Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 154
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado Babe
    Why do you guys even allow yourselves to play into Jameson's game? Jameson is just a lonely housewife who has nothing else to do but try to get your goat and everybody elses. We all know the Ramsey's had internet access. For pete sakes, it was 1996 and thousands of people had computers in their homes. Even if they didn't know how to hook it up to the internet, I'm sure they paid someone to do it. Come on, think about it...Would our dear Patsy have a computer in her house and not have it hooked up to the internet?. I think not...She had friends and influential people she needed to impress..So forget what Jameson says, she is a nothing and not worth our trouble.
    Well, for starters, I don't consider myself to be playing into anyone's game. I think it would be plaing into her game to accept her propaganda without question.

    I'm not even sure why it is important to her or her members to have us think that the Ramseys DIDN'T have Internet access. It wasn't as though the police found pornography. I'm sure we would have heard if they had. The Tracey documentary mentioned somehting about pornography, but I intrpreted it to be comment about the pageant stuff and not claims that porn had been found in the house.

    jameosn claims insider information and has put out numerous lies which I consider to be dirty tricks - something which I abhor. Examples of her dirty tricks have been 1) her repeated claims that Michael kane tried to destroy evidence when in fact it was illegal copies of the police files he sought to have destroyed and 2) her claims that the Ramseys inconclusive polygraph was due to polygrapher error - a total fabrication.

    Since new readers come to the forums every day (and I have seen several new British posters since Tuesday's documentary), I think it's important to remind people of the credibility issues in certain quarters.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  2. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Conifer, Colorado
    Posts
    1,902

    Default Jayelles

    Gotcha.

    CB

  3. #15

    Default Jayelles

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Well, for starters, I don't consider myself to be playing into anyone's game. I think it would be plaing into her game to accept her propaganda without question.

    Since new readers come to the forums every day (and I have seen several new British posters since Tuesday's documentary), I think it's important to remind people of the credibility issues in certain quarters.

    I am 100% behind you on this Jayelles.

    ================================================== =
    ACandyRose (aka ACR)

    ACandyRose Timelines:
    Erica Lynn Parsons Case Timeline Index
    http://www.acandyrose.com/erica_parsons_timeline.htm
    JonBenet Ramsey Archive still here after 17 years !!
    http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-15thStreet.htm
    http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,411

    Wink Jayelles

    Keep up the good work.

    You are the anti-jameson.

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LurkerXIV
    Keep up the good work.

    You are the anti-jameson.
    Oh please NO!!! LOL
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  6. #18
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    I'm with you, CB. Catching Jameson lying is like catching Reverand Al Sharpton being black. She is a Stepford wife. All she does is parrot whatever the Ramseys say so who cares? I mean to even entertain the thought that someone like John Ramsey, who was selling computers for a living, didn't himself own a computer or have internet access is beneath absurd. Way beneath. Jameson is a psychopath. Ignore her.

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Well, for starters, I don't consider myself to be playing into anyone's game. I think it would be plaing into her game to accept her propaganda without question. ...

    Since new readers come to the forums every day (and I have seen several new British posters since Tuesday's documentary), I think it's important to remind people of the credibility issues in certain quarters.
    Testing how to quote & use italics. I couldn't agree more with this, Jayelles. People should know it is nothing more than her forum to have her say her way. (Her words.) I saw her bring your posts over to her site often.

  8. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default ROFL - jameson spins again

    jameson responds:-

    BORG also wrote that I claim "... the Ramseys inconclusive polygraph was due to polygrapher error" - - not quite right. The polygrapher told me that the "inconclusive" result was not anyone's "error" - it was simply an inconclusive result.
    Let me jog her memory:-

    24 . "thread cleared out"
    Posted by jameson on Nov-17-01 at 00:07 AM (EST)

    I am traveling, but, as usual, I have my laptop and do check in.
    The flames were deleted.

    The posts containing misinformation were deleted (The truth is that the Ramseys failed NO polygraphs. They took one before Gelb administered one to them - and it was considered non-conclusive because of an error on the part of the polygrapher.
    She also says:-

    BORG wrote that I claimed "...Michael kane tried to destroy evidence when in fact it was illegal copies of the police files he sought to have destroyed"

    No - hewas asking to destroy the powerpoint presentation and nowhere is there documentation that it was a COPY of anything - as far as i know, it was the only copy in existance.
    Oh Deary Me - word games. Lou Smit's PowerPoint presentation was made from crime scene photographs and other documents which he had illegally scanned before he resigned. So strictly speaking, yes the PowerPoint presentation itself was not a copy in its entirety.

