Delmar's Letter to Keenan

Exposure

WY said: The only thing that might turn this around is exposure - the exposure that the governor will not correct a great wrong in the investigation of this case by Keenan. Get the Ramsey supporters off the investigation - that means not only Smit and now Douglas but Mary Keenan herself. A fair and balanced, not to mention unbiased investigation cannot take place until there are fair, balanced, and unbiased investigators on the case.


__________________
He may just take the same route he took in October, 1999.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/27/ramsey.prosecutor


Governor decides against special prosecutor in Ramsey murder
October 27, 1999 Web posted at: 3:49 p.m. EDT (1949 GMT)


DENVER (CNN) -- Colorado Gov. Bill Owens announced Wednesday that he would not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

At a press conference in Denver, Owens praised District Attorney Alex Hunter for "turning the case around," and said he felt the case was now in the hands of the right people and was finally "targeting the right suspects."

But Owens acknowledged the initial handling of the investigation was "far from perfect" and said that would make the case harder to prove in court.

He also had a message for what he referred to several times as the "murderers": "You only think you have gotten away with murder."

I hope he had the Ramseys in mind when he said this (?).

 

Although I have not read much of it in later years, in my early
teens, William Shakespeare became my favorite writer. His
insights into the human psyche are timeless and without peer.

During my study of the Ramsey case, echoes of Shakespeare were
never far away:

"The first thing we do let's kill all the lawyers." --II Henry
VI, IV:2

Does it not fit your own emotions in present day when you think
Lin Wood?

"[He] speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in
all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two
bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them; and
when you have them, they are not worth the search."
--William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

Is there a better description of the verbiage of the RST?


"Glory is like a circle in the water, / Which never ceaseth to
enlarge itself / Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought."
--William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part I

I leave this for you to apply as you wish.


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
--William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Does this ring a bell? How about the CNN appearance just six days
after the death of JonBenet? Or emphatic disassociation from the
note, and from the pineapple? Or the repeated stories of panic,
distress, to "explain" their action and lack of recall? To list
a hundred would be easy. However, it is not necessary because you
already know of that which I speak.

Shakespeare predicted it all a long time ago.

 

The angle in which my mind slants is a documentary (rich in special effects) called "Walking With Cavemen" hosted by Alec Baldwin (I won't comment on the irony of that choice of host!)

Anyway, it struck me, almost like a ton of bricks, that here we are as modern as we think we are, as far advanced above the early hominids as we boast, and we STILL have Lin Wood types defending the killers of children.

We may as well not have advanced at all, if our minds are still focused on such tribal loyalties over what is right.

It's dinging Patsy's tune.

 

Hamlet:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep—
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to; ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub:



I would say you took arms against a sea of troubles, Delmar, when you wrote your terrific letter to D.A. Mary Keenan.

 

First off - GREAT posts everyone!! Excellent - in fact! I really hope something comes of this letter and the 'new' investigation. After 6 1/2 years - SOMETHING HAS to give!!

wasn't there JonBenet's hair found on/in the dumbwaiter? I thought I heard that in the beginning of this case. What if JonBenet was trying to hide from Patsy and the door of the dumbwaiter slammed down on her head? just a thought!

 

another thought - maybe PR pulled up that chair to sit and think 'what' she was going to do after the 'accident' ??

 

but what about those fibers found on JonBenet that come from the sham/pillow/blanket IN the suitcase? where would those fit in??:-(

 

and WHO is the last person 'seen' by the Ramseys ?? - Susan Stine - hmmmmm..... sum think not right here....

 

Niner:

quote: WY & Delmar: "What about the suitcase?" Incidental, meaningless - except for Smit waving it into his intruder fantasy.

Yes, that's my call.


"but what about those fibers found on JonBenet that come from the
sham/pillow/blanket IN the suitcase? where would those fit in??

I have not studied this area sufficiently to feel qualified to provide a feasible answer. Even if I studied the area at length, that is no assurance of answer either. However, I can say with certainty, whatever the answer to your question, it has nothing to do with an intruder.

 

Delmar - thank you for your answer! I too don't believe it has ANYTHING to do with an intruder either!

as they say - I'm BORG!! :devil:

 

Blow to JonBenét's head

Niner.

I have always thought Patsy Ramsey was in a rage with JonBenét on Christmas Eve. According to one of Patsy's friends, Pam Griffin, Patsy told her she wakened JonBenét at midnight every night to make her go to the bathroom and avoid wetting the bed. Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh said that JonBenét would scream blue bloody murder if she was dragged out her bed, so
hypothetically, Patsy could have done exactly just that; hauled JB out of her bed kicking and screaming, and JB tried to run away.

Patsy could have shoved her into the tub or the toilet as many of us think and the blow to her head could have knocked her out.
JonBenét may have still been alive and Patsy thought she was dead; therefore the staging began.

I don't recall anything about JonBeneét's hair on the dumbwaiter. Do you have a source for this?

 

When I first looked into the Ramsey cases in March of 2000, it
was over three years after the violent death of JonBenet. When I
looked at the highly visible evidence or Ramsey guilt, I found it
most difficult to believe that a search was still on for an
intruder.

The incompetence of this "thinking" is not only frustrating and
annoying, it is downright dangerous. The unknown as "evidence"
combined with the mental inventions called evidence of an
intruder set a condition of peril for anyone in range of these
accusatory absurdities. The ability to ignore actual evidence and
invent "evidence" to avoid placing culpability on the Ramseys
where it belongs carries with it the mentality to accuse another
on the imagined evidence.

Although the Ramseys and others named many "suspects", all were
so far removed that not even the RST could make the stretch to
arrest and convict anyone. If arrest and conviction of an
innocent person in this case seems like a remote possibility, I
remind you of the Carnes' decision in a civil suit. This decision
was made on fallacy. It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine
that given anything close to an opportunity, there was and is a
real danger that an innocent person could be wrongly convicted of
JonBenet's death on the same fallacies. There are some so
dedicated to this objective that six and a half years later
official action is still being taken on fallacies to find some
fall guy to take the blame and officially exonerate the Ramseys.

In March of 2000, if was easy to see why no intruder had been
found. At that time, it was easy to predict that no amount of
money and effort would ever find an intruder\killer. It is easy
to make that same prediction again without equivocation. Still,
the farce goes on. How much longer can they hope to sustain the
fraud when over six years of effort with an expenditure of around
$2,000,000 has failed to produce a single item of evidence of an
intruder to support and justify this action and expenditure?

 

Delmar,

My guess is they'll either pin it on Bill McReynolds; he can't talk back from the dead; Randy Simons, JB's photographer or the pedophile who lived along the lane from the Ramseys. His name escapes me. In fact he may well be the best bet (?).

 

Delmar's second letter to Keenan

Posted by permission of Delmar England

June 18, 2003

Mary Keenan, Boulder District Attorney
Justice Center
1777 Sixth Street (Sixth St. and Canyon Blvd.)
Boulder, CO 80302

Re: Ramsey Case, Article by Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain
News. (June 13, 2003)

Dear Ms. Keenan,

Assuming the article named above is accurate reporting, it
is more than somewhat disconcerting. My letter to you dated
May 20, 2003 was made up of specific identification of items
of evidence, recorded testimony and definitive arguments.
It contained an offer to back up my arguments with further
evidence and demonstration, and in a court of law if
necessary. All of the evidence, recorded testimony and
definitive arguments point unequivocally toward Ramsey
guilt. I openly invited challenge to my conclusions. I
received no response.

On the other side of the equation, not only have the many
claims of evidence of an intruder failed to produce a single
viable suspect outside of the Ramsey household, every
argument claiming intruder evidence was refuted as faulty in
method and content. Additionally, those claiming evidence
of an intruder, including yourself, have repeatedly refused
to subject claims of intruder evidence to questioning.

In spite of all this, in spite of the fact you cannot refute
any of the facts and arguments in the letter, in spite of
the fact you looked directly at evidence of Ramsey guilt,
apparently, you intend to ignore it all and continue down
the same road of fallacy and fraud that has been going on
for over six years.

Are you sure this is a wise decision? Placating the Ramsey
crowd may be viable in temporary political expediency, but
this action opposed to truth may well have dire long run
consequences. Think about it.

"On Monday, Keenan announced that retired Arvada detective
Tom Bennett, 55, would join the team June 23. Bennett, a
highly regarded veteran, will work from 20 to 40 hours a
week on the case, Keenan said."

Since I know little about Mr. Bennett, he is excluded from
comments and questions. However, the act itself of hiring
Mr. Bennett tells me you have chosen to disregard evidence
in hand more than sufficient for prosecution. Evidently, you
intend to continue with the pretense of searching for an
intruder. Your selection of the "investigative team" leaves
no doubt of this.

"The district attorney's office has also consulted with FBI
analyst John Douglas, ...."

"If there's something we could use his expertise on, we
won't hesitate to call him," Keenan said."

Expertise?

"I know who didn't do it: the parents," Douglas told Salon."

Just how does Mr. Douglas arrive at this conclusion?

"... The sum of money, $118,000, is so unique, because that
was nearly the exact amount of bonus money that John Ramsey
received that year. Very few people would have known that.
Patsy Ramsey herself didn't know that figure."

How does Mr. Douglas know that Patsy Ramsey didn't know
about the bonus figure? He doesn't. He simply takes her word
for it. Does this sound familiar? If not, allow me to
refresh your memory.

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

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

There you have it. The extent of the Smit\Douglas
"expertise" and "investigation" of the evidence as