Delmar's Letter to Keenan

Welcome back Elle. And I agree, thank you Delmar for your hard work on this letter. It is amazing.

WY, you're doing a helluva job here. I can't add a thing.

And thank you to WY, Moab, Zoomama, Tricia, Mels, Veep, Adrian Monk, & JR for your excellent thoughts here too.

 

Re: This is from WY...she is having trouble getting on the forum...

Absolutely. At several points in the interview John angrily points out "clues left behind by the intruder" and his incredulity that the detectives "missed" the "clue". It's almost as if to say "come on guys, I go to all this trouble to STAGE AN INTRUDER and you don't take the bait? What gives?"

But then, Lou Smit takes the bait, chomps down, sets the hook, and eventually learns to love the hook itself--like a crack addict.

And many other things. In fact, so many conflicting attributes were ascribed to so many fall-guys in the staging of the death scene, that the Ramseys really overdid it. Extreme insider (knew the dog wouldn't be home, knew the amount of John's bonus because Santa is also a super-hacker in his spare time and cracked into the bank account!) and yet extreme-outsider at the same time (so-called "foreign DNA"). He was a criminal genius (scarily smart enough to telekinetically block the door to the train room as he departs out the window of the basement) and yet stupid enough to leave extra evidence behind via a RANSOM NOTE.

You can almost see the creative process in action at the staging of the crime scene: "no, no, no John, this isn't enough, we need MORE. Put a garrote on her neck. Parents never garrote their own children. Oh, oh, OH, I got it: a ransom note!" It's like the mother hen of so many of Patsy's big productions with the grandiose ideas streaming out, to make everything, bigger, better, larger than life. A school play becomes a Broadway opening. A fund-raiser for the school becomes a much bigger event. A science fair becomes a documentary for the Discovery Channel; that sort of thing. And now, a simple accident, or angry incident gone very bad, becomes the crime of the millenium, by a super-super-super-SUPER freakishly-skilled criminal mastermind, out to "frame" the Ramseys. For once, the very grandioseness of the ideas come back to bite her squarely in the posterior--not enough to convince a grand jury, but enough to get FBI/CASKU telling Thomas it was her; enough to populate the tabloids with enough fodder to displace frightening photos of Michael Jackson, even, at times.

Lying? They'll have you know they PASSED a polygraph... after the third try... after intense coaching and preparation on how to defeat the machine (similar to CIA training).

Beyond mere staging, it's a psychological message coming out from his subconscious, at a subliminal level, stating: "hey guys, I had nothing to do with this." It's like a cat covering up its vomit with a loose sock found on the floor. It knows that messes will upset the order of its world, from previous experience with humans, but it doesn't have access to the cleaning products and power tools humans use to remove the offending messes. John, the "cat", doesn't have the godlike-powers to "un-kill" JonBenet, so he does the next-best thing in his mind in finding as many loose items as he can to "cover over the mess". The Barbie nightgown; the blanket; the elaborate contraption with the nylon cord and paintbrush (not really a "garrote" per se); and then, the final layer: the chair. And the body is placed in a part of the house reserved for things to be kept OUT OF SIGHT (and out of mind). When Patsy would order something to be taken away, the knee-jerk message is "just take it to the basement; I don't want to see it." And of course she was reluctant to see her daughter the afternoon of the 26th, and had to have friends nearly drag her to the body. That's why JonBenet was "sent to the basement" to begin with. Out of sight, out of mind... or maybe just plain out of her mind...

 

Elle

I'm not even going to tell everyone how brain dead I am. Okay, yes, I am. Yes, I have been typing these out, every last one of them. I printed the letter out and have been typing from the hard copy, completely forgetting that all I had to do was copy and paste from Word where I stored it or from ACR's website. Oh, you guys, don't you even go there. I got so into it, well, you know. So, Elle, thank you. From here on in, I shall cut and paste.

I had a coinky dink last night with the forum and again this morning, but one of my rowdy friends figured it out for me. I am indebted to ya, veep.

DE letter to Keenan (my page 18, 19, etc, but maybe not your 18 -)


<b>LS: ...Just a couple of questions, and these are just miscellaneous questions that I had. In what area of the house do you think that JonBenet received the injuries to her head? That is just from your own....

JR: Well, I guess my impression is that it was in the basement. But that's just purely an assumption. We didn't hear a thing. I think if she had cried out or - you know, we would have heard that. I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see....</b>

The hair is standing up on the back of my neck, literally. It has every time I've read this statement from JR. "I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see...." What is Ramsey talking about here? To what time period is he referring when he says, "I just didn't see..."?

<b>LS: You had no knowledge?</b>

Why doesn't Smit ask John what he means instead of saying, "You had no knowledge?" Why doesn't he pin him down as to when he "just didn't see..."?

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

LS: And where?

JR: And where.

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

JR: I mean, 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.</b>

If JR believed a pedophile broke into his home and used a garrote on his child in a perverted sex game, why would he be wondering if someone hit her on the head first then strangled her? Where would the pedophile angle fit into a scenario like that? Where would the sexual aspect of the garrote fit into it? Notice he doesn't mention the molestation of his daughter or the use of a garrote as a sexual tool. He says "strangled" her. He also says he wonders whether the head injury didn't kill her, but he doesn't say, "I wonder if they killed her when they hit her on the head." There is a subtle difference here. But I can't explain it well. I know what I mean, LOL. Also, he may very well be telling it exactly the way it happened, thinking that if he does that and there is proof it happened that way, it would point AWAY from him, because why would he say something like that if he were the one who had committed the crime? Ramsey is diabolically clever, he would think about something like that.


<b>John is speculating on whether the head injury came first, then strangulation? Of course, this potential doesn't go along with Smit's theory and could really mess it up. Smit want's nothing to do with this idea. He blocks this avenue of inquiry quickly and emphatically:

LS: All right. This is getting way off of that. Do you know who brought John Andrew to the airport, when he left for Atlanta?

Unlike Mr. Smit, I am very interested in the head injury and strangulation thing and really interested in John's comments on it. To put things in perspective and see where I'm coming from and why, let's back up a bit and take it from there.</b>

I too am very interested in the head injury and strangulation aspect of this crime. Why didn't Smit pursue this line of questioning? It's like he cut it off because it would mess up his theory, as Delmar points out.

<b>Prior to March, 2000, all I heard or knew about the Ramsey case were occasional sound bites from newscasts. During the Barbara Walters interview in March of 2000, John Ramsey said that the autopsy report said that JonBenet died from strangulation. He expressed no doubt then, nor later that I know of. Death by strangulation was the persistent story put out by John Ramsey, Smit and others.

However, in reading the NE Police Files, I came across this:

JR: "I mean, there's 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."

Everything that moves leaves tracks. Believe it or not, this applies to thought as well as the physical. No thought exists in isolation. It is always connected to antecedent thoughts. A competent "mind tracker" can usually follow a given thought back to its source and motivation.

I won't take the time to validate by explaining the natural laws of mind operation, but demonstrate sufficiently to provide some insight into John's statement.

In Smit's theory of an intruder, with which John is usually in agreement, JonBenet is "controlled" by the "garrote", then strangled. The blow to the head is the last thing the intruder does according to Smit.

