Dear Mr. Beckner: We received your letter of May 1, 2002 responding to our letter dated April 25, 2002 in which we repeated our March 22, 2002 request for criminal records regarding the 2000 investigation of the beliefs and allegations of Nancy Jo Krebs. By your May 1 letter, you have once again denied that request. We wish to review the basis for your denial. In your letter of April 2 and May 1, 2002 you denied our request for criminal justice records pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-305(5). You thus claimed that releasing the requested records would be contrary to the public interest. Apparently in an attempt to describe the "general nature of the public interest to be protected" as required byC.R.S.24-72-305(6), you stated in your May 1 letter that the requested records are "investigative files" of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide investigation that "is still an active, open investigation." You further stated that the "investigation of Krebs' allegations necessarily involved some issues and aspects of that investigation" and that "releasing information concerning Krebs' allegations could disclose information not previously made public." We wish to repeat that we are requesting only those criminal justice records that relate to an investigation that, according to your press release of May 15, 200, had been "concluded" and found "no credible evidence linking anything she (Krebs) alleges to the death of JonBenet." As persons of interest, we are seeking the release of only those criminal justice records relating to a concluded investigation of reports to authorities alleging criminal conduct that were false and not relevant to the Ramsey homicide investigation. Releasing the requested criminal justice records will not injure the public interest since false allegations reported by Krebs are not the subject of an ongoing police or prosecutor investigation. That investigation concluded on or about May 15, 2000. There is not, therefore, any legitimate basis for your claim that the Krebs criminal justice records are exempt from lawful public disclosure on the grounds that they are part of an ongoing investigation. We believe that your assertion that the requested criminal justice records are part of the "investigative files" of the Ramsey investigation was made in furtherance of an attempt to avoid or delay the lawful and proper release of those public records. As for your statement that the requested records "could disclose" information that has not been previously disclosed to the public, we fail to see any revelance to your claim of injury to the public interest. Releasing the Krebs criminal justice records will obviously involve information not previously disclosed. It is for that reason that we are making our request. In your May 1, letter you offered the following vague argument that disclosure of the requested criminal justice records would be contrary to the public interest since: "To disclose aspects of our investigation into tips and information received could only inhibit persons from coming forward with information and revent witnesses from cooperating in the future." It is unclear whether you are referring to (1) persons and witnesses who may provide information concerning Krebs' allegations; (2) persons and witnesses who may provide information regarding the Ramsey homicide; or (3) persons and witnesses who may provide information concerning criminal activity in general. If you were referring to the allegations of criminal comduct by members of our family, we will remind you that the investigation was "concluded." Since the investigation was concluded (and Krebs allegations, claims and beliefs were determined to be fale), there is not an investigation to be hampered by the release of the requested criminal justice records and, therefore, no possibility of injury to the publlic interest. If, on the other hand, you were referring to the possible inhibiting of persons and witnesses who may provide information concerning the Ramsey homicide or the possible inhibiting of persons or witnesses who may provide information concerning crime generally, you are referring to a problem we are unfortunately very familar with. As you know, members of our family, including our children came forward to your agency with whatever information we had concerning the Ramsey homicide. We did so willingly, without reservation and eventually, at great sacrifice. In the months and years following JonBenet's death the substance of our police interviews, and in some cases our actual words have been published in newspapers, magazines, supermarket tabloids and books or broadcast during endless hours of television programming and radio talk shows. As a direct result, our family haas suffered harassment, ridicule, intimidation, retaliation and a significant loss of our privacy. There is absolutely no question that public disclosure by employees of the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder District Attorney of our information concerrning the Ramsey homicide - all of which was believed to be true and given in good faith - has drastically reduced the willingness of our family to voluntarily come forward to law enforcement as crime victims or witnesses. In the Krebs case, however, the "tips and information" alleging serious crimes that your agency received and investigated as a result of efforts and prodding by a disreputable attorney, the editor of a local newspaper, an author of true crime books and a vindictive and discredited district attorny, were knowingly false. As you know, false reporting to authorities is a crime punishable under Colorado law. Yet, to our knowledge, no one has been investigated or punished as a result of Krebs' knowingly false reports to your agency and to the Boulder District Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We doubt very much that it is the official policy of the Boulder Police Department, the Boulder District Attorney or any other Colorado law enforcement agency or prosecuter to tolerate and overlook such a blatant and extreme episode of criminal conduct. Yet, such has been the case with the false reports made by Nancy Jo Krebs. Mr. Beckner, releasing criminal justice records relating to the investigation of false reports that were made or transmitted in bad faith, as they were in the Krebs case, will not inhibit the publlic from coming forward in good faith to report and bear witness to crimes. What does inhibit people from coming forward is their perception that crime victims and witnesses can suffer extreme mistreatment at the hands of law enforcement and the news media and that agencies such as yours will foster or tolerate such mistreatment and allow it to be unquestioned, uninvestigated, unchallenged and unpunishable. Such mistreatment has been a hallmark of the Ramsey investigation. The Krebs' case and the wasteful and protracted eleven-week Boulder Police "investigation" of her highly publicized, false and libelous allegations of pornography, child sex abuse, rape, torture and homicide is perhaps the most egregious example. Your contention that granting our request will somehow inhibit witnesses from coming forward is illogical and dishonest and under the circumstances we deeply resent your attempt to avoid releasing the Krebs criminal justice records on that basis. There is simply no injury to the public interest that can be reasonably asserted or speculated that will outweigh the certain and compelling public benefit that will result from a public review and scrutiny of the decisions and conduct of numerous public servants and the news media with respect to the extraordinary case of Krebs' false reports to authorities. It is our belief that your agency's denial of our request was not motivated by a genuine desire to avoid injuy to the public interest, but rather by a wrongful desire to prevent public scrutiny of official conduct in the Krebs case. Your denial of our request for criminal justice records pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-305 (5) is aaritrary, capricious and itself contrary to the public interest in the extreme. As you may be aware, the Boulder District Attorney has recently responded postitively to our requests for criminal justice records by providing us with documents in its custody and control concerning Nancy Jo Krebs and the investigation of her false allegations. In doing so the District Attorney has recognized that "Under the unique circumstances involved here" it is "appropriate" to provide such criminal justice records. Pursuant to Colorado public records statutes, we wish to make a final request for asscess to all criminal jsutice records relative to the investigation of the allegations, claims and beliefs of Nancy Jo Krebs. We will appreciate a prompt reply to this final request. Thank you. Sincerely, Fleet Russell White, Jr. Priscilla Brown White
Go RiverRat! Candy seems to have some perception that if she pays for a COPY of a document, that she OWNS the content and rights to that document. About that cursive typing and left-out letterhead ......
Only 9,472 people have explained this to her over time that buying it doesn't not make it hers, but she can't comprehend it, I guess. Even Jameson explained it to her to no avail. :404:
Regarding Candy. I really don't know whether to laugh or cry over this most recent encounter - she is far worse than even I gave her credit for. RR
Spectrums I remember taking my little ones to the baby clinic for their screenings and being told that if you hide a brick behind a book, then a young baby thinks it has disappeared, but at a certain stage, they will move the book to retrieve the brick because they realise that the brick is just out of sight. It's a developmental stage. Similarly - young children don't realise that the baby in the mirror is themselves. Some species never progress beyond this - pet birds also think that the bird in the mirror is "another bird"..... I wonder if some people never progress beyond some of the developmental stages. Like the open door being proof of an intruder - the door was open - therefore an intruder left it open. jameson and Candy have both exhibited signs of having problems in these quarters. Candy with her apparent belief that she owns the rights to public documents because she has paid for copies of them and jameson with her claims that Kane tried to destroy evidence - when it was only photocopies of police documents that he wanted destroyed.
RR, you and Jayelles are so far over their heads, it's not even a fair contest, but I am sure in their under-developed minds, they think they are making valid points. I'd like to be the first (okay, 1,001th) to assure them, they are not. I knew what Candy was all about years ago when she first attacked me at CS for doing absolutely nothing except talking about the JBR case. I knew she was a sick freak then. The progression of her abuse toward other posters has been steady and spiraling ever out of control ever since. I truly believe someone needs to intercede and get the poor thing some help, but I doubt anyone will. Sociopaths have a way of hiding their true faces in society - the Internet gives them an outlet for their true foul and abusive natures. I really think Candy is a sociopath. And, her little pee doggie is a sociopath, too.
Oh, puh-leeze! That's like someone saying that just because they bought a recorded cd that they own the rights to the music and lyrics of said cd. Sheesh!
I seem to remember Freud and Erickson both alluding to fixations within and/or regressions into developmental stages which were not completely dealt with in a timely manner (i.e., within the life stage appropriate to said developmental stage), or some such. I truly DO hate reading too terribly much about psychology, as it is grim to me, seeing the poor outcomes with regards to the implementations of new theories and treatment modalities, many of which are inefficient in restoring functionability to the chronically impaired. So much variation in theories, and still the crazies abound. CandyA55 is living proof.
