Someone needs to get Easy Writer at FFJ to post here ... [Archive]

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 09:54 AM

Evidence Vs Pretense

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My intended short stay, beginning in the year 2000, has turned
into a four year plus marathon. There’s not much I can say that I
haven’t said before; just change some wording a little. Be that
as it may, it serves to let the Ramseys know that not all of us
are taken in by the con.

After over seven years, the Ramsey case is still officially
unsolved. What is very disturbing about this is that from an
evidence point of view, it hard to imagine a case more
elementary. Many talk about the absence of a “smoking gun” when
in truth, there is an entire arsenal. The problem is not the lack
of evidence, or even a shortage of evidence. The problem is the
scene is saturated with “investigators”, LE and otherwise, and
theorists who apparently have no idea what evidence is.

SCHILLER: It doesn't make a lot of sense and I'll get to why.
Because, as it was said at the head of the show, there's a lot of
evidence against the Ramseys and there's a lot of evidence to an
intruder theory. (Dan Abrams show July 17, 2003,)

Evidence of intruder AND evidence of Ramsey guilt? In a condition
of either\or, how can there be evidence of both? Mr. SCHILLER is
by no means the only one who proposes to follow the evidence
without knowing what evidence is. Indeed, the failure to
differentiate evidence from pretense is the “norm.” It is the
singular reason why in over seven years and millions of dollars
beyond the death of JonBenet Ramsey, there is nothing to show for
it except fiscal waste and psychological carnage with no end in
sight.

This ignorance of evidence and subsequent pursuit of illusions
did and does result in a protracted scene of chaotic rhetoric
proposing the contradiction of coexistence of opposites in
conjunction with the contradiction of evidence via the unknown.
I am haunted by the impression that even if Mary Keenan had an
unedited video of the whole crime scene just as it happened along
with signed confessions, she would continue to waste taxpayer
money chasing a mythical intruder.

The following analysis proposes to zero in on just the core
elements of the case from a perspective of actual evidence.
Actual evidence presents a seamless theory inclusive of all known
facts while rejecting as contradiction all ideas opposing. Let’s
begin with the fact that the victim and all items KNOWN connected
to the crime are localized to the Ramsey household. When this
framework fact is integrated with other relevant facts, all
evidentiary doubt is removed. Duly note, I said evidentiary
doubt. Obviously, there are those who have and will continue to
doubt Ramsey culpability on faith, not facts.

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 09:55 AM

Before you begin reading the immediately following, may I suggest
listening to Patsy’s 911 call to form a physical, geographical
and psychological (emotional) image of Patsy as she makes the
call.

CNN INTERVIEW SIX DAYS AFTER THE DEATH OF JONBENET
THE “RANSOM NOTE” AND 911 CALL

CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten
note, three pages?
RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing
And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and
I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. (CNN - An
interview with John and Patricia Ramsey January 1, 1997}

PATSY: I kind of turned around and looked at it to see what it
was and I started reading the first couple of lines. It just
wasn't registering but somewhere it said, 'we have your daughter'
it clicked, you know, 'Your Daughter' and I just bounded back up
the steps and threw her door open and she was not in her bed.
(07-09-1998 Michael Tracy's "Who Killed JonBenét?" documentary
airs in Britain.)

PATSY: I turned around to start to see what it was and realized
after I'd read the first couple of lines… (Friday, March 17 2000,
BARBARA WALTERS, ABC NEWS)

Patsy repeatedly stated that her knowledge of the note was
limited to only the first few lines sufficient to discern that
JonBenet had been kidnaped. She indicated that she was so upset
she could not read further; that she went bounding off to look in
JonBenet’s room and scream for John. Her story does not jell with
the recorded facts of the 911 call:

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: What?

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: No. I don't know... it's there... there's a ransom
note here.

Boulder Police Dispatcher: It's a ransom note.

Patsy Ramsey: It says SBTC... Victory... please.

The question about who took her is answered in the first line of
the note:

“We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign
faction.”

However, this answer at the beginning of the note is not the
answer given to the 911 operator. Patsy gave the answer found at
the end of the note. Without the note in hand, conversing
frantically in immediate response to the 911 operator’s
questions, she stated precisely, clearly and without hesitation
the ending of said note inclusive of the letters of the acronym
in the correct order.

This obviously contradicts the projected idea of only a quick
knowledge of the first few lines of the note by swift initial
reading. This tells of a familiarity with the note far beyond the
first few sentences. How did she know the ending IF her first
look at the note was only the first few lines on the morning of
Dec. 26, 1996? Having been caught in a horrendous contradiction
(bald-faced lie), Patsy makes a desperate, but failing attempt at
damage control.

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 09:57 AM

During a police interview on June 23, 1998, Patsy said:

“Well, I read - I came back down and John had it, you know, on
the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it, and somewhere
I thought in there, because I didn’t read it line by line, I
looked over to see who it was from, and I didn’t know who that
was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said, ‘If you call
some’ - ‘Don’t call the police,’ of - wherever it said that. Oh,
here, ‘police, FBI, et cetera, ‘your daughter being held.’ And I
read that and I mean, my blood just went cold. You know, I
couldn’t-“

In spastic, stammering, stuttering, lying, broken phrases, Patsy
says she “looked over to see who it was from”; apparently, an
interest she didn’t have until after the 911 blunder. Also, in
this rewrite of history, she did not state the end; only, “and I
didn’t know who that was.” Perhaps, repeating the words which
previously exposed her lie created something of a fear of them.

The scene described is John on his hands and knees reading the
note while Patsy is calling 911. As the story goes, while
calling, Patsy divides her focus between her exchange with the
911 operator and glancing over, under, or around John to peruse
the note. This is her claim as to how she became initially aware
of “SBTC, Victory.” Keep in mind that Patsy’s response was
instant. She did not hesitate and tell the operator she would
take a look. The time between the 911 operator’s question and
Patsy’s immediate response leaves no evidentiary doubt that the
answer, “SBTC, Victory”, was already known to Patsy BEFORE she
started the 911 call.

To emphasize the absurdity of this claim as Patsy tries to lie
out of the blunder, let’s take a real close look and see exactly
what Patsy is asking us to believe.

PR: He was just in his underwear and he, uh, took the note and I
remember him being down hunched on the floor...with all three
pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, “Call 911.”
(Police Files, pg. 63)

PR. He, I remember him, while I was calling 911, he was hunched
over the note and had it laid out there on the floor ‘cause there
was a light. It was kind of darkish and there was a light,
hallway light on...he was, you know, reading it there. (Ibid, pg
69)

TT: Okay, Where, where were you at when you called 911 ‘cause I
know’s there’s....

PR: Kitchen.

TT: Okay. Is that a cordless phone?

PR: No.

TT: Just a, it’s a regular wall phone, right?

PR: Right.

TT: Okay. Okay. So you are in there making the 911 call. John’s
out in the hallway reading the note um....

PR: Well, I mean we were real (close), the phone’s right here and
he was right there.

TT: Right around the corner. Okay. (Ibid)

Patsy neither confirmed not denied Trujillo’s remark about John
being around the corner reading the note spread out on the floor.
However, it is established that Patsy was in the kitchen making
the 911 call from a wall phone while John was reading the note in
the adjacent hallway that was “kind of darkish.” I assume from
the wall phone setting, she was standing as she made the call.
Her claim is that it was in this circumstance that she glanced at
the note and learned of the ending.

Giving benefit of doubt, let’s set aside the around the corner
thing. John was “hunched” over the note in order to read it while
Patsy is not only reading it from a standing position, but while
making a frantic 911 call at the same time.

The precise distance and angle or Patsy’s relationship to the
note spread out on the floor is not given. However, there are
option factors to be explored. Even if one did have the visual
capability of reading the note from a standing position, (try it)
there is a line of sight factor which much be considered as well.

I envision a kitchen doorway into the hallway. Hallways, by
definition, are usually narrow. This sets the high probability
that John was positioned in correspondence with the length of the
hallway as opposed to the width. If by strange chance, he was
crossways of the hall, for someone else to read from the doorway
or beyond would have been a lateral view determined by the
proximity of John’s body to the note. At what distance must a
person be standing from John to have a sufficient lateral view to
see the three pages spread out under him? Is there any human
being with the capacity to read any general size print at that
distance and angle, let alone the printed note in a “darkish”
hallway?

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 09:58 AM

If John was positioned lengthwise with the hallway with his rear
toward Patsy, to read the note at all, she would have had to
literally see through him. If he was facing her while hunched
over the note, Patsy would have had to read from the standing
distance, at an angle AND with the writing upside down; not to
mention while carrying on a conversation with the 911 operator as
well. The closer John was, the less of the note visible. The
farther he was, the greater the distance and greater the angle of
vision.

Patsy’s story has more holes in it that a truckload of colanders.
Print out a page with a standard font like Courier New, 12 point,
with medium print and not bold. Place it on the floor directly
under the highest luminosity you wish and try to read it from a
standing position directly over it. If you can do this, ( I
can’t) you have really exceptional eyesight. If you can read it
at all, start backing off and mark the angle it all become a
blur. Try the same thing with a print done with a marker where
the letters tend to flow together much more than type.

The long and short of it is, Patsy’ story of how she knew the
ending of the note is not just doubtful, it is literally
impossible. In plain English, Patsy flat out lied about how and
when she knew the words at the end of the note. The fact ( proven
above) is that the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, WAS NOT Patsy’s
initial awareness of the note. What remains is the when, where
and how Patsy knew of the note prior to the morning of Dec. 26,
1996, therefore, knew of the ending prior to the 911 call.

We have a convergence of many factors answering the question. The
person who, via the note, admonished John to be rested for
tomorrow certainly was aware of the note prior to the morning of
Dec. 26, 1996. Not even the pretense of confusion about the date
of tomorrow can erase or mitigate this fact. Who was that person
so concerned about John’s welfare on the morrow? An intruder?

Take a long hard look at what the Ramseys are asking you to
believe. Start with the picture, their picture, of a vicious,
cruel, sadistic intruder who kidnaps, binds, gags, then kills
their daughter; a person who is so perverted and depraved he even
commits genital assault with an object.

The Ramseys ask you believe that this same person is
compassionate and has their welfare at heart. Worse yet, this
person does not express, nor imply any concern for the parents
over the horrendous death of their daughter. Oh no, he is
concerned only about John being well rested for the money
delivery tomorrow. This mentality that the Ramsey would have you
believe to be the psychology of the intruder\killer has never
existed and can never exist at any time, nor in any place.

KING: So you agree that whoever authored the ransom note probably
killed the child?

J. RAMSEY: I agree.

P. RAMSEY: I would agree with that.

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 09:59 AM

How would you like to be in this position? Would you be a bit
uneasy if staying out of prison depended on convincing a jury
that the same person who kidnaped and murdered your daughter was
concerned about you being well rested?

What would it take to convince a jury that an intruder did not
write the note? Really, not much. The content of the note makes
its own argument against intruder authorship. If you were a
juror, would you believe that an intruder would maim and murder a
child, hold in mind and write in the note concern for the welfare
of a parent in the task of delivering the ransom money? This
horrendous conflict of attitude toward the parent(s) is so
inconsistent, would any juror be able to envision such a
mentality and such a psychology?

The concern for tomorrow as an eminent ordeal is clearly stated
in the note, but concern for the parents by an intruder does not
mesh with the murder of their daughter by said intruder. Yet, we
know, concern was in the mind of the note writer. The concern is
genuine. What then is the genuine source of the genuine concern?

The natural law of self interest once again answers the question.
The concern about tomorrow, first in the mind of the note writer,
then written into the note, was concern FOR THE PERSONS BY THE
PERSONS who would undergo the certain ordeal of “tomorrow.” Who
are those persons? For sure, it was not a non existent intruder.

An intruder fits neither the psychological scene, nor the
physical. Patsy’s knowledge of the ending of the note did not
come about by the physically impossible circumstance of
simultaneously reading the note on the floor while making the 911
call. Her knowledge of the ending of the note came from writing
it. The 911 call slip up was not needed to know this truth, but
in conjunction with the concern element, it closes this chapter
with finality.

MORE ON THE RANSOM NOTE

The choice to demand $118,000 is of much significance since it is
more than a bit unusual and narrows the field of potential
authors. The odds against selection of this amount by random
choice is astronomical. If you asked a billion individuals to
name a ransom amount, it is highly unlikely that even one other
than the note writer would come up with this number. The choice
and presence of this demand number tells that said number was
impressed upon the mind of the writer by some previous
experience.

Once the mind\amount relationship has been established, the
primary search is locating persons connected to that number in
some manner. The field is further narrowed by the element of
ability and opportunity. As it turns out, the number coincides
with a bonus amount received by John Ramsey. Ruling out Burke for
many reasons, what remains is John or Patsy Ramsey, or both’ as
author of the note. Ergo, at this juncture, we have the material
evidence connected to the Ramseys with no evidence to sever said
physical connection in conjunction with a connection to the
intellectual, numerical evidence by virtue of previous awareness
of said amount.

(Here and elsewhere, I am willing to consider any alleged
exonerating evidence, but unless and until, the proponent of
alleged evidence of an intruder can establish by some strange
calculus the “unknown” as evidence, and\or connect an item
apparently incidental to the actual crime, please don’t waste my
time.)

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 10:00 AM

Among the many telling oddities in the note is:

“I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on
delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be
rested.”

Obviously the admonition to be rested for tomorrow assumes that
John will see the note BEFORE tomorrow. How this is to come about
is not explained in the note. It is explained above. However,
since John and Patsy have brought this up many times, let’s deal
with it once and for all.

To try to circumvent this sticky wicket of “tomorrow,” John
later claimed there was confusion as to whether tomorrow meant
the 26th or the 27th. I can find no evidence that John, the
police, nor anyone else expressed any doubt on the 26th that
tomorrow in the note meant the 26th. The alleged confusion over
the date is nothing more than a convenient rewrite of history
done in self-contradiction. Contradiction is a familiar theme in
the Ramsey “defense.”

During the CNN interview six days after the death of JonBenet,
John said:

RAMSEY, J: Well, we'd waited until after the time that the call
was supposed to have been made to us, and one of the detectives
asked me and my friend who was there to go through every inch of
the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that
looked out of place.

I see no mention of any confusion about tomorrow. “after the time
the call was supposed to have been made...” This refers to the
date, Dec. 26, 1996.

