Misinformation on Other Forums

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?

 

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:-

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.

 

Congratulations Jayelles

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!

 

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:-

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:-

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.

 

Hi Jayelles,

Will reply to this interesting post tomorrow. It's "Father's Day" here, and I have to leave. I understand perfectly what it's like to sit on the fence. I was sure happy to get off it! We should let Jams know we're two "Braveheart Fighting Scots! "DINNAE TARRY WAE ME" If I remember correctly (?).

 

Looking at the fact that the Ramseys have no problem letting people like Susan Stine, Lynn Wood and Susan Bennett aka Jameson speak for them makes one really have to question their ethics, which leads one to question everything about them eventually. So I examined everything they said very closely.

Jayelles, what finally convinced me that something was amiss here is that each time the Ramseys open(ed) their mouths they contradict(ed) themselves. When you lay their media statements beside their book, beside their depositions it becomes clear that they keep changing their story. Now unless one is not being honest why would someone have to change one's story or keep embellishing it?


You want a good look at grieving parents? Look at the Rochas.


Little girls don't just get dead in their own homes on Christmas Eve with no explanation, everyone pointing fingers, parents "getting on with their lives," while getting rich but no one going to prison. Frankly, it ticks me off and I will be here until someone pays the piper.

 

Braveheart to you too It's Father's Day here too. That's funny - our MOthers Days are different.

 

J_r

I'm not familiar with the Rocha case.

I wonder what the Ramseys would say about jameson nowadays? Susan Stine too - are they still great buddies? What would John Ramsey say about her and her shenanigans if asked in an interview?

 

Jayelles, I forget you are U.K.

Click on "search" above and type or paste in "Laci Denise Rocha Peterson." You can also go to the Current, High Profile Criminal Cases forum or you may be familiar but know this as the "Laci Peterson" case?

 

I know that Laci Petersen was the pregnant girl. Was her body found in a landfill site and they were looking for the child? No that's another case. (What case am I thinking on?)

I got so drawn into the vanDam case that I resisted following any more! Did the husband do it?

 

Laci's body, heavily pregnant with Connor, was evidently weighted down in the bay. Connor's body floated to shore and Laci's came ashore a couple of day's later. Scott (or Scaught as he's usually referred to), the husband, is currently on trial. Did he do it? Who else had reason to? He's a cad and a callous jerk based on the face he presented to the media and world from day one of Laci's disappearance. His mistress will most likely testify at trial for the prosecution.

 

OMG, that's awful. Had she given birth before she died? How tragic.

This case hasn't been covered here at all.

 

No. You need to read the forum about what has gone on but basically, they are calling it a coffin birth. The marine life ate away at her torso until her uterus expelled the baby. Her limbs and head have not been recovered and Scaught's alibi the day she went missing? He was fishing in the same part of the bay where both his wife and the baby washed ashore.

Try staying on the fence for that case. :nono:

 

JustinCase

There's more than the 40K? Yes, please make the list.

 

JC,

If I had the list I would have already posted it in the thread I've created called Exposing Jameson at cyberlseuths, an intention I intend to fulfill but when the time is right and I posess enough information to do so; at this point in time, the only people who know exactly how much she's made off JonBenet are hir and those she sold information to. It would be nice to have an exact figure but 40k is a whole lot to make off a murdered child, it's despicable in the worst imaginable way considering her status as proRamsey for all those years.

 

Yes

Yes, it is alot to make off a murdered child. I guess that would be considered taxable business income. Exposing Jameson at cybersleuths, I can hardly wait!

 

JC,

My last post is very misleading, I typed "the thread I've created called Exposing Jameson at cyberlseuths," when I really meant to type "the thread I'd created called Exposing Jameson at cyberlseuths," Sorry to confuse you, I was going to edit that post but decided to leave it as it was.

I actually created the thread quite a while ago but removed it when I began posting here, I removed pretty well all of the threads at that time; it was my first real life crime forum experience.

One day this thread will reappear, for now I'll just rant on seperate threads about the twisted weirdo.

 

No doubt about it, Jayelles, it is a baffling case. I agree with you. Jams would fit in to the tabloid mould perfectly. She's very talented at rearranging text to suit herself. As for Margoo, she was probably cloned the same day as Dolly the sheep.

You're not the only poster to think the perp was a "familiar intruder" quite a few thought in this way. As for Tracey's theory, isn't this stymied by Helgoth's
DNA not being a match?

I don't condone the Ramsey behaviour, either, Jayelles, it was atrocious. They certainly went the right way about turning the public against them. Total confusion was the name of the game for me, until Delmar England arrived on the forums. I was intrigued by his analysis of the ransom note and the garrote. Here was a man who took one look at the garrote and knew this was a cover-up. No one else can make this claim! From this evidence alone, he knows, from his expertise in knots from an early age. I wonder why LE will not give him the chance to demonstrate his knowledge (?).

When you take a good look at the garrote, it's easy to see a child could have made it to pull a wagon, and yet John Ramsey and Lou Smit persist in calling it a complex creation relating to some type of pedophile practise.

I was also intrigued that Delmar's analysis of the ransom note had nothing to do with the style of writing, but by the content, and step-by-step he took me through it. Amazing! I am very grateful for his patience in helping me to understand another side to the analysis of the ransom note, and answer any questions I had doubts about.

I don't quite know what Jameson's modus operandi is any more, to be truthful, Jayelles. I can’t understand Why she still kept involved after her betrayal (?). I have always been suspicious of this Jameson/Ramsey relationship. Susan Stine being the first person to tell the Ramseys about Jameson. Next thing we know is the Ramseys receive a letter from Susan Bennett, and then a meeting in Atlanta, in 1997. We all know the fun and games that Susan Stine has played in this case. There's another Susan who should be arrested for "obstruction of Justice." I sincerely hope these two Susan's will be charged in the near future!

There is no other murder case I know of, where out of the blue, a strange woman appears like Jameson did in this one;even to the point of obstructing justice. I don't think we would see this happen in Scotland, Jayelles (?). If this had happened anywhere in the U.K. the parents would have been hauled to the Police Station in a flash, regardless of their status in the community. The audacity of John Ramsey to ask for extra time to be questioned the next day after the body was found in his own home, was unbelievable! Tomorrow came and along with it, the steel band of lawyers.

 

There was a strange one that came on the scene in the Van Dam case. His name is Douglas Pierce and he is lucky he did not get sued (probably because he had nothing worth suing for ) or find himself in some deep legal problems because of his shenanigans. Actually, he very well could be having some problems, I haven't checked lately.......

I think the internet has encouraged strange ones and wackos and they love that their activities became public. I've read at other forums that there is a Darlie Routie supporter person like hir, although I don't think they have a website, maybe just a forum at a site like EZ Board or Delphi. And there always were high profile case groupies as well as women contacting murderers and professing their love, sick stuff like that. Without the internet, what presence could hir have had?

Edited to add, I did check and can't seem to find Douglas Pierce's website. I did find this string of comments on kinderstart:

http://www.kinderstart.com/comments.php?siteid=37216

 

Elle and Sabrina

Elle

Tracey names Helgoth PLUS and accomplice. The believe the accomplice murdered JonBenet and then Helgoth. It does sound a bit too convenient, but the theory presented in the documentary is nevertheless compelling.

I've posted my theory several times before, but this is an update following the documentary.

I had previously disregarded the starnger-intruder scenario for a familiar-intruder scenario because I reckoned that the killer would have to have been pretty motivated to do the deed in such high risk circumstances and on Christmas Night which is an extra-ordinary night of the year and one which would have carried additional risks. I also think the motives for a lone stranger-intruder are hard to figure out:-

1) The sexual assault was pretty minimal and I tend to think the motive wasn't primarily sexual

2) No valuables were taken and her body wasn't removed for ransom - so I think the motive wasn't monetary gain

3) The body was hidden away (i.e. it wasn't placed in a way that would give the most sickening or maximum shock)

So I reckoned that the motive was either a hatred for JonBenet or perhaps something to do with the parents. I couldn't believe that anyone who was out to hurt John Ramsey would target an innocent child. Surely, they would try to hurt his business or even his reputation - accusations of sexual abuse perhaps. If someone wanted to ruin John Ramsey, they could have done it without killing an innocent child. So that left a hatred or obsession for JonBenet and/or Patsy. I always figured that Patsy would be more inclined to raise emotions than John who is rather dull in comparison IMO.

I had two theories which I have outlined but have only posted fully in private because these people have not been charged with anything and I don't go around accusing people of murder. Both theories had the killer as someone known to the Ramseys.

However, Tracey's documentary has merit because .... I can believe that a PAIR of intruders would be much more likely to commit such a crime. There's a name for it when two people egg each other on to commit crimes that each would not commit on his own. Folie a deux or something like that. One lone intruder wandering about on Christmas Night just didn't feel *right*, but there is a "social" aspect to a pair of them doing it which I can believe in.

Now, I am not jumping on any bandwagons and saying "Oh yes, this is it - Mr X is da killa". What I AM saying is "Hey, that makes more sense than anything I've heard so far - let's get this guy and test his DNA, he sounds like a great suspect".

With each theory that I've read, there have been "difficulties" - bits that don't fit or are reaching. There are holes in Tracey's theory too.

For starters, they have nothing concrete to place Helgoth in the Ramsey home. No DNA, no fingerprints - just the fact that he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots and the police say they didn't match. An imprint of a Hi-Tec logo is not hard evidence. It's circumstantial evidence only. Many people own Hi-Tec footwear with the LOGO - the police did and possibly even Burke Ramsey. Also, the footprint cannot be dated accurately. So the case against Helgoth is not watertight by any stretch of the imagination.

Tracey's documentary claimed that a "vital clue" was this video tape of the film "The Santa Claus" which was interrupted part way through by news footage of the Alie Berrelez murder. John San Augustin said that killers often recorded news footage of their activities into ordinary video tapes. The reporter who reviewd the documentary interpreted this as meaning that the killers were responsible for Alie Berrelez' murder too - Tracey denied this in his e-mail to jameson. Why is it therefore a vital clue and what did John San Augustin really mean if not the obvious interpretation? How many people own the video "The Santa Claus"? What IS the relevance of the news footage of Alie Berrelez' murder if, as Tracey says "What other murdered girl?" and went on to accuse me of having a genetic predisposition to getting it wrong? LOL Maybe Tracey himself didn't understand the significance of San Augustin's comments.

Then there is the problem of John Kenady being the source for some of the "evidence" against Helgoth. Kenady did break into the Helgoth home to obtain the boots and video tapes, but he also took a large personal cheque belonging to Helgoth's father which had nothing to do with the Ramsey case and kind of suggests that kenady's motives were confused. We also only have Kenady's word for Helgoth saying that he was going to do a job with a friend that would net them each $50-60K and then being depressed after Christmas when the deal never paid off. That sounds mightily to me as though IF Helgoth and Mr X killed JonBenet, then the motive was kidnapping all along. So let's think about if we are planning a kidnapping. What do we need?

somewhere to keep the victim
means of concealing the victim in order to get him/her to the holding place
ransom note

What were Helgoth and X's plans for the above? If they wrote a lengthy ransom note in the Ramsey home and with ramsey materials, it doesn't sound as though they came well prepared. Where were they going to keep her?

The how did they plan to get her to the holding place? They'd need to get her through the streets of Boulder - two men dressed as Ninjas carrying a sack or a case? Kind of noticeable. So maybe they had a vehicle. Where then was it parked. By all reckoning, they must have been in the Ramsey home for some time - hours. So did no-one notice a strange vehicle parked for hours nearby?

Then there is the link with the assault on the 14 year old. Investigators believe it was Mr X who did that (Helgoth was dead by then). Yet if Tracey used authentic documentation in his documentary for Mr X, he was 46 at the time of that assault and the 14 year old's mother described the intruder as being in his 20s.

So there are flaws in the Tracey theory - but IMO, it is still compelling and I would very much like to see Mr X caught and tested. He and Helgoth both dressed in black - as Ninjas. Black fibres were found in JonBenet's underwear. Mr X bred wolf dogs. Helgoth had bought two pups from him. The animal hairs found in JonBenet's hands were two different colours and a claim was made on the documentary that they matched the colour of the dogs exactly. Unfortunately, it wasn't stated how they knew they matched exactly. I fact, I have a problem with "colour matched exactly" since experts tend to use the words "consistent with". I feel that if mtDNA testing was done on the hairs, then Tracey woud have used that as a stronger fact to forward his theory.

Mr X appears to have been a "Menace" to those who knew him. He threatened to cut a woman's ear off and he tried to murder his own wife when they'd only been married 5/6 days (according to Kenady). He has convictions for assault and drugs. Some druggie hard-man types stated on the documentary that they were afraid of Mr X.

Helgoth went around shooting off his guns at people - missing them by fractions of an inch. Kenady says he doesn't believe Kenady would have worried about muffling the gun if he'd been going to shoot himself. I think that's a valid point.

"The Menace" will be named eventually I'm sure.