Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey exoneration statement by DA

There are 200 comments on the Daily Camera story from Jan 24, 2014, titled Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey exoneration statement by DA. In it, Daily Camera reports that:

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett released a letter Friday showing he, too, had been pressed recently by acquaintances of John and Patsy Ramsey to issue a public statement exonerating them in JonBenet Ramsey's death, but that he declined to do so.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Camera.

M_B_M

Mobile, AL

#93 Jun 2, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
Ugh.
Well, my point for those not certifiable was that White wouldn't even need to mention the suitcase because 1. we already know from early accounts that he moved it a few inches and 2.eventually not even Smit maintained that it was under the window to be used as a stepping stool (so who cares). The only interesting things about the suitcase, imo, are when it arrived in the room and what physical evidence it might contain. Those are things Fleet White doesn't know about.
The Whites can write an interesting book and I'm pretty sure they won't be getting their legal advice from topix.
While I, too, would love to see the Whites write a book, I doubt it will ever happen.

Were they so inclined, I believe they would have done so by now. Thar is, unless Bechner's resignation has some bearing on their doing so.

Hm-m-m. Maybe they already HAVE?

I don't really believe they already have, but since they've gotten nowhere with him, who can tell WHAT their plans are?
candy

East Lansing, MI

#94 Jun 2, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
Ugh.
Well, my point for those not certifiable was that White wouldn't even need to mention the suitcase because 1. we already know from early accounts that he moved it a few inches and 2.eventually not even Smit maintained that it was under the window to be used as a stepping stool (so who cares). The only interesting things about the suitcase, imo, are when it arrived in the room and what physical evidence it might contain. Those are things Fleet White doesn't know about.
The Whites can write an interesting book and I'm pretty sure they won't be getting their legal advice from topix.
Who is "we"? JUDGE CARNES DOES NOT KNOW THAT. "Posters" on the internet "know" WHAT WHITE TOLD POLICE IN EARLIER INTERVIEWS, THAT HE CLAIMED WHEN UNDER OATH SAYING HE COULDN'T REMEMBER. Carnes does not know the vast majority of what posters do about White's actions that day, BECAUSE HE SAID HE COULDN'T REMEMBER THEM. She only knows what SWORN testimony came from the depositions in that case. Not the mountain of self serving statements NOT UNDER OATH that he made, contradicting what he claimed he could remember under oath. So she has a VASTLY SKEWED picture of the man and his actions that day, and in this case. I wonder what she would have made of his anti Ramsey comments to the Boulder City Council. CARNES WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT MAN.

LOL about their "legal advice." Yeah, that's why they ended up having to pay LAWYERS FEES to the Boulder City attorney's office, something that almost NEVER HAPPENS. That's why Stan Garnett had to make sure that when their latest court filing was DISMISSED it would be "with prejudice", so the clueless Whites COULD NOT file the same action YET AGAIN.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#95 Jun 2, 2014
I have to say that I'm not particularly interested in Carnes and what she thinks. I'm interested in what might the Whites might write about.

You, Candy, seem to think that if they say anything that is in any way different from what they have said in her courtroom (and/or grand jury?) that they're going to be hit with a perjury charge from somewhere. Or maybe this is just what you hope will happen. I can't really understand what you're saying, but this is the most rational thing I can come up with.(And you hate Fleet White. My condolences.)

Hence (that word) my suggestion that the Whites just skirt the issue by not commenting on things such as moving a suitcase, especially since nobody gives a flip about whether or not it was under the window or five inches away from it.

