Jameson's project

You just never know what is going to turn up with this JonBenét case KK. Do you? Jameson's name will always be linked to this crime. Amazing! I'm wondering if it's being rehearsed right now (?). Where? I do think she has it all set up by the confident way she's talking so openly about it.

 

Koldkase - your observations are astute. The bit about the "online journalist" made me smile. Hey - if jameson is an online journalist, we're ALL online journalists! ... except that she wouldn't survive 5 minutes doing what she does in the real world of journalism.

Just imagine a real journalist doing what she does?

Daily Blah - A week of columns by Susan Bennett

Day 1 - an entire article copied from another newspaper with a sentence at the bottom saying that if the author objects to being quoted, they've to get in touch.

Day 2 - an article consisting of carefully selected and misleading/out of context quotes from other newspapers with her own comments - no sources or attributes for the quotes.

Day 3 - an entire article which she had copied two years ago from another newspaper - this time she is repeating it to remind readers about the article.

Day 4 - an article denouncing the people who criticise her journalism methods (the "BORG").

Day 5 - a brief article stating that she has insider knowledge of a major news item - but that she ain't talking.

Day 6 - another entire article which she has copied from another newspaper.

Day 7 - jameson is working on a project today so her coumn is being hosted by one of her other pseudonymns. Today's article is an advertising feature for jameson's column/play/diaries

Sorry jameson - journalists report the news. They don't simply report what everyone else is reporting about the news.

 

LOL KK,

Yeah, I couldn't resist. However, I just saw her earlier response about FW in your post. I don't always read all the threads.

I'm sure, for a price of course, there could be a mile long list of people who are NOT the killer lol. Jams thinks she will have an IMPACT on this case by clearing someone. NO. She could clear any number of people, just like we could.

If she states it out loud, whatever will the cult speculate about? If she says that FW is cleared, whatever will Ashley and the others talk about? If she says that Santa is cleared, whatever will the others talk about? Helgoth? Barnhill? Whoever she is referring to, will subtract a topic or two from her forum and with only a few paying members, there will be no takers to join.

Those $50 add up, and declaring an INNOCENT person INNOCENT on her site, is just another nail in the forum coffin.

TRUTH BE DAMNED! THERE ARE BILLS TO PAY!

She says she has a clear conscience! Of that I have no doubt. Doesn't mean she should have. I believe she has NO conscience

BTW, you were correct KK, the thread is locked and will be "archived" lol

BUT, you are incorrect on one point. Jams has done some valuable work on this case and made a difference. The more she became involved, the more the thinking human population realized that the Ramseys were involved in the murder of JBR. Her antics left no choice but to realize they are performed for a reason of Ramsey spin.

So, all her BS about truth is now clarified. It must be purchased.

What is really scary is that her new truth for money has seemingly gone right over the heads of her members and they have chosen to overlook that little detail of their beloved forum leader. I'm not even kidding. It is pretty scary.

However, I noticed that Rainsong has not posted in a day or two after she developed something of a backbone and accused the forum of strongarm tactics when discussing Miss Marple and a new website. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

Barbara,

I am curious as to where Jameson will actually have this play produced (?). I'm thinking, maybe it will be sold in CD form and not shown in an actual theatre (?). She may be thinking if Judith Miller can sell CD's on the net, so can I! At the moment, Jameson is dangling the carrot.

 

I think it's for sale to anyone who has the $$$s to buy it. My guess is that it will show jameson in a sympathetic light.

She's obviously finding that the ramsey cash cow is drying up.

 

I swear, I just laughed and laughed when I read it's a play. A copyrighted play.

 

Well, this is the whole tale at the swamp, isn't it? The last time jams showed up with her bank slip showing, anyone with any integrity left, even her right-hand spinner, Lovely Pigeon. Now that Rainsong has her own beloved John Douglas forum to run, she's not taking orders from jams anymore, won't even cough up the $50 to "support" the swamp. Those who are true blue swampsters are invariably missing a few wingnuts. Their reasoning is seriously flawed. Some of them genuinely seem to think like children: if the Rams say it, it's true; if jams says it, it's true; if Smit says it, it's true; if they think it, it's true.

I have to be honest here myself: I am glad jams sold those tapes to the NE. Any questions I had about the Ramseys' guilt, about their duplicitous actions in the case of their child's murder, the answers were right there. Even Smit's "legendary detective" spin was revealed to be nothing more than that. Plus we got to see more evidence from the case that leads straight to the Ramseys, IMO.

If jams had to make money for that to come us, I have no problem with that. I think most of us can see that there are very few people in this case who did one thing for JonBenet without lining their own pockets or careers or reputations one way or another. The Ramseys certainly made money off of it. Smit made at least 60 thou with the DA's Office before he quit to crusade for the Ramseys with the stolen PowerPoint. Now he works with Ollie, a Ramsey PI. Keenan, a strong Ramsey supporter all along, got to be DA. Tracey, whom nobody ever heard of before this case, got his rat face on TV and something to brag about to his students who might be so ignorant they don't see the cheap production and pathetic "investigative journalism" in his BS crocumentaries, not to mention the libel.

So jams is just another con and shill. The world is full of them.

 

My guess is that jams is the protagonist. It's ALL about her, doncha' know....

Yeah, JC, what's really funny is that the two least lucrative performing arts categories are drama and opera.

 

Well, here's the thing about drama, as I'm sure everyone knows...but maybe jams: it's like a song. You can buy the sheet music, but until you put it into the air with instruments and voice, it's just paper and ink.

Drama is very boring reading for the most part, unless it's Shakespeare/poetic genius. It's the interpretation of the director and the actors that brings it to life and makes it interesting. If it's good, it's like having a religious experience. If it's not, it's like watching paint dry.

I imagine for jams, she'll be judging how good it is by counting the box office receipts.

 

I think Jameson is testing the waters right now, KK. Hypothetically, if it is a play on a CD, she can sell it in storytelling form, the way most "talking books" are sold today, by having one person/actor doing all the voices. This means paying only one person. These CD's are very popular for long journeys. We share them in our family after we have listened to them. They do pass a few hours when you have a long car journey. They are also good to listen to, if you are fed up with TV and the computer. Nice to listen to in the garden. Now, who amongst y'all will be sitting listening to Jameson's CD during the summer?

I must get back to my Tom Miller CD. I wish it had been in talking book form. I would have finished it by now.

 

Oh! You meant oral interpretation. I thought you meant like Miller's CD, just the script.

Well...I know I won't be buying any nonsense like this from jams. If it's not going to be about the evidence and actually inform me of something besides the fact that she's their number one shill, I'm not interested.

 

Oh, there's that practice to deceive again....

What happened to "NO JELLO HERE"? What happened to THE FORUM OF RECORD? What happened to "We don't allow MISINFORMATION"?

:hood:

First, when someone asked jams about that "cleared suspect," she replied:

NOW, when asked by someone about why she hasn't cleared this guy already on her forum (NO, it's wasn't ME, because I have never posted at the swamp and I don't ever expect to do so), she tries to be coy and thus puts up a SMOKE SCREEN for those little heads who might actually GET that's she's simply held back information they might have been interested in having before they publicly damaged the reputation of a completely innocent man while jams simply watched and let them do it, KNOWING THEY WERE WRONG.

I don't know, but now I'm thinking jams thinks her little heads are as stupid as we do. Look at her flippant response, which contradicts what she's ALREADY said:

Here's the killer line, pure jamsy classic: "IF the man's name is on the Internet, he is among those I stopped discussing as a reasonable suspect."

Huh?

OK, in addition to TRYING to backtrack and lie about whether the man is even DISCUSSED, therefore TRYING to give herself a loophole in case any little heads are coming out of their fog for a few minutes and notice what she's actually admitted about her own lack of integrity now, inadvertantly, of course--she then immediately says she quit discussing him herself!

You gotta' appreciate this level of pathology. No wonder the Rams fell right in with her.

No, she's not guilty of silently watching an innocent man being hit by the RST bus, and she's not responsible for what others discuss, either! Unless it's a Ramsey who's been CLEARED, then better not WHISPER that name!

Why-Nut, you are priceless. You have given us yet another opportunity to see the RST and their Internet leader, the Queen of BS herself, in true form, with the mask slipped and the ugliness staring at us. It's nice to see jams again confirm what we've known about her all along: she's a liar and a deceiver who has interjected herself into a child murder case for what she can get out of it for herself, and she takes NO RESPONSIBILITY for the harm she does anymore than the Ramseys do.

Jams isn't after the truth, she's after the spin that she can sell. Period.

And that's my opinion.

 

I don't want to give short shrift to the other side of her defense of her "clearing" of an innocent man in her play, so I'm putting it in this post:

If the man/cleared suspect HASN'T been discussed on the Internet...meaning nobody really even KNOWS he was a suspect to discuss...THEN BY OUTING HIM IN HER PLAY AS "CLEARED," ALL SHE WOULD BE DOING IS PUTTING ANOTHER INNOCENT PERSON IN PLAY FOR THE RST TO MALIGN AND ACCUSE OF HORRIBLE THINGS.

So, anyway you slice it, yet ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM of the RST is screwed!

 

Yes, KK. Not much point in just reading it on the screen, unless it is a very short term play. One Act, maybe, which is good for an Amateur Club. (?). I was just using Tom Miller as an example of selling CD's on the net. They do sell!

 

Was it John Kenady KK? Or another John ? Tricia posted all this information last year about the young man being hounded. It was no mystery.

