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?†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.†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 be†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.
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.
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
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.†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.
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
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?
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.