Evidence Vs Pretense II

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by EasyWriter, Jun 11, 2004.

  1. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    I recently read on another forum that I don’t exist. Maybe there
    is something to it. Maybe, none of this exists; maybe, it’s only
    a daytime nightmare of illusions and delusions. It must be.
    Surely, what I’m seeing can’t be real.

    The body of JonBenet was found in the Ramsey house. Along with
    the body was found a bogus ransom note, a phony bound and gagged
    scene inclusive of am amateurish “strangling device†that doesn’t
    work. The rigged portrait of death by strangulation exists
    alongside a very real fatal, or near fatal, skull fracture. The
    singular purpose of the “garrote scene†was to divert attention
    from the skull fracture as primary. The amateurish staging tells
    the story, the real story of accidental head injury with
    subsequent attempt to cover up the truth.

    Everything in and about the crime is confined to the Ramsey
    house. Yet, there are those that would have us believe that an
    intruder came in and committed the crime, including setting up
    the amateurish staging from which he had nothing to gain; then
    left the premises, pulling the chair back against the door. I
    suppose so no one would know he had been there.

    As I recently asked Mary Keenan via a letter: “Tell me, Mary,
    just how dense and\or dishonest does someone have to be to even
    mention the name Ramsey and innocent in the same sentence?â€

    The seven year culmination of illusions, delusion, and
    aberrations is John Ramsey running for public office. John
    Ramsey, who at the very least, is a voluntary part of the cover
    up of the truth about the death of his daughter has the lying,
    sickening audacity to proclaim he was “given†a platform to do
    good.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid. If a mythical intruder can be
    convicted in exoneration of the Ramseys, where lies your fate
    even in innocence if the same thinking is applied to you. Imagine
    you are on trial where facts play no part; where the sole
    objective is to convict you to take focus from the guilty. How do
    you muster a defense against charges and “evidence†when there
    is no reference except what your adversaries prefer?

    The detailed scenario of sequence of events I have laid out in
    other posts and other analysis is admittedly speculation in some
    measure, but speculation that never departs from the facts. There
    is room for adjustment about what triggered the confrontation
    and\or the exact form of the physical conflict that by evidence
    we know took place. There is no qualification of the declaration
    of Ramsey guilt; namely, John and Patsy, since I exclude Burke
    for reasons given elsewhere.

    There are many of us that know this truth. They include John and
    Patsy Ramsey, Mary Keenan, and Lin Wood. They make it known that
    they know. The Ramseys for obvious reasons; Keenan by kowtowing,
    then by “seesaw and silenceâ€, Wood by familiarity with the facts
    and conscious intent to avoid them. Lou Smit, I’m not so sure
    about. He is so far out of touch with reality that I see no limit
    to what he may actually believe.

    Wood makes his knowledge of the facts clear in the Complaint
    against Fox News; said Complaint listing the “evidence of an
    intruder.†The only time he touches on actual evidence is the
    “garrote scene†mentally modified into “professional†to suit his
    suit. What mental or physical disability the Ramseys have making
    them incapable of tying a cord around a neck and wrapping cord
    around a handle he does not say.

    What is most conspicuous about the alleged evidence of an alleged
    intruder is the constant qualification by “could beâ€, or “maybe.â€
    This concept of qualified reality is bad enough when heard from a
    layperson, but from an attorney, it is way off the chart. Spend
    the next six months reading FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE. If you can
    find anything in there that expresses of implies that “could beâ€
    and “maybe†are legal criteria for evidence, please let me know.

    Indeed, Wood’s Complaint does not even meet the legal criteria
    necessary to be put on a court docket, let alone taken to trial.
    Nevertheless, we know law is not exactly what the scene is about;
    so Wood’s folly is allowed to move on. Were it that he would meet
    me online and answers some questions about the alleged evidence
    of an intruder, he would not be at all comfortable with the
    thought of this “evidence†being examined in a court of law in a
    high stakes game. What makes it really high stakes? Although
    information and testimony in a civil suit cannot be directly
    transferred to a criminal court, there are legal ways to bring
    this information in as part of a criminal proceeding.

    While I’m at it, there is another matter, I would like to address
    with finality. Recently, I received an email which states:

    >My goodness, you make a lot of sense for a figment of the
    imagination!! :)

    This refers to a post on another forum which declared that Delmar
    England does not exist. The post was one of many as a reaction to
    the thread, EVIDENCE VS PRETENSE.†In short order, I can respond
    to all such posts point by point because they all have only one
    point: Evasion. Such posts are made under assorted false
    preconceptions. Let’s clear this up a bit.

    A very common form of evasion is demand for credentials. I really
    can’t understand why these persons do not grasp the concept of
    credentials and its application. Credentials come into play,
    i.e., expert testimony, only when understanding specific evidence
    is beyond the comprehension of a layperson. It is simply taking
    the word of the expert as opposed to direct personal
    understanding of the evidence. Asking someone to take my word for
    anything I have written is something I have never done.

    I could make a very long list of persons on the forum who are far
    more knowledgeable than I in many areas. We all have our
    specialities. I gain enormously from their knowledge in these
    areas. With the exception of “Hobey 86", who posted about the
    “garrote scene†some time ago, I know of no one who comes close
    to really understanding said “garrote scene†with the
    thoroughness that I do due to my background. Even so, instead of
    asking anyone to take my word for it, I tried again and again to
    lay it out so that others could understand, not from what I say,
    but from personal experience and evaluation. No credential
    required. :)

    The most popular form of evasion is ad hominem and name calling.
    Apparently, this is supposed to disturb me. It does, but not in
    the way they imagine. Such fear of truth, I find very disturbing.
    It is the sole reason this simple case has dragged on for over
    seven years.

    Such evasion is not evaluated on a personal basis as if their
    opinion of me counted. It doesn’t. It is evaluated on the basis
    of what they are really saying without intending to. Any evasion
    is a tacit admitting of encountering a truth undesirable, yet
    said persons are unable to refute. Evasion, the credential bit,
    name calling, etc. is confirmation of that which they presume to
    deny. I appreciate the attention to the subject matter, and
    confirmation. I hope they keep it up.

    There is, of course, evasion simply by ignoring. I think you all
    know about this. No need for elaboration.

    CAUTION: WORDS CAN BE DANGEROUS

    Descartes in his wisdom said
    "I think, therefore I am"
    It was proof of his existence
    On this he took a stand

    He told it to his colleagues
    He spoke of it with a friend
    Who could have known that just ahead
    Lay a sad and tragic end

    Are you going to the opera, he was asked
    Then came what was most feared
    He carelessly answered, "I think not"
    And promptly disappeared. :)


    The fate of the RST is sealed.
     
  2. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Excellent post!


    :yay: :clap: :bowdown:
     
  3. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    It is indeed.
     
  4. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Not only are the Rules silent on this vagary, EW, trial law 101 dessiminates that any such alleging party bears the burden of proof. IOW, Lin Wood is going to demonstrate at trial how these "could be's" and "maybe's" actually can and are reality. I do hope you don't disappear before we get the chance to witness LW's brilliant performance in "proving" the unproveable. It would all be for naught that you've labored so well, so please hang around!

    P.S. As to your nonexistence, I'm happy to take the stand to testify I have proof that you do. I've observed throughout life that those who resort to mudslinging only do so because they have no other recourse.
     
  5. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    Easy Writer....

    Quite a defining post Easy Writer....I always enjoy your writing and I also enjoy your self confidence....It seems that you really KNOW what you know, and for those who do not understand it too bad! I like that.....

    DejaNu, I too am looking forward to the Legal battle between the Ramseys and Fox, starring attorney Lin Wood.....Perhaps he will find that his huffing and puffing, manipulations and threats won't be received in the same fashion as they have by the previously sued parties and their attorneys....Time for Mr. Wood and the RST to receive their comeuppance wouldn't you say? :cheerful:

    Voyager
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DejaNu:

    Quote:
    “Not only are the Rules silent on this vagary, EW, trial law 101
    dessiminates that any such alleging party bears the burden of
    proof. IOW, Lin Wood is going to demonstrate at trial how these
    "could be's" and "maybe's" actually can and are reality.â€

    In the area where I lived a few years ago, a fellow sued a
    baseball coach because the didn’t think the coach was giving his
    son enough playing time. I thought that was the silliest suit I
    ever heard of. Wood’s is the stupidest. To make the Complainants
    the de facto Defendants with the impossibility of proving the
    impossible is mental\legal incompetence without parallel.

    As for the “could be†and “maybe†as evidence of an intruder, the
    constant answer is NO it could not and it may not be. Unless and
    until an intruder is connected to the real evidence, thereby,
    exonerating Ramseys, the evidence stays attached to the Ramseys.
    Ergo, any alleged “could beâ€, or “maybe†evidence of an intruder
    contradicts the known evidence, thereby, rendering ALL the
    ridiculous speculation null and void. No, Mr. Wood, et al, there
    is no “could be†or “maybe†by the natural law of non
    contradiction as the criteria of truth.

    Yes, DejaNu, I would love to see Wood in court on this. The
    absurd suit hung his clients out to dry. My fear is that Fox News
    will drop the ball and let him and them off the hook.

    My information is that Fox News has already filed for Summary
    Judgement. As you already know, once upon a time Summary Judgment
    was about point of law, not when facts were in dispute.
    Obviously, that doesn’t work anymore as evidenced in the Wolf
    case and DH foul up big time. This situation calls for an all out
    trial with judge and jury in order to bring out the factual
    details. I hope Fox News loses on the Motion. Winning here means
    losing a shot at full exposure of the fraud. A Fox “victory†here
    would be a much bigger victory for Wood and the Ramseys, even if
    they don’t know it.

    However, there is some consolation. If Fox New’s motion is
    granted, this is a rejection of all of Wood’s allegations about
    the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. It agrees with Carol
    McKinley and Fox News; thereby, countering the judgement issued
    by Carnes. So, the consolation is that Wood and the Ramseys are
    going to lose. The questions are when, where, how, and how much.
    I really really hope it’s the trial route. Here the loss would be
    a fatal blow to the Ramseys claim of innocence. Then I can look
    forward to a criminal trial. :)
     
  7. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Delmar, see my latest post on the Bootman thread. We have all spent years easily debunking every angle of every perp of Smit's intruder theory as it's morphed. You are absolutely right, the Fox case is THE opp to finally kill the intruder.

    I have not read Fox's motion for summary judgment. If it's online, could someone please post it here? Don't panic, it could be a very limited issue. Not only are these motions SOP, even if the chance of them succeeding is slim, but sometimes they are requested to resolve individual issues in dispute as well rather than the entire case, so that only the major contested facts get tried and to the jury. It has the same effect as the parties stipulating to specific facts already in evidence and uncontested (which is what LW led DH by the nose to do in the Wolf case. How dumb was DH to do so on evidence that was not established "fact" and was still highly contested via corroborating evidence!) It's a way of paring down a case that involves so many facts a jury could get lost. To allow a complex case like this to proceed is risking so much confusion in the jury that the verdict becomes vulnerable.

    Many of LW's "facts" are easily disproven and therefore fitting for summary judgment. Plus, this would submit some of the case to judgment rather than verdict, diminishing opportunity for appeal.

    I would need to read the motion in order to accurately interpret Fox's strategy for filing it.

    I, like you, hope to God that this case proceeds to trial so that the intruder theory will be tested once and for all. Once the Ramseys' only defense is defeated, criminal charges could easily be prosecuted with success.

    But Fox is also legally obligated to do whatever is in its best interests, regardless of what impact that may have on any subsequent criminal proceedings. Let's just hope that serving their best interests also leads to serving JonBenet's
     
  8. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  9. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    off topic but please help

    I've been giving some thought to the panty DNA and the fingernail DNA. I've been following this case for years and I recall mame posting that the two samples matched. (not that she can be believed)
    This can't be true, can it? I think I can partially answer my own question because I don't think there were enough markers in the panty DNA to definitely match to any other sample - only rule out a match by having some markers that another sample doesn't have. Do I have this part right?
    Anyway - why would the BPD bother having other new panties made at the same factory tested for DNA if the DNA under JBR's fingernails matched the panty DNA. I guess she could get DNA under her nails from her panties but I'm not sure there would be enough.
    My conclusion is that the BPD are no dummies. Therefore I would theorize that the two samples do not actually match.
    Can anybody help me out here?
     
  10. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    EW, a motion to dismiss is SOP. It's the next step in the litigation process. It's mechanical, not remarkable, and my guess is that it'll be denied. Have they established jurisdiction yet? Are we doing this in Denver or does it remain in Atlanta?

    Texan, there were numerous articles published at the time the panty DNA analysis was finished. The articles declared that this evidence was far too degraded to match anything or anyone. Mame's claim to fame that the panty DNA matched the fingernail DNA were promulgated under her constant "insider information" crap. So, according to public disclosure at least, that ain't true. And I agree, BPD is about as incompetent as the likelihood of an intruder. Police incompetence and bias are the first handy defenses in the majority of criminal cases, that's all.
     
  11. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  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