If JonBenet was being "controlled" by the "garrote" in some sexual happening as Smit declares, she was very much alive when she was strangled. If you interject the conclusion that she was dead from the head trauma before the cord was put around her neck, Smit's pedophile intruder story falls apart.

In the foregoing quote, John says you can't know. He speculates that maybe she was dead when the cord was put around her neck. Why would John introduce this thought and speculation which undermines the story of an intruder, hence, jeopardizes the basis for his claim of innocence?</b>

Ramsey is wavering here. His claim is that a pedophile broke into his home and killed his daughter, yet he shows doubt in his own words. It's as if he's not really sure which injury really killed JBR and it's bothering him - a lot. Hypothetically, if the perp were someone close to her - say someone in her family and in the house that night, and if that someone accidentally caused her to have a head injury that rendered her unconscious and perhaps with a pulse so faint it couldn't be found by anyone other than a professional - say a nurse or doctor or paramedic, and therefore in order to cover up the cause of her death - the head injury - that perp or his/her accomplice decided to camoflauge the cause of her death by putting that garotte around her neck and "strangling" her, wouldn't it be a shock to learn that perhaps she was not dead as s/he thought and the strangling actually did kill her? One could understand why the perp would struggle with this possibility, thinking perhaps that he had killed this little girl himself and not the other person he was covering for.

There would have been no logical reason for anyone to cover for a true accident, though. The only reason would be that the accident happened during the commission of a crime that could mean big trouble for someone - perhaps in the commission of an act of child abuse where someone just lost it and smacked JB, knocking her head against a hard object. Just one scenario that could have been. Lots to think about here.

<b>Although it is the basis for the pedophile intruder story and his claim of innocence, for some reason John is uncomfortable with the conclusion that JonBenet was strangled to death. The fact that he utters the forgoing quote casting doubt on the pedophile intruder story, tells there is a very strong emotional motivation for the speculation that maybe JonBenet was dead when she was strangled. Indeed, we can take it a step further.

 

The head blow/strangulation continued

I am not going to interrupt the next part because Mr. England does a superb job of explaining himself. Just read and soak it in.


<b>If he were comfortable with the idea of strangulation first, he would not question it and cast doubt on his defense. This tells me, even if not you, John DESIRES the conclusion that JonBenet was dead from the head trauma before she was strangled. Why?

To expedite matters, I will forego lengthy explanation of how the mind works and how John's situation conforms to the principles of mind operation. To get to the nitty gritty, I will offer a hypothesis which will perhaps explain John's interest in knowing if JonBenet was killed by the head trauma, then strangled afterwards.

Suppose:

On the evening of Dec. 25, 1996, after John and Burke had gone upstairs, JonBenet and Patsy were alone. JonBenet had either not gone to bed, or came down from her room.

Some understanding of this mother and daughter relationship is necessary to grasp the rest. Earlier in the day, there was a confrontation between JonBenet and Patsy about what clothes to wear. Other instances as well indicate that JonBenet had something of a mind or her own and did not hesitate to make it known. The indication is that she would not necessarily seek her mother's permission before doing something.

When Patsy says she would not have put the pineapple in such a bowl with such a spoon, most likely she is telling the truth. When she says she did not feed JonBenet pineapple, most likely she is telling the truth. This leaves JonBenet getting the pineapple for herself. Patsy was occupied with making some preparations for tomorrow, and at first, did not notice that JonBenet had gotten out the pineapple; maybe she had even forbidden her to do so.

A confrontation over something happened for sure; perhaps JonBenet eating pineapple when Patsy wanted her in bed was what provoked the confrontation that began as verbal and culminated in violent physical contact. During the confrontation, JonBenet was either hit by an object heavy large enough to fracture her skull without lacerating the scalp, or was pushed, slung, or fell against an object resulting in the fractured skull immediately rendering her unconscious.

Patsy tried desperately to revive her, but with no success. In panic, she called John. John was either in bed or getting ready for bed. He rushed down in his underwear. They desperately tried to revive JonBenet. Again, no success. They concluded that JonBenet was dead. If she was dead, there was no point in calling for help. However, the cause of her death was of much concern. If the truth were known, it would cause John and Patsy all sorts of problems and not bring JonBenet back.

The scalp was not lacerated. There was nothing that one could readily see as the cause of death.

"I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see...." (John)

They never thought that anyone would see anything other than what they saw. They never thought of an autopsy and head trauma discovered. They decided to try to make JonBenet's death look like it came about from some other cause. Why not? JonBenet was gone. There is no undoing; no bringing her back. Why suffer the unpleasant consequences if the truth were known about her death? What would it gain? Who would it help? In their minds, no one.</b>

A perfectly logical presentation of how Patsy could have been responsible for her daughter's death and how she and JR conspired after the fact.

<b>They decided to try to hide the truth. The question was how. Children of wealthy parents are often kidnapped and held for ransom, hence, nearly an automatic selection. Also, young girls are often the target of a pedophile. Also, nearly an automatic selection of motive.

The classic picture of a kidnap victim is bound and gagged. This was accomplished with some tape and cord. The pedophile idea was manifested by a genital assault with an object. There remained the question of setting up the "cause of death." A blow to the head was out of the question because head damage as cause of death was what they were trying to hide. Knife? Manual strangulation? What? For whatever reason, strangulation with a "garrote" was chosen to appear as the cause of death.

The washing and clothes change took place upstairs, the rest in the basement. The basement was dark, but turning on a ceiling light there at that time of night might well attract unwanted attention.</b>

I'm a little fuzzy on this point. Wasn't there a light on in the basement when the first police officer checked the basement early in the morning of Dec 26?


<b>To minimize this risk, they used a flashlight to illuminate, but not too much. In the stress of the situation, the flashlight was not returned to its usual place in the drawer, but left on the counter.

There is a similar situation with the pineapple. Fresh pineapple spoils quickly if not refrigerated. Patsy made a knowing remark to this effect in one of the questioning sessions, implying that in normal circumstances, she would quickly return the pineapple to the refrigerator after use. Yet, the bowl of pineapple was left sitting out. It was found the next day by the police. This indicates a serious distraction from the norm during the time that the pineapple would usually have been put back in the refrigerator.

All of these things are quite understandable under the circumstance. They were, of course, new to the experience, emotionally distraught, and not knowledgeable about ransom notes, nor garrotes. All this in conjunction with the necessity to utilize materials on hand combined to produce an amateurish and transparent staging only the most naive and gullible would believe to be authentic.</b>

Although I am of two minds on who actually perpetrated the crime of murder of JBR, I am in complete agreement on what happened next with the staging. There were two people working on the staging - one doing the physical staging and the other writing the note.

<b>I doubt that anyone was more surprised that they officially got away with it than the Ramseys themselves.</b>

Again, I couldn't agree more. I don't think they ever thought it would be that easy. Everything just fell into place. The idea to invite all their friends over was genius. The shortage of police officers at the scene, probably because of the holidays, added to their luck. JR got ultra lucky when Arndt told him to look around the house for anything out of place. That gave him the opportunity to destroy the crime scene in the basement. After that, error upon error, connections, more staging, hiring connected attorneys, an inept DA and his inept assistants - the more they could manipulate and throw monkey wrenches into the investigation, the better off they would be. And, that is exactly what they did.

