Spoke with Nancy Krebbs. She said she is suing the forums

I can feel Satan moving my hand to the mouse...

 

get thee back

You pawn of the devil!

And while you are at it, tell me what the holy hel! these people are up to. Why? And why now?

Are they bored? Bored to stupidity? No more flies to pull the wings off of? WTF?

 

No--more like the cash cow died prematurely before it gave up any milk. Poor babies.

 

OMG

Patsy died?

 

Patsy isn't the cash cow.

 

OK, one more

John

I only have ten minutes left tonight. Do I win a prize? If not, PM me with my second place answer!

 

Hey River Rat

To hell with Krebs.

Can I have your Millionaire computer game?

BTW, I just got finished reading that thread at the Swamp WY provided. I don't get it...you don't appear to be shaking in your boots as alleged.

ROTFLMAO!

 

Hey Ginja

After three years, I just want to finish this story, not fear it. I see that you handled them just marvelously over at Purgatory, fun girls aren't they?! Can you see now what my big fuss was all about back when we were formally known as Justice Watcher's?

RR

P.S. The game is all yours if it doesn't end up confiscated in the assets.

 

Yeh, Ginja

I see you had your time in the witches' pot at FS, too, LOL. You don't know it, but I had your back a few times at Purg. The thing was, you didn't need me. I popped in a couple of times with one-liners, but, how can one improve on perfection? They hate you so much because you are always right, and therefore they had to try to discredit you. The only ones they discredited, and continue to discredit, are themselves.

We've all had our times in the witches' pot, or should that be queens' pot? Same difference.

 

Still trying to catch up here!

Good grief, I'm still trying to get through this thread, but you guys keep putting up all these links and I get into those; then questions are asked and I think, hmmmmmm...so go googling for answers, come back here, and I'm still not caught up. Jeesh! I am going to post some of that oh so very interesting research in a few minutes here (when I get to the end of the thread)...until then though,

Given the fact that Bienkowski dismissed her own patient's allegations that the nieces were in danger and being abused by the same alleged sex ring, I would venture to guess there was never any validity to Nancy's claims and ergo, the girls are doing just fine.

Of course, that doesn't excuse the google girls dismissing those same allegations and doing nothing. They should be ashamed of themselves for not following-up with the well-being of these girls. Afterall, they believe without a doubt that absolutely everything Nancy alleged was true.

Or at least that's what they claim.

Is their dismissal of the girls, which is exactly the same as Bienkowski's dismissal, the heart of the real truth? That is, the girls are in no danger? Never were?

I'm quite sure that if this question was asked of Mame, her response would be the usual: It's none of our business.

 

Ha! I was at the end of the thread!

Going back and forth to all the links provided in this thread, the one thing that struck me is the insistence by the google girls that there's evidence to support ALL of Nancy's allegations -- that the sex ring in Boulder exists; that the Whites raped her; and that the Whites murdered JonBenet (I guess because Fleet Sr. wasn't as "experienced" in garotting as Boykin was). They yap about free speech and that Nancy's graphically detailed interview transcripts belonged in the public domain because it was evidence, no wait, make that "proof" of Nancy's allegations.

Let's start with the City of Boulder's press release:

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

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 woman [End]

So which part of "no evidence to support the allegations" don't the google girls understand?

From the mame interview, Nancy complained that the police only interviewed 22 people, when they could have questioned 122. Why? To hear the same thing over and over again? How many forensic psychiatrists did Nancy want them to interview? The cops reviewed her medical and psychological records -- did she have more the cops didn't know about? They spent 11 weeks investigating her and her allegations -- at taxpayers expense. And they also compared those allegations with the physical evidence and current knowledge of the case. Bottom line, there was no evidence to support Krebs' allegations.

In a 3/10/00 article written by BJ Plasket, he quotes Chief Beckner: "the department is also following other leads in the Ramsey case and does not have the "human power" to waste on a fruitless California trip."

Even Mike Kane was involved in the investigation, and he, too, concluded that "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."

