OMG, what a joke Smit is! I had seen this before but for some reason, tuned in to watch some. First, if Smit learns how to use the word "SEEN", he might get some credibility. He poses ridiculous scenarios and kept using the phrase..."we just don't know". He's so right. He doesn't know. He is SO on the wrong page, it isn't even funny. He's in this for himself, IMO. He wants to be RIGHT. I do have to add, though, that Steve Thomas looked SO CUTE in all his shots that it was worth it, even if only to get another peek at him, LOL.
How right your are. Let’s make the choice to try harder. Most already know my arguments many times over. The following is for potential newcomers who may be looking in on the forum after the publicity. This post is a synopsis to provide a factual introduction. Suppose you are a police officer. Responding to a 911 message from the dispatcher. You enter the home of the person who made the call and stated that there was a ransom note, that her daughter had been kidnaped. You are handed three sheets of paper with writing on them. This multi-page document is claimed to be a ransom note. The length of the note does not coincide with your image of a ransom note. You suspect something is not right. You then learn the note was written on a pad and with pen already in the house and belonging to the parents of the alleged kidnap victim. Your doubt about the authenticity of the note and claimed kidnaping grows. The unusual is magnified by the odd amount of $118,000 as ransom demand. The time named in note for the kidnaper to call with delivery instructions passes and no call. Once again, your doubt increases. A few hours later, the father of the alleged kidnaped victim “finds†her body in the basement of the house. He carries the body upstair with the bound and gagged scene disturbed by the tape missing from over her mouth. Her father said he removed it. The binding of the wrists are so poorly done, one fell off during movement of the body. A cord is tied around the neck in a crude loop fashion. A handle 17" away is on one end of the cord, a handle from a local paint brush. The handle has multiple wraps. You look at all this and evaluate the “garrote scene†as not only flawed in materials chosen, but in construction and application as well. You think, “What in the hell is going on? Why would a kidnaper come into a house, use paper and pad at hand to write a long ransom note, never make any attempt to collect any money, leave the body in the house and take the time to set up a cord and noose scene with the wrong materials and in a manner which clearly shows he had no idea of what he was doing? It just doesn’t make sense.†Then comes the autopsy report: “The scalp is covered by long blonde hair which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band, and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified.†However, upon further examination, the coroner found: “In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline of the occipital area of the skull. This fracture measures approximately 8.5 inches in length.†NOW, it makes sense. A fatal, or near fatal, skull fracture not showing because there was no scalp laceration lets the facts, i.e., the evidence, fall into logical place. It didn’t make sense when trying to fit it to an intruder because there was on intruder. However, the silly note, body in house, bound and gagged, along with the amateurish ad hoc creation of the “strangling scene†makes perfect sense from a perspective of seeing it as a childish attempt to hide the truth about the head trauma. The kidnaping claim read phony from the outset. The autopsy report about the skull fracture removed the last doubt leaving only the conclusion that the crime scene was staged from the git go. The indisputable fact is that some person or persons in the Ramsey household did the rigging and tried to pass off this amateurish mess as authentic. Evidence is what has been described. This is what tells the truth. Evidence is not the unknown, nor the aberrations of Lou Smit. Even without the abundant supporting evidence left out for sake of brevity, the facts set forth above are more than sufficient to know without an evidentiary doubt there was no intruder. Granted, not everyone has the background to know quickly and just how much of an amateurish mess the “garrote scene†was, but the rest of the staging with Ramsey owned materials certainly is within the realm of common knowledge. Wasn’t this enough to suspect an intended deception and make all else subject to questioning as well? For goodness sake, even the wrist ties were so poorly done that one fell off while moving the body. There was nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, that even remotely suggests a perpetrator from the outside. Yet, by mental machinations rivaled only in Bedlam in conjunction with deceiving media presentations orchestrated by the RST, many accepted the intruder myth. Over seven years beyond the date that immediate arrest was warranted, the Ramseys are still playing the “innocent gameâ€; and some irresponsible media fools are still aiding and abetting the con for the sake of a few rating points.
Thanks for the alert Rat. Bullsmit is right. I have this bastid recorded and whenever I'm in the mood to be bullemic (or tortured), I put it on. I admit it's got some cute clips of JonBenet, tho. Not of Lou's . Easywriter, you put this case in a nutshell for the newbies to Loose Mitten's show. Good job. It's hard to do, considering it's been 7 years, and considering all the circus sideshows in this case.
Thor: “Easywriter, you put this case in a nutshell for the newbies to Loose Mitten's show. Good job. It's hard to do, considering it's been 7 years, and considering all the circus sideshows in this case.†Thor, or anyone else, can you even imagine crime scene staging any more obvious than that in the Ramsey case? I envision intruder theorists, including those in LE, all sitting down to dinner together and not a single one noticing there’s a dead elephant in the soup. Even after over four years looking into the case, from time to time, I have to double check to see if I’m awake or if this is just some weird nightmare. How is such stupidity and\or dishonesty possible? If “evidence†of an intruder can be pulled out of thin air to exonerate the Ramseys, what’s to prevent the same method of “gathering evidence†to convict persons of crimes of which they are completely innocent? Kind of scary isn't it? Initially, for no other reason than political\money considerations, the highly visible and irrefutable evidence of staging was ignored. To “upgrade to downgrade†from plain stupidity to gross insanity, they bring in master myth maker, Lou Smit. Taking the word of John Ramsey as innocent, Smit proceeded to come up with unlimited “evidence†of an intruder. LE and the major media never seemed to notice that Smit was making vocal noises like a programmed robot with multi circuit malfunctions. Contrary to FCC regulations, the shows featuring Lou Smit did not carry the disclaimer, “Any resemblance to any real persons or events is purely coincidental.†Taking the inane and insane Smit prattle as fact, the intruder myth grew to such monstrous proportions that the simple Ramsey-guilt facts as previously illustrated were buried and hidden under an LE and media avalanche of myths and misconceptions. This became of such scope that to the uninformed general public, there didn’t seen to be anything else. Ironically, or poetically just, as it were, the Ramseys and Wood, their attorney, got emotionally caught up in the firestorm of fallacy and succumbed to their own propaganda and began to treat it as truth. It has been carried to the extreme culminating in the most idiotic lawsuit of the century: The suit is against Fox News because one of their reporters said there is no evidence of an intruder. This leaves Wood in the impossible position of proving the contrary. To put this in perspective, I shall insert from an earlier post: Keenan recants her endorsement of the Carnes’ ruling about evidence of an intruder. Keenan says the Ramseys are not excluded as suspects. John agrees. Scientists discourage idea of unidentified DNA being necessarily from intruder due to many possibilities of transfer and deposit. Judge Carnes make is clear her ruling was based on the word of Lou Smit. Smit, the main source of “intruder evidenceâ€, has been totally discredited by many errors of commission and omission in his theory and has all but disappeared. Picture this: Wood in a courtroom with only himself to “prove†evidence of an intruder as a necessity to validate the suit against Fox News. Now won’t that be special? You are looking at the final days of the RST. RUN, JOHN, RUN.
EW, yep yep yep! This will be another great trip to CO to watch the Fox trial and the end of the Ramseys' lame "defense." The perfect setting to file charges against them, eh? :spit:
Easy Writer.... Your posts #4 and #6 on this thread are clearly some of the best and most concise that you have constructed concerning the evidence in the Ramsey case....Even a person new to the case, given your very precise observations on the basic evidence of the case, can do minimal research and find that what you surmise is true.... Those in the investigative community who have participated and found the Ramsey's to be without guilt or guilty knowledge of the murder of JonBenet, either have on blinders of some sort or have other political or economic incentives to believe this is so.... I too believe that the Ramseys will soon, because of their own egos and outspoken public declarations, become confronted with the overwhelming evidence against them in the horrific murder of their youngest daughter.... We, the ongoing public conscience, who have perservered and investigated every corner of this case, will stand by our knowledge and our moral obligation to see this case prosecuted and resolved to the full extent of the American justice system.... You have been an excellant writer and advocate for justice for one tiny murder victim.....Just wanted you to know that you have my admiration and that I hope that you will keep writing and keep encouraging others to seek justice in this case.... Voyager
This is precisely the reason anyone who says Lou Smit has any right being on the "new" investigation is wrong. He has thoroughly compromised himself by doing these documentaries. Does anyone see the impossibility of it all? How can a man who has made the kind of statements Smit has made ever hope to be taken seriously in a court room? I'm not talking a Carnes courtroom where the stakes and the standards of proof were much different than they would be in a criminal case. I have read boastful posts from both the swamp and the grass-roots reporter that Smit will go where the evidence leads him, even if it meant bringing in the Ramseys. Well, quite frankly, that's Bullsmit. Those Ramseys - they are smart if nothing else. They cultivated this guy, played him like silly putty. What better reasonable doubt than an having investigator on the case who has gone public with his manufactured evidence of an intruder? "Mr. Smit, you sit on this witness stand today saying you now believe the Ramseys did in fact kill or conspire to kill their daughter?" "That's true, Mr. Attorney." "Let me - could we just - Your Honor, if we could have the lights dimmed. For the record, this is a documentary that showed on Court TV (whenever) with you as the star of the show." (the documentary plays in front of the jury) "Now, Mr. Smit, are you telling this jury that you now believe the Ramseys are guilty of this crime?" "Yes, sir, I am, I finally "seen" the light." Can anyone say REASONABLE DOUBT? This case is screwed. They played it perfectly. It is the prototype extraordinaire for future criminals who happen to be wealthy as well. If it weren't so sad, it would be genius.
