May 20, 2003 Letter to Mary Keenan

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by ACandyRose, Jun 4, 2003.

  1. ACandyRose

    ACandyRose Super Moderator

    On May 20, 2003 a private individual by the name of Delmar England wrote an amazing letter to Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case.

    The letter was sent snail mail to the following address:

    Mary Keenan, Boulder District Attorney
    Justice Center
    1777 Sixth Street (Sixth St. and Canyon Blvd.)
    Boulder, CO 80302

    The letter is lengthy but well worth the read :)

    With permission from Mr. England, the letter is now available on the www.acandyrose.com web site. In addition to the letter, I have included on this web page an extensive quick reference guide that includes, but not limited to links and/or quotes from a random selection of various media articles and/or information that was available via the public domains that directly relate to several points brought out within this letter.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/05202003keenanletter.htm
     
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I am in total awe of

    Delmar England and await the response of Mary Keenan to the most comprehensive and well-researched document about her so-called investigation into the JBR case that I have ever seen anywhere.

    It's a long read, and my printer knocked me off line when I tried to print the entire thing out at once, LOL, but it's worth printing out to read, too. I saved it to Word then printed it from there.

    I also await Plan B since I don't believe the arrogant Keenan will answer it.

    Fantastic job, Delmar. So many things happening these days...
     
  3. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    "THE PROJECT"

    HISTORY AND UPDATE:

    June 4, 2003

    When I first looked into the Ramsey case in March of 2000, I was
    appalled that a crime scene so fundamentally elementary had been
    so distorted that over three years later, the authorities were
    farther away from the truth than when they started. Now, over six
    years has passed and they still don't have a clue? It appears
    that head in the sand is still the preferred posture.

    On or about May 20, 2001, I sent by regular mail a letter to Tom
    Wickman of the Boulder Police Department pointing out important
    information and analysis concerning the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
    It was ignored.

    On or about, October 4, 2002, I sent a letter to 48 Hours
    pointing out many flaws in the stories of the Ramseys and Lou
    Smit. It was ignored.

    On or about December 26, 2002, I sent an email to Mary Keenan,
    Boulder District Attorney. The email contained pertinent
    information and analysis about the Ramsey case. The letter was
    ignored.

    On or about Jan. 2, 2003, I sent a letter to Dateline with
    comments and question about the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
    It was ignored.

    There is also an undated letter sent to Lou Smit sometime last
    years asking several questions. It was ignored.

    On May 20, 2003, I sent DA, Keenan a certified letter of 39 pages
    providing case facts and analysis of said facts. A few days
    later, May 27, 2003. I sent a hard copy of the letter to Governor
    Owens and to Mark Beckner of the Boulder Police Department. Still
    later, June 4, 2003, I sent a hard copy and cover letter to
    Dateline, 48 Hours and 20\20. A short time thereafter, I sent an
    email cover letter to 79 print media outlets with directions to
    the url where the letter is displayed. (8 bounced and 4 hit auto
    responders.)

    It may all be ignored again, but it won't be so easy this time
    around. Its on record in a lot of places, most importantly the
    DA's Office. The letter is now an official document in the Ramsey
    case file. The letter in question does not deal in heresay and
    idle speculation. All analytical arguments are based on the
    forensic evidence and verbatim testimony and declarations of
    numerous principals in the case. Many of the quotes are directly
    from police interrogation records. Others are from assorted
    transcripts.

    Ms. Keenan was invited to try to refute the content of the
    letter. I have not heard from her. I take it she agrees that the
    content is irrefutable. The invitation is not limited to Ms.
    Keenan, but is universal. I sincerely welcome any an all
    challenges; an actual challenge being a quote of disagreement and
    the why of disagreement. A blanket indictment in conjunction with
    repeating the same fallacies over and over again after they have
    been refuted is not a challenge. Rather, it is capitulation and
    tacit corroboration via evasion.

    It is my considered opinion that refuting the content of said
    letter will require a new kind of calculus by which the unknown
    is magically converted to evidence of an intruder. Also, Mr. Smit
    must be exalted to omnipotence and creator of reality in order
    for his delusions and illusions to become fact supporting the
    idea of an intruder. Last, but not least, the actual evidence
    must be made to vanish.

    Rest assured, this simple truth about the death of JonBenet
    Ramsey will meet with considerable resistance. For over six
    years, the Ramseys have played certain officials and certain
    media like a custom made drum. They have depended on fools to
    march to their beat and found many willing. Nearly $2,000,000
    dollars has been spent chasing figments of imagination. Few, if
    any, will be willing to admit to such folly.

    Instead, you may expect truth ignored if and when possible in
    combination with personal attacks and other assorted diversionary
    tactics. For sake of self interest, i.e., the evasion of
    culpability, they will seek to keep the con active. Even now,
    they talk of following new leads to an "intruder". It is fallacy.
    Whether unintentional from ignorance, or deliberate, I cannot
    say, but fallacy it is for certain.

    An inescapable conclusion they are compelled to admit and live
    with is that after over six years and huge expenditure, no
    intruder has been apprehended, nor has any viable suspect been
    identified outside of the Ramsey household. At this moment,
    neither DA, Keenan, nor anyone else can produce a scrap of
    evidence pointing to an intruder. Yet, the costly charade goes
    on.

    "This will be the fourth time over the course of the 6-year
    investigation that changes in strategy and responsibility have
    been made in an effort to further the investigation. Each time,
    we have had some success in moving the case forward." (Beckner)

    An empty claim belied by the facts. Where is and what is the
    alleged progress? Ask for a name of a "suspect" intruder and
    "evidence" pointing to the alleged suspect and see what response
    you get. To be sure, there is the claim that the "investigation"
    cleared a large number of "suspects." A tragic joke is the best
    face I can put on this ridiculous claim. These alleged suspects
    were already cleared on day one by the evidence that pointed
    nowhere except toward the Ramsey household.

    The time for the end of these exercises in futility and pretense
    at taxpayer expense is long overdue. Its time to stop paying just
    lip service to the evidence, but actually follow it to logical
    conclusion independent of personal preference and preconceived
    notions. The is the sole objective of "THE PROJECT."

    It is my position that the letter reveals the truth and exposes
    the long-running and expensive con. Ms. Keenan has this
    information at hand. If she cannot refute the allegations and
    arguments therein, yet continues to pursue the idea of an
    intruder when all evidence contradicts such an idea, I believe an
    official and indept inquiry is in order.

    In the case environment where a lawsuit or threat of lawsuit is
    often the substitute for opposing argument; indeed, frequently
    proposes to suppress opposing argument, I would be remiss if I
    did not address the issue at least in brief.

    Being sued and threat of being sued? Been there. Done that. The
    first was nothing more than an attempt at extortion via the legal
    system. The second was a threat of a libel\slander suit
    attempting to keep me from publicly divulging evidence of fraud.
    Both attempts failed miserably. When the dust settled on the
    former (five years and two months later) the would be
    extortionist owed me money by court order. As for the latter,
    when I offered to help the threatening party prepare his case
    against me, he lost interest and I never heard from him again.

    Of course, anyone can sue anyone for just about any reason even
    if the suit is without an iota of merit. However, careless suit
    actions can carry serious consequences such as declaration as
    frivolous suit, follow up suit for malicious prosecution; also
    permanent disbarment from the legal profession if the situation
    warrants, not to mention what may revealed in court, especially
    in civil litigation where the Fifth Amendment affords no
    protection.

    If one understands the "landscape" of "The Project", one may
    readily see that any attempt to derail the effort by a
    libel\slander suit would be a very high risk venture for the
    Plaintiff(s), Plaintiff(s)' attorney and associates who aid and
    abet any unwarranted civil action.

    Delmar England

    P.S. RE: Keenan\Wood communication

    "December 20, 2002

    Dear Mr. Wood:

    ......In early October, shortly after much of our review had been
    completed, you sent me a letter outlining a request from Mr. and
    Mrs. Ramsey that an Independent investigation of this case be
    initiated. .....In deciding how to proceed at this point in time,
    I met with you and Chief Beckner to discuss your request." (From
    Keenan to Wood.)

    I furnished Ms. Keenan with facts not fantasy, yet I received no
    invitation to discuss. Also, if I recall correctly, it was Mr.
    Wood himself who made public his correspondence with Keenan. If
    this is the case, I can't see that Mr. Wood can offer any valid
    objection to anyone or everyone else making public their
    correspondence with DA, Keenan.
     
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    While reading

    the letter, Easy Writer, I had serious concerns about Mary Keenan's capacity for comprehending it. I sincerely think she isn't all that bright. That's a lot for any little head to comprehend.

    It should be interesting to see how long it takes jameson to put the letter up on her site and try to take it apart, LOL. She'd do it just because that is what she does. Every time she does, though, she ends up looking more stupid than the time before.
     
  5. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Watching You:

    "While reading the letter, Easy Writer, I had serious concerns about Mary Keenan's capacity for comprehending it. I sincerely think she isn't
    all that bright. That's a lot for any little head to comprehend."

    Your concern is well justified. I had the same thought myself, but could not figure any way to make it more direct or more simple.

    Delmar
     
  6. Ayeka

    Ayeka Member

    Smokin'

    Could be those big words strung together so cleverly is what's keeping a response at bay! :)

    *applause*

    Ayeka
     
  7. Charlie

    Charlie Member

    I agree Ayeka, i dont think Keenan will no where begin when drafting up a possible response.
     
  8. AK

    AK Member

    Delmar...

    Clear thinking...

    Good writing!

    Heartfelt thanks for your diligence.
     
  9. 1000 Sparks

    1000 Sparks Active Member

    Delmar

    Super, super letter!

    What is your next step if Keenan does not respond?
     
  10. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    1000 Sparks
    Bionic Clerk - Roaming Reporter:

    "What is your next step if Keenan does not respond?"

    The next step, which has already been carried out, is notifying
    many media outlets about the letter (tv and print }. The hope is
    that one or some will confront Keenan and ask her some questions
    regarding the content of the letter; specifically, ask her if she
    can refute the facts alleged therein, and if not, what does she
    propose to do.

    Although I have not received a direct response from Keenan, this
    is not to say there was no response. I present the following for
    your examination and evaluation on the issue.


    "7 April 2003
    D.A. Keenan concurs with order of District Court Judge Carnes

    From: Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

    I have carefully reviewed the Order of United States District
    Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey
    and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the Court's conclusion that
    "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that
    an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that
    Mrs. Ramsey did so."

    Although issued in the context of a civil case, the Court's
    ruling is a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision based on the
    evidence that was presented by the parties in that case. It
    should be read in its entirety.

    John and Patricia Ramsey have been the focus of an exhaustive
    investigation with regard to the murder of their daughter,
    JonBenet, for more than six years. People charged with a crime
    are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Since
    Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not even been charged, much less
    convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated
    accordingly."

    In conjunction with this conclusion and attitude, Ms. Keenan has
    also stated:

    "We will work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys, and the
    Boulder Police Department."

    As you can see from the foregoing, Ms. Keenan unequivocally
    endorses Judge Carnes' ruling and concludes Ramsey innocence in
    such degree she announces the intent to ".... work cooperatively
    with Lou Smit, the Ramseys..."



    However, on May 25, 2003 while being interviewed about the
    petition going to the governor, Ms. Keenan had this to say:

    "Keenan declined to comment for this story, but when the lawsuit
    was dismissed, she said she agreed with the judge's conclusion
    and that her office is following new leads that support the
    intruder theory. However, she said she was not influenced by the
    judge's decision, which was only based on partial evidence, and
    would not exclude the Ramseys from investigation."

    Forget the stuff about "following new leads that support the
    intruder theory." There are no new leads, nor old ones either to
    follow. Focus upon:

    "However, she said she was not influenced by the judge's
    decision, which was only based on partial evidence, and would not
    exclude the Ramseys from investigation."

    The full endorsement of Judge Carnes' ruling has waned. Keenan
    now implies she is not so sure due to Carnes's ruling being based
    on "partial evidence." In conjunction, gone is the attitude that
    the Ramseys are innocent beyond any doubt. She now states the
    Ramseys are not excluded from investigation. (What does this do
    to the idea of "cooperating" with the Ramseys when they are
    considered suspects.

    Between April 7, 2003 and May 25, 2003, there is evidence of a
    shift in attitude by Ms. Keenan. Why? What happened in this time
    period to influence and bring about this change?

    My return receipt of the letter to Keenan says that it was
    received at her office on May 23, 2003, two days before the shift
    was shown in a newspaper interview. Coincidence? Or do we have a
    crack in the "Boulder Dam?"

    Delmar
     
  11. Ayeka

    Ayeka Member

    We can hope, can't we?

    Thanks again for an outstanding letter.

    Ayeka
     
  12. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Delmar, that is a fine letter.

    You say so eloquently what all of us here have been trying to put into words for months.

    At least Keenan now knows that she is being scrutinized by some very smart people with regard to the JonBenet Ramsey case. The injustices done to JonBenet, not only by her murderers, but also by the justice community of Boulder, Colorado, are being duly noted by interested parties.

    We vow that "they" are not going to get away with it!
     
  13. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    YES! I had to pipe in here too! EXCELLENT Mr. England! Now I'll wait patiently for 'something', 'anything' to be happenin'!! I hope! and just a note to ACR - (get well soon!) when I printout out the letter it cut off words on the right margins... or did I 'miss' a "print format" on there??:-(
     
  14. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Niner

    I copied and pasted the letter from ACR's website to Word. Then I printed it out. It worked fine for me. I didn't try to print from the Website.
     
  15. ravens_tears

    ravens_tears Member

    ** Bows to Easywriter **

    I agree, such an eloquent statement of fact!
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Re: While reading

    Was just reading over some posts WY and I laughed at you saying you thought Keenan wasn't very bright. if we go by Mary Keenan's looks alone, she doesn't really look like a very intelligent person, does she? :rolleyes:
     
  17. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    The sad thing is, Elle

    I was being dead serious when I said that. I have serious doubts about the intelligence of anyone who can look at the so-called "evidence" the RST has put out as evidence of an intruder and not question everything about it.

    The origin of the Smit-provided evidence is subject to question to begin with. Take, for instance, that infamous picture of the basement window well - the one where they try to claim an intruder messed up the debris in the well. It is my understanding that no pictures were taken of that window well on Dec. 26, at least not the pictures Smit has provided. Smit didn't come on the scene until months after the crime was committed. At that time he went to the house and took his own pictures, if my memory serves me correctly. The pictures of the window well, taken from outside looking in, I believe were taken by Smit. If that is a fact, then those pictures are not credible as evidence of what that window well looked like that morning.

    LE officers who were on the scene that day said there was NO DISTURBANCE at that window well. They saw it. Then, Smit comes in months later, after God knows who has been trying out that window sill, and takes pictures of the small disturbance there and tries to pawn it off as crime scene pictures.

    I may be wrong about this, but if this is true, then Smit is being deceitful in his presentation of those pictures as crime scene pictures. All I have to go on is the statement I read that no pictures were taken of that window that day.

    Even if there had been pictures taken, the pictures submitted by Smit did not show the degree of disruption of the debris that would have been necessary if someone had come through that window the way Smit demonstrated when he sat in the window well and swiped his bad self across it trying to get into the basement. Where were the signs of that debris inside the basement, the debris that would have clung to his butt when he came through there? A packing peanut? Give me a freaking break. He insults our intelligence when he tries to feed us this crap.

    That is just one example. There is a chain of custody that has to be adhered to in all crime scenes. I believe many of the pictures Smit presented as crime scene photos were, in fact, taken after the fact when he came on the scene months later. Once again, I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got. One question I would ask is what kind of camera was used by the police examiners and what kind of camera was used by Smit. Did Smit scan evidence pictures onto his computer, or was a digital camera used? If he scanned the pictures, how good could the quality be? I really don't know - did the BPD have the kind of equipment necessary to get true replicas of the scanned pictures?

    For every answer to these questions, there is another question. Who took the pictures? When were the pictures taken? What kind of camera was used? Was a scanner used to get the pictures into Smit's Powerpoint program? I don't know much about the Powerpoint program, though I've fooled around with it a little. Were the pictures used actual police photos taken by the police photographer? I don't think they use digital cameras, but I don't know that.

    Mary Keenan and every intruder theorist should be asking these kinds of questions. The ones I've asked here are only a drop in the bucket. I want to know the origin of every single piece of "evidence." When was the packing peanut found? Who found it? Who took the picture? When? Telling me there was a packing peanut that could have come from the window well when an intruder snuck in just isn't going to do it for me. It's far out enough to begin with to assume a packing peanut that could have come from packing materials used in the shipment of JB's new doll had to have come from that window well and not from inside the basement itself when Patsy was wrapping gifts.

    Not only does an intelligent person have to ask these questions, s/he has to assess the credibility of the person who has presented the questionable "evidence." Obviously, when a lone detective, already on record as being an advocate for the Ramseys, states a stun gun was used, when the pathologist and LE clearly have stated otherwise, one has to question the credibility of the lone detective. I can't take the word of a detective who is dedicated to swaying a potential jury by going on TV and advocating for the Ramseys. I can't take the word of a detective who has proved he will do anything to clear their names. I won't take the word of anyone that Smit is a crack detective. I've seen no proof of that. He may have been respected at one time, but he's no Einstein, not if he really believes this intruder theory he's been putting out.

    Yes, Elle, I truly question the intelligence of Mary Keenan and every one of her lackeys. I don't know about the newest detective she hired, but I believe, in the words of Mr. Jann Scott, the Ramsey case, from his latest column, "(The Ramsey case is) so dead only Jesus himself could resurrect it. Maybe the Lord will solve the case when Patsy dies and goes to heaven's gate asking to speak to......JB.

    Keenan is just going through the motions now to cover her butt. She and her team are finding nothing of substance to indicate an intruder. I could have told her that six and a half years ago.

    :rant:
     
  18. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    WY:

    "I may be wrong about this, but if this is true, then Smit is
    being deceitful in his presentation of those pictures as crime
    scene pictures. All I have to go on is the statement I read that
    no pictures were taken of that window that day."

    Smit is on record as being aware of the chair against the door.
    Although he used the word, "maybe", he is on record of being
    aware that the open window was by John or Fleet, not part of the
    actual crime scene. His ignoring the chair against the door and
    his "window display" on tv was either deliberate fraud or he has
    one hell of a mental problem.

    "Ramseys, states a stun gun was used, when the pathologist
    and LE clearly have stated otherwise, one has to question the
    credibility of the lone detective."

    This is the real bugaboo in the scene. Smit's claims to show
    evidence, which does not go to credibility per se. Even though
    his alleged evidence of an alleged intruder has been shown to be
    fallacy and non evidence, there are those mentally challenged who
    still see the "great detective" with such "great credibility"
    that Smit's subjective and confused words take precedence over
    objective evidence.

    "Keenan is just going through the motions now to cover her butt.
    She and her team are finding nothing of substance to indicate
    an intruder. I could have told her that six and a half years
    ago."

    Wy, the question is, how does she propose to do this? Over two
    million dollars have been spent chasing a "ghost intruder"
    without an iota of justification. Who among the "powers that be"
    is going to admit this truth? More and more money is being spent
    to keep the illusion going rather than admit the truth. The hole
    gets deeper and deeper.

    Keenan's problem is as you have stated: "She and her team are
    finding nothing of substance to indicate an intruder." This means
    she can't bring this truth out without taking a hell of a chance
    of exposing the long-running fraud. She can't make any specific
    claim of evidence of an intruder because it doesn't exist and any
    such claim will be shot down post haste.

    What option remains? Silence. Stonewall with hope it will all
    fade away and questions won't have to be answered and the truth
    will not have to be admitted. The sad thing is she and the RST
    will get away with it unless someone in authority pushes for the
    truth - or some knowledgeable gung ho reporter gets on it and
    stays on it until something gives.

    WY, did you ever consider becoming an investigative reporter? You
    sure would make a jim dandy one.
     
  19. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    What I really wish

    I had become is an investigator or crime scene analyst, EW, although an investigative reporter would have been right up my alley, too. I have been like this my entire life - my children say I micro-analyze everything, and, it's true, I do. That's why my ex-husbands could get away with nothing, LOL.

    Seriously, though, I believe I missed my true calling in life. I question everything, not to be arbitrary but because I really need to get to the raw truth. It's like building a house - you have to start with solid ground and a strong foundation and build from there. You can't build a house on sand with maybes and could bes and expect that house to stand against strong forces that would challenge the construction. I believe that is what Smit has done, and I will forever hold him, along with the DA's office, responsible for the terrible mess this case has become.
     
  20. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    As for why Keenan

    continues to perpetrate this fraud, I think it's pretty obvious. There are probably two reasons - first, Lin Wood and his threats to sue, and second, building on the first, if Lin Wood sues, all the crud will come out. It won't be crud beneficial to the Ramseys at all, but it could devastate Hunter, Keenan, and their staffs. It will be evidence showing the true abuse of power in this case at the DA's office level and corruption the likes of what we've only begun to scrape the surface of. Keenan's actions are all CYA actions.

    That's what I think.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice