Evidence Vs Pretense

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by EasyWriter, Jun 3, 2004.

  1. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    My intended short stay, beginning in the year 2000, has turned
    into a four year plus marathon. There’s not much I can say that I
    haven’t said before; just change some wording a little. Be that
    as it may, it serves to let the Ramseys know that not all of us
    are taken in by the con.

    After over seven years, the Ramsey case is still officially
    unsolved. What is very disturbing about this is that from an
    evidence point of view, it hard to imagine a case more
    elementary. Many talk about the absence of a “smoking gun†when
    in truth, there is an entire arsenal. The problem is not the lack
    of evidence, or even a shortage of evidence. The problem is the
    scene is saturated with “investigatorsâ€, LE and otherwise, and
    theorists who apparently have no idea what evidence is.

    SCHILLER: It doesn't make a lot of sense and I'll get to why.
    Because, as it was said at the head of the show, there's a lot of
    evidence against the Ramseys and there's a lot of evidence to an
    intruder theory. (Dan Abrams show July 17, 2003,)

    Evidence of intruder AND evidence of Ramsey guilt? In a condition
    of either\or, how can there be evidence of both? Mr. SCHILLER is
    by no means the only one who proposes to follow the evidence
    without knowing what evidence is. Indeed, the failure to
    differentiate evidence from pretense is the “norm.†It is the
    singular reason why in over seven years and millions of dollars
    beyond the death of JonBenet Ramsey, there is nothing to show for
    it except fiscal waste and psychological carnage with no end in
    sight.

    This ignorance of evidence and subsequent pursuit of illusions
    did and does result in a protracted scene of chaotic rhetoric
    proposing the contradiction of coexistence of opposites in
    conjunction with the contradiction of evidence via the unknown.
    I am haunted by the impression that even if Mary Keenan had an
    unedited video of the whole crime scene just as it happened along
    with signed confessions, she would continue to waste taxpayer
    money chasing a mythical intruder.

    The following analysis proposes to zero in on just the core
    elements of the case from a perspective of actual evidence.
    Actual evidence presents a seamless theory inclusive of all known
    facts while rejecting as contradiction all ideas opposing. Let’s
    begin with the fact that the victim and all items KNOWN connected
    to the crime are localized to the Ramsey household. When this
    framework fact is integrated with other relevant facts, all
    evidentiary doubt is removed. Duly note, I said evidentiary
    doubt. Obviously, there are those who have and will continue to
    doubt Ramsey culpability on faith, not facts.

    Before you begin reading the immediately following, may I suggest
    listening to Patsy’s 911 call to form a physical, geographical
    and psychological (emotional) image of Patsy as she makes the
    call.

    CNN INTERVIEW SIX DAYS AFTER THE DEATH OF JONBENET
    THE “RANSOM NOTE†AND 911 CALL

    CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten
    note, three pages?
    RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing
    And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and
    I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. (CNN - An
    interview with John and Patricia Ramsey January 1, 1997}

    PATSY: I kind of turned around and looked at it to see what it
    was and I started reading the first couple of lines. It just
    wasn't registering but somewhere it said, 'we have your daughter'
    it clicked, you know, 'Your Daughter' and I just bounded back up
    the steps and threw her door open and she was not in her bed.
    (07-09-1998 Michael Tracy's "Who Killed JonBenét?" documentary
    airs in Britain.)

    PATSY: I turned around to start to see what it was and realized
    after I'd read the first couple of lines… (Friday, March 17 2000,
    BARBARA WALTERS, ABC NEWS)

    Patsy repeatedly stated that her knowledge of the note was
    limited to only the first few lines sufficient to discern that
    JonBenet had been kidnaped. She indicated that she was so upset
    she could not read further; that she went bounding off to look in
    JonBenet’s room and scream for John. Her story does not jell with
    the recorded facts of the 911 call:

    Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

    Patsy Ramsey: What?

    Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

    Patsy Ramsey: No. I don't know... it's there... there's a ransom
    note here.

    Boulder Police Dispatcher: It's a ransom note.

    Patsy Ramsey: It says SBTC... Victory... please.

    The question about who took her is answered in the first line of
    the note:

    “We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign
    faction.â€

    However, this answer at the beginning of the note is not the
    answer given to the 911 operator. Patsy gave the answer found at
    the end of the note. Without the note in hand, conversing
    frantically in immediate response to the 911 operator’s
    questions, she stated precisely, clearly and without hesitation
    the ending of said note inclusive of the letters of the acronym
    in the correct order.

    This obviously contradicts the projected idea of only a quick
    knowledge of the first few lines of the note by swift initial
    reading. This tells of a familiarity with the note far beyond the
    first few sentences. How did she know the ending IF her first
    look at the note was only the first few lines on the morning of
    Dec. 26, 1996? Having been caught in a horrendous contradiction
    (bald-faced lie), Patsy makes a desperate, but failing attempt at
    damage control.

    During a police interview on June 23, 1998, Patsy said:

    “Well, I read - I came back down and John had it, you know, on
    the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it, and somewhere
    I thought in there, because I didn’t read it line by line, I
    looked over to see who it was from, and I didn’t know who that
    was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said, ‘If you call
    some’ - ‘Don’t call the police,’ of - wherever it said that. Oh,
    here, ‘police, FBI, et cetera, ‘your daughter being held.’ And I
    read that and I mean, my blood just went cold. You know, I
    couldn’t-“

    In spastic, stammering, stuttering, lying, broken phrases, Patsy
    says she “looked over to see who it was fromâ€; apparently, an
    interest she didn’t have until after the 911 blunder. Also, in
    this rewrite of history, she did not state the end; only, “and I
    didn’t know who that was.†Perhaps, repeating the words which
    previously exposed her lie created something of a fear of them.

    The scene described is John on his hands and knees reading the
    note while Patsy is calling 911. As the story goes, while
    calling, Patsy divides her focus between her exchange with the
    911 operator and glancing over, under, or around John to peruse
    the note. This is her claim as to how she became initially aware
    of “SBTC, Victory.†Keep in mind that Patsy’s response was
    instant. She did not hesitate and tell the operator she would
    take a look. The time between the 911 operator’s question and
    Patsy’s immediate response leaves no evidentiary doubt that the
    answer, “SBTC, Victoryâ€, was already known to Patsy BEFORE she
    started the 911 call.

    To emphasize the absurdity of this claim as Patsy tries to lie
    out of the blunder, let’s take a real close look and see exactly
    what Patsy is asking us to believe.

    PR: He was just in his underwear and he, uh, took the note and I
    remember him being down hunched on the floor...with all three
    pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, “Call 911.â€
    (Police Files, pg. 63)

    PR. He, I remember him, while I was calling 911, he was hunched
    over the note and had it laid out there on the floor ‘cause there
    was a light. It was kind of darkish and there was a light,
    hallway light on...he was, you know, reading it there. (Ibid, pg
    69)

    TT: Okay, Where, where were you at when you called 911 ‘cause I
    know’s there’s....

    PR: Kitchen.

    TT: Okay. Is that a cordless phone?

    PR: No.

    TT: Just a, it’s a regular wall phone, right?

    PR: Right.

    TT: Okay. Okay. So you are in there making the 911 call. John’s
    out in the hallway reading the note um....

    PR: Well, I mean we were real (close), the phone’s right here and
    he was right there.

    TT: Right around the corner. Okay. (Ibid)

    Patsy neither confirmed not denied Trujillo’s remark about John
    being around the corner reading the note spread out on the floor.
    However, it is established that Patsy was in the kitchen making
    the 911 call from a wall phone while John was reading the note in
    the adjacent hallway that was “kind of darkish.†I assume from
    the wall phone setting, she was standing as she made the call.
    Her claim is that it was in this circumstance that she glanced at
    the note and learned of the ending.

    Giving benefit of doubt, let’s set aside the around the corner
    thing. John was “hunched†over the note in order to read it while
    Patsy is not only reading it from a standing position, but while
    making a frantic 911 call at the same time.

    The precise distance and angle or Patsy’s relationship to the
    note spread out on the floor is not given. However, there are
    option factors to be explored. Even if one did have the visual
    capability of reading the note from a standing position, (try it)
    there is a line of sight factor which much be considered as well.

    I envision a kitchen doorway into the hallway. Hallways, by
    definition, are usually narrow. This sets the high probability
    that John was positioned in correspondence with the length of the
    hallway as opposed to the width. If by strange chance, he was
    crossways of the hall, for someone else to read from the doorway
    or beyond would have been a lateral view determined by the
    proximity of John’s body to the note. At what distance must a
    person be standing from John to have a sufficient lateral view to
    see the three pages spread out under him? Is there any human
    being with the capacity to read any general size print at that
    distance and angle, let alone the printed note in a “darkishâ€
    hallway?

    If John was positioned lengthwise with the hallway with his rear
    toward Patsy, to read the note at all, she would have had to
    literally see through him. If he was facing her while hunched
    over the note, Patsy would have had to read from the standing
    distance, at an angle AND with the writing upside down; not to
    mention while carrying on a conversation with the 911 operator as
    well. The closer John was, the less of the note visible. The
    farther he was, the greater the distance and greater the angle of
    vision.

    Patsy’s story has more holes in it that a truckload of colanders.
    Print out a page with a standard font like Courier New, 12 point,
    with medium print and not bold. Place it on the floor directly
    under the highest luminosity you wish and try to read it from a
    standing position directly over it. If you can do this, ( I
    can’t) you have really exceptional eyesight. If you can read it
    at all, start backing off and mark the angle it all become a
    blur. Try the same thing with a print done with a marker where
    the letters tend to flow together much more than type.

    The long and short of it is, Patsy’ story of how she knew the
    ending of the note is not just doubtful, it is literally
    impossible. In plain English, Patsy flat out lied about how and
    when she knew the words at the end of the note. The fact ( proven
    above) is that the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, WAS NOT Patsy’s
    initial awareness of the note. What remains is the when, where
    and how Patsy knew of the note prior to the morning of Dec. 26,
    1996, therefore, knew of the ending prior to the 911 call.

    We have a convergence of many factors answering the question. The
    person who, via the note, admonished John to be rested for
    tomorrow certainly was aware of the note prior to the morning of
    Dec. 26, 1996. Not even the pretense of confusion about the date
    of tomorrow can erase or mitigate this fact. Who was that person
    so concerned about John’s welfare on the morrow? An intruder?

    Take a long hard look at what the Ramseys are asking you to
    believe. Start with the picture, their picture, of a vicious,
    cruel, sadistic intruder who kidnaps, binds, gags, then kills
    their daughter; a person who is so perverted and depraved he even
    commits genital assault with an object.

    The Ramseys ask you believe that this same person is
    compassionate and has their welfare at heart. Worse yet, this
    person does not express, nor imply any concern for the parents
    over the horrendous death of their daughter. Oh no, he is
    concerned only about John being well rested for the money
    delivery tomorrow. This mentality that the Ramsey would have you
    believe to be the psychology of the intruder\killer has never
    existed and can never exist at any time, nor in any place.

    KING: So you agree that whoever authored the ransom note probably
    killed the child?

    J. RAMSEY: I agree.

    P. RAMSEY: I would agree with that.

    How would you like to be in this position? Would you be a bit
    uneasy if staying out of prison depended on convincing a jury
    that the same person who kidnaped and murdered your daughter was
    concerned about you being well rested?

    What would it take to convince a jury that an intruder did not
    write the note? Really, not much. The content of the note makes
    its own argument against intruder authorship. If you were a
    juror, would you believe that an intruder would maim and murder a
    child, hold in mind and write in the note concern for the welfare
    of a parent in the task of delivering the ransom money? This
    horrendous conflict of attitude toward the parent(s) is so
    inconsistent, would any juror be able to envision such a
    mentality and such a psychology?

    The concern for tomorrow as an eminent ordeal is clearly stated
    in the note, but concern for the parents by an intruder does not
    mesh with the murder of their daughter by said intruder. Yet, we
    know, concern was in the mind of the note writer. The concern is
    genuine. What then is the genuine source of the genuine concern?

    The natural law of self interest once again answers the question.
    The concern about tomorrow, first in the mind of the note writer,
    then written into the note, was concern FOR THE PERSONS BY THE
    PERSONS who would undergo the certain ordeal of “tomorrow.†Who
    are those persons? For sure, it was not a non existent intruder.

    An intruder fits neither the psychological scene, nor the
    physical. Patsy’s knowledge of the ending of the note did not
    come about by the physically impossible circumstance of
    simultaneously reading the note on the floor while making the 911
    call. Her knowledge of the ending of the note came from writing
    it. The 911 call slip up was not needed to know this truth, but
    in conjunction with the concern element, it closes this chapter
    with finality.


    MORE ON THE RANSOM NOTE

    The choice to demand $118,000 is of much significance since it is
    more than a bit unusual and narrows the field of potential
    authors. The odds against selection of this amount by random
    choice is astronomical. If you asked a billion individuals to
    name a ransom amount, it is highly unlikely that even one other
    than the note writer would come up with this number. The choice
    and presence of this demand number tells that said number was
    impressed upon the mind of the writer by some previous
    experience.

