0408199948hrs2.htm

CBS ~ 48 Hours ~ April 8, 1999
The Jameson / Foster Reviews
From Other Random Internet Posters

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
longhorn - 09:19pm Apr 8, 1999 MST (#8 of 16)
Jose Cuervo IS a friend of mine!
I still am of the belief that jameson is male. I still believe there were multiple jamesons for a time, and the dominate one was/is male. It was at that graphic time that I ceased conversation with the jamesons. I was there at the "coming out", pointed out that many of us had supported and defended jameson although we disagreed about the Ramseys innocence. TO say jameson is attacked because jameson believes the Ramseys are innocent belies the months of said above behaviour from many on this forum who supported and defended jameson. It was only upon the graphic, purient nature of the posts that I backed away, as did many others. Once there was a backing away from conversation with jameson, the real games began as far as jameson was concerned. The rest is history.

There has been a plan in place from the beginning with jameson. The reason and who instigated it, I do not know and I care nothing personally about jameson. I do care, however, if someone knowingly tries to interject oneself into an ongoing murder case, tries to mislead, misdirect the authorities attention to the resolution of JonBenet's murder.

A POSTING ON THE CYBERSLUETH'S FORUM:
MaskedMan
Member posted 04-08-99 10:32 PM
Jameson's attempt to demolish Professor Donald Foster has failed miserably. "Is that all there is?" as Peggy Lee sang. No wonder she wasn't invited to testify about this stuff before the grand jury. It would have been a waste of their time.

In 1997, Foster suspected Jameson? So did Lou Smit! Jameson's vivid Internet posts, including talk about masturbation and a "sex glove," initially aroused suspicion even among investigators, including Lou Smit.

As for Donald Foster, whose findings Jameson has dismissed (even though she has never seen them), he has been reluctant to reply to Jameson's charges because "my confidentiality agreement with the Boulder Police Department is quite strict, preventing me from commenting even on matters that concern me personally."

He says that he speculated about the crime in 1997 before he had a copy of the ransom note, but "I did not then, nor have I since, publicly accused anyone of anything." His early speculation occurred before he had the ransom note and other documents. He initially thought the Ramseys were innocent. Clearly, he didn't come to the case from an anti-Ramsey bias.

His work on the case consists of "textual and linguistic" analysis of the statements and writings of various suspects (not just the Ramseys) in the case. He says: "I was able to supply facts pertinent to the investigation. My personal opinion of that factual evidence is immaterial to the deliberations of the grand jury. Another scholar looking at the same documents would have supplied the same information." Donald Foster provided an objective, facutal analysis that doesn't require him to testify in person. Sorry Jameson, facts remain facts, even if you don't like the person delivering them. "And hence" the murderer left their tell-tale linguistic stamp on the ransom note -- a stamp that implicates that person.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
"Lou Smit also suspected Jameson"
Posted by MaskedMan on 18:15:55 4/08/99
Include Original Message on Reply
For a while back in 1997, Donald Foster wasn't the only one who suspected Jameson. Lou Smit also wondered whether the mysterious "Jameson" could have been involved in the crime. Jameson's lurid, detailed posts on the Internet caused Lou Smit to look into this peculiar "Jameson" person. Jameson knows (but will she admit it?) that Smit suspected Jameson. Why doesn't Mrs. Bennett also try to discredit Lou Smit for having suspicions about Jameson? Applying her same reasoning -- that a so-called "expert" who guesses wrong should be ignored -- would she also advise us to disregard Lou Smit's judgement? I think not.

Having read some of Jameson's old posts, which were full of prurient suggestions about sex gloves, masturbation, etc., no wonder Don Foster and Lou Smit had suspicions about Jameson who seemed to have a vivid, almost pornographic obsession with the crime. If Jameson wants to make an ad hominem critique of Donald Foster, based on his past speculations, can we also discredit Jameson by bringing up some of her strange old theories?

Also, it is a fact that Jameson tried to implicate the Ramseys' former housekeeper in a pornography ring. Jameson's judgement in naming suspects hasn't been any better than those who she denounces. Donald Foster's conclusions are objective findings, worth considering, regardless of his previous statements. Jameson is engaged in an ad hominem attack, not a critique of his findings, of which she knows nothing. I think that Lou Smit and Donald Foster are both still players in this case who have to be taken seriously, regardless of their human errors. Jameson doesn't see her own mistakes, so she has little tolerance for human fallibility.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
1. "To jameson"
Posted by Wendy on 15:45:14 4/08/99
Include Original Message on Reply
Jams, you must admit that during that first year after the murder, your posts were filled with lurid, "over the top" scenarios involving sex gloves and various acts I won't go into. And if it's any comfort to Foster, he was by no means the only one who was convinced you were involved in the murder.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
7. "I'm with Wendy..."
Posted by kathy on 17:27:22 4/08/99
Include Original Message on Reply
You can't unring the bell on your perverted stories you told. People have copies of your childhood stories and sent them to Foster. End of story. He never mailed you directly and accused you, so don't get all excited. Foster's story of the note was told to the grand jury and they will weigh the facts and determine the importance of your run in with him..

I'm sure you will be portrayed in a dignified manner and have nothing to sweat. As for Foster, he has nothing to run from or be ashamed for, he is a very talented man.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
4. "That is not Foster's site..."
Posted by kathy on 18:56:46 4/08/99
Include Original Message on Reply
It belongs to one of his old students. He was in Boulder and away from his computer when Mrs.Brady's URLs posted the picture from that page. It cracked him up because the picture was supposed to be an attempt at sattire. I guess the jokes on you. It is not Don's site..He called me asking me why I put it up there....He thought since I was a Brady that I had something to do with it.. MaskedMan and I even taped a parody of it, called ,"Don Foster, the man with two brains"....

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
13. "Jameson, great job"
Posted by maikai on 20:54:28 4/08/99
Include Original Message on Reply
on 48 hours! I'm glad you got this information out. It is important to the case. It's not just Foster's emails to Jameson (aka JAR).....but his written statement to his literay agent that he solved the Colorado case. And I don't see how he could come to any conclusions on Jameson as JAR, without having samples of JAR's writing....or knowing anything about him. I think he went over the edge on this one. And why the BPD would take his opinion and run with it...not to mention the DA boggles my mind.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
14. "Jameson"
Posted by docg on 20:55:37 4/08/99
Include Original Message on Reply
Come clean, Jameson. The 48 hours reporters didn't push you very hard and you came off as just another housewife with an obsession for this case. Yet time and again you've mysteriously come up with inside information. If you just happen to be just another "ordinary bystander" who happens to have strong feelings about the case, then where on Earth are you getting your information, who is your source? And if you refuse to divulge this, at least admit, if not to Dan Rather, than to your buddies on this forum, that you're NOT just "one of us," but someone with an as yet unexplained connection to this case.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
14. "What foster said"
Posted by violet on 08:02:19 4/09/99
Include Original Message on Reply
to Jameson may not be a smoking gun, but it does raise questions about his credibility in this case. Combined with his earlier letter to Patsy declaring her innocence, and we have some evidence of a character who seems to be bouncing all over the place with his expert opinion.

When there is the possibility that an innocent woman may be put on trial based on Foster's conclusions, what choice does Jameson have but to bring it to the attention of those involved?

Obviously, out of all the stories in this bizarre incident, 48 Hours thought it was compelling enough to include in their presentation. If Foster's expert opinion is given weight in the media's portrayal of Patsy as note writer, then Jameson's story deserves the same airtime.

Remember, Patsy still has the most to lose out of all the players.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
"Statement Analysis"
Posted by skyprofiler on 09:00:53 4/09/99
Include Original Message on Reply
The Foster/Jameson spot on 48 hours was not about a lingust incorrectly identifying Jameson as JAR. It was about an overzealous expert witness who was deceived by the alter-ego persona Jameson.. who intentionally set out to mislead, deceive and hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

To this day,, Jameson creates false impressions that are, to say the least, less than candid and forthright. This behavior does nothing to establish credibility, and does absolutly nothing to help an investigation. In fact, the opposite is true, and Jamesons activities have harmed more that helped the direction of the investigation of a murdered child. The only way that anyone can help, whether they are an outsider or someone directly involved in an investigation... is to be open and honest.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
8. "Why are we being told to read"
Posted by MantisGruP on 09:15:21 4/09/99
Include Original Message on Reply
"Foster's own web page" on Jameson's webpages?

The URL shows these pages to be included with Jameson's Timeline, but it isn't an accurately "mirrored" URL because it is heavily editorialized by Jameson.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
15. "You're BOTH Right...."
Posted by Zeke on 09:17:12 4/09/99
Include Original Message on Reply
The DA has no business using Donald Foster for "handwriting analysis," and Lou Smit is so obviously involved with an unprofessional agenda that he has no business before the grand jury, either.

As for jameson appearing, the answer is simple: If Foster wasn't before the grand jury -- which he shouldn't -- then her appearance would be "moot." She only offers information that goes to "the weight" of his evidence -- evidence that is NOT admissible in a trial...So Foster would NOT be missed if he did not appear before the GJ in the first place.

A POSTING ON THE CYBERSLEUTH'S FORUM:
mame
Member posted 04-09-99 09:35 AM

the entire show failed. it's amazing how low journalism has sunk. dan rather should be ashamed of himself.

A POSTING ON THE JUSTICE WATCH FORUM:
31 . "I wrote them"
Posted by Allipat on Apr-09-99 at 11:11 AM (EST)
justice in the name of JBR

I wrote an email to 48 hrs last night right after the "show". I was really feeling bent out of shape. So, I didn't mail it right away thinking sleeping on it would cool me down. It didn't. the email got longer instead of shorter and still not well written. I am not proud of the writing, but have to admit I feel better for sending it. This is a copy. Y'all can chew me out. I just couldn't let that crap go unchallenged. the email:

Allipat's Letter To 48Hours

I watched the 48 hours show that was supposed to have "new" information about the Ramsey Case. I did hear Dan Rather say that 48 hours had investigated themselves. Either you were "had" or we were. There was not a single bit of information that has not been known for months shown..All of it was re-runs and old re-runs at that.

Why show clips of the documentary (known in some circles as the crock) that have been shown at least four times. And in fact I have a tape of it and also one of the English Version. I really did not need to see it again. It was a very slanted piece to begin with. The "blackmail" story was lifted out of Lawrence Schiller's best seller and Sherry Keene Osborn's story was lifted lock ,stock and barrell from "jameson's Time Line" which is a rewritten doctored tale.

Sue Bennett aka "jameson" is a proven liar and extremely vindictive. Did she tell you that she was posting to Foster as a MAN who's wife was killed on the autobahn? Did she tell you about her graphic sexual postings? They can easily be found. They were shocking even thinking they were from a man.

Sue Bennett is the most disliked ,distrusted. person on the internet. She calls the bosses of people who do not agree with her and tries to get them fired. She has harrassed forums to the point that she managed to close 4 of them because she did not like the postings. (The email from the sysop is available if you want it) She has written and harrassed the Grand jury or at least Michael Kane. She calls Lou Smit. All because she had a "shower vision" that the parents did not murder their daughter. Evidence means nothing to her. She has tried so hard to railroad innocent people that she sent child pornography to CBI and claimed it was the Ramsey handyman raping his daughter.

Sue Bennett came on your show to discredit Foster, because he figured her out and refused to have anything to do with her. Michael Kane refused to allow her to testify for the Grand Jury. She is known in Boulder as a kook.

I also noticed Sherry K. Osborn talked about the DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her panties. What she 'forgot ' to mention is that that particular DNA was so weak it was impossible to identify as being either male or female, much less identify the source. The DNA under the fingernails was said to be 'old and cracked'. That information has been available for a long long time. JonBenet's blood DNA on the panties was fresh and strong. The "unidentifiable" DNA was weak and unreadable.

I am sorry Dan Rather was connected with this farce. It has really damaged his credibility and our faith that what we hear at CBS is really true.

A POSTING ON THE CYBERSLUETH'S FORUM:
reese
Member posted 04-09-99 11:56 AM

Carol McKinley was on Boyles this morning saying that 48 Hours paid Tracey as a consultant for the show. This happened after they spend a month in Boulder and couldn't find a story. They also paid Tracey for the documentary exerpts.

So I guess he isn't in this out of the kindness of his heart afterall. He cashed in on an oportunity just like many others have done surrounding this case.

Gregg McCrary is a hero. He knows the secret to solving this case is in BEHAVIOR, not anything the suspects or their friends say. Too many Ramsey friends are willing to overlook their behavior. There is not a human walking this earth who is incapable of killing another human. It's in our genes. Don't LISTEN to statements.. LOOK at behavior.

A POSTING ON THE CYBERSLUETH'S FORUM:
Jan
Member posted 04-09-99 01:57 PM

Foster once said to me..."The truth is gaining ground, inch by inch." and he said that Kane was a good man......Foster remains on top of his game this morning, untarnished and still very well respected.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
14. "appearance"
Posted by xen on 14:00:40 4/09/99
Include Original Message on Reply
Jameson, imo what you did last night was wrong. You stated that all you did was type "The Ramseys were innocent" and maybe a few more words, and from that Foster picked you out as the killer; that you were not involved with the family or investigation in any way, only a suburban housewife. You know that's wrong. You came here with knowledge of many things not made public - scoops from your sources (excellent source, A #1 source, the best source, a friend of a source, source this and source that - that's all you talked about when you posted but if you're a nobody within the investigation, who's gonna give you any information? You tried to discred Foster but it will backfire on you, imo. xen

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
16. "My impression..."
Posted by Sally on 14:50:47 4/09/99
Include Original Message on Reply
of what I saw last nite..some real similarities in the behavior of both Foster and Jameson. Both come off as being overzealous in wanting to be involved in this case. From his past track record, Foster LIKE MANY "EXPERTS" sometimes have a hit...sometimes are way off base. Case-in-point: Dr. Henry Lee. What makes Foster's behavior seem less than honorable is he appears attention hungry in wanting his opinion to be the one that breaks this nationwide case. He appears to be very ego-centric and that makes his behavior suspect in this instance.

Jameson, from what I've observed over the past year, is very similar. She is, by her own description, a housewife amateur detective who has been continually handed vital information and wants to "make sure the authorities pay attention and act on it." From all appearances, she too is jumping up and down for attention to be the "one" who breaks the case. I've seen her leak bits and pieces of what may or may not be "important information" and then stand back and watch while people beg her for details.

In the investigative business, there are always a long line of super-hero wannabes who repeatedly try to inject themselves. They want to be stars. Its alot worse when its a case that gets national attention. Okay...I'll run to the corner and brace for flames now...

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
18. "Internet Deceptions...."
Posted by Murphy on 15:15:56 4/09/99
Include Original Message on Reply
I agree with the statement above that Foster is an "overzealous expert witness" wannabe.

I also agree that Jameson "intentionally set out to mislead, deceive and hide behind the anonymity of the internet". Let's look at that...

Not unlike many women, jameson came online wanting people to think she was male hoping to avoid many of the pitfalls that go with being female online. That IS deception. BUT... Foster believed he was analyzing someone who was trying to DECEIVE. After all, John Andrew isn't a middle-aged married man in NC with a family, as jameson "said" she was.

I'm trying to understand both sides of this but I must admit I'm having a hard time. I just don't "get IT" deep down. Somebody splain this to me...

Would it have made a difference "IF" jameson had said she was a middle-aged woman with a family living in NC instead of saying she was a middle-aged man with a family living in NC? NEITHER of the two fit John Andrew Ramsey, IMFHO.

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
48 HOURS IS ASKING FOR IT! JUSTICE FOR FOSTER FOUNDATION
cheesy - 03:13pm Apr 9, 1999 MST
Still thinking Jams is Patsy's Puppet.
So let's give it to them:
Email Us: Do you know a great story that you think 48 Hours should cover? Let us know. Or, just tell us what you thought of this week's show and site. http://www.cbs.com/navbar/news.html EMAIL them at 48hours@cbsnews.com Let's FLOOD them with letters and change their minds that Jams respresents the typical internet poster. I believe that Foster got a bad deal on this and I have started a campaign to prove that he was misled by Jams. That Jams said and did things to feed on his professionalism. 48 HOURS ALREADY KNOWS SHE WAS POSTING AS A MAN, didn't that MEAN anything to them when they found out she was a fraud???? WAKE UP CBS!!!

I am determined to prove that Jams is Patsy's puppet and should be exposed for trying to contaminate the World Wide Web with what Patsy wants us to believe.

IF YOU OR ANYONE YOU KNOW has any information that can help prove this, please e-mail me at cheesy21@email.com

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
birdy - 09:18pm Apr 10, 1999 MST (#26 of 29)

I gotta repeat. The only thing Foster did wrong was believe jameson. that is all.