 

jameson said:-

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/1404.html

There is a very simple reason for this.

Here is a murder, which took place in a private residence on the one day of the year when most people would be at home and in the company of others.

The crime was unusual in that there appears to have been no concrete/obvious motive. The victim was not "seriously" sexually assaulted, the ransom note does not appear to be a genuine ransom attempt, there was nothing stolen .... etc

The DNA left at the scene was miniscule and fragmented - suggesting it was not fresh and very possibly not connected to the murder. All other possible forensic evidence cannot not be dated with accuracy.

So how do the police eliminate suspects?

They start with the people in the house - unfortunately, they hire lawyers and refuse to speak with police, refuse to take polygraphs and do strange things (I am referring particuarly to John Ramsey and the open window and strange vehicle sighting). This makes them look suspicious and makes the police want to look at them all the harder.

The police CAN however clear some people - those with unshakeable alibis.

As the investigation progresses, the police whilst unable to clear or charge the parents with the murder, continue to look at other suspects. As long as the possibility remains that the DNA just "might" be related to the crime, they can continue with the job of testing all potential suspects against it AND the handwriting on the ransom note - thus creating a list of suspects who are NOT a match for the DNA and whose handwriting has been cleared through analysis... except that they haven't been officially cleared - because the DNA might NOT be from the killer.

So whilst the police are following up leads and testing forensics, no-one is being officially cleared - unless they fell into the category of being a viable suspect...with a concrete alibi.

Not matching the DNA does not equate to being cleared.

 

Jayelles

Dr. Baden has been appearing frequently on US TV to contribute his viewpoint on the Imette St. Guillen murder. Several times, he discussed DNA found under Imette's fingernails. According to Baden, fingernail DNA is one of the least reliable sources of evidence, because 1. it cannot be dated; 2. It usually belongs to the victim; 3. It is usually very degraded; 4. It is easily contaminated.

I found this interesting, because jameson, Smit, and the whole Ramsey Spin Team obsess upon the minute and degraded fingernail evidence found on JBR.

Maybe someone can find a transcript of Baden's recent remarks.

 

Jameson doesn't have the authority to clear anyone in this case - publically or otherwise. Furthermore, she is a damn fool to, once again, propagate the myth that the DNA will clear (or convict) anyone in this case.

Her unmitigated self importance bores me.

 

When jameson says things like this:-

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/1413.html

and

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/1412.html

FWIW, I believe she is referring to HER notes about Steve Thomas - not notes which were made by Steve Thomas and *somehow* acquired by jameson. I do NOT believe Steve Thomas would have shared his files with jameson. It is my understanding that he had/has no time for her.

I think this is similar misleading spin to her stating that she had heard "the enhanced 911 tape" a week or so ago (as opposed to AN enhancement of the tape). THE enhanced tape (i.e. the controversial one) was done by Aerospace and is in the police files. in fact, it is 99.9% certain she was referring to Dave's enhancement - when he concluded there were no voices and that that the recording equipment somehow simply developed a convenient, repetitive mechanical noise JUST at that point! (Had Dave proved that the repetitive mechanical noise existed consistently throughout te tape, it might have had more weight)

Any notes which Steve Thomas made would have been part of a confidential police file. Anyone who shared the contents of that file with jameson (essentially a nobody who is best known for acquiring and selling case info to the tabloids)... has a case to answer to.

However, every time jameson hints that she has had access to police file information, she throws suspicion on Lou Smit. We know that she had dealings with Lou Smit. If he was feeding her that information, it was very unprofessional and he should be investigated - shame.

 

The Footnote With An Attitude

Jams is a pathetic figure, sans all credibility. I find it incredible that anyone finds anything she writes worthy of quoting. The fact that she has an ongoing Forum, with people who actually read and/or believe her ramblings, is mind-boggling.
She has lied, from the get go; first posting as a man who lost “his wife†in an automobile accident on the Audubon Freeway in Germany.
Although I never participated in the mean, scathing criticism of her on the old Boulder News Forum, I most certainly did question her outrageous ramblings, from time to time.
However, I dropped out of the BNF for the time period when various posters sought to find out and publish her real identity and her exact whereabouts. I truly thought that was stepping over the line, plus it was against the rules of the Forum.
Since then, of course, Jams has done far worse things; most of which are well known here. The fact that the Ramsey’s have connected with her demonstrates their shallowness, arrogance and ignorance. It also illuminates their “auras of guilt.†I cannot conceive of intelligent, innocent folks using the likes of Jams as their Internet Public Relations Rep. How desperate can you get?
There seems to be no end to her audacity.
In the end, she will just be an annoying historical “footnote†to this whole sordid saga, and her only claim to fame will be that her name will be permanently engraved in the “Criminal Hall Of Shame.â€

:leaf: