jameson not a witness
#1
[b]1999-03-31: Webbsleuths Community Forum (http://munitrading.com)
on thread titled, "my request to see the grand jury"
[/b]

"my request to see the grand jury"
Posted by jameson on 19:10:55 3/31/99
Include Original Message on Reply

From the TimeLine ©
March 27th
.
personal news - ò¿ó - I received a letter from Michael Kane advising me that my petition to be seen by the grand jury was not acceptable. He was not denying my request, he said, he was simply stating that I had not presented my request properly.
.
"Because this is not a denial of your request to testify, but rather a determination that your petition does not meet the statutory requirements...."
.
I reworded my application and resubmitted it immediately.
(Will it take another month to get a response?)
.
Personally, I am offended by what I see as an attempt by Michael Kane to ignore certain information in this case. I fear Michael Kane is wantonly using his position in order to gain an indictment at all costs.
.
I have reason to believe a certain report that reached the DA's office six months ago through a perfectly legal, respectable and credible source was not followed up on. Was it an oversight or intended disregard?

Doesn't matter which it was. It is not too late to do the right thing.
.
I e-mailed this quote to Mr. Kane today.
.
"The issue is not whether mistakes were made, but how they are addressed when they are discovered."
.
I hope Mr. Kane does the right thing here

I expect the clock has run out and I will not be heard. I have hope that Marcia Clark and the others were right last week when they predicted that there will be no indictment. But I am still concerned that their report will be based on some misinformation.

I can only hope that when the grand jury returns next week they have an agenda and insist on hearing from others who may have something to add to the discussion BEFORE they write a report that will determine the future of this case.
 




3. "The way it is..."

Posted by jameson on 21:40:13 3/31/99

Include Original Message on Reply



I have information that the grand jury should know before they take ANY action - - before they vote OR before they wrote a report.



I have given this information to the authorities and the Ramsey representatives.



The authorities seem to wish I would disappear.



The Ramsey representatives are not yet in any position to use the information I got to them. Since I have never spoken to any of the Ramsey lawyers, I don't know what they can or will do with it in the future.



I have decided to go public with that information. The story will be out in April. It is scheduled to air on 48 Hours. Soon after, it will be on the internet.



This isn't how I wanted it to be, but it is how it is going to happen. I did not want to "go public" but feel forced to do this because it is the "right thing to do".



I have other information that will come out later, some of it is important as well, but the piece I want to bring to the grand jury will be out very soon.







10. "48 Hours, gj and stuff"

Posted by jameson on 07:49:33 4/01/99

Include Original Message on Reply



As it stands now, the show will air by the end of this month. (Yes, you will get to see me - don't get excited about that, I'm just another non-descript middle-aged housewife.)



I won't know what the show actually shows until you do - I get no preview and so I have to trust the editors are going to tell the story correctly.



The whole hour is not on me - (don't blink) - so don't expect to hear all I know - just one piece of the puzzle I felt had to come out now.



I have petitioned again to be heard by the grand jury. I may still get in. I understand it can be as little as 48 hours between the time they decide to let you appear and the actual appearance. Just have to hope they decide to correct a mistake.







11. "Wendy and Mikie"

Posted by jameson on 07:59:23 4/01/99

Include Original Message on Reply



Wendy - my sources clearly indicate who the target of the grand jury is - I think it is well known they aren't about to indict anyone whose name we have never heard.



Mikie - There is a very good reason why I want to personally present my evidence to the grand jury. I can't send them a file directly or I would be arrested for jury tampering.



And I don't trust the DA to give my evidence for me - you see, IMO, the DA has already shown through their actions that they don't want to see, understand, or present all the evidence in this case.
of this case.
Reply
#2
birdy - 12:36pm Apr 7, 1999 MST (#35 of 35)

On the Erin Hart show, Schiller says jammy refused to allow him to put anything about Foster in the book. Michael Kane refused jammy's request/demand to testify in front of the grand jury. Jammy had to find another way to smear Foster for telling the truth about her. This is also jameson's attempt to influence the GH or the trial jury and contaminate the jury pool.


MY COMMENT - that is simply not true. Schiller had Foster in the book - he just had it wrong That was not my fault. Schiller said Foster was "creditable". He was later discredited so I doubt Schiller would say that now.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)