“On December 25th, my daughter, JonBenet, was brutally murdered
by an intruder who came into our home while we slept.” (John
Ramsey's Statement, Press release, July 23, 1997) There is more:

JR: I think she was killed that night, versus in the morning.

LS: What makes you think that?

JR: Well, the note talked about, “I’m going to call you
tomorrow.”

Close this chapter as well. Let’s now look at other evidence.

THE “GARROTE SCENE”

For many reasons, many persons suspected that the ransom note was
bogus. Bogus, by definition, means attempt to hide the truth. If
bogus, the terminology is staged crime scene. This initial
suspicion prompted by the note set the tone and direction for
examining the rest of the crime scene. It was fair warning to
question the face value of any and all evidence. The warning was
ignored and predictable disaster followed; a seven year plague as
it were.

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 10:02 AM

Fingerprint technicians and handwriting “experts” were much on
the scene examining evidence looking for clues to the identity of
the perpetrator, or perpetrators. Within the crime scene
framework was the body found on the premises and the “garrote
scene.” This evidence was assumed to be the handiwork of the
perpetrator(s), a direct physical connection. This was a critical
piece of evidence warranting focused and detailed examination
from every angle. Yet, since LE did not have a resident expert on
knots, ropes and handles, this pivotal evidence was, in effect,
ignored; and is still being ignored.

If I were to put the attitude into words, it would go something
like this. “Police academies and detective schools do not teach a
course in knots, cords and handles; therefore, we have no one
capable of an accurate analysis of the ‘garrote scene.’ Given
this circumstance, we shall disregard the ‘garrote scene’ as
critical evidence and let the RST make of it whatever they wish.”

Make of it whatever they wished is exactly what they did. This is
the main means by which they established a mythical, but much
believed, intruder.

PATSY RAMSEY: First of all we know from the evidence that this
was a premeditated murder. The way in which she… died. The
garrote that was around her neck. (Barbara Walters, March 17,
2000)

J. RAMSEY: And this garrote will be a clue. This was not an
amateur device. This was a professional strangling tool. Somebody
knows who did that.....The garrote is such a key clue. This was a
complex... (LKL, March 27, 2000)

Professional garrote became a mantra for the RST; eventually,
winding up influencing a federal court decision. The “garrote
scene”, the most truth-revealing evidence in the whole crime
scene, was held by LE in so little regard, no one even observed
the contradiction and asked the obvious question:

How in the hell is John Ramsey, Lou Smit, or anyone else
qualified to evaluate the “garrote scene” as professional unless
they have the experience and know how to differentiate
professional from amateur. Obviously, if John had such knowledge,
he would be capable of constructing a professional garrote scene,
therefore, would not be exonerated by it.

This elementary bit of logic was ignored no less than the
“garrote scene” itself allowing the Ramseys and the whole RST to
promote the “professional garrote scene” to the max, including
photos of knots on the Internet with pretense of professional
complexity. This became “THE EVIDENCE” that connected to an
intruder. If you doubt this, set the premise, amateur “garrote
scene” and ask the Ramseys and Lou Smit to present their intruder
theory from this position of actual evidence.

What has been and is really distressing is watching many aid and
abet the Ramseys even as they propose to oppose. Nearly all
bought into the “professional” con including most of those who
believe the Ramseys are guilty. Articles and posts one after the
other go on and on about Burke’s Boy Scout Handbook of knots
and\or how John surely learned knots in the Navy. There is
nothing in either the Boy Scout Handbook, nor any Navy manual
which even remotely resembles anything found at the crime scene.

Trying to establish Ramsey expertise in knots and nooses has no
positive function unless the “garrote scene” is professional,
that is, efficient in materials, construction and application. I
assure you and stand ready to prove in court, the “garrote scene”
is flawed in every respect. The severely flawed “garrote scene”
dictates that in trying to identify the creator of said scene,
look for someone who DOES NOT KNOW about cords and knots, not
someone who does.

I know this area quite well from a lifetime of experience and I
could not have consciously created such a screwed up, inept mess
if I consciously tried. If I attempted to dumb down, I would have
never thought of TYING the cord around the neck. Setting a
strangulation by noose scene by TYING the cord around the neck
rather than making a noose and putting over the head? This is
beyond weird. It shows a mind in near total ignorance of
materials, construction and function, and a mind in total
disarray.

Like the man said, “Every action presupposes the intent to gain
or protect.” There is no better reference than this natural law
of self interest. This prompts the question of who, how and what
is to be gained and\or protected by a staged crime scene?

Even if you don’t understand the “garrote scene”, consider as a
hypothesis that it’s amateurish to the max. What would an
amateurish intruder hope to gain by scrounging materials on the
premises, and use those materials in a manner in which he
obviously knew nothing about. If he is long gone, what need would
he have for this? If caught, how is the inept “garrote scene”
going to be of benefit?

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 10:04 AM

How could it benefit? Benefit whom? If you buy the “garrote
scene” as “professional” leading to the conclusion of deliberate
murder by strangulation, the finger points outward. Who wants the
finger to point outward? Rhetorical question, of course. If you
recognize the truth, i.e. the fact of ad hoc amateurism with
material at hand, then ask the question how could it benefit and
whom, the finger points inward. Who is it that doesn’t want this
to happen? Who stands to gain or protect by outward pointing?

What does the amateurish pretense of death by strangulation tell
you? Why would anyone so ignorant of knots, cords, nooses and
handles even consider creating such a scene? A desperate need to
hide the truth, of course. What truth? What’s to hide as cause of
death? The head trauma, what else? Why try to hide it? Easy
answer: The truth does not bode well for the person or persons
involved in the fatal, or near fatal, head trauma? Where does an
intruder fit in all this? Nowhere? Who does? The Ramseys, of
course. (The details by which the “garrote scene” is evaluated as
severely flawed and grossly amateurish can be found at the
website of ACR; also considerable detail in my letter to Keenan.)

The professional garrote bit was designed not only to establish
an intruder, it functioned in correlation to support the
preferred theory in regard to cause of death.

J. RAMSEY: Would you allow me to answer the question please,
Steve?

J. Ramsey: We have had some of the world's best forensics experts
look at evidence. They have told us that JonBenet was strangled
to death. The last act that this creature did to our daughter was
a vicious blow to the head. That is irrefutable. (LKL, May 31,
2000)

The first forensic expert was the coroner, Dr. Meyer.

“ Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by
strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.”

Obviously, Dr. Meyer was not as sure as John since he named
associative causes implying the inability to isolate either one
as THE cause. Who these other “forensics experts” are and how
they determined strangulation solely as cause John does not say.

John says, “The last act that this creature did to our daughter
was a vicious blow to the head. That is irrefutable.”

Since he refutes his own “irrefutable”, I won’t even ask about
the alleged irrefutable evidence.

JR: I didn’t know she had any head injury at all - I just didn’t
see....

LS: You had no knowledge?

JR: I don’t know. I just, that’s something that been difficult
for me to think about it, is what exactly happened.

LS: And where?

JR: And where.

LS: Do you think that the head injury occurred at the same place
as the other injuries, say with the ligature?

