Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 19 of 19
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
    Posts
    41

    Thumbs up Sparky!! Howdy!!

    I keep thinking I've tried to be noticed the wrong way!! Shucks, if I had been even crazier than I already am and became obsessed with strange rich people and weird deaths, maybe I'd have my own forum, get on TV (stringy hair and all), get away with multitudes of lies and threats, get mentioned in books, and make money on the deal. Damnation and hellfire, I've been in the wrong business all along. Ole' Jams has cornered the market on this. I guess I'll just have to hang around with a better group of people (JW, of course) and do without all that money and fame!!

  2. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Cool ok

    Hi Fly. I agree and disagree with you on Foster.

    You are absolutely correct in you description of Foster coming to the wrong conclusion about the Ramsey's being innocent and Jammy being JAR. Foster did not use his well proven method of taking known writing samples for comparason. However I disagree with you assesment about Foster having "way too much baggage thanks to his ill-advised actions."

    Like Voyager pointed out, Foster was thinking and acting with his heart. Foster was emotional about the death of a wonderful little girl.

    All a good Prosecuter has to do is point out that Foster was human, trying to help without having all the information, then go point by point, with Foster, as to why Pasty is the author of the note. Using Foster's already proven ( and still in use by the authorities) method of determining who the author is.

    Would this be an easy thing to do? No. However it would be worth the effort it would take to get Foster up on the stand and convince the jury Foster is human like the rest of us and will make mistakes as he goes along in life. Also when the jury sees how Foster came to his true conclusion all of the other muck with Jammy will be forgotten.

    jmho

    Tricia

  3. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Georgetown, TX
    Posts
    3,947

    Default Hirself

    Jeanilou, hirself has gone beyond merely mentioning us on hir forum; Jameson has posted (or allowed to be posted) a post using my hat and included said post in hir timeline based on the info I have been sent by others. Hir should have checked in here first and hir would have known to have stated someone emailed hir the info. But then Jameson seldom checks hir facts based on what I have seen. Even when hir is informed hir hasn't done so Jameson doesn't go back and correct hir own misinformation. Even more pathetic, it is clear from some of hir posts Jameson has never read the Ramsey's book. Now, one would think when hir was informed hir post was discrediting a statement from DOI Jameson would rush to correct it. Wake up Ramseys, shed hir like a snake sheds it's skin. Jameson makes you look more guilty than anyone involved in the case other than perhaps your own behavior.

    Much as I would love to be able to do so, I cannot be in two places at the same time nor do I have an ESP Internet link. I have a number of witnesses to the fact that I did not post the auction on Jameson's forum. Love that it's there though, maybe we will get some outside bids and anything that will help Steve makes it worth the irritation of having hirself stoop so low once again to help the Ramseys. One would think the Ramseys would have figured out by now that hirself makes them look guilty whether they are or aren't.

    I agree with you Fly, in theory, but remember, this is an extremely emotional case and I too believe many jurors would understand Foster's lack of good judgment. Add another expert or two that basically states his analysis is correct even if he did allow himself to be led down the garden path by hirself *(IF he did) and IMHO it won't matter "in the grand scheme of things." What does hurt his credibility is his letter to the Ramsey's.

    *(If he did) I was there when this took place and yes, hirself worked very hard to convince us all hir was male. All I can say is you can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, which is why hir got exposed fairly quickly and why hir has no credibility with many of us. Add Jameson's continual manipulation of the case info, twisting and spinning of post from other forum and so on and it is beyond my comprehension how anyone could bring themselves to believe a word hir says much less post on her silly bigoted forum.

    I can say this, in my circle of friends, all it would have taken is to see the poor judgment of posting that lynch mob picture the first time for us to walk away and never look back. The fact that hir clearly has no judgment because hir has posted it more than once should tell everyone just how ignorant hir is. Toss in hir linking to a porn site when hir forum is not child protected; the porn site was not child protected; hir didn't warn hir readers that they were being taken to such a site and hir supposedly has a young child and hir rabid protection of the Ramsey's plus hir admittedly being a liar when it's to hir advantage and no jury in the world is going to base their verdict on hir's testimony IMHO.

  4. #16

    Default Jameson's hat

    I think that is why Jameson stated in her outting chat that she was not the first one to use the computer, that she did not even give out her email addy for the first week or so because she did not know her own email address.

    Also, I know until the latter months of 98 Jameson has used two providers. The AOL addy and the abts. net provider. Why does she need two internet providers? Is Jameson aka SueB really using the AOL account?

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default I'm not so sure

    I'm not so sure that Foster was wrong in his analysis that jameson was a male and maybe even the killer AT THAT TIME. Everyone on this thread has made excellent, well-thought-out points, and if we take jameson's word as gospel, then of course Foster goofed.