    BUT, Michael Kane did not seek to have Smit destroy "a PowerPoint Presentation," he sought to have him erase all copies of the images and scans which he had removed illegally from the police files. Read the Complaint for injunctive relief:-

    Go through the Complaint with a finetooth comb and you will find that Hunter/Kane only requested permission to permanently erase those scans and photocopies which Smit made. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS AND IMAGES WHICH STILL EXISTED. In fact, PowerPoint presentation isn't even mentioned in the Complaint.

    http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02011999huntervssmit.htm

    Common sense should tell readers that Michael kane didn't go to court and ask for permission to erase evidence which pointed to an intruder so that he could frame the ramseys!

    jameson spins again.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  9. #21

    Default

    jameson
    Member since 5-8-02
    06-19-04, 08:42 PM (EST)

    "idiotic BORG posts"

    (obviously not from here - - we don't allow misinformation.)
    Dejadoesn'tknow wrote, "Well, well, well. After sitting inactive for all these years, how timely that the Hell Hole has just been sold for a million bucks. Say hello to John Ramsey's campaign funds..."

    How typical for a BORg to hear the house was sold and jump to this rant.

    "The Ramseys have not owned that house for years and don't stand to make a penny off this sale."

    You lying sack of :(:(:(:(! WE ALL KNOW who owned 15th St up until the most recent sale, but we all also know that 755 15th ST. Llc is a group of people who are friends with the Ramseys, Mike Bynum said his self that ANY proceeds from their sale of the home would go to the JonBenet Ramsey Childrens Foundation; lies, lies, lies.


    John and Patsy sold the house long ago when John lost his job - - it was part of the deal when he left that job.

    Oh, you really are retarted aren't you? This is not true, John didn't lose the house and his job, Relocation Resources International purchased the home and let it sit there awhile before turning it into a rental unit; it was not part of a deal to get him to leave, though this has happened to others at Access at the hands of John Ramsey.

    "The house was then sold to a group of Ramsey friends - they bought it so that no no one would buy it and change anything - they felt it might be important to preserve it for investigators, maybe for a jury to see."

    Are you a crack smoker? Lots has changed about the outside and inside of that house, most notably the exterior where the supposed intruder tread with his hi tec boots ( you are still talking about these arent ya?, it's so hard to keep up with someone who's as obsessed as you are; you should probably turn your PC off just long enough to hop into the shower (no Ramsey Innocence visions required) and scrub that scalp of yours REAL good, get rid of that greasy hair; it's a sure sign that you are truly so baffled by the case that you constantly scratch your head, oh wait, that's lice.

    "They eventually sold the house to a coach at CU Boulder."
    This never happened either weirdo, a CU coach may have rented the place (send John and Patsy my best, tell them they will lose this election, maybe Patsy should focus less on making people feel sorry for her because she has cancer, and more on what they'll do when they lose the election; that's probably why they didn't use their own money and instead asked people with FAR LESS INCOME than them to give them money; atleast she's got part of the panhandling process down.

    "HE is selling the house now - - and he isn't going to be financing John Ramsey's campaign, I assure you."

    You think so eh? Keep telling yourself that, don't forget to wash your hair dirtbag; I'll bet a thousand showers won't rid you of that feeling you get for exploiting a six year olds rape murder; like you care that a six year old was sexually violated and killed, it's all money to you. Instead of calling yourself jameson, (though the manly term suits you)you should just call yourself "Cha Ching"

    Shall we make a DETAILED list of EVERYTHING you've sold to the tabs?

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Recording Garbage

    When I first came to the forums, I read a statement which said that there were three camps - BORG, RST and Fencesitter, but that the RST tended to lump the fensitters in with the BORG. How true that proved to be.

    jameson says:-

    :
    jameson - Jayelles is having a hard time staying comfortable in the BORG camp, I think .

    Wrong, I am perfectly comfortable in all of the forums where I am a member.

    If BORG means "daring to criticise jameson", then yes, I am BORG. If it means "Beleiver of Ramsey Guilt" then I have never been BORG (except in jameson's twisted mind).

    jameson started calling me BORG after I exposed one of her many lies. Prior to that, she rightly described me as a fencesitter. She won't be able to produce a single post where I have said that I think a Ramsey killed JonBenet. She won't because there aren't any. She will find plenty where I say I think they didn't. Not even in conversation or in private e-mails have I ever taken a stance other than fencesitter who is 99% convinced of Ramsey innocence.

    I haven't needed an asbestos coat for the past 4 years and I don't think I need to start wearingn one now. In fact, I have NEVER been flamed on any of the "BORG" forums for being a fencesitter - The only people who have ever flamed me have been jameson & co who consider that if you aren't a fully paid up member of the RST ... then you are a BORG.

    jameson wear Ramsey tinted spectacles (aka blinkers) - that is evident in her latest attack on me where she apparently finds it impossible to separate believing the Ramseys are innocent with being able to criticise them for not co-operating with the police.

    I find it both amusing and rather pathetic.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default Congratulations Jayelles


    Jayelles: jameson started calling me BORG after I exposed one of her many lies. Prior to that, she rightly described me as a fencesitter. She won't be able to produce a single post where I have said that I think a Ramsey killed JonBenet. She won't because there aren't any. She will find plenty where I say I think they didn't. Not even in conversation or in private e-mails have I ever taken a stance other than fencesitter who is 99% convinced of Ramsey innocence.
    Jayelles:

    I think you're our Champion when it comes to exposing Jameson's lies.
    JIC also puts up a good fight. So, you're still sitting on the fence? I made the big mistake of reading "Death of Innocence" first in 2001, and thought the Ramseys may be innocent, but doubted Patsy Ramsey's sanity for her weird behaviour with the "Twinn Doll" (brand name) ...seeing JonBenét in a coffin on Christmas Eve. Morbid thoughts, when she should have been full of happy thoughts wrapping up a doll for her six year old daughter.

    Four months of research and other books, plus contact with Delmar England knocked me off the fence, and I was more than convinced the Ramseys were involved.

    Wishing you all the best with your decision!

    Editing this to add: It's possible Jams got the "elles" mixed up. She can print in CAPITALS any time that I am A "BELIEVER OF RAMSEY GUILT!" So if you're reading this Jams, feel free to take out a billboard on all the U.S. Highways for me. I would truly appreciate that!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Elle- Wishing you all the best with your decision!
    Hey Elle, my motto is "I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure" ....

    Seriously, the only thing I'm sure about is that this is a truly baffling case and that none of the theories truly add up.

    Personally, I think jameson should take up writing for the tabloids because she has a talent for spinning an entirely different story out of the facts. In fact, the post she made dissecting my post, is off the point anyway. Maybe she intended it to be because she was clearly only looking to be vicious. As usual, she didn't put a link to it so that others could read it in context and I always think she does that deliberately so that people can't see how innaccurate her reporting is.

    I did have a smile at poor Margoo's response though:-

    LOL! I've been watching this all unfold as well. LOL!
    Exactly as predicted!
    In fact, I had only just intimated to another that I predicted that Margoo would jump into that thread and add her tuppence worth. She's so predictable. You can always depend on Margoo to post on the BORG threads :-)

    Apart omr that, jameson is very, very wrong on two major points.

    The first one is that I am NOT saying that a familiar-intruder is NOW my best theory. What I said was that it WAS my theory - the best one I could come up with before (my theory has never been RDI, not even for a day). My post explained how I had previously dismissed a stranger-intruder theory, but now I am very interested in Tracey's theory and want to see how it pans out - although I can see flaws in it too. Then again, all of the theories have flaws.

    The second point is that jameson says:-

    Maybe that is how the BORG will spin their position later.... they were wrong but the Ramseys askedfor it - set them up.
    I have always stated that I thought that Ramseys behaviour was justly criticised - that it made people think they had something to hide. Their behaviour is what has drawn many people to the case. However, a GREAT poster once said to me that "One doesn't have to like the Ramseys to believe in their innocence" and that is oh so true. Backing the Ramseys in everything they did - errors included is counter-productive. I have always believed in their probable innocence, but I don't condone their behaviour. That has always been my stance.

    It's interesting that jameson & co have spent the past 7 years trying to convince people of the Ramseys' innocence, yet they moan and make snide remarks when people DO believe in their innocence. It brings me back to something I have said in the past, I think jameson is the true BORG. I think she wants people to attack the Ramseys - so that she can attack THEM.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission



Similar Threads

  1. Misinformation at Topix
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 251
    Last Post: August 31, 2008, 7:55 am, Sun Aug 31 7:55:44 UTC 2008
  2. RST Misinformation
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: September 29, 2006, 10:11 am, Fri Sep 29 10:11:39 UTC 2006
  3. Ramsey Case Misinformation
    By Jayelles in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: August 7, 2006, 7:06 am, Mon Aug 7 7:06:41 UTC 2006
  4. More Misinformation Part 2
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: June 6, 2006, 6:54 am, Tue Jun 6 6:54:40 UTC 2006
  5. Misinformation on jameson's forum
    By Watching You in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: July 24, 2003, 9:28 pm, Thu Jul 24 21:28:53 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

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