VOYAGER: Easy Writer.... Your posts #4 and #6 on this thread are clearly some of the best and most concise that you have constructed concerning the evidence in the Ramsey case....Even a person new to the case, given your very precise observations on the basic evidence of the case, can do minimal research and find that what you surmise is true....†Thank you for the kind words. I learned it all from Joe Friday and Matt Grebbs. Friday: “Just the facts Mam.†(Dragnet) Grebbs: “The questions I ask are merely to get a natural tone of voice. Do not pay much attention to their answers since they often lie.†(The Lineup) “I too believe that the Ramseys will soon, because of their own egos and outspoken public declarations, become confronted with the overwhelming evidence against them in the horrific murder of their youngest daughter....†The delay is in large part due to the absurd libel\slander laws predicated upon the contradiction that one person is compelled to believe another. An accuser who cannot back up his\her accusation with facts is the one who loses credibility, not the accused. Unfortunately, this simple scenario is not allowed to be played out in the money\political arena. Presentation of facts oft yields to the threat of financial annihilation. The Ramseys and Wood have taken full advantage of the silly laws and environmental circumstance to hold the truth at bay and hidden from the general public for over seven years. Their time has run out. It is the nature of contradiction to compound. Carried far enough, it will expose the truth by default. Wood has made just such a blunder in his suit against Fox News. Within the last few days, he has seen the DNA “evidence†and support of Mary Keenan disappear. Ask Lou Smit to produce a stun gun which will leave blue marks on the skin and he is finished as well. Wood’s tirade over the scientific negation of the DNA as evidence of an intruder was indirectly letting us know that he knows he is dead in the water. At this moment, his head is spinning trying to find a way to bail, but with damage control. This is the part that concerns me. Will Fox News let him get away with it? It is my constant and fervent hope they won’t. Over and over again, I wonder, “Do they know what they have? Do they realize the potential? Do they know how to handle it?†Opportunities blown leaves me much concerned. Under current circumstance, I cannot envision Wood taking the matter to court. He would lose in a matter of minutes, and he knows it. Hopefully, Fox News will not seek a Summary Judgment, but insist on a full blown trial. Of course, Wood can withdraw the Complaint anytime he wishes. OK, so be it, but Fox News, please don’t help him with some kind of compromise, some behind closed doors “settlement†whereby the truth remains hidden. Compel Wood to either go to Court, or else withdraw the Complaint totally own his own. This would be just as good as a judgment. Withdrawing the Complaint would be admitting he has no evidence of an intruder. Unless, later he “discovers†some evidence, he has precluded himself from filing any more libel\slander suits since he has already labeled them frivolous by admitting no intruder evidence. If Wood goes to Court, the RST is finished. If he withdraws the Complaint, thereby, admitting no evidence of intruder, he opens a media floodgate that will wash away the years of fallacy and farce and expose the truth for all to see. Fox News, the ball is in your court. Please don’t drop it. It’s a slam dunk. RUN, JOHN, RUN
One of the things that disturbs me the most about the lawsuit against FOX is the addition of the words "with malice." IOW, the Ramseys (including Burke, since they have made an issue of including Burke in the FOX reporter's terminology, "the Ramseys,") are saying FOX acted maliciously in reporting there was no intruder evidence. The Constitution protects our rights to express our opinions without being harassed by ambulance chasers like Lin Wood, just because our opinions do not jive with the unproven propaganda of suspects in a murder case and their lawyers. Seems to me, FOX has a right to its opinion that there is no CREDIBLE evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey home the night of the murder. The Ramseys are saying they have been slandered because if there is no evidence of an intruder, that means that FOX is saying someone in the house did it. No duh. Has anyone sent FOX the link to this forum? Every answer they need, they will find here, thanks to EasyWriter and Tricia and others.