    Jameson has proved to me that she cannot be trusted to tell the truth. There are many witnesses to the chat log where "he" outs himself as a "she." Yet, she claims the log has been edited. What that excuse does is give her license to say anything she wants to at any time with impunity, later claiming that someone edited the posts or logs. All those posters who were at that chat are not lying. Jameson is lying.

    So, who's to say she isn't lying about who was using her hat in the first place? Do we know it wasn't a male? SHE says in the chat that it was she, but why should we believe her? She is on record as bragging about what a good liar she is. She denies that was her, too.

    Exactly who is the jameson hat? Is jameson a split personality?
    Was a male jameson personality using the hat in the early days of this case, or was it another person altogether? How can jameson prove she was the only one using the jameson hat? Well, of course, she can't. Can she prove the posts all came from her computer, her ISP? Perhaps. Can she prove she wrote all the posts? Nope. Could prosecutors prove Foster was set up? Probably not, but they could sure make a damn good case for it.

    Someone mentioned the word "sneaky" in reference to jameson. That is exactly the word I use to describe Susan Bennett. She is a sneak. She never misses an opportunity to gloat, as GL said, starting threads glorifying herself as the end-all authority on the JB case and the one who took Foster down.

    Well, I don't believe it. I don't believe one word that comes out of her lying mouth. People like jameson are dangerous. They are not very bright, have little conscience, but they've got gigunda gonads to go along with their inflated egos, and they will use whatever means they must to have their own way. That combination can be lethal, because people like that know no boundaries. They talk integrity, but they have none. There are a few other people on these forums I put in this category (not on this forum) - people who may be educated but they are not real swift in the critical thinking department, although they think they are, and their arrogance knows no bounds.

    I have watched the jameson hat for years, and though I think Susan Bennett is the only one using the hat now, I don't believe that was the case in the beginning, even though she will say it was.

    Did Foster overstep his own bounds? Yes, he did. He is a professional. He had no business trying to decipher any personna on an internet forum where personal agendas run rampant and sick minds have free rein. Though he may indeed have correctly identified the jameson hat as a male in the early days (no one will ever know the truth on that), he made grievous errors by putting his professional reputation on the line and writing Patsy Ramsey a letter stating a belief in her innocence. It's tough to get over that one. Was he so taken by that southern bell act that he acted like a fool? I will never understand that one.

    As for analyzing the jameson hat as a male, and the killer, and as JAR, he acted very foolish and unprofessional. But, was he wrong? I don't know. Only jameson, and perhaps the one who was using the jameson hat, if there was another, know the answer to that, and no one can trust her to tell the truth.

    Sneak jameson will probably steal this post and drag it to her bog where she will categorically deny every word in it, LOL, sigh, *grin*, , she will probably lock down her forum while she does it so no one can naysay her, but it doesn't matter to me. It's my opinion, and my opinion that she is a sneaky, stupid, controlling woman with little or no conscience is verified by her actions.

    JR openly told jameson to register on this forum instead of just lurking and post here where she will face opposition and cannot delete posts that make her look like the fool she is (yes, we know she is here and when she is here), but the only reason she would ever do that is because I say she won't do it. Like I said - gigunda gonads that are bigger than her brain.

    My point, and I do have one, LOL, is that all anyone on these forums can do is surface judge, because the currents running beneath hat personnas can be deep and deceptive - nothing as it seems, as we have seen with the male/female master/mistress (she thinks) of deception, jameson. Do not ever trust her, do not ever believe anything she says until you see/hear it with your own eyes, and even then, question it's origin.
    Last edited by Watching You; January 26, 2002, 11:21 am at Sat Jan 26 11:21:31 UTC 2002.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  6. #18

    Default Very nicely put WY

    You express exactly what I have been trying to say about Susan Bennett. I am glad to see I am not alone in what I suspect about hir.

    I firmly believe if there is ever a criminal trial in the JBR case, that Prof Foster will called to testify. And then Susan Bennett will have to prove hir actually wrote all those emails, posts and chat rooms sessions.

    Well all is said and done, it is Prof Foster who will be believed, not Susan. And Susan knows this. That is why hir keeps harping that she has discredited him as if this was a fact. But the truth be known, Foster has not been discredited, or Susan would not be so worried about him.

  7. #19

    Default admissibility

    VP - I have to wonder whether Foster's testimony would be admissible even if he did a new analysis using samples obtained appropriately. No legal expert here, but my understanding is that there has to be reasonable proof that there is good science behind an analysis. I question whether Foster's technique would meet that standard yet. If he were allowed to testify, my bet is he'd be under some very strict limitations as to exactly what he would say.



Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  3. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  4. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •