926 users online (156 members and 770 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394

    Someone needs to get Easy Writer at FFJ to post here ...

    His latest posts at FFJ contain excellent comparison analysis and irrefutable logic.

    Can someone PLEASE get EW to make those posts here ... or ask his permission to copy them here? For those who don't read at FFJ, they are essential reading for anyone interested in the JBR case.

    I would do it myself, but I'm not a registered member ... yet. :-)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    From Easy Writer

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 2

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 3

    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?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 4

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 5

    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.)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 6

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 7

    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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 8

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 9

    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.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Part 10

    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    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
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    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.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685

    The pineapplie gets so

    little attention, because it was eaten earlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai
    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.
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast