Delmar's Letter to Keenan

Next - p8 of Delmar's letter

<b>Could it be that (John Ramsey) knows from personal involvement that the claim of "expertise" in garrote making and use is a lie?...

...During my lifetime on this planet, which has been considerable at this juncture, I have never seen another con take hold in such degree that such gross absurdity and cascading contradictions are eventually officially labeled as "Statement of Fact" in a federal court of law. Over six years of this farce is a bit too much garbage to swallow. I will have my say."</b>


This needs to be digested slowly. Think about it. This one paragraph pretty much says it all as far as I am concerned. This truth has left me stupefied for nearly six years - stupefied to the point where I am almost numb with disbelief. Smit's misinformation, which he and the RST call "evidence" has taken hold in an apathetic society that seems to have become desensitized to corruption in our government and higher institutions. Perhaps that is because we've been on overload from so much corruption in the news, but how can we allow this to happen in a murder case where a little girl had her life taken by another? How can we just sit back and say, well, I know it doesn't sound right, but I'm too busy to really think about this; I'm too tied up in my own life to take the time to understand exactly what it is Smit is doing here.

To me it is the height of laziness to let our brains accept that what we know is a crock just because it's not our problem. I would say it would be our problem if it were our child Smit was conjuring up evidence about, but it really wouldn't apply because in this case, the parents are the only suspects who really hold up under intense scrutiny. I think we say, well, what can we do about it? You know, I don't know. I wish I knew what to do, it is frustrating. They say the squeaky wheel gets the attention. Maybe we just haven't been squeaking enough. I have some ideas about that, too. Take jameson, for instance. She is a pain in the a$$ to LE - in fact it has been said that they hate her because she is such a pest. There's a jameson in every murder case, but she has been quite public about it. And, then there's the mames, and we know the damage she has caused with her interference.

For me to do the things the squeakers like jameson and mame have done would be antithetical to my nature. I could no more insert myself in a murder case in a public way than I could grab hold of an electical wire - they are both unthinkable for me. I think most people are that way, but there are always those who want that attention and they will go to any extremes to get it. They then get the attention they want and the quiet, sensible people somehow get lost in the process. In this case, the code 6 wingnuts abound, and they are tenacious and relentless. I hold them at least partially responsible for the mess this case is in, but most of all I hold Smit and the DA's office responsible.

Continuing with P.8 of the DE letter to Keenan, Delmar is quoting Carnes in the next couple of paragraphs.

<b>'Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case.'

'In addition, the Court notes that defendants have provided compelling testimony from homicide detective Andrew Louis Smit, who is widely regarded as an expert investigator, in support of the intruder theory. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.)' (ibid)

Although not set in formal and official context, it is clear that judge Carnes regards Lou Smit as an expert witness providing 'compelling testimony.' His words are all that's necessary. No claim need be corroborated by facts. She refers to Smit as an experienced detective. Apparently, this is her basis for regarding him as an expert witness.

She does not seem to notice that the broad description, experienced detective, does not meet the criteria for expert witness. An expert witness is qualifed as an expert witness by training and/or experience in a particular field.</b>

This particular truth has been floating around in the far reaches of my mind like some fleeting thought that I can't nail down. Here Mr. England has nailed it down for me. For years I've been saying to myself - why does this defective detective has so much power over these idiots? Why do they linger over his every word as if he were a god? There. Bam bam, it's nailed. <b>They are presenting this guy Smit as if he is THE expert on everything, like he is somehow superior to every other detective who ever lived.</b> Well, I've got news for the RST - Dick Tracey he is not - not even close. They want to degrade the BPD investigators? The BPD investigators were the only ones who even came close to the truth in this case. ST, whom they love to beat up on, was probably the best investigator in the case and the one who saw things are they really were. Yet, they praise this detective, Lou Smit, as an icon when he is the most incompetent detective I have ever laid eyes on, bar none.

More to come...

 

WY, again I wish to thank for your efforts in regard to my letter
to Keenan. It was consciously designed to be the most fearful
thing the Ramseys and RST have faced in over six years. I believe
it is exactly that. The exposure of the fraud and the irrefutable
truths therein puts them between a rock and a hard place. What
can they do about the letter? Do they want to take me to court
and try to refute the content of the letter? Who would they get
to do this? Smit? Keenan? Who? How? On Smit as an "expert
witness" after the undeserved status has been shattered? What
then? What can they do to get out of the bind?

Answer: Nothing. They can only hope the letter goes away and that
they never have to answer the questions therein, or try to refute
the content. "Hope it goes away." This is their only hope - which
is why your efforts to see that it doesn't go away are so vitally
important. My hope is that others see the importance of your
mission and lend their assistance. Again, thank you.

Delmar

 

More on Carnes/Smit

P.8- (DE letter to Keenan)

<b>Judge Carnes treats Smit as an expert witness in ALL fields without establishing his qualifications in ANY as pertains to the 'Statements of Fact' referenced in her ruling.</b>

How many times have we watched the attorneys grilling "expert" witnesses in a court room. They do that for a reason - in order to be called an expert, a witness has to have certain qualifications. For instance, education - most experts are PhD's, if that is applicable to their fields. Let's just say they should have terminal degrees in their disciplines. Much experience in said discipline is desired in expert witnesses. Publications in peer reviewed journals and other publications are to be desired in an expert witness.

What the he11 did Smit have to make him an "expert" witness? I don't know about his education, I suspect he has had some criminal justice courses, perhaps college, I have never checked. Maybe some of our whiz researchers on the forum could check that out for us. He is a detective. He has seen a lot out on the streets. So does every freaking cop. <b>He is NOT an expert in tying knots, making garrotes (unless he has a fetish he's not told us about), determining whether a garrote scene was done by a professional or an amateur.</b> Arrrrrrrrgggghhhh

Okay, I'm fine.

<b>Let's us remedy the oversight and first try to establish Mr. Smit as an expert witness in the matter of the 'garrote scene' before we accept his word as a 'Statement of Fact.' Would you contact him and ask about his training and/or experience in this area? Better yet, would you ask him to explain on what and how he reached the conclusion that the 'garrote scene' was 'sophisticated' and 'professional'.

I'm looking for an explanation in terms of physics as related to the issue of 'professional' vs non professional, efficient vs inefficient. Would you have him put this in writing and send a copy to me?</b>

Here Mr. England has made a specific request of Mary Keenan. It's not an unreasonable request - please ask Lou Smit to verify his training and experience in the subject of garrote scenes and how he came to the conclusion the JBR garrote scene was sophisticated and professional; also to explain professional vs non professional, efficient vs inefficient as it applies to the JBR garrote scene.

I doubt very much that Keenan even forwarded Delmar's request to Smit, but perhaps Lou Smit will hear via the grapevine that Mr. England is requesting such information from him. Maybe he will even read the letter on line. The public has the right to ask the hard questions that no one else seems to want to ask. Mr. England took the time to do it. The polite thing to do would be to at least acknowledge Delmar's letter, but Keenan has not even seen fit to do that. That is poor, in my estimation.

<b>Mr. Smit not only employs the flawed method of 'evidence' via the unknown, his capacity for fabrication knows no bounds. Again and again, he presents arbitrary and false declarations as unquestionable fact. Of course, Mr. Smit is an 'experienced detective' and 'expert witness', so is to be believed, not questioned. Let's do it anyway and see if this 'expert witness' is as unimpeachable as Judge Carnes, you and others appear to believe.

Smit: 'The knot-tying of the garrote used on JonBenet shows special knowledge. The paintbrush was broken to create a perfect handle. It almost looks like a lawn mower starting (handle)...Somebody really knew what they were doing when they did it and sombody has done this before.'

'special knowledge', 'perfect handle' 'It almost looks like a lawn mower starting (handle)....'

What babbling nonsense! Anyone who has ever spun the flywheel of a lawn mower engine by pulling a starter rope handle and seen photos of the 'garrote' knows instantly that Smit is simply prattling on to embellish his claim of expertise, and doing so quite absurdly. Of course, a lawn mower start rope handle can be made in a lot of ways, but we're talking about efficiency in structure and use. How does a competent lawn mower starter rope handle compare with the handle at the 'garrote scene?' It doesn't. It contrasts. It's fundamentally the exact opposite.'</b>

Just as an aside, I once made a lawn mower starter rope when the one on the lawn mower broke. It was no big whoop - I just used common sense. Any novice with half a brain can do it, it doesn't take a professional or expert in knot tying.

<b>A lawn mower starter rope handle has the cord running through a hole in it, or one turn around. This prevents unnecessary side pressure on the fingers providing more comfort and efficiency. The many wraps on the 'garrote scene' handle not only is a ridiculous waste of material, but tends to spread the fingers and makes the grip more uncomfortable and inefficient.

A quality lawn mower starter rope handle has the center larger and tapered evenly toward each end. This allows the main leverage point of the middle of the hand to exert the most force while the rest is linearly distributed beyond. The 'garrote scene' handle is 'mummy wrapped' unevenly and not completely to each end. The force distribution is uneven, uncomfortable and inefficient.

Last but not least a lawn mower starter rope handle is only a few inches away from the housing when it engages the engine on compression stroke. This is a pull position of maximum power for the puller.

On the other hand, the 'garrote scene' handle is 17" away from the object decreasing the leverage factor which works against the puller. 'Expertise'" Give me a break!</b>

Okay, my head is swimming. I get brain warp when it comes to technical things and issues relating to physics. I understand what Delmar is saying here but I start fogging out on compression strokes and housings, LOL. I suspect Keenan doesn't have a clue...

At any rate, I understand completely about the force distribution and the garrote scene handle, which was 17" away from JBR's neck. That is just crazy. Anyone can demonstrate this, but I can imagine it without demonstrating it. Take what, a 34" long or more cord? Is that right? No, it would have to be much longer to wrap part of it around the wooden part. So, maybe 39-45 inches long? It has to be doubled to make the noose or loop, so that would be 17" once it's doubled, including the wraparound on the wooden handle, right? Slip that loop or noose around an object - say a round pole - anything that can demonstrate how awkward and inefficient it would be. Preferably lay the round pole or whatever on the floor and slip the loop around it. Now start turning the wooden handle so it starts twisting the rope on the pole. It's just craziness.

Now shorten up that cord by about 10 inches. I've never made a garrote, so I don't know, but I've had similar experience with ropes used for other things, though I can't remember right now what those experiences were precisely. I just know I've at one time or another used the basic idea of a garrote trying to accomplish something when I didn't have the proper tools to do it otherwise. The shorter the cord, the more leverage one has and the more control. To make a cord with a handle 17" away from the target can't even be called amateurish in my opinion - it's just plain stupid...

...

I don't suppose anyone caught it. I didn't either until I reread what Delmar wrote then what I wrote. In my scenario I would have wrapped the cord around the wood several times. Perhaps that has to do with my own need to make sure it's secure, but right there I have shown my amateurishness. A handle with cord wrapped around it - a "mummy" cord - is totally inefficient; yet, that's the way this amateur would have done it. That alone tells me that whoever staged that garrote scene was no professional.

 

Delmar

I can tell you that the Ramsey and the RST want nothing to do with your letter. Keenan wants nothing to do with your letter. Smit wants nothing to do with your letter. jameson, the bread-baking housewife from one of the Carolinas, who cares, wants nothing to do with your letter. They want it to go away. They want to ignore it. If they can find something with which to discredit you, I can assure you jameson's on it like flies on you know what. She thrives on trying to discredit those who speak the truth.

I feel so strongly about this myself, it is nothing but an honor to bring this letter to the fore and chew on it. We have collectively on this forum some of the best minds on the internet. I truly believe that. Most of us have been on the forums from nearly the beginning of the JBR case, and we've seen it all - all the dirty tricks by the RST, the lies, the convoluted theories that then became fact, the corruption in Boulder, the interference in an ongoing case by certain private citizens, the craziness in the DA's office. We've read the books, dissected them - you name it, we've been in the thick of it for six years.

I am all for this. If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't be here doing it. We should be thanking YOU for caring so much about a little girl who was murdered.

 

DE letter to Keenan - P10-

Delmar finishes this part of the garrote issue (he picks it up again later) and leads into the STUN GUN issue, one of my personal pet peeves.

<b>This may be a minor point in the scheme of things, but its a major point in revealing that Mr. Smit will, in ignorance of that which he speaks, pretend to hold extensive knowledge. In other words, he wll claim anything as fact no matter how absurd if it suits his purpose.

