Delmar's Letter to Keenan

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, Jun 8, 2003.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I really want to get into Delmar's letter because it is filled with issues that we have long discussed on the forums and because his thoughts need to be published on the forum where everyone can read them. I don't have a huge amount of time and I know most posters here don't either, but I would truly appreciate it if an effort were made to get this man's words out where they can be seen and understood. We don't want this letter to be swept under the rug like so many other JBR truths have been.

    I sat down last evening on my patio, with rain gently falling on the roof, alone and in complete solitude so I could read the letter through again with no distractions. It is obvious a lot of time and research has been put into the letter, and along with the Petition, we need to push this letter, also. So, if Delmar has no objection, I would like to pull some quotes from his letter and talk about them and encourage others to do the same. I would also like to thank Delmar for all his work on this document. It could be the beginning of something that might rock Boulder's world.
     
  2. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    The beginning

    of Delmar's letter introduces Mary Keenan to the reasons he is writing the letter. I wondered when I read this paragraph if Keenan was absorbing its meaning.

    <b>"For those of us, which are most, children are to be protected, nurtured and taught. When this simple tenet of decency is violated, it takes on a personal meaning and personal importance no matter who the child is, or the circumstance of abuse."</b>(p.1, 3rd paragraph, DE 5-20-03, letter to Keenan)

    I hope that everyone in authority in Boulder has read that paragraph and grasped its meaning. I hope Lin Wood has read that paragraph and understood, finally, why, when he stated the following to Tricia in an e-mail on April 15, 2003, so many posters were offended.

    <b>Personally, I think people who immerse themselves in this case on the Internet are disturbed individuals who must not have much of a life and are to be pitied." (Lin Wood)</b>

    The answer to Boulder authorities and to Lin Wood is written within the oh-so-wise statement of Mr. England. Again:

    <b>"For those of us, which are most, children are to be protected, nurtured and taught. When this simple tenet of decency is violated, it takes on a personal meaning and personal importance no matter who the child is, or the circumstance of abuse."</b>
     
  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    "...the bogus note

    <b>and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramasey did what in relation to JonBenet's death."</b>)(DE le, pp1-2)


    Here Delmar is stating a conclusion upon which he intends to elaborate in his letter. Delmar's writing abilities and style are perfect as are his thoughts and words.

    <b>Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.</b>

    Are Mary Keenan's ears perking up, yet? Probably not yet, because Mary Keenan has been in denial for so long. Let's hope she has read on and not ignored the rest of the letter, which is soooo good.

    <b>Had a crime in parallel been investigated in a run down, low income neighborhood, the investigative actions and outcome would have been far different.</b>

    It is so understood by most everyone that all are not treated equally under the law. Money talks and bullchit walks.

    <b>In the course of events following the initial monetary/political favoritism and inept investigation, the only viable suspects...the Ramseys, in blatant defiance of literally all the evidence to the contrary, took their protest of innocence to the public at large beginning with the unprecedented appearance on CNN just six days after the death of their daughter. This shameful display of lying arrogance is an insult to the intelligence of any marginally competent person not comatose. I and many others have seen enough and intend to end the farce. The Ramsey Show has had a long run. The time is long overdue for the final curtain call.</b>

    Bravo, Mr. England. How long have we wished for someone, say "George" to do something about the disgraceful manipulation of the JBR case? They say we can't fight City Hall, but, maybe we can if we all stand together and demand the investigation be taken out of the incompetent hands of Boulder's district attorney's office and assigned to an independent prosecutor for investigation.
     
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Next

    Delmar points out the contradiction in Mary Keenan's words to the public.

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

    "We are all focused on the apprehension and successful prosecution of the killer of JonBenet."</b>

    How can a fair and unbiased investigation into and the apprehension and successful prosecuion of the killer of JonBenet be accomplished when there are only Ramsey advocates on the team? Lou Smit, the admitted crusader for the Ramseys innocence should be nowhere near that investigation. But, I'll let Delmar tell it. He does it so well.

    <b>" '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.' "</b>

    Delmar then asks Keenan to point out any intruder evidence to him, since she believes "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," as Carnes has concluded in her Decision.

    <b>For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconslusive until cause is known...No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known...

    A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and 'evidence' of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt of leaves at a window well which 'could have' been disturbed by an intruder...

    This massive 'evidence' stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on 'could be', simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged instuder. Its indefensible.

    The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error.

    Based on the foregoing basis for truth....it follows that whatever the unknown, if and when the unknown becomes known, it will not contradict known facts. This is the indispensable directive for productive speculation in trying to determine the cause of a foot print, palm print, whatever.

    This clearly means that real investigative specluation about the unknown in the crime scene never departs from the known facts as reference for conclusion, or probable conclusion....</b>

    Stay with me, guys, I know some of this is deep to some of us, but concentrate on what Delmar is saying. It is the basis for everything that is wrong in the JBR case.

    <b>...The boot print found in the basement of the Ramsey home will serve as representative of all unknowns in the scene. Given the known facts of the crime scene, and given the necessity of consistency to determine truth, what is the probability that the boot print or any of the other unknowns are connected to an intruder? The probability is absolute zero.

    What Judge Carnes, Smit, you and others are calling evidence of an intruder is nothing more than speculation on a list of unknowns, each speculation dependent on the other, with none going to ground; that is, with not a one connected to known facts without contradiction

    These floating conclusions are embellished by the imagination of Mr. Smit, then presented as fact and alleged to be evidence of an intruder. The fact that Smit's delusions and illusions have now entered the record as Statements of Fact in a federal court is a bit scary, nay,more than a bit. Be afraid. Be very afraid.</b>(DE letter, pps 3-4)

    I want to take this a little at a time because the entire letter is a lot to absorb at one time, and each idea is profound in itself. Maybe if we do it this way, it will be easier to comprehend and absorb.

    Mr. England has rightfully pointed out that Smit's inaccurate conclusions, based on his faulty deductive and reasoning skills and maybe even more sinister reasons, have now been entered into a Decision as truth by a federal judge in a federal case, Wolf vs. Ramseys.

    I was totally engrossed and fascinated in Mr. England's ability to state what my own feelings have been about Smit and his so-called evidence. It was never evidence at all, but speculation that became gospel to him because of his bias toward the Ramseys. <b>This is truly frightening, because the horror continues as a civil lawyer uses Smit's false evidence and Smit as a critical witness in the Wolf case. Further, Judge Carnes takes Smit's testimony on all regards as testimony from an expert witness, when Smit is anything but an expert witness. He is a detective, fercrissake, not an expert on knots and stun guns and fibers and on and on.</b> This should get anyone's attention and people should be screaming their heads off, but the apathy continues. More on this later on in the letter, though, when it becomes abundantly clear just how much Smit has obstructed this case and misled the easily mis-led and those who want to be misled.
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I am up to page 5

    of Delmar's letter to Keenan, which I printed out for easier reading. I have some things to do, and since this will be a work in progress, I urge everyone to jump in and expand on what Delmar has said. I realize I have been very presumptuous in doing this, but it is obvious that Mr. England believes it important that this letter be distributed and, though I have not one thing to do with the letter nor do I have any communication with Mr. England outside this forum, I support his letter wholeheartedly and believe it should be read by all and supported by all who agree with him. Also, he brings up so many issues that I have long wanted to be able to say in the way he has said it, but my tongue gets tied, you know, LOL.

    Once again, this letter is important. It could be the straw....
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Watching You:

    "So, if Delmar has no objection, I would like to pull some quotes
    from his letter and talk about them and encourage others to do
    the same."

    Objection? To the contrary. What you're doing is exactly what I
    hoped for on a large scale. If someone can find error, the find
    will be appreciated and corrected. If someone (and there are many
    capable) expand upon the points to add strength, so much the
    better.

    The letter bears my name as a matter of responsibility, not
    credit. Every person who has contributed by supplying references,
    calling my attention to important elements of the case, submitted
    factual argument on the forum or elsewhere, furnished support in
    myriad ways are all part of the scene. Last, but by no means
    least, those who have kept the forum open for all this time are
    deserving of much credit. Indeed, if the forums had not been kept
    open, there would be no letter to Keenan.

    So, thank you, WY. This is not a solo act by any stretch. Go for
    it.

    Delmar
     
  7. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    All right, then

    I am between jaunts, so I have a little time. Thanks, Delmar, for your timely reply. I thought as much, but I feel better knowing you are okay with this. I found the deeper I got into your letter, the more I understood what has been happening to this case all these years, even though I thought I understood it before. I know that might make little sense, but I know what I mean.

    Page 6 of Delmar's letter:

    <b>What is expressed and implied about proper epistemology and determination of truth via non contradiction will be the basis of further examination. Wrong premise. Wrong answer. Wrong method. Wrong answer.</b>

    I consider myself to be pretty knowledgeable about the meanings of words, but I admit I had to look up the word, "epistemology." I knew "ology" means "the study of" and I assume "epistem" meant some kind of philosophy, but I still couldn't figure out what it meant. So if anyone else doesn't know, either, I guess I'm not alone.

    Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?

    <b>"Lou Smit: 'You know, we have been here for three days now. We have gone over a lot of things and I think I have gotten to know you pretty good at this time, and you have probably gotten to know us, and, you know there is a lot of people out there that really do believe that you did this to your daughter, or that your wife did this. And you know that you have said that you didn't do that, and I am going to take you at your word. We know you are a Christian, John, and would you swear to God that you didn't do this?'

    John Ramsey: 'I swear to God that I didn't do it.'

    Unbelievable! This is an 'experienced' detective conducting an interrogation? The fact that he was not pulled from the case immediately does not speak well for those in authority who allowed the farce to continue.

    Do you grasp that to take someone's word for something means that the concept of evidence is irrelevant; that there will be no investigation? As elementary as this is, apparently, this simple truth eludes Smit. Since you propose to 'work cooperatively' with Lou Smit and the Ramseys, evidently it eludes you as well.

    Is it within your job description as District Attorney to spend taxpayer money to join the Ramseys, Smit, Wood, Carnes and others in defense of suspects rather than investigate with the potential of indictment and prosecution?"</b>

    I showed this part to my cop daughter. She hasn't gotten into the JBR case much at all, just what I tell her from time to time. She read what Smit said to John Ramsey and as she read, her eyebrows kept getting higher, LOL, and her mouth was agape, and her eyes got wider, and when she finished reading it, she told me she didn't believe any detective said anything like that to a suspect he was questioning. I said, oh he most certainly did. She was dumbfounded. How totally unprofessional, where did this man get his detective badge?

    This belongs in Ripley's Believe it or Not. It belongs in the most incredible words to ever exit a detective's mouth. It is indefensible that Lou Smit wasn't removed from the case right then for improper police procedure.

    <b>"John Ramsey: 'I swear to God that I didn't do it.' "</b>

    Hello? Like he's going to tell you he did it if he did do it? Because why? Because he is a Christian? Do Christians have some kind of monopoly on the truth? Are Christians to be believed simply because they are Christians?

    Mary Keenan is as delusional as Lou Smit if she can't see what's going on here.
     
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    continued...

    <b>Smit's behavior shows up even more absurd when you look at the crime scene environment in which Mr. Smit excludes John and family as suspects.

    By crime scene environment, I mean actual and factual environment, not the fantasies of Lou Smit....

    On the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, a 911 call from Patsy Ramsey prompted the police to go to the Ramsey house. The first thing they were shown was a multi-page "ransom note." Everything about the note made it strongly suspect, including the fact it was written on a pad and pen connected to the Ramsey household. Figuratively speaking, this put up a billboard-size flashing neon sign reading: WARNING: HIGHLY PROBABLY STAGED CRIME SCENE. BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR MORE.

    If the note was phony, as it appeared to be, it meant there was no kidnapping. The only known persons who had ability and opportunity to be the perpertrators of whatever happened and the only ones who could have staged a crime scene were the Ramseys, hence, the only viable suspects who knew what happened to JonBenet. This truth still holds.</b>

    Not only does this truth still holds, but right then and there, in any other circumstance except the wealth and status-influenced atmosphere of the Ramsey home, things would have been handled much differently with a completely different outcome.


    <b>The logical inference of the suspect circumstance of a probable bogus note was strongly reinforced when the body was 'found' in the basement by John Ramsey. At face value appearance, the body evidenced a kidnapping and murder. However, the face value appearance quickly disappeared when the scene was determined to be bogus by numerous factors inclusive of an ad hoc amateurish construction of a 'garrote.'</b>

    (Delmar deals with the garrote in much deeper detail in a later segment of the letter.)

