Connection - Susan Bennett (aka jameson) & Kostanick

Who is Charlie?

 

Sbtc.....

Swamp
Bump
Telling
Cookie

RR

 

I have to smile when I read jameson's denials of any impropriety in the Ramsey case. She always denies something a little different from the original accusation.

Her latest denial is that she didn't "rip her heart out" during a dinner and that she didn't leave Tracey's bathroom "spattered in blood". Did anyone suggest she had? It is easy to deny a distorted version of an accusation.

The FACT is that jameson has sold stories to the tabloids over the years and made $$$s from selling information which she obtained about the Ramsey case. These stories resulted in anti-Ramsey headlines which hurt the Ramseys - caused Patsy to cry. When the Ramseys found out jameson was the tabloid source, they issued a statement via their lawyer to say they would have nothing more to do with her. Their lawyer, Lin Wood, said that he believed she had done it for personal greed. jameson's response? - that Lin Wood hadn't bothered to find out the truth. So why doesn't she tell us the truth? She has spent the last 3 (?) years whinging that no-one knows the truth - yet she fails to tell us what the truth is.

The FACT is - why should anyone believe anything jameson says (she is a proven liar and a master of the carefully chosen words)?

 

Such word play talent!

Yes, hir teacher is soooo proud. Proud as a pig with Green Eggs and Hamm, wink, wink.....

Now, back to slobbering over that stunning picture of Priscilla again......... :bow:

:takeoff:
RR

 

I haven't slobbered for over a week and it was at Ricky Martin on a TV interview.

Pass the tissues ...

 

The truth -

OK, :dammit:alltohell, I have to bite.

According to jameson - "I made the tapes available - to get the truth out in place of a vicious book that was in the works."

Raising that up the old :bsflag: flag.

Hasn't the "truth" according to jameson been she received the tapes from an "unknown" source? :lier:

What "vicious book" is she referring to - would that be Miller's book? Was it supposed to come out about then? Oh, I hope it was. I laugh just thinking it might be. jameson made $40,000. I hope Cookie and husband make a mint!

I make no mistake. The only truth is that jameson sold (euphemism "made the tapes available") the tapes for 40K.

Someone sent jameson the tapes for free. jameson sells tapes for 40K. Buyer got tapes. It sounds like someone lost out to the tune of $40,000 in those transactions.

Of course the truth about jameson is revealed. Again.

 

BWHAAAAAA!!!!!! That was great Moab!

 

I haven't seen any response to me, but if that's what she said, then she is demonstrating my point exactly - by responding to a different accusation than was made. I certainly didn't say she was a master of English - just that she was a master of the carefull chosen word - which in her case is just another form of lying. Politicians do it. They don't answer questions - they simply make statements in response to questions and in doing so, they cleverly refrain from answering the questions. jameson does this all the time. I'd love to see her interviewed by Jeremy Paxman - a political interviewer for the BBC. He does NOT allow politicians to get away with this. Instead, he keeps repeating the question until they either answer it or admit that they are declining to answer it. I think his record for repeating a question is 14 times. I find it bizarre that jameson has, on several occasions made statements about a child who died, about her self-harming, about the Patricia letters ... yet her denials are never quite the same as what she was accused of. I cannot help but think that if there was no truth whatsoever in the accusations, that she would have no difficulty in just denying them. Instead however, she makes a series of statements which deny something slightly different than what has been accused. It's a bit like someone being accused of stealing a blue car and using it to run someone over and in response, they deny that they stole a blue car or that they ran anyone over with any stolen blue car. The emphasis being on the "blue" car - because it may have been a grey car or a green car. I always get the impression that jameson's denials are carefully worded so that she isn't technically lying - but she IS intentionally misleading.

I'd be fascinated to learn the whole truth someday. Maybe John Ramsey will write another book and tell us what he knows about jameson.

 

I do believe that North Carolina can't be the Patsy for Sue. She is pure Yankee from far North of North Carolina. Mrs. Hamm would know.......

