Misinformation On Other Forums

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Barbara, May 1, 2004.

  1. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now that Jameson herself has stated that taking parts and snippets of quotes, along with the name of the poster is very legal.....and interesting, I, feeling particularly PEEVED at the way the RST has commented on and reacted to the effort in Boulder, wanted to take the opportunity, one snippet at a time (can you tell I'm stuck in the house today waiting for a delivery? :) ) to respond to some silly comments from that forum.

    Jameson has started a thread believe it or not, to do just that with snippets from FFJ, now that they are public and she has begun with comments from Judith Phillips along with her response as to why we are all wrong about everything with no logic.

    I begin with this piece:

    My response:
    Ahh, the good old logical reason why the call didn't come. He didn't call because he knew the body would be found and there would be no money. The intruder is also rational and knew that calling would make no sense; that this was a murder. Smart guy!

    My question:

    With such a rational and logical mind then WHY WRITE THE NOTE AT ALL?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly, Barbara. Why write the note at all?

    Of course, most of us know there was no intruder, and that one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. I believe the main, if not the only, purpose of the note was to provide "proof" of an intruder...the only "proof" the Ramseys could conjure up.

    imo
     
  4. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jameson has flown to NY, Boulder, and claims to have traveled to many more places to find "justice" for JonBenet. Her members have applauded her, shown support and possibly helped to pay for her expenses. They do not find her as an ordinary citizen with no personal ties to this case, intrusive or disruptive. They have not yet remarked that she is annoying to the investigators or anyone else. They have not yet stated that she takes herself way too seriously.

    Now, the effort in Boulder by other "citizens" to help bring some sort of attention to the case is met with this remark by one of her biggest admirers and supporters Margoo, in reference to Tricia, et al.

    Way to go Margoo!
     
  5. Watching you

    Watching you New Member

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Barbara, I've given myself a rest from reading at that forum. It's an assault on my brain to read that stupid, insulting crap. jameson and all her members wouldn't make an ink spot on Tricia's resume.
     
  6. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WY, it's all in the attitude. When there is something, anything, happening in the Ramsey case that is not favorable to the Ramseys, that forum is the best entertainment. Give your brain a break and read for the humor, if nothing else. ;)

    Now that we can comment on some of the insanity and the spin and use some portion of the quote as well, I find it less irritating and frustrating now that we too, can respond. No more asterisks, no more vague references, with this forum. Like everything Jameson, I'm sure this novelty will wear off sooner than not.
     
  7. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In reference to a poster who stated that more than one source states that JBR's vaginal opening was twice the size, etc., Jameson responds:

    This is from the same woman who just, maybe an hour or so ago stated that those who think the Ramseys are guilty are disappointed that Patsy recovered from cancer. This same woman reported Ariana Pugh and her family to the authorities as porn participants. This same woman who intimated that Damon VanDam was a pedophile and a murderer.

    Just some of my favorite things
     
  8. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well what do we have here? A whole thread for the purpose of cackling about stupid crap the Skank happens to post on the Swamp!

    Gee, if I didn't know better, I swear I was at FFJ!

    It sure didn't take long for this place to deteriorate to that level after going public, now did it.

    Hey Trish, hate to say "I told you so", but guess what...
     
  9. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shylock,

    It was not my intention to turn this into any other forum. I started this thread, not Tricia or anyone else. I did it because ............ quite frankly, I could and at a time that I felt we could finally respond to those who are quick to critique us, and at a time that I felt particularly annoyed at the RST. It's just one thread that can be deleted at any time the moderator wishes, and I'd understand. Just venting

    Sorry if this upset you, although I don't see why you are quite that upset. :waitasec: You've been known to do some cackling with those RST yourself and not nearly as "nicely" as I have :truce:
     
