Justice Watch Support JW "Fosterama!" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Fosterama!, V, 20:31:31, 3/23/2001 Foster, SDean1, 20:42:12, 3/23/2001, (#1) ..., V, 20:47:51, 3/23/2001, (#2) Bravo V, ayelean, 22:06:16, 3/23/2001, (#3) Ayelean, momo, 22:13:08, 3/23/2001, (#5) V's Manifesto, mary99, 22:12:38, 3/23/2001, (#4) Excellent analysis, V..., Dunvegan, 22:49:53, 3/23/2001, (#6) V!, Country Girl, 22:58:34, 3/23/2001, (#8) Foster, JR, 22:54:44, 3/23/2001, (#7) JR, starry, 06:08:59, 3/24/2001, (#11) Starry, JR, 22:07:45, 3/24/2001, (#20) the "original" Jameson, Tomahawk, 23:11:22, 3/23/2001, (#9) Why?, Charley, 05:52:21, 3/24/2001, (#10) Simply put, Charley, ayelean, 06:57:37, 3/24/2001, (#12) "No Comment", Sabrina, 07:10:49, 3/24/2001, (#13) Sabrina, , Florida, 13:11:05, 3/24/2001, (#14) Florida, Sabrina, 14:50:42, 3/24/2001, (#18) Did ya ever notice, ayelean, 13:27:39, 3/24/2001, (#15) what I wonder, Ayelean, Edie Pratt, 13:38:47, 3/24/2001, (#16) Very Interesting..., shadow, 13:49:57, 3/24/2001, (#17) And Foster....., Sabrina, 15:49:58, 3/24/2001, (#19) Foster, JAR, Jameson, rachel, 05:15:44, 3/25/2001, (#21) Rachel, JR, 13:24:13, 3/27/2001, (#27) I hope..., janphi, 09:16:05, 3/25/2001, (#22) lintons, royal486, 23:24:07, 3/25/2001, (#23) Great V ..., Mandarin, 01:11:19, 3/27/2001, (#24) Mandarin..., Charley, 06:24:29, 3/27/2001, (#25) Charley ..., Mandarin, 11:55:55, 3/27/2001, (#26) Yup Mandarin...., Charley, 15:29:07, 3/27/2001, (#28) ................................................................... "Fosterama!" Posted by V on 18:16:58 3/26/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:16:58, 3/26/2001 (I posted this only moments ago at the BORI Public Forum and am now posting it here so no one will feel left out. The Foster-bash was in full swing there from about February 24 through March 1; I assume it's only on temporary hiatus). Re the Foster / Jameson imbroglio (imbruglia?): FOSTER'S WORTH 1. The idea hereabouts seems to be that Professor Don Foster of Vassar is no good for anything, that if Foster says the sun is shining, be sure to carry an umbrella. This sentiment seems to come from the idea that Foster is a media ho who is only in it for the attention, and who brings preconceived notions to cases in order to further his fame. Okay: why didn't he "prove" that "Wanda Tinasky" was Thomas Pynchon, which would have been a heckuva lot bigger story that Tinasky turning out to be a dead beatnik that nobody ever heard of? Why wasn't a hotter, more famous (and more willing) name fingered as the author of Primary Colors? Why has he taken low-profile cases, such as the "Gujarati" murders, and taken cases in which he had to sign nondisclosure agreements? One would think that if he's simply flacking his own career as The Great Attributor, he'd be making a new high-profile attribution every few weeks, like a tabloid prognosticator. The media ho theory also does not account for Foster's actions regarding the Ramsey case. If he only wanted to inject himself into the case, it shouldn't matter which "side" he took - there was no reason for him to kiss up to the BPD, when he could have kissed up to Hunter (who had more power, and who, after all, hired him) or the Ramseys (who had more money, and to whom he had already expressed support). Plus, sticking to the Patsy-Didn't-Do-It interpretation would have been easier - he wouldn't have had to recant an earlier opinion. 2. Recent quotes from Jameson: "Others in his field feel he is an idiot. I agree with them. His work is NOT without critics - check it out. His peers do NOT hold him in the highest regard." "While I was with CBS . . . I got a lesson in these 'statistics' and remember Foster wasn't following accepted practices in that area. They felt his work was clearly open for attack. And he IS under attack by others in his field." "Someone, two, three people who DO know what [Foster's report] means DID sit down with me and go over what some of his stuff was. And these are people who are educated in that field. They told me that from a scientific standpoint, his work was garbage." (Just curious -- did they have the report? Or were they going by your description of it?) Jameson, on the Boulder News Forum in April of 1999, you said that you believed that determining authorship of texts solely from internal evidence was not possible even in principle, and would never be possible. Question: if Foster's "literary forensics" is right up there with table-tapping, does the word of other practitioners of "literary forensics" carry any weight in impeaching Foster? It's like saying astrology is total bunk, and these astrologers say that astrologer is doing it wrong. Why try to establish that one practitioner is an idiot if it is your position that whole field is idiocy? Further to the simile: are you sure they're really astrologers? "Literary forensics" is not the same as "linguistics" or "forensic linguistics" - a field which primarily deals with meanings of words rather than figuring out who wrote them. "Forensic linguistics" deals with such things as interpretation of legal documents, use of interpreters in the courtroom, procedures for creating transcripts of legal proceedings, and use of metaphor in front of juries. (You said that "Linguistics has NOT been used in any court," but in fact it's used often). It might be possible to see "literary forensics" as a subset of "forensic linguistics," but even that would be arguable. That there are people in related fields who say, as you do, that identification of an author cannot be made on the basis of internal evidence alone. (Two of them, anonymously reviewing the prospectus for Foster's Shakespeare book, were identified by Foster using the internal evidence from their reviews; they bah-humbugged the fact that Foster caught them). Can you name some of your critics-of-Foster and be specific about what their objections are? And finally, if it is not possible to determine authorship of the ransom note from internal clues, then why do we bother to discuss the content of the note at all? 3. Jameson, you have said that "Foster's work is based on the assumption that he has the author of the note on his very short 'suspect list.' All he did was answer THIS question -- 'Of the people on this limited suspect list, which writer seems most likely to have written the book by "anonymous"?'" Further, you say that if the people from New York magazine had not listed Joe Klein as one of the possible authors of Primary Colors, "Foster would have named the next guy in the list - and he would have been wrong." On the late Boulder News Forum (BNF), you stated it more forcefully: "BUT CONSIDER THIS, Foster was working with a very limited 'suspect pool.' The computer spit out the name of the best match - and even if Clinton himself had written the book, Foster would have named Joe Klein - because Clinton was not on the list." In other words, had the situation been way different from what it actually was, Foster might have been wrong. But it wasn't different, and he was right. You seem to be assuming that Foster was operating under a "forced choice" scenario - that he was obligated to certify who-wrote-the-McGuffin from the list of choices given to him. I find no evidence of this anywhere, and wonder how you developed this idea - the notion that he was under some sort of contract to name someone on the list as a suspect whether anyone on the list was a good match or not. A hypothetical - what if he examined the Klein-free list and told New York, "No one on this list matches Anonymous well enough. I think Anonymous is someone who isn't on this list." 4. It's interesting that you go out of your way to make what Foster does sound easy: "the computer spit out a name. . .") In his book, Author Unknown, Foster says: "It has . . . been reported that I have a crystal-ball computer program: you just feed an anonymous, pseudonymous, or forged text into Don Foster's amazing computer, along with some known writing samples by identified authors, and the software spits out a name: 'William Shakespeare,' Ted Kaczynski,' 'Joe Klein.' I wish it were that easy . . . the work is time-consuming, and the time spent is sometimes wasted, producing no more than a 'maybe,' or no attribution at all." [emphasis added] If he simply took the "next" name on the list, he would always have an attribution. Clearly, that is not the way he does it. (Please note that in the Bari case, in which you chide Foster for casting aspersions recklessly, he comes up with what amounts to a "maybe" and suggests that the real perp isn't on the list). You imply that he would say anything to get attention - but he said "no comment" when Klein confessed; he didn't spike the ball and dance in the end zone. He said "no comment" when asked about the Ramsey case on 20/20. And what does he have to gain by making a bad identification? Wouldn't a few consecutive bad ones take the bloom off the rose? 5. Your hypothetical about Joe Klein hiring a ghost writer to rephrase every paragraph of his book in non-Klein language means that in essence the ghost writer would be the author of the book - maybe not the originator of the story, but the person who chose the actual wording. I believe Foster would argue that such personal choices comprise the essence of writing. Foster can't be blamed for not picking Klein as the author of such a text if much of the text ultimately wasn't written by Klein. 6. You also state that David Kusnet was first to identify Klein as the author of Primary Colors. True, but there were also dozens of other people who were the first to identify other writers as the author. At the time, Kusnet was just one of many making such claims. (Kind of like the many on the fora who "identified" Patsy, or John, or Linda Arndt, as the author of the ransom note). If Foster was going by Kusnet's cue, how did Foster know that Kusnet was the right one-out-of-many to be saying who they thought "Anonymous" was? Unless, of course, Foster's method works. If it doesn't work, how do you suppose Foster picked Klein out of about fifty names that were being bandied about? Dumb luck? 7. Regarding the Kaczynski business. Rit says, "Why is Foster always taking credit for fingering the Unabomber?" DonBradley says, "It has always been a mystery to me just why he takes credit for having 'identified' the Unabomber at a time when his picture was on the front page of Time magazine. Doesn't seem like too difficult a task." Jameson says, "Foster was called in and asked to compare the writing of the manifesto to writings found in Ted K's cabin. No one thought it WOULDN'T match." Here's Foster on the subject, from his book: "I did not help solve the Unabom case." And while he puts together a scenario about how literary forensics might have identified Theodore Kaczynski even without the help of TK's relatives, he leaves open the question of whether or not TK would have been identified without the relatives' help. 8. Here's the sequence. Kaczynski's sister-in-law first thought there were similarities between TK's writings and Unabom's. She told her husband, TK's brother, about it and he saw similarities too. The argument here seems to be that the case was already settled, and all Foster had to do was say, "yeah, I think he wrote it too" and cash his check. Not so fast: the identification by two relatives, who may or may not have had an axe to grind, was not enough to justify arresting someone about whom there was practically no other evidence. More to the point: it was not enough to justify a search warrant. James Fitzgerald did an analysis for the FBI of known TK writings vs. the Unabom documents and found enough similarities to convince a judge to grant the warrant. Now, as to "nobody thought it WOULDN'T match": there were parties who could, and did, vigorously argue that it DIDN'T match: Kaczynski's attorneys, who hired their own expert to castigate Fitzgerald's work as filled with "false statements, material omissions and irrelevant information." (Kind of like what the BORI are saying about Foster now). This was in a defense motion to suppress all evidence found at TK's cabin - on the grounds that the attributional analysis on which the warrant had been based was bogus. Foster was brought on board to analyze Fitzgerald's analysis. For this, "I had to learn the difference between material that was useful at the investigative level and material that was actually admissible in court." The questions he had to answer were: "Was the FBI affidavit reasonable, fair, and accurate in having characterized as 'very similar' the writings of Theodore Kaczynski and the Unabom suspect? And were the defense witnesses correct in alleging that the FBI substantially misrepresented the attributional evidence?" Foster examined the Unabomber manifesto, Kaczynski's known writings, Fitzgerald's findings, and the charges of the defense expert; he concluded Fitzgerald's analysis was sound and even conservative, as there were even more points of comparison between the T-docs (Kaczynski's) and the U-docs (Unabom's) than Fitzgerald mentioned. He also found the defense expert's objections to be flimsy. Foster began writing a second, more detailed report to respond to additional defense objections, but it was rendered unnecessary when the judge ruled against the defense motion. The judge cited Foster's first report in his decision to throw out the motion to suppress. Foster had shown that Fitzgerald's analysis established probable cause. Foster calls the judge's decision "a benchmark decision regarding the legitimacy of attributional evidence in a criminal prosecution." You may argue with that view, but it's clear that Foster's work has been admitted in Court, and has been influential. Seal, are you sufficiently convinced of Foster's discreditedness to demand a new trial for Kaczynski, with the evidence from the cabin suppressed, on the grounds that Foster's opposition to the defense motion was unreliable? Had the Court granted the motion to suppress, almost all of the physical evidence against Kaczynski would have been thrown out (along with almost all of the prosecution's case). The sister-in-law and brother would have been given hell by the defense, as people who were trying to harass a least-favorite relative because they thought he sounded like Unabom. (The sister-in-law had never even met TK, and there was a history of bad blood between TK and his brother). What the prosecution needed was someone who could point to elements, evidence, in the T-docs and the U-docs and convincingly demonstrate that they were from the same source. Jameson called what Foster did "comparing an apple to an apple," i.e. a document written by Theodore Kaczynski with a document written by Theodore Kaczynski. As best I understand her position, Jameson seems to be saying that because Kaczynski did, in fact, write the Manifesto, Foster was simply comparing two works by the same author, and thereby accomplished nothing. Restating this: they were both Kaczynski documents, Foster said they were both Kaczynski documents, so what's the big deal? This amounts to a remarkable claim: that because Foster's method worked - drawing an "equals" sign between the two sets of documents -- it must therefore be trivial! Not so fast. This was not a case of "an apple and an apple." It was a case of "an apple and something which might be an apple." (Not pineapple). Whether or not it was an apple was precisely the issue on which the defense and prosecution disagreed, precisely what needed to be figured out, and what needed to be presented in court in a manner which was effective for the prosecution and able to stand up to attacks from the defense. That's why the prosecution needed Fitzgerald and Foster. 9. Several times in these threads it has been stated that Foster said he would need a hundred pages of writing to do a proper analysis, and that the ransom note is far less than a hundred pages. True, but I think Foster meant a hundred pages of exemplars, not of Questioned Documents. Having an entire novel's worth of QD in the Primary Colors matter, and a 30,000-word essay in the Unabomber case, certainly must have helped - but most of the attributions Foster deals with in his book (and in other cases) were of much shorter texts. "Account of a Visit From Saint Nicholas" is barely over 500 words; the Lewinsky / Tripp "Talking Points" about 700; the is-it-or-isn't-it-Shakespeare poem, about 600 lines. In his letter to Patsy he states that he has made identifications of documents as short as two pages. The "hundred pages" remark surely refers to that many samples of a known author's text. He could, of course, take a hundred-page ransom note and match it to a suspect based on the suspect's three-hundred-word exemplar, but that would be bass ackwards. METHODOLOGY I 10. Now might be a good time to take a close look at what Foster's claim is - as opposed to what others claim his claim is. In the press, characterizations of Foster's work have tended towards the likes of "Under Foster's scrutiny, texts give up their secrets" and "Donald Foster claims he can tell a lot about a person from their writings." How Foster says it (from Amanda Beeler's article in the (Chicago Tribune): "When given an anonymous document, and comprehensive text samples with which to compare it, I can usually locate the nameless author - not because I'm so clever but because a writer's use of language is as distinctive, as inimitable, as unique, as one's DNA." Further, from Foster's book: "When asked, Who wrote this document?, I usually begin the inquiry by asking of text databases, Where else can I find similar language and writing habits? That question may not lead me to the author, but it's usually good for information about the author's age, religion, education, job, motivation, or ideology. Study of an anonymous text does not always produce a decisive attribution, but I can usually narrow the field of suspects by isolating the geographic, ethnic, socioeconomic, corporate, or professional milieu to which the unknown writer belongs." Bear in mind that accounts in the popular media of what Foster does may make bold claims that weren't necessarily Foster's idea - part of the same process which encouraged Foster to make bold statements: "When I received from New York my copyedited text of 'Primary Culprit' [identifying Joe Klein], something was missing - 'maybe' and 'if not, then.' [They] wanted me to say right out, 'I know who wrote Primary Colors.' This is what is known to magazine editors as 'point-sharpening,' and to scholars as suicide." Accordingly, it is helpful to know what Foster's focused claim is - what, exactly, does he claim that his method can do, as opposed to how he may be portrayed in sound bites and headlines. (Bear in mind how often the press described Foster as a "linguist," which he is not). He states that internal information in a document can provide important clues to the writer's identity. (A good example would be the murder case in which a note, in English, left by the murderer was determined by Foster to have been written by someone whose primary language was Gujarati). He stops short of saying that the text will necessarily yield such information, and in his discussion of the Unabomber he points out ways in which he would have drawn reasonable, but wrong, inferences from the first batch of Unabom documents. His focused claim is that given a sufficiently large collection of exemplars known to have been written by a known author - he uses the figure "100 pages," but I think he's building in a margin of safety there - and a Questioned Document of at least two pages' length, he can determine whether the author of the exemplars in fact wrote the Questioned Document. That is his "absolute" claim. He is not absolute about his ability to determine biographical information solely from a Questioned Document, although he says it is often possible to do so. There is some controversy about whether this is "scientific." I'll have more to say about this later, but for now let's review what DocG said: "To determine scientifically that Patsy wrote the note . . . Foster would have to compare the contents of the note to the writings of a random sampling of various individuals (the control group) [Isn't this what he did with Klein?] and, without him or his assistants knowing which samples were which (double blind), come up with results that point to Patsy as the closest match. He should then be able to train others in his methods to the point that they too would get the same results (replicability)." Double-blind might be hard to achieve in real life, when all you have for exemplars are highly personal documents; but in any event Foster's method can be taught: Foster has given instruction in his method to agents at the FBI, and others in law enforcement. L'AFFAIRE JAMESON 11. Jameson, you began posting on the fora in the early days of this case, and posting copiously. The Reader's Digest version of this brouhaha: Foster began reading the fora in May of 1997, and quickly developed the notion that Jameson was John Andrew Ramsey was the killer. He wrote to Patsy saying he knew she was innocent, he wrote to you telling you to turn yourself in, he wrote to his agent saying he had solved the case. He hadn't. Your position seems to be that his identification of Jameson = JAR = the killer was wildly wrong and casts into doubt anything else he may say about the case. 12. Okay, let's go through this step by step. FEBRUARY 1997: Jameson goes online. Noting that some of the information that Jameson posts is not public knowledge (some of it was not even known to the police at the time), the BPD investigates Jameson, who is briefly a "suspect." MAY 1997: Foster goes online. (Jameson has stated that Foster went