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 dont 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 Id 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,
thats 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 Johns 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
didnt 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 lets
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, lets 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 thats
all there is to it. Hence, the word, good, is superfluous,
meaning that this person left NO EVIDENCE. Mental inventions
never do.