Jameson was posting as a man who lost his wife on the autobahn. She was posting some very graphic sexx fantasies.

Now, I ask you for what reason was Suie Bentnet posting that kind of garbage if she was an innocent North Carolina housewife? Was her intent to deceive? What was the purpose?

Did anyone expect a trusting linguist!cs professor to be a criminal profiler and look for a dece!tful woman posting perverted sexx?

Unfortunately we all believed she was just what she posted as, a perverted male. How does that discredit Foster?

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
"Still no proof from Jameson against Foster"
Posted by MaskedMan on 00:20:28 4/11/99
Include Original Message on Reply
I would like to remind everyone that Jameson still hasn't proved her charges against Donald Foster. Jameson has yet to provide any documents or email from Foster to prove that he made outrageous claims about her. Donald Foster says that Jameson is telling lies about him. Jameson has failed to give us any reason to believe that what she says about Foster is true. Simply taking her word for it isn't sufficient.

Out with it, Jameson. You told me repeatedly that I "don't know the whole story." Now, after the "48 Hours" show we still don't have the proof. OK, let's hear it, finally -- if there really is a story to tell. Foster says you are untruthful -- and your behavior makes me wonder. Put up or shut up.

Jameson's coyness and her continuing failure to back up her claims makes me have serious doubts about the validity of her claims. Why no proof?

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
auntiebj - 06:15pm Apr 11, 1999 MST (#14 of 14)
http://members.aol.com/ACandyRose/index.html

Ever since Jameson has been involved with Michael Tracy and David Mills to work on this new documentary which turns out to be this CBS forty eight hour special she has been on a mission to discredit the posters here on this Boulder News Forum. Why? Because many poster here know a lot about Jameson's past history and can vouch for many of the very types of postings that others read back in ninety seven whereas they drew a conclusion that she was a man or pretending to be a man. Donald Foster was just another one of Jameson's victims.

I have read many postings here in the last couple of months from people who says, "Why is it is important to drag up the past and keep going over these old postings and chat logs?" Many of them said to just forget it, many of them didn't believe it. How often have I seen the words, "Get over it," "Back to case," "Drop it," "Forget it," and then Jameson's words, "All lies." For those of you who have said this, think about what has just happened on forty eight hours. Jameson then went on a mission to say she never wrote all of those postings. Now that she wants to discredit Donald Foster she is saying he did read all the postings, the very postings Jameson herself said were all lies and that the BNF posters here were making it all up.

Why bring up the old posting and chat logs? Because it is important. Because they prove Jameson did pretend to be a man when she first logged on the Internet. Because they prove that Jameson did deceive many posters on stuff she said to them. Jameson said she was forced to lie and tell stories because her demanding audience made her do it. Did she do that to Donald Foster too? Donald Foster read postings of what Jameson call her lies and then Jameson goes on National television and attempts to disc#FF0000it Donald Foster for this because he might have believed her just as so many other poster did.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
29. "Help me here, Jameson?"
Posted by Texas 1 on 20:21:36 4/11/99
Include Original Message on Reply

What am I missing? Was Foster just playing 'sleuth' when he thought he had found JAR on the internet? I vaguely remember so many posters at BNF thinking that the real 'killer' may just post on the internet, and the BNF would be an added thrill for the killer...I was there, and it was an exciting time, thinking that maybe ONE of us could find the killer, on the internet...WHAT does this have to do with Foster and his linguistic approach to comparing the ransom note with Patsy's writings? Will you at least admit that your posts had many posters wondering about the 'sex glove', the 'sitting in the tree', and masturbating by the perp? I even wondered where Jameson was coming from...NOT a flame, just need to follow what you are saying.

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
_houston - 07:53am Apr 12, 1999 MST (#36 of 40)
Miss you terribly, little piggy
Something not quite right in this entire scenario. After watching the show, it occured to me that from 48 Hours' viewpoint, why put Jameson on the show at all? Her tiny spot certainly did not add anything to the segment. To those viewers not affiliated with JBR forums, it was little more than an interruption. IOW, there was no intrinsic value in countering Foster's opinion, at least not with regard to the flow of the segment, and not with a nobody (with regard to the case) like Jameson. With a Smit, yes. With a Bynum, maybe. But with a Jameson? No. Come to think of it, the internet slant wasn't even part of the foreground of the segment until Jameson was brought into it. It was as though she was an overlay.

No, I think the reason for trying to discredit Foster was that he can do a lot of harm to Patsy, and, as with everything else, Jameson's appearance was an attempt to dilute and diminish that harm - both for the GJ and for perspective jurors should there be a trial. I think Jameson is very tied to the defense of the Ramseys, and if she ever was just a little housewife from NC, somebody on the Ramsey team was tipped off to the value of having a devoted, 24-hour Ramsey defender on the internet--one whom they could manipulate, one who would attack harmful testimony and throw out red herrings and trial positions whenever convenient or beneficial.

Enter Jameson.

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
poisnivy - 02:38pm Apr 12, 1999 MST (#2 of 24)
I think it's pretty safe to say that Foster made a name for himself way before the JonBenet Ramsey case. Sue wonders why Foster might have thought Jameson was John Andrew. Hmmmm...let me count the reasons.

1. Jameson - JA ME SON.
2. Frat boy obsession.
3. More frat boy mastERbation.
4. Fake vaginas.
5. Auto-erotic research.
6. Sex gloves.
7. Family names - JonniB, Mindy, Drew.
8. Comments - eg. "You will all be shocked when you find out who I really am."

Now, does this sound like a 20 year old college student with his hormones in an uproar or does this sound like a pitiful homeschooling housewife whose voice sounds like she swallowed a Barbie?

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
"You could have stopped this..."
jane2 - 10:55pm Apr 12, 1999 MST
James*n's post to Foster sounds rather personal, doesn't it? I wonder about people who engage in personal feuds and stop at nothing to ruin their so-called enemy. Her web page is cruel. She uses the e-mail of Dr. Foster and doesn't show her e-mail to him. That's called "shading the truth". And she does it time and again. Her post on Yeager and the SBTC nonsense is a case in point. She began to berate the BPD for obtaining a report from Mr. Yeager on the bizarre religious aspects to this case. But what she failed to report is that the Ramsey investigators asked the BPD to look into this so-called lead. The police are not some kind of "kooks" who are so desperate to convict the Ramseys, they are looking for some weird religious angle. But she doesn't want to admit that. She would rather "omit information" than lose the battle to be right. She calls Kane "wanton" and "reckless" and yet she knows nothing of what is going on in the grand jury. She thinks nothing of destroying reputations in order to bolster her argument.

A POSTING ON THE WEBBSLEUTH'S FORUM:
5. "Jameson"
Posted by why_nut on 20:08:48 4/13/99
Include Original Message on Reply
It seems to me that you are unconsciously drawing an exact and precise parallel between the certified Foster letters and the enhanced 911 call. In both cases, we, the audience, are told that evidence exists to support an accusation. In both cases, the holders of this evidence have given it to authorities. In both cases, audience members have entirely legitimate reasons to question whether the evidence is what its advocates say it is, because we are not permitted access to this evidence for purposes of deciding for ourselves. You have made your position on the enhanced 911 call clear. You have said that "nobody has heard it" and that it may reveal nothing incriminatory against the Ramseys. You have made a case that it should be disregarded. I must, therefore, believe that since "nobody has read" the certified letters, they may reveal nothing incriminatory against Foster. I can make a case that these letters should be disregarded. On this comparative basis, no reasonable argument can be made by you that the enhanced 911 call should be considered as evidence against the Ramseys, while your letters should be considered as evidence against Foster.

If I am to take your unseen letters seriously, then I must take the enhanced 911 call seriously.

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
auntiebj - 02:31am Apr 14, 1999 MST (#42 of 43)
http://members.aol.com/ACandyRose/index.html
Yes, Jane2, Jameson is an extremely evasive person when it comes to asking her a question and wanting a direct answer. And I, too would like to know what she meant by posting a personal message to Foster on the WebbSleuth's forum saying, "You could have stopped this...." Did Jameson have a conversation prior to going on forty eight hours with Foster to not testify? Is this not tampering with the Grand Jury and those who are called to witness or provide reports to the Grand Jury? The statement, "You could have stopped this...." sounds like a threat.

Here is the thing that gets me. The Grand Jury is the Grand Jury. We have to have a certain faith in them to go over all the evidence and make the right decision and the same with Kane. We don't know what ALL the evidence is they are looking at and what they are including and what they are not. We are not in control of that but some people seem to want to be.

Jameson has branded herself as the archivist and historian for the case on the Internet but when you ask her a questions, she avoids answering and actually borders rude if you insist on an answer. One time in the WROW chat room Jameson actually asked me who I thought I was to even deserve to get an answer from her. Well excuse me, I guess I should have made an oppointment. And this is total bullcrap that she is protected from debate on public airways. In my opinion the people protecting her in that aspect are no better than she is and all they are doing is agitating the situation so nobody is allowed to confront anything Jameson says.

It is almost a joke. Here is Tracy and CBS. They found a life wire and sucked her in to get all the information they could so they could put on their show and make their money. Let's face it, CBS and Tracy are not working for free on some 'justice for JonBenet' campaign. So in steps Jameson, they stroke her, she blabs her story, signs her release and they got enough information to make mega bucks for that show and many more down the road.

Special Postings From Other Posters Who were on the forums and chat rooms back when Donald Foster wondered also who Jameson really was.

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
spencer - 09:43am Dec 31, 1998 MST (#21 of 21)
Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all. (Oliver Wendell Holmes)
I'm going to say my two cents on this subject, too. I was in irc, with several other people, when Jameson did a private irc chat with ME, and not the other way around. I asked Jameson nothing prior to hir requesting this private chat with me. My irc log shows who initiated the chat, and it was Jameson. In this chat, which is NOT edited, Jameson proceeded to tell me the most gruesome stories of hir upbringing I had ever heard. I never once asked Jameson to tell me these things. Never once. A month later, I "outed" Jameson for acting like a man when in fact hir was a woman. Hir protested loudly to me not to do it. I did it because I was tired of the subterfuge, the lies, and most of all the games and fun Jameson was having by deceiving everyone with hir gender. At this time I begged Jameson not to go into all of the gory details of hir upbringing that she had told me. But nooooo, Jameson insisted that hir tell everyone present in irc that night every detail, plus some new ones, on hir hideous childhood. At NO time did I ask Jameson to share with me any details of hir life. At NO time did I ask Jameson to tell everyone about hir life at the grand unveiling of hir gender. At NO time did I edit the logs of either of those conversations. Jameson is now conveniently saying that people pressured hir into telling hir story, so she made up lies to appease all of us. That is the biggest crock of all, bigger even than the Ramsey Crock. I am sick of listening to this lie, lie #1000 in a long list of lies that Jameson tells. There isn't a word on either of those logs that was changed. The only thing done to those logs was the deletion of both of our names. Jameson, you can continue to tell everyone on any forum in the world how maligned and mistreated you were about those irc logs, but the fact remains that you said what you said, the irc logs reveal exactly what you said, nobody but nobody pressured you to say anything, and you are in fact a big damn liar. So keep right on lying away, Jameson. It does not affect my credibility, and since your's already resides on the bottom of a scum-bound river, I doubt your credibility will be affected either.

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
denver_ - 10:11am Dec 31, 1998 MST (#22 of 22)
Broncos ~Simply The Best~
Credibility is a huge issue. Jameson has NONE. I was present on the irc channel when jammy confessed to being a woman and told all her tales. I will swear under oath that those irc logs are unedited in any way. I would like to see the other 20 or so people that were present to also post that they would swear under oath that those logs are accurate. Texas1, ToppCat, LizzieB, Tannest, Ruthee, genie2, bluegene, Timex, NoraNora, Longhorn, HomeSch (Questioner), Faxon (LisaNJ), and others were present when the chat took place in addition to myself, Spence and LoriAnn. Jammy, too many people....give up the lies.

A POSTING ON THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM:
looloo - 07:33am Dec 31, 1998 MST (#19 of 20)
http://members.tripod.com/~JamesonTimeLine_/jammyslimeline.html
I swear if Jameson says that snakecest barn story was edited one more time I will absolutely explode. I challenge each and every person who witnessed this IRC chat to come forward and declare that Jameson is lying once and for all. And if Jameson will just admit to lying all this time about the log being edited, I swear that I will never flame her again.