online looking for John Andrew). MAY 1997: Per Foster's June 18 letter to Patsy: "Last May I wrote to someone close to the investigation with information that ought to have been investigated. I tried again. Both offers were met with absolute indifference." (The information may well have been about Jameson). MAY 22, 1997: Foster's first email to Jameson, complementing Jameson on not joining the rush to judgment against John and Patsy. (The person who committed the crime would, of course, know for certain that the Ramseys didn't do it). LATE MAY/EARLY JUNE 1997: According to LovelyPigeon, it was during this time that Foster turned in Jameson to the Boulder authorities (she says it was to detective Lou Smit). JUNE 10, 1997: Foster's fax to his agent, proposing an article about finding JBR's killer online. At this point, Foster believes the killer is Jameson is John Andrew (henceforth, JARmeson). According to Jameson, "[Foster] clearly indicated in his FAX to his literary agent that he had access to the ransom note." Jameson also says, "Foster wrote in his papers that he went on-line looking for John Andrew who was his focus. There is no doubt of that at all." (There would be less doubt on my part if you could post a direct quote, in context, establishing this. BTW, Jameson, how did you get a copy of this fax?) JUNE 18, 1997: Foster's letter to Patsy Ramsey, in which he states his belief in her innocence and offers his support. He also says he has a pretty good idea of who the killer is, but doesn't say who. (Patsy does not respond). JUNE 25, 1997: Foster speaks to Jameson on the phone. Obviously Jameson is not John Andrew, but Foster continues to suspect that she is covering for him. JUNE 1997, sometime: Per Lawrence Schiller's book, Perfect Murder, PerfectTown, Alex Hunter calls Bob Kupperman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who recommends Foster for analyzing the ransom note. JULY 1, 1997: Jameson sends a package to Ellis Armistead, the Ramseys' private investigator. JULY 1-3, 1997: Per Schiller, "Just before the July 4 weekend": Hunter calls Foster. Hunter calls Foster, who says he had written to Patsy and "John Andrew." Hunter sees no conflict. JULY 11 1997: Jameson receives an e-mail with Lou Smit's phone number, and calls him shortly thereafter. Later in the month, Jameson sends a package to Smit. Jameson: "I DID send a package to Boulder in July. The package included copies of emails and the certified letters. The authorities investigating the Ramsey murder were informed about Foster and his communications with Jameson." 13. First, Foster was not totally out of line in considering you a suspect. Even before you were in communication with Lou Smit, you posted information that was not known even to the police at the time. The BPD investigated you, and you have recently said that they had reason for suspecting you. They would have been remiss in had they not investigated. And don't get bent out of shape about being a suspect; Foster was a second-tier suspect in the Unabom case, thanks to an interest in woodworking and affiliations with certain universities. 14. Further, your claim on 48 Hours to have posted "thousands" of times about the case by that May was not an exaggeration. You were far and away the most ubiquitous person on the Web about the issue. One could easily read that as enthusiasm or as an unhealthy obsession. Many people on the fora were also suspicious of you, but they mostly suspected you of being a paid member of the Ramsey Spin Team, or of being a member of the Ramsey family, or of being a committee. (BTW, you said that the people at 48 Hours were "shocked" at Foster's identification of you as JAR/Sick Puppy. Did you show them all of your early posts, and all of the other posts made under your hat?) 15. Jameson, on 48 Hours and in Schiller's book, you state that "There's never been another Jameson." However, in this forum you have said that other people used your name: "Many of those posts were from the unprotected BN forum and were not made by me . . . I didn't write all the posts attributed to me." "I tried to post genderless in the beginning - big deal. And there certainly WERE hat thieves on the old BNF and we all complained about it. I think my hat was stolen more than anyone's." "Hat stealing was not uncommon and I certainly did not post all the messages that were there under my name." There's a bit of a conflict between the first statement and the latter three. In any event, more than one person posted under the "Jameson" hat, especially during the early days at the Boulder News Forum. How was Foster supposed to know that all these "Jameson"s weren't all the same sickpuppoid person? 16. "Surely Foster knew that. He is the expert that could pick out the fake posts, right?" Well, first, I've never seen him claim to be able to pick out real and fake hats on a Web forum. His specific area of expertise - his focused claim - is that, given a sufficient number of exemplar texts by a known author, he can determined whether a Questioned Document was written by that same author. In the hothouse that was the BNF, they were all Questioned Documents. He could not know for certain whether a given post was written by "the" Jameson, because he did not have a sample of texts to serve as known exemplars of "the" Jameson's writing and only "the" Jameson's writing. (I believe that it is possible under such circumstances to tease out approximately how many different authors posted under one hat, but it would be much more difficult, sort of analogous to the three-body problem as opposed to the two-body problem. If this reference is too obscure, ask Reverend Bayes). 17. A subtle but important point. Jameson, you have said that "Foster had thousands of my posts and pages and pages of private e-mail and he was sure I was a 20-year-old male - raised in a wealthy environment, educated in Georgia . . . and HOMICIDAL, no less." Not exactly. Foster did not read the Jameson posts and think, "Well, the author is obviously a college male, etc., I don't have any idea who it might be," and then go on to pick John Andrew out of the millions who fit that description. He read the Jameson posts and thought, "The author is John Andrew Ramsey," and the descriptions followed. The difference is between essence and accident, necessary and contingent, noun and adjective, primary and secondary. In other words, there is a difference between the primary identification and what can be predicated of the primary identification. You are substituting the predication for the primary. That's a very easy way to end up with an undistributed middle term. And we all know how painful that can be. 18. Also bear in mind that your own Sick Puppy theory of the crime, by focusing on a college-age male, inadvertently made JAR a more credible suspect. 19. Anyway, Jameson continues that Foster got it all wrong because she wasn't a college boy, she was a middle-aged, bread-baking, home-schooling, stay-at-home housewife. Okay. Jameson, how many middle-aged, bread-baking, home-schooling, stay-at-home housewives do you know who wrote literally "thousands" of posts in the first few months of the case, many of which were vivid recreations of a particularly gruesome crime, complete with descriptions of what went on in the mind, id and velvet sex glove of Sick Puppy, the Sadistic Pedophile? Name three. 20. Jameson, the next graf alludes to certain facts about yourself, without giving specifics of those facts. If you find it intrusive, I will take no umbrage if you delete it: Part of Foster's speculation on this issue wasn't that far off target. Don't know if you were educated in Georgia but you live closer to Georgia than 90+% of the rest of the country. Perhaps you were not raised in a wealthy home, but your present neighborhood isn't exactly on the poor side of the tracks. As far as identification with the Ramsey family goes, your real surname is one that appears repeatedly in JonBenét's family tree, and your "hat" connotes a Ramsey family male. (John Ramsey is James' son). Are you young male? No, but definitely in a position to be influenced by a young male, the object of all that home-schooling. Also, I don't know if this is true, but a party named birdy on the BNF says that you had an AOL profile in the early days of the case in which you described yourself as a 20-year-old student. Finally, Jameson, I see no signs that you are homicidal, but you frequently seem to be, in Al Capp's memorable phrase, Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything in this case, except the Ramseys, their lawyers, and detective Lou Smit. 21. Also, Foster's "identification" of JARmeson was only 15 months after his first non-academic identification (Klein); he called it a "beginner's mistake," and it was. We were all beginners at that point. And most importantly, he was not using his method. I have yet to see how Foster's technique was discredited by a guess he made while not using that technique. 22. Jameson, you have said that you want to bring JonBenét's killer to justice. That is laudable. Can you blame Foster for trying to do the same thing? He found someone posting on the internet who he thought might be the person who killed JonBenét. He asked that person to turn hirself in, he offered his services for free to someone who he felt was innocent and unjustly accused, and also sent his information to the authorities. Later, he answered the authorities' request to investigate who did (and did not) write the ransom note. Seems worthwhile to me. 23. Of course, he was initially wrong about whodunit - but, Jameson, how many dozens, scores, hundreds of people have you characterized as suspicious, as worthy of further scrutiny, or at least people who made you go "Hmmmmmm" over the years? At how many people have you brandished the Umbrella of Suspicion? This is not the Orient Express and they didn't all kill JonBenét - which means that almost all of the people who you have publicly held up for suspicion are innocent. I have never seen any signs that you have any regrets about this. 24. Jameson, you go ballistic about Foster suspecting JAR: "It was OK to ignore the FACT that JAR was known to be in Georgia???" and about him using wrong information regarding JAR's DNA ostensibly being on "another blanket that probably had NOTHING to do with the crime." Remember, this was six months into the case - could we expect him to know as much then as we know now? Remember how hazy so many of the details were then, before any of us had even seen the entire text of the ransom note. Also, Foster may not have known at the time how much credibility to place, or not place, in such information as he heard. 25. Foster did not shout from the rooftops that John Andrew killed JonBenét, or that someone named Jameson killed JonBenét, or both; he did not denounce John Andrew to Patsy; he did not go public with his belief that Patsy was innocent. These ideas were strictly confined to private communications. When a professional's words tend to be given some weight by the public and/or the media it is only responsible for the professional to be very careful about what he or she says in public. Foster exercised due caution. 26. From the gallery: Fendostor says Jameson was pulling a scam on Foster. Debbie states that Foster was "constantly trying to say Jameson posed as a man"; Sweebie says Foster "claims someone was 'duping' him!" (Sources, please - direct quotes from Foster himself). Foster has dealt with texts which were intended to be deceptive before, but there is some question about whether he ever dealt with an author who was deliberately trying to deceive him personally. Was Jameson trying to mislead Foster? She says not. Jameson, you recently posted that "(Steve) Thomas wrote, 'Foster once guessed incorrectly that the anonymous jameson was really John Andrew Ramsey...' . . . Thomas did NOT go on to say that Foster identified John Andrew/jameson as the killer of JonBenét Ramsey. . . Lying by omission is still a LIE." Point well taken. Jameson, would you now show us the e-mails you sent to Foster? INVESTIGATION 27. Summer of '97: JUNE 1997, sometime: Per Schiller, Hunter calls Bob Kupperman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who recommends Foster. JULY 1, 1997: Package sent to Ellis Armistead, the Ramseys' private investigator, from Jameson. JULY 1-3, 1997: Per Schiller: "Just before the July 4 weekend": Hunter calls Foster, who says he had written to Patsy and "John Andrew." Hunter sees no conflict. Foster agrees to analyze notes and exemplars. JULY 11 1997: Jameson gets Lou Smit's number, calls soon, sends package to him shortly thereafter. SEPTEMBER 1997: Per Schiller, Hunter is antsy for Foster to check out Janet McReynolds and other suspects. FALL 1997: Per Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by former detective Steve Thomas: when Foster would not pin the writing of the ransom note on the McSantas, Hunter lost interest. All contact between Hunter and Foster at this point was apparently by phone. DECEMBER, 1997: Hunter -"turned Foster over"- to the police. Beckner assigned him to Thomas. JANUARY, 1998: Per Thomas: Thomas "ferried out" stacks of writing to Foster in New York. This went on for about a month. During this time, Hunter still called to introduce his own theories. Thomas to Foster: "You work for the BPD, not the DA's office." Per Schiller: Thomas visits Foster in early January, with hundreds of pages of exemplars. Thomas vows not to tell him theories or evidence in advance. Per Thomas: Foster says he will "probably" conclude that Patsy wrote the note. MID-JANUARY, 1998: Per Schiller: Beckner tells Hunter that Foster is making headway. Beckner is eager to hear from Foster. First time Beckner names a suspect - Patsy - to Hunter. Hunter says to Beckner that linguistic evidence can be used with a grand jury, even if not in court. Hunter and Beckner agree to wait for Foster's report. LATE MARCH, 1998: (Per Thomas and Schiller): Foster traveled to Boulder to give a presentation to the BPD and the DA's office. Later that afternoon, Hunter, Hofstrom & DeMuth draft a letter saying they would not accept Foster's conclusion as evidence of culpability. Schiller believes they are probably buying time until the grand jury specialist comes on board. JUNE 1-2, 1998: BPD includes information from Foster's report in its presentation to the DA's office. Per Thomas, the state attorney general's office and the three lawyers working pro-bono for the BPD were "lobbying for Don Foster to be used as a witness in court." METHODOLOGY II 28. Jameson: "(Foster) realized being BORG would get him involved in the case." "Foster found out what the BPD wanted the report to say, and he carefully put together a presentation, based on selected evidence, to make his theory fit." "Foster had already determined how his report would read - 'Patsy did it' - and he wasn't about to mess that up by looking at anything else . . . he was willing to make his report reflect what he knew Thomas and company wanted." "he went into his investigation with a preconceived solution - and that's what he ended up with!" Uh, let me get this straight: he went into this investigation with the preconceived solution that John Andrew did it and that Patsy was innocent, and that's what he ended up with? Do you have one iota of evidence that Foster intended, when he was hired by Hunter, to pin it on Patsy? Do you have one iota of evidence that when he was doing the bulk of his analysis over late summer, fall, and early winter of 1997, and dealing only with Hunter, he was secretly planning to do the bidding of Steve Thomas, who he had never even talked to? Do you have one iota of evidence that he was planning to give Hunter what Hunter wanted - presumably a McSanta or two - that fall, and then changed his plan when he was "turned over" to the BPD? 29. Jameson, you seem to be saying that Foster refused to look at evidence that other people may have written the note: "Foster didn't look at ALL the evidence - just the chosen bits and pieces that pointed to Patsy . . ." Where do you get that? The quote from Thomas' book refers not to other raw evidence, i.e. other people's exemplars, but to other experts' conclusions. It is reasonable, indeed only fair, that he conduct his analysis without knowing what others had said about some of the same source material. Thomas: "Foster was concerned that Alex Hunter still occasionally called to introduce his own theories and ideas and had told Foster there was 'no way the parents did this.' To disclose such opinions to an independent examiner exposes them to attack in court, but Hunter didn't seem to care. The DA further risked tainting Foster by sending him copies of work done by other linguistics experts, but Foster refused to open those packets." [emphasis supplied] By analogy: the editor of New York did not mention to Foster that Joe Klein had written for that magazine. Foster says: "Andersen did not want to influence my opinion. New York's editors handled their list of suspects, and their expert witness, just as a police chief would do: no hints, suggestions, tips, nudges, or winks: you cannot afford to say or do anything that might influence the witness." I know of nothing to suggest that Foster refused to look at anyone's exemplars. It is difficult to imagine Hunter saying, "Hey, Don, we got a play here by a suspect that's about a girl found dead in a basement. Wanna look at it?" And Foster saying, "Naaah, I already made my mind up." 30. You go on to say, "I have samples of letter written by other 'suspects' - they scare the hell out me - but Foster never saw them." How do you know? (And why is 'suspects' in quotation marks - were they or weren't they?) It says here that Foster examined exemplars from ten suspects. Does anyone here know who the ten are? 31. Foster was only asked his theory of who wrote the note. He was never asked by the BPD or anyone else what his theory was concerning who committed the murder. That is not his area of expertise and as far as I know he has made no public statements of his opinion (if any) on that matter. Fendostor pointed this out and your response was "LOLOLOL - are you for real??" I didn't follow your reasoning there. 32. Incidentally, you say Patsy's style of indentation is just what we all learned in school. Okay, but not all of us remember it. (One unusual thing that helped identify the Unabomber was that his grammar was nearly perfect). THE JAMESON PAPERS 33. Further: END OF MARCH, 1998: Per Schiller: Foster traveled to Boulder to give his presentation to the BPD and the DA's office. His conclusion, firm by now: Patsy wrote the note. Later that afternoon, Hunter, Hofstrom & DeMuth draft a letter saying they would not accept Foster's conclusion as evidence of culpability. Schiller speculates that they were probably buying time until the grand jury specialist comes on board. "Not long afterwards," Hunter's staff realizes that some of Patsy's writing samples were taken from a computer which was seized to check it for pornography (none was found). The warrant said nothing about using files on the computer for text analysis purposes. Because of this, Hofstrom opines that Foster's report therefore should not be presented to the grand jury. (I haven't seen anything that characterized what proportion of the documents which Foster relied on were taken from that computer, or whether references to those documents could be omitted from Foster's report without seriously damaging his conclusions). Per Thomas: Hunter called Foster privately over next few weeks; Hunter seemed reluctant to move forward. JUNE 1-2, 1998: BPD includes Foster info in its presentation to the DA's office. Per Thomas, the state attorney general's office and the three lawyers working pro-bono for the BPD were "lobbying for Don Foster to be used as a witness in court." Not sure of the exact date of this - Schiller says it was "several weeks later," after the discovery that the warrant from the computer didn't cover Patsy's text files; also "several months before" the September 20/20 episode which dealt with the ransom note's authorship. (May? June? other?) In any event, Morgan gave Hunter a copy of Foster's letter to Patsy, and told Hunter about Foster's letter to Jameson. [Don't know if he actually saw the letter at that time]. Hunter was aware that Foster had written to Patsy but did not know that Foster had written to Jameson. Wise asked, "Did you think the Ramseys were going to forget about his letter?" END OF JULY 1998: (Just curious: why the delay?) Per Thomas: "At the end of July Don Foster, the Vassar linguist who had helped make our case, telephoned to tell me that the DA's office had just dismissed him. Not only did they fire Foster but they informed him that he was through doing this kind of work. Citing his internet comments to Jameson when he knew nothing about the case, they declared that his later conclusions, when he knew everything, were unreliable. Rather than fight to use his testimony, they declared that he would be open to impeachment on that one issue. Furthermore, Foster was given the plain message that is he didn't contact the FBI and other law enforcement agencies he's worked for and admit he was compromised and damaged goods, then the Boulder DA's office might make the call . . . Not only did they want him off the case but it appeared they wanted to ruin his life. It was so like them, I thought, to go after the dissenters, those who didn't agree with them." FALL, 1998: Per Thomas, Foster was not called at the grand jury. I don't know if it has been established whether any of Foster's results were presented to the GJ. Moving right along: HUNTER 34. First, some comments from the gallery: Seal: "The DA fired Foster when it was brought to his knowledge that he was flip flopping." Sweebie: "If Foster wasn't discredited, then why didn't Hunter et al. use him?" LovelyPigeon: "Even if Foster hadn't already declared in writing that Patsy was innocent of any involvement, and that JAR was the killer, no wonder the DA's office rejected him completely!" It would be helpful to ask just exactly what was going on behind the beady eyes of Alex Hunter when he hired Foster in the first place. Hunter called Foster for the first time in early July, 1997. In that first conversation, Foster told Hunter that he had already written to Patsy and to John Andrew (by whom he presumably meant JARmeson), and that he thought Patsy didn't write the note. According to Schiller, -"Hunter saw no conflict."