More idiocy from the swamp

Idiocy at jamesons

A couple of days ago, at WS, I posted that I had recently read an old thread where there was discussion about the hassle that jameson was giving River. This discussion went as follows :- seemingly, on or around 8th Aug 2002, Toth (aka DonBradley) had made identical posts on both forums and River posted that she'd been forced to delete the post from WS after jameson complained to the server about copyright. Toth had been upset at having his post deleted and had "left" the forum in protest.

jameson responded to my post on WS on one of her many "BORG ********" type threads and said

The thread thereafter is devotes to personal attacks about me.

Well, for starters (actually, this is more of an aside), jameson has definitely lost the plot with her BORG stuff. BORG is supposed to mean "Believer of Ramsey Guilt" but as I have pointed out before, she uses it freely to describe anyone who opposes jameson (regardless of their stance on the Ramsey case). What jameson does not seem able to comprehend is that "supporting jameson" and being "pro-Ramsey" are not inextricably linked and that being critical of jameson does not make one BORG.

Secondly, no-one was accusing her of "telling her members what to post on other forums". What I posted was factual - i.e. that I had "read an archived thread" which discussed exactly what I stated it discussed. There is no doubt that that discussion took place. Other posters remember it. It was also discussed on another (private) forum.

Thirdly, and this is the ironic bit, jameson not only (I'll allow readers to fill in the blank) :-

• incompetently misread/
• sadly miscomprehended/
• deliberately misrepresented
  

...what I said in the last sentence of my post, but in her attack on me, she also completely left out the FACT that the bulk of my post was actually rather supportive towards Toth. Toth had started a thread to discuss a little private sleuthing he had been doing only to find it deleted because it was so cryptic that Tricia thought it wasn't case-related at all. Toth "left" in protest and things were getting a bit nasty. I made a post to suggest that Toth remake his post but to include an explanation about what it was about as most of the others don't read at jamesons and wouldn't have had a clue what he was talking about. I added that I thought it would make a refreshing change of discussion.

OTOH, don't you just love it when people for whom you have very little respect find it necessary to resort to lowly name-calling?

 

Don Bradley/Toth has a thread at the swamp that is equally as baffling and darkly mysterious. He hints that the swamp's posters know to what he refers but he must keep the mystery to preserve the integrity of his DNA hunt. At least, that is what I got out of it during my brief read there.

It's rather on the scale of a mamethug mystery - one might think he is playing detective, stalking a certain suspect (in his mind), or suspects, because he suspects they may have been involved in someone's death - JBR's? One would think so, since that is what is discussed at the swamp. All very secretive and undercoverish - another jameson clone who thinks he has the right to solicit DNA evidence to be turned into the biggest schemer of all - Smit. Since Toth doesn't want to blow his cover, he must be careful of what he reports on the forums, and thus the senseless threads.

The funniest part of it is, no serious undercover operative would ever give away his operation on an Internet forum. I've not given much time reading Toth/Bradley's posts in the past, because he doesn't have much of interest to say, IMO. This time it sounds as if he's gone round the bend. Most of her posters are borderline benders, anyway, and some are off the road altogether.

People who do this sort of thing are akin to mame and her thugs. They want the attention, but they don't want to tell you anything. Everything is a big secret - in mame's case for good reason, obviously, since it was all a huge lie. In Toth's case, it would seem he's in need of drawing attention to himself and allya just have to understand he can't tell you what he's doing or why or to whom - only that he's having a little trouble doing it. More and more he sounds like a certain Purgatory poster whose neighbors are always trying to kill her or have killed someone else.

Do you suppose? Nah, probably not.

 

Wy

I would still be interested to hear about Toth's exploits - why he suspects this individual and the rest. Whether it had merit or not, it certainly would be different kind of discussion to many others which tend to go around in circles.

What strikes me about jameson and her followers is this amazing pattern of spin and attack. TWICE now she has attributed a statement to me when in fact in both instances, I made it quite clear that I was reporting what another had stated. The fact that she subsequently attributed these statements to me, smacks either of a serious inability to read and comprehend OR of a deliberate attempt to alter the facts. If she's doing that with trivial, non-case related comments by other posters, what on earth is she doing with serious case related issues? Well, actually, that's a daft question becase we all know that she misrepresents case facts too.

Then we have the fact that some of her members jump on the bandwagon and accept what she says at face value. Doesn't say a lot for their integrity or sleuthing abilities No wonder jameson doesn't provide links to the posts she quotes from. If she did, everyone would see how incompetent/deceptive she can be.

Then we have individuals like Rainsong who are unbelievably antagonistic (and I am talking about snide, un-called for personal attacks) towards other posters who don't share her POV and when these posters retaliate, she accuses them of attacking her because she believes the Ramseys are innocent! Others think that a person's stance during the Westerfield trial is irrelevant. Is it irrelevant that some saw no significance in the blood and fibre evidence and the behaviour of the man himself during the days following Danielle vanDam's disappearance? I think comparisons with the Westerfield trial are highly significant. In the Westerfield case, we know the outcome and we know that he was preparing to plea bargain the whereabouts of Danielle's body for no death penalty. There is no doubt he was guilty. Yet there were those (jameson included) who refused to accept the significance of the mountain of evidence - claiming that they needed evidence that put him at Dehesa. Never mind that the body had been out in the elements for s acouple of weeks! Some were even downright nasty to those who evaluated the evidence correctly - called them lynch mob etc (familiar?).

Lets face it. If a doctor had a record of getting diagnoses seriously wrong, would you consider that to be irrelevant?

 

:crosseyed

Well, since you asked, Jayelles, :crosseyed I guess I have to tell you. My personal opinion is that Susan jameson Bennett is an idiot. I really mean that, I'm not just calling her a name, I think she is of low intelligence. I know she seems capable of putting a sentence together, so she can't be all stupid, but in real thinking and reasoning ability, she is at the bottom of the heap.

Furthermore, it is also my opinion that Susan jameson Bennett deliberately twists the words or others who have irked her. She has done it with me, using words out of context and applying meanings to those words that were never intended just to suit her purposes of trying to discredit someone she has taken a dislike to. I know exactly what you mean, and I see you are one of her favorite targets.

Although you have made it very clear that you are not convinced (to put it mildly) that the Ramseys are guilty of anything, you are open minded and you still ask questions and don't attack those of us who might think the Ramseys were involved in their daughter's death, which sends her into a tailspin and makes you her enemy. If you are not BORG, then you have to be anti-BORG in Susan jameson Bennett's mind. There can be no in between.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that Don Bradley/Toth is not Susan jameson Bennett herself. There is not one thing she says that I believe, I do not trust her one tiny little bit, and I know she wears many hats at her forum and has done so on other forums in the past. I wouldn't put it past her to be pulling some more crap with DNA under the guise of Bradley/Toth.

I also feel I should tell you that I don't give a crap about Susan jameson Bennett except for all the misery she has caused others. Her stance on Westerfield and the way she went after the van Dams after they rejected her attempted instrusion into their lives when Danielle went missing was the icing on the cake for me. To me, there is nothing worse than someone of dubious intelligence who is totally incapable of common sense and who shows definitive signs of being a pathological liar who also happens to be the brassiest and most persistent in trying to force her inferior opinions on others. I know a few people like that in RL - people I avoid like the plague because I can't abide loud, ignorant people.

As far as Bradley/Toth and his clandestine operation, gosh, I can't even pretend to be interested in more BS from the swamp. There is a thread there about it, you might be able to decipher his clues. It's not worth it to me to wade through all the crap to try to figure out what he's talking about. Either spit it out or don't even bother to mention it. It's too much like the mameslugs for me.

 

Don Bradley/Toth was doing something illegal, IMO, or he would have put his cards on the table. The devil loves the darkness, and secrets are dark. His clandestine stalking/amateur detective work wasn't legal so he couldn't put his cards on the table. Perhaps he wanted his own mini-guessing game going so he could continue to let some guess. Some of don't care a feather or a fig who he stalks illegally. If he gave the name of that person he was stalking, to LE he should have dropped it there. Looking for his 15 minutes is what that cryptic posting was about. Is he related to Patsy? Sounds like something Patsy would get a 'kick' out of and while we're at it, I think that perhaps his name might be Don Bradley Paugh. Anybody know old Don's middle name? I sure could be wrong but it's a nagging question in my mind.

In this same post, I must add that he's been a long time contributor to WS and is a decent enough guy. Too bad he'd leave. WS needs both sides of the PANCAKE. :abnormal:

 

Agree

A discussion is more interesting when there are different viewpoints. I enjoy reading different viewpoints because it tests my own thinking. I often change my thinking as a result of seeing the sense in another person's argument. What turns me off though is someone who attempts to coerce me into another way of thinking by insulting me for not seeing things their way!

During the Westerfield trial, I watched the coverage on the Internet. Admittedly the video wasn't fantastic quality because I couldn't see DW's tremor but I kept looking at him and thinking how he reminded me so much of a friend of ours and I just couldn't believe he'd harm a child. However, my head told me otherwise. The evidence was just too damning. I swithered again when the bug testimony was in progress, but the forensic anthropologist convinced me that the bug evidence was not exculpatory. I believe he did it - tragically.

Regarding the Ramseys, I think the evidence isn't there to convict them. I also cannot imagine any scenario under which they would actually kill their beloved child. However, I scratch my head over their post-murder behaviour because I simply cannot identify with that. I've read their "chronicle of co-operation" and the spin of some of their supporters, but I think the fact remains that they hindered the investigation by their reluctance to sit down with police and give them the benefit of their unique account of events leading up to JonBenet's murder.

If one of my children were brutally murdered one night in our own home, I would be seeking the blood of the monster who did it. Nothing else would matter - certainly not my image or my ego or my feelings. I think I would feel that the least I could do for my child would be to do EVERYTHING within my power to help find the monster who did this to them. I know for a fact that my husband would be the same and our extended family. If the police decided that I did it, I would hire a lawyer and together we would sit with the police until I convinced them I didn't so that they could get out there and find whomever did. I cannot identify with the Ramsey way of doing things. I mean, what if this monster did it again? How would the Ramseys feel then? How would they feel if it transpired that he'd done it before and that the police investigation had been hampered by un-cooperative witnesses?

The Boulder Police did a terrible job and they should be held accountable for that, but the Ramseys certainly played their part in the mess. I appreciate that there are cultural differences between myself (British) and the Ramseys and I remind myself that these play a part in my thinking. Our police have more autonomy (seemingly) and they don't have to seek the permission of a politically motivated person in order to carry out their job. Our police can insist on interviews and can detain people for 36 hours for interview without having to make any charges. The interviewees don't have to answer the questions, but they can be cautioned that anything they do say (or not as the case may be) can be used against them in a court of law.

It is something completely alien to me that the Ramseys could/would negotiate the conditions under which they were willing to assist the police in finding a child killer - especially when the child was their own.

People have different standards and expectations of behaviour. I don't swear and neither do any members of my family, but I have friends who swear constantly and think nothing of it. So too are their people who think the Ramseys should have been given an automatic pass and that their lack of co-operation was justifiable because they "aren't that kind of people".

In my journey through the forums, I see many different viewpoints and the justification for them. It's fascinating.

 

Imon

It never occurred to me that Toth may have been doing something illegal! I thought he was being cautious so as not to alert his supect and/or get himself into danger!

 

Jayelles

If I were the recipient of Don's stalking, I'd call LE immediately. Hopefully, LE would question the person stalking and/or going through my garbage, etc., and that person would have to answer for his/her behavior. I doubt Don wanted to go to the police station to attest to his behavior there. JMO, though. FWIW

 

Imon

I never thought of that either! Then again, maybe Toth IS a private investigator in which case would he be treated differently by police?

 

If Toth is a PI, I'd better find a hat to eat. JMO, but I think Don is just an ordinary person who has interjected himself into this case. While I've enjoyed reading the "other" side of this case per Toth, I must say he seems just an ordinary sleuth about whom I have my own personal opinions. Why would a man his age, find the JB case of interest, methinks...but that's another thread. Anyhoo, I think he's just trying to put some new spin on somebody other than a Ramsey, for whatever reasons. In this instance, I believe he knew he went above LE's head, and wasn't gutsy enough to have the courage of his convictions. In that case, none of us really needed to know about it, IMO. Failed endeavor.............blah.

