Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Default Were the Ramseys writing a book in 1998?

    Oh, the prism of time brings insight.

    I'm sure many of you remember Jameson, aka Jams, aka Webbsleuths forum owner, aka Ramsey Spin Team heading the Online Propaganda Division. (Okay, I made that last stuff up...but that is what she did, if not officially.)

    Also jams swears in the following thread posted in 1998 on the original Websleuths forum--the one started and owned by Murphy--that she didn't work for the Ramseys or make any money for her online efforts of defending them. Maybe so at that time, but we now know that soon changed. (By her own admission, $40K for handing off copies of the Ramsey LE interviews to the National Enquirer, "consultant" fees for her "work" on the Tracey crocumentaries, and some other money for tabloid materials she allegedly sold for profit.

    So no surprises when I was looking through some files ACR archived from 1998 and saw jams' original story about meeting the Ramseys. Heard it before.

    Then it struck me: she is coy about why she "met" with the Ramseys, or more to the point, why they met with her. A poster asks her about that; she evades the question, refusing to answer, though claiming repeatedly the Ramseys didn't know who she was, didn't go to the forums, ever, etc.

    Now read carefully--it's not that long and not that complicated. Think of the time frame in relation to the murder and what followed.

    An issue brought up by jams, which she is questioned about, is that though she met them back in the Spring of 1998, they only lifted their blanket "gag order" among their supporters to speak about whatever it was they previously requested not be revealed.

    So...spoiler alert, but see what you think when you read it: why would the Ramseys meet with a ransom Internet poster, talk for hours, and ask HER questions? Especially when they never, ever read the forums or such?

    Who appeared in their book in the chapter about...the Internet forums discussing the case?

    Yeah. Jams posted THIS info about how she met them, etc., in Sept. 1998. The rich, infamous Ramseys met with her to answer her questions...and ask a lot of their own, according to jams. But hush hush, until we give the go ahead?

    The murder took place Dec. 25/26th, 1996. The meeting with jams was in Spring of 1998. The Ramseys waited until June of 1998 to even talk to LE again for hours. The Grand Jury wasn't over until October of 1999. Their book came out in March of 2000.

    Didn't John Ramsey mention to Smit in his June of 1998 DA interview some info about jams? That jams knew his brother's sister-in-law? I'll have to look that up.

    Anyway, here's the thread in question:

    "I met the Ramseys"
    Posted by jameson on 21:56:34 10/27/98
    Include Original
    Message on Reply

    "I met the Ramseys"
    Posted by jameson on 10:35:13 9/05/98


    Since the Ramseys have lifted the "gag" order, I feel it is appropriate to post that I have met with
    the Ramseys, once, in the Spring of 1998.

    Since the Ramseys want people to know who they are, maybe my impressions are appropriate to
    post. I think so.

    I requested the meeting. They verified who I was through a third party before we arranged the time
    and place. I expected they might allow me 15 minutes. We were still talking over 3 1/2 hours later.

    I will start by saying I expected to be met by the Ramseys and possibly a "witness". They knew I
    was uncomfortable and did what they could to put me at ease. The three of us met alone.
    We spoke about many things and I asked many questions. Not one question about the case was
    unanswered, not one thing was "off-limits".

    Yes, I met them already feeling they were innocent. My feelings did not change.

    John is not "Ice Man" and Patsy is not "flighty". They are both damaged, devastated people who
    lost a precious child and are just trying to stay afloat.

    We talked about JonBenét, the case, people, the net, the other children, some evidence, the
    media....

    We laughed, cried, were angry...

    Our conversation was private and will remain so for the most part - I will not repeat what they said.
    But I want to say that I remember everything they said and I have been looking for the "lies" and
    deceit. I haven't seen any.

    Do I work for the Ramseys? NO - truth is, they had heard of me but were unaware of what I do
    on-line. They had heard of the TimeLine but didn't know what it was. They do not go on the net and
    don't know about the forums and web sites.

    I will expand on this in a while. I don't know just what I want to say, just want to share that I met
    these people and my time with them reaffirmed my belief in their innocence.


    1. "Questions"
    Posted by Wendy on 10:44:01 9/05/98


    OK, first of all, what did Burke have to say? You didn't mention him at all. Secondly, how do you
    explain the Ramseys suddenly lifting the ban on friends and acquaintances talking publicly about
    them?? Why is this happening now?? Thirdly, there's little or no point in telling us you talked with
    the Ramseys for three and half hours, if you won't tell us a damned thing about what they said. Lastly, I
    now understand why you still won't acknowledge even the possibility the Rams are guilty.

    2. "Answers/Burke"
    Posted by jameson on 10:58:21 9/05/98


    Burke was not present. The Ramseys didn't know what I wanted to meet them for, I am not a
    "reporter" and it wasn't arranged as an "interview". I asked to meet with John and Patsy, to be
    allowed a few minutes with John alone, and that is what happened.
    We talked about Burke, that he
    was doing well and was getting a lot of homework. But there were times that were hard on him too.
    Without me repeating what was said, I am sure you know...

    4. "Why lift the ban now?"
    Posted by jameson on 11:03:14 9/05/98


    I don't honestly know, but I expect it is a reaction to the media attacks - the flooding of the media
    with the smear campaign.

    The Ramseys asked everyone to keep quiet, including me, but if all the public hears is the smears,
    not real evidence but smears, it is bad for the Ramseys. A miscarriage of justice in the making.


    6. "Jameson"
    Posted by Wendy on 11:13:39 9/05/98


    The media attacks and leaks have been happening since Day One. They lifted the ban just
    recently.

    It must have something to do with the Grand Jury and the people who are in the jury pool....and
    what the Ramseys want them to hear.

    Jameson, will you at least acknowledge that whatever objectivity you had about the Ramseys has
    now been lost forever??

    8. "Wendy"
    Posted by jameson on 11:32:16 9/05/98


    No, I will not.

    I wasn't overly impressed with their "presence". I am not impressed by their money or fame. They
    are just people like anyone else.

    If there was evidence that proved they did it, no one else, I would be able to jump that fence in a
    New York Minute.

    I liked the Ramseys. I don't have any great emotional bond and my concern is that the killer of
    JonBenét be caught and convicted. If it turns out to be a Ramsey and the evidence convinces ME,
    then I will let you know I am on the other side.

    Fair?

    11. "Jameson"
    Posted by Wendy on 11:44:10 9/05/98


    Fair enough....but I strongly suspect that if you ever do join us on the other side of the fence, you
    will abandon your call for the death penalty. True enough?

    13. "NO"
    Posted by jameson on 11:50:27 9/05/98


    If the evidence proves without a doubt that a parent killed Jonbenét, I will still call for the death
    penalty.

    A life for a life....

    12. "have me thinking..."
    Posted by Bobo on 11:45:58 9/05/98


    I have recently started having a whole crazy pile of emotions over this case, I got into the forum
    thing only about 3 months ago. I came in with the opinion the Rams were guilty, I thought that I
    could learn more about this case by doing the forum thing...seems I have learned more about me
    and others, than the case. The more I read and looked around I started getting sick with myself, I
    have come to question myself...is it really justice I seek? I really became upset with myself
    because I knew what I was doing was against my values. I was reading and participating in all
    sorts of "poor behavior" IMO.

    To think I was doing any favors to justice by my behavior, I have found to be justification on my part.
    I cannot say I don't enjoy the forums because I do,I found that I look forward to reading other hats,
    and some of the silly fun things that go on.

    Where I was ashamed of myself is when I started really thinking of the family of JBR as real, not
    just some characters in a play or something. I had been tossing speculation around, poking fun of
    stuff that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the case. How people looked, sounded, just plain
    hurtful judgements...things that people don't always have control over.I did it like a whimp too,
    tucked behind the screen all nice and safe.

    I can't say I really believe the Rams are innocent, but I can say I now see they are real and JBR
    must have loved them.That is her family, and if by chance my judgement has been wrong...what
    have I done for her memory...not much and I feel shame for that reason. Even if the Rams are guilty
    what has this hurtful stuff done, left an alful legacy for Burke? If I am honest with self here, I can not
    claim all of my behavior has been in the name of justice. I was raised better than that, I know
    justice is not colored by some of the cruel remarks that I have been a part of. I sit here, and I know
    in my heart, that I cannot say honestly "I know who killed JBR" I don't...so I guess I must say no, I
    don't want to leave the forums, I would miss many. I will say that I will think of everyone as more
    human and try and let my heart guide and not my hurtful typing finger.

    I will say hats off to you Jams, and though I don't always agree with you...you have helped make
    this a human thing for me. Bobo

    14. "Bobo"
    Posted by jameson on 11:53:16 9/05/98


    I hesitated to post this information, I expect the questions like wendy is posing and I am not sure it
    will be comfortable when I say - I don't want to share that.

    Your post made the risk worth it.

    Thank you.

    17. "Bobo"
    Posted by TheKid on 12:07:31 9/05/98


    Thanx, bobo ...

    You have articulated my feelings as well...

    For a while, I was pretty cruel to jameson on the Boyles forum ... I was simply caught up in all of the
    excitement and rush to 'justice.' I also came to feel disgusted with myself ... Deep inside, I knew
    better ...And, for that, I apologize ...

    The Anti-Ram posters pluck chords which must be natural, or at least contagious ... It is *VERY
    EASY* to jump on that bandwagon ... Conversely, it is *VERY TOUGH* to stand for yourself and
    argue on behalf of fair speculation...

    19. "DAMN!!!"
    Posted by jameson on 12:12:29 9/05/98


    If I WAS on the Ramsey payroll, I would have just earned a bonus!

    As it is, my pay and 50 cents may get me a cuppa coffee - and that's if I don't tip.

    3. "Enquiring Minds..."
    Posted by TheKid on 11:02:31 9/05/98


    ...would love to read all about that!

    Assuming this is all true, I am impressed by the fact that you didn't try to turn the sitting into a
    paycheck ...

    I have a question: Did they discuss who they believe murdered their child? Did they present a
    theory?

    5. "Kid"
    Posted by jameson on 11:07:53 9/05/98


    I have never tried to earn a penny off JonBenét's death.

    I will say that I spoke to the Ramseys about several theories, the ransom note, suspects, motives...
    they did not say they had any answers.
    The discussions were fascinating.

    We talked theories, they did not claim to have any answers - In fact at that time they had none and
    said so. I believed them. Their voices, faces, body language. They were very sincere.

    Despite what the media said, these people were not "offering up suspects". They don't want to
    think they knew and trusted anyone who would do this. That thought hurt.


    7. "true?"
    Posted by jameson on 11:26:52 9/05/98


    This is a registered forum. No one is borrowing my hat. I told Murphy I was going to post this
    before I did. I can't deny this is jameson, and I don't lie when talking Ramsey.

    9. "Search for the truth"
    Posted by TheKid on 11:35:21 9/05/98


    Sorry jameson, but I have an over-developed sense of scepticism...

    I wasn't attempting to imply anything, I just couldn't post my reply without that little disclaimer ...
    With all the crap that the Media trys to force-feed us, I just can't help it!

    10. "Forgive me for asking..."
    Posted by Batwoman on 11:35:27 9/05/98


    But I thought I read yesterday that you, jameson, would be away for a while. Is this really you,
    jameson, or is someone else posting?

    Just wondering.

    15. "It is me"
    Posted by jameson on 11:56:27 9/05/98


    We are leaving tomorrow morning and will be back sometime late Monday. I had hoped to finish
    updating the TimeLine today, new background and stuff - a few pages left to redo... but this
    seemed more important today.

    16. "Glad you set that straight..."
    Posted by Batwoman on 12:03:02 9/05/98


    From my memory I seem to remember that you, jameson, were related to the Ramseys. Is that how
    you were able to get an interview with them? I cannot see them agreeing to a meeting with a
    complete stranger.

    When will you post more about your meeting?

    18. "Not related"
    Posted by jameson on 12:10:15 9/05/98


    That is a story that some posters promote but we are not related. No way.

    Why did they agree to meet with me? They had heard of me before from people they trusted and
    when I asked for a meeting, they called those people and verified I was really me and not an
    imposter. It really was rather "cloak and daggar", but I can understand why they checked. At the
    time they weren't speaking to any media. I could have been a Kathleen Keane.

    Batwoman. I don't know what to say about the meeting. I don't want to quote them or go into detail
    because it is not my place to speak for them.
    I just want to say there was ONE question they did
    not answer - just ONE and it had NOTHING to do with the events of December, 1996.

    20. "Jamson"
    Posted by Wendy on 12:23:39 9/05/98


    I can safely guess exactly what that question was: What will you do if you are indicted and stand
    trial?

    21. "wrong"
    Posted by jameson on 12:36:05 9/05/98


    That was not the question. The question had nothing to do with the murder, the investigation, the
    future.

    It was an innocent little question, like who is babysitting Burke now. (That is not the question but
    equal in importance.)

    22. "Jameson"
    Posted by Scarlett on 13:24:35 9/05/98


    When you met with the Ramsey's I hope you let them know that they do have support...that the
    entire world is not against them.
    I am sure that they give the opinions of strangers the merit it deserves, but I hope they know that
    some of us view them only as grieving parents who lost a precious child.

    Scarlett

    23. "The truth"
    Posted by jameson on 14:03:28 9/05/98


    Hi Scarlett,

    The Ramseys are fairly removed from some of the things that are happening. Family and friends
    try to insulate them. That was obvious.

    The Ramseys do not read the forums. They had never looked at the TimeLine.

    We talked about the forums, mostly they asked questions and I answered. Remember, they don't
    come here and no one would tell them - it would hurt them and their friends try not to do that.

    Yes, they know they have some support, they know they have a lot of hate directed at them as well.

    If they asked a question, I tried to answer. Sometimes I knew the answers cut, but I felt that being
    totally honest was best.
    Last edited by koldkase; September 3, 2013, 9:00 pm at Tue Sep 3 21:00:02 UTC 2013.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #2

    Default

    These files are from some pretty old computer program formats, which I had to "convert" to read and post. I tried to keep them as accurate as possible, including paragraphs and single and double spacing, but posts themselves are not always consistent, so there's that, too.

    The main thing is the text, which I have not altered in any way from the file I received many years ago.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #3

    Default

    So a month or two after jams met the Ramseys in Atlanta in 1998, here's John being interviewed by Smit for the Boulder DA and his story is as fishy as jams' story was.

    What is missing here?

    2 LOU SMIT: I got a couple of
    3 things. How about Jamison?
    4 JOHN RAMSEY: She called me. I
    5 mean I have heard of her, I heard she is a
    6 supporter and so forth, but I have never looked
    7 at her Web site. And she called me once in
    8 Atlanta, and we -- this was maybe a month or two
    9 ago, and I told her, I said I have always kind
    10 of wanted to write you and thank you for being a
    11 supporter, but I am sorry.
    12 She said well, I would like to talk
    13 to you, and I said well, hope you want her to
    14 come to our house, because we didn't want her to
    15 be there, it might be hard to (INAUDIBLE) we met
    16 her for a cup of coffee and just little things
    17 familiar with. (INAUDIBLE). That was I don't
    18 know, a month or two ago.

    19 LOU SMIT: Her name is Sue
    20 Bennett, your name is Bennett?
    21 JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
    22 LOU SMIT: Is there any
    23 relationship?
    24 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so, I
    25 had a cousin named, I was thinking what was her
    0491
    1 name, I haven't seen her in years and years and
    2 years, but her name was, at least her maiden
    3 name was, they call her Susie Bennett or, it was
    4 close enough to think I wonder if it could be my
    5 cousin, but it wasn't.
    6 LOU SMIT: So when you met
    7 with her there was no relationship
    8 established like cousins or --
    9 JOHN RAMSEY: No. I just
    10 mentioned that my middle name was Bennett,
    11 JonBenet was named after me.
    12 LOU SMIT: And you never had
    13 contact with her before personally or on
    14 the Internet or anything like that or can
    15 you --
    16 JOHN RAMSEY: No, no, I
    17 never did. She had written us a letter
    18 once, I remember a letter because it said
    19 Jamison, a/k/a Sue Bennett. That was
    20 maybe a year ago.