I'm pretty sure the neurotypicals, if any there be on topix, have a pretty good bead on the small point I was making. Please continue to rant away if it makes you happy.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#96 Jun 2, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
I have to say that I'm not particularly interested in Carnes and what she thinks. I'm interested in what might the Whites might write about.
You, Candy, seem to think that if they say anything that is in any way different from what they have said in her courtroom (and/or grand jury?) that they're going to be hit with a perjury charge from somewhere. Or maybe this is just what you hope will happen. I can't really understand what you're saying, but this is the most rational thing I can come up with.(And you hate Fleet White. My condolences.)
Hence (that word) my suggestion that the Whites just skirt the issue by not commenting on things such as moving a suitcase, especially since nobody gives a flip about whether or not it was under the window or five inches away from it.
I'm pretty sure the neurotypicals, if any there be on topix, have a pretty good bead on the small point I was making. Please continue to rant away if it makes you happy.
Yeah, people give a flip about it, especially lawyers, which is why they asked him about it. He's moving things around a crime scene. It's an important issue. He didn't "skirt" the issue, HE LIED ABOUT IT. WHY CAN'T HE TELL THE TRUTH UNDER OATH? Yes, it matters if you tell a different story under oath. THE WHOLE PROCESS IS A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. People are deposed and put under oath to elicit TRUTHFUL answers to determine where the truth lies. Perjury is spitting in the face of the whole process, which is why it is taken so seriously. Carnes felt SHE KNEW what the truth was in this case, that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey, THANKS TO FLEET WHITE'S TESTIMONY and others. It doesn't matter if you care about that opinion or not. Thanks to her willingness to go out on a limb and EXONORATE the Ramseys, the opinion is PUBLISHED, a WELL KNOWN opinion in legal circles. ALL OF THAT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. It had a HUGE effect, leading to Lacy writing her own opinion agreeing with Carnes and then exonorating the Ramseys herself. It also led to the Patsy Ramsey did it theory being completely BANNED from mainstream media, since Thomas also took the time to SETTLE with the Ramseys during the Wolf case. Kolar's self published book received almost NO coverage from the mainstream media until AFTER Charlie's article about the grand jury indictment of the Ramseys.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#97 Jun 3, 2014
[QUOTE who="candy"}
Yeah, people give a flip about it, especially lawyers, which is why they asked him about it. He's moving things around a crime scene. It's an important issue. He didn't "skirt" the issue, HE LIED ABOUT IT. WHY CAN'T HE TELL THE TRUTH UNDER OATH? Yes, it matters if you tell a different story under oath. THE WHOLE PROCESS IS A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. People are deposed and put under oath to elicit TRUTHFUL answers to determine where the truth lies. Perjury is spitting in the face of the whole process, which is why it is taken so seriously. Carnes felt SHE KNEW what the truth was in this case, that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey, THANKS TO FLEET WHITE'S TESTIMONY and others. It doesn't matter if you care about that opinion or not. Thanks to her willingness to go out on a limb and EXONORATE the Ramseys, the opinion is PUBLISHED, a WELL KNOWN opinion in legal circles. ALL OF THAT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. It had a HUGE effect, leading to Lacy writing her own opinion agreeing with Carnes and then exonorating the Ramseys herself. It also led to the Patsy Ramsey did it theory being completely BANNED from mainstream media, since Thomas also took the time to SETTLE with the Ramseys during the Wolf case. Kolar's self published book received almost NO coverage from the mainstream media until AFTER Charlie's article about the grand jury indictment of the Ramseys.[/QUOTE]

OK, well, I think you and I are talking at cross-purposes.

You think, justifiably, that Fleet White lied when he had sworn to tell the truth and his convenient memory loss possibly hurt an innocent man and probably helped a bad one. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm taking that as a given.

Now you'll post something crazy and make me dislike you again. Go ahead.
whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#98 Jun 3, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Uh huh, LOL, linguistics says otherwise, but ~
~snip~.
Don't quit your day job.
whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#99 Jun 3, 2014
M_B_M wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just have my doubts as to any actual discussion will happen here since it's been shown repeatedly that anyone espousing an opinion or view that is in opposition the the "group" here will eventually be run off, one way or another.
And, like you, Mama2, I am interested in reading the theory. I think it should prove interesting to many of those who no longer waste their time looking for comments from posters other than those who believe theirs are the only ones that are worthwhile.
I believe there is a whole lot more to this case than anyone can imagine...
"Mama2.." and M_B_M:

I've seen this stifling of discussion happen a great deal when people try to explore the 'controversial' NK aspects of the JBR case. So much so that it cannot be a coincidence. In my opinion, from their perspective it only makes sense for them to pay shills whose job it is to misdirect all attempts to give NK's testimony a fair hearing. After all, if her testimony were truly given it's due and all her leads were ruthlessly run down a lot of people would be in jail and their reputations destroyed forever.[not to mention the fatal interruption of a massive, and massively filthy, income stream]
What is my theory? Just read NK's depos. When you do take her at her word [for why would she lie? She had nothing to gain and everything to lose. And lose she did] and then match it up with the evidence. it quickly becomes glaringly obvious what happened to JBR that night at the 'party' and what sort of people we are [allegedly] dealing with here. My theory [which was Nancy's theory first] matches exactly with the indictment of the Ramsey's:[I always knew an indictment had been handed down and that AH was too much of a coward to pursue it]

the Ramseys did "unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

In other words, the indictment says the Ramsey's covered up the murder of their child. Why would they do that? Because [allegedly] the murder occurred during the 'felonious' commission of the crime of child [sexual] abuse.[sexual abuse is a fact not a supposition no matter how much the Ramsey team bleats and denies ] Put that together with what NK says used to happen to her during her [filmed] assaults and Dr. Cyril Wecht's contention that JB was strangled first and the head wound was a cover-up.[very little blood from wound so it MUST have occurred at or very near post-mortem] and you've got the only theory of the crime that makes use of all of the facts as we know them.[plus the circumstantial evidence all tends to support NK's theory, such as the guests from Cali whose pics we aren't allowed to see etc.]

whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#100 Jun 3, 2014
Just to be CLEAR, all of the above is my THEORY of the crime. ALL OF IT IS ~ALLEGED~. Also I wanted to add to this sentence. The addition is bracketed within asterisks.***.

"In other words, the indictment says the Ramsey's covered up the murder of their child. Why would they do that? Because [allegedly] the murder occurred during the 'felonious' commission of the crime of child [sexual] abuse.[sexual abuse is a fact not a supposition no matter how much the Ramsey team bleats and denies ]***and the Ramsey's [allegedly, according to Nancy's THEORY] knew of and allowed this abuse to occur. According to this theory they HAD to cover up or risk exposure of their complicity in this heinous activity.***[Also, if the Grand Jury heard anything of NK's story, it could be that this theory of the crime is exactly what the GJ indictment was meant to convey. I seriously doubt they believed BDI and that the R's were covering up for HIM.]
M_B_M

Mobile, AL

#101 Jun 3, 2014
whodunnit wrote:
Just to be CLEAR, all of the above is my THEORY of the crime. ALL OF IT IS ~ALLEGED~. Also I wanted to add to this sentence. The addition is bracketed within asterisks.***.
"In other words, the indictment says the Ramsey's covered up the murder of their child. Why would they do that? Because [allegedly] the murder occurred during the 'felonious' commission of the crime of child [sexual] abuse.[sexual abuse is a fact not a supposition no matter how much the Ramsey team bleats and denies ]***and the Ramsey's [allegedly, according to Nancy's THEORY] knew of and allowed this abuse to occur. According to this theory they HAD to cover up or risk exposure of their complicity in this heinous activity.***[Also, if the Grand Jury heard anything of NK's story, it could be that this theory of the crime is exactly what the GJ indictment was meant to convey. I seriously doubt they believed BDI and that the R's were covering up for HIM.]
Thank you, whodunnit, for your explanation and then for this clarification. I am open to your theory especally since you are saying yours was originally Nancy's. And while I hate to admit it, I've never read her complete story. But I know it can be found in several areas on the Internet, so my next project is to read everything I can find on it so I'll have a better understanding of what you're saying.

From the little I do know, I've felt for a very long time that LE should have delved more deeply into her claims -- especially those about John Ramsey. It's been my opinion for a very long time that JR is covering up things that happened in his past and what can be claimed as his "connection" to Fleet White. It has NEVER made sense to me that JR would lawyer up only members of his family who would know about such things...

Of course, the biggest red flag is this: Why did neither John Ramsey nor Fleet White initiate a lawsuit against Nancy Krebs for defamation of character? While they might not have gained a financial reward, such a lawsuit would ucover the veracity of NK's claims.

But IMO that is what they did NOT want revealed....