:curtsey:
RR

 

GROAN.... She's still twisting words and she most certainly does lie. She is an expert spinner of the truth - only she could spin years of lying into "being good at keeping secrets".

For years I often read her denials and thought "well, it's her word against so and so's - who knows that the truth is?" Then I had personal experience of a blatant and malicious lie and it told me all I needed to know about Ms Bennett's integrity.

One thing I have learned in following this case is that she has zero integrity. The Ramseys were well justified in dropping her like a hot brick.

 

I find Susan Bennett's attempts to justify her lack of integrity and her actions quite revealing. Take, for instance, her taking it upon herself to sell the Ramseys' police interviews to the National Enquirer. She claims she did it so the truth would be known and to trump a BORG book that was coming out. Such a noble thing for her to have done.

Too bad her actions don't match her mouth, though, because if she were acting out of nobility and truth, she would not have accepted $40,000 or even $40 for her act of betrayal. Her alleged motive of getting the truth out will forever be tainted by her act of taking a good sum of money - something she has condemned others for doing over and over again. It's just another example of of her narcissism at work.

And, yes, she is a big fat liar.

 

What I can never understand is why more emphasis is not put on the fact that she had no legal right to sell those tapes. Sue Bennett did not create those tapes. She did not record them. She was not on them. She was not working for anybody who had the legal right to possess them. If she truly received them in the mail from she-has-no-idea-who, then she received illegally-distributed property, no different from receiving stolen goods. You can bet that if she bothers to read this post at all and respond to it, she will say, "Why_nut has no idea what the truth is," but I assure you, I know the ways of the publishing world and its contracts, and I know that before she was paid one thin dime, she had to sign a contract stating that she was either the legal copyright owner of the contents of these tapes, or she was willing to swear that she would indemnify the owners of the Enquirer from any legal ramifications if the legal copyright owners were to come after the Enquirer for violating either copyright law or other criminal law.

I take some small solace in the fact that she also did not get to keep all of the $40,000, because there would have been no reason for the owners of the Enquirer to refrain from treating her as an independent contractor and sending her a 1099-Misc form for her service in getting them the tape. Once the Enquirer generated the form, the financial transaction became an official event the Internal Revenue Service was notified about, and Sue would have had to pay taxes on the money she got. She also had to pay self-employment tax above and beyond the regular tax on this income. Unless, of course, it all went unreported, in which case, hey, time to notify the IRS and get a little reward money for tipping them off to unreported income.

 

I have always wondered what right Bennett had to sell those tapes - they didn't belong to her, and she surely did not have permission from LE to sell them. I've also wondered why Boulder didn't go after her for illegal possession of police property. Perhaps it was because her "unknown source" was from the DA's office; perhaps even Lou Smit? Or, was it Darnay Hoffmann? Imagine that.

Whatever. It wasn't right, and nothing Bennett says can make it right. In fact, it was downright sleazy on her part.

 

I don't believe for a minute that she sold thje tapes to stop an unfair book being published. How did she know the NE were going to publish a book about the ramseys? She must have had inside knowledge about that - I guess if she was a tabloid mole she might get that.

If she had released the tapes AFTER the NE book and donated the money to a children's charity, I would have had a lot more respect for her. She also posts as though the NE book was some great pro-Ramsey publication and it wasn't. The NE used it to support their anti-ramsey stance and it broke Patsy's heart to find out that she had been betrayed by yet another so-called friend.

 

Well, that's another issue, altogether, Jayelles. Why on earth did she think those interviews helped the Ramseys? That's how skewed her thought processes are - she did far greater harm to the Ramseys than she did good.

 

I'd like to know when the idea of sellnig the tapes was hatched. I'm sure I recall reading a post of jameson's where she said she'd like to see a book of transcripts but when was that? When did the NE start publishing their book series? Have they always done that?

 

There is a lie in her right hand. Left, too. She knows who sent her the tapes, don't ya think? I do.