JR: I mean, it’s no reason to know that. I mean, I guess - well,
like I say, I just - that’s very difficult to think about and
imagine, but I wondered if the head injury didn’t kill her and
after that they strangled her. (Police interrogation, June 24,
1998)

In part one, John says that she was hit over the head last. He
says there is irrefutable evidence of this. In part two, he
wonders is she were already dead from the head trauma when the
cord was put around her neck. Part one fits the intruder theory.
Part two fits a fatal (or near fatal) head injury with the
amateurish “garrote scene” set up to deny part two.

Why John tries to go both ways is already covered in my letter to
Keenan, so won’t be repeated here. However, John’s concession to
the head injury as a primary correlates with all the other
evidence of a staged crime scene.

Let’s look at this item a bit more:

J. RAMSEY: And this garrote will be a clue. This was not an
amateur device. This was a professional strangling tool.

John can’t know it is professionally efficient because it isn’t.
John knows he has no expertise in the cord, knot, noose area, so
knows he cannot determine professional. Nevertheless, he lies and
pretends when he calls it professional. In doing so, he reveals a
fear of recognition of the evidence as it actually is, i.e.,
amateurish. The evidence as is would not concern him unless
evidence as is points toward him (and Patsy).

As always, a lie is intended to hide the truth. What truth? John
tells us:

“professional strangling tool.” It is neither professional, nor a
strangling tool. He lies again when he contradicts the autopsy
report and claims strangulation as singular cause of death.
Again, we see the fear of evidence as it actually is; namely, the
evidence of the head trauma which John’s lies try to dismiss.

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 10:05 AM

Since staging, by definition, is for the purpose of hiding the
truth about an antecedent happening, once the staging is
recognized as staging, it establishes the skull fracture as the
primary event. Obviously, the truth the staging was designed to
hide is something that the Ramseys don’t want known. Too bad.
They have already told us by their many lies in conflict with the
evidence.

Another chapter closed.

THE INS AND OUTS OF THE PHANTOM INTRUDER

Of all the oddities in the case indicating a mind or minds not
much in touch with reality, it is not surprising to find that in
all the panic and fear involved in staging a crime scene, they
plum forgot to stage an entrance and exit for an
intruder\perpetrator. This created quite a problem when the
intruder idea finally surfaced; mostly, by the inane and insane
prattle of one Lou Smit.

JR: When I went down and looked around the house that morning,
and I think I’d made the statement...that all the doors were
locked and I had checked, I believe every door on the first
floor. And they were - appeared to be locked. (Police
interrogation, April 30, 1997)

Having locked himself out of the claim of someone breaking and
entering through a door, he locked himself into a box that
required another means of entry and exit. As I said, the problem
was and is, he made no preparations.

JR: My theory is that someone came in through the basement
window. (Ibid)

The window of which he speaks is a basement window in the train
room; a broken window which John says he personally broke some
time before. Furthermore, he had already committed to the claim
that he was in the basement between seven and nine that morning,
went into the train room, found the window open an inch or two,
and closed it. So, John himself set the crime scene as window
just open an inch or two. Alas, there are more problems. Coming
from upstairs and entering the train room, one must come down
some steps and go through a door. The wicket got really sticky
when a crime scene photograph turns up showing a chair sitting
against the stairs side of the door.

It was not necessary to go through this door to put the body
where it was found, nor is there any evidence that anyone did in
the relevant time frame. For all the talk about the window,
that’s all there ever was, talk, talk, and more talk. The window
was never part of an intruder entering, nor any part of the
staging. Staging would not have left the window closed but for
an inch or so, nor the chair against the door blocking access to
the window area. This circumstance does not evidence traffic, but
the situation of non traffic. In short, staging here would have
been the opposite of what was found.

The incidental window came into prominence only by the
aberrations of Lou Smit as did other “evidence of an intruder”
such as the stun gun, vicious pedophile, sex games, and
“professional garrote.” He carried the window lie to the extreme
when he went on national tv and pretended a wide open basement
window was part of the crime scene; this, after he had been
informed otherwise by John’s own declaration along with photos
and other evidence. He many never be charged with falsifying
evidence, but he certainly is a fugitive from the truth. While
masquerading as detective, whenever and wherever he came in
contact with actual evidence revealing the utter nonsense of his
intruder theory, Smit just turned away from it and pretended it
didn’t exist.

Lou Smit: "So you think that the chair would block the door and
nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?"

John Ramsey: "Correct"

Lou Smit: "In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into
the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?"

John Ramsey: "Uh huh."

Lou Smit: "How in effect would he get that chair to block that
door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"

John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door
is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."

Lou Smit: "So you couldn't have gotten in without moving the
chair?"

John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."

Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is,
if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull
the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit...
so that's not very logical as far as......"

John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that
bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all
these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to
pull the chair back when they left." (Police Interrogation, June
24, 1998)

Clue to what or why, John does not say, and idiot Smit just let’s
it all ride without any more questions when John ran out of
answers. After all, John is a good Christian and Smit takes his
word for innocence and is not about to let evidence disturb this
“holy exoneration.”

To the absurdities, the Ramsey would have you believe, let’s add
one more. In the “Gospel According to John”, the intruder, upon
exiting the stair side of the basement, reaches around the door
as he closes it and pulls the chair back against it, or as close
as he can get it. He then exits via the window in the train room,
stops, turns back, reaches back through the break to crank the
window closed all but an inch or so.

John calls all this “funny clues”. I call it the end of the road.
He says pulling the chair back was clever. How so and for what
reason, he does not say. However, as he often does, John tells
the truth even as he tries to lie: “this person.... not left any
good evidence.” Absent a distinction between “good evidence” and
“bad evidence”, I look at it as evidence is evidence and that’s
all there is to it. Hence, the word, good, is superfluous,
meaning that “this person” left NO EVIDENCE. Mental inventions
never do.

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 10:06 AM

The foregoing deals with only a few items of mainline evidence. I
did not mention the pineapple, fibers, suspect behavior, ad
infinitum evidence all correlating with and supporting the same
conclusion dictated by the highly visible evidence addressed.
Just these mainline items are more than adequate to leave no
evidentiary doubt there was no intruder.

When the actual evidence is put together and pretense put aside,
the elementary is even more so. A confrontation resulting in a
fatal, or near fatal head injury, was followed by an attempt to
hide the truth by a staged crime scene; a very poorly staged
crime scene. Duly note that in regard to every item of evidence
leading to this conclusion, the Ramseys have been caught lying
time and time again. Some major ones have been exposed in this
analysis. There are many more.

The pomp, pageantry and pretense of nothing to hide by running
for public office may fool the (case) uneducated and gullible,
but none who know the facts. Politics and propaganda may
temporarily forestall wide exposure of the truth, but no number
of public appearances and posturing by John and Patsy Ramsey will
ever make it go away.

During one of the Ramseys appearances on LKL, John Ramsey
requested:

J. RAMSEY: Tell me one tangible piece of evidence that's
presentable in a court of law that says that one of us...

My answer to John: Start with the above, then expect more
creating a total evidence package that neither you nor a thousand
lawyers can handle. Have a nice day.
:woohoo:

Barbara

06-05-2004, 10:28 AM

His writings are excellent. What I don't understand is why he is being criticized elsewhere because they "reveal" that EW is Delmar England. When he wrote as Delmar England, I still believed his thoughts are on target and are obviously detailed and well thought out.

