Patricia, Take a Final Bow

free web hosting | website hosting | Business Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting

by Misty

December 2001

INTRODUCTION

As Jameson posted on May 20, 2000:

”The Patricia chapter is a weird one.”

She goes on to say:

”After reading the letters on-line, I have an idea who it was -- I think it is someone who was in email contact with me long ago..." " NOTHING in the emails was information not available to a student of Ramsey. I saw only ONE thing in the letters that was new to me.

On June 12, 2000, Jameson posted:

"I figured they were a hoax (indeed they were) and the question was then - are they from the killer or just a poster playing games. I knew a bit about the letters - and I saw no evidence that anything in them wasn't taken directly from public information and/or the forums. I still don't"

Now, did Jameson really see ONE piece of evidence in the letters that was new to her or was there no new evidence?

On April 15, 2001, Jameson posted:

"The Patricia incident simply was never important in my mind. Still isn't to tell the truth."

The above reactions to the Patricia letters are in complete contrast with how Jameson usually reacts to a tip that might even remotely lead to JonBenet Ramsey's killer. She has always been more than willing to send in a tip and considers herself a legitimate player in the Ramsey investigation.

Jameson alerted authorities to pornography on the internet and suggested that the photos looked very similar to the Pugh family. This led the Boulder Police Department on a wild goose chase, which proved to be a dead end.

In August 2001 Jameson sent Chief Mark Beckner a DNA sample from a a former suspect in an unsolved Arapahoe County murder for possible links to the Ramsey case. This also ended in no arrest. For an article on the subject, Click Here

In September 2001 Jameson sent in information regarding a post that showed up on the www.maketoast.com site in which the writer hinted at involvement in the crime. That post later turned out to be a complete hoax made up by a teenage girl. It was apparent to most who saw the message that it was completely bogus, but Jameson sent it in anyway.

So, why is it that Jameson didn't feel the Patricia letters were important?

Even John Ramsey in "The Death of Innocence" states that he believes that the Patricia Letter Writer may be the killer.

“While the letters had a chilling, soap opera sound, the undertone was threatening. We seriously wondered if this person could be the killer, a schizophrenic who was teasing us with his clues.” [The Death of Innocence, p. 311)

AFTERMATH OF THE PATRICIA ANALYSIS

In June 2000, Delmar England and I published our analysis of the Patricia letters.

The reaction to this analysis was as expected. A large majority of the JBR internet community felt that Jameson was behind or at least involved with this hoax. Jameson, her followers and a few others felt that the analysis was totally inaccurate.

Wilton Jr. added a variable to the equation; his post follows:

15. "Misty"
Posted by WiltonJr on 09:43:55 6/11/2000
Include Original
Message on Reply
You've done an excellent job with your analysis of the "Patricia" emails. I have something to ad to the equation, and that's the time that the photos were taken that are posted on the Find A Grave website. Take a look at this one http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2745" and notice the line of golden doodads that are lined up on the head stone. Susan Bennett placed those on the grave when she and I visited the grave together around the end of July, 1998. They were flimsy metalicangels. IMO, they wouldn't have stayed there for very long. One good breeze and they would have scattered. It's my guess that Susan went back to the grave after she and I parted ways the next day and took the photo.

He felt that photo at Find a Grave was, indeed, taken by Jameson because of the row of angels she added to the grave when they both went to view it.

A poster on Jameson's Webbsleuths, Foster, suggested that Delmar England was simply a figment of Misty's imagination.

7 . "From what I know..."
Posted by Foster on Jun-18-00 at 09:20 PM (EST)
of human nature, and what I have seen and read in it's entirety in these posts, I am now convinced there is no Delmar England. It is Misty herself claiming to be Delmar England (someone we have never heard of and who has no verifiable credentials) attempting to convince this group that jameson wrote these letters. "

Of course, Jameson knew that wasn't true because she phoned Mr. England to voice her disapproval of the analysis. She also sent various pieces of email to Mr. England carbon copying Lin Wood, the BPD and the BDA. Below is a header from one of the emails with part of a letter.

"From: Jameson245@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:10:46 EDT
Subject: Mr. England
To: delmar@strato.net, BecknerM@ci.boulder.co.us, WCWDA@co.boulder.co.us, LLWood47@aol.com
Your analysis of the Patricia letters resulted in you making a false accusation against me. I did not write the Patricia letters. Period. The people who matter know that. "

Other arguments toward the validity of the letters included credentials and elimination of suspects. Sweebie posted:

23 . "Misty"
Posted by Sweebie on Jun-12-00 at 02:56 PM (EST)
I read your analyis and the aspect that caused me concern is twofold: 1) Who is Delmar England? What are his credentials? This matters a great deal as to the validity of his "analysis". 2) The other "suspects".

The credential aspect came up often and seemed just another poor attempt to try to invalidate the conclusions drawn from the analysis.

As far as the suspect pool, the analysis clearly stated that dozens were looked at. The limitation of not having enough writing by Susan Stine to form an opinion was also stated in the analysis. However, Jameson had her own possible suspect.

"4 . "NO"
Posted by jams on Jun-26-00 at 08:32 AM (EST)
I am not accusing Foster of writing the Patricia Letters, BUT I do think it is a possibility."

Subsequently, I was banned from Jameson's webbsleuths forum for disrupting the forum and stating misinformation.

Eventually, discussion of the Patricia letters subsided for several months. Around April 2001, a thread was started in ACandyRose's chat forum regarding the Patricia Letter Writer analysis. It was soon after that Jameson started this thread on her forum.

Jameson posts:

"PATRICIA has been found!"
Posted by jameson on Apr-14-01 at 10:14 PM (EST)
I do believe I have found the author of the Patricia letters!
This is not a joke. I will post this on the protected forum so people will know I DID post this.
The person has a large web site of their own. I may not be Donald Foster, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this person is Patricia. I see nothing in their pages that indicates they POST on the forums, just lurk and learn and use that information in what they write.
I am off to read more - - but I am 99% convinced I have found Patricia. Not sure if I should contact her (it is apparently a female) or try to find out who she really is. But I do think I have found her.

Well, that was certainly a miracle. After all this time and Jameson's disinterest in even the subject of the Patricia letters, she found the real letter writer.

On April 15, 2001, Jameson stated:

JAMESON VISITS DARNEY HOFFMAN IN NEW YORK

Before I begin this section I want to remind the readers what Jameson has continually stated through the years:

"14 . "Misty"
Posted by jams on Jun-15-00 at 03:21 PM (EST)
I was not interested in talking about myself - I left chats when they went off case and didn't post much of anything personal.
I DO remember hoping to remain a anonymous, and it WAS interesting to see who thought I was what. Hello, recently a new poster here realized I was female - he JUST figured out I am female, Guess I write like a man. Certainly haven't tried to hide my gender since going on the radio and TV.
As for the semantics games, yes, I played them. I said once - the wife looks out the window and sees the grass up to her knees, and I have to mow the lawn.
Actually I found that quite clever - and sad at that time since I needed to go mow the damn yard.
If that is lying - - trying to remain anonymous and playing games with semantics - I am guilty. Sue me.
Now, this is the Ramsey forum. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do. If you have a problem with me personally, take it elsewhere.
If you believe I am the writer of the Patricia letters, or as the killer, the BPD, DA, CBI and FBI are all listed in the phone book. You are wrong, but, hey, everyone has a right to their opinion.
You have falsely accused me of writing the letters - I responded - you are wrong - so move on, OK?"

Jameson has stated, over and over, that she will lie.

Now, being a someone inquisitive type of individual I went back to find out just when Jameson went to visit Attorney Hoffman in New York. According to ACandyRose's timeline, Jameson went to New York on June 7, 1999. She returned on June 15, 1999.

I then went back over the Cheesy and Gsquared Patricia letter collection. Patricia Letter Writer sent no letters to Gsquared in June 1999 and in the Cheesy collection, there was no communication between June 7, 1999 and June 11, 1999. That would be a time period of five days.

What was happening before Jameson left for New York? She had just opened her new forum on June 5, 1999.

From a thread:

" WELCOME - FINALLY!"
Posted by jameson on Jun-05-99 at 08:20 AM (EST)
LAST EDITED ON Jun-05-99 AT 08:49 AM (EST)
Welcome to The JonBenÈt forum.
I am still just learning how to do all of this, so be patient. It will take a while to get everything set up pretty, but the forum is finally up and I welcome all my old friends to pull up a chair and start sleuthing.
The rules here will be the same as those I enforced on the old forum - treat other people as you would have them treat you and we will be in fine shape.
Registration will be slow, I fear - be patient.
I will not be simply throwing open the doors. No one needs to register just to read. While I want all POV to be represented, I will be going for quality of posters, not quantity. I will be doing all I can to avoid multiple hats - and that means "lurkers" who never post or contribute to the discussion will probably not be registered.
Again, WELCOME, enjoy, and please be patient!
jameson

Then, on June 7, 1999, Jameson, who did not have access to a computer (as she states above) in New York posted this:

10 . "Good afternoon"
Posted by jameson on Jun-07-99 at 04:23 PM (EST)
I am on my trip - so far just relaxing, though i did have a lovely conversation with two (yes, two) lawyers about Foster. Not that they care, but their views were interesting.
Glad to see the return of Batwoman's daily thread.
And - it appears Mrs. Brady was copying my site (flattering? I think so) and accidently replaced my index with hers. Now isn't THAT a hoot!!! No time to just chat - just wanted to make sure things are going OK. Seems that we are off to a good start!

So, contrary to what she has stated and what she claims that Darney Hoffman vouches for, it would appear that Jameson did have access to a computer. On June 15, 1999 Jameson posted the following:

"What's wrong with Darnay Hoffman?"
Posted by jameson on Jun-15-99 at 10:38 AM (EST)
I just got back from a trip to New Your City where I literally spent most of 5 days with Darnay Hoffman. (I also spoke to people from NBC, CBS and ABC, met with a couple of lawyers and went over the autopsy with a doctor from the Beth Israel Hospital. All in all a very interesting trip.)"
Five days? What did Jameson do in New York from June 11 through June 15 then. Looking at when the Patricia Letter Writer began corresponding with Cheesy again, it was -- miraculously on June 11, five days from June 5.
It appears from the above post that Jameson did have access to a computer and had some free time between June 11 and 15 if those are the correct date when Jameson was in New York.

However, Jameson states in a post from June 26, 2000:

"... I think access to multiple computers and a very strong knowledge of telecommunications might have been a benefit to Patricia."
Now, again, I am not accusing anyone, but I have been accused of writing the Patricia letters - by the very person I am describing here! I just think it is interesting to look back at the accuser. "Consider the source", so they say.
Note - but the person says she has an albi. Well, I have been assured that clever people can send mail whenever they like - - they don't have to be at their machine - just tell the machine to post this in two days at noon - it can be done. No different than telling the VCR to tape a program next Wednesday."
So, Jameson provided another plausible explanation why she could have written the Patricia letters and just delayed their delivery.

CONCLUSION

What can I say but that words do come back to haunt us. The above sufficiently discredits Jameson's attempt to distance herself from the Patricia Letters. It is quite obvious that Jameson maintained computer access during this period of time and continued to correspondent as Patricia Letter Writer. I consider this matter closed.

As a disclaimer, the above posts were not altered. The true transcripts appear as they were typed.