    <b>Like the note ALL material evidence whose source is known is connected to the Ramsey household. There is no evidence that any came from anywhere else.</b>

    Okay, some will ask, what about the tape and the cord and the "stun gun"? The stun gun is one of the biggest farces in this case, but I'll let Mr. England deal with that, which he does most effectively. The fact that the tape and the cord have not been linked to anything inside the Ramsey home is not evidence of an intruder. No one (outside the Ramseys) knows whether the Ramseys had that tape sitting around inside their home before the death of their child. No one knows whether the cord was there before. Both could have been the end of the roll, odd pieces.

    I have some odd pieces of cord in my home. If I used one of them, that would be the end of that particular piece of cord. You can't use a negative to make a positive. Just because no one could find anything to match the tape or the cord doesn't mean it didn't belong to the Ramseys. In fact, I've long thought that both the roll of tape and the cord, if any was left, was removed from the house in Patsy's purse or someone's coat pocket when they left the house that day. That is one of those "unknown could have beens," for sure, but it is as plausible and should be considered as seriously as the RST has considered the lack of same in the house as evidence of an intruder.

    <b>With the correct reading of the 'garrote' as nervous, amateurish bungling, the probability of a staged crime scene was laid to rest. It was a staged crime scene without a logical doubt. It was in this atmosphere of all materials, and material facts, including a staged crime scene linked to the family household that Lou Smit reached the conclusion of Ramsey innocence. On what? Admittedly, on John's word.</b>

    Again, on John's word. Smit's entire case has been based on "John's word." Unbelievable.


    <b>After excluding the Ramseys on John's word, Smit has only one direction to go: Find the alleged intruder. First find evidence of the alleged intruder to lead to said alleged intruder. Suppose there is no intruder, meaning there is no evidence of an intruder, what does Mr. Smit do then?

    By the method described above, Mr. Smit's finds a lot of "evidence" of an intruder: shoe print, palm print, scuff mark on a wall, anything and everything 'unknown' becomes in Smit's confused mind 'evidence' of an intruder.' How can anyone, let alone a detective, judge, DA, et al, be so mentally incompetent as to believe the unknown is evidence.

    That I am motivated by the circumstance to explain the concept, evidence, to those who careers and job responsibility depend on knowing the character of evidence leaves me shuddering in horror and disbelief.</b>

    I too have been baffled by the lack of unprofessionalism and adherence to established police procedures and training, and incompetence in a detective's, judge's, DA's, et al investigation in this case. My 9 year old niece has better thinking skills than these people have. In fact, reading what these people say about this case is like reading something a 5 year old might deduce.

    <b>Evidence is in essence the verb, evidences, i.e., evidentiary cause; meaning cause known. By definition, the unknown is NEVER evidence. The totality of known evidence which evidences Ramsey guilt is simply ignored on John's word. It is mentally displaced by absurd claims of evidence of an intruder with said claims resting on and derived from the unknown. In other words, ALL the alleged intruder evidence is subjectively mentally invented and claimed to be objectively discovered. There is no way to conduct an 'investigation' any more backward than this."</b>

    I hope everyone is reading this in order, because Delmar builds on each previous word and thought he has written. This letter is actually an amazing piece of writing.
     
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Over six years after the death of JonBenet

    <b>neither Smit, nor the BPD, nor DA haave come up with the identity of an alleged intruder; nor will they in sixty or six thousand years....

    ...On page 2, Judge Carnes writes:

    'Sometime on the night of December 25 or the early morning of December 26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered. (SMF 2.)'

    This is the conclusion with which Judge Carnes BEGINS. The Plaintiff (Wolf) contends that Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet by accident. The Defendants (Ramseys) claim that JonBenet was murdered. This is an issue to be decided by the facts. However, even before any facts or alleged facts are examined, Judge Carnes rules in favor of the Ramseys. In effect, she rewrites Wolf's Complaint and obligates him to prove premeditated murder, not accident. The hearing is over. The decision has been rendered. The other 91 pages are merely filler. Wolf was poorly prepared enough without Judge Carnes rewriting his Complaint to compound the difficulty of his task.

    What 'evidence' directed her conclusion of murder? Is there any doubt that it was the word of her 'expert witness', Lou Smit? Smit did what he did because he took the word of John Ramsey. So, in a round about way, John Ramsey directed the Carnes' ruling that declared him innocent. If all suspects were provided such luxury, all judges and juries would become redundant....</b>

    Okay. I want to stop here, because what I have just typed from Mr. England's letter is significant. It didn't really hit me until I read this, but Judge Carnes completely turned the Wolf case on its head when she changed the original complaint. How could she do this? What law gave her the right to do this? Of course, one assumes she knew what she was doing; she is, after all, a federal judge with much experience. Yet, she arbitrarily changed Wolf's charge that Patsy Ramsey accidentally killed her daughter to Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter - two completely different things, although both with the same outcome.

    One might say, well, you're arguing semantics, but that is far from the truth here. This was a legal case and Judge Carnes should have adhered to the strict wording of Wolf's charge - that Patsy Ramsey accidentally killed her daughter, not that she murdered her, which is something else entirely. Adding insult to injury, Carnes then compounded her error by holding Wolf to proving that Patsy deliberately murdered her daughter.

    How can this happen in a federal court? It seems to me this would be appealable based on this error, but I don't expect Darnay to take this any further. I do not think Wolf had adequate representation, but perhaps Darnay did the best he could with what he had to work with. It still isn't right, and, as you shall see, it only gets worse...

    A comedy of errors...
     
  10. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    You know WY and Delmar

    this single point has been a bugaboo for me since I first heard it. That an investigative detective would ask a potential suspect if he did it and then go on with his investigating with the belief that the guy he just asked didn't do it so someone else must have. Now I dare say that if a person were to go into any prison in the land and ask that very same question of each and every prisoner the answer I would guess it would be the same. No I didn't do it...or swear to God that they hadn't done it. How insane is that question? I feel a little like Jay Leno when I ask that question. How insane is THAT? It's just one of those time that one just has to shake their head and say HUH!!!!! What gives with this man. And yet he is taken as the authority on this. Why? Shame shame shame and more shame on Boulder and the authorities past and present who pretended to work this case.
     
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    zoo, not only is it unbelievable

    but it is disheartening to know it is so blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain to see what has been going on, yet, no one is willing to stick their necks out and do anything about it. Delmar has stuck his neck out, and I'm damned glad he did.

    I know from experience that many professionals won't read a letter that is more than one or two pages long. So be it. The letter will be here on this forum, broken into segments for the reading impaired in Boulder. This letter is far too important to fall between the cracks of Boulderdom.
     
  12. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Here is a link to ACR's site where Delmar's letter can be found.
    http://www.acandyrose.com/05202003keenanletter.htm

    I would implore everyone to print this letter out. If there ever was one place on the Univervse that not only lays out the evidence but explains what it means as well.

    This letter is the final say, the one thing that answers all the questions.

    More to come.

    Tricia
     
  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    The garotte

    P6, DE Letter)

    <b>There are many items of material evidence; each fitting into and creating the whole without contradiction. The pivotal area of evidence is the "garrote scene." The importance of understanding this area of evidence cannot be overstated.

    Conclusion and beliefs about this area establishes the direction of investigation, and subsequent conclusions. This was clearly manifest in Judge Carnes' ruling wherein she concluded that the 'garotte scene' was professional, thus requiring certain skills which the Ramseys did not possess. Regarding the 'garrote scene' as 'sophisticated' and 'professional' set the investigative crime scene as murder while simultaneously excluding the Ramseys.

    A false read means a search in the wrong direction without truthful resolution of the case possible. This is precisely what has been happening for over six years.

    For years, in the media and now in court, The Ramseys, Lou Smit and others have repeatedly and emphatically described the 'garrote scene' as 'sophisticated', 'complex', 'intricate' and 'professional.' It is implied to be the work of someone very knowledgeable in the construction and use of what is referered to as a 'garrote.' Yet, not once have I seen or heard of Smit, nor anyone else presenting physical demonstration, or even definitive argument to establish the 'garrote scene' as 'sophisticated', 'complex', 'intricate' and 'professional.'</b>

    I would interject here that there is another school of thought on whether John Ramsey was skilled in the art of tying knots. Ramsey was in the Navy. Every new enlistee is schooled in tying knots. He claims to not have knowledge of knot tying, but that seems unlikely. In addition, he had a boat. Who tied his boat if not he? There are right ways and wrong ways to tie a boat. Apparently he knew the right way, because I've never heard of his boat floating free to float around Lake Michigan.

    <b>As a consequence, this propaganda sets up an 'investigative' condition of murder calling for motive, premeditation and planning. In conjunction with the mindset, 'No parent could do this to their child', the 'investigation' was off and running in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE TRUTH. Over six years later, with no intruder found, most, including you, still don't have a clue as to what happened and is still happening.

    What is the truth about the 'garrote scene?' In reality, the claim of 'sophisticated' and 'expertise' arbitrarily verbally attached to the 'garrote scene' is totally false, ridiculously so. The 'garrote scene' is amateurish, childish, inept and inefficient. It was created by a bungling novice; something easy to prove by physical demonstration by one who knows the truth. If you like, I will be happy to do so, and in court if necessary

    With the truth buried, 'garrote expertise' supporting the idea of murder is set as the primary fallacy on which all the others gain psychological support. Its the launch pad, the foundation of the fallacy tower. Its the make or break item in the whole crime scene. I am taken aback and appalled that this farce of 'garrote scene' 'expertise' has gone on and on for years without challenge until it is utilized to direct a decision in a federal court...</b>

    I too am appalled that a federal judge based her decision on fraudulent information perpetrated by Lou Smit. It is a travesty of justice and something needs to be done about it.

    <b>...On the most elementary level, the quality of the 'garrote scene' is a significant directive. Smit and the Ramseys saw this and took full advantage via lying distortions while the investigators and prosecutors twiddled their thumbs and let them get away with it.</b>

    Right. The Ramseys were fixated and working hard at convoluting and inventing evidence to support their claims of innocence. After hearing JR say he swore he didn't kill his daughter, Smit turned his formidible staying powers toward advocating for the Ramseys and, in fact, inventing evidence that was never there. And, the Boulder authorities let them, no, they helped them, do it. Disgraceful.

    <b>Clearly, the 'garrote scene' is the pivotal element of the case. If the construction and use of the 'garrote' is of professional quality and none of the Ramseys possess such skills, the attention is directed outward. Judge Carnes cited this as a basis for excluding the Ramseys.

    On the other hand, if the construction and use of the 'garrote' shows the creator to be grossly amateurish in his efforts, the issue takes a different turn: Options.</b>

    Herein lies the rub - Smit and the Ramseys want to avoid Options at all cost.

    <b>Certainly, it is possible that an intruder could be an amateur in the area of garrotes, knots, nooses and that sort of thing. However, the amateurishness of the scene opens the matter to the possibility of every amateur who had opportunity to be a potential creator of the scene. The issue then becomes a matter of probability as determined by the relationship of the 'garrote scene' to other known evidence. For instance, if one concludes the 'ransom note' is staging, would one be all that surprised to find that the 'garrote scene' is a continuation of the staging; indeed, from the conclusion that the note is bogus, no other logical conclusion is possible even if you are not a rope expert?

    Instead of these elementary basics being utilized in the investigation to determine the quality, or lack thereof, of the 'garrote scene', the most crucial evidence was simply ignored allowing claims contrary to fact to be frequently and widely dispensed without challenge. If truth be told, as stated before, there was no investigation of the 'garrote scene', which is to say, no real investigation directed by the facts at all. In lieu of a bona fide investigation, the absurd claims and fantasies of Lou Smit were and are accepted by you and others as facts without a thought of questioning.</b>

    Further proof of total incompetence in the DA's officeand more reason why this case should be taken out of the hands of Mary Keenan and Lou Smit and given to competent, impartial investigators.

    <b>John Ramsey, Lou Smit and others realized the importance of having the 'garrote scene' accepted as 'professional' and 'sophisticated.' They went to great lengths to sell this idea. Photos of the 'garrote', and close up photos of knots were put on the internet with the claim of 'intricate' and complex.' The public was cautioned to be on the lookout for someone with the ability to tie these 'special knots.' Smit is too incompetent to know what is going on, but what about John Ramsey?</b>


    To be continued...
     
  14. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I have to run again

    I sincerely hope everyone prints this letter out, if possible, and if not, save it to Word or whatever word processing program you use where it is easier to read and you can go back at your leisure to read it. IMO, this is probably one of the most significant and important documents to be published on the incompetence of the DA and her investigators in the JBR case. We need to make some noise, people, I'm serious.

    Everyone is invited to jump in and add to my observations. I need all the assistance I can get, and that's the truth. I know we've discussed this stuff again and again, but it's never been all together in one place and written so well before, and it's never been sent to the district attorney in Boulder before in this form.

    Feel free to pick up where I left off or just discuss if you like. This should be a team effort.
     
  15. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    WY:

    "Stay with me, guys, I know some of this is deep to some of us,
    but concentrate on what Delmar is saying. It is the basis for
    everything that is wrong in the JBR case."

    Perfect summary: "the basis for everything that is wrong in the
    JBR case." Yes, basis with considerable substance, yet a
    framework where more can be added to improve impact. This is
    where you and others come in.


    "Okay. I want to stop here, because what I have just typed from
    Mr. England's letter is significant. It didn't really hit me
    until I read this, but Judge Carnes completely turned the Wolf
    case on its head when she changed the original complaint."

    WY, its even worse than you think. I don't want this to become a
    distracting sidebar issue, but since you brought it up, I am
    motivated to present a bit more information.

    On June 22, 2003, I attended a hearing in the Judge's chambers.
    The hearing was on a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. The first
    question the Judge asked was : "Are there any facts in dispute?"

    The reason he asked this is because a Summary Judgement is not
    for a trial of facts. It is matter of point of law when facts are
    not in dispute. How on earth the Wolf case ever got into a
    Hearing For Summary Judgment, I do not know. Based on presently
    held information, its looks like to me DH was asleep at the
    switch. What's new?
     
  16. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    The stun gun issue could and should have been resolved long ago by exhuming JonBenét's body. IMH&CPO if Lou Smit really wanted to get insure the stun gun issue was part of the "evidence" he would have convinced the Ramsey's that an exhumation was absolutely necessary.

    The garrote knots always reminded me of some of the more complicated macramé knots. I wonder if this aspect of knot tying was ever investigated.

    Judge Julie Carnes needs to read this letter and reverse her own ruling IMH&CPO.

    Outstanding letter Delmar and excellent re-cap WY.
     
  17. Mels

    Mels Member

    Fabulous letter! Skillfully written!

    If DH was asleep at the wheel then he has undergone a massive change of heart.

    IMO, DH dropped out. Of everything.

    Why?

    Who place pressure on him, if any? What pressure could have been so great as to gag DH? What possibly could have taken such earnest rage out of him?

    One day his teeth were bared for battle, the next he couldn't seem to remember there even was a battle. He no-showed.

    I wonder if we will ever know.
     
  18. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    WY:

    "I showed this part to my cop daughter. She hasn't gotten into
    the JBR case much at all, just what I tell her from time to time.
    She read what Smit said to John Ramsey and as she read, her
    eyebrows kept getting higher, LOL, and her mouth was agape, and
    her eyes got wider, and when she finished reading it, she told me
    she didn't believe any detective said anything like that to a
    suspect he was questioning. I said, oh he most certainly did. She
    was dumbfounded. How totally unprofessional, where did this man
    get his detective badge?"

    Your daughter's reaction is quite understandable. It is hard to
    imagine that any person, let alone an "experienced detective"
    could be so stupid and so incompetent as to give a suspect a free
    pass. This points up a most formidable obstacle we must overcome.
    The Ramsey case "investigation" is so outrageous that to tell it
    like it is will certainly prompt skepticism and disbelief as was
    shown by your daughter. The endurance and scope of the farce is
    so great in time and effort that the cascading contradictions and
    fallacies have in the minds of many taken on the aura of
    unquestionable truth. Such minds will not easily let go of the
    illusions even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

    Comment by Mark Beckner:

    "To give you some perspective of the enormity of this
    investigation and the effort that has been put forth in solving
    this case, let me give you some statistics. Since we began our
    investigation in December, 1996, we have formally interviewed 590
    people, some more than once; we have utilized 64 outside experts
    and consultants; we have investigated 68 people as possible
    suspects, plus an additional 54 convicted sex offenders as
    possible suspects; we have logged 1,058 items of evidence into
    property; over 500 pieces of evidence have been tested through
    federal, state and private labs; we conducted the investigation
    in 17 states; we have received approximately 3,400 letters and
    700 phone tips; and we have spent approximately 22,000 hours
    investigating the case."

    I don't have a date on Beckner's comment, but expenses through
    Dec. 17. 2001 are listed as $1,705,251.21. (Some other costs not
    included.) I don't think it would be out of line to estimate that
    by this time the dollar cost has risen to $2,000,000 or more.

    Please go back and read the "investigation" commentary again. Let
    the vastness of it really sink in. Now answer this question: What
    prompted, motivated and "justified" this huge expenditure in time
    and money?

    Ostensibly, all this was prompted and "justified" on the notion
    of "evidence of an intruder." When it is shown, as it has been in
    my letter, (and elsewhere by many) there was not and is not ANY
    evidence of an intruder, we must look elsewhere to determine the
    true motivation for this huge expenditure of taxpayer money. What
    is it?

    Throughout history, in certain cases a very large amount of time,
    effort and money has been spent on investigating the evidence to
    identify, apprehend, charge and convict the guilty party or
    parties. I dare say the Ramsey case is shamefully unique in that
    never before has so much time and money been spent TO AVOID
    identifying and charging the guilty party or parties.

    If this is not the truth, then I must be mistaken and there is
    evidence of an intruder. If so, then again I ask as I have done
    for over three years, show me. If this can be done, I will back
    off and say no more. If it can't be done, then I stand by the
    conclusions stated above and in my letter to Keenan.

    Over $2,000,0000 spent chasing imaginary evidence, i.e.,
    "evidence" that is no more than the aberrations of Lou Smit; with
    no more substance than the easter bunny or santa clause. Worse
    yet, detectives, judge, DA and others went along and go along for
    the ride without a word of protest about the absurdity. Is it any
    wonder that your daughter and others find the truth hard to
    believe?

    Delmar
     
  19. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    This particular issue

    has always annoyed me, Delmar. How many times can one say the same thing over and over about how thorough the investigation really was; yet, the RST is in constant denial of those facts - the BPD only investigated the Ramseys, they didn't investigate other leads. Like, what other leads? There was no evidence that led to anyone but the Rams, yet the RST insisted the BPD chase down every Tom, Dick and Harry that breathed inside Boulder that night. The fraud at the swamp interferred hugely in this case. Her "leads" had to be investigated, because if they hadn't investigated them, the defense would have been all over them in a court trial. They systematically went through a vast list of suspects created mostly by the DA's office, but also on their own, for the purpose of either eliminating them as suspects or leaving them on the suspect list. No intruder was ever found - not by the BPD, not by Smit, not by anyone.

    Yet, the false propaganda continues - to this day we hear how the BPD didn't do its job, how the poor Ramseys have been persecuted, how no one but the Rams was investigated. Are they that thick or is it deliberate? The RST seems to have severe tunnel vision - they get something in their heads and it becomes their mantra - I think they chant it - The BPD focused only on the Rams, the BPD focused only on the Rams, the BPD focused only on the Rams. They are stupid. They refuse to admit the obvious, as you pointed out above - the BPD most certainly did investigate hundreds of other leads. Well, they didn't do it good enough, they will tell you. I can't help but wonder what comet they just arrived on.
     
  20. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    WY:

    "Yet, the false propaganda continues - to this day we hear how the
    BPD didn't do its job, how the poor Ramseys have been
    persecuted, how no one but the Rams was investigated. Are they
    that thick or is it deliberate?"

    In face of all the evidence to the contrary is this:

    ""The Boulder Police Department has failed to make progress,
    Wood said, because it "focused on the Ramseys from almost
    the first day of the investigation to the exclusion of an
    unbiased, thorough investigation of all other possible
    suspects." (Rocky Mountain News, December 21, 2002:)

    If this is not a deliberate lie, then Wood is so mentally out of it, he has no business walking around without a keeper.

    Delmar
     
  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