  10. vicktor

    vicktor New Member

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Intruder senario: Someone with past criminal exp. and prison time decided to break in. He could have looked for valuables/money, taken his pick and left. He could have ransacked the house + above and left. But his interest was for the little girl who lived there. He was able to get her downstairs out of earshot before she cried out. He wanted to have some fun. He tied her wrists with cord, then applied the garotte. It lasted until she screamed or attempted to get away, then he hit her with a heavy object. Most perps would have left at this point, but being orderly and meticulous, it wasn't complete. He caused the injury with the broken paint brush , applied duct tape to JB's mouth, put her body in an out of the way room, wiped her down, and wrapped her in a blanket that obscured the garotte. When he broke in he had a wishlist of fantasies in his head, what to do. What could he get away with? Like most criminals the fantasies and the ability to actually make them happen were two different things. Being intelligent and having time before acting, he decided to write a ransom note, as a prop. In it, he made references to several crime movies, where the bad guy taunts the police. He also wrote quite a bit about LE procedures, and tactics and suggested he had some to use as well. He spends a good portion talking aggressively about what he will do. Someone who is a marginal member of society who gets no respect, has had run-ins with and doesn't like the police, yet understands them, who feels powerful by threatening others yet attacks and subjugates a small girl. To me, the fact he would write a prop note beforehand and did 4-5 extra things after the crime agree completely.

    IOW, It wasn't a crime to steal valuables, wasn't a spur of the moment crime like stealing a running car, wasn't a heat of passion crime or crime of anger, wasn't a calculated crime for money like a bank robbery, it was a fantasy crime. From the prop note to the method how she died, to the staging after, it was fantasy.

    Of course there are the 3 other senarios which others feel are more likely. But if the hard questions are answered which go along with these, IMO, the above senario is more probable.
     
  11. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's not take the "mutual admiration society" concept too far. It's nice but it solves nothing, remember this ,the "Ramsey did it theory" has been held onto a bit long and has been found full of holes. I believe it's time to "give it up" and find the killer,but heck that's just me. Most of the information that tipped the scales in favor of a "ramsey" has been debunked,so what's the deal,why can't anyone consider if only for a moment that there is a killer loose and he's male and he's dangerous and his last name isn't Ramsey. Note I didn't say change your minds,I mean it more as "open them" ,give ideas on both sides consideration.
    JMO
     
  12. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    MOST of the information has been debunked? Since when? By who?

    NOTHING that points to the Ramseys as being involved with the death of JonBenet has been debunked by anyone.

    Name ONE thing.

    None of the experts could eliminate Patsy as the ransom note writer, and some said they were 100% sure she wrote it.

    Patsy's jacket fibers are in the garrote knot and the paint tote.

    Shall I go on?

    It's more like the alleged intruder evidence has been debunked ... the palm print was Melinda's, the footprint probably Burke's, and the ancillary hair was from someone related to Patsy through her maternal line (through mitochondrial DNA.)

    And another thing.

    Most of us started out with "open minds." I did. I thought the Ramseys were innocent at first. I didn't WANT them to be involved in JBR's death. I STILL don't want to believe it. But that is where the evidence points. I have not arbitrarily decided to condemn the Ramseys based on hearsay and a narrow point of view, and I am offended at that insinuation.

    I have wrestled with the evidence in this case, and given it a great deal of thought. I did not come to the conclusion of Ramsey involvement as a knee-jerk reaction to anything published in a book or on a forum.

    Do you think it was easy for me to realize the Ramseys were somehow involved in the cover-up of what happened to their daughter? Do you think I enjoyed coming to terms with the fact that Patsy wrote the ransom note (after my own handwriting and linguistic analysis)? Do you think I didn't feel the horror of knowing that JonBenet was hurt (either accidentally or on purpose) by someone in her family?

    It makes me physically sick every time I really think about it.

    Knowing what I know about the ransom note is why I initially read, and then joined, this forum. It bothers me there will never be a resolution to the case. There is no intruder, but the Ramseys will never be prosecuted. The case was bungled by the BPD, sold down river by Hunter in the DA's office, and swept under the rug by the Boulder elite.

    The Ramseys are guilty of covering up what really happened to JonBenet. Every action, every word from their mouths points to that conclusion. From refusing to cooperate with the investigation to their fraudulent SHOES organization and non-existant JBR web site ... THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON CHRISTMAS NIGHT 1996.

    Like they said, the Ramseys just want to get on with their lives. They don't need to know "who" killed JonBenet ... they already know, and they've been trying to bury that knowledge for years.


    IMO
     
  13. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .

    The mutual admiration society, while nice for venting, also brings about discussion regarding what is real information and what is MISinformation. If the Ramsey did it theory has been held onto a bit long, perhaps Keenan will no longer keep them under that umbrella as she now does, despite her statements from Carnes'. What holes have been found? None that I can fathom. Keenan has not cleared the Ramseys yet. Nobody has cleared the Ramseys. They can say in public what theory they think is "likely", but the Ramseys are still the only two people under suspicion. The note writer has not been identified yet and IMO, Patsy wrote the note.

    Give what up? We ALL want to find the killer, but most of us don't feel it's a big "search". The killer/s are easy to find. Evidence to create "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not there. It was their home, their environment and therefore, in a courtroom, the fibers, etc. are easily dismissed. The other problem preventing the killers from being prosecuted is that a prosecutor must know the exact scenario with the exact person/s to bring a case to trial. In this case, it will probably never go to trial because nobody can say beyond a reasonable doubt WHO did what.

    Like what?

    We have ALL considered it for way more than a moment. There IS a killer loose and while not a real threat to society, has gotten away with murder. I believe the last name IS Ramsey, although it could possibly be Paugh. I wish those with a closed mind to the RDI theory would give it more than a moment to think about ALL areas of the case. They might develop a few doubts.

    We might ask the same. You'd be surprised what you might come up with.

    Why is it that those who feel the Ramseys are innocent MUST believe that those who do not gave this NO thought, NO investigation of the evidence (as the public knows it), NO effort, NO fairness, NO credit for looking at everything objectively and just coming up with a different conclusion? It gets a little tiresome having done the homework, coming up with an opinion that is not an intruder and then people just assuming that no thought went into it?
     
  14. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Barbara on the lack of a phone call from SickPuppy...

    "Ahh, the good old logical reason why the call didn't come. He didn't call because he knew the body would be found and there would be no money. The intruder is also rational and knew that calling would make no sense; that this was a murder. Smart guy!
    My question:
    From my first post in this thread, I asked:

    With such a rational and logical mind then WHY WRITE THE NOTE AT ALL?"


    Jameson's response to me:
    First, one would have to believe that the intruder stayed in the house and "settled in for the night"!!!????????? Then we would also have to believe that he knew the Ramseys schedule and how long they'd be gone. A stranger has no way of knowing whether they would be gone for an hour or for two hours or even for the whole night, maybe they were only going to be gone for 1/2 hour, yet this strange intruder was comfortable enough to stay "settled", look for the materials in the house (pad, pen, flashlight, rope, etc.), write a practice note, write a three page ransom note and then, also know when everyone was fast asleep enough to pull this off without being heard. We have been through this many times. How would an intruder know when it was safe? How would he know that Patsy and John wouldn't still be awake after such a busy Christmas day? Perhaps, as many parents do, when the children are in bed, they exchange personal gifts in their own room, maybe they would settle in and watch some TV, maybe they would just lay awake and talk, laugh, and just relive the nice parts of the day together alone, maybe they would take the opportunity on such a nice day to be "intimate". How did the intruder know that Burke, being young, would not still be awake reading a comic, playing with a new toy, etc? I am a parent and for those others who are parents also, do your kids fall asleep in seconds after being put to bed? Have you never found them awake and playing after being put to bed? I have.

    I have real trouble believing that an intruder would just know everyone was fast asleep, especially with the parents being on the top floor where the intruder would not hear quiet conversation, etc. coming from the master bedroom from the basement or the first floor.

    First Jameson's response to why he wrote the note:
    Now Jameson's response to why he left it:
    Quite a contradiction. Now it could be argued that he wanted a "delay", but if that was the case, he could have asked for the money by a certain time, thus really delaying the finding of the body and he could also have had the thrill of having John run around with no time to find the body and possibly getting the money. For such a bright intruder, he did neither.

    Edited to add:

    Sometimes threads like this can in fact, bring some good discussion and point out contradictions and inconsistencies.
     
  15. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's no "misinformation" about this case when it comes down to the FACTS that prove one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet or knows who killed her, and that prove there was no intruder. Here's just a couple of the many facts that prove Ramsey involvement:

    FACT: All three Ramseys conspiratorily lied to the police in an attempt to cover up something when, in separate interviews, they said Burke was asleep in bed at 5:52 A.M. when the 911 tape proves Burke was actually in the kitchen carrying on a conversation with his parents. Why start lying to the police just minutes after the cops get there to investigate the kidnapping of a six-year-old little girl?

    FACT: JonBenet had to have willingly come downstairs in the middle of the night with someone she knew to snack on pineapple 1 1/2 to 2 hours before she died. She would NOT have come downstairs to sit at the breakfast room table and snack on pineapple with an intruder, while the intruder helped himself to a glass of tea. The pineapple proves there was no intruder and a family member had come downstairs with JonBenet and sat with her at the breakfast room table. JonBenet had sat at HER place at the table and the family member had sat at BURKE'S place at the table.

    JMO
     
  16. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Bluecrab,

    I had completely omitted the pineapple aspect from my above post, although unintentional. That's what is important with threads like this. They can serve as a refresher for some of us. This stranger/intruder would also have had to take the time to prepare a snack for the two of them....and know that pineapple was JBR's preferred snack, and knew where she sat.

    Jameson has responded to Bluecrab with this:
    What doctors will swear that the pineapple was eaten hours earlier, even before she left for the Whites? Unfortunately, what we "personally" believe about the pineapple only matters on the forums. The pineapple is the thorn in the sides of those who believe an intruder committed this crime. There is no other reasonable explanation for the pineapple, unless a family member fed it to her. That might be why the "personal" belief is that it has nothing to do with the murder. If one includes it in the murder scenario, it points to the family.
     
  17. Spade

    Spade Inactive

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Coroner Meyer had noted in his autopsy examination that the food found in JonBenet's intestine would have been consumed approximately two hours prior death. However, both John and Patsy stated that no one had eaten anything at the house when they returned from the White’s dinner party, and that JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home and remained asleep.

    In February, 1998, detectives from the Boulder police department asked their assistance in conducting an analysis of the contents from the intestine obtained during the autopsy. At the initial examination, Coroner Meyer had suspected that the retrieved substance was pineapple fragments. The bowl of pineapple detectives found on the dining room table at the Ramsey residence the morning of December 26 had been taken into evidence that morning and frozen for future comparison studies. After examining the two samples, the biology professors confirmed that the intestinal substance were pineapple, ant that both this specimen and the pineapple found in the bowl contained portions of the outer rind of the fruit.

    The study also identified both samples as being fresh pineapple not canned. The conclusion of the two professors was that there were no distinctive differences between that found in the bowl and that removed
    from the intestines.

    Prior fingerprint testing on the bowl that contained the pineapple had picked up prints from both Patsy and Burke."
     
  18. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Correct, and since it's doubtful Burke was the one who emptied the dishwasher and stored the bowl in the kitchen cabinet, then Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple are understandable because SHE was the one who likely emptied the dishwasher and stored the bowl in the kitchen cabinet, not Burke.

    Therefore, Burke's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple indicate that he, Burke, was the one who placed the bowl on the breakfast room table, leaving his fingerprints on it. The tea, which was Burke's drink of choice, and the fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple strongly suggests that JonBenet and Burke were sitting together at the table at around 11:00 to 11:30 P.M. that night, 1 1/2 to 2 hours before JonBenet died. (I'm estimating JonBenet died at around 1:00 A.M., based on the full rigidity of the body when found at 1:00 P.M. that afternoon -- 12 hours later.)

    The pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine, Burke's fingerprints on the bowl, and the empty glass with a spent tea bag in it, eliminates the possibility of an intruder having committed this crime. Even John Ramsey admits that JonBenet would NEVER have sat down and snacked on pineapple with an intruder.

    JMO
     
  19. Cain

    Cain New Member

    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's from jaMEson's thread "Sending information", where she gives lesson on how to remain anonymous when contacting someone. (Useful to send information and also to another no so polite things, I fear)

    Sending snail mail?
    If you truly want to be anonymous, don't put your return address on the envelope.


    Sorry, I know we are not supposed to waste time talking about jaMEson, but I couldn't resist it.
     
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    jameson is the last person I'd send information to - after finding out that she only forwards that information which SHE deems relevant. Bluntly, she isn't qualified to be vetting tips from potential informants.

    A poster once sent her a tip/information which jameson not only didn't forward, but she also posted details of the tip and poked fun at it.

    OK, so maybe the tip wasn't genuine/worthwhile, but that is not the point. Who is jameson to decide what is and isn't relevant in a murder investigation?

    IMO, if anyone is going to advertise their services as a tipline, then they have to be prepared to pass on ALL tips and let the investigators weed through them. The investigators know the full details of the case, jameson does not. A tipster may not sound convincing to jameson but only the investigators would know for sure if that tip contains something not known to the public.

    My advice to any tipsters is DON'T send anything to jameson. It may never be passed on and may end up the subject of one of her "Garbage/Jello" threads.
     
  21. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Do you think he knew the Rs? Do you think he had prior knowledge of the yard and house?

    And finally, wouldn't he be fearful of spending so much time in a house where the parents were present, on Christmas night?

    IMO
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice