Jameson's Play In Book Form?

:cool2: so.... JC, did you report hir?? LOL!

 

I didn't, Niner. I wish you would. Someone should.

 

I do somewhat know the history here with this jams....but is she any relation to John "Bennett" Ramsey? Or is that just irony? I almost hate to admit this...but my maiden name is "Bennett"......OMG....... :nsf:

 

Hey becca!
I want a first edition signed copy.
You're book will be a hit.
:cheerful:

 

Lol, no relation JJ.
Susan Bennett aka Jameson is not related to the Ramsey's.
The Ramsey's daughter's name is JonBenet Ramsey. The name Benet rhymes with the painter Monet.

 

What IS Candy talking about here?

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7C1B8KHPU6NF0OEC/p6

Is she now claiming ownership of the Ramsey police interview transcripts?

 

Yeah....no one can claim the transcripts except Candy 'cause HIR posted them first, 13 minutes before any other 'greedhead' did. Someone call the NE book and tell them to remove the chapters of the police interview! How dare they post something Candy thinks is hers alone. (Mommy I saw it first!)

Candy changed her last name to Public and everything in the 'public' domain belongs to her.

 

Jameson's book was written in English? How can that be--she doesn't speak it!

 

Candy's posts are hard to follow - which is why I asked what she was talking about. She responded in true Candy style though:-

Dunces? LOL I happen to know that a significant number of the posters here are most certainly not "dunces". Quite a few of us DID get into University and even GRADUATED from University (some more than once...)!

I seem to recall a certain Candy1710 appealing for help on a Law forum - asking if they had any advice on how how to tackle LSAT exams.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...s/tls8.html+candy1710+LSAT&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

What is it they say about empty vessels?

 

Poor gutter candy. Anyone who has to call people names like "dunce", "idiot", and "stupid" constantly to feel good about herself is truly a lost soul. I save my pity, however, for her victims. They are many. People like gutter candy are only happy when they're hurting others. I believe the technical term for them is "demon".

 

Noticed Jam's joined in and said this:

Just HOW did Jam's get the later interview tapes? The ACTUAL TAPES as she claims?

 

She's part of the unholy trinity: Smit, Tracey, and jams. The devil worked hard to give them the tools to help a child killer get away with murder. It worked. As far as the legal system goes, anyway.

But we're always here to remind the devil that we know the truth.

 

http://www.lulu.com/content/921916
A Rebuttal to Steve Thomas’ Book “JonBenét - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigationâ€
by S. I. Bennett aka jameson
Printed: 92 pages, 6" x 9", perfect binding, black and white interior ink

Part One - Prologue
On this page of her book, Jameson is using a posting from her forum by none other than "MaskedMan" May 4, 2000, aka Frank Coffman, the very man that Jameson said was the one who made the John Ramsey Wanted Poster in Boulder, the same wanted poster that is highlighted in every one of Michael Tracey's documentaries.

This wanted poster:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-prank-wanted-poster.htm

I wonder if she included the other postings by MaskedMan where he called her a contemptible liar or where Jameson posted to Frank on December 17, 2001, "I hope Mr. Coffman's PxxxxR suffers from pustulating sores for a week"

A few entries on my timeline of quotes by MaskedMan from River's Websleuths Forum:

2001-10-30 (--) MaskedMan (RWS) "My problem w/Jameson: her distortions, outlandish theories"
2001-10-30 (--) MaskedMan (RWS) "Same old Jameson style: constant BS."
2001-10-30 (--) MaskedMan (RWS) "I quit Jameson's forum (and then she banned me) because"
2001-10-30 (--) MaskedMan (RWS) "....I was outraged at her lies"
2001-10-30 (--) MaskedMan (RWS) "She thinks that SHE is the judge of who is "credible."
2001-10-30 (--) MaskedMan (RWS) "She's still telling lies. I think she is a contemptible liar."
2001-10-31 (--) MaskedMan (RWS) "I did reply to Jameson's email with a three word: "Got to h-e-l-l."

ACR

 

I made that poster!

Just kidding.

 

I hope MaskedMan is getting his royalties, too. Did he give her permission to use his words and work? Never mind, I doubt she'd bother to ask.

I find it fascinating that the features of the "book" she listed include "black and white interior ink". :floor:

 

If you go to the link where she's selling the book there's an option to preview a few of the pages. She states something about her forum members were told when they posted on HER forum that their postings could be used by HER, and obviously that's exactly what she's doing. No wonder why she kept creating her public forums to get postings for her book.

Obviously she used MaskedMan's posting in her "Part One - Prologue" because that was a posting where Frank was bad mouthing Judith Phillips and Jameson was using his posting as a rebuttal on statements that Steve Thomas wrote in his book sighting certain quotes from a "source" and she was trying to show the "source" was Judith Phillips.

Apparently that's why her book is 92 pages !! Somebody needs to write a Rebuttal to her Rebuttal and post all of Frank's other postings where he called Jameson a liar !! LOL

On another page, she was citing and making fun of Steve Thomas in his book statements that the crime scene photo the LE had of the ranson note on the spiral staircase was a "staged photo" which is was because there was no *original crime scene photo* because John and Patsy had moved the ranson note and the LE had to lay the ranson note back on the step to take the photo, so it was a "staged crime scene photo." I suppose if Steve had used the word "recreated crime scene photo" then perhaps she might have understood. Steve was talking LE talk and Jameson was talking semantics.

Seriously, from what I read in the few preview pages, her rebuttal sounds like it's written by a disgruntle employee.

ACR

 

Copyright: © 2000 by jameson Standard Copyright License

 

How to lie by telling the truth...

Watching jameson spin has always been fascinating. Right now she is active at Topix and there are new threads at her forum. I get a sense that her Public forum will open any day...

This is how she works - if she wants to deny something which is true, she alters it a lilttle. For example. Supposing Person A had a record for shoplifting. Supposing the offence took place in Walmart in 1991 when Person A was caught stealing a CD Player. To lie about/deny this jameson style all Person A would have to do is change a detail:- eg

EXAMPLE 1 - They say I was caught stealing a CD player from K-Mart in 1991 - not true.
EXAMPLE 2 - They say I was caught stealing a Gameboy frm Walmart in 1991 - not true
EXAMPLE 3 - They say I was caught stealing a CD Player from Walmart in 1992 - not true

A simple denial of "I've never been done for shoplifting" would never be made because that would be outright lying and that is what jameson-style liars try to avoid. However, the altered-statement denial may provide enough smoke to convince a person who isn't entirely au-fait with the facts and detail.

I've noted her doing this time and time again. Now, when I see an embellished statement being made prior to a denial, my hinky meter starts swinging

jameson has made a list of things she claims "the BORG" have told about her. One in particular stands out to me as odd:-

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7C1B8KHPU6NF0OEC/p10

jameson

(ROFL! Note she didn't say the BORG said she "made money off the case" - just that it was a "fortune". How does one define "fortune". A fortune to one person is a pittance to another!)

This last phrase is something she has denied numerous times on the Internet and I have never understood why she keeps bringing it up. It seems to me that she's the only person who posts about it. On most of the occasions that I have seen her mention it - it has been jameson herself who has brought it up and she has always worded her statement peculiarly. e.g.

jameson

On the following occasion, she is responding to a post by "Rita" which was NOT made by Rita Johnson. Rita Johnson claimed to know a lot about jameson, but she completely denied knowing anything about a dead child called John - let alone posting about it on jameson's forum. jameson's forum was public at the time and it wouldn't surprise me if it transpired that jameson made the Rita post herself since I have long suspected that she makes many of the "BORG" posts when her forum is public.

jameson

The late Misty had a theory about why jameson posted about this mysterious child:-

 

Rofl!

Another interesting little gem:-

In 2002, jameson sold the Ramsey interview tapes to the National Enquirer for $40K (which would be a fortune to some ). The NE published them in book form but shortly afterwards, another version of the transcripts appeared at ACR's. These turned out to be more comprehensive and showed that the NE had only published extracts from the interviews.

What was interesting were the sections which were missing from the book:-

a) Discussion about Burke

jameson says:-

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7C1B8KHPU6NF0OEC/p10

i.e. when jameson cut her deal with the NE, she got them to agree not to publish lines of questioning about Burke. But that wasn't all the NE cut....

b) Discussion about jameson

On page 332of the NE book - about 2/3 of the way down.

This looks as though Lou Smit is pausing and thinking as he speaks. In actual fact..... after "unusual thing" comes a significant chunk of interview about jameson which is considerably less than flattering!

Why did the NE cut this portion of the interview in such a way to make it look like a pause in a single statement by Lou Smit? Other cuts where made at strategic points and were replaced by italicised commentary paraphrasing what was discussed.

This seems to me to be a deliberately misleading ommission.

There is no doubt in my mind that neither jameson not NE expected the other unedited version of the interviews to appear online as proof not only that most of the book is fairly accurate, but also of what was deliberately withheld

jameson now sells the interview transcript at www.lulu.com for $125 for a download. She didn't have to transcribe the interviews herself. All she had to do was make corrections to the typos in the version at ACR's whilst watching the video and with the NE book open beside her.

I wonder if her version contains the section of interview about herself?

 

Wow. Check this out.... jameson selling her "story" to a whole new audience:-

http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=301936&sid=0f5b55be565533c8b8720f793831dc3c

She says she got full documents