--- Ramsey <ramsey@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> From Ramsey Thu Aug 12 16:29:15 1999
> X-Apparently-To: gsquared100@yahoo.com via
> mdd502.mail.yahoo.com
> Received: from anon.lcs.mit.edu ()
>   by mta116.yahoomail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1999
> 16:37:54 -0700
> Date: 12 Aug 1999 23:29:15 -0000
> Message-ID:
> <19990812232915.5249.qmail@nym.alias.net>
> From: Ramsey <ramsey@nym.alias.net>
> To: gsquared100@yahoo.com
> Subject: Does it Really Matter?
> Content-Length: 2683
> 
> Gail,
> 
> >I am treating you as though you MIGHT be Patsy
> Ramsey on the off 
> >chance that you are. I have been told that Patsy
> ramsey never 
> >goes online though.
> 
> Why is it so unfathomable that Patricia Ramsey might
> not divulge 
> everything about herself to those around her? Who is
> it that sits 
> beside Patricia Ramsey and knows that she "never
> goes online or 
> owns a computer, for that matter"? Has it not
> ocurred to some 
> here that Patricia Ramsey has a small amount of
> privacy that 
> would enable her to do a few things that are not
> made public? 
> This confuses me to no end.
> 
> >Collins alludes to Patsy as the writer of the note.
> He certainly 
> >sems to lean that way, but his posts are sometimes
> incoherent.
> 
> Is he or is he not eluding to the fact that the
> letters I have 
> sent to him, that he so deceivingly posts, were
> written by 
> Patricia Ramsey? I suppose it would be appropriate
> if I posted 
> his hateful letters to me, that boil with hatred
> against me, and 
> points the finger of guilt squarely at me.
> 
> >I no longer keep in contact with Patti. I don't
> know what 
> >happened to her or where she is. I know that she is
> from 
> >Wisconsin, though (if this is the Patti I am
> thinking of).
> 
> It is the same Patti. Her and I were once very close
> friends 
> here. In many ways, she deceived me as well. She
> gained access to 
> a very important person of whom I still communicate
> with, 
> concerning the killer. I wish her only the best. She
> became 
> obsessed with me confirming my identity. I have no
> intentions of 
> doing that. I have no intentions of subjecting my
> family to any 
> danger.
> 
> >When you say that this man wrote the phrase "down
> to the letter" 
> >and that "This, of course, was in reference to his
> expectations 
> >of our performance; however, it also describes his
> own 
> >tactics"... are you saying you are a Ramsey?
> 
> I am not saying I am a Ramsey. Even if I signed my
> name here as 
> Patricia Ramsey, does it really matter?
> 
> >Do you think "to the letter" has something to do
> with "SBTC"? I 
> >have never been able to figure that out.
> 
> Absolutely not. It means exactly what it says. The
> acronym above 
> is mostly insignificant, since the ransom note was
> merely a 
> diversionary tactic. If it is worth anything besides
> the 
> diversionary purpose it served, since the writer
> wanted it to 
> appear that they were a foreign faction, I have been
> told that 
> "S" stands for Soldiers (in or of), B (I cannot
> remember) "T" 
> stands for Terrorist,  "C" stands for Confederation.
> I request 
> that you keep this to yourself.
> 
> >What are this man's tactics?
> 
> To cause utter chaos by creating confusion. His
> tactics are 
> diversionary and strategic. Furthermore, I could
> tell you what 
> his motives are.
>
> Sincerely