Justice Watch Support JW "JAMESON: COMEDY OF ERRORS" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... JAMESON: COMEDY OF ERRORS, saddlebum, 11:58:48, 5/27/2001 can jameson be arrested for..., purrplepassion, 12:09:09, 5/27/2001, (#1) Saddlebum & Purple, JR, 12:16:38, 5/27/2001, (#2) house rule, saddlebum, 13:02:48, 5/27/2001, (#4) If the above , momo, 12:21:50, 5/27/2001, (#3) Saddlebum, JR, 13:05:09, 5/27/2001, (#5) ................................................................... "JAMESON: COMEDY OF ERRORS" Posted by saddlebum on 11:58:48 5/27/2001 Thanks for the welcome, austingirl and Thor. I am encouraged to try again. While browsing, I noticed over at the Jameson Public Forum her comments on a post that appeared at JW. It looks to me that she saw things I didn't and didn't see things I did. Jameson: "AARGHHH - - BORG propaganda" Posted by jameson on May-27-01 at 09:34 AM (EST) Someone in JW has put together a letter to send to Steve Thomas' attorney, Dan Petrocelli - - a letter to help him get his case together." Saddlebum: I don't recall seeing this in the post at all. The post was presented by CG as email received with permission to post. There was nothing about the post being a letter put together to send to Steve Thomas, Dan Petrocelli, or anyone else. Much later in a different post, CG said she had received permission to send to Petrocelli. In response to the post, there were suggestions that it be sent to Thomas and\or Petrocelli, but that it was constructed as a letter to send to these parties is just plain fallacy; which means that Jameson is deliberately making things up or suffers from greatly deficient powers of observation. Jameson: " As much as I am sure he appreciates the support of the BORG on-line, it would be SOOO stupid of him to take their letters seriously and not use a fact checker." Saddlebum: The imagined letter has now become plural as one error is piled on another. As for "fact checker" - It looks to me like there's a lot of facts, very important facts in the post to check and utilize in the upcoming litigation. Jameson: " (Don't get me wrong - - I want and expect Petrocelli to lose big time - - but it should be FAIR - - based on the truth. Are the posters hoping to mislead him so there can be a mistrial determination later?)" Saddlebum: How compassionate of you to try to protect Petrocelli. :) Dream on. Jameson: " OK - - so here is some of the BORG hyperbole that they are passing off as fact - - scary stuff when you think newbies are coming in and thinking this is the TRUTH! " Saddlebum: How about KNOWING this is truth? Scary, ain't it. Jameson: " BORG in bold Literally, every scrap of known material evidence such as the pad, pen, handle, etc. is identified as local and requires no inclusion of an intruder for explanation. (Bold part stops here.) Still Jameson: No mention of the stun gun, cord, duct tape, flashlight or High-Tec boot??? How about some matching handwriting and DNA? Saddlebum: What stun gun? Oh, the stun gun as in "Lou Smit says." Lou Smit also says the garrote scene is "professional." "Lou Smit says" didn't stand up here very well. Is "Lou Smit says" the basis for what you call "evidence?" If so, no wonder you're way out in left field and have no idea which direction is home plate. What about those marks? First, I don't even know if the marks are related to the crime. Second, I don't know what caused them or when. Maybe, it was a spanner wrench like I used to use on an old cream separator. - Got as much chance as a stun gun. Or maybe the marks are insect bites, infection, allergic reaction. I honestly don't know and don't claim any wild speculation as evidence. I don't know if and how the marks fit in, and furthermore, I have seen no evidence that anyone else knows either. As for "cord, duct tape, flashlight or High-Tec boot??? How about some matching handwriting and DNA?" comes the question, evidences what? By what rationale do you conclude that any of these is evidence of an intruder. If your are talking about assuming that some cord is missing, or that some duct tape is missing, first, you don't know that this wasn't all. Second, the idea that "missing" means intruder rather than missing by internal cause is just arbitrary declaration to suit preconceived notions. As for unknown as in DNA, unknown by definition is negative to knowledge and can evidence only the ignorance of one who claims unknown as evidence. Jameson quoting by bold: " In talking about evidence of an intruder, every claim is qualified by "missing" and\or "could be". This is equating potential with actual without evidentiary connection." (end bold) Jameson: The stun gun left marks on her body - it is not in the house. Saddlebum: Problem, Jameson. You neglected to establish that "Lou Smit says" is evidence; which is the only "source " of the "stun gun." Ergo, that which never was certainly is not in the house. Jameson: The tape and cord were found on her body - they exist - and the rest of the tape and cord is not in the Ramsey house - - no one can link them to it. Saddlebum: "rest of tape and cord"? How do you know of "rest of the tape and cord" Are you saying it is impossible that all available tape and cord was not left at the crime scene? Please explain. Do you notice this cute little spin? First is the unsupported assumption is there is tape and cord remaining. This "negative evidence" (unknown) it then disconnected from the Ramseys by declaration. This declaration presumes that if there were excess tape and cord, the Ramseys could not have gotten rid of it; that is "had" to be an intruder. Again, please explain rationale of Ramsey exclusion in your scenario. Jameson: " The foot print was FRESH in the mold. FRESH - - where is the shoe that made it? The note is certainly part of the crime -- the handwriting doesn't match the parents. The DNA mixed with the blood of JBR is not from the parents - - the BORG would ignore" that?? Fresh as in how fresh? This was established by whom, when and in what manner? OK, now I get it. In addition to "Lou Smit says", there is also "Jameson says" as the basis for "evidence." Yes, the note is certainly part of the crime. "doesn't match the parents". Plural? Who said it did match both. I believe several have said it matches Patsy. So by "Jameson says", what you say is "evidence" whereas a contrary say is not evidence. Is this about it? Jameson again with the bold as quoting: " According to Mr. Smit, the pedophile intruder fantasized about what he would do to JonBenet. This implies premeditation and planning. Yet, the intruder apparently arrived upon the scene without bringing a constructed garrote, or materials! Certainly, a monumental contradiction. This alone is sufficient to make Mr. Smit's theory highly questionable." (end bold) Jameson: " We know the intruder brought in the stun gun, cord, tape. We don't know if he brought in a "handle" or not! He could have - - and he could have substituted the paintbrush handle at the last moment. No one knows what the killer carried in - - just what he left." Saddlebum: "We KNOW (emp. added)the intruder brought in the stun gun....."??? And just how do you know all this? Of course, "Lou Smit says" and "Jameson says." Oh I just love that "could have" as "evidence." Gee he "could have" brought a pizza to eat while waiting. So, why have you said nothing about the "missing crumbs?" Jameson, more bold: "There is also the matter of the alleged intruder failing to write the "ransom note" in advance of entering the house and neglecting to brings materials for this as well." (end bold) Jameson: "If the killer intended to take the child so that he could torture and killer her, he didn't need a note. The low ransom amount tells the expert that the note was never really intended to gain money for the killer -- and was written before the crime, not written after to be left with the body." Saddlebum: Do you ever read what you write and get a clue as to just how absurd it is before you display it for all to see? "If"....he didn't need a note." - But he created one, right. So, does this say ....what does it say? "The low ransom tells the expert....." What expert is this? And how does this low figure indicate no intent of monetary gain? I mean why a figure at all if no intent at monetary gain. Oops, here's goes the supposed purpose for the ransom note. Now what? "written before the crime". And how is this discerned from your premises? Do you realize this "evidence" you claim is really incoherent. No? Then please take it step by step and explain the rationale starting with the identity of a facts or fact and show a definitive and logically relationship between said facts. I'm afraid that "Lou Smit says" or "Jameson says" is not considered evidence according to the rules of civil procedure. Jameson with bold: " In other words, there is not a trace of evidence of planning before the fact by an alleged intruder. In complement, it is strongly implied that the note and garrote planning came after the fact of JonBenet's death." (end bold) Jameson: " Wow - - how the hell did the poster figure THAT? The child died from ligature strangulation after she was dead? OK - - more BORG logic. I get it." Saddlebum: You get what? Certainly, not the facts. Jameson, you would save yourself and others a lot of time and trouble if you would read what is written rather than making it up to suit yourself. The idea that JonBenet died solely from strangulation is a popular myth to go along with the staging. The coroner's report citing head trauma AND strangulation does not isolate either as sole cause. Yet, John Ramsey and others have frequently referred to the cause of death as by strangulation while completely ignoring the coroner's report. Why no mention of head trauma when it is given as much notice by the coroner as the strangulation? Why the arbitrary choice of strangulation except as personal preference? Why this personal preference. A garrote is not a garrote until the construction is complete. It is quite possible to strangle a person to death with a cord, then go on to create a slip feature anchored by a knot, then attach a handle and call it a garrote - after the person is already dead. Yes, staging. Whether JonBenet was dead of just fatally wounded when the strangulation occurred I cannot say with certainty. Nevertheless, the staging is clearly evidenced, and this tells the truth of the matter. Jameson: Moving on... Jameson with bold: " this intruder chose garroting with little knowledge of the weapon." (end bold) Jameson: " More BORG logic - - and not supported by the evidence." Saddlebum: Very funny, Jameson. The analysis gives point by point evidence of the ignorance of the garrote creator... and you say "not supported by evidence? Yep, very funny in a pitiful sort of way. Jameson: " There was more - I lost the heart to keep going..." Saddlebum: Translation: "I know I cannot not refute the evidence, so I will not try. I will ignore and evade and pretend indignation as "justification" for running away. From the analysis posted by CG: "I have stipulated in detail with suggested testing to support my conclusion of bungling amateur. How about the same from John and Lou to support their conclusion of professional. Isn't this a fair request? " Jameson, I'm sure the writer did not mean to exclude you. So why not address each of the points alleging amateur and evidence offered and try to refute? I'll be waiting. Hopefully, so is a jury. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL saddlebum ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "can jameson be arrested for..." Posted by purrplepassion on 12:09:09 5/27/2001 when patsy and john are found guilty of this crime, i hope they can also arrest jameson for stupidity in believing their hoax! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Saddlebum & Purple" Posted by JR on 12:16:38 5/27/2001 Not that this hasn't been entertaining because it has but: House Rule No. 5: Respect copyright laws Any copying of posts from other forums and websites to this forum is prohibited unless the author has given permission. Posts on this forum are protected by copyright and are not to be copied elsewhere without permission. Purple - IHMO one needs to feel sorry for one as delusional and easily manipulated as hirself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "house rule" Posted by saddlebum on 13:02:48 5/27/2001 >Not that this hasn't been entertaining because >it has but: >House Rule No. 5: Respect copyright laws >Any copying of posts from other >forums and websites to this forum >is prohibited unless the author has >given permission. Posts on this forum >are protected by copyright and are >not to be copied elsewhere without >permission. I don't understand this. Part of what I took from Jameson's forum was taken from JW. Was what she took a copyright infringement? If its a no no to do what I did, then it won't happen again, but it looks a bit like a one way street going Jameson's way. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL saddlebum ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "If the above " Posted by momo on 12:21:50 5/27/2001 is true then the desperation is getting thick at the swamp. Remember when Patsy told Steve on LKL that he had met his waterloo? My, how the tables have turned. Times up, Ramrods! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Saddlebum" Posted by JR on 13:06:56 5/27/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:06:56, 5/27/2001 You are right - it is a one way street. Jams shouldn't be stealing our posts either but it's a known fact that she does. I am simply pointing out the house rules because some haven't read them. Chris has to enforce them if she feels it's important. Edited to say: I too was guilty of this the other day but I only posted a portion of what was said because I felt it important the JWers know Jams wants to see the JW forum go down. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]