 

Well, here's the thing, Jayelles, I don't think the BPD did such a terrible job investigating the JBR case after the initial blunders that were made. Yes, those blunders were significant, but they were understandable given some of the circumstances, including the fact it was a sleepy little Colorado city that didn't have a high volume of kidnappings or child murders. Given the fact that it was the Ramseys themselves who called in their friends that morning, the police can't be blamed for everything that went wrong. It was actually quite compassionate of Arndt to allow the Ramseys' friends to stay to comfort the Ramseys. But, in hindsight, it turned out to be the wrong thing to do.

The RST is fond of making the blanket statement that the BPD fouled up the JBR case, but in truth, like I said, after the initial mistakes were made, the detectives on the case did a fine job of following the evidence. Even Lou Smit admitted that Steve Thomas - the detective the RST loves to hate the most - did a thorough and very good job.

We expect perfection from law enforcement, and we should expect the very best they can give us, that's true. But, there is only one perfect being that I know of, and it's no one walking the earth in human form at this time. We all make bad judgment calls and mistakes. Cops are human, and even with their training, they don't always make the right call. They can't. They are human. Humans aren't perfect. I think it's also important to remember that the detectives are the ones who see the evidence first-hand and who see the actions of the people involved. They can't go where the evidence doesn't lead them - they can't follow an intruder who wasn't there. If there is no evidence to lead them to an intruder, there is only one other direction in which to go - inside the house. I don't think the BPD's investigation was flawed at all in the weeks following the murder. I do think, however, the DA's office obstructed the BPD's investigation.

I think a gross injustice was done to the investigators on the Ramsey case - men and women who spent countless hours and many sleepless nights on the case. The man who was maligned the most probably gave the most - Steve Thomas. He was treated abominably by the RST and Alex Hunter because he spoke the truth and had to be discredited. He leaked information the same way information is leaked from just about every crime case, but so did Alex Hunter and others within the department. ST was hung out to dry for it, though. I will always consider Steve an honorable and decent man who fought for a little six year old girl who couldn't fight for herself. The RST propaganda machine that puts out the nonsense about a "terrible" investigation doesn't influence me. I think the investigation was pretty darn good, if the truth were known.

 

Wy

I'd "lost" St's book for several months and found it last week behind a radiator of all places! Anyway, I started reading it again and found myself cringing at his description of the initial blunders made by LE. I thought "if only...".

Certainly I can't fault everything they did as I agree with you that they appear to have been pretty thorough in many respects. Like most things, we usually hear about the bad things and give insufficient recognition for what was done well.

I agree that Steve Thomas was driven to find justice for a little girl he didn't know and I sympathise with his frustrations at the obstacles which prevented him from doing so. Thomas is himself highly critical of the way things were handled in the initial stages. However, hindsight is 20:20 vision and all that. I think what really got me about Thomas was the fact that he spent a Christmas Day away from his family in search of JonBenet's killer.

 

The Ramseys called in a kidnapping, IMO, full well knowing how things would/should transpire, and also falling back on their current (at that time) position in society. LE responded and it went against the R's as far as FBI involvement and it went against lawful judgements as far as the public is concerned. Poor Steve Thomas walked into a hornet's nest and did the best anybody could to make some sense of this case. Steve Thomas exposed a lot of things that HOPEFULLY have made Boulder's LE more cognizant that we are onto yah. :yay:

Flub ups on anybody's part/s shouldn't have made such a difference, but at this point, it seems to have a Ramsey family member floating along in society free of a charge of murder. Will it be that way forever? IMO, no...and that's why I'm still here, plugging away for JonBenet. I just bet that Steve Thomas is still keeping JB in his mind everyday, too. Amongst us all, we'll see justice for JB someday. That's JMO and I'm not going away.

 

Jameson, who has the mindset to entitle a thread BORG ********, then goes on to have Steve Thomas trashed for his very astute observations, is only being so obvious as to who has the trash mindset. ********????? (not bullchit, hir's resorting to swearing now) Jameson seems to be really cranky these days, even with hir own posters who subtlely challenge the term BULL and want to be professional, and does a two faced challenge from hir own terms and terminology to the posts about the super nice guy/sleuth, Steve Thomas. I think she'd give her left t*t to get Steve Thomas to come to hir board, just so hir could give him the boot and then brag about it. Thank gawd ST doesn't even give this notion a nod. This is all JMO.

 

Now hir has a thread about JB's grave. This, after hir previously had a thread about how hir cleaned up the gravesite, blah, blah, blah. That previous thread implied the Ramseys hadn't cleaned up the gravesite and how wonderful hir was to clean it up for them, giving them excuses so hir could remain in their good graces while telling the world that the R's didn't keep up JB's grave site. Holy cow.......I think hir has many conflicting, angry, thoughts going on in hir head. Probably because hir thought the R's would always find hir the friend to end all friends. SS probably owns that title now, but who's to say? The R's really have no true friends, just people they need to use as needed. Hir lost out....wah, wah, wah.

 

There IS no such thing as a pristine crime scene, LE flub ups or not. I have no doubt the RST would be blaming God or Mother Nature if this crime scene had been outdoors and a sudden thunderstorm came up, obliterating debris and washing away prints. BPD, despite its naivete and extremely short staff at the Ramsey home that morning, did a superb job and, IMO, came up with sufficient evidence to charge the Rs. Unfortunately, Hunter, who was more ethically bound than the cops to preserve the case, leaked so much info and was the sole official responsible for bringing in Smit to spin the intruder theory rather than prosecute the case BPD put together (I have profound suspicion that with the Whites' testimony, that case would succeed). Yet, as WY points out, it was ST who became the scapegoat for all things flucked in the case.

Again, there is no such thing as a perfect crime scene, even when worked by extreme professionals. Look at the OJ case. That crime scene was worked proficiently and professionally by one of the most experienced LE agencies in the country. Yet Johnny Crockrane still found a viable defense to get his murderous client off the hook.

Most small-town American police departments possess not much more homicide experience than the BPD. Unfortunately, the FBI had no official jurisdiction to take over the case when it was readily apparent that there WAS no legitimate kidnapping but "an inside job" as John Ramsey himself confessed.

When a homicide case is dependent on an inexperienced police department and a corrupt DA who can be bought, the case is bound to tank. It's as simple as that. How the RST spins that is far more about their mentality and character than BPD's ability to investigate a case.

 

Just had to add this one:

The lunatic is responding to this story:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/regionstate.htm#story2


jameson
Member since 5-8-02
04-21-04, 05:20 PM (EST)

"Fleet White on a black horse...."

In letters to Owens and Keenan, White — who communicates to the media only through fax — claims that Keenan’s involvement in the Fox lawsuit would hurt the Ramsey investigation. In March, Fleet White, and his wife, Priscilla, met with Owens’ lawyers to express their concerns. In the meeting and in the letters, White said the outcome of the Ramsey case is more important to the state than the CU investigation.

Jameson's response:

Fleet is simply wrong here. He won't talk to people so no one can educate him to things he is unaware of. He is part of the problem and should reconsider.


:duh:

Of course, jameson, what the 'ell would FW know? Hopefully, you'll contact him and set him straight, eh?

 

Jayelles

You note that you don't believe the evidence is there to convict them; however, their so-called "cooperation" and actions post-murder have you puzzled.

My question to you would be to think this through and ask why innocent parents would act this way. Why would they wait four months before sitting with police? Why would they set conditions before considering sitting down with police? Why would they go national on CNN instead of working with police?

You noted what you would do if god forbid, one of your children were murdered.

The differences between your actions and the Ramseys actions point to the difference between innocent parents and guilty parents.

Make no mistake, the parents here killed their child, whether knowingly or unwittingly. As to evidence, most murder cases are borne out by circumstantial evidence. In this case, it would be the negative evidence that would convict them; that is, there is no evidence that this was done by an intruder. The only evidence in this case belongs to various members of the Ramsey family, who were the only people in the house the night of the murder.