    21 LOU SMIT: So you have put
    22 nothing on the Internet through her name
    23 or anything like that?
    24 JOHN RAMSEY: No. She said I
    25 could if I wanted to, but that was one of the
    0492
    1 things she offered, if you want to get --
    2 LOU SMIT: Just recently?
    3 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, a month or so
    4 ago, yeah. In fact, she called the other day
    5 and along with Steven or whatever his name,
    6 Jeffrey Shapiro, so we changed our phone number.
    7 I mean she is a nice person, and --
    8 BRYAN MORGAN: I missed that, she
    9 called with Jeffrey?
    10 JOHN RAMSEY: No, they had both
    11 called. Somehow -- I was more concerned about
    12 the fact that Jeffrey Shapiro had our phone
    13 number. But we changed the number anyway so.
    14 MIKE KANE: Let me follow up on
    15 this. How did you know about her?
    16 JOHN RAMSEY: I guess I started to
    17 hear about her from friends that, Susan Stine, I
    18 don't remember, Susan checked some of that
    19 stuff, the Internet stuff. I think it just kind
    20 of started coming out that she was is a
    21 supporter. And we just started hearing about
    22 her.
    23 MIKE KANE: You said you didn't
    24 have any direct contact. How about indirect,
    25 through others?
    0493
    1 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
    2 MIKE KANE: No?
    3 JOHN RAMSEY: No. We had gotten a
    4 couple of messages from her through my brother's
    5 sister-in-law who apparently had communicated
    6 with her a few times.

    7 MIKE KANE: (INAUDIBLE)?
    8 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
    9 MIKE KANE: When you met her for
    10 coffee, where was that?
    11 JOHN RAMSEY: It was at a coffee
    12 shop in the neighborhood, Moonbeam Coffee Shop.
    13 MIKE KANE: She came down?
    14 JOHN RAMSEY: Uh-hum. She was
    15 in Atlanta with her family to go to Six Flags.
    16 MIKE KANE: Is she from that area?
    17 JOHN RAMSEY: She is from North
    18 Carolina, I think.
    19 MIKE KANE: What did she want to
    20 talk about?
    21 JOHN RAMSEY: I really don't know.
    22 I mean she seemed to be more concerned about
    23 what the tabloids were saying about us. And she
    24 said I know what they are going to attack you
    25 on, you know. You know, we don't care, I mean
    0494
    1 the tabloids are -- makes us angry, but it's
    2 not of concern to us, in terms of I mean if it
    3 had been The New York Times, I guess, if they
    4 had come out with some big story, it might be
    5 more concerning, but I think she was just --
    6 just felt genuine concern for us, and our
    7 polite.
    [I'm guessing not "polite" but "plight".]
    8 MIKE KANE: Do you know why?
    9 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't. No.
    10 MIKE KANE: Did she seem --
    11 JOHN RAMSEY: Mostly.
    12 VOICE: (INAUDIBLE).
    13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, anybody that
    14 could sit on a computer for a hundred hours a
    15 day or whatever she does, no way I am going to
    16 -- sorry.
    17 VOICE: Remember you still do those
    18 things.
    19 (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS.)
    20 JOHN RAMSEY: I mean she obviously
    21 she is obsessed with it, but she mostly seemed
    22 pretty normal. She had a child and she home
    23 schooled, she mentioned that.
    24 MIKE KANE: Have you ever given her
    25 anything of value, besides the --
    0495
    1 JOHN RAMSEY: No. Money-wise, no.
    2 MIKE KANE: Or anything besides
    3 money that's of value?
    4 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I mean, I wanted
    5 to write her and just thank her for being one of
    6 our few supporters, and just kind of an
    7 opportunity to -- I didn't want to blow her
    8 off, you know, I just didn't feel that was
    9 appropriate.
    10 MIKE KANE: Why didn't you write
    11 her?
    12 JOHN RAMSEY: I didn't know where
    13 to write her for starters. I had a letter from
    14 her, there were hundreds and hundreds that we
    15 kept, you know. Just something I was always
    16 going to do tomorrow.
    Last edited by koldkase; September 3, 2013, 9:13 pm at Tue Sep 3 21:13:38 UTC 2013.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Very, very interesting.

    All I can say is Patsy never, ever, struck me as flighty.

  5. #5

    Default

    So to sum up...the Ramseys, prime suspects in the murder of their child, JonBenet, hounded so by papparrazi and media they do "cloak and dagger" and change cars and wear jackets over their heads, get a phone call from Jameson--out of the blue, somehow she got their private number--through Stine or a relation-by-marriage of a relation or some such?

    And generous John and Patsy felt beholden to her enough to meet her, though they didn't read any forums or anything she wrote about the case or them. but because Stine or a distant acquaintance somehow made them aware of a stranger off the Internet; and because jams wrote him a letter, one among hundreds he kept, he and Patsy decided to meet with jams at a cafe in Atlanta--alone, jams claimed.

    The Ramseys, ever diligent that the BPD or media might ambush them and want to have questions answered, not to mention having an unidentified intruder running around who murdered their child, meet with jams and talk for hours--about her and the Internet and forums and such, jams said.

    Though John is private enough to have his phone number changed after jams calls again--ha ha--he and Patsy decide to include jams in their book a year and a half later--featuring prominently in their chapter on how badly they're abused on...the forums and the Internet?

    And we are supposed to believe this story is all about...the gracious Ramseys being so grateful they have the noble stranger/one-time intruder suspect jams representing them so well on the forums?

    And good old honorable, 100 hr-a-day-on-the-Internets jams just fell out of the sky into John Ramsey's consciousness, god-knows-how-through some vague connection to a brother's sister-in-law he won't even name and dear friend-Stine-somehow-mentioned-the Internets...which JR had obviously never imagined in his entire career as CEO of a billion dollar retail company selling high-end computer software, not to mention who had multiple publicists, lawyers, and family and friends who clearly knew all about it?

    Yeah...right.

    Yet again we have the Ramseys lying, obviously--to me, anyway.

    Now why oh WHY would they need to evade telling the truth about meeting jams? Why would she feel so secretive she has to flaunt her face-to-face with them, but refuses to reveal so much as a peep about the hottest case in America, which she says they discussed for hours, so fascinating?!

    And what about that go-ahead to finally tell her tale, strange as jams made it all? Just in time for the Grand Jury hearings, jams gets a stamp of approval--sort of--from the blessed, righteous, innocent Ramseys--who don't actually want to have anything to do with her personally, however. But there's that chapter--and a book has to have content, especially one in which much needs to be said about nothing.

    In my neck of the woods it appears they were just playing her...and here's the thing...

    Jams got very angry at the Ramseys about the time she sold the LE tapes she received from some "unknown source" [LIAR] to the NE for $40K. (So much for not making any money from this case....) I'm wondering if she finally got to read how JR dissed her and changed his phone number.

    Ouch. That must have hurt.

    In fact, I do remember jams having a bit of a hissy fit about the time these same transcripts were finally getting around...announcing she was quitting her own forum....
    Attached Images Attached Images  

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Very, very interesting.

    All I can say is Patsy never, ever, struck me as flighty.
    You and me, either, BOESP.

    She was about as flighty as a steamroller.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you KK for posting this interesting information. One never hears too much about Jameson these days! She was quite a character when we were all posting many years ago. Are they still talking about her on WebSleuths, or has she left the scene? Please look behind you now and then, won't you!?

    When you think on it, KK, Jameson did meet the Ramseys! The rest of us cannot claim this!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  8. #8

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Thank you KK for posting this interesting information. One never hears too much about Jameson these days! She was quite a character when we were all posting many years ago. Are they still talking about her on WebSleuths, or has she left the scene? Please look behind you now and then, won't you!?

    When you think on it, KK, Jameson did meet the Ramseys! The rest of us cannot claim this!
    And for this, I am eternally grateful! LOL

    I don't think many talk about her at WebSleuths. But, I don't go into the JBR forum there much, because the IDIs are still running the asylum, even after it was brought out that the GJ voted to indict both parents. Don't you know, it was the "intruder's" good luck that happened? LOL

    The above is just my opinion, right or wrong, but please leave it at FFJ.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Thank you KK for posting this interesting information. One never hears too much about Jameson these days! She was quite a character when we were all posting many years ago. Are they still talking about her on WebSleuths, or has she left the scene? Please look behind you now and then, won't you!?