Brilliant work Easy Writer. Reading what he is stating is an excellent refresher course for me and should be required reading for newbies and anyone wanting to take a look at the evidence from someone with an intelligent viewpoint on the various topics.

Thank you RR

Barbara

06-05-2004, 10:37 AM

The foregoing deals with only a few items of mainline evidence. I
did not mention the pineapple, fibers, suspect behavior, ad
infinitum evidence all correlating with and supporting the same
conclusion dictated by the highly visible evidence addressed.
Just these mainline items are more than adequate to leave no
evidentiary doubt there was no intruder.

The suspect behavior is not "tangible" evidence in a court of law and can and has been explained a thousand different ways

The fibers can also be legally explained away, as with most evidence of a Ramsey because they lived there, blah, blah.

BUT...

There is no room for alternative explanations for the pineapple. The only RST explanations have been that it is NOT pineapple. We've heard "lemon rinds" from the crab, we've even heard that the intruder fed it to her.

In this case, we can't argue with the scientific FACT that there was pineapple matching that in the Ramsey house in the contents of JBR's intestine. What I don't understand is why this gets so little attention (to our knowledge) by the authorities. Obviously, somebody in the Ramsey household lied about her being asleep when she came home. To me, it is as close to a smoking gun as we can get in this case. I would very much like to hear EW's thoughts on this (as well as others naturally)

There are some things that there are just no other explanations for. The pineapple is one of those things.

Maikai

06-05-2004, 10:58 AM

little attention, because it was eaten earlier.

The suspect behavior
There is no room for alternative explanations for the pineapple. The only RST explanations have been that it is NOT pineapple. We've heard "lemon rinds" from the crab, we've even heard that the intruder fed it to her.

In this case, we can't argue with the scientific FACT that there was pineapple matching that in the Ramsey house in the contents of JBR's intestine. What I don't understand is why this gets so little attention (to our knowledge) by the authorities. Obviously, somebody in the Ramsey household lied about her being asleep when she came home. To me, it is as close to a smoking gun as we can get in this case. I would very much like to hear EW's thoughts on this (as well as others naturally)

There are some things that there are just no other explanations for. The pineapple is one of those things.

It's been reported that the fiber pieces were in fact pineapple---pineapple has fiber in it---and that will never get digested. Also found with the fiber fragments were indistinguishable matter--meaning whatever that was had been churned and reduced to liquit in JBR's stomach. Other things like carbohydrates are reduced to liquid before they even leave the stomach. There's digestive times for everything we eat---affected by the combination of foods. Since the pineapple was in the proximal part of the small intestine, it could have been eaten earlier in the evening/afternoon. Nutrients from food in the small intestines get absorbed into the blood stream. It can take 24hours for something to get through someone's system from the time they eat something.

Only stomach contents are relevant---ie: Nicole Simpson and the green lettuce and remnants of the meal found in her stomach. That's why you don't hear much about the pineapple---it's not relevant.

Barbara

06-05-2004, 11:08 AM

little attention, because it was eaten earlier.

Only stomach contents are relevant---ie: Nicole Simpson and the green lettuce and remnants of the meal found in her stomach. That's why you don't hear much about the pineapple---it's not relevant.

NOT RELEVANT?????? Yet another convenience.

How then do you speak to Lou Smit's et al statements that the intruder brought JBR pineapple to the bedroom in a tupperware and fed it to her?

Are you saying Smit is mistaken?

Do you have a scientific source that disputes the coroner's claim that says the pineapple was eaten so much earlier? I'd be interested to read that.

Maikai

06-05-2004, 11:21 AM

a biological fact--pineapple was discussed ad nauseum a few years ago--and STILL keeps coming up, because some people keep grasping at straws. Digestive times for every food group were posted.

NOT RELEVANT?????? Yet another convenience.

How then do you speak to Lou Smit's et al statements that the intruder brought JBR pineapple to the bedroom in a tupperware and fed it to her?

Are you saying Smit is mistaken?

Do you have a scientific source that disputes the coroner's claim that says the pineapple was eaten so much earlier? I'd be interested to read that.

The Lou Smit statement was only early speculation---perhaps an off the cuff remark--and not something that's been talked about at all when it comes to concrete intruder evidence. The coroner has never claimed anything as far as the pineapple goes. Even the "godlike" Wecht in his early book said the pineapple in the proximal portion of JBR's intestine was interesting, but not necessarily relevant, unless you knew when she ate it.

Barbara

06-05-2004, 11:36 AM

a biological fact--pineapple was discussed ad nauseum a few years ago--and STILL keeps coming up, because some people keep grasping at straws. Digestive times for every food group were posted.

The Lou Smit statement was only early speculation---perhaps an off the cuff remark--and not something that's been talked about at all when it comes to concrete intruder evidence. The coroner has never claimed anything as far as the pineapple goes. Even the "godlike" Wecht in his early book said the pineapple in the proximal portion of JBR's intestine was interesting, but not necessarily relevant, unless you knew when she ate it.

Well then, since its all speculation, as you say, you can't say it is not relevant can you?

The pineapple is a fact that won't go away, no matter how "ad nauseum" you discuss it.

The pineapple was there. No doubt. The bowl was there, no doubt. Fingerprints from Burke and Patsy were on it. No doubt. The pineapple matched those in JBR. No doubt.

Of course, it hasn't been talked about at all as concrete intruder evidence. It exonerates an "intruder"

An "off the cuff" remark by Lou Smit? Speculation by Lou Smit? That is the first time I have ever heard "speculation" and "Lou Smit" spoken in the same sentence from any member of the RST. Again, convenient. If he "speculates" about that, what else might he "speculate" about?

BTW, I do believe he continues to "speculate" that an intruder fed it to her

I love the way you quote Wecht "unless you know when she ate it". Let's not forget that knowing when she DIDN'T eat it, tells a story as well.

The stun gun is speculation as well, yet you beat that horse to death as fact.

Cherokee

06-05-2004, 12:16 PM

RiverRat -

Thank you for getting Easy Writer's permission to bring his posts over here. I sincerely appreciate you making them available to those who don't read at FFJ.

RiverRat

06-05-2004, 12:34 PM

Just let me know if there is anything else I can help with.

RR

Maikai

06-05-2004, 12:36 PM

RiverRat -

Thank you for getting Easy Writer's permission to bring his posts over here. I sincerely appreciate you making them available to those who don't read at FFJ.

Oh brother...that explains it! If you want to get a true sense of what Delmar England is all about, do a search of his name, and read some of his socialist writings. This guy is obviously an intellectural of some sort---but lacking in common sense, IMO...and no one that should be given a lot of credence when it comes to the Ramsey case. There's nothing in his background that I could find that makes him any kind of a credible expert.

Maikai

06-05-2004, 12:43 PM

read this, and tell me in l00 words or less what the h#ll he's talking about--I can't get past the first sentence:

http://www.wepin.com/store/books/MindMatters/V.htm

Barbara

06-05-2004, 12:46 PM

Oh brother...that explains it! If you want to get a true sense of what Delmar England is all about, do a search of his name, and read some of his socialist writings. This guy is obviously an intellectural of some sort---but lacking in common sense, IMO...and no one that should be given a lot of credence when it comes to the Ramsey case. There's nothing in his background that I could find that makes him any kind of a credible expert.

My my aren't we just better than others and holier than thou? I imagine if I did a search of your name, I would find that you have no background or credentials to be a credible commentator on this or any other murder case, but you post your theories don't you?

What makes him different than any of the rest of us? Because he works harder and writes to LE? Nothing stops anybody here from doing the same.

Let me explain how this works.

We READ the posts, and decide how we feel about the CONTENTS of the writings. Then we decide how much credence to give the POST.

What does it matter what his name is?

Barbara

06-05-2004, 12:56 PM

read this, and tell me in l00 words or less what the h#ll he's talking about--I can't get past the first sentence:

http://www.wepin.com/store/books/MindMatters/V.htm

Maikai,

Delmar England is in fact, an intellectual and writes about many subjects, not limited to JBR.

What is the problem with that? I understand everything he says, although, I freely admit that despite my knowledge of the English language, which I think is pretty damn good, I resort to a dictionary when reading some of what he writes. It doesn't shame me to do so, especially if I want to comment with credibility.

Shawna

06-05-2004, 01:09 PM

Oh brother...that explains it! If you want to get a true sense of what Delmar England is all about, do a search of his name, and read some of his socialist writings.

Did You actually have time to read Mind and Matters The World in a Mirror?
http://www.wepin.com/store/books/MindMatters/Index.html :rolleyes:

His writings remind me of Ayn Rand and her Atlas Shrugged series.

Britt

06-05-2004, 01:54 PM

read this, and tell me in l00 words or less what the h#ll he's talking about--I can't get past the first sentence:

http://www.wepin.com/store/books/MindMatters/V.htm
Yeah, Maikai, God forbid we have a smart guy analyzing the Ramsey case... lol.

Delmar England and RiverRat... thank you :)

Britt

06-05-2004, 03:04 PM

--I can't get past the first sentence:

http://www.wepin.com/store/books/MindMatters/V.htm
Okay, Maikai, let me translate that for you.

The first sentence: Since the dominant beliefs that underlie the official socio-economic system are in denial of the principles of epistemology, denial of the principles of language is a requirement to psychologically sustain the revered fallacies.

Translation: Since the standard Ramsey spin is not reality-based, the Ramseys must play fast and loose with semantics in order to continue their self-delusion.

:D

IMO EasyWriter's Ramsey case analysis has some outstanding insights and observations.

tipper

06-05-2004, 03:39 PM

Whenever I read anything by Delmar England I am reminded of Mark Twain saying "If I'd had more time, I'd have written you a shorter letter."

BrotherMoon

06-05-2004, 03:53 PM

To debate the contents of the posts are fine to resort to name calling is not.
Please in the future refrain from such comments.

Maikai

06-05-2004, 04:43 PM

do agree on something! There's hope for you afterall.

Chortle, no it doesn't. It and he are anal. He writes with one brain lobe in a thesaurus and the other in a certain sphincter.

verbiage 1. an overabundance or superfluity of words.

gabble 1. to speak or converse rapidly and unintelligibly.

He's not exactly a bottom line kind of guy, is he? He wrote scads about the garotte, because he claims he is ALSO a knot expert. Some of that discussion makes sense to me. The bottom line on all of that is an amateur could have tied it accordibg to Delmar--and JR and LS are lying. If what he's saying is true, then any number of "amateurs" could have done it. How many "professional" garrotte makers are around, anyway?

Britt

06-05-2004, 04:56 PM

BrotherMoon... Chortle? lol... I like that word. Can I keep it?

As we Ramsey observers know, where this case is concerned the only relevant thing is the what, not the how.

BrotherMoon

06-05-2004, 05:06 PM

To debate the contents of the posts are fine to resort to name calling is not.
Please in the future refrain from such comments.

Oh come on. That's not name calling, anal retention is a description of psychological development, self involvement to the point of distraction from the larger world. My description is apt.

No, Britt you can't have chortle, it's mine, all mine!!!!!!!!!!!

But you can have your pick of EW's plastic bouquet, I don't think he values words as he seems to toss them off without much deliberation.

Shylock

06-05-2004, 06:07 PM

If what he's saying is true, then any number of "amateurs" could have done it. How many "professional" garrotte makers are around, anyway?
Maikai, I think you need to open your eyes. The Ramsey garrotte is NOT a "professional killing device" or any other nonsensical defination that the RST wants people to believe. It's a broken stick with a cord wrapped around it 7 times--then tied with the most basic knot any kid who can tie his own shoes knows. THAT'S ALL IT IS.

It's construction is so damn simple that a 9-year old could have created it--and for all you know, one might have. Furthermore, for all you know, that 9-year old might have constructed the thing well before the night of the murder. Just because there were wood chips on the floor near the paint tote does NOT mean it was constructed the night of the murder. The Ramsey basement was an unclean disaster - nobody knows for sure when the last time the floor was vaccuumed.

So I wouldn't be so quick to criticize Delmar England, Maikai. Since you are foolish enough to buy into the Ramsey "sophisticated device" crapola, it's obvious Delmar has more on then ball than you do.

Shylock

06-05-2004, 06:13 PM

This guy is like a ship with a pretty paint job and no anchor and no rudder.
Consider yourself lucky the guy chose not to mention the name "Jean Brodie" in that perticular essay, or you would be on your knees paying homage right now.

Britt

06-05-2004, 06:59 PM

If what he's saying is true, then any number of "amateurs" could have done it.
Except that the cord in its "garrote" form is a staged prop, not an effective killing device, which implicates someone in the home who knew they'd have some 'splainin to do.

TLynn

06-05-2004, 09:33 PM

Patsy Ramsey claims to know nothing about the pineapple.

Never bought it
Never brought it into the house
Never cut it up
Never served it
Never saw it

How in the heck can you even justify the hard evidence of the pineapple to be eaten during the afternoon?

You're suggesting that the pineapple was on that counter top all day and Patsy knowing nothing about it.

Scientific evidence states that pineapple was eaten after the Fleet White dinner.

The PINEAPPLE cannot be ignored.

JonBenet, the victim, is talking to you. And if you ignore the pineapple evidence, than you are ignoring the victim.

Isn't it all about the victim?!

tipper

06-05-2004, 09:42 PM

Why would one use 12 pt as a reasonable facsimile for the note? The first page averages about 5 words per line and I think it has 27 lines on the page. 22 pt would be more realistic. Also, pictures of that hallway are easily available on the internet. Delnar England doesn't have to "envision" it. If he wanted to he could have looked at the real thing. I wouldn't call it "narrow."

An expert from Canada spent 6 days examining the knot. He, quire rightly, has kept his opinion out of the newspapers.

Shylock

06-05-2004, 11:20 PM

An expert from Canada spent 6 days examining the knot. He, quire rightly, has kept his opinion out of the newspapers.
Probably because there was no opinion to be had:

STEVE THOMAS: "Despite what has been out there publicly, this was not an elaborately fashioned or skillfully prepared instrument. In fact, it was a rather crude, homemade type device. It did not appear that any great skill was required to prepare this instrument."

STEVE THOMAS: "I have heard John Ramsey talk about this very elaborate killing tool. In fact, I disagree. There was nothing that I saw that was elaborate about it, a broken paintbrush handle (Patsy's) with some cord wrapped around it, does not equate to an "elaborate" killing tool to me. In fact, I found it quite elementary."

Shylock

06-05-2004, 11:26 PM

Just like he didn't make the connection between 118,000 and The Psalms even though The Psalms are all over this case. Just like you don't make connections between words and dictionaries. You and EW have the same amount on the ball, congtrats, have fun with your sphincter.
Maybe if you spread a little more of chicken blood in his direction and rattle the bones of your sacred lizzard he might have your same vision...

And don't forget the eye of newt.

Jayelles

06-06-2004, 03:51 AM

That's why you don't hear much about the pineapple---it's not relevant.

I believe the pineapple is considered very relevant indeed AND it cannot be satisfactorily explained. The pineapple is important for establishing the time of her death.

If it was eaten late afternoon prior to going to the Whites, then JBR was killed very shortly after arriving home that night.

It it was eaten after her return from the Whites, then the Ramseys are lying about her being asleep (and Burke is telling the truth).

Lou Smit called it the "bugaboo" in his interview with John Ramsey.

I strongly believe there is evidence in the case which has not been made public. I also think the reason the investigators don't discuss the pineapple is because it may be considered very relevant indeed.

I question the motives of anyone who dismisses the pineapple as "irrelevant".

BrotherMoon

06-06-2004, 12:13 PM

Probably because there was no opinion to be had:

STEVE THOMAS: "Despite what has been out there publicly, this was not an elaborately fashioned or skillfully prepared instrument. In fact, it was a rather crude, homemade type device. It did not appear that any great skill was required to prepare this instrument."

STEVE THOMAS: "I have heard John Ramsey talk about this very elaborate killing tool. In fact, I disagree. There was nothing that I saw that was elaborate about it, a broken paintbrush handle (Patsy's) with some cord wrapped around it, does not equate to an "elaborate" killing tool to me. In fact, I found it quite elementary."

...it always seemed afterwards to Sandy that where there was a choice of various courses, the most economical was the best, and that the course to be taken was the most expedient and most suitable at the time for all the objects in hand. She acted on this principle when the time came for her to betray Miss Brodie. TPOMJB

Maikai

06-06-2004, 12:23 PM

I believe the pineapple is considered very relevant indeed AND it cannot be satisfactorily explained. The pineapple is important for establishing the time of her death.

If it was eaten late afternoon prior to going to the Whites, then JBR was killed very shortly after arriving home that night.

It it was eaten after her return from the Whites, then the Ramseys are lying about her being asleep (and Burke is telling the truth).

Lou Smit called it the "bugaboo" in his interview with John Ramsey.

I strongly believe there is evidence in the case which has not been made public. I also think the reason the investigators don't discuss the pineapple is because it may be considered very relevant indeed.

I question the motives of anyone who dismisses the pineapple as "irrelevant".

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that? Being in the proximal part of the small intestine it might place the time of death earlier than later during the night, but that doesn't help in indentifying the killer. About the only thing the pineapple proves is someone on the BPD may have been smart enough to associate the bowl of pineapple left on a counter/table top with the pineapple JBR had eaten...but doesn't pinpoint the time, because of the variables in digestion time.

Barbara

06-06-2004, 12:33 PM

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that? Being in the proximal part of the small intestine it might place the time of death earlier than later during the night, but that doesn't help in indentifying the killer. About the only thing the pineapple proves is someone on the BPD may have been smart enough to associate the bowl of pineapple left on a counter/table top with the pineapple JBR had eaten...but doesn't pinpoint the time, because of the variables in digestion time.

Please re-read TLynn's post above.

If she had eaten it any other time, wouldn't Patsy have been familiar with her own pineapple being out, etc?

Why would they lie? The reason I believe is that then the whole story would have become complicated in that they would have to admit, like Burke did, that she was in fact awake when they returned home and then a whole different relating of events would have been mandated.

Ever notice that all stories by the Ramseys involve sleeping?

Burke was asleep-so no ability to relate events "I don't know anything"
JonBenet was asleep-obvious as to why they would say that
The parents were asleep-again "I don't know anything"

That negates having to relay any knowledge of what happened and the events preceeding. Easy answers to dangerous questions

Jayelles

06-06-2004, 12:45 PM

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that?

That is precisely my point. Why would they lie? This is something that many seem not to ponder at all.

We have expert input about the digestion time and it ranges from 2-5 hours. Even at the slowest, if she'd eaten it just prior to their 4-5 pm departure for the Whites, that would place time of death at between 9-10pm. The Ramseys were still faffing around that that time.

Either way, the pineapple is indeed a BUGABOO! Did Judge Carnes address the small matter of the pineapple at all?

vicktor

06-06-2004, 03:17 PM

An expert from Canada spent 6 days examining the knot. He, quire rightly, has kept his opinion out of the newspapers.

Isn't that a contradiction, an expert who didn't give his findings to newspapers, and make himself available to news programs, and talk shows?

Shylock

06-07-2004, 07:15 AM

If she would have eaten it after they returned home, why would the Ramseys lie about that?
She DID eat it after they got home. Everything she ate at the party was already digested and the pineapple was behind it in her digestive tract.

Why did they lie? - Simple... They wanted it to look like she had no contact at all with any family members after they arrived home.

More importantly, they wanted to distance Burke from the crime. Thats the same reason they lied about him being awake during the 911 call.

Shylock

06-07-2004, 06:48 PM

Also, no credible person will post their valued thoughts under a 'hat.' You cannot copywrite a hat's opinion. No way, no way. And Delmar England is a hat. There is no such person.
Oh God...I hope Mark Twain didn't hear you.

D-U-H
:banghead:

twilight

06-07-2004, 08:12 PM

Totally different. You can publish under another name, with a registered ISBN but Internet publication does not work that way. There is no protection for 'hats,' despite what some think. There is contention about whether there is protection for anyone, which is why most people only publish abstracts of their work. IMO, hiding under a hat means one of two things...either you don't think much of your opinion, or you have something to hide. Delmar England has something to hide. He is purporting to be an expert and using a 'hat' to do so. Doesn't wash. He is also plagiarizing...tsk...tsk.

Shylock

06-07-2004, 10:50 PM

You can publish under another name, with a registered ISBN but Internet publication does not work that way.
You obviously know nothing about copyrights. Just saying something is "copyright" makes it so, and the rights belong to the author whom, or whatever they call themself--person or company. Depending on the circumstances the author may choose to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, so it's in a searchable public database.

Delmar England could call himself "Yuk, The Wonder Buffalo" and it wouldn't mean a rat's ass.

If you decide you do want to learn about copyrights, here's the place to start: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

twilight

06-08-2004, 12:56 AM

The Internet 1) is international, not American, and 2) there's nothing about Internet copyright at the site you posted because it's an unresolved issue. That's why academics only post abstracts because it is an unresolved issue. Ya wanna read the paper, ya buy the book.

I am not an expert on copyright but I do know that unless you can prove you authored something, you do not own it.

And if you have a hat that is not tied to who you are, you have no copyright...your 'hat' does.

What you put on the Internet is out in the public domain. Do you understand that terminology? Public domain means up for grabs. That's why adobe acrobat...but a good techie can tell you how to lift that stuff as well. So, stuff on the Internet is not protected. {{that's why it's a good idea to keep your better ideas to yourself, or publish them in copyright protected mediums like books, etc.}}

So, tell me how you would prove that you are Shylock? Can't be done. Your computer terminal is Shylock. Your posts are in the public domain.