The problem with prosecuting this case has been a matter of DA incompetence. None of them has much experience, if any, in trying a murder case. Aside from the fact they're in collusion with defense counsel, the BDA's office refuses to prosecute a circumstantial case, even though the law states that circumstantial evidence is viewed by the court as significant as direct evidence. IOW, the court's make no distinction. The only distinctions being made here is by an incompetant DA.

 

Ginja

I've thought often about this behaviour of the Ramseys and tried to imagine myself in that position. Basically, I think the one major thing which keeps me from being convinced of their guilt based upon their behaviour (does that make sense?) - is the character of John Ramsey. I consider him to be incredibly arrogant and when I consider his demeanour in interviews, comments in transcripts, and the accounts of people who knew him personally, I see a pattern. He consistently seems unable to acknowledge responsibility for his own mistakes and instead he blames others. His comments about santa (courtesy of jameson) reveal a man who is disdainful of those whom he considers to be "lesser mortals" (my term). I would consider him to be a snob and a man who wants status and deference from others. This latest news of him running for political office is entirely in keeping with my impressions of John Ramsey. He says he wants to give to the community but (really) he has done very little to suggest that he is a man who wants to work for his community. The JonBenet Foundation with him at the helm, has been an embarassment.

So you see, I can believe that John Ramsey was in full control of he and Patsy's "co-operation" and that their failure to co-operate had less to do with guilty behaviour than it had to do with spectacular arrogance and outrage at being told what to do by lowly public servants.

 

That is a different way of looking at it - one I would never have considered, and here's why. Ramsey's actions (as in arrogant and controlling) do not match his words. I too believe he is arrogant and controlling, but I believe that control came in the staging of the crime scene and his arrogance allowed him to believe he could get away with it. How can a man claim to love his child as much as JR claimed to have loved JBR; claim, even in the face of evidence that he was not telling the truth, that he and Patsy had cooperated with the police; say that his purpose in life would be to find JBR's killer, while all the time spitting in the face of authority merely out of arrogance? It doesn't make sense to me.

I believe that both John and Patsy are arrogant, but the brutal murder of one's child would tend to render both of them helplessly unable to refuse cooperation solely because of arrogance. That kind of trauma can break the strongest, the meanest, and the most arrogant of people, leaving them vulnerable - nothing else matters - not pride, not stubborness, not status - nothing. I've seen big tough arrogant men break under the threat of loss of a child. I've heard them say, with my own ears, that nothing was worth losing that child, nothing mattered. I've seen them broken, with no sign of arrogance.

But, these men did not kill their children. They had no other reason to be evasive with doctors or law enforcement. There were two men I knew like this - one did lose his son through a gunshot accident. The other nearly lost his son to encephalitis. Both were arrogant, tough, in your face men. Both were brought to their knees. Neither one likes cops or authority of any kind. Neither one fought authority in these cases - they were too hurt, too much in pain. Nothing mattered but their children.

I can believe JR's arrogance could make him plant his heels in a normal business deal or even with his family from time to time. I cannot believe a man who claimed to have been devastated by the death of two daughters could find the strength to be arrogant. In fact, I think he would be at his most humble and vulnerable, willing to do whatever he could to help the police. He wasn't, he didn't, and there's a reason why. Instead of having nothing left to protect, he did have plenty to protect - his fortune, his reputation, and his family, probably in that order. I believe he had to dig his heels in and stall talking to the police, hire lawyers to keep him from having to talk to the police, which they did, and hire lawyers for his wife, son, older children, and his ex-wife.

Nah - he's arrogant, but that reeks more of having everything to hide. People who want the killer of their child found don't stymie the investigation at every turn and call the investigators names. If they had to walk through a little fire to be cleared by the police, they would have done so gladly just to get it done and get the search for the killer directed in the right direction. They didn't want to sacrifice one little thing to help the investigation. Arrogance? Yeh. It was arrogance all right, but not just because that is JR's personality. It was arrogance in all its glory, used to block all efforts of the BPD to investigate their daughter's death.

At least, that's the way I see it.