    When you think on it, KK, Jameson did meet the Ramseys! The rest of us cannot claim this!
    It's amazing at things that went on in this case, compliments of Team Ramsey.

    Here's another laugh riot from them, speaking of jams:
    Attached Images Attached Images  

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez View Post
    And for this, I am eternally grateful! LOL

    I don't think many talk about her at WebSleuths. But, I don't go into the JBR forum there much, because the IDIs are still running the asylum, even after it was brought out that the GJ voted to indict both parents. Don't you know, it was the "intruder's" good luck that happened? LOL
    Yeah, guess the intruder was happy about that. Almost as happy as when Patsy volunteered to write him a ransom note....

    Speaking of Patsy, I found this little interesting item. Remember when Patsy called into the Geraldo show once?

    Me, neither--dammit. Missed that one. But I have heard that tale told, so when I found this in the ACR archive files I found myself wondering if it is, in fact, an accurate transcript. I have no accreditation to submit for whomever transcribed it, so I'll share it in the hopes that someone who remembers can set us straight as to whether this is legit or a parody.

    Lord knows, with the Ramseys it's always been hard to tell what is parody and what is real.

    "11-19-1997: Patsy calls Geraldo Show"

    The mother of JonBenet Ramsey speaks out about her family's loss.

    Patsy Ramsey to Geraldo Rivera:

    Patsy Ramsey: "JonBenet was a beautiful and typical 6 year old American child. She loved pigtails, she loved kitty cats, she loved blue jeans, she loved standing on her head.

    She was really good at standing on her head. I don't know how she learned to stand on her head. When I came out of the house one day and there she was in a tripod standing - she could hold the pose for half an hour. She loved to stand on her head.

    She took a few gymnastic classes, but I guess they taught her to stand on her head, because she really could do it.

    She loved life, she loved her family, friends and her church. She said to me one time "how much do you love me, Mommy?" I said JonBenet, I love you and Burke and daddy more than anything else in this world. She turned to me and said "you're not supposed to love anyone more than Jesus."

    So, she knew the truth. She is with Him now, and we'll be together one of these days.

    She was excited about school. She had her hair in braids, said she was wearing them in pigtail braids. She had an Atlanta backpack that her grandma gave her, and she wore a little kitty cat outfit with a little kitten on the front and she just tripped right in there. She was really excited about going.

    That was kindergarten - she never made it to first grade. I like it a bit when I am sleeping. I feel like I am still with JB. I feel safe when she is with me. When I wake up everything is ok for a second, and then I remember what happened...

    This Halloween wasn't the same without JB.

    I wish they would find the killer. On the other hand, it frightens me to think that I may actually know the person. Maybe it is better that I don't know who it is right now. Geraldo should do an investigation on the murder. He should use John Douglas. Maybe the killer will spill the beans to a friend, or behave differently, so that someone knows who the killer is.

    Geraldo should encourage anyone with clues to come forward...maybe it was a pedophile, there are fifty pedophiles in Boulder.

    Or maybe it was a University of Colorado student who saw JB riding her bike around the neighbourhood.

    I cried when I watched your last show and Cyril Wecht said that all the evidence pointed toward me, and that I should be arrested immediately, and your audience clapped. It was so hurtful...

    Jane Stobie doesn't know what she's talking about when she tells those lies on your show."

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.



Similar Threads

  1. Tom Miller is writing a book?
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 199
    Last Post: October 11, 2006, 1:08 pm, Wed Oct 11 13:08:54 UTC 2006
  2. Did Patsy ever give a Left-Handed writing sample?
    By RAMP in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 26, 2006, 3:59 pm, Sat Aug 26 15:59:38 UTC 2006
  3. 1998 ADP Press Release
    By JC in forum Butts - Triple Murder Case
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 9, 2005, 10:37 am, Tue Aug 9 10:37:46 UTC 2005
  4. Dr. Illes' Writing Sample Sought
    By LurkerXIV in forum Miriam Zambie Illes Case Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 21, 2004, 9:25 pm, Wed Jan 21 21:25:00 UTC 2004
  5. Writing DOI
    By Nandee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: January 8, 2002, 9:24 am, Tue Jan 8 9:24:27 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
  •