<b>Initial success encouraged defiance and media appearances. Although always living in fear of discovery, they put up a good front. It seemed the plan had worked quite well. Then came the disturbing autopsy report:

"CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

Is the autopsy report correct? Could it be that JonBenet was still alive and maybe could have been saved before she was strangled?

"I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her." (John)

Why does he want to know? Translation: "Please tell me that she was dead from the head injury before the strangulation. I don't want to believe there was a chance she could have survived and wasn't given that chance."

The intensity of the concern is revealed by the utterance itself which sought assurance that she was dead before strangulation. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that death by head trauma is precisely what they sought to hide, but John sought to establish as fact in direct contradiction. There had to be a very personal and very intense reason for this.

Can you think of anything other than him thinking he had put a noose around a dead person's neck, his daughter's, only to find out later that maybe it wasn't true, that maybe he, by deliberate action contributed to her death?

Ms. Keenan, could this be the way it happened? Would this explain John's trying to establish head injury as cause of death although the opposite was his defense? If the "supposing" is true, could this prompt the remark, "that's very difficult to think about and imagine"

More to come...

 

It Makes Perfect Sense To Me....

that John thought the blow to JonBenet's head was the cause of her death.....

I have always thought that both John and Patsy dearly loved their daughter and would not have purposely killed her....

The murder of JonBenet Ramsey, though appearing otherwise, could very well have been an accident.....

1. Patsy Ramsey, overtired and possibly partially drugged or intoxicated, lost patience with JonBenet over bedwetting, or over finding out that JonBenet was being molested either by Burke, JAR, or JR....Patsy smacks JonBenet on the head with the first available object, the maglight flashlight, much harder than she has intended and suddenly finds JonBenet completely unresponsive....

2. John is awakened by a panicked Patsy....He runs to examine JonBenet and cannot get a response or even detect a heartbeat and assumes that she is dead from the head trauma....

3. The Ramseys cannot simply call 911 or the police to report JonBenet's death as an accident.....Why? Because either one or both of them know that JonBenet has been sexually abused, and that this will be detected when she is examined....otherwise, they could have easily explained the death by saying that she fell down the spiral staircase, or fell off of the balcony outside of her room...any number of explanations would have been acceptable, except for that one pesky fact of the presence of evidence of prior sexual abuse....

4. There had to be an intruder in order to explain the sexual abuse by someone other than a family member....So John and Patsy created an intruder with the note and with the garrote....

5. The staging with the garrote included the tying of the slip knots and the tightening of the "noose" to the point where it would appear that the intruder/abuser had made JonBenet loose conciousness and eventually strangled the life out of her....

6. John and Patsy (or maybe just John) in fashioning and tightening the noose on JonBenets neck, thought that he or they were just staging the stragulation on JonBenet who was already dead from the accidental blow, so imagine John's shock and ambiguous feelings when later speaking to Smit and other detectives who found real doubt that the intial head blow was the actual cause of death and that John himself might have been the actual murderer....

7. John does seem perplexed and unable to aticulate well as the thought of the actual stragulation death rather than a head blow death enters his thought process.... It would be extremely disconcerting to discover later, during a police interview, that you personally were the actual perpetrator of your daughters death and that your own little daughter was still alive while you were strangling the life out of her.....

WY and Delmar, I think that you are both very articulate in your thought process observations....did not know that there were experts in a special thought articulation process field....interesting....

 

Adrian - Good stuff on the stun gun bit.

Adrian Monk:

"Why would he put back a chair that was blocking entrance into a
room? What logical reason would he have for doing that, unless
the chair was a prop to begin with, and he was the stager."

I have been through this in my mind a hundred times like most of
you. The following is the way is jells for me. Please give it a
kick and let me know what you think.

John, by his own words, was in the basement on the morning of the
26th between 7 and 9. On at least two occasions when asked how
long he was there, he said between 30 seconds and a minute. He
also claims to have gone into the train room, found the window
open an "inch or so" and closed it. All this in a minute or less?

What really happened? I believe that John went to the basement
with the intent to "discover" the body at that time. I think that
for whatever reason, he decided against it and abandoned the
plan. He never went beyond the basement area adjacent to the
stairs. He never went into the train room.

When it was known that he had been in the basement and asked why
he was there and for how long, John probably told the truth of 30
seconds to a minute, but did not want to tell the real reason he
had gone to the basement. He made up the story about going into
the train room and closing the window. He didn't think of and
didn't remember the chair against door situation. This is what
really tripped him up. In other words, the chair and door
situation was exactly like it had been on the night of the 25\26.
It had not been disturbed; which left the necessity to create a
very "clever" intruder to reach around the door and pull the
chair as he departed. This calls for an explanation as to why an
"intruder" would do this. A real sticky wicket.

About the framing theories, a person framed is a person innocent,
and acts that way. This hardly applies to the Ramseys.

 

Onward...

I'm losing track of pages here - I have P23, but it may be different with others. (DE letter to Keenan)

<b>Getting back to the staging itself, naturally, a ransom note was a primary part of a kidnapping scenario. Contrary to Smit's declaration, the note does not show calm, cool and collected. Its nervous and spastic with at least seven mood changes with "mind tracks" as easy to follow as water buffalo through a mud flat.

Let's look at one very revealing item. " The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested."</b>

Just a short note, here. This sentence is pure Patsy - "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested."



<b>Truth is fluid and flows smoothly. Lies, especially, in a serious situation, puts the mind in a strenuous pose. It is uncomfortable to maintain. There is an everpresent desire to drop the pretense, to relax. A brief lack of focus brings the mind back to truth and personal concerns. As John was concerned about the cause of death, Patsy was concerned about the ordeal she was going to face tomorrow. It showed up in the note.</b>

Absolutely. I make it a practice not to lie, because I am a lousy liar. For one thing, I would not be able to remember what I told what to whom, if I were a liar. It makes sense to tell the truth. You don't have to be continually trying to remember what lie you told the last time, so you can always be consistent. Add to that the fact that every lie shows on my face, I mean literally, anyone could tell if I were lying, LOL, and you have all the reasons I can't lie. Some people are quite good at lying - pathological liars are pretty good at it, sociopaths are superior at it, but even so, there are almost always telltale signs if one is alert to them. That's why truth flows easily and liars are always fumbling. I have always wondered about the reference in the note about being rested and the kidnappers would be calling tomorrow. I suspect the note was written in the wee hours of the morning of Dec. 26, and I believe that Patsy Ramsey wrote it, perhaps with input from JR. While JR may not have been sure what "tomorrow" referred to, I have wondered if Patsy didn't write it that way deliberately, thinking everyone would think it meant the 27th, so she could get some rest before the chit hit the fan. No intruder would give a hoot if you were rested or not, that is for sure. But both she and JR would have been "exhausted" from the extreme and prolonged rush of adrenaline in their systems and the fact that they hadn't slept.

<b>Later, after he discovered the revealing error, John tried to dance around this blunder by saying there was much confusion to whether tomorrow meant the 26th or the 27th. A check of numerous documents, including, their first interview on CNN failed to turn up a word or action indicating that there was any doubt that "tomorrow" was the 26th. As usual, John's rewrite of history failed. The pen moves on and that sort of thing.

You may also notice that the writer of the note had no doubt as to what day it was. If a person awakes from a sleep, there is no way the person will instantly know how long he or she has been asleep. The mind of the note writer neither expressed nor implied any doubt that it was before midnight on the 25th. The inference is that she had not been to sleep.</b>

Right. I don't believe PR ever went to bed that night, either. It's possible JR went to bed but was woken by Patsy who didn't know what to do about the mess she was in.

<b>When we factor in the time required for the staging, the pineapple evidence, meaning that JonBenet did not die instantly from the head trauma, that the digestive system continued to function although she was unconscious, couldn't the pineapple eating itself be the very thing that set off the confrontation?</b>

This is something I've thought about, too. JonBenet was supposed to be getting ready for bed. Instead she was fooling around in the kitchen, getting pineapple out of the refrigerator, Patsy was tired and wanted to go to bed....

<b>Suppose we now include Patsy wearing the same clothes the next day. Do not all these factors converge upon the conclusion that the confrontation took place before midnight and Patsy never went to bed? She was up most of the night setting up the staging. The rest was nervous waiting for the time to call.

It was decided that if caught in any discrepancy, it would be attributed to the hysteria and panic of the stressful situation. This was in conjunction with avoiding any commitment that wasn't necessary by "I think", "maybe", "not sure" and "don't recall."</b>

This cannot be denied, because the police interviews of Patsy and John are peppered with "I think," "maybe," "not sure," and "don't recall." Those are words of someone hiding someone, especially over and over again.

<b>This tactic became a staple in John's and Patsy's interviews and interrogations. The tactic backfired. The attempted disassociation from certain crucial areas of the crime scene served only to call focused attention to them.</b>

 

23-24-

<b>How about it Ms. Keenan, could it all have happened as laid out in my supposing? Do you see any contradictions of the known facts? Which really makes more sense, this or the absurd contradiction-riddled intruder stories?</b>

It is very important that Mary Keenan knows Delmar England is not the only one who wants answers to these questions. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who are asking the same questions and want answers.

<b>I may not know every detail of the confrontation and subsequent actions, but what I do know with absolute certainty is that the crime scene was staged. Are you going to tell me an intruder staged it?</b>

Interesting questions. If, after reading Delmar's letter so far, Mary Keenan still believes in the intruder fairy tale, I wonder if there is any hope for her at all.

<b>In contrast to the supposing scenario above, let us take known facts and try to incorporate said facts with the notion of intruder.

An intruder plans to kidnap, sexually assault and kill JonBenet, or changed the plan along the way. He climbs down into the window well. He reaches through the broken pane and cranks the window open. He enters through the window. He then comes to a door which opens away from him. It has a chair against it on the other side. He pushes the door open and the chair away from the area.</b>

Stop here. Let's dissect this paragraph, because there's a lot there. Start with "he climbs down into the window well." I'll add, "without leaving a trace of himself."

"He reaches through the broken pane..." I'll add, "without snagging his shirt, cutting his arm, because the hole in the window was the size of a baseball. Very small arm. Very small intruder? Or just more lies?"

"He enters through the window.."

"He then comes to a door which opens away from him." I'll add, "but he can't see what's on the other side of that door without opening it."

"It has a chair against it on the other side." I'll add, "but he doesn't know this until...

"He pushes the door and the chair away from this area.." and I'll add, "and gets nervous when the chair makes a noise as it is scraped over the cement floor by the door's pushing it."


<b>He fails to bring any material needed to carry out his plan. He uses paper and pen from the Ramsey house to write a multi-page ransom note. He demands the odd amount of $118,000, which by coincidence, matches the figure of John's bonus.</b>

This is totally crazy. Did this intruder deliberately plan to spend hours in the Ramsey house? Some say he was there while the Ramseys were at the Whites' house and that is when he wrote the ransom note. Here's why that doesn't make sense. No self-respecting intruder would break into a home with kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder in mind without having written the ransom note first and carrying it with him. He didn't want to be caught with the ransom note? Hello? Caught by whom? Since when does an ordinary citizen walking down the street get stopped and searched by anyone, including the police, unless they have committed a crime?

Oh, you say this person had a grudge against Ramsey and wanted to frame him? That would imply the intruder knew and was intimately acquainted with Ramsey, which would quickly limit the scope of suspects, which it hasn't. No way did any intruder go in that home with the intention of kidnapping JonBenet without a note ready to be slapped down, grab the kid, and run. That's it. That's what kidnappers do. They do not hang around writing notes, staging crime scenes. Intruders do not stage crime scenes - it is as simple as that. BobC has been saying this forever - I'll say it again - Intruders have no need to stage crime scenes. When an intruder breaks in, the scene is what it is - a scene of intrusion. not staging and coverup.

An intruder would have been hyper-alert, listening for any sound that would tell him someone was up or any sound that he himself made, upon which time he would freeze. An intruder would be sweating his head off, adrenaline pumping through his veins like crazy. He's kidnapping a kid - sneaking up stairs without leaving a trace of himself anywhere, grabbing a sleeping child, stun gunning her to keep her, what, quiet? Not likely, since stun guns have the exact opposite effect - the subject hollars because it hurts. Then, it's back downstairs, eat the pineapple, take her to the basement, finish the job. Oh, wait, gotta get out of here. Move that suitcase over in front of the window. It wasn't there when I came in, but they'll never notice. Wait, need a piece of glass to put on the suitcase, a clever, bizarre little clue to make them think I broke out the glass coming in. Where am I going to get the glass? Maybe I can find some on the floor.

What's up with this? Why is this intruder putting props around in this room? If he had truly used the suitcase for a step up to get out of that window, when he shoved off the suitcase to get into the window, he would have shoved the suitcase over with his foot, it's common sense. Try it sometime. Balance on a suitcase, if it will even hold you, and try to push off it to get to a point higher than the suitcase. I don't know if it can be done. Klutz that I am, I'd fall off the suitcase before I could even catch my balance - it wouldn't be easy to stand on there. Can you see Santa trying to balance on that suitcase? Give me another break, woodja?

Getting off subject, here...

<b>He goes upstairs to JonBenet's bedroom and takes her from it. He takes her to the basement. He puts tape over her mouth, apparently garnered from the Ramsey household like the paper, pen, cord, and paint brush handle. The tape and ties give the appearance of a kidnap victim, a kidnap victim which was never taken from the house, and for which no ransom was collected, nor attempt made to collect.

He commits no sexual act, only genital assault. He decides to kill his kidnap victim, not by a blow to the head, not with a knife and not by manual strangulation.</b>

Noit to be facetious here, but apparently Delmar hasn't heard of the sex glove theory from the swamp (or perhaps he has and is too much of a gentleman to bring it up, LOL). The chief little head at the swamp believes said pedophile/intruder/contortionist/athlete/odd-paired shoe wearing perp may have worn a sex glove and masturbated into it. I don't know why I thought it important to bring that up, because it is absurd, but I just wanted to point out the lengths the RST will go in order to bolster their ridiculous intruder theory.


<b>His weapon of choice is a "garrote" with which he is obviously unfamiliar, hence, leaves a bungled amateurish mess.Finally, he hits her over the head with something, with said something never being found and matched to the blow.</b>

You know, the RST really hasn't gotten into the head blow much, have they. They have brought up a baseball bat that was probably left outside by Burke at one time but the Ramseys deny knowledge of, of course, but they haven't come up with a plasible theory for how JBR's skull got split in half. Of course, no one else knows, either, unless it was the flashlight, but I've brought up before the force that would have been necessary to split her skull with an object, and have always thought that regardless of how strong that flashlight was ( I have one, they are sturdy and well-made), I don't know how anyone could hit something that hard and not at least crack the lens on the flashlight if not break it apart completely. Police carry even heavier-duty flashlights than we have, and they may use them to crack someone, I don't know. I don't think, though, that my flashlight would hold up under a blow that hard. I'm no expert, though, I could be wrong.

So what caused the blow to her head? The RST really doesn't want to go there, I think, because it would mean delving into the possibility JB was violently thrown against something that may have cracked her skull.

<b>Somewhere in all this he retrieves a blanket and wraps the body in it, and drew a heart on her hand. We may also note that somewhere within this activity, there is an interim wherein she was fed or allowed to eat pineapple.

The intruder decides to leave. As he goes through the door into the train room, he reaches around the door and grasps the chair to pull it back close to the door the way he found it. He also stops to reach through the broken pane and close the window except for an inch or two.</b>

Right. More staging by the intruder. What for? Man, he just killed a kid. He was on his way out, look out, he's motoring. Wait, his phobia is kicking in, now. What do they call that disease? I can't remember - it's a sad disease where people have to check something over and over, make sure everything is exactly right... Someone will tell me what it is, I'm sure...

This intruder is a split personality, I think. He kills the Ramseys' daughter because he has a grudge but is nice enough to put a chair back where he found it. Or, was the chair part of his staging in the first place? Perhaps the chair wasn't there when he first broke in. It was allegedly there when John Ramsey checked that room the morning of the 26th. That's all we really know for sure, if Ramsey is to be believed. It's probably true, after all, part of the staging and all. Which brings up the question, again. If John Ramsey did not have any way of knowing the basement was part of a crime scene, why would he be concerned about replacing a chair that was blocking that room back in the same position, blocking that room? Why didn't he just leave it aside so access to the room wasn't blocked? Easy. Because it was a prop put there by Ramsey to begin with, and it had to be there for his cover up to work. Don't ask me why. I don't know why that chair had to be there. Seems it would have been better to put the chair in front of the broken basement window and leave the suitcase in front of the door. Makes more sense to me.

 

Liars

There are all kinds of liars and I'm not sure what category Patsy Ramsey falls in, but she is one by nature.

Her lies seems to be more of the embellishment and exaggeration type, but they seem to have been consistant and came easily to her.

She lied quickly and easily to rid John of a bothersome girlfriend before they were married.

She said JonBenet spoke French.

Her sideboard came from Tiffany's.

Off hand I cannot think of other examples, but it would make writing a staged ransom note a little more "flowing" as each lie in it helped to make a plausable (to Patsy) story.

Lying is funny to the Ramsey's, it was a real knee slapper to call and pretend to be a girlfriend to get the tabloid owner in "trouble." And the fun keeps lying away with the Susan Stine incident.

Once a liar, always a liar.

 

Such brilliance, Delmar

I continue to be amazed at the depth of your insight into this case.

(P. 24- or close, DE letter to Keenan)

<b>think this is a reasonable facsimile as basis for my request. You have cast yourself in the role of defense attorney. Humor me and play the role a while longer.

Take the intruder story as depicted above and think about it long and hard. Please tell me what arguments you would use before a jury to try to convince them the intruder story is true?

Are you still sure that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so?" If so, I sure would like to hear the argument you would put before a jury. If not, don't you think a public retraction of your statement is in order?</b>

Though Keenan has made no public retraction of her statement, and I don't expect she will, it is interesting to note that she did make some kind of a statement saying the Ramseys were not eliminated as suspects or something like that. And, I think Moab posted an article this morning about Keenan's hiring another detective to work on this case - someone I have never heard of. Could this be her effort to get someone in there with those "new eyes?" Is this detective unbiased and not in the RST camp? I suspect some of our forum sleuths will get on this and find out whatever they can about the newest addition to the investigative team. Maybe, Delmar... can't say for sure, but just maybe something of your formidable efforts is beginning to take hold?

<b>After over six years, no intruder has been found. What's this intruder like? What is his profile as indicated by the facts when one tries to tie them to Smit's "evidence?"

He is an enemy of John Ramsey in that he kidnapped John's daughter. He is a friend of John Ramsey in that he is concerned for John's comfort and admonishes him in the ransom note to be rested for tomorrow. He is a master planner and organizer in that he puts together an elaborate plan of kidnapping, assault and murder. He is ultimately and carelessly random in that he brings no materials to carry out his plan. He is mercenary in that he demands a $118,000 ransom for the safe return of John's daughter. He disdains wealth in that he makes no effort to collect. He is the standard of calm, cool and collected in that he lingers long in the house writing a long ransom note and carrying out other tasks without fear of being discovered. He is the portrait of confusion, agitation and disorientation in that his mind cannot grasp the simple concept of making a noose and putting over the head rather than tie the cord around the neck. He is a pedophile driven by his sexual desires in that he targets a six year old female. He is a celibate, a frustrated eunuch who performs no sexual act, only genital assault with an object. He is vicious and cruel in that he murders John's daughter. He is kind and compassionate in that he tenderly wraps the body in a blanket. He is openly contemptuous of the Ramseys in that he enters their home and tears their tranquility asunder. He is respectfully mindful of the Ramseys' wishes in that he thoughtfully closes the basement door and window as he departs to leave them as he found them.

He is the epitome of stupidity in that he leaves the body in the house for early discovery losing his leverage of ransom. He is a genius of cleverness beyond description in that he has eluded the police and thwarted all their efforts for over six years. He is the sum of his parts. The sum of contradiction is zero.</b>

I want to take the time to separate these, because they are important. The first list:

The intruder is:

1. an enemy of John Ramsey in that he kidnapped John's daughter.

2. a master planner and organizer in that he puts together an elaborate plan of kidnapping, assault and murder.

3. a mercenary in that he demands a $118,000 ransom for the safe return of John's daughter.

4. the portrait of confusion, agitation and disorientation in that his mind cannot grasp the simple concept of making a noose and putting over the head rather than tie the cord around the neck.

5. a pedophile driven by his sexual desires in that he targets a six year old female.

6. openly contemptuous of the Ramseys in that he enters their home and tears their tranquility asunder.

7. the epitome of stupidity in that he leaves the body in the house for early discovery losing his leverage of ransom. He is a genius of cleverness beyond description in that he has eluded the police and thwarted all their efforts for over six years. He is the sum of his parts.

List 2:

The intruder is:

1. a friend of John Ramsey in that he is concerned for John's comfort and admonishes him in the ransom note to be rested for tomorrow.

2. ultimately and carelessly random in that he brings no materials to carry out his plan.