    Once the mind\amount relationship has been established, the
    primary search is locating persons connected to that number in
    some manner. The field is further narrowed by the element of
    ability and opportunity. As it turns out, the number coincides
    with a bonus amount received by John Ramsey. Ruling out Burke for
    many reasons, what remains is John or Patsy Ramsey, or both’ as
    author of the note. Ergo, at this juncture, we have the material
    evidence connected to the Ramseys with no evidence to sever said
    physical connection in conjunction with a connection to the
    intellectual, numerical evidence by virtue of previous awareness
    of said amount.

    (Here and elsewhere, I am willing to consider any alleged
    exonerating evidence, but unless and until, the proponent of
    alleged evidence of an intruder can establish by some strange
    calculus the “unknown†as evidence, and\or connect an item
    apparently incidental to the actual crime, please don’t waste my
    time.)

    Among the many telling oddities in the note is:

    “I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on
    delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be
    rested.â€

    Obviously the admonition to be rested for tomorrow assumes that
    John will see the note BEFORE tomorrow. How this is to come about
    is not explained in the note. It is explained above. However,
    since John and Patsy have brought this up many times, let’s deal
    with it once and for all.

    To try to circumvent this sticky wicket of “tomorrow,†John
    later claimed there was confusion as to whether tomorrow meant
    the 26th or the 27th. I can find no evidence that John, the
    police, nor anyone else expressed any doubt on the 26th that
    tomorrow in the note meant the 26th. The alleged confusion over
    the date is nothing more than a convenient rewrite of history
    done in self-contradiction. Contradiction is a familiar theme in
    the Ramsey “defense.â€

    During the CNN interview six days after the death of JonBenet,
    John said:

    RAMSEY, J: Well, we'd waited until after the time that the call
    was supposed to have been made to us, and one of the detectives
    asked me and my friend who was there to go through every inch of
    the house to see if there was anything unusual or abnormal that
    looked out of place.

    I see no mention of any confusion about tomorrow. “after the time
    the call was supposed to have been made...†This refers to the
    date, Dec. 26, 1996.

    “On December 25th, my daughter, JonBenet, was brutally murdered
    by an intruder who came into our home while we slept.†(John
    Ramsey's Statement, Press release, July 23, 1997) There is more:

    JR: I think she was killed that night, versus in the morning.

    LS: What makes you think that?

    JR: Well, the note talked about, “I’m going to call you
    tomorrow.â€

    Close this chapter as well. Let’s now look at other evidence.

    THE “GARROTE SCENEâ€

    For many reasons, many persons suspected that the ransom note was
    bogus. Bogus, by definition, means attempt to hide the truth. If
    bogus, the terminology is staged crime scene. This initial
    suspicion prompted by the note set the tone and direction for
    examining the rest of the crime scene. It was fair warning to
    question the face value of any and all evidence. The warning was
    ignored and predictable disaster followed; a seven year plague as
    it were.

    Fingerprint technicians and handwriting “experts†were much on
    the scene examining evidence looking for clues to the identity of
    the perpetrator, or perpetrators. Within the crime scene
    framework was the body found on the premises and the “garrote
    scene.†This evidence was assumed to be the handiwork of the
    perpetrator(s), a direct physical connection. This was a critical
    piece of evidence warranting focused and detailed examination
    from every angle. Yet, since LE did not have a resident expert on
    knots, ropes and handles, this pivotal evidence was, in effect,
    ignored; and is still being ignored.

    If I were to put the attitude into words, it would go something
    like this. “Police academies and detective schools do not teach a
    course in knots, cords and handles; therefore, we have no one
    capable of an accurate analysis of the ‘garrote scene.’ Given
    this circumstance, we shall disregard the ‘garrote scene’ as
    critical evidence and let the RST make of it whatever they wish.â€

    Make of it whatever they wished is exactly what they did. This is
    the main means by which they established a mythical, but much
    believed, intruder.

    PATSY RAMSEY: First of all we know from the evidence that this
    was a premeditated murder. The way in which she… died. The
    garrote that was around her neck. (Barbara Walters, March 17,
    2000)

    J. RAMSEY: And this garrote will be a clue. This was not an
    amateur device. This was a professional strangling tool. Somebody
    knows who did that.....The garrote is such a key clue. This was a
    complex... (LKL, March 27, 2000)

    Professional garrote became a mantra for the RST; eventually,
    winding up influencing a federal court decision. The “garrote
    sceneâ€, the most truth-revealing evidence in the whole crime
    scene, was held by LE in so little regard, no one even observed
    the contradiction and asked the obvious question:

    How in the hell is John Ramsey, Lou Smit, or anyone else
    qualified to evaluate the “garrote scene†as professional unless
    they have the experience and know how to differentiate
    professional from amateur. Obviously, if John had such knowledge,
    he would be capable of constructing a professional garrote scene,
    therefore, would not be exonerated by it.

    This elementary bit of logic was ignored no less than the
    “garrote scene†itself allowing the Ramseys and the whole RST to
    promote the “professional garrote scene†to the max, including
    photos of knots on the Internet with pretense of professional
    complexity. This became “THE EVIDENCE†that connected to an
    intruder. If you doubt this, set the premise, amateur “garrote
    scene†and ask the Ramseys and Lou Smit to present their intruder
    theory from this position of actual evidence.

    What has been and is really distressing is watching many aid and
    abet the Ramseys even as they propose to oppose. Nearly all
    bought into the “professional†con including most of those who
    believe the Ramseys are guilty. Articles and posts one after the
    other go on and on about Burke’s Boy Scout Handbook of knots
    and\or how John surely learned knots in the Navy. There is
    nothing in either the Boy Scout Handbook, nor any Navy manual
    which even remotely resembles anything found at the crime scene.

    Trying to establish Ramsey expertise in knots and nooses has no
    positive function unless the “garrote scene†is professional,
    that is, efficient in materials, construction and application. I
    assure you and stand ready to prove in court, the “garrote sceneâ€
    is flawed in every respect. The severely flawed “garrote sceneâ€
    dictates that in trying to identify the creator of said scene,
    look for someone who DOES NOT KNOW about cords and knots, not
    someone who does.

    I know this area quite well from a lifetime of experience and I
    could not have consciously created such a screwed up, inept mess
    if I consciously tried. If I attempted to dumb down, I would have
    never thought of TYING the cord around the neck. Setting a
    strangulation by noose scene by TYING the cord around the neck
    rather than making a noose and putting over the head? This is
    beyond weird. It shows a mind in near total ignorance of
    materials, construction and function, and a mind in total
    disarray.

    Like the man said, “Every action presupposes the intent to gain
    or protect.†There is no better reference than this natural law
    of self interest. This prompts the question of who, how and what
    is to be gained and\or protected by a staged crime scene?

    Even if you don’t understand the “garrote sceneâ€, consider as a
    hypothesis that it’s amateurish to the max. What would an
    amateurish intruder hope to gain by scrounging materials on the
    premises, and use those materials in a manner in which he
    obviously knew nothing about. If he is long gone, what need would
    he have for this? If caught, how is the inept “garrote sceneâ€
    going to be of benefit?

    How could it benefit? Benefit whom? If you buy the “garrote
    scene†as “professional†leading to the conclusion of deliberate
    murder by strangulation, the finger points outward. Who wants the
    finger to point outward? Rhetorical question, of course. If you
    recognize the truth, i.e. the fact of ad hoc amateurism with
    material at hand, then ask the question how could it benefit and
    whom, the finger points inward. Who is it that doesn’t want this
    to happen? Who stands to gain or protect by outward pointing?

    What does the amateurish pretense of death by strangulation tell
    you? Why would anyone so ignorant of knots, cords, nooses and
    handles even consider creating such a scene? A desperate need to
    hide the truth, of course. What truth? What’s to hide as cause of
    death? The head trauma, what else? Why try to hide it? Easy
    answer: The truth does not bode well for the person or persons
    involved in the fatal, or near fatal, head trauma? Where does an
    intruder fit in all this? Nowhere? Who does? The Ramseys, of
    course. (The details by which the “garrote scene†is evaluated as
    severely flawed and grossly amateurish can be found at the
    website of ACR; also considerable detail in my letter to Keenan.)

    The professional garrote bit was designed not only to establish
    an intruder, it functioned in correlation to support the
    preferred theory in regard to cause of death.

    J. RAMSEY: Would you allow me to answer the question please,
    Steve?

    J. Ramsey: We have had some of the world's best forensics experts
    look at evidence. They have told us that JonBenet was strangled
    to death. The last act that this creature did to our daughter was
    a vicious blow to the head. That is irrefutable. (LKL, May 31,
    2000)

    The first forensic expert was the coroner, Dr. Meyer.

    “ Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by
    strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.â€

    Obviously, Dr. Meyer was not as sure as John since he named
    associative causes implying the inability to isolate either one
    as THE cause. Who these other “forensics experts†are and how
    they determined strangulation solely as cause John does not say.

    John says, “The last act that this creature did to our daughter
    was a vicious blow to the head. That is irrefutable.â€

    Since he refutes his own “irrefutableâ€, I won’t even ask about
    the alleged irrefutable evidence.

    JR: I didn’t know she had any head injury at all - I just didn’t
    see....

    LS: You had no knowledge?

    JR: I don’t know. I just, that’s something that been difficult
    for me to think about it, is what exactly happened.

    LS: And where?

    JR: And where.

    LS: Do you think that the head injury occurred at the same place
    as the other injuries, say with the ligature?

    JR: I mean, it’s no reason to know that. I mean, I guess - well,
    like I say, I just - that’s very difficult to think about and
    imagine, but I wondered if the head injury didn’t kill her and
    after that they strangled her. (Police interrogation, June 24,
    1998)

    In part one, John says that she was hit over the head last. He
    says there is irrefutable evidence of this. In part two, he
    wonders is she were already dead from the head trauma when the
    cord was put around her neck. Part one fits the intruder theory.
    Part two fits a fatal (or near fatal) head injury with the
    amateurish “garrote scene†set up to deny part two.

    Why John tries to go both ways is already covered in my letter to
    Keenan, so won’t be repeated here. However, John’s concession to
    the head injury as a primary correlates with all the other
    evidence of a staged crime scene.

    Let’s look at this item a bit more:

    J. RAMSEY: And this garrote will be a clue. This was not an
    amateur device. This was a professional strangling tool.

    John can’t know it is professionally efficient because it isn’t.
    John knows he has no expertise in the cord, knot, noose area, so
    knows he cannot determine professional. Nevertheless, he lies and
    pretends when he calls it professional. In doing so, he reveals a
    fear of recognition of the evidence as it actually is, i.e.,
    amateurish. The evidence as is would not concern him unless
    evidence as is points toward him (and Patsy).

    As always, a lie is intended to hide the truth. What truth? John
    tells us:

    “professional strangling tool.†It is neither professional, nor a
    strangling tool. He lies again when he contradicts the autopsy
    report and claims strangulation as singular cause of death.
    Again, we see the fear of evidence as it actually is; namely, the
    evidence of the head trauma which John’s lies try to dismiss.

    Since staging, by definition, is for the purpose of hiding the
    truth about an antecedent happening, once the staging is
    recognized as staging, it establishes the skull fracture as the
    primary event. Obviously, the truth the staging was designed to
    hide is something that the Ramseys don’t want known. Too bad.
    They have already told us by their many lies in conflict with the
    evidence.

    Another chapter closed.

    THE INS AND OUTS OF THE PHANTOM INTRUDER

    Of all the oddities in the case indicating a mind or minds not
    much in touch with reality, it is not surprising to find that in
    all the panic and fear involved in staging a crime scene, they
    plum forgot to stage an entrance and exit for an
    intruder\perpetrator. This created quite a problem when the
    intruder idea finally surfaced; mostly, by the inane and insane
    prattle of one Lou Smit.

    JR: When I went down and looked around the house that morning,
    and I think I’d made the statement...that all the doors were
    locked and I had checked, I believe every door on the first
    floor. And they were - appeared to be locked. (Police
    interrogation, April 30, 1997)

    Having locked himself out of the claim of someone breaking and
    entering through a door, he locked himself into a box that
    required another means of entry and exit. As I said, the problem
    was and is, he made no preparations.

    JR: My theory is that someone came in through the basement
    window. (Ibid)

    The window of which he speaks is a basement window in the train
    room; a broken window which John says he personally broke some
    time before. Furthermore, he had already committed to the claim
    that he was in the basement between seven and nine that morning,
    went into the train room, found the window open an inch or two,
    and closed it. So, John himself set the crime scene as window
    just open an inch or two. Alas, there are more problems. Coming
    from upstairs and entering the train room, one must come down
    some steps and go through a door. The wicket got really sticky
    when a crime scene photograph turns up showing a chair sitting
    against the stairs side of the door.


    It was not necessary to go through this door to put the body
    where it was found, nor is there any evidence that anyone did in
    the relevant time frame. For all the talk about the window,
    that’s all there ever was, talk, talk, and more talk. The window
    was never part of an intruder entering, nor any part of the
    staging. Staging would not have left the window closed but for
    an inch or so, nor the chair against the door blocking access to
    the window area. This circumstance does not evidence traffic, but
    the situation of non traffic. In short, staging here would have
    been the opposite of what was found.

    The incidental window came into prominence only by the
    aberrations of Lou Smit as did other “evidence of an intruderâ€
    such as the stun gun, vicious pedophile, sex games, and
    “professional garrote.†He carried the window lie to the extreme
    when he went on national tv and pretended a wide open basement
    window was part of the crime scene; this, after he had been
    informed otherwise by John’s own declaration along with photos
    and other evidence. He many never be charged with falsifying
    evidence, but he certainly is a fugitive from the truth. While
    masquerading as detective, whenever and wherever he came in
    contact with actual evidence revealing the utter nonsense of his
    intruder theory, Smit just turned away from it and pretended it
    didn’t exist.

    Lou Smit: "So you think that the chair would block the door and
    nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?"

    John Ramsey: "Correct"

    Lou Smit: "In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into
    the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?"

    John Ramsey: "Uh huh."

    Lou Smit: "How in effect would he get that chair to block that
    door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"

    John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door
    is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."

    Lou Smit: "So you couldn't have gotten in without moving the
    chair?"

    John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."

    Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is,
    if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull
    the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit...
    so that's not very logical as far as......"

    John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that
    bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all
    these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to
    pull the chair back when they left." (Police Interrogation, June
    24, 1998)

    Clue to what or why, John does not say, and idiot Smit just let’s
    it all ride without any more questions when John ran out of
    answers. After all, John is a good Christian and Smit takes his
    word for innocence and is not about to let evidence disturb this
    “holy exoneration.â€

    To the absurdities, the Ramsey would have you believe, let’s add
    one more. In the “Gospel According to Johnâ€, the intruder, upon
    exiting the stair side of the basement, reaches around the door
    as he closes it and pulls the chair back against it, or as close
    as he can get it. He then exits via the window in the train room,
    stops, turns back, reaches back through the break to crank the
    window closed all but an inch or so.

    John calls all this “funny cluesâ€. I call it the end of the road.
    He says pulling the chair back was clever. How so and for what
    reason, he does not say. However, as he often does, John tells
    the truth even as he tries to lie: “this person.... not left any
    good evidence.†Absent a distinction between “good evidence†and
    “bad evidenceâ€, I look at it as evidence is evidence and that’s
    all there is to it. Hence, the word, good, is superfluous,
    meaning that “this person†left NO EVIDENCE. Mental inventions
    never do.

    The foregoing deals with only a few items of mainline evidence. I
    did not mention the pineapple, fibers, suspect behavior, ad
    infinitum evidence all correlating with and supporting the same
    conclusion dictated by the highly visible evidence addressed.
    Just these mainline items are more than adequate to leave no
    evidentiary doubt there was no intruder.

    When the actual evidence is put together and pretense put aside,
    the elementary is even more so. A confrontation resulting in a
    fatal, or near fatal head injury, was followed by an attempt to
    hide the truth by a staged crime scene; a very poorly staged
    crime scene. Duly note that in regard to every item of evidence
    leading to this conclusion, the Ramseys have been caught lying
    time and time again. Some major ones have been exposed in this
    analysis. There are many more.

    The pomp, pageantry and pretense of nothing to hide by running
    for public office may fool the (case) uneducated and gullible,
    but none who know the facts. Politics and propaganda may
    temporarily forestall wide exposure of the truth, but no number
    of public appearances and posturing by John and Patsy Ramsey will
    ever make it go away.

    During one of the Ramseys appearances on LKL, John Ramsey
    requested:

    J. RAMSEY: Tell me one tangible piece of evidence that's
    presentable in a court of law that says that one of us...

    My answer to John: Start with the above, then expect more
    creating a total evidence package that neither you nor a thousand
    lawyers can handle. Have a nice day.
     
  2. Aurora

    Aurora Member

    WOW~ Easy Writer~

    You are brilliant!!! The lies they tell will be their downfall...remember the truth never changes. I noted in the part where John is talking about the cause of death.... Quote: Jr: I mean, it's no reason to know that. I mean, I guess-well, like I say.. I just.....that's very difficult to think about and imagine but I wondered if the head injury didn't killer her and AFTER that THEY strangled her. Police interrogation..June 24th 1998

    Ok...my take on this is....he is telling the truth. He did think she was dead after the head blow....before THEY (him and Patsy) strangled her.
     
  3. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Right. So can you imagine the shock to John and Patsy when the autopsy report came back and listed strangulation as anassociative cause of death?

    Notice that he had to contradict his intruder theory to get the head trauma first to try to get away from the strangulation element. This means a very strong desire to believe she was dead before the cord was tied around her neck. Why would this concern him so much UNLESS........
     
  4. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    EasyWriter.....

    Your analysis of some of the most important basic evidence in the Ramsey case makes perfect sense and is altogether very compeling....Oh that you were on the grand jury!

    I had forgotten John's statement that the intruder left all of these funny little clues lying around.....I too, think that, taken together, these "funny little clues" point a very sure and strong finger at the involvement of the residents of the Ramsey home....They certainly do not point a finger at an outside intruder....

    I would be interested, EasyWriter, in having you start a thread on what the intruder would have to be like in order to have committed this crime.....I am sure that each of us here could add a few essential items to the list of mental/psychological/physical traits and of necessary qualities that would comprise this sort of criminal who has been asserted by the Ramsey/Smit/RST group.....

    I would hope that the information concerning the basic evidence in your post above will be put to good use by sending it to Governor Owens legal council, maybe she would know what to do with it....surely Keenan and her detectives have shown that they do not....

    Voyager
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I can make this work either way.

    If the theory that Patsy lost it and fractured JBR's skull in a fit of rage were true, then it would make sense that they tried to stage the crime scene to point away from that cause of death and make it look like a sex crime committed by a perverted intruder.

    However, if the theory that Wecht provides - that someone was sexually abusing JBR in a game of erotic strangulation and the vagus nerve was compressed and her heart didn't get the signal to beat, then perhaps she was making agonal death sounds that prompted someone to "put her out of her misery," by bashing her hard over the head, or simply to shut her up forever, because how would anyone ever explain this unintended death except by manufacturing an intruder?

    I read recently, maybe it was in Cyril Wecht's book, that JB was strangled twice. I'm going to have to check that out, because that could explain the sexual molestation/erotic strangulation thing - strangulation first with a softer material - maybe a scarf or something - and then the harder strangulation with the rope (for lack of better terminology, because I can't call that shoe-string sized thing around her neck a "rope.") for staging purposes.

    I think the two injuries occurred very close together.
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Hi, WY,

    Wecht's theory is just one of hundreds or thousands out there predicated on not what the "garrote scene " is, but what they imagine it to be, hence, are in gross error.

    I can physically demonstrate this in a few minutes, but it will take quite a few words to explain it with clarity. The question is, do you have that much interest? If so, I will be happy to elaborate. If not, I won't waste time and bandwith. Your call. Either way is fine with me.
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    As per usual, EasyWriter, your analysis are excellent. They were a great refresher course for me. Sincerely hope the Michigan voters read them, and find out more about John and Patsy Ramsey before they put a check against John's name.

    Wishing you all the best and hoping someone in LE, FBI and the whole shebang of U.S. Intelligence reads your analysis.
     
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    EasyWriter, yes, I would like to read it.

    My only thought that if someone were playing an adult sex game on a six year old using a scarf or other soft object, I can see them trying to rig the garotte to make it appear to be something it wasn't and to try to cover their own tracks. I know that so called garotte was basically inoperable for the purpose the stager intended it to have, because of its structure.
     
  9. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  10. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Hi, WY,

    What I posted from a previous post of “Hobey 86" is a well done
    fill in of elements I have left out for sake of brevity in my
    initial analysis. As you notice, Hobey 86 emphasizes the need of
    certain factors for effect, meaning, function and control.

    Direct experience is a great teacher. Observation also is very
    good. However, when neither is readily available, we are obliged
    to deal with envisioning from descriptive words. I will try to
    make the description as clear as possible. However, if you wish
    to try a direct application of what I describe, the reality of
    the situation will become better impressed.

    Since reality is discerned by contrast, this is the approach I
    will use. Let’s begin with setting up a kidnap, bound and gag
    scene; especially, the binding part.

    The first part is to bind the wrists. Imagine a coerced victim
    standing in front of you with outstretched arms and hands. Have
    the hands put as close together as possible with palms meeting.
    Take a cord and wrap around both wrists a couple of times. Now
    bring one end of the cord down between the arms on the elbow side
    of the wrap. Bring the other end of the cord down between on the
    hands side of the wrap. From underneath, cross the ends, then
    bring them back up the previous routes. Take the ends, fold right
    over left (or vise versa) and pull hard. This compresses the cord
    between the wrists creating a very effective set of cord
    handcuffs. Repeat the right over left again and pull hard. This
    is a hard knot lock down. For real assurance, repeat this
    underneath where the victim cannot get at the knots with teeth.

    Now for contrast:

    “A brief examination of the body disclosed a ligature around the
    neck and a ligature around the right wrist. (At house)

    Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the
    shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which
    measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail
    of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double
    loop knot. This end of the cord is also frayed.†(From autopsy
    report)

    The first thing that jumps out is cord only around one wrist.
    The other came off telling of an extremely poor tying job. The
    second and third nonsense parts are tied over clothing and
    singular wrist ties allowing several inches of separation of the
    wrists.

    For sake of argument, suppose there was a reason for tying the
    wrists separately. How is this done effectively? Side view: Run
    the end of the cord away from you and under the wrist. Reach over
    and being it back to the top of the wrist. Near the top of the
    wrist, catch the cord between thumb and finder. As you hold this,
    take the other hand and run the end of the cord under the route
    of the cord initially going under the wrist. Now bring the end of
    the cord back up to where you are holding it with thumb and
    finger. Bring the end over this part of the cord, then back
    through the loop it makes. Pull hard. This slides the cord to the
    wrist and tightens. Repeat the over and under again an pull hard.
    This is a stacked slip knot with as many turns put on as you
    like. There are additional locks is you so desire, but usually
    not necessary.

    Anyway, I hope you see the contrast between wrists binding done
    correctly and effectively in contrast to the inept mess found at
    the crime scene. Without any limit in imagination or limit in
    lying, Lou Smit called the mess a sophisticated, special sexual
    bondage set up.

    The messed up wrist tie situation tells me loud and clear that
    this person, who cannot even tie a simple knot around a wrist is
    really lost. So, it was no surprise to find the same deficiencies
    and absurdities in the “garrote scene.†From the absurdities, not
    recognized as absurdities, have come many theories of “twisting
    stickâ€, “forceful strangulation†“sexual bondage gameâ€, and who
    knows what all. NONE of these theories are even remotely tied to
    the actual evidence. Indeed, the actual evidence dismisses
    literally every one of them as false.

    As Hobey 86 emphasized, a must is controlling the size of the
    loop via materials and design amenable to quick pressure and
    quick release. If the end small loop is of a design that allows
    it to slip down and compress on the rope, it severely restricts
    the needed movement. With this kind of set up, the rodeo would be
    over before the cowboy shook out his lasso. Ergo, for a quick
    size-change size function, a small FIXED SIZE loop is always a
    must in any noose situation from a hangman’s noose to calf
    roping.

    Strangulation tool? Garrote? Best? One to two feet of piano wire
    with handle on each end. From behind the victim, take the right
    hand and grasp the left handle, then left hand grasping the right
    side handle. This put the wrists in a crossed position and makes
    a loop out of the wire. Flip noose over head, down on neck and
    pull parallel with the back of the neck.

    If you are so foolish as to try to strangle someone with a noose
    made of cord, how would one go about it? First, you make the
    noose. This means a fixed small loop on the end for the other
    part of the cord to run through creating the noose. With cord,
    the simplest way to make the needed small loop is this: At one
    end, double the cord down four or five inches. Take the double
    portion, fold it over itself, through the created space and pull.
    In short, create a simple knot in a doubled cord at a space down
    to create a small fixed size loop.

    Let’s suppose your intended victim is lying face down. You put
    the noose over the head and down around the throat, then pull.
    What is going to happen? The force is going to lift the head and
    body. Even thought the noose compresses a little, most of the
    pressure on the front as the back of the noose is pulled away
    from the neck. In short, there is not anything close to
    circumferential pressure. The attempted strangulation is not
    going well at all. Now what? Do you try to hold the small loop
    area, grip and push here as you pull trying to tighten the noose.
    What about the handle? Efficiency is a few inches away and with a
    single turn for ease of straddling. Even if you have this, you
    have a very poor killing tool. You’re more likely to make your
    intended victim angry rather than dispatching him.

    As poor as the set up described is, the actual “garrote scene†is
    much worse. This person who didn’t have a clue as to how to bind
    wrist has no more knowledge about loops and nooses. The person
    did not even make a fixed small loop at the end, then make a
    noose and put it over the head and on the throat. This person
    TIED the cord around the neck as evidenced by the hair entwined
    in the knot. The evidence shows absence of elementary fixed loop
    along with the compulsion to “tie tightly.†How was this done?
    What is the significance of it?

    Imagine if you will sitting and facing the end of a rolled up
    rug. You have a cord several feet long. Assuming you’re right
    handed, from the left side, put the cord under the rug. Pull it
    through sufficiently that it will come all the way around. With
    the left hand, take hold of the cord close to the rug. Take the
    cord coming from the other side and pass it over and back under
    the cord part you are holding with your left hand. Notice this
    creates a “U†space between the cord going over and then coming
    back. Take the end of the bottom cord, pass it under and back
    over the top cord, then through the “U†circle space. Pull with
    both left and right hand. Repeat a loop over or two if you like.
    The photo show more than one turn, but the above gives you the
    structure and physics of the actual scene.

    Keeping in mind that no noose was made and put over the head;
    that tie around was the operation, back up a cog and think about
    a specific element. In the process of trying to tie close and
    tight, when you pulled both ends of the cord, what happened?
    First, this compressed the non fixed small “loop†upon the cord
    to restrict or prohibit any noose movement of tightening or
    loosening. Also, almost all the force exerted was dissipated at
    the knot area with only minor and accidental pressure exerted
    around the neck.

    If per chance, you tried all this with a rolled up rug, did you
    notice that the cord moved around a bit in the struggle to tie
    tight? Did you also notice that when you released the tie, the
    pressure tended to equalize around the rug? If you were to drive
    a cone shaped object into the center of the rug, the outward
    expansion would be close to equal over the entire circumference.
    Note, I said close. Variable minor contours creates a variation
    in pressure.

    In an event, given the nature of the small, flat and twisted
    cord, when the knot (as it were) was pulled tightly, it was not
    likely to move as would a large, round rope in the same design.
    With this lock, when hands were removed, the pressure tended to
    equalize around the throat. After death swelling created the
    circumferential embedding, not some imagined strangling pressure.
    For years, the photo of the cord embedded in the neck has floated
    around with the declaration that the embedding was done by the
    force applied to the handle of the “garrote†by a vicious
    pedophile assassin. Pure bunk. As explained above, this would be
    literally impossible with the “garrote scene†silly set up.

    The facts and physics explained above tells the truth of the
    matter. The idea of “sophisticated strangling toolâ€, or part of a
    sexual bondage thing is ludicrous. The scenario the facts tell
    is just as I have said many times: Accidental fatal, or near
    fatal, head trauma, followed by an amateurish attempt at cover
    up. That’s all there is to it.

    WY, I hope this helps to clear thing up and show that all the
    “sophistication†and “sex theories†ideas are nothing but
    nonsense coming from persons who have no idea of what they are
    talking about. Of course, if you have an questions, fire away.
     
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    EasyWriter, I am printing this thread out and I'm going to read it thoroughly later when I can sit and concentrate. I read your post through just now and I understand what you are saying, but I want a more thorough understanding. My imagination is sufficient - I don't need to act these things out.

    There is one thing Wecht said that fits in with this - he said there was no underlying damage inside the neck as there should have been if someone had violently tightened, with a man's or woman's strength, that cord around her neck. Swelling adequately accounts for the "embedding" of the cord in the neck. I have seen pictures of necks that really were strangled using wire - they had internal damage to the neck, and the wire was truly embedded in the neck.

    Thanks for this. I may have some questions later.
     
  12. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    You're welcome, and so are questions - from anyone. The more questions asked and answered, the better the understanding of the "garrote scene" and less Ramsey-serving fallacies spread about.
     
  13. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Delmar

    Re the time of the headblow.

    Some time ago, jameson posted about there being bruising on the temporal lobes (from the autopsy). She interpreted this as meaning that JBR's temples were bruised and that this was indicative of the murderer holding her face to look at her and doing so with a force that left bruises.

    Dave replied with a couple of lengthy posts which suggested that bruising to the temporal lobes could have occured hours or even days earlier.

    http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1581&forum=DCForumID101

    What is your take on this?
     
  14. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    The autopsy report speaks of several abrasions of unknown cause.
    I could speculate about this, but speculation is all that it
    would be. There is nothing wrong with speculation per se. What
    JamNut and the RST refuse to grasp is that by virtue of the
    natural law of non contradiction as regards truth, all valid
    speculation is within the parameters set by the known facts.
    Ergo, I can say not as speculation, but with absolute,
    evidentiary certainty, neither the temporal abrasions, nor any
    other were made by a non existent intruder\murderer.
     
  15. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    I believe that Jonbenet was strangled to shut her up. I think she was mouthing off, and Patsy got angry and tried to shut her up first by covering her mouth--and Jonbenet fought back and the whole thing just escalated. strangling a person is very difficult despite what you see on TV (I've read several accounts from notorious serial killers that they were unable to kill women by strangling them manually--it was exhausting and took too long), and I think as Patsy's rage increased she tried an alternative way to strangle JBR. Struggling kids can get sweaty and are likewise hard to hold on to so getting him or her to shut up could easily spin out of control.
     
  16. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    EW, you know I love you and never tire of your analyses, even if they are restated. I always find some new factoid to ponder which opens vast doors of probability for me. Your work over the last 3 1/2 years is greatly coveted, appreciated and respected. I would cherish your opinion on the following as well.

    Several years ago, at the old Justice Watch forum, I posted a rather lengthy post after a years' long study of serial killings around the country that employed a ligature device similar to the Ramsey case. I posted some links (which are lost to me at this point) of pics that clearly showed the ligature devices used in those cases that were fashioned not for garotting or any means of strangulation, but simply as an anchoring/restraint/control device, a "truss" of sorts if you will. The victims were trussed up very similar to JB and anchored to beds, headboards, radiators and the like to facilitate sexual assaults then executions of the victims. Some of the victims were male, some were female, but all were left bound post-mortem by the perps. Whether the perp's intent was homicide differs between these cases. My research at the time discovered that this trussing up of victims/partners was a favorite behavior in predominantly gay sexual activities, especially in the UK, and that some of the homicides were accidental and secondary to homosexual activities. Other cases were intentional homicides following sexual assaults by unknown assailants.

    It would seem to me that this trussing behavior is consistent with S&M practices as well. And I find it very hard to believe that a 9 year old boy would have sufficient knowledge of hardcore S&M or homosexual conduct to re-enact it with his sister.

    All of the cases I studied indicated that all victims, whether intentional assault/homicide or accidental, were fully conscious at the time they were placed in the truss devices, and all had very obvious and numerous defensive wounds. Some of those wounds included major rope burns at the wrists, ankles and necks, some had scratch and claw marks, others self-strangulated by over-straining either in a fight against the restraints or in response to violent sexual assaults. Most of the victims had already passed out or self-strangulated by the time they were then stabbed or bludgeoned. None of the cases studied included such activities having been performed on a dead or comatose body.

    Now I am in no way an intruder theorist, but have long had a gut feeling that some adult male Ramsey was sexually performing with JB. Could the suffocation have occurred as the first injury, with the head injury second and a staging of a strangulation occurring in very close proximity to each other thereafter? Could the ligature device found on the body actually have no participation whatsoever in the suffocation?

    Also, WY, in actual strangulations, whether manual or mechanical, the hyoid bone and other cartilage in the throat, as well as the throat muscles themselves, are most often damaged, broken with considerable hemorrhaging in the larynx and other obvious damage from the force of strangulation. Meyers' autopsy findings clearly indicate that no internal damage to any of the laryngeal structures had occurred. I agree that the external tissue swelling embedding the "rope" probably occurred at, near or shortly after death.

    http://www.free-definition.com/Asphyxia.html

    "Asphyxia is a condition of severe lack of oxygen supplied to the body. In the absence of remedial action it will very rapidly lead to unconsciousness and death. Asphyxia is the same as suffocation and anoxia. Asphyxiation is the act of causing asphyxia, usually by suffocation.

    Causes of asphyxia can include:

    *Crushing or constriction of the chest or abdomen.
    *Choking.
    *Drowning.
    *Strangulation, or external constriction of the neck or throat, e.g. by a human and/or mechanical device.
    *Reduction of the airways due to anaphylaxis or asthma.
    *Inhalation of vomit.
    *Positional asphyxia.
    *Autoerotic asphyxiation.
    *A seizure which stops breathing activity.
    *Problems during birth can lead to the newborn experiencing asphyxia.

    Prolonged asphyxia can result in brain damage even when it does not cause death."

    If my understanding of this evidence is correct, it would seem to me that this was an accidental suffocation, not an intentional strangulation, by externally cutting off air/breathing, and therefore, no major internal or external tissue/organ damage would occur in accidental strangulation. And no, I do not believe this was an act of autoerotic asphyxiation. The very term implies SELF-administered and JB wasn't of sufficient age, reason and experience for such a thing! But nevertheless, accidental suffocation is more probable based on known evidence than any intentional strangulation IMO. And Meyer's official cause of death does opine ASPHYXIATION or lack of air, secondary to strangulation, that was lacking in force sufficient to rise to any level of intent and producing no internal damage.

    The lack of physical damage related to the ligature would also indicate to me that JB did not struggle against this activity. She had either passed out from lack of air or was already unconscious or comatose at the time this injury occurred.

    As to the abrasions on JB's temporal lobes, and any other conjecture by Jameson, I can only refer to Misty's autopsy report analysis, and of course, Delmar's. What the actual cause of these abrasions were we don't know, but I have always held them as some superficial wounds if the body was stuffed into a suitcase or other container too small. There is also the possibility I've considered that JB fell or was pushed down uncarpeted stairs, or dragged by the ligature across say a basement floor, that could also cause these injuries. I vaguely recall something in one of the early search warrants that surrounded a crawl space in the Ramsey home, and of course, forum discussion on the subject, so IF the body had been pushed or dragged into a small crawl space, or left to rest for a long period of time while livor mortis was setting in on some pressure points like a snap, button, or nailhead, these abrasions, as well as some of the other unidentified superficial injuries, could have been caused by that process. But as Delmar says, this is only speculation so it's value is minimal at best. Nevertheless, these abrasions were extremely small according to Meyer's autopsy report, and appear to be fresh, so I doubt they occurred more than a couple hours prior to JB's death.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2004
  17. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Deja there was a case in Austin a couple of years ago where some sleazy old gay guy who apparently liked paying strippers for sex, and especially enjoyed getting strangled during. He was found strangled to death in his home one night and from what I understand, some stripper was arrested but said the whole thing was accidental. So yeah this kind of thing does go on.
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Oh Deja, what a terrible crime that must have been with so many people. Makes my blood run cold. I look forward to reading Delmar's reply to this.

    I have to agree with you here. I don't think a nine year old boy like Burke Ramsey would have known what he was doing. I've never thought of him being involved, but many posters think he had something to do with it (?). So you think a Ramsey male might be the perp? I never thought John Ramsey was involved, so this would leave Don Paugh and John Andrew, with John Andrew being at his mother Lucinda's place, which now leaves Don Paugh. We haven't heard too much about him at all, have we?
     
  19. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DejaNu

    “Now I am in no way an intruder theorist, but have long had a gut
    feeling that some male Ramsey was sexually performing with JB.
    Could the ligature device in this case be nothing more than a
    control/bondage/anchoring rig, having no participation whatsoever
    in the strangulation?â€

    Answering the last part of your question first, yes it is
    possible that the “garrote†did not cause any strangulation.
    However, as for “ Could the ligature device in this case be
    nothing more than a control/bondage/anchoring rig,..â€, it could
    not have been a control/bondage anchoring rig as shall be
    explained below.

    In all of the S&M real cases you mention, the element of control
    is prominent: tied to bed, radiator, or trussed up in some
    fashion. There is also the area of “erotica\asphyxiation†where
    control is of uppermost importance. This requires a device of
    some sort which can be used to easily apply asphyxiation
    pressure, but which can also be quickly released short of fatal.

    Since the Ramsey case “garrote scene†is absent all these
    features, it does not fit in the category. Not only was the body
    not tied to anything, it was not even bound sufficiently to keep
    the wrists ties from falling off.

    Also, instead of a device for quick application and quick release
    “erotica\asphyxiation†pressure, there was the exact opposite.
    When the small, soft, flat-like cord is tied tightly around
    itself, it compresses along with creating two rough and irregular
    flanges on both sides of the tie. Even with a half inch, hard-
    surfaced Manila rope and this kind of tie, sliding would be
    somewhat difficult. With a half inch soft nylon rope and
    increased degree of compression, sliding would become much more
    difficult. With a small, flat, soft nylon cord, getting this to
    slide at all borders on the impossible. In other words, when the
    tie was done, so was all noose action. IF any strangulation took
    place, (and I doubt it) it was done during the process of tying.
    In short, the physics of the situation rules out even a crude set
    up for the sex\bondage thing.
     
  20. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

  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