And it goes without saying that all this is pure speculation on my part and represents my opinion, only.
whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#102 Jun 3, 2014
M_B_M wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, whodunnit, for your explanation and then for this clarification. I am open to your theory especally since you are saying yours was originally Nancy's. And while I hate to admit it, I've never read her complete story. But I know it can be found in several areas on the Internet, so my next project is to read everything I can find on it so I'll have a better understanding of what you're saying.
From the little I do know, I've felt for a very long time that LE should have delved more deeply into her claims -- especially those about John Ramsey. It's been my opinion for a very long time that JR is covering up things that happened in his past and what can be claimed as his "connection" to Fleet White. It has NEVER made sense to me that JR would lawyer up only members of his family who would know about such things...
Of course, the biggest red flag is this: Why did neither John Ramsey nor Fleet White initiate a lawsuit against Nancy Krebs for defamation of character? While they might not have gained a financial reward, such a lawsuit would ucover the veracity of NK's claims.
But IMO that is what they did NOT want revealed....
And it goes without saying that all this is pure speculation on my part and represents my opinion, only.
Absolutely, my opinion only as well.

The truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander. If FW and/or JR ever filed suit against NK all of her allegations would come under judicial scrutiny in order to ascertain their veracity.
M_B_M

Mobile, AL

#103 Jun 3, 2014
whodunnit wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely, my opinion only as well.
The truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander. If FW and/or JR ever filed suit against NK all of her allegations would come under judicial scrutiny in order to ascertain their veracity.
My point exactly. And why they don't WANT the truth to come out... Or should I say, and why they don't want to file charges against her!

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#104 Jun 4, 2014
1) I don't see a theory in what you have written; 2) I don't see a theory in what you have written that holds water ~ there is no circumstantial evidence to support the Krebs theory, and if you really had read the transcripts you would see that LE did disprove what she was saying,(for example her mom and niece attending the party). I don't see how you can twist a negative into a positive. This wasn't Nancy's first rodeo of attempting to insert her craziness into a case that had nothing to do with her!

LE interviewed the guests from CA. Everyone at the White's was interviewed. Everyone at the White's party was interviewed.

So 'you' haven't seen the pictures so that is somehow a red flag? LE has seen them.
whodunnit wrote:

What is my theory?