Let's look at a more serious example.

Lou Smit: 'The killer had a stun gun. I am sure the killer had a stun gun.'

Mr. Smit weaves quite a story in which the stun gun idea plays a large part. The importance he puts into the stun gun part of his theory is emphasized in the made for tv movie, 'PORT RINDS AND OTHER CHEWY SUBJECTS', a film produced and directed by THE RAMSEY PRODUCTION COMPANY. How is Mr. Smit so sure the 'intruder' used a stun gun? One of the reasons he gives is this:

Smit: 'The stun gun that we came up with is this one and it's the Air Taser stun gun. When the stun gun is energized YOU SEE A LIGHT BLUE MARK (emphasis WY's) and if you look closely at the blow-up YOU'LL SEE A LIGHT BLUE MARK EXTENDING FROM ONE OF THE MARKS TO THE OTHER ON THE BACK OF JONBENET' (emphasis again WY's).</b>

I just have to stop here for a second. How is Smit ever going to live this one down? He has totally discredited himself with this stupid observation; yet, he is still held up by RST and Judge Carnes as THE expert witness? Can all of these people really be that seriously brain dead? Is there a sub-culture of humans that heretofore have not surfaced before the JBR case who have STUPID written across their foreheads? If this is the best we can come up with in terms of "expert" detectives and public officials, we are in deep poop.

<b>Totally absurd. The blue color of the arc or a stun gun is caused by the high voltage ionization of air molecules</b> (that went right over their heads, I'm sure.) <b>It is not a magic marker. This color does not transfer to skin, nor to any other object. It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE (emphasis WY's). No matter, Smit is sure he 'sees' the mark and is 'sure' it was caused by a stun gun.

The fabrications of Mr. Smit, often absurd beyond description, are so numerous that to list just half of the ones I know about would take many pages. To include the discrepancies in the stories of John and Patsy Ramsey, one would need to fell a couple of giant redwoods just to make the necessary paper to hold them all.

I do not propose to do this. The above examples are typical of the source of Mr. Smit's 'evidence' of an intruder. They are easily dismissed with elementary facts. All need be treated the same as the two examples above. What does this leave of Mr. Smit's 'evidence of an intruder?'

Although I won't even think about covering 10%, let alone all, of Mr. Smit's fabrications and contradictions, I will look at a few more very critical to getting at the truth.

SMIT: 'The intruder had to come in through the window. I see a brutal first-degree murder. I see a very violent death of JonBenet.
I see someone fashioning a garrote and putting it around her neck. I see someone tightening that garrote to control her. I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently tight and killing her.'</b>

Unbelievable. Smit sounds like a psychic here. He "sees?" Does he mean he sees it literally? That can't be. Then does he mean he "sees" as in he's psychic? Or does he mean he "sees" the crime in his mind - his imagination as such. If he is not psychic, which is not likely since we have not heard as much about Mr. Smit among all his other "experienced" detective descriptions by the RST, then he has to mean he "sees" all this in his mind - his imagination. I can hear it now - well, he sees it in his imagination based on the evidence. As Delmar says, give me a break. Is Smit now an imagination expert and therefore superior to others' imaginations, based on the evidence? The difference is, most others base THEIR imaginations on true evidence, not the non-evidence Smit bases his on.

<b>Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF 136; PSMF 136.)' (from the ruling)</b>

Whoa. Stop. Hold everything. This is just ignorant. Like John Ramsey or any other human being couldn't have just raised his arm in the air and reached into that window well (perhaps they used the suitcase to stand on, LOL) and literally brushed leaves and debris from that window well as part of the staging scene? That is, of course, if that window well debris really was disturbed the way the RST shows it in their pictures on the morning of December 26.

Depending on who is doing the telling, there are different stories about that. The BPD, who were there that morning and saw it first hand, claims there was NO disturbance at that window that morning. The RST, led by Lou Smit, claim there was disturbance and shows pictures to prove it. We don't know when that picture was taken, since Smit didn't even come on the scene until three months later. Who do we trust, then, the spinning defective detective or the BPD who was there that morning and witnessed an undisturbed window well? Smit has misled us on many issues, I have no reason to believe he isn't trying to mislead us here, too, with photos taken by him, three months later, or after someone else has tried to come through that window in an attempt to recreate a possible break in at that window. Smit has shown his word can't be trusted, as sorry as I am to say that. He has broken every law in investigative procedures there is. I can't trust him. That's the bottom line.

<b> There is only one broken window in the scene, but the stories connected to it are numerous and infinitely variable. John said he deliberately broke it during the summer when he lost his keys and entered through said window in his underwear. One would think that such an experience would be set in mind for a long time and one would have no doubt. However, John later said I 'think' I broke the window as if he weren't totally sure. What's going on here? Did John become unsure after Smit declared the window to be the way the 'intruder' got in?</b>

Aside from this being the most bizarre thing I have ever heard (in his underwear? JR stripped to his underwear? Pleeeeze) this is a legitimate question and one of many concerning the ever-morphing stories of John and Patsy Ramsey about events that happened those two days, Dec. 25-26. Why can't someone answer these questions? Why are these glaring inconsistencies glossed over by Smit and the rest of the RST. It's obvious why Smit glosses over them - he doesn't wish to explain anything that goes against his theory. But, why can't D.A. Keenan get to the bottom of these contradictions? They are important. Why are they so afraid to corner the Ramseys on their contradictions? In a court room - at least a normal court room, and that may not be in Boulder - a witness would not get away from this question. An attorney would grill him and grill him, forcing him to face the question and answer it. Obviously, when things are fabricated, there are no answers to be had, only fumbling. The RST doesn't want to fumble, though they often do anyway, so they just gloss over them.

<b>It seems the window affects a lot of minds. Patsy couldn't recall whether she had it repaired or not. Smit mentions it in relation to a photo that it may have been opened by John Ramsey and Fleet White. Exactly when this 'may have' took place, Smit did not say.</b>

Patsy Ramseys inability to remember things she did in that house just amazes me. I mean, I'll bet if we took a poll right here on this forum, everyone would remember whether s/he had a broken window fixed, don't you think? Looking at all the issues Patsy's vague on or can't remember, she either has to be the world's biggest ditz or she's lying. Why would that window be so important that she felt she had to lie about not remembering if she had the broken one fixed? Well, of course, it's because the Ramseys deliberately are being vague - all the more to confuse the case and the investigators. And, since Patsy's lack of memory about that window may also have something to do with something not going quite right in the staging part of the crime, in hindsight it may have been determined that it was better to claim ignorance and lack of memory than to have to come up with a logical explanation.