Tricia

06-08-2004, 03:04 AM

You obviously know nothing about copyrights. Just saying something is "copyright" makes it so, and the rights belong to the author whom, or whatever they call themself--person or company. Depending on the circumstances the author may choose to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, so it's in a searchable public database.

Delmar England could call himself "Yuk, The Wonder Buffalo" and it wouldn't mean a rat's ass.

If you decide you do want to learn about copyrights, here's the place to start: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

Shylock, you are 100 percent correct.

I spent a pretty penny to learn what you just posted.

Twilight, Delmar is real and he is an excellent poster. You are wrong about Mr. England. He is a respected poster as well as a wonderful person.

Here is the problem with copyright on the Internet. If someone steals your posts on the Internet, and you want to take action, you have to do the following;

*Actually copyright the post with the U.S Copyright Office

*Take the person who stole your work/post to court and prove that you have a copyright on it and this person took it.

Too costly for anyone.

Twilight, my hat is Tricia. My real name is Tricia. By your way of thinking my hat isn't real, yet, it is my real name. You see your logic doesn't work.

Now if you post a public document, or a document that someone can get by paying a fee, it doesn't belong to you. You can't post, "Do not take this to any other forum" and have it stick. Even if you bought the paper through a company that does searches it's not yours because you didn't write it. If you put it up on the Internet you can't stop people from taking it.

Shylock knows what he is talking about Twilight.

Shylock may I have your permission to use, "Yuk, The Wonder Buffalo," as my next hat? It has a nice ring to it. :)

Blazeboy3

06-08-2004, 04:03 AM

Blazeboy3

06-08-2004, 04:18 AM

Blazeboy3

06-08-2004, 04:28 AM

Before you begin reading the immediately following, may I suggest
listening to Patsy’s 911 call to form a physical, geographical
and psychological (emotional) image of Patsy as she makes the
call.

CNN INTERVIEW SIX DAYS AFTER THE DEATH OF JONBENET
THE “RANSOM NOTE” AND 911 CALL

CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten
note, three pages?
RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing
And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and
I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. (CNN - An
interview with John and Patricia Ramsey January 1, 1997}

PATSY: I kind of turned around and looked at it to see what it
was and I started reading the first couple of lines. It just
wasn't registering but somewhere it said, 'we have your daughter'
it clicked, you know, 'Your Daughter' and I just bounded back up
the steps and threw her door open and she was not in her bed.
(07-09-1998 Michael Tracy's "Who Killed JonBenét?" documentary
airs in Britain.)

PATSY: I turned around to start to see what it was and realized
after I'd read the first couple of lines… (Friday, March 17 2000,
BARBARA WALTERS, ABC NEWS)

Patsy repeatedly stated that her knowledge of the note was
limited to only the first few lines sufficient to discern that
JonBenet had been kidnaped. She indicated that she was so upset
she could not read further; that she went bounding off to look in
JonBenet’s room and scream for John. Her story does not jell with
the recorded facts of the 911 call:

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: What?

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: No. I don't know... it's there... there's a ransom
note here.

Boulder Police Dispatcher: It's a ransom note.

Patsy Ramsey: It says SBTC... Victory... please.

The question about who took her is answered in the first line of
the note:

“We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign
faction.”

However, this answer at the beginning of the note is not the
answer given to the 911 operator. Patsy gave the answer found at
the end of the note. Without the note in hand, conversing
frantically in immediate response to the 911 operator’s
questions, she stated precisely, clearly and without hesitation
the ending of said note inclusive of the letters of the acronym
in the correct order.This obviously contradicts the projected idea of only a quick
knowledge of the first few lines of the note by swift initial
reading. This tells of a familiarity with the note far beyond the
first few sentences. How did she know the ending IF her first
look at the note was only the first few lines on the morning of
Dec. 26, 1996? Having been caught in a horrendous contradiction
(bald-faced lie), Patsy makes a desperate, but failing attempt at
damage control.

Probably because Patsy KNEW WE WOULD KNOW WHAT SHE KNEW...SO SO SO OBVIOUSLY "IN OUR FACE" that most (not me) refuse to see it!
THANKS FOR THE EXCELLENT INSITE/POST! :eek:

Barbara

06-08-2004, 08:26 AM

I don't know a whole lot about copywriting and I don't know a damn thing about Delmar England other than what I have read on the forums

I don't think Mr. England is charading as an "expert" or "professional" regarding this case. He is someone who writes papers on various issues. Granted, his use of elaborate vocabulary can be mistaken by some as "professional" or "expert", but I do not think he is claiming to be any better than anyone else.

I wrote papers in Grad school, as did others. Doesn't make me a professional or expert, but my papers made sense.

It doesn't matter who he is to me as it doesn't matter who any of the posters are. We have had professionals and experts write things that are incorrect and in some cases, totally ridiculous.

We have had more posters who are not professional or expert who have written wonderful posts with great intelligence and insight.

So for most of us, it doesn't matter who he or anyone else is. If the posts make sense to us, that's the whole point of the forums. Take the content of the post and evaluate it according to our own thinking.

Barbara

06-08-2004, 10:02 AM

And Barbara you make some interesting points about who posts here and who does not. My question to you is how do you know who is an expert and who is not? Do the hats or their terminals give off an aura, or what? I'm hard pressed to keep track of whether or not they're even the same poster from day to day, and I have the tools to do it. What's your methodology?

Hi Twilight,

I DON'T know who is an expert and who is not. For me, I read the posts and take what I deem to be good and bad points and absorb them accordingly.

I don't care what hats are used at all. Matters not to me.

Tools?
Methodology?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Tricia

06-08-2004, 10:38 AM

As you can tell Amraann is out of town.

I am disappointed in the name calling in this thread. I am sending a couple of official warnings to some posters. More of the name calling and you will be banned.

Thanks
Tricia

Shylock

06-08-2004, 11:05 AM

I am disappointed in the name calling in this thread. I am sending a couple of official warnings to some posters. More of the name calling and you will be banned.
Geez, I miss all the fun. Is that BlazeBoy causing trouble again? I have Blaze on ignore because I really can't understand his/her posts unless I read them in the same context they were written in--with a snoot full.

Tricia, feel free to use the "Yuk" hat....

LOL

twilight

06-08-2004, 12:25 PM

Wow - did I hit a nerve, or what? Sorry Tricia I won't mention it again. I will publish it elsewhere as I have in the past. Print that is. Because there is no 'you know what' on the Internet. hehe...

I've been around before????? Of course I have. Many of the original posters here know me from way, way, way back. I am a linguistic consultant who has analysed the Ramsey ransom note and can show that Patsy Ramsey wrote it. That is a fact. In fact I have presented a paper on just that topic, and published it academically. My paper had sources and copyright protection. I make no secret of this. {{I am busy right now, but make no mistake, I intend to get back to Mrs. Ramsey}}

So, Twi, after all these years, has been threatened. Why, I wonder? Because I tried to point out something to some of the more intelligent posters here? Guess I was wrong.

By the way, Tricia, this is my warning. You don’t really want me looking too closely at your posts – and I have quite a few of them. I have been planning to investigate for some time now – what the heck has happened to this forum. I have a pretty good idea. So long…your loss, not mine.