and John Ramsey of sexually abusing her?

I didn't follow this storyline before, but I find it extremely confusing because it seems as if the same people who support the Ramseys, seem to be supporting Ms Krebs against those who accuse her of being a liar.

What is the story here - is she credible or not? Do those who believe that she is credible, think John Ramsey did abuse her as she seems to have claimed? (or attend the sex ring parties?) Or do you believe her in a selective way? This is almighty confusing for some of us!

(I never found this topic particularly interesting so I normally scroll by MW/NK threads. I don't have a clue what jameson's involvement in all of this is).

#35, RE: Nancy Krebs
Posted by MediaWatcher on Jun-06-03 at 11:41 AM
In response to message #34
It would take a month to catch you up on this story, but let me clarify one point for you. The people supporting MW do NOT support the Ramseys. Jameson, who does support the Ramseys does NOT support MW.

#36, RE: Nancy Krebs
Posted by MediaWatcher on Jun-06-03 at 11:55 AM
In response to message #35
"That's quite interesting since Nancy and even Judge Montgomery have NOT been provided with, or given an opportunity to see the videos! They were NOT released to Fleet White or the public."

This is more than interesting. It appears to me that some laws have been broken.

#38, MediaWatcher
Posted by Jayelles on Jun-06-03 at 11:59 AM
In response to message #36
>>It would take a month to catch you up on this story, but let me clarify one point for you. The people supporting MW do NOT support the Ramseys. Jameson, who does support the Ramseys does NOT support MW.

I'm sure it would take at least a month to catch up on this peculiar storyline and thankfully, I have no particular interest to do that LOL. However, I thought Mame was one of MW's strongest supporters and I thought she also supported the Ramseys?

#41, RE: MediaWatcher
Posted by MediaWatcher on Jun-06-03 at 12:03 PM
In response to message #38
Mame can address this herself, but if you had followed this story, you would have seen Mame post many times that she has no idea who killed JBR, and only wishes for justice to be served....regardless of where is falls. I have never seen her post that the Rams are innocent, etc., so you have a false understanding.

#39, RE: Nancy Krebs
Posted by Smokey on Jun-06-03 at 12:02 PM
In response to message #36
Laws have been broken if FedoraX is telling the truth about being privy to evidence which both the BPD and the DA's office have never released nor allowed any member of the public to view.

On the other hand, I believe it's defamatory to intentionally publish lies, especially if the intent is to cause harm to a person's reputation.

Either way, she's screwed.

#37, RE: Nancy Krebs
Posted by Smokey on Jun-06-03 at 11:56 AM
In response to message #35
I support any investigation which brings the murderer of JonBenet Ramsey to justice.

I'm not playing a "which side am I on game" except to say there are some who want to hang the Ramseys, to hell with the evidence, and they don't interest me.

#40, Smokey
Posted by Jayelles on Jun-06-03 at 12:02 PM
In response to message #37
With respect ..... if there is a witness who claims that she was sexually abused by John Ramsey then I would consider that to be VERY relevant to JonBenet's murder IF the witness was considered credible.

Now just before you start - I asked a simple question and MediaWatcher has given me a polite answer which I've asked her/him to expand slightly. I make no excuses for my lack of interest/knowledge in this storyline. OK? If my question is answered then I will retire from the discussion and you can do what you like.

#42, RE: criminal libel case
Posted by candy on Jun-06-03 at 12:12 PM
In response to message #40
FW is appealing in his criminal libel complaint. Is it any wonder why?

Why doesn't NK sue FW? She NEVER WILL.

#43, RE: criminal libel case
Posted by MediaWatcher on Jun-06-03 at 12:18 PM
In response to message #42
Candy, you need to check out some law books and do some research. Your posts show a total lack of knowledge in the area of law..both criminal and civil law.

#44, MediaWatcher
Posted by Jayelles on Jun-06-03 at 12:26 PM
In response to message #43
>>Mame can address this herself, but if you had followed this story, you would have seen Mame post many times that she has no idea who killed JBR, and only wishes for justice to be served....regardless of where is falls. I have never seen her post that the Rams are innocent, etc., so you have a false understanding.

Thank you for answering. I thought that Mame supported the Ramseys nowadays after reading numerous posts similar to this (from Purg):-

From: mame (TESS44) Dec-28 6:34 pm
To: FORMERNYGIRL (157 of 627)

540.157 in reply to 540.155

I honestly don't have a theory. As I've studied the evidence and the media fueled "facts" that we've come to believe I am less and less convinced the Ramseys killed their kid. I have many reasons for that. I agree their behavior is suspect, but fortunately we don't convict people ont their behavior. Hatred isn't either.

I'm sure some people will understand why I find it confusing to reconcile support for the Ramseys with support for the person accusing John Ramsey of sexual abuse!

#45, RE: criminal libel case
Posted by candy on Jun-06-03 at 12:26 PM
In response to message #43
LOL! You have been wasting the taxpayers, LE's and the courts time and money for years.

#46, Jayelles
Posted by Smokey on Jun-06-03 at 12:30 PM
In response to message #40
You asked about John Ramsey, and all I can say is that some things Nancy said suggest that her timeline of events concerning "Uncle Johnny" doesn't square with what we know as far as John Ramsey's work and location history. She may have documentation proving a connection with John Ramsey in her past, but that didn't come out in her interviews. "Uncle Johnny" was one of her abusers - whether he is the same man we know as John Ramsey, I don't know.

However, I found her connection to the White family compelling and believeable, because she had documention showing a close and somewhat unusual relationship that spanned three generations.

Whatever hope existed of finding evidence to support her allegations of abuse evaporated after the BPD made a "courtesy call" two weeks in advance of their visit to certain family members.

There is no question she suffered a severe assault
immediately prior to coming to Boulder, brought on by her family's suspicion she would be contacting the BPD. It was documented at the hospital where she was treated, and it was not self-inflicted.

#47, Smokey
Posted by Jayelles on Jun-06-03 at 12:34 PM
In response to message #46
>>However, I found her connection to the White family compelling and believeable

So you believe her to be credible in her accusations against the Whites, but 'mistaken' about John Ramsey?


#48, Jayelles
Posted by Smokey on Jun-06-03 at 12:51 PM
In response to message #47
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?

#50, Good heavens!
Posted by daffodil on Jun-06-03 at 01:16 PM
In response to message #32
I had to re-wind to make sure I got what was being said. How could FedoraX have seen the video of the Nancy interviews? I smell another search warrant.

#51, RE: Good heavens!
Posted by MediaWatcher on Jun-06-03 at 01:19 PM
In response to message #50
I smell a criminal investigation.

#52, RE: Good heavens!
Posted by Smokey on Jun-06-03 at 01:26 PM
In response to message #50
Interesting....can you you repost that particular post here, for documentation purposes?

#49, The transcripts have
Posted by daffodil on Jun-06-03 at 01:12 PM
In response to message #24
been public for months. I called the research department of the court and asked to purchase a full copy, but the cost was more than I wanted to spend.

If others think there is a gag order they'd better go gag the research department at the court.

#53, RE: The transcripts have
Posted by jameson on Jun-06-03 at 02:00 PM
In response to message #49
I would imagine that the authorities monitoring the forums are going to take it that FedoraX and her friends are lying or delusional - - unless the posts start describing the room, the clothes, the body language. After all - - we know how many heard the 911 tape - - they'll swear to it even though the tape was NOT played on Geraldo as they think.

#54, RE: The transcripts have
Posted by Lulu on Jun-06-03 at 02:52 PM
In response to message #53
There are many posters, some neutral and some Nancy doubters, who can attest to the fact that the transcripts of Nancy's interview were legitimately obtained. Some of these posters put a huge amount of effort into getting the documents ready to post, so we could all see them. Ma Brady nicely offered her space.

P.S. to the bees: None of these helpful people, including Ma, were in cahoots with Susan Stine to destroy Fleet White.

#55, My theory..
Posted by Mame on Jun-06-03 at 03:14 PM
In response to message #54
Jayelles, thanks for asking such a polite, thoughtful question.

No, I don't have a working theory on this case. I have said, and continue to feel, after looking at the evidence, and most recently reading the Steve Thomas deposition, that it's beginning to look like Patsy Ramsey did not kill her daughter.

However, I am staying open to any and all possibilities. I continue to support discussions and debates that include and respect ALL points of view. Unfortunately, the Ramsey forums are so polarized in opinion it makes those kind of healthy discussion impossible.

I continue to believe Lou Smit is the finest individual involved with this case. I have new hope that whoever killed this lovely child will be brought to justice.