- Stop right there, for a moment. IMO, Foster should have sent his correspondence to Patsy and "John Andrew" to Hunter before getting started on the case, and was remiss if he did not. Hunter should have insisted on seeing that correspondence right away, and was remiss if he did not. At the very least, it would have clarified exactly what Foster had said to Patsy, and cleared up who "John Andrew" was. (I can picture Thomas, reading over Hunter's shoulder: "Christ! It's the wingnut!"). In short, it would have brought out any issues which might attach to Foster's work when and if a report was issued, and when and if Foster testified at trial. Assuming that Hunter ever intended to take the case to trial in the first place. And that's quite an assumption. 35. Okay. Principle of the excluded middle: the fact that Foster wrote to Patsy before he was brought on board was either a biggie or not-a-biggie. Can't be both. Hunter seemed to think at the time that it was not-a-biggie. Why not? After Foster made his presentation to the DA's office, Hofstrom said something to the effect that Foster couldn't be used in court because "the defense would eat him alive." Presumably he meant the Ramsey defense, but let's consider what the Hoffman-Pugh defense or the McReynolds defense or the Daphne White defense might say to witness Foster: "Professor, you concluded that [our client] wrote the ransom note. But did you not, before seeing any of the case documents, state to another suspect that you 'knew' that she did not write the ransom note? Did you not, in fact, take on this case with a preconception about who did not commit the crime? [voice rising] Was your analysis of the ransom note not merely a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which you 'found' the results that you already knew you would 'find'? Isn't your theory of the authorship of the note merely a callous lie, intended to protect the real author of the note, Patsy Ramsey? Aren't you doing this under orders from the cult leader known as 'Jameson'? Answer the question, Professor!" In other words, the letter to Patsy wasn't just a problem if Foster found that Patsy wrote the note; it could still be a major problem regardless of who Foster found the author of the note to be. Any defense might use the existence of that letter as an excuse to "eat him alive." Unless, of course, the prosecutor's office had the cojonen to back their expert witness' testimony unflinchingly, or at least to shrug off any criticism -- "So what? He guessed wrong before he saw any of the case documents" - and to prepare him for the inevitable challenges by the defense. As I grok it, there is exactly one scenario under which Foster's letter to Patsy wouldn't be a problem: if Foster's analysis concluded that no suspect could be definitely identified as the author of the note, but that Patsy could definitely be excluded. Restating this: if any suspect [other than Patsy] was identified, the defense could cite Foster's letter to Patsy as evidence of prejudice. The issue would probably not come up if no one was identified as a suspect - leaving the coast clear for Foster's identification of Patsy as being innocent of writing the ransom note as just another example of a first impression which proved correct. The exclusion of Patsy as a possible author of the ransom note, combined with the lack of identification of anyone else as the author, would, of course, fit the scenario perfectly if there was no other author of the note but Hunter was looking for another excuse to not pursue the Ramseys. (Actually, I doubt this was on his mind at the time. I don't think he was thinking that far ahead). In sum: Hunter hired Foster knowing that Foster had already told Patsy that she was innocent. I suspect that, far from being troubled by Foster's letter to Patsy, Hunter was fairly thrilled to know that that is what Foster's impression was. Perhaps he figured Foster was "safe." Just think how much pressure it would have taken off Alex Hunter at the time, for the guy who gotcha'ed Joe Klein and the Unabomber and whoever else to prove that Patsy didn't write it! Don't know if this was in Hunter's forebrain or way back in the reptilian part, but I think a large part of why-Hunter-hired-Foster was to prove that Patsy didn't write the note. Hunter hired Foster with eyes wide shut to the possibility that Foster might have to revise his first impression and find that Patsy was the author. 36. I further suspect that Foster saw no reason to believe that his first impression wasn't correct. Well, of course, his impression about JARmeson was wrong, and at some time in all this (not sure when) someone at the BPD told him that Jameson had already been investigated, was not John Andrew, and had been dubbed a wingnut. But wouldn't it have been better for Foster's ego to salvage half of his original opinion, to be able to prove that Patsy didn't write the note? (-"Hey! Can I call 'em, or what!"-) 37. Jameson, you and I will disagree on this next part. You believe that Foster, perhaps miffed because Patsy never called back, bought right into the BPD's Patsy-wrote-it theory and started stacking up "evidence" against Patsy and ignoring everything else. I doubt this, for at least two main reasons. First, Foster already had ego reasons for wanting to believe Patsy didn't write it. Second, he was hired by Hunter, who was (according to Foster) interested in proving that a McSanta of some sort wrote the note. If he simply wanted to be "associated" with the case, it would have made sense to dance with who brung him. For the first five or six months of the case, he reported to Hunter, not the Boulder police; it wasn't until December that he was "turned over" to Beckner, thence to Thomas. I suspect that Foster had a considerable amount of resistance to the idea that Patsy wrote the note, and only reluctantly subscribed to that view when the evidence demanded it. This may account for Foster's appearing to Hunter to be "erratic" in December of 1997 - he saw the way his research was going, didn't like it, and knew Hunter wouldn't like it either. (Remember, he didn't say for sure that she wrote it until March 1998, nine months into his involvement with the case). 38. Which brings us to Foster's "firing" by Hunter. I'm not clear on this. Did Foster work for the DA's office or the BPD? Hunter "hired" him, then "turned him over" to the BPD (Thomas: "You work for the BPD now."). Could Hunter "fire" him if he was already working for the BPD? I suppose one could ask who signed his paychecks, but I also hear that Foster was working for free. (Does anyone know one way or the other about this?) Also, I wonder about Foster being "fired" after he had already completed the work he was hired to do: to make a determination of who wrote the ransom note, write a report, and turn it over to the authorities. He was "fired" four months after his work was completed. Is the use of "fired" here kind of on the rhetorical side? 39. Anyhoo, Foster's firing-or-whatever was precipitated by Morgan's giving Hunter a copy of Foster's letter to Patsy, and telling Hunter about Foster's letter to Jameson. There was evidently a delay of weeks or months between Hunter getting this information and Foster being jettisoned. 40. First, the letters should not have come as any surprise to Hunter at all. Foster should have given Hunter copies of his letters to Patsy and "John Andrew" at square one, and if he did not volunteer them, Hunter should have asked for them. If Hunter had any intent of prosecuting this case, he should have treated the existence of the letters as a biggie. Both parties were probably remiss here, but the majority of the remissness was Hunter's. Foster was new at this; his first criminal investigation was only a year previously and he was still learning the ropes. Hunter had been a district attorney for 25 years. Apparently Foster did not point out his error about JARmeson to Hunter after he learned that John Andrew was not Jameson, and that Jameson had been investigated and dismissed. He may not have thought it was a big deal: after all, Hunter wasn't bent out of shape about Foster writing to a suspect, Patsy, and stating his belief in her innocence! Why would Hunter get bent out of shape about Foster's writing to a "wingnut"? Or, he may have told Hunter, and Hunter didn't think it was a biggie. So this episode ended with Hunter bouncing off the walls and telling Foster he'll never work in this field again, and ordering him to nark on himself to the FBI. Methinks Hunter was compensating for his own incompetence. He could have had copies of any communications about the case that Foster had with anybody, just by asking. Evidently he didn't ask, and the fact came back around to bite him in the @ss (something was probably pretty obvious to the FBI if Foster told them the story). So that's part of the reason for Hunter's anger. Another part: to Hunter's way of thinking, Foster didn't do what he was brought on to do (can't necessarily say "what he was being paid to do.") He didn't clear Patsy, as Hunter wanted and expected him so. Please note that Foster continues to work in textual attribution but Hunter is no longer in the District Attorney business. 41. The spin continues, though: note this graf from the Boulder Daily Camera, January 26, 1999: "Six months before going to work for Boulder police, Foster wrote to Patsy Ramsey, saying he believed 'absolutely and unequivocally' that she was innocent. Surprised police and prosecutors didn't find out about Foster's letter until several days after the June (1998) case presentation." What's left out: the fact that Foster told Hunter about the letter only weeks after he wrote it, and worked Hunter for months before working with the BPD. If the police and other prosecutors didn't know, it's because Hunter didn't bother to tell them. 42. A few thoughts on flippy-floppy: Pinky5 quotes McCrary: "You can't take a stand on one side and when the other side comes calling, you flip-flop." This characterization is problematic on more than one level. For one thing, the "one side" not only did not hire Foster, but didn't even respond to his letter. There was no obligation to that side on Foster's part, beyond possibly an intellectual one to eventually explain his change of position. Further, Foster didn't change his opinion when the "other side" came calling, but months later, after seeing the evidence. And remember, the "other side" that "came calling" was Hunter. Foster alienated Hunter by changing his opinion. He hardly changed opinions to ingratiate himself with the "other side." (Maybe it's highly whether Hunter constituted an "other side" to the RST. Or was it "going over to the other side" six months later, when Foster began to primarily work for the BPD?). And what would it have meant for Foster not to have "flip-flopped"? Jameson, would you be happier if Foster was still saying that John Andrew did it? And/or still saying that you were covering for him? Foster had an original theory, then amended it when he saw new evidence. This is not "flip-flopping." It is intellectual honesty. It is required by Bayes' Theorem. JAMESON 43. Jameson, you have said repeatedly that you sent a package in July of 1997 to the authorities in Boulder who were investigating JonBenét's murder, a package containing copies of Foster's communications with you and/or JARmeson. I can't recall you ever identifying who those authorities were. Did you send the Foster documents - hereafter, the "F-docs" - to the BPD? To the DA's office? To Lou Smit? Did you send them to the Ramseys' investigator, Ellis Armistead? To the law firm of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman? To the Ramseys themselves? Equally important, to whom did you not copy the documents? What I'm asking is: did you sent the F-docs to one or more direct representatives of the Ramsey family or to the family themselves, and not copy them to any of the official authorities investigating the case? Here's what I suspect, correct me if I'm wrong: You had all the "evidence" you needed to "discredit" Foster at this point, but chose not to do so - because there was still a chance that Foster might contribute to the Ramsey defense. Obviously, the JARmeson theory was out - but what if Foster "proved" that Jeff Merrick, or Chris Wolf, or Joe Barnhill wrote the note? Or that the perp wasn't on the "limited suspect list," but that Patsy (and other Ramseys) absolutely did not write it? In that case, I suspect that you would be shrugging off Foster's initial snap judgment in the case the same way we BORGians are shrugging it off now - "So what? He didn't have access to the case documents and wasn't applying his method. That was a personal opinion, not a professional judgment with all the facts in front of him. Grow up." 44. Instead, when Foster's report came down exactly the wrong way from a BORI standpoint, after it had become public knowledge -- not Foster's doing -- that Foster had ID'd Patsy as the author of the ransom note, you decided to "expose" him, most notably on 48 Hours. So, which is it, Jameson? That Foster is a quack and his judgment and methods are unreliable -- in which case the DA's office and the BPD should have been alerted before wasting all that time on him? Or was Foster's utility-or-lack-of-it to the case solely related to his ability to exonerate the Ramseys - in which case it would have been counterproductive to "discredit" him as long as the possibility existed that he would wind up on the stand, saying "My first impression proved correct. Patsy Ramsey absolutely did not write the note"? I can't picture Foster saying that Patsy was innocent and then you leaping to your feet and shouting, "Don't believe that man! He's discredited!" I'd just as soon not dwell on the other possibility, that you did send this information to Smit or Hunter or the BPD and they just forgot about it. CONFIDENTIALITY 45. Jameson, you said that "Foster didn't share his analysis with anyone but the BPD. Not with 20/20 or 48 Hours or any posters. . . Foster won't share the analysis - why? I say because he can't handle having it dissected by others in his field." You have also said of late that Foster could post whatever he wants to about the case - the general idea being that if Smit and Thomas could talk, so could he. "Oh, I know he wants his name associated with the case - that was clear from his book. And he LOVES to be able to say - 'Yes, yes, I was in on that but - well, it's an open case so I can't talk about that.' Well, Foster is free to say whatever he wants - he didn't go to the grand jury and - if Thomas and Smit can talk so can Foster." 46. In his book Foster says that when an expert witness is retained, "no confidential details are exchanged until there is a signed agreement that the attorney will supply true and accurate information, and that the witness will keep that information confidential. This is as it should be." I predict that if he were to post in detail about why he pinned it on Patsy, you would go ballistic about Foster violating his confidentiality agreement, depriving Patsy of the right to a fair trial, Sabotaging the case, and generally being a dirty dingus. 47. BTW, I think that a confidentiality agreement would have a great deal to do with the outcome if the Ramseys had hired Foster in the first place. Again, this is a place where you and I will disagree. But I think that if the Ramseys hired Foster, his analysis still would have shown that Patsy wrote the note - but he couldn't take this information to the prosecution because of the confidentiality agreement that Haddon would have (rightly) made him sign first. I suspect - just speculating here - that if it began to dawn on him that his client actually wrote the note, he would attempt a soft landing by regretfully telling Patsy that she "could not be excluded" and asking Haddon not to call him to the stand on the grounds that he would have to testify to that effect. He might also ask if they knew anyone who could do a damn good imitation of Patsy's prose style. 48. As far as Foster not being able to stand his findings being dissected by others, most of his other findings have been dissected real good. Years' worth, in the case of the Shakespeare attribution, and what had to have been a nerve-racking six months in which Joe Klein insisted "I did not." Plus challenges by Kaczynski's defense attorneys and others. DISCREDITING 49. LovelyPigeon: "Foster admits he doesn't have much room for error. 'All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the academy.' And as he said, by his own standard, it discredited him." Well, now. There is a category of speech known to the law as "puffery." It is a loophole by which people who provide goods and services can characterize those goods and services as the biggest! the greatest! and the best! without running afoul of the law. It is the reason why Pepsi will never take Coca-Cola to court to challenge its claim to calling itself "The Real Thing." I detect a bit of puffery in Foster's statement above. Beyond that, though, there is the question of how he is using the term "attribution." Analogy: Anyone can use the word "verdict" - but the word carries a lot more weight when it is said by a black-robed judge on the bench. Anyone can say "diagnosis," but it packs more of a wallop when said by a medical doctor at a clinic. And anyone can say "attribution," but the term is being used in a heavier sense when used by Foster or Fitzgerald or other text analysts while on duty. What I'm saying is that when Foster uses the term "attribution" above, I doubt he is using it in the same way as you or me. It is a professional judgment, roughly on par with a judge's use of "verdict" or a doctor's use of "diagnosis." And there is nothing to keep specialists from using these terms informally - the judge may tell her family that it is her "verdict" that the kids can't stay up and watch South Park; the doctor may "diagnose" tappet trouble in his car. And a text analyst may make an "attribution" off the cuff, while knowing full well that a real attribution, with his professional hat on, would require substantially more research. Neither Foster's identification of JARmeson nor his certitude that Patsy was innocent was done with his full set of investigative tools available to him. They were not "attributions" in the it-has-been-fully-investigated-and-determined sense. -"But he sounds so certain in his letter to Patsy! And he says he'll stake his reputation on it!"- JMO, but I think that at the time Foster did feel certain that Patsy did not write the note, and that proving it would be a snap once he had the necessary source materials. This is independent of the JARmeson issue: Foster had seen Patsy on TV, and, like many of the posters on this forum, saw no reason to believe she was guilty and much reason to believe she was innocent. Jameson, you posted the following on various threads between February 24 and March 1 of this year: "That discredited him . . . Foster was discredited . . . He was trying to make a name for himself - trying to be linked to this case and he was discredited . . . Thomas says he was discredited . . . Donald Foster was discredited before he had a chance to go in to the grand jury . . . Schiller, Thomas and the Ramseys were right - Foster WAS discredited - no question . . . You can repeat over and over that the man was not discredited - but that won't change the facts . . . there is no question that Foster was discredited in this case - none . . . Foster was totally discredited in the Ramsey case . . . The man WAS discredited . . . He has been exposed and discredited . . . He is totally discredited . . . The man was discredited - totally . . . [He] said he had NEVER made a mistake - one mistaken attribution would end his budding career. Well, he rendered SEVERAL incorrect assessments in this case - he flip-flopped as well. His credibility is - zilch." In this context, it is ironic that in the early months of this case, Foster was one of the few people, and certainly the only nationally-known expert in anything, to believe that Jameson's depiction of the crime was absolutely accurate. Foster might have appeared to be on the verge of telling the FBI and everyone who would listen that -"'Jams' Jameson is the one person you should listen to about this crime, the one person who is telling the truth."- His rush to connect too many dots too quickly -- his conclusion that the Jameson posts were autobiography, and the autobiography of a Ramsey at that -- had to have come not only as a personal insult to Jameson but as a crushing disappointment. Had the D.A.'s office not brought Foster into the investigation, things might have been very different. In fact, if nether the D.A. nor the Ramseys had brought him on board, Foster may very well have continued believing that the Ramseys were innocent, handed a raw deal by the media and the BORG. As Jameson said, he might "be standing next to me like best friends defending the Ramseys." That was a possibility, but it was not to be. IMO Jameson's exceeding rancor at Foster should be evaluated in this light. Now, let's look at the definition of Discredit (1559) v 1: to refuse to accept as true or accurate: DISBELIEVE 2: to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of To not believe; to lobby others not to believe. In this sense, saying that Foster was "discredited" by Hunter and is being "discredited" by Jameson is literally true. But it speaks to the opinions of the discreditors, not to the quality of Foster's work. THE REPORT 50. In the last analysis, we don't know what Foster's report on the Ramsey ransom note said because none of us have read it. Maybe we can infer something about exclamation points!!! or this or that, but we don't know the essence of Foster's argument because we don't know, specifically, what that whole argument is in this case. Thomas gave only bits and pieces. One thing is for sure, and Fendostor and the anti-k are correct about this: if the report makes a cogent case concerning facts about the ransom note, then it can be presented to a jury without Foster's name (or even Jameson's) coming up. If the facts are there, they will speak for themselves. If not, they won't. I suspect that the suddenly-inflamed interest in this topic may reflect Team Ramsey's suddenly-sharpened interest in smoking out someone to tell them exactly what Foster said, perhaps in anticipation of the Wolf and Hoffman-Pugh lawsuits. (But surely they already know what Foster said; Hunter and Smit must have faxed over the report as soon as Foster gave it to them). GALILEO / VATICAN 51. Fendostor's comparison of Foster and Jameson to Galileo and the Vatican was, IMO, not strictly accurate. I see Foster as more of a Kepler type. However, there is something to be said for the Jameson / Vatican comparison. Both institutions are based on faith. Jameson, you have said that your conviction that the Ramseys are innocent began with a vision you had when taking a shower two days after the killing. I'm not going to deride this; sometimes nonstandard epistemology is the best or only way of knowing. I just ask that you have patience with those of us who have not had the advantage of such a vision and must deal with things like facts and evidence. And while you incorporate things like facts and evidence in your arguments, you frequently shift into faith-based mode without marking the discontinuity. Example: you have said that "Patsy did NOT write the note - Foster's unreliable and unprofessional linguistic analysis doesn't change any of that." Well, now, many of us might say that if you did not read the report, you can't say that it was "unreliable" and "unprofessional." But if you're coming from the standpoint of a priori knowledge, of the faith of the shower vision, Foster's report must be unreliable and unprofessional. Otherwise, why would it state something you know to be untrue? (An analogy for Fendostor: Galileo once challenged one of his critics to look through the telescope and see that there were four moons circling Jupiter. The critic responded that there was no need to look through the telescope, because he knew that such moons could not exist). Recently, you have said, "I knew some things about her body and the note - things that were not public. No one told me - I KNEW those things." Can you give us a clue as to how you knew if nobody told you? Personal experience (you were there)? Extrasensory? This is not intended to be derisive, just curious. 52. Further to Galileo / Kepler, there are times in history when new sciences emerge, and can't readily be evaluated in the light of previously-existing sciences. You have said that many linguists and Shakespeare scholars deride what Foster is doing. Mayhaps, but it is a Shibboleth ingrained in many of these people that attribution of a text based on internal evidence is not possible, that external evidence must be used. (And I'm not blaming them for being skeptical of something which they have been taught is impossible). Foster has been described as "First and foremost in his field, text analysis, a new science." (Again let's use Foster's term, "literary forensics," because there are other possible meanings of "text analysis"). The article in the Chicago Tribune said he was "one of the few people to perform such detailed, technically-based comparisons of written documents, according to James Fitzgerald, a supervisory special agent for the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crimes." In fact, I seem to recall that as recently as 1998 Fitzgerald was saying that he and Foster were the only specialists doing exactly this kind of work. On the BNF, gtriang said: "Foster won't be a witness because his field is new, not because his conclusions aren't valid." And that's a problem with new fields: not much possibility for peer review, because there aren't many peers. (How many peers did Galileo have?) Jameson says that "he didn't find new Shakespeare using the accepted formulas - no, he tossed them out the window, came up with his own formula and - guess what!?!? First new Shakespeare in 112 years!" Well, the accepted formulas required external evidence. That's the point of Foster's method: determining authorship by internal evidence alone. The history of science is the history of "accepted formulas" being thrown out as soon as better ones are developed. That's called progress. 53. New disciplines invariably generate various competing schools of thought, and doubtless there will be branches of "literary forensics" in the future which use methods other than Foster's, and there will be heated discussions. But for now, Foster and Fitzgerald and a few others are what we've got. Whether or not their conclusions are reasonable in a specific case is up to the judge and jury to decide. Having read his book, I think Foster can make a pretty good case for what he's doing and why. 54. And, Jameson, if you don't like the way Foster carries out his analysis - how would you do it? GROUND ZERO 55. Jameson, Don Foster was one of the few people in America to think your theory of the crime was credible. You have responded by iterating in great detail just what a f**kup he was. Every time Mrs. Brady prefaces a link to a story about a Colorado criminal with "Sick Puppy?:" she gives a nod (and free advertising) to your theory. Your response has been to pour bile on her. What I'm suggesting is that you might have more success if you didn't bomb so close to potential allies. I'd recommend a viewing of Paths of Glory - not because it has any relevance to this situation, but because seeing Paths of Glory every now and then is always a pretty good idea. V / v2000 P.S. I am not Don Foster. Or Janet McReynolds. Or Spartacus. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Foster" Posted by SDean1 on 20:42:12 3/23/2001 Man oh Man , that was long! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "..." Posted by V on 20:47:51 3/23/2001 Don't make me repeat it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Bravo V" Posted by ayelean on 22:06:16 3/23/2001 I always suspected one of the Ramsey's was the original Jameson and when things got hot, Sue Bennett took over the persona of 'Jameson'. That isn't possible? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ayelean" Posted by momo on 22:13:08 3/23/2001 Just the fact that Jameson claimed to be a man should tell you enough. I believe Donald Foster was right, that Jameson was a man from Georgia. They've fooled no one as far as I'm concerned. Dancing with the Devil is going to land those two right where they belong. Thanks V! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "V's Manifesto" Posted by mary99 on 22:12:38 3/23/2001 Very Very good writing and research. I read this over 'there' and wonder what kind of responses you will get from jameson, er, rameson, er, JARmeson, er, PARmesan. "So many hats, so little time" I sincerely hope Foster can be un-dis-re-credited due to your diligence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Excellent analysis, V..." Posted by Dunvegan on 22:49:53 3/23/2001 ...(I take it your "hat" is a reference to Thomas Pynchon)... Momo: I agree...I think there was a LOT of spin on the "Man from Georgia" angle...and that the "Original Jameson" was, in all probablity, not Susan Benmett...but that she was brought in to confuse the issue, and discredit Foster. A harmeless prank. Sorta like calling up people and pretending you're someone you're not.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "V!" Posted by Country Girl on 22:58:34 3/23/2001 From someone who joined in the online conversation late, you brought me up to speed bigtime. Thank you! If Boulder ever grows a DA with the cajones to try this case, I expect to hear portions of your dialog during a part of the closing arguments. And if this thread goes bye-bye, I have your post copied (all 23 pages) and will be happy to email it to anyone interested! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Country Girl ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Foster" Posted by JR on 22:54:44 3/23/2001 Don't get too excites Foster initially thought I was male too but I believe (maybe vainly) that stems from my analytical nature. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "JR" Posted by starry on 06:08:59 3/24/2001 >Don't get too excites Foster initially thought >I was male too but I >believe (maybe vainly) that stems from >my analytical nature. Now my curiosity is peaked. Why would Foster care who you were? Where did he read you? I'm feeling rather left out, as Foster has never shown any interest in me.... lol, just kidding and just asking questions because I'm curious. V-Your research is large if nothing else! I'm going to copy it and print it to read later. No time, no time today. (I sound like the rabbit in Alice!) Thank you for the time and effort in putting that together. A dedicated work, for sure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Starry" Posted by JR on 22:07:45 3/24/2001 Foster (if it was really Foster) was on the old JW forum and we had a deiscussion then. he adressed me as a he and I corrected him - it is so long ago that I don't remember much except I though it interesting that he took being corrected so graciously. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "the "original" Jameson" Posted by Tomahawk on 23:11:22 3/23/2001 I can't comment on the exhaustive post above.....(I generally equate such posts with people who are mentally ill). What I can relate is my experience with jameson. I started posting at webbsleuths about 3-4 years ago and had my run ins with the famous jameson. Here is what I know: She is a she. She contacted me directly on more than one occassion, but I never kept the email address. She is Selflessly devoted to the innocence of the Ramseys. Her belief in their innocence in ABSOLUTE. In other words, I got tired of talking with her in a short period of time. Personally, because I have posted here and the other site in a sporatic manner (sometimes big time gaps between posts) some have thought that I wasn't the same person. I KNOW that I am Tomahawk and I really believe that there is only one Jameson. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Why?" Posted by Charley on 05:52:21 3/24/2001 would Hunter not want to believe that the Parents could have murdered their daughter? Geez, hunter was fine was Foster until he theory was that Patsy penned the note? Then he turns him over to the Police? What the heck was hunter doing? Shouldn't it have been going through the police first and then Hunters office? Something is very hinky with Hunter not wanting to believe the parents are responsible! A good Police officer, prosecuter, FBI agent, etc... will look in all directions! What business did Hunter have in assuming the parents were not responsible when all the evidence pointed thus far to the Ramseys? I like to know the connection between the Ramsey's, Jameson and Hunter? Makes you wonder who the district Attorney was covering for and why? Heck my fiancee is a court solictor and he has never seen so much bull*hit in a case! Remember, Susan Stine saying she read the forums? Bet that Patsy and others were involved too. Can bet that the downing of Foster was a direct means of Spin Ramsey to discreet Foster. Wonder what part Hunter had in this. Me thinks a special prosecutor needs to be brought in to reinvestigate, the investigation and investigate all those involved. Someone is deliberately stonewalling this case and preventing justice from prevailing! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Simply put, Charley" Posted by ayelean on 06:57:37 3/24/2001 The parents secured Haddon and Co. and Hunter wasn't going head to head with any attorneys that had a higher IQ than himself, he never figured they would eventually be reduced to Woodie. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. ""No Comment"" Posted by Sabrina on 07:10:49 3/24/2001 V is getting a "no comment" over yonder, because Steve Thomas is about to be sued and since this is a large part of his case the celebrity wanna be swamp mistress will be testifing. So hir lawyers advised hir not to comment. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Sabrina, " Posted by Florida on 13:11:05 3/24/2001 that's amazing when you think about the pages and pages of comments on Foster that have been made over there with absolutely no prompting whatsoever! Nice work V! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Florida" Posted by Sabrina on 14:50:42 3/24/2001 It's pretty obvious she cannot answer because V. has done her homework!! ROTFLOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Did ya ever notice" Posted by ayelean on 13:29:23 3/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:29:23, 3/24/2001 Whenever anything happens that Jams looks like she wasn't clued in or things look bad for the Rams, she comes up with a remark or a thread about how she put Foster out of commission? Jams must be Patsy's twin the way she likes the attention directed to herself. I wonder if you put John, Pats, CAP, and Jams are in the same room, if any of them would listen. edited to make sense [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "what I wonder, Ayelean" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:38:47 3/24/2001 is when the R's come out with yet another hinky, if their buttgirl dares to question them? Or, is she just in this for the money, and couldn't care less who murdered JonBenet? Like a lawyer, she can work around the truth, no problem-o! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Very Interesting..." Posted by shadow on 13:49:57 3/24/2001 However, IMHO, there are millions and millions of people in this world who are not part of the "JBR internet world"... no matter how much the credibility of Foster and John Douglas are questioned on the JBR internet forums, as best I can tell, neither has been "discredited" in the real world. And BTW, I'll believe a Ramsey/ST lawsuit when I see it!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "And Foster....." Posted by Sabrina on 15:49:58 3/24/2001 Is still employed by a prestegious university. Neither the Ramseys nor Jammy Sue are employed, or admit to being employed.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Foster, JAR, Jameson" Posted by rachel on 05:15:44 3/25/2001 Is it possible that Jameson's husband made postings in the beginning, using the hat Jameson? I have heard of posters using the other one's hat to post under. If that WERE the case, it's possible that Foster was right...Jameson was a male...at that time, anyhow. Is this possible? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Rachel" Posted by JR on 13:24:54 3/27/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:24:54, 3/27/2001 Thinking back, we initially suspected JR or son as being this poster and if not one of them than PR. But since the old forum was removed one can't go back and re-read all the old stuff to figure out what was actually said/going on. Interesting is it not? Edited to say: We being some of us as I recall - though definately not everyone - don't want to speak for all forum posters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "I hope..." Posted by janphi on 09:16:05 3/25/2001 ...that Ruthee is watching over this thread! Thanks, V--excellent presentation! BTW, which Spartacus, if I may ask? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "lintons" Posted by royal486 on 23:24:07 3/25/2001 anything like the clintons [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Great V ..." Posted by Mandarin on 01:11:19 3/27/2001 Boy that was long, but very insightful. Like Ayelean and others I believed then and now that there was a WHOLE LOT MORE to Jameson, than what she presented and who she represented. Vision in a shower? Kinda like Patsy of being afraid of showers now - maybe she thinks Jams is stalking her and hiding in her shower. The info/data that Jams posted VERY early in '97 stuck out like a red flag. How could anyone be that knowledgeable, if, as Susan Stine and Patsy said they only met her much, much later, in the game. As far as Foster is concerned, let's not forget that Joe McInnis (sp?) who was originally a staunch supporter of Jeffrey MacDonald, if not the staunchest - later did a 180 and came to the inevitable conclusion that Jeffy boy, was in fact, guilty, guilty, guilty, on all 3 murder counts. His book "Fatal Vision", along with Freddy Kassab's undying devotion to Collette and her two little girls, finally put Mac where he belonged, in the old Grey Bar Hotel. The Rams/Scams/Jams, hopefully will all be held accountable for the webs they've weaved. Oh what a tangled web they weaved, when all they wanted was to deceive. BTW, I do think it's possible that John wrote the note but, let's say that's the case, then I think Team Ram, has wanted everyone on the planet earth to think that Pats did the writing - maybe because they ALL know or have a feeling John wrote it. Why on day one of this tragedy, did John hand over the pad and say here's Patsy's, knowing full well (IMO) that the ransom note had been written on that very pad. Nothing, of course, of any relevance whatsoever turned up on his pad. AND BTW, how many households indicate ordinary writing pads as being "hers" and "mine". That was hinky to me. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Mandarin..." Posted by Charley on 06:24:29 3/27/2001 Something about John is very hinky. I've always felt that PR (IMO) was responsible, however, JR is getting more and more suspicious in my mind. He just seems so cold. I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't he himself that committed the murder and has tried to pin it on his wife! Hunter, statement that said we'd be surprised, if we knew who they almost arrested and the fact the Mr Ramsey himself had the best team of lawyers has given me even more reason to think John is more involved then just staging the crime scene....most of the lies, seem to come out of his mouth (JMO) Jameson, I have to wonder where she fits in. She knew things not even the police knew. She was able to bring down Foster with only information the Ramsey's were privy too. Can't help but wonder if she is a relative, or that a Ramsey started out as Jameson and the Sue Bennet only assumed the name after folks became suspicious of the hat Jameson and was beginning to question her knowledge in the case? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Charley ..." Posted by Mandarin on 11:55:55 3/27/2001 Let's just imagine that Patsy tugged/pulled Jonbenet to the bathroom in the red turtle neck sweater, then accidently (in a rage, of course) bashed her against bathtub/tap, whatever and that John did the staging and note writing. Patsy, then, even at this late stage, could maintain that she was in some sort of mental trance, but John is the one who would be indicted for murder, since Jonbenet finally died from the choking/gar-oat, etc. John, to me, is in a worse bind then, than she is. His constant attacks on ST appear to stem from his own guilty knowledge of what did and did not take place. For some reason, I've been envisioning Woody and Johnny On The Spot, bisecting and dissecting every line in Thomas' book for the past year. The recent break-in with a computer stolen is extremely fishy to me an I'm starting to think that it was a fake to keep their "expensive laptop" from being subpoened in the upcoming trials. John, again, was far too smug for a violated home owner. It's as if he and his gang, lifted the scene right out of ST book and ran with it. A bogus confession is reported by Team Ram, in an effor to discredit the police and then the next thing we see, is the Rams serving up yet another version of Dec 26th events to the National Enquirer of all places, complete with a hug and plate of shamrock cookies. Puhleeeeeeeze. Something is rotten in Denmark! Threats and rumours of lawsuits to come, and on and on it goes. The forum here gets a bombardment of pro-rams, bam, bam. bam, bam ... sort of a mock trial, playing out their upcoming defense strategy on any thread where they saw an opening. Rams/Scams/Jams .... they appear to be getting mighty apprehensive about the upcoming lawsuits. And BTW Charley, or anyone ... didn't a team of the Rams lawyers recently quit. What was the real story behind that. I was confused by it all. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Yup Mandarin...." Posted by Charley on 15:29:07 3/27/2001 John Ramsey sure looks more guilty then what most of us think. His behavior seems to get more absurd as time goes on. The recent breakin, just happens when Patsy isn't around? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]