Krebs claims the police didn't do a thorough investigation and didn't fully investigate her allegations of the sex ring. I suggest she read the City's efforts put into investigating her allegations and the City's, the police's, and Kane's conclusions.

Now let's move on to Krebs' credibility....

Oh wait, almost forgot. When one wants to contribute information to an investigation, wouldn't that person go to the police? A good example of credible 'witnesses' doing just that would be Amber Frey. But Nancy Krebs is no Amber Frey...instead, she went straight to the press -- the Boulder Daily Camera.

Now let's move on to Krebs' credibility.

 

Krebs' Credibility IS an Issue

Ramsey tipster painted as unreliable
California cops cite history of false reports; Boulder assigns 3 detectives to verify claims
By Christopher Anderson
Daily Camera, 2/28/2000

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. -- Sheriff's officials here say the woman claiming to have information critical to the JonBenet Ramsey murder case has a history of making false reports.

Among several alleged false claims, San Luis Obispo County sheriff's officials said investigators spent hundreds of hours looking into the woman's claim in 1991 that she had been raped, which an B]investigation never confirmed.[/B]

In that case the woman gave specific information, naming a suspect. Deputies later verified that the person had been out of state at the time the crime was alleged to have taken place and could not have been involved.

"She has filed a number of reports with us, and most of them have been determined to be unfounded," Deputy Sgt. C.J. Bell said.

Deputies have been called to the witness' home, in a town west of San Luis Obispo, to respond to several harassing phone calls, two cases of suspicious circumstances and a burglary, according to local law enforcement officials.

Law enforcement officials say the victim might have made even more calls for service in which officers chose not to file reports.
The woman made headlines in Colorado this week after giving a five-hour interview to Boulder police detectives Tuesday in which she described her own history of sexual abuse and its relationship to a possible sex ring that she said might have led to 6-year-old JonBenet's death.

Early in their investigation, Boulder police pursued the possibility that JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night of her murder. Search warrant affidavits indicated they searched the Ramsey household for evidence of pornography but found no such evidence.

Although Boulder police detectives noted credibility problems in the woman's statements, Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter pushed for a full investigation, saying witnesses who might have memory problems from past abuse should not automatically be discounted. The FBI also has interviewed the woman, who is now in hiding.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said Saturday three detectives are working on verifying the woman's information. He declined to comment further.

Boulder attorney Lee Hill, who represents the woman, said his client acknowledges making reports to local authorities that have not been followed up. But the woman denies that her reports were false, Hill said.

She could not be reached for comment Saturday.

"They have refused to believe her," Hill said of the woman's experience with California law enforcement officials. "This is part of the reason she is seeking a more objective law enforcement agency's review." [End]

They just can't be proven, that's all!

 

Last one, guys, promise

JonBenet investigation finds no child sex ring
Police investigating slaying checked out theory put forward by California woman
By Kevin McCullen
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer, 5/16/2000

BOULDER — Police said Monday they have found no evidence to support a California woman's theory that JonBenet Ramsey was killed by a child sex ring.

"We concluded there is no evidence to support her claims," said Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner. "We looked at her allegations to see if there was any connection at all to the Ramsey case, and we could not find any."

The 37-year-old woman and her attorney, Lee Hill, approached Boulder police and the district attorney's office in February with her allegations.

She claimed that 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey died Dec. 26, 1996, after she was physically and sexually abused by adults who were part of a child sex ring.

Boulder detectives spent 11 weeks investigating the claims and conducted 22 interviews, including interviews with the woman. They reviewed medical and psychological records, examined photographs, consulted a forensic psychiatrist and compared the claims against physical evidence.

Special Prosecutor Mike Kane, who works for Boulder DA Alex Hunter on the case, said he found there was "no credible evidence to link anything she alleges to the death of JonBenet."
Police forwarded to the FBI information the woman provided about the operation of a child sex ring. Beckner said detectives made no conclusions about the abuse the woman says she suffered for years in California. Hill was not immediately available for comment.

 

I will be contacting the Modesto DA on Monday to alert their office to the fact that these whackos have been injecting themselves into high-profile cases for more than a DECADE, changing their story ever so slightly to fit the occasion, and if you ask me this is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Guys we are PAYING the bill for LE to travel around investigating this BS and it's got to stop. So far Krebs alone has cost taxcpayers untold thousands of dollars and I for one resent it. And on top of that this idiot thinks she's going to threaten people with a lawsuit? She is either pathologically stupid or getting some very bad advice from some very stupid people. From what i understand the Modesto DA is pretty annoyed with recent game playing and I just want to make sure he knows where to look to find these needy, delusional morons.

I'm personally a bit fed up with this whole crock of chit. These morons who are propagating this crap are talking about people like George bush doing HUMAN SACRIFICES! Did you all know that? This is how frikkin STUPID these people are. It'd all be comical if it wasn't being used to obstruct justice and libel innocent people over and over again. How long until these con artists attract some whacko who might get it into their heads to assault one of the accused or worse?

Man if someone told me six years ago that the forums would have sunk to this I'd have laughed in their faces. Unfortunately the joke was on me.

 

Two things

First of all, BobC, it is my opinion that these people are mentally ill. They have demonstrated bizarre behavior over the past few years to the extent that I even think one or two of them could be dangerous. To say they are disturbed would be putting it mildly. I am glad you are contacting the authorities in Modesto. After this last fiasco, someone is going to have to look into these weirdos.

Second:

"We needed to take the time to complete a thorough investigation," <b>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.</b> Nor do we have any evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation.

I just want to point this out (<b>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.</b>) to the poster at jameson's who claimed as fact that in his comments about the investigation of MW, Beckner said they had no evidence that the Ramseys were involved in a sex ring who killed JBR, but he didn't say the same about the Whites. I'm not sure who the poster was now - I think it was Smokey.

I thought it important to refute that bit of misinformation by this poster. I read it once, maybe twice. It is not true. Beckner most certainly did say their was no evidence that the Whites were ever involved in anything like that. I do hope this poster will take note and correct her misinformation.

 

Yeah but they'll just repeat the same garbage tomorrow. I certainly agree they could be dangerous--could you imagine if, say, FW were a school teacher? He could have lost his job.

 

Defense Against Libel Charges

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/viewpage.cgi

First Amendment Handbook Chapter 1: Libel Defenses

Truth is generally a complete bar to recovery by any plaintiff who sues for libel. Making sure that any potentially libelous material can be proven true can avoid needless litigation.

Fair Report. Libelous statements made by others in certain settings are often conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings and grand jury deliberations.

Opinion is still protected speech under the First Amendment, although the Supreme Court limited the formerly broad reach of opinion protection in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal. 13 The court ruled that there is no separate opinion privilege, but because factual truth is a defense to a libel claim, an opinion with no "provably false factual connotation" is still protected.

As a result of this decision, courts will examine statements of opinion to see if they are based on or presume underlying facts. If these facts are false or defamatory, the "opinion" statements will not be protected.

Consent. If a person gives permission for the publication of the information, that person cannot later sue for libel. However, denial, refusal to answer or silence concerning the statement do not constitute consent.

The statute of limitations for bringing libel suits varies from state to state. Generally the time limit for filing a libel lawsuit starts at the time of the first publication of the alleged defamation. If the plaintiff does not sue within the statutory time period, the litigation can be barred.

Although a retraction is not usually considered an absolute defense to a libel claim, it may reduce the damages a defendant must pay if found liable for defamation. Before agreeing to publish a retraction, consult an attorney.

Anti-SLAPP statutes, which permit early dismissal of lawsuits that chill the exercise of free speech rights, may help the media defend against libel suits. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," and anti-SLAPP statutes protect those engaged in debate about controversial matters from lawsuits that would deter the exercise of their constitutional rights. 14

Endnotes:

13. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 (1990)

14. See Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co., 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (holding anti-SLAPP statute protects newspaper from meritless libel suit) and Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, 969 P.2d 564 (Cal. 1999) (holding speech made in connection with an "official proceeding" is made in connection with a "public issue" for purposes of anti-SLAPP statute).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------