<b>At another time, the window story goes like this:

KING: A window. Was that window open when they investigated it?

SMIT: Yes. When John Ramsey had first seen the window...

Mr. Smit leaves out some information about the 'open' window when John first saw it. When John Ramsey was asked about the window in reference to when he first entered the basement on the morning of Dec. 26, he said, 'it was open an inch or so.'

'open an inch of so' By jove, it looks like we have a very small intruder, or else, a very considerate one who took the time to close the window except for 'an inch of so' as he departed.</b>


IS ANYONE IN BOULDER LISTENING? ARE YOU LISTENING, MR. OWENS?


To be continued...

 

Back to work

Okay. Before I start again, I would just like to say to Keenan et al - <b>You who are in Boulder do NOT exist in a vacuum. You are answerable to the public whom you were elected or appointed to serve. We who do not live in Boulder have the right, as Americans, to question everything you do and expect answers when we question. Delmar England has written a most important letter to Mary Keenan, and he deserves the courtesy of a reply other than a form letter, which nobody has bothered to send him as yet, thank you very much. We are not going to go away and we are watching what is going on there. Act accordingly</b>

To continue: (p.11- DE letter to Keenan)

<b>The window bit warrants further examination:

LOU SMIT: 'Now this is a photograph that really caught my eye because the window was wide open but what also caught my attention was mark on the wall leading directly from this open window down to the floor. When I first seen that photograph I thought, "Oh oh, looks like somebody could have got in here.

Don't you find it more than a bit strange that Smit would use the photo of the open window as reference AFTER John Ramsey has already said he found the window open "an inch or so" AND had closed it?</b>

Smit continues to exhibit his boneheadedness. It's the way he says it is and what the Ramseys or anyone else says be damned. It has to fit into his scheme of things or it is insignificant. How arrogant.

<b>It becomes even more strange when noted that Smit himself said that John Ramsey or Fleet White 'may have' opened it? What's with the 'may have?' Could it be that he knows damn well the window was opened by John or Fleet, and the 'may have' is nothing more than a verbal dance around a deliberate lie? Ms. Keenan, are you getting a clear picture of thie 'expert witness' and how he obtains evidence?

Smit did not arrive upon the scene until months after the death of JonBenet. This means he was left to determine second hand the facts of the situation. this in itself is not an unsurmountable problem, but what he says about the window and believing an intruder came through show either outright gross incompetence or deliberate deception.</b>

Which is it, I wonder, gross incompetence or deliberate deception? Could it be some of each? Someone who is grossly incompetence is quite liable to deliberately deceive as a means to cover up his gross incompetence, is this not so?

I also grow weary of Smit's sneaky little way of saying "may have" when referring to his theory as fact. There is no "may have" about it. Either it happened or it didn't. Again, here is an example of the 'unknowns' Mr. England refers to earlier in the letter. Smit takes unknowns and weaves them into his theory. Along the way they become evidence of whatever delusion he is dreaming up this time. One cannot say, "if this happen, then this may have happened," and call it evidence. Yet, this is exactly what Smit seems to do in many of his hypotheses-turned-facts. Incredible, yet, his testimony, built on what if's and fabrications was taken as gospel in a federal case by a federal judge. Lord, help us.

<b>If the window was barely open on the morning of the 26gh and closed by John Ramsey, by what mental machinations does a photo taken later with the window opened (perhaps by John or Fleet) warrant the conclusion: "oh oh, looks like somebody could have got in here."

Smit even went on TV and demonstrated the process of getting in the window. The window was wide open. Nothing was said in the program about the window being open only an inch or two when John first looked on the morning of the 26th. What are we talking about here, gross mental incompetence, or deliberate fraud? Since this was a national presentation with potential jurors influenced by the deception, if the deception was intentional, is this a prosecutable offense? I don't know, just wondering.</b>

Delmar England is not the only one wondering about this issue. The fact that a detective hired by the DA's office in Boulder could be allowed to walk out with autopsy photos and other confidential information and then show them on national TV, on prime-time TV, no less, in defiance of the confidential nature of the information he put out on that program and at the risk of corrupting even further an ongoing murder investigation for the purpose of influencing future jurors is appalling. The autopsy photos were not his property nor were the crime scene photos taken by the BPD. Yet, he showed them as if they were his own property to everyone in the world. That leads one to wonder, though, if these were actually crime scene photos as he claims or were photos he took himself, months after the crime. There has been no clarification of this issue, and it is a question glossed over at the swamp and elsewhere. It's another question they don't want to answer because they do not want the truth to come out. The truth is their enemy.

<b>Is Smit really so mentally out of it that he doesn't grasp the importance of the TIME FACTOR? If he did not know that John had said he found it open an inch or so and closed it, he's one poor detective. On the other hand, when he says that John or Fleet 'may have' opened it, it indicates he did know that the window had been closed earlier and opened later when he made the statement; meaning that HE HAD TO KNOW the photo of the open window was not an authentic representation of the crime scene as he led the audience to believe. Where I come from, we call this fraud.</b>

Where I come from, we call it the same thing. Fraud. Isn't that illegal? Apparently not in Boulder.

<b>The mentality of this defective detective is really a whole lot worse than you can imagine. Smit speculates that the intruder may have planned to put JonBenet in the suitcase and take her away.

Smit speculates that the intruder planned to use the suitcase to stand on to aid in getting out the window. What Mr. Smit does not speculate on is how the intruder planned to take JonBenet out the window in a suitcase at the same time he stood on it. Geesh!</b>

There you go again, Delmar, asking those pesky questions the RST wants swept under the rug. All these contradictions we are being asked to accept without dissention. Sorry, we have the right to have the answers to these pesky little questions.

More to come...

 

Does everyone remember

how, when we were on JW, we vowed to see it through to the end? Many have dropped out, probably thinking there would never be a resolution to the case, and they could be right. But, if we all drop out, we are letting down not only JonBenet Ramsey but, even more important now, every other little girl or boy who may face a similar fate in the future. It's bad enough the perps have gotten away with this - so far - but the Boulder authorities have added insult to injury with their incompetence and arrogance, even in the face of indisputable proof they are wrong. I don't know what to do - does anyone even give a flip anymore? One person can't do it by himself. Tricia has a petition going - Delmar has this letter. Do we get behind them and start pushing or do we let them do this all by themselves? We need to start making noise like we know we can do. You know what to do. Get the e-mails going to Boulder - to Keenan and to the governor. Insist they read and answer Delmar's letter. I'm pist. Aren't you?

 

Gawd, I love you, Tricia

atta girl, get into it with me. I wish everyone would. We're boogieing now...

Neither Tricia nor I knows what the other is doing, here, but that's okay. It doesn't matter. I'll start the next page - Page 14, and if Tricia or anyone else types the same thing and comments, gotta love it. That's what I want.

<b>The audacity of Lou Smit to present his ignorant and stupid fantasies as "facts" staggers the imagination. I have no idea how much rhetoric Smit has uttered about the case during the last six years. What I do know (is) that his fantasies paraded as fact are ludicrous and literally every utterance claiming evidence of an intruder is false, and can easily be proven to be false as already demonstrated herein and can be repeated in a court of law with expansion if necessary. I don't think expansion will be necessary. I think there is more than enough facts named in this letter alone to convince a jury there was no intruder.</b>

In fact, Lou Smit has done immeasurable damage. I'll bet you think I mean to the prosecution's case, but that's not what I mean at all. Lou Smit has damaged the defense's case, because everything he has claimed can easily be refuted by experts who would be called to the stand by the prosecution. IN fact, as I think about it, maybe we should be thanking Lou Smit for giving the prosecution a gold mine of erroneous information that the RST has built it's "case tried in the public" upon. That's what it is, you know - they have deliberately and methodically tried their case in the public eye, but that is not a court room where sharp prosecutors will be cross-examining every single defense witness, including Lou Smit. I wish I were a prosecutor, and I wish I could cross-examine Lou Smit. One wouldn't even need to be a seasoned prosecutor to trip this guy up. Maybe someone will have to do a court room scene with Lou Smit on the witness stand.

<b>Mr. Smit pays lip service to let the evidence lead, but practices it not at all. When he saw the hair entwined in the knot, this evidence told him loud and clear that his fantasy did not fit the facts. No matter, he held to the fantasy. This 'double evidence' not only tells of the amateurish nature of the 'garrote scene,' it tells that Mr. Smit knows no more about garrotes than the bungling fool who created the 'garrote scene.'

In Smit's fantasy, the 'sadistic pedophile intruder' is a calm, cool, and deliberate character who has no fear as shown by the time spent in the house. The evidence provides a different profile.</b>

Actually, I agree with part of that statement. Whoever killed JonBenet showed no fear of being in that house with parents and a brother of the victim sleeping upstairs. Calm, cool? Not hardly.

<b>Aside from literally every aspect of the 'garrote scene' being flawed, the creator of this scene appeared to be extremely stressed as wel. Even those with no experience in this area know that the primary purpose of a lasso or noose is to make the noose larger than the object of its intended use, put it over said object, then slip it down to tighten.

Smit's intruder failed to show even this absolute minimal knowledge of a noose and its application. He failed to make a noose, then put it over the head and tighten it around the neck. The hair entangled IN the knot as the head leaves no doubt that the cord around JonBenet's neck wes TIED, not a noose made, then slipped down to tighten. Smit absurdly calls it both ways.

<b>Rodeos. Does anyone watch them anymore? I do. I love to watch the cowboys rope their calves from the backs of their horses. I think this is the same concept, but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The lassos/nooses are tied ahead of time, the calf is roped as the rope slips over its neck and tightened. There should be no neck hair of the calf entangled inside that knot. One might think of the nooses of the hangman, too, and how they work.</b>

The 'garrote scene' evidence tells that the mind of the creator was not even thinking of the slip action of a noose. The detail of what this mind was thinking, I cannot say, but for sure, to tie the cord around the neck reveals a mind not contemplating pulling and tightening.

What was the 'handle' all about? An after thought. It is nothing more than a grossly amateuish silly prop, a construct the novice creator of this scene 'thought' a 'garrote handle' should look like. It was never used. Hair entangled in the ridiculous 'mummy wrapped handle' tells that it was constructed after the cord was tied around the neck. The hair stuck to the hands of the perpetrator and transferred to the cord around the stick. The picture the facts paint is the exact opposite of the absurd fantasy Smit would have us believe.

(Contrary to popular opinion, the cord deeply embedded in JonBenet's neck was not because it had been violently pulled. It was due to normal post morten swelling.)

 

Re: DE letter to Keenan - P10-

To be more precise here, while a physical object can be marked as a result of electrical arcing (such as the trace of an electrical short on a machine), the resulting wound would be consistent with a burn, and that wound would not be "blue", it would range in color from pinkish (mild) to black (severe), as the arcing oxydizes tissue. Blue is more consistent with a bruise, which in turn is more consistent with the coroner's assessment that these are *abrasions* rather than *burns*.

With stun guns, though, especially the Air Taser in production in 1996, there just plain wasn't enough power to produce the sorts of "burn marks" imagined there by Lou Smit.

It is interesting to note that in the test where they "shock the pig" with a stun gun, leaving it on the flesh until the unit basically runs out of battery power, the resulting wound is a light pink at the electrodes with no arcing mark in-between. Ordinary, run-of-the-mill uses of stun guns which do not drain the battery power in a single usage, leave no marks at all.

The pig experiment reveals another little factoid about stun guns: if the stun gun's electrodes arced between themselves rather than distributing charge throughout the victim's body, then the stun gun is defective, because distributing the charge throughout the body (specifically the victim's nervous system) is the POINT of using it to begin with. The pig experiment showed that there was no short-circuit between the electrodes, allowing the charge to energize the pig's flesh rather than simply run the 3-inch distance to either side of the gun.

The part of my own professional history that I bring to bear here is a previous career in aircraft mechanics. Checking for signs of "arcing" in electrical systems was a part of routine inspections. We would not, however, be checking for "blue" marks--they would be black or a lighter brown color (oxydization color), which would be the same on human flesh as, say, a lit match or a lit cigarette. I also have first-hand knowledge of the power limitations of certain batteries.

Other points are simply observation or independant study.

 

Right on, Moab

those golf bags seem to become very important to people involved in crimes, don't they? OJ needed his so much, he made a special trip to the airport to pick it up after his wife's throat was cut and her friend stabbed to death. Handy place to hide a weapon or other incriminating evidence. And, no, the police did not search the Ramseys at all after the body was found.

You know, in any other case, that would have been it. The parents would have been spread-eagled, searched for any weapons on them, and taken down to the police station for questioning. Bing, bang, boom. Not in the Ramsey case - they were allowed to leave the house without being searched or questioned. That was favoritism in the extreme and a breach of proper police procedure, IMO.

Page 14-

<b>The forgoing is an accurate representative sampling of Mr. Smit's gross ineptness at seeing evidence and his unlimited capacity for 'creating evidence' in his role of Ramsey public relations expert and master propagandist.</b>

I had a thought the other day. I have those now and then, you know. What if Smit, as he investigates the Ramsey case the way he's wanted to do from the beginning, finds all his theories going down the tube as he goes about his business? What if all roads keep leading back to the Ramseys and his intruder theories keep hitting dead ends? Could it be possible he might start accepting there is no where else to go but to Atlanta? I doubt it, but it's a thought.

Public relations expert and master propagandist - Smit has acted in that capacity on several occasions; yet, he is allowed inside the investigation now, even after he took confidential case information with him when he left the case the first time and spread it all over the place, in spite of the fact the DA's office fought him on it (and lost), most likely shared evidence with Lin Wood and the Ramseys. It is just surreal this has been allowed to happen at the invitation of Mary Keenan, who was under pressure from Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood. It is all just so sleazy and obvious. Yet, it's allowed to continue. Is it any wonder people have such a low opinion or our legal system? Corrupt is corrupt, I don't care how you write it.

<b>Let's see how he stays on as a purveyor of myth while officially cast in the role of BPD detective and interrogator.

LS: Yeah...see, that is the question, when did JonBenet eat pineapple?

JR: Well, I don't know. I mean, I will guarantee you it was not after she came home. She was sound asleep. So it had to be at the Whites or prior to that.

LS: The pineapple is inside her. so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there. She had to eat it at some piont.

JR: Are you sure it was pineapple?

LS: No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo.

JR: What's the - is there a timeline based on where it is in the digestive system?

LS...There is...it could be anywhere from two hours to moe than that...

Smit asked many qustions about the entire day and eating. He reached back and back to early in the day, to White's party trying to find an out for John. Keep in mind, all this looking for source and time of consumption of the pineapple was made with the knowledge of a bowl of fresh pineapple sitting in the Ramsey home on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996.

What could he do but avoid this evidence? After all, he took John's word for his innocence and the course was set. After the expected denial of John of any knowledge about the pineapple and JonBenet eating it, Smit attempts to put the time frame in a more favorable light for John by saying that it could have been two hours or more that she ate the pineapple before she died.

Again, ignorance paraded as fact to suit the preconceived and preferred conclusion of Ramsey innocence.</b>

Is it SOP for a detective to give information to a subject he is questioning? This has John Ramsey asking the questions - What's the timeline based on where it is in the digestive system? And, Smit tells him, fercrissake! That is a huge interrogation mistake - the interrogator does not give the subject any information - he's supposed to be getting information from the subject. Godamighty, I can't believe anyone thinks this guy is a crack detective. I could say something here, but I won't.

<b>According to three Internet sources dealing with nutrition and digestion, pineapple (fresh) falls within the category of acid fruits. The maximum full digestion time is two hours with pineapple being one of those which digest faster than some of the others. A ratio number isn't given, but taking this information at face value, we know that pineapple digests fully in less than two hours. If the digestion is linear and "IF" the pineapple was half digested, this sets the time of death at one hour after eating the pineapple give or take a few minutes. What we can rely on with certainty is maximum gap. Although the degree of digestion was not given in the autopsy report, we know that JonBenet died less than two hours after eating the pineapple.

This fact in conjunction with a bowl of pineapple being found sitting out of the refrigerator in the Ramsey home on the 26th December 1996 created something of a sticky wicket for the Ramseys and Lou Smit. The Ramseys were already committed to the story that JonBenet was alseep upon arriving home and was carried upstairs to bed. The later autopsy report about the partially digested pineapple casts serious doubt on the Ramseys' claim.</b>

Seems pretty simple to me, but the RST wants to convolute the simplest explanation. There had to be an intruder who fed the pineapple to JonBenet, considerate guy that he was, though he violently murdered her a few minutes later. What a guy.

Next, we'll see how crack detective Lou Smit and John Ramsey work their way out of this one. Right now I'm hungry.

 

Speaking of stun guns

thank you, Adrian Monk for the lesson on the more technical aspects of stun guns. Just another example of how easily Smit's stun gun theory can be demolished.

Not long ago when jameson was crowing about the stun gun on her forum, she put up a picture of a man who really had been abused with electricity - I think it was a cattle prod vs a stun gun, but I could be disremembering here. The man was disinterred after a number of months and the picture was taken then. Anyway, the mark on the man's face was a dark color similar to the marks on JBR. Therefore, it was proclaimed that JBR's marks were caused by a stun gun.

Unfortunately, a sharp little cookie named why_nut, who often posts rebuttals to jameson's claims and does it very well, showed a completely different picture of the man - a picture taken at autopsy. In this picture, the marks were a light pink, barely visible, in fact. Remember the pigs? Remember the color of the stun gun marks on the pigs? They were a light pink, barely visible. The marks on this man had only turned dark red after he had been in his grave for many months. The marks on JBR, the dark marks, were there at autopsy, just a couple of days after she died.

How did jameson explain this little flaw in her logic? She didn't. Just like Smit, she chose to ignore why_nut's proof that the stun gun theory just did not work with JBR.

My dinner's cooking. Just random thoughts, here.

 

Re: Right on, Moab

It can be given in exchange for information, or as part of a "we know all" approach. Smit's approach here, in the way he interrogates the Ramseys, is sort of a buddy-buddy approach. He's trying to be the "good cop" to Steve Thomas' "Bad Cop". The problem is, the Ramseys were too smart for that--they saw right through it, and instead of Smit getting information out of the Ramseys, the Ramseys succeeded in co-opting Smit. Ask any real detective if it's in the handbook that you let the suspect co-opt you into "their world".

He had solved a number of cases before, but I think here his experience and his confidence in his own expertise did him more of a disservice than a service: a rookie transfer from Narcotics (Thomas) was open-minded enough to ***LISTEN*** to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (CASKU) when they strongly suggested further investigation into the Ramseys. Smit had more of an "I know everything there is to know" sort of swagger to him, making him more deaf to such suggestions. He also opened himself up for what was probably a play on his ego by the Ramseys: something along the lines of "imagine what kind of super-sleuth you could turn out to be if you prove the BPD wrong in their analysis of the evidence!"

To be fair, he was hired by Alex Hunter, originally, to investigate from the standpoint of the intruder theory. And to be equally fair, that didn't necessarily become a mandate to get tunnel-vision about defending the Ramseys at all costs. Unlike John Douglas, he wasn't (officially?) on the Ramseys' payroll. But he let the Ramseys play him like a piano, in the end, using his ego as the keys, to the point where he now comes off just looking and sounding ridiculous, like theories of BLUE arcing marks from a 1996 Air Taser--which couldn't be reproduced on a pig no matter how hard he tried. At the very least, that little collision between his head and the wall should have been a clue to him.

It's possible that at this late date, he's simply dug in his heels to avoid the humiliation of admitting he was wrong.

And thus this intruder came to be known later as the "pineapple ninja", to the smirks of many--yet another nail in the coffin of Smit's credibility.

How many murderous intruders take time out from their busy raping and killing schedule to feed their victims a snack?

The alternate theory is that JonBenet snuck downstairs to feed some of it to herself, at which time the intruder snatched her up. The "bugaboo" (to use Smit's words) with that is that Patsy also denied having fed pineapple either to herself or to Burke--and both hers and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. Hmmm... maybe the intruder invited the three of them to a little snack, then put Patsy and Burke to bed and continued with his killing rampage? Perhaps?

If Smit were dancing physically as much as his theory does mentally, it would be a feature skit on Riverdance.

 

The pineapple explored

P.16- 17, DE letter to Keenan

<b>"After much back and forth between John Ramsey and Lou Smit, an explanation for the pineapple in her system was sought within what had been established in the exchange.

Since John and Patsy Ramsey had denied any knowledge of when JonBenet ate the pineapple, the 'explanation' fell upon the notion that the 'intruder' had fed it to her, or allowed her to eat it.

The suspect 'intruder in this instance (and the Ramseys provided a very long list of 'suspects') was Santa Claus, aka, Bill McReynolds. John 'reasoned' that if anyone else but Santa had approached JonBenet, she would have cried out. He 'reasoned' that McRenolds enticed JonBenet to come with him and subsequently provided the pineapple from some source. Whether he thought Santa brought the pineapple with him or took it from the frefrigerator, John did not say.</b>

The question arises here, would not JonBenet think it strange that Santa was inside her bedroom, beckoning to come with him, after dark and after she had gone to sleep? I don't care how much my kids may have like Santa Claus, if that big ape had come into their bedrooms at night after everyone was asleep, in the dark, they would have said, Hey, whatchoo doing in my room, maaaaa, Santa's in my bedroom. The Ramseys belittle their daughter's intelligence when they say she would have calmly risen from her bed and gone with Santa without questioning it. It never happened.

<b>There was no discussion about how this version of the Ramseys' story fits or doesn't fit with the claim of stun gun and a lot of other items, including the huge coincidence that MrReynold's handwriting was so close to Patsy's that it had been adjudged by some handwriting experts as a match, and by others as a probable match to the note. Smit quickly moved away form the subject.</b>

Santa, the poor dear man. All he ever did was play Santa at the request of the Ramseys, and forever more he would be the subject of accusations by the Ramseys. Could have, should have, might have. First Santa slides down the window well, much like he must have slid down the chimney. Hey, wait a minute, did they check that chimney out for Santa hairs? This guy is so slick he tore nary a hair from that bushy beard or head. Down he came in his Hi-Tec shoes. I thought Santa wore black boots? Oh, that's right, this Santa wore one Hi-Tec shoe and one of another brand, which I don't remember right now. He left one footprint in the room where JB's body was found and the other footprint in another location, don't know where, but jameson says it's so, so it must be, since she is the authority on all things Ramsey, so she says.

What a guy. He has open heart surgery a few weeks prior to Christmas, has to have his wife help him as he plays Santa in the Ramsey house, then comes back and performs activities only a stunt man should try. Great reasoning. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

<b>JR: I think the person was in the house, if not when we got home, shortly after. I think she was killed that night, versus in the morning.</b>

I agree with John Ramsey here. The person (perp) was most definitely in the house shortly after they got home that night. I think, also, she was killed that night versus in the morning. How do we know? The Ramseys told us. Consider there were approx 2 hours left of December 25 when JBR was allegedly put to bed that night. They were five and one-half hours into December 26 when they made the 911 call. There was actually more time for the perp to kill JBR after midnight, on Dec. 26, than there was in the two hours left on December 25, and probably less than that considering the Ramseys say they got home around 10 (in the beginning it was closer to 9, I believe). By the time everyone was in bed and asleep, it may have been close to 11:00. That would narrow that time span down considerably. Now the killer only has one hour in which to feed JBR pineapple and kill her on Dec. 25. Why pick the 25th for the date she died instead of the 26th? I have never believed the Ramseys' story on that one.

<b>LS: What makes you think that?

JR: Well, the note talked about, 'I'm going to call you tomorrow.'

So, at this time and place, John had no doubt that tomorrow meant the 26th. At another time and place, he claimed confusion about whether tomorrow meant the 26th or the 27th.

At many times and in many places, it has been claimed by Smit, Ramsey, Wood, Carnes, you and others that there is a lot of credible evidence of an intruder. Yet, at another time and place, John says the intruder did not leave any 'good evidence.' According to John, the note was 'amateurish', but the intruder was 'clever.' (I have worked on 'tank circuits' in communication equipment that did not oscillate above the frequency of the changes in the Ramsey stories.)

Getting back to the pineapple question, if JonBenet did die on the 25th as John believes, and on this rare occasion, I agree with the conclusion, this poses numerous interesting questions. The first is by what thinking did the 'intruder' believe that John would see the note before tomorrow, therefore, see the admonition to be rested for the delivery tomorrow.

If the Ramseys were up and about until ten and JonBenet died on the 25th, then the pineapple eating and degree of digestion had to take place within the two hours between ten and twelve.

This, and all the other is a lot of activity for the time slot, even if the note were written prior to the alleged abduction, alleged sexual assault, and alleged murder by an alleged intruder.

How the alleged intruder knew when the Ramseys would get home, and when they would go to bed and clear the way is not explained by John Ramsey and Lou Smit. Nevertheless, if the alleged intruder wrote the note in advance, he had made these calculations.

I could go on and on listing the numerous discrepancies in this version of an alleged intruder, but one or all indicate that the alleged explanation for the pineapple in JonBenet's system falls woefully short of validity; indeed, nothing but an absurd mess and mass of contradictions. Is there a feasible explanation for the pineapple in JonBenet's system? Yes, there is, but there is no way an alleged intruder fits into it. I will get to this later in the letter.)

Next up: The chair blocking the door to the train room.

 

Re: The pineapple explored

John also did not say how the intruder managed to get Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on the bowl. Keep in mind, this is a family where hired maids normally do the dishes, so it's a very thin stretch to say those prints got there from cleaning the bowl and putting it away. By Linda H.P.'s description of Patsy, it's a very thin stretch to imagine Patsy doing any semblance of even basic straightening-up, let alone a full load of dishes. This would make any of her prints on any dishes, due to handling for USE, not cleaning.

Hmmmm... if a is to b and b is to c, then... yeah, it was a good idea for Smit to quickly move away from McReynold's handwriting. Just file that away in the long "bugaboo" list. He may not have gotten the memo though: you don't solve cases by ignoring "bugaboos".

They also make McReynolds into some sort of a neat-freak by making JonBenet's bed after the alleged abduction. He also did the laundry--rather considerate of him.

The "proprietary interest" way in which the victim's body was "tucked away" in blankets, in a sheltered location, points toward family and away from a stranger, who wouldn't care what condition the body was left in. In fact, if the ransom note was written to "show-boat" a gruesome killing, the body would have been left in a more conspicuous location, with more conspicuous acts of bodily desecration. This profile of killers also won't take the time to "wipe up" the victim's own blood. They take measures to ensure their own DNA isn't left behind, and then whatever of the victim's body is strewn everywhere, so much the better for "display" to those who find it. Part of the thrill they get is the shock value, to see if they can make whoever finds the body throw up from disgust.

And those stranger/intruders (e.g., Westerfield) who take measures to cover UP their killing, they take the body far... far... away. Delay discovery, and you have a chance of making the case grow cold before detectives can even start looking for you.

I think it's interesting that he thought that, to say the least. Yes, it is credible that the killer got into the house when they did, if the killer was one of the parents. Or if it was an alternate personality of Patsy in an MPD situation, then yes, that would be "shorly after". And that personality would "intrude" into the home without leaving signs of forced entry. Such a personality would not leave behind foreign DNA, but these people are not run-of-the-mill idiots here: they know they can go to an all-night Waffle House or similar establishment, and swipe a used utensil of some sort. In fact, that the DNA profile hasn't netted a match from known sex criminals or serial killers, makes it better than 50/50 odds that that's exactly how it got there. Imagine some trucker getting convicted of this crime, for having left his saliva behind on a fork at a truck stop. That will make a bad injustice even worse.

 

WY:

"Rodeos. Does anyone watch them anymore? I do. I love to
watch the cowboys rope their calves from the backs of their
horses. I think this is the same concept, but I could be wrong."

"Supposed to be" the same concept, yes. However, the noose around
JonBenet's neck was flawed in construction. In making a lasso to
rope a calf, the first thing is construct a small loop at one of
the rope. This construction is a lock down; that is, tied in a
manner so that the small loop will remain the same size and not
close upon use. This allows the main line of the lasso to travel
easily through the small loop. This is important in "shake out"
to get ready for the lassoing and important for free travel to
make the loop smaller after it is over the animals head.

There are those that talk about a "slipknot" in conjunction with
the cord around JonBenet's neck. Yes, there is a slipknot, a
double turn variety. The point is a slipknot does not belong in a
lasso or noose. The slipknot slips and compresses the main line
restricting movement. In short, all wrong and just one of the
many instances of amateur in the "garrote scene."

"One might think of the nooses of the hangman, too, and how they
work."

Something of a different ball game with 13 turns over a fold over
with the free rope traveling through the 13 turns with the series
of turns locked at the top. Its been a while, but I still recall
how to make a hangman's noose. Do I need to get one ready for
somebody?

Delmar

 

Congratulations WY!

Watching You, My account was very kindly reactivated again today, and this will give me the chance to say I was very impressed with the way you're handling Delmar's letter to D.A. Keenan. This is the kind of feedback Delmar and the rest of us need ...so we can discuss it, with Delmar's expertise close at hand.

Delmar's letter was amazing. Flushing out all the Ramsey lies, and nonfactual evidence which is what the intruder theory is based on, and is keeping the Ramseys out of jail.

Thor was the one who encouraged me to come here last year, and I did enjoy being here, but family commitments made me cut back on my posting on more than one site. I have been a member of CrimeNews 2000 for over two years now.

Did you say you were actually copy typing Delmar's letter? Did I get that right? You're not copying and pasting it? I'm sure I read this in one of your posts. Oh my goodness! That's a lot of work!

It must be nice to have a daughter who is a cop. I see she wasn't impressed with the way Lou Smit was talking to John Ramsey. Quite rightly so! Lou Smit got to know John Ramsey " too well!"

Looking forward to reading your other posts, and hopefully joining in.

 

Have only seen one Rodeo, Delmar, and that was in Texas.
I didn't take too kindly to watching the calves legs being tied up.

I have often made a lock down knot, thinking I was making a slipknot and wondered what went wrong. Now I can put a name to it. I do use the slipknot a lot.

I have often seen a hangman's noose in the movies, but have never seen a real one. Don't know that I want to (?). 13 turns over a fold you say. The unlucky number 13! Is this where it originated?

I'm more than pleased that "Watching You" has taken up the cudgel and is determined to keep your letter "on camera" if I can get away with this expression.

Looking forward to future discussions.