Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1

    Default How Much Proof Does It Take?

    (For the delusional ones who still imagine evidence is “could
    be”, “maybe”, “missing” and the “unknown”, your questions await
    in the thread, DEADWOOD.)

    The phony ransom note alone is more than enough to know the crime
    scene was staged. When the rest of the evidence is added on in
    confirmation, just how blind, stupid and\or dishonest does one
    have to be to not see the staging and see the only possible
    beneficiaries are John and Patsy Ramsey? That’s not all of it.
    Time and time again, they have confessed; unintentionally, of
    course, but confessions no less.

    J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.

    KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?

    J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death. (LKL MARCH 27, 2000)

    John Ramsey just flat out lied and knew he was lying. He didn’t
    get death by strangulation as sole cause from the autopsy
    report, nor from any evidence. Did he conclude the severe skull
    fracture was incidental and she would have recovered from it?
    Apparently so since he didn’t see it as important enough to
    mention. Does anyone wish to step forward and offer some medical
    evidence for John’s conclusion and public claim?

    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.

    Again, John Ramsey flat out lied and knew he was lying. By
    stacking one lie on top of another, he tries to get a national
    audience to believe a crime scene contrary to the evidence. What
    difference does it make to John whether she died of strangulation
    and\or skull fracture? What we do know that it does make a
    difference to John or else he would not have lied to sell the
    idea of death by strangulation. Why?

    The obvious answer is that he knew the truth did not bode well
    for himself and Patsy? Why not? What if we look at the truth of
    amateurish garrote scene and ask: Why in the hell would anyone do
    this when obviously they didn’t know what he\she were doing? It
    WAS DONE. It had a purpose in the mind of the creator. What
    purpose?

    John has answered the question by his lies: Sell the idea of
    death by strangulation, i.e. deliberate murder, and there is no
    inquiry about the skull fracture which could have come about by
    accident, an accident involving the actions of John and\or Patsy
    Ramsey. Why else would John Ramsey disregard the skull fracture
    and claim strangulation as the sole cause of death? Does anyone
    wish to step forward and SHOW ME how the “professional strangling
    tool” worked to strangle JonBenet to death as John claims?

    Alas, John’s lies catch up to him in a most unpleasant manner. He
    finds himself in a no win situation.

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

    JR: I mean, its just no reason to - 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 whether the head injury didn't kill
    her and after that they strangled her.

    Are you getting the picture? John cascades lies and tells a
    national tv audience that JohBenet was strangled to death. No
    ifs, ands, or buts. He doesn’t mention skull fracture. He states
    emphatically as if without a doubt that death was by
    strangulation and nothing else. Yet, in the relative privacy of a
    police interview, he’s not so sure; indeed, appears to be
    reaching for the conclusion that she was already dead when the
    cord was put around her neck. He was motivated to claim one thing
    before a national audience, but reveals another motivation to not
    believe his own words. What’s going on here?

    Without going into detail of the thinking behind the staging,
    thinking precluding a 911 call and simply claiming accident, all
    evidence says loud and clear that the staging was designed for
    the sole purpose of making it look like death by strangulation; a
    story that John and Patsy have repeated many time; a story in
    direct contradiction of the evidence; a story that also says loud
    and clear Ramsey culpability in regard to the skull fracture.

    Suppose, however, that all this staging was done with the
    assumption that JonBenet was dead from the skull fracture.
    Suppose some information later comes out that maybe this was not
    true, that maybe she was still alive when the cord was tied
    around her neck. It’s one thing to tie a cord around the neck of
    a dead body when no further harm can be done. It’s quite a
    different situation if one later finds out, or believes, that
    maybe she wasn’t quite dead after all, and maybe, just maybe, the
    cord tying contributed to her death. This not only shifts the
    charge from voluntary manslaughter to murder one, there is a
    psychological element to deal with. Don’t you imagine it would be
    quite disturbing? If you were the person, or one of the persons,
    involved in tying the cord around her neck, would you not prefer
    to believe JonBenet was already dead when this was done?

    My favorite confession is this one:

    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}

    Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

    Patsy: What?

    Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

    Patsy: No. I don't know. It's, there's a, there's a ransom note
    here.

    Dispatcher: It's a ransom note?

    Patsy: It's say SBTC, victory. Please. (CNN, JAN.1 1997)

    It doesn’t take much to figure out that if she read only the
    first few sentences on the morning of the 26th, yet gave the 911
    operator the ending of the note, she was aware of the note BEFORE
    the morning of the 26th.

    This confession is on the record. It is not going to go away.
    Still, when Patsy discovered the self-convicting blunder, she
    tried to make it go away with:

    PR: "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-"

    How silly can she get? What she is asking you to believe is that
    she read parts of the note, including the ending, from a
    standing position with said note spread out in a dimly lit
    hallway with John crouched over it. This feat comes across as
    even more miraculous since it was during a frantic, ongoing
    conversation with the 911 operator.

    Can Patsy demonstrate this great optical feat? Of course not, not
    in a million years. Yet, in all I have read of heard, not once by
    LE, or media, was this absurd story questioned. She handed them a
    confession and they ignored it just like they ignored John’s lies
    about the cause of death and the “professional garrote”, and
    ignored a lot of other contradictions and fabrications as well.

    Indeed, the accepted practice of ignoring evidence is what marks
    the case from start to finish.

    (John was shown a photo of a chair blocking the door into the
    train room and window area.)

    LS: So you think that chair would block the door and nobody would
    have gotten in there without moving it.

    JR: Correct.

    LS: In other words, let's say the intruder got into the train
    room, gets out, let's say, that window?

    JR: Uh, huh.

    LS: How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if
    that is the case, is what I'm saying.

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

    LS: So you couldn't have gotten in without moving the chair?

    JR: Correct.....I had to move the chair.

    LS: 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 to be his exit...so
    that's not very logical as far as.....

    JR: 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.

    There has been endless talk by the RST about the abundant
    evidence of an intruder. The Ramseys even filed a lawsuit against
    Fox News on the claim of much evidence of an intruder. Then along
    comes John and says the intruder left no “good evidence.” He also
    said the chair against the door was a clever clue, but how and
    why it is clever and clue to what, he didn’t say. Neither was it
    mentioned in this interview that one does not have to go through
    that door from inside the house to get to where JonBenet’s body
    was located.

    Does anybody actually believes John’s lies when he claims murder
    by strangulation with a “professional strangling tool?” Does
    anybody actually believe Patsy’s “explanation” as to how she knew
    the ending of the note? Does anybody believe that an
    intruder\murderer would have compassion for John and advise him to
    be rested for tomorrow, or wonder how the intruder\murderer knew
    that John would see the note before tomorrow? Does anyone believe
    that an intruder\murderer would have interrupted his crime to
    feed or allow JonBenet to eat pineapple? Does anyone actually
    believe an intruder\murderer on his way out would pull the chair
    back toward the door, close window except for an “inch or so”,
    and put the grate back?

    In spite of the abundant, all-encompassing, highly visible
    evidence, all pointing straight at the Ramseys, the case has
    officially and media wise dragged on for over seven years with an
    expenditure of millions of dollars, most of it chasing a mythical
    intruder. How did it happen? Why and how is it still going on? By
    what manner of “investigation” is such a farce and fraud allowed?
    The answer is clearly provided:

    Lou Smit: And you know that you have said that you didn't do
    that, and I am going to take you at your word. We know you are a
    Christian, John, and would you swear to God that you didn't do
    this?"

    John Ramsey: "I swear to God that I didn't do it."

    Other “investigation”? Lin Wood threatened to sue if Boulder DA,
    Mary Keenan did not take over the case. Mary was not contrary.
    She followed along like a meek little lamb.

    Excerpts from letter to Wood from Keenan:

    December 20, 2002
    Dear Mr. Wood:

    “In early October, shortly after much of our review had been
    completed, you sent me a letter outlining a request from Mr. and
    Mrs. Ramsey that an Independent investigation of this case be
    initiated. .....In deciding how to proceed at this point in time,
    I met with you and Chief Beckner to discuss your request.”

    What was (and is) Keenan’s “investigative” position?

    “"We will work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys, and the
    Boulder Police Department."

    This adds a whole new dimension to “Foxes guarding the hen
    house.” What a bunch of LE and media idiotic, gutless wonders
    that allows it to come to this:

    JonBenet Ramsey's presence in father's campaign for state
    legislature
    CHEBOYGAN (AP) —

    Still, Ramsey concedes that even an arrest and conviction
    wouldn't deter a die-hard remnant from suspecting him, his wife
    or son Burke, now 17.

    "They're wackos," he says, wearily shaking his head. "I just hope
    none of them ever shows up in our front yard with a gun."

    There’s one thing that John fears more than a “wacko” with a gun.
    It’s a “wacko” with evidentiary argument he can’t refute
    accompanied by questions exposing the “family lies.”

  2. #2

    Default

    There’s one thing that John fears more than a “wacko” with a gun.
    It’s a “wacko” with evidentiary argument he can’t refute
    accompanied by questions exposing the “family lies.”
    I like to think of us as a “ W orking A gainst C hild K illers O rganization”. I’m a proud, card carrying member! I don't think of people who want to see justice for any child cheated out of their life as being the bad guys.

    I know you have made the offer time and again Delmar for a legitimate, intelligent challenge to your analysis. So far, no legitimate takers??? Interesting.

    Little

  3. #3

    Default

    Excellent post EasyWriter...could be subtitled: Whatever Became of Common Sense? You posted:

    There’s one thing that John fears more than a “wacko” with a gun.
    It’s a “wacko” with evidentiary argument he can’t refute
    accompanied by questions exposing the “family lies.”

    Yes, especially when John and Patsy's own words conflict with their earlier statements. They ask us to believe their innocence...and we wonder what current version they are talking about.

  4. #4

    Default

    I understand your frustration, EW. I feel your pain. As an expression of sheer frustration and disgust, your post above strikes a very sympathetic chord in those of us who feel so deeply that there is something very wrong with the way this case is now being presented to the public by team Ramsey.

    As an analysis of the testimony of John and Patsy Ramsey, however, I'm afraid it will only provide fresh ammunition for those who believe we are all, indeed Bent on Ramsey Guilt, no matter what. When a suspect is asked to give factual testimony and his/her responses are self contradictory or refuted by the evidence, then you have every right to accuse that suspect of lying. But when the person is asked to give an opinion, or formulate a theory about certain aspects of the case, and the response is contradictory or illogical, that is a completely different matter. Believe me, I feel we have very good reason to suspect John Ramsey of lying, but his responses to hypothetical questions regarding the interpretation of evidence can't really be held against him. These responses could simply be expressions of puzzlement and confusion. Just because John isn't another Sherlock Holmes (or Delmar English) is no reason to accuse him of lying.

    As far as Patsy is concerned, I too think she's not being truthful about everything that happened between the discovery of the note and the 911 call. It's almost impossible to believe that the two of them wouldn't sit down together and not only read but study the note carefully in such a situation. This note is the ONLY link they have to their child. Her life may well depend on what is said in that note, on the directions given in the note, on clues provided in the note as to what might be happening. So it's simply not credible, on its face, that Patsy would claim to have read only the first few lines. It's also not credible for the two of them to claim that there was no discussion of what to do, whether to call the police, just pay the ransom, etc.

    But the responses given by Patsy in the testimony you've quoted are not, as you state, proof that she's lying. A three page ransom note is NOT a linear document such as a movie or TV program. One can skim it, read it out of order, or, as Patsy claims to have done, read the first few lines and then skip to the end. To accuse her of a contradiction because she claims not to have read the whole thing and at the same time quotes from the salutation at the end, that's just not fair.

    You need to follow your own advice, EW: stick to the evidence. It's the evidence that points so strongly to Ramsy guilt, not the psychology behind their behavior and their responses to questioning. Where so many go wrong in analyzing this case is that they focus on the Ramsey's behavior, their statements, their psychology, etc. It would be great if some latter day Freud could come along with a sure fire way of interpreting all this stuff that would tell us exactly what is being hidden by what has been said. But to date no such breakthrough has occured in this field. There are NO confessions to be found in any statements by Patsy and John Ramsey. That's just wishful thinking. No substitute for sticking with the facts, as you yourself have argued. The above post doesn't do you justice, EW, sorry.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default How Much Proof Does It Take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Little
    I like to think of us as a “ W orking A gainst C hild K illers O rganization”. I’m a proud, card carrying member! I don't think of people who want to see justice for any child cheated out of their life as being the bad guys.

    I know you have made the offer time and again Delmar for a legitimate, intelligent challenge to your analysis. So far, no legitimate takers??? Interesting.

    Little
    I am also a proud card carrying member of :

    W orking A gainst C hild K illers O rganization”.

    I can't understand why the new investigator Tom Bennett doesn't call upon Delmar England and give him the chance to prove his analysis, Little. He should be ashamed of himself. He is not being thorough with this investigation!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    "It's the evidence that points so strongly to Ramsy guilt, not the psychology behind their behavior and their responses to questioning."

    Imho, it's both.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    "It's the evidence that points so strongly to Ramsy guilt, not the psychology behind their behavior and their responses to questioning."

    Imho, it's both.
    Of course it is. They necessarily correlate. That is precisely what all my analysis are about. When there is a conflict between words and actions, it is the actions that tell the truth of what a person actually believes no matter what he\she says. As pointed out in detail in SUSPECT BEHAVIOR, John's and Patsy's actions on the morning of the 26th did not even come close to corresponding to the belief that JonBenet had been kidnaped. Actions also include verbal actions such as lying.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyWriter
    Of course it is. They necessarily correlate. That is precisely what all my analysis are about. When there is a conflict between words and actions, it is the actions that tell the truth of what a person actually believes no matter what he\she says. As pointed out in detail in SUSPECT BEHAVIOR, John's and Patsy's actions on the morning of the 26th did not even come close to corresponding to the belief that JonBenet had been kidnaped. Actions also include verbal actions such as lying.
    There is certainly a place for psychological hypothesizing when analysing this or any case. But, unless you are an recognized expert in this field, your hypotheses aren't going to count for much. And IMO that is a VERY good thing. A policeman noticed that Patsy was observing him between her fingers. That's an observation. But what does it MEAN? Patsy tells the 911 operator the note is from "the SBTC." And later she testifies she read only the first few lines of the note. So her comments are inconsistent. That's a legimate observation. But what does it MEAN? That she's lying and she wrote the note herself? Or that she read the first few lines and then happened also to notice the salutation at the end -- and got confused about that when being questioned. There's simply NO way to tell. This is NOT evidence. It's conjecture.

    You can insist certain actions are "suspicious" 'til you're blue in the face, EW. But a good defense lawyer can easily get past all that stuff by asking the jury if they really knew how THEY would behave under similar circumstances. Most people have no idea how they'll behave under that sort of extreme stress. The Ramseys didn't behave like parents in a Hollywood kidnap drama. I doubt that many of us would either.

    And when you try to go beyond suspicion to outright accusations, based on nothing more than someones observation that one of the parents acted inappropriately or seemed confused, sorry, that really won't wash. The true believers on this forum may buy it. No one else will. Which is why team Ramsey now has the upper hand and the case has gone truly cold. Too many of those rightly suspicious of the Ramseys have been far too quick to propose weak or even patently absurd theories of what happened and why, based far too often on totally amateurish psychological "principles" that mean nothing.

    Lying? On what basis are you making such an accusation? If you're already convinced you know what happened then anything they say which contradicts that is going to come across to you as a lie. Those of us who are NOT convinced by your reasoning see no reason to agree. From what you write it sounds like what your saying is: I can tell they're lying because I can SEE they're lying. Is lying a "verbal action" that can be observed? Is it really that simple?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default simply lying

    "Is lying a "verbal action" that can be observed? Is it really that simple?"

    Read my lips. No new taxes.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    "Is lying a "verbal action" that can be observed? Is it really that simple?"

    Read my lips. No new taxes.

    TOUCHE!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default psychology of liars

    There is a book on this by M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie.



Similar Threads

  1. Proof of innocence?
    By "J_R" in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 24, 2006, 9:23 am, Thu Aug 24 9:23:35 UTC 2006
  2. Experts: No Proof of Satanic Cults
    By "J_R" in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 16, 2003, 3:30 am, Mon Jun 16 3:30:50 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •