Bullsmit Alert

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by RiverRat, May 20, 2004.

  1. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Court TV - JonBenet - A Second Look.

    Now.

    RR
     
  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    This is enough to make one give up...or work harder to get the truth out. :viking:
     
  3. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    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.
     
  4. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member



    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.â€

    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.â€

    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.â€

    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.
     
  5. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    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.
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    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.â€

    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 “proveâ€
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2004
  7. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    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:
     
  8. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    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
     
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    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.
     
  10. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    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....â€

    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.â€
    (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....â€

    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?â€
    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
     
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    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.
     
  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