Put that together with what NK says~~~

~~~and you've got the only theory of the crime that makes use of all of the facts as we know them.[plus the circumstantial evidence all tends to support NK's theory, such as the guests from Cali whose pics we aren't allowed to see etc.]

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#105 Jun 5, 2014
Actually, that suitcase is interesting--but not because Fleet White moved it a few inches.

In '97 John Ramsey called it a "new Samsonite suitcase," implying he didn't recognize it. Patsy recognized it as John Andrew's but didn't remember where she'd last seen it.

In '98 John said he took the suitcase downstairs and left it on a landing, which sounds like he left it on the first floor or a mezzanine.(He said he was cleaning up. That suitcase has its own room. Why not put it there?) Patsy said that she last saw it in the basement near the water heater.

The cops seem to think that particular suitcase lived under John Andrew's bed. If so, it seems unlikely an intruder would remove it from there, especially if he just wanted something to give him a boost out the window, especially because there was a chair in the hallway outside the train room.

I think even Lou Smit abandoned the idea that the intruder used the suitcase as a step stool so what was it doing in the train room if it really was put there that night?

If an intruder who had been roaming the house for hours wanted to put JonBenet's body in a suitcase, it seems like he would pick one of the roller bags Patsy had out on John Andrew's bed.(I can't find a photo at the moment, but that's what she said the family used and there apparently were suitcases on his bed.)

But if Patsy toyed with the idea of putting JonBenet in a suitcase and tossing her into a ravine, she might not want to burn one of her good roller bags.
real Topaz

AOL

#106 Jun 5, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
Actually, that suitcase is interesting--but not because Fleet White moved it a few inches.
In '97 John Ramsey called it a "new Samsonite suitcase," implying he didn't recognize it. Patsy recognized it as John Andrew's but didn't remember where she'd last seen it.
In '98 John said he took the suitcase downstairs and left it on a landing, which sounds like he left it on the first floor or a mezzanine.(He said he was cleaning up. That suitcase has its own room. Why not put it there?) Patsy said that she last saw it in the basement near the water heater.
The cops seem to think that particular suitcase lived under John Andrew's bed. If so, it seems unlikely an intruder would remove it from there, especially if he just wanted something to give him a boost out the window, especially because there was a chair in the hallway outside the train room.
I think even Lou Smit abandoned the idea that the intruder used the suitcase as a step stool so what was it doing in the train room if it really was put there that night?
If an intruder who had been roaming the house for hours wanted to put JonBenet's body in a suitcase, it seems like he would pick one of the roller bags Patsy had out on John Andrew's bed.(I can't find a photo at the moment, but that's what she said the family used and there apparently were suitcases on his bed.)
But if Patsy toyed with the idea of putting JonBenet in a suitcase and tossing her into a ravine, she might not want to burn one of her good roller bags.
uh, Patsy also claimed to use Hefty bags as 'soft luggage', so no telling what the 'intruder' thought to pack her in. lol
candy

East Lansing, MI

#107 Jun 6, 2014
In a last ditch effort to obtain the police Krebs files that are part of the Ramsey case, the entire White family, Fleet, Priscilla and their two young adult children, Fleet III and Daphne, spoke this past Tuesday before the Boulder City Council. The tape starts at the 1:35:50 mark:

http://boulderco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php...

As every time they have appeared before the Boulder City Council, the Whites are very impressive witnesses. The two White young adults, Fleet III and Daphne, were both star athletes at Boulder High and now distinguished graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy. They both are impressive and did a good job explaining why they believe they should get the records they have sought for so long.

BUT, the same thing would have been accomplished if they sued Nancy Krebs and put her under oath and asked her how and why she took these allegations and put them in the middle of the OPEN JonBenet Ramsey homicide case.

Fleet III talks about living in the internet age, having the same name as his Dad, and what turns up in an internet search of his name. Krebs isn't all that comes up. Their exonoration comes up, etc. The mainstream media dropped this story the next day when the San Luis Obesto Police Chief called Krebs "fruit loops." It's primarily posters on the internet peddling her claims. What the Whites could do is put up their own webpage about this false claim, with links to all the pertinent documents they legally obtained 10 years ago, the May 15, 2000 statement by the BPD saying the investigation of Krebs claims turned up nothing relevant to the JonBenet Ramsey case either. That's more than enough proof for people that these allegations of Krebs are baseless. Why she came forward when she did, AFTER, the grand jury, and WHY she did are all good questions, but LE in Boulder has legitimate rights and interests also in their OPEN homicide investigation. Once again, this is the law cited by Chief Beckner in 2011 and Judge Montgomery in 2002 as to why the Whites could not have the records they sought.

"Your request for this material is denied. These are not records of "official action" as defined in C.R.S. 24-72-302 (7). They are NON DISCLOSABLE "criminal justice investigative files" pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-305 (5). There are third party privacy interests that will be impacted by the disclosure of this information. Additionally, disclosure of this information may impact a pending BPD criminal investigation."
M_B_M

Mobile, AL

#108 Jun 6, 2014
"What the Whites could do is put up their own webpage about this false claim, with links to all the pertinent documents they legally obtained 10 years ago, the May 15, 2000 statement by the BPD saying

the investigation of Krebs' claims turned up nothing relevant to the JonBenet Ramsey case either. That's more than enough proof for people that these allegations of Krebs are baseless."

My question: If the investigation into Krebs' claims turned up nothing relevanrt to the JBR case, how can THIS (the following) be true?

"disclosure of this information may impact a pending BPD criminal investigation."

It just sounds to me like LE in Boulder is bending everything concerning the Krebs case to conform to their needs/desires.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#109 Jun 6, 2014
Quote : "It just sounds to me like LE in Boulder is bending everything concerning the Krebs case to conform to their needs/desires."

I don't. Two Judges agreed with law enforcement, this second Judge made sure to dismiss the case w/ prejudice, like the DA wanted, so they couldn't bring it again, AND make the Whites pay legal fees, not just court costs. That is VERY RARE.

There is a proper time for the Whites to get the info they want, and it's AFTER a prosecution and conviction in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide. JONBENET'S CASE COMES FIRST. Fleet doesn't always know what's right, and he personally caused major damage in the Ramsey case, when he disobeyed Linda Arndt and went back down to the CRIME SCENE and picked up the duct tape of all things, and put it back down on the white blanket, CONTAMINATING THAT EVIDENCE. He thought he knew better than Arndt, but Arndt was protecting the evidence and crime scene. Then his actions hurt the Miller and Wolf cases in major ways. I could EASILY see these "third party interests" being furious their info, etc. was disclosed to the Whites without their consent, and demanding and gettting ALL their testimony excluded, doing WHO KNOWS WHAT damage. There is NO statute of limitations applicable ANYWAY, so they have to wait, like all the other bus victims of the Ramseys.

It would open the door to , who knows next? Ariana Pugh had a witchhunt "investigation" against her that I'll bet she would like to know every detail about, and why shouldn't she know? Those people are WAITING for Justice, for JonBenet FIRST AND FOREMOST, AND themselves, who were horribly wronged in the process.
whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#110 Jun 8, 2014
M_B_M wrote:
"What the Whites could do is put up their own webpage about this false claim, with links to all the pertinent documents they legally obtained 10 years ago, the May 15, 2000 statement by the BPD saying
the investigation of Krebs' claims turned up nothing relevant to the JonBenet Ramsey case either. That's more than enough proof for people that these allegations of Krebs are baseless."
My question: If the investigation into Krebs' claims turned up nothing relevanrt to the JBR case, how can THIS (the following) be true?
"disclosure of this information may impact a pending BPD criminal investigation."
It just sounds to me like LE in Boulder is bending everything concerning the Krebs case to conform to their needs/desires.
You've nailed the pertinent point. The KREBS information CANNOT impact the criminal investigation UNLESS the information is pertinent to.. THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. IF THE INFORMATION IS PERTINENT TO THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION...as it is stated...then her infromation is valid, credible, AND PERTINENT TO THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

People keep saying that BPD checked on NK's allegations BUT NOBODY CAN SAY FOR CERTAIN WHAT BPD did to refute or corroborate NK's testimony because nobody has seen the investigative files..YOU KNOW, THOSE THINGS FW KEPT GOING TO COURT TO GET HIS HANDS ON. But some of the information gleaned and recorded in those files during the investigation must be mighty interesting because they may IMPACT THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. information THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION CANNOT, BY DEFINITION, HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE INVESTIGATION.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Dr. Seuss up there states that LE has seen the photos so why should I need to see them..[interestingly, I have heard this exact argument more than once] His/her childlike trust in LE is touching and all, but would he/she feel the same if we were asked to take the same attitude with potentially damning info about the R's? Oh wait...

In any case, I'll say it again: WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT BPD DID OR DID NOT DO DURING IT'S INVESTIGATION OF NK'S ALLEGATIONS. All we have is the word of LE because we don't have the files. You have to wonder if an analogy can be drawn to the fact that the DA's office kept exonerating the R's even while knowing, and keeping secret, that a GJ had indicted the parents for covering up the murder/murderer of their daughter.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#111 Jun 8, 2014
There is NOTHING to "refute or corroborate" in NK's "testimony." She's FRUIT LOOPS. There's NO sex ring, nothing to investigate. SHE'S the only witness that has ever come forward and she's NEVER had any proof of anything. There was nothing for the BPD or FBI to EVER investigate, and she never took her "proof" to anywhere else, like the mainstream media or international law enforcement. She's one of the mentally ill people that glom on to these high profile cases.

Law enforcement doesn't know what is relevant until they charge someone. All they know is she came forward for the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, and everything she had to say about that is in the case file. Ariana Pugh's "investigation" is pure hot air as well. You DON'T go declassifying these "investigations" credible or not" until AFTER the case has been closed.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#112 Jun 8, 2014
Fleet White created this situation when he EXCLUDED suing Nancy Krebs, the originator of these claims, but WEIRDLY sued the government, the media, and internet posters. EVERYONE BUT NANCY KREBS. His son, Fleet III said "the filth and lies" that the "Boulder Daily Camera and Alex Hunter" said about his family. He deliberately leaves out that they had a complaining witness KREBS. KREBS is at the center of this. The Boulder Daily Camera, Alex Hunter, internet posters all didn't fabricate this situation. There was a real person making these claims Krebs. All the others just reported what she said, or some posters said they believed her themselves. You sue the one who made the allegation. He knows that, and he never did, and never sued John Ramsey either for the numerous times the Ramseys threw the Whites under the bus.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Memorial Day 2 hr ICU2 5
Another book? 7 hr berrytea333 2
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 22 hr ICU2 195
Home Invasion (Aug '09) Sat candy 21
Question about the red turtleneck (Jul '10) May 22 candy 127
Patsy to Priscilla "Call the FBI" May 22 candy 4
Did Hunter Know? May 22 candy 7
More from around the web