3. He disdains wealth in that he makes no effort to collect.

4. the standard of calm, cool and collected in that he lingers long in the house writing a long ransom note and carrying out other tasks without fear of being discovered

5. a celibate, a frustrated eunuch who performs no sexual act, only genital assault with an object. He is vicious and cruel in that he murders John's daughter

6. kind and compassionate in that he tenderly wraps the body in a blanket.

7. He is respectfully mindful of the Ramseys' wishes in that he thoughtfully closes the basement door and window as he departs to leave them as he found them.

The sum of contradiction is zero, as Delmar says. These are not just little contradictions - these are huge. The intruder viciously murders a six year old, then covers her with a blanket, puts a chair back where he apparently found it, closes the basement window so debris and cold air cannot come in, except through the baseball-sized hole, cleaned up JBR's body but duct taped her mouth. Big big contradictions..

<b>Where did it all go wrong? How could such a basically elementary crime scene take so many twists and turns weaving an obscuring veil of deceit until the truth is BURIED SO DEEPLY (emphasis WY's) that it is not even seen in contrast to the confusion and illusions now officially labeled as "Statements Of Fact."

There is plenty of blame to go around and many to share. No doubt, not isolating the house as a crime scene was one. Yes, a serious error, but not fatal to the case. Preferential treatment did not aid finding the truth either; indeed, was and is a major hindrance. At first, it was given freely as is the "custom" dictated by social status, but vehemently denied. Later, the preferential treatment was extorted by threats of lawsuits. If the "super detective", Lou Smit, says there was an intruder, then it is not in doubt. The Ramseys must be innocent and any word or action to the contrary is persecution.</b>

Getting into it here, Delmar - the persecution of the Rams, that is, and the circus overtaken by the monkeys who have directed the show ever since. I'm just going to let Delmar tell it now, unless I just can't help myself, LOL. He is so good at doing so.

<b>Smit, Wood, Ramseys and the whole RST were and are a cacophony of protests that the police were not following evidentiary lead; that they were focusing only on the Ramseys. The truth is that's the only place the evidence points. Still many thousands of dollars were spent on wild goose chases to placate the only viable suspects, but it was never enough. The absurd demands still go on.

The threats rested on nothing more than the illusions and delusions of Lou Smit: Judge Carnes universal "expert witness" and through the mouth of Lin Wood, your instructor, your director who tells you to cooperate with the Ramseys. The victimized taxpayers of Boulder are being defrauded from every direction.</b>

Can't help myself. Picture WY with her fists in a fighting stance, each punch into the punching bad accompanied by chants of , Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, you go, Delmar... This is sooooo good, I'm going to repeat it - <b>The threats rested on nothing more than the illusions and delusions of Lou Smit: Judge Carnes universal "expert witness" and through the mouth of Lin Wood, your instructor, your director who tells you to cooperate with the Ramseys. The victimized taxpayers of Boulder are being defrauded from every direction.</b> Yes, Yes, Yes

Ahem, I'm under control, I really am. (Yes!)

<b>Smit was called in to help in the investigation. He was reputed to be a competent detective of the first order. Much was expected. Much was delivered, but not what was expected. I don't know what happened prior to the incident, but Smit's giving the only viable suspects a free pass had to create tension and turmoil with any competent detective obliged to work with him. I can only imagine the frustration and exasperation of anyone in this position. By no means do I fully agree with Steve Thomas, but I do admire his restraint in walking away from the scene without breaking something first. </b>

And, so do I admire Steve Thomas for the same reason and more.

<b>Any detective, professional or amateur, knows that taking the word of a prime suspect is the epitome of incompetence.
WHY SMIT WAS NOT BOOTED THEN AND THERE</b> (emphasis, WY's), <b>I do not know. Maybe those that hired him did not want to admit such a blunder. Maybe this. Maybe that. I really don't know. What I do know is that the circumstance snowballed into a colossal fraud with many repercussions which are reverberating to this day.

Again: WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE SNOWBALLED INTO A COLOSSAL FRAUD WITH MANY REPERCUSSIONS WHICH ARE REVERBERATING TO THIS DAY.</b>

AMEN AND AMEN.

Delmar is on a drum roll now, the momentum builds as he tears into the soft underbelly of the fraud that has been the JBR case for six long years, exposing the corruption therein...

<b>Smit came in with the billing of super detective. Apparently, the hype and spotlight compelled him to try to put on a spectacular performance to live up to the billing. Oh, he did. In mystical fashion, he "found" clues where none existed. He found "facts" without factual foundation. He wove fantasies of fantasies undeterred by obvious contradiction. He was on stage front and center. Dazzle the audience as all "superstars" do. That was his destiny. Truth be damned. The performance is all that counts.

He went on the touring circuit with the Ramseys. He was a loud and vocal proponent of their innocence bolstered by what seemed to be an endless supply of "evidence" of an intruder. He was brought in and built up with the official sanction and praise of the BPD and others. However, he was not taken down by same when the truth of his incompetence was realized.

In the "public eye" of those who had not studied the case and relied on general dissemination as truth, Smit was still the great detective he had been touted to be. Even after resigning, in the minds of most, Smit was still the spokesperson for authority correlated with declarations of Ramsey innocence with many years of experience in his resume to convince many of the great detecting abilities.

Smit "built his case" for intruder perpetrator far and wide, and without noticeable opposition. Smit's public appearances as point man and spokesperson for the Ramseys was and is monumental in scope. The scene took on an air of absolutism. There was no other version to be heard.

The mass of rhetoric solidified into a wall that obscured all else projecting a facade of truth taken by most to be the real thing.

In this environment of Smit's unquestionable "proof" of an intruder, the Ramseys are totally innocent and any word to the contrary could well make you the defendant in a libel\slander suit. This threat knows no bounds. Not even the BPD or DA's Office are off limits of this tactic. Anyone trying to do their job by going with the evidence is accused of persecuting the Ramseys and may find themselves looking down the barrel of US Code 42, Section 1983, the "shotgun" code.

Smit's "evidence" of an intruder is only a figment of his imagination and upon confrontation with facts disappears like a will of the wisp. What then? Without an identified intruder or evidence of an intruder, what suspects are there. Smit called it: "If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder. If there is no intruder, then it has to be the Ramseys."

Question: When all alleged evidence of an intruder is proven to be invalid, thereby accusing the Ramseys by default, on what basis can a libel\slander suit be filed since the Ramseys are the ONLY suspects by virtue of the evidence?

Smit's illusions and aberrations have been regarded by many as factual evidence of an intruder. Lin Wood is on the list. If truth were known and Wood were deprived of this fictional basis paraded as truth, how many libel\slander lawsuits do you think he would have filed and\or threatened?</b>

The end coming up. I am breathless.

 

Delmar England's letter to Keenan- The Conclusion

<b>Throughout this letter, I have shown that Smit's alleged evidence of an intruder is invalid; that there was no intruder. By this statement, I cannot help but accuse the Ramseys. The only way I can avoid this is to agree with Mr. Smit. I can agree if I find his arguments valid. I can agree by taking his word for it.

However, since in examining, I may find Mr. Smit's arguments flawed, the only way that I can avoid any chance of accusing the Ramseys is not to examine Smit's arguments, just take his word for it.

Therefore, if accusing the Ramseys is libel and slander, which is illegal, it follows that it is illegal for me to question the conclusions of Mr. Smit in search of the truth.

In other words, when we brush aside all the obscuring rhetoric, Mr. Wood's suits and threats of suits are, in effect, saying that all are compelled by law to accept the word of Lou Smit without question or else they are guilty of libel and slander. I've done a lot of legal research in my time, but somehow I must have overlooked the law that says it is illegal not to take Mr. Smit's word as absolute fact. Perhaps, Mr. Wood will be kind enough to point it out to me.

Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone about anything, but filing a lawsuit for the purpose of harassment or intimidation can have very serious consequences. With exactly what would Wood propose to back up a suit? After over six years, no intruder has been found. All of what has been and is alleged to be evidence of any intruder is refuted and gone. Unless Mr. Wood, can show otherwise, he is obliged to admit that the finger of guilt points to no one but the Ramseys.

Some person or persons in that household must be the cause of JonBenet's death and staged crime scene. If I accuse Patsy of something, Wood's defense of Patsy automatically results in him accusing John or Burke. In chess, this is called checkmate. In case you don't know about chess, the term, checkmate, means the game is over.

I believe I have clearly expressed my conclusions and basis for them. Although this missive is quite lengthy, it would be a simple matter to add another hundred pages of facts and arguments in solid support. That eventually may come to pass.

Although this letter is addressed to you, it is the capacity as District Attorney in the public domain that this informative document is sent. No confidentiality agreement is expressed or implied. Who is already aware of this document, or who may be aware in the future is dependent upon numerous variables; none of which are restricted by any notion of privileged information.

Ms. Keenan, you have a decision to make. If you can refute the facts alleged and arguments herein, by all means do so. I will gratefully stand corrected with apologies all around and become the Ramseys' most staunch supporter. If you can't refute, what then?

You have ten days from receipt of this letter to answer the question in writing by regular mail, certified or otherwise with signature affixed; no fax, no phone.

If I do not hear from you within the allotted time period, I will assume you have decided to ignore and "... work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys..." At this time, I will initiate Plan B. As I stated earlier in this letter: Govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

_______________________
Delmar England


In the past, it has been my unpleasant experience that what I verbally conveyed to another or others was arbitrarily and severely revised, yet attributed to me via newsprint and radio. For at least a partial safeguard against a similar happening, I am obliged to insist that communication on the issues raised in the letter to DA, Keenan, be committed to writing with proper name included. For quick recognition, put "LETTER" in the subject line.

Please address comments and\or questions to delmar@ct.net

Thank you,

Delmar England

 

This, then

is Delmar's letter to Mary Keenan. It should be known, once again, that Mr. England does not stand alone. All around him are members of this forum and others who are looking toward Boulder, Colorado. We as human beings and citizens of this great country of America hold you accountable, Mary Keenan and Boulder, for giving JonBenet Ramsey the decency and courtesy of conducting a fair and impartial investigation into her murder, since you have seen fit to remove the investigation from the hands of the BPD. We expect and have the right to expect the utmost consideration by you for Delmar's questions and observations, as they are ours, too.

To Delmar England, it has been a pleasure to pull apart your work. You are a gifted writer and a brilliant thinker. We are proud to display your letter on this forum.

I am, and we are, watching you, Boulder.

 

From Delmar:

I have another question I want to ask you, too, don't let me forget, LOL. It's about the garrote/noose.

Re your quote above, I think I got most of it, here's the odd thing about that. Nobody even knew John Ramsey was in the basement that morning and might not know to this day except John told the detectives himself when he was being questioned. He also claimed later that he had told Arndt, but I don't think he did or else she would have been down in that basement herself looking at that broken, open window. At any rate, the detectives seemed quite surprised when Ramsey said he had been in the basement that morning.

I've always thought the reason he did that was because he wasn't sure someone hadn't seen him either entering or exiting the basement and he wanted to cover all his bases.

I think the reason he went down there was either to find the body then, as you say, or to check on something that may have occurred to him as he sat thinking upstairs, going over everything in his mind - did we do this, did we close that, did we pick up this, did we clean this up?

About the rodeo/noose/garrote references - I know absolutely nothing about knots, zip, except that I can tie a shoe lace in a knot. I don't know what one calls that kind of knot - just a knot. What I was thinking about was not so much the construction of a hangman's noose or a rodeo man's lariat, but the way they work. Now that I think about it, I'm not so sure my first instincts were right about the lassos. Do they tighten on the calf's neck? (whoever said they don't like the roping in rodeos, I agree, I hate it). Does a hangman's noose tighten on the bad guy's neck as his weight pulls him down? Are this what is known as slip knots? Does the knot actually slip tighter as resistence goes against it? I don't know, I'm asking. I don't think this is how a garotte works - a garotte works by turning the handle, right? See how clueless I am on knots and their uses?

 

WY:

"Don't ask me why. I don't know why that chair had to be there.
Seems it would have been better to put the chair in front of the
broken basement window and leave the suitcase in front of the
door."

It is one thing to say let the evidence lead. Its quite another
to do so without faltering. It is easy to "see" what one's wants
or expects to see. I have been aware of this potential deterrent
to finding truth since early childhood. I know of know one who
has worked harder to discipline his or her mind to avoid this
pitfall. Still, even being consciously aware of the danger, in
retrospect, I can recall many instances where I failed in this
endeavor at objectivity. Each was a learning experience and I
moved on. This is not to say it won't happen again. It probably
will.

There are those, of course, who believe that no parent could do
this, therefore, never really investigate at all. There are other
more subtle mindsets which can also become false premises leading
away from the truth.

The door and chair situation may be one of those. My read is that
the door and chair are not part of the staging. They are
incidental until the issue of entrance and exit come up. What I'm
getting at is that in all the confusion and nervousness, the
Ramseys FORGOT to stage an entrance and exit for an "intruder" to
go along with the other staging. Just because YOU would have done
a better job of staging does not mean the Ramseys did.

To forget to stage an entrance and exit may seem "unthinkable",
but the "unthinkable" is in the context of a mind thinking
clearly. By no means was this the case as is evidenced by many
facts. The why this and why that cannot be understood except by
understanding what the evidence says of the mind or minds that
created the crime scene situation. Superimposing one's own
thinking over what the evidence declares to be the thinking of
the perpetrators mentally alters the crime scene.

Let's briefly look at the note. Is there anything in it that even
hints of authenticity? In your thinking, if you set out to
deceive others, you would try to calculate what they would
believe. The note was written from the exact opposite
perspective. Instead of it being written on calculations of what
others would believe, it was written on THIS IS WHAT I WANT
OTHERS TO BELIEVE. (I won't go into it here, but this indicates a
psychology incapable of empathy, which in turn indicates a whole
lot of differences from the "norm."}

Ask a million persons to name a ransom figure amount. How many do
you think would come up with $118,000? Yet, we know for a fact
this figure was in the mind of the note writer. Is it totally
coincidental that this figure matches John's bonus? How many
persons were aware of this? How many had opportunity to write the
note?

While all the hoopla is going about matching the handwriting
without definitive conclusion, the dollar figure and numerous
other elements in the note leaves no logical doubt that the
author of the note is Patsy Ramsey.

What I'm trying to point out that in the confused and chaotic
thinking that is evidenced in the crime scene. In this situation,
forgetting to stage an entrance and exit for the "intruder" is
not at all hard to believe.

So, what was the chair doing up against the door? Patsy said she
was in the basement wrapping Xmas presents. Other activity may
have been going on as well. Perhaps the chair was in the way and
was simply moved out of the way, which happened to be against the
door; or was placed there to stack gifts on. At the time, it was
of no consequence. There was no way to know what was going to
happen and how the door and chair would later come into play.

After the chair was moved near the door and activity was finished
in the basement, the party or parties simply went upstairs and
left the chair where it had been moved. No one went into the
train room after the chair was placed against the door. It was
still there when the police took photos the next day. John
simply lied about going into the train room for reasons mentioned
in an earlier post.

That's the way I'm seeing it. As always, criticism is welcome.

Delmar

 

Delmar

I had to read through your post twice before I grasped the concept. There's been a lot swirling around in this brain of mine the past few days.

I have a party to go to and can't get into it right now, but I understand what you are saying and, okay, I agree, except...

What about the suitcase? I've heard differing stories on that suitcase - JR says it wasn't kept in that room, I think, some say FW moved it.

Well, what about the suitcase? Do you think it was there in that room all along - not a prop, not part of the staging? It seems just a little too convenient to me.

Also, I'm thinking more from an either/or situation. IF the scene was staged, it would seem to me to have made more sense to have the chair in front of the window for the intruder to step onto instead of the suitcase. But, if the scene was not staged, then your scenario makes much more sense.

Gotta run. Back later.

 

Hello there, Thor, my young friend! Thanks for the welcome.
I would also like to join you in thanking those posters you have named above. I have also enjoyed reading all their posts. They
are a very intelligent group. Special kudos to Tricia and Jeanne for writing up the Petition to Governor Owens.

As you said to WY above "WY, you're doing a helluva job here. I can't add a thing." I say "ditto!" to that!. I'll stick to the reading for the moment and chime in now and then.

btw Thor, we've discussed this crime for over two years, and you never wavered in your thinking that Patsy didn't commit this crime.
Have you changed your mind about this? Do you still think it could have been Burke? Just curious!

 

Well Elle, I still go back & forth among perps. I think it is possible Burke could have been involved in part of this crime, but not all. Let's say I am now leaving it wide open to the possibility that any of the three Rams in that house could have done it. I now can see the possibility that Patsy did, indeed, do this. Especially listening to Delmar. And, what has come out in the NE book. I am still confused and can see any one of them doing this, and can also see 2 or 3 being involved in the coverup in one way or another. I still have my doubts about JAR and/or a college friend of his. But that is, I know, more unlikely. I am sure of one thing. Each Ramsey in that house that came out alive know exactly what happened that night. I just don't know for sure who did what.

And let me say this about Burke. If he was involved in this at all, I think it would have been accidental. And in no way do I believe he wrote that note. If he was involved, it was a partial involvement, not the whole crime. I truly am probably more confused about a perp now more than ever before. Patsy obviously has some involvement because of the fibers found. Also, John (which we found out from the Atlanta interviews). I will just say that in my opinion, I would guess one of the 3 Rams are involved.

I also think Dr. Boooooooff was called that morning as well, and is up to this in his ears. I would guess that if we could look at those cellphone records before they vanished, we would see at least one or two calls made before the 911 call by Patsy was made.

 

Re: Elle

 

WY:

"I've always thought the reason he did that was because he wasn't
sure someone hadn't seen him either entering or exiting the
basement and he wanted to cover all his bases."

I don't know about this either, but for sure his story about
going into the train room won't hold up. He was in the basement
for some other reason. (There were and are a lot of odd things.
How about John saying it had to be an inside job?)

About the rodeo/noose/garrote references - I know absolutely
nothing about knots, zip, except that I can tie a shoe lace in a
knot. I don't know what one calls that kind of knot - just a
knot.

Shoe lace? Square knot, or reef knot (same thing) or "granny
knot.) Right over left, then left over right produces a square
knot. Right over left, then right over left again produces a
"granny knot." If the bow tends to cross the shoe, its a square
knot. If the bow tends to go up and down the shoe, its a granny
knot. (It is a hard, non slip knot, but using a bow in the tie
allows for quick release.)

Anyway, although visual explanation and demonstration is easy,
trying to explain knots by words is rather difficult. A person
almost needs to get the materials and follow instructions step by
step to grasp what is really going on. So, I will try to be brief
and focus only upon the parts relevant to the case. If you are
ever in my neighborhood, stop by for demonstration.

"Do they tighten on the calf's neck?"

Yes.

"Does a hangman's noose tighten on the bad guy's neck as his
weight pulls him down?"

Yes.

"Are this what is known as slip knots?"

No. Its a form of noose action, but with difference in
construction from a cowboy's lasso.

"Does the knot actually slip tighter as resistance goes against
it? "

Yes, this is true of a slip knot; also true of hitches, but we
won't go into hitches as opposed to knots.

"I don't know, I'm asking. I don't think this is how a garotte
works - a garotte works by turning the handle, right?

No, not usually. Only in the most crude garrote imaginable would
there be a twist action. A cord (or wire) would need to be
fastened around the object with enough slack to allow the
insertion of a stick, etc, and enough slack to start the twist.
(Not easy) The structure and application is crude and inefficient
for several reasons. (It very handy for tightening up wire fences
sometimes, but as a garrote, its a bust.)

In medieval times, the public execution garrote was an iron
collar with screws to tighten. The modern efficient garrote is
two handles between a proper length of wire. The wrists are
crossed to create a loop. The loop is flipped over the head of
the victim, then cross pulled. (A WWII military man trained in
"silent combat" told me the material of choice was "piano wire.")

As for the handle at the crime scene, you could twist this handle
until doomsday and all you would ever do would be to twist the
length of cord until it looked like tangled fishing line. It
would never put any pressure on the noose. As I said, its a joke
from a confused mind that had no idea of what he was doing.

Delmar

 

WY:

"What about the suitcase?"

Incidental, meaningless - except for Smit weaving it into his
intruder fantasy.

"Well, what about the suitcase? Do you think it was there in that
room all along - not a prop, not part of the staging? It seems
just a little too convenient to me."

Not a prop. Nothing, as stated above. No one had been in that
room since the chair was set against the door. There was no
staging in this room. Why the suitcase was where it was, I don't
know, but I see nothing that indicates it was part of staging.
After all, this is entrance and exit, which they FORGOT to
stage.

"Also, I'm thinking more from an either/or situation. IF the
scene was staged, it would seem to me to have made more sense to
have the chair in front of the window for the intruder to step
onto instead of the suitcase."

See how much trouble you're having trying to fit the chair and
suitcase into staging. It won't fit because it wasn't staging.
These incidentals were picked up in the fantasy intruder scenario
by Smit and others, while others who couldn't imagine that the
Ramseys could have forgotten to stage entrance and exit try to
fit it into a staging scenario. It just won't fly in either
scenario.

"But, if the scene was not staged, then your scenario makes much
more sense."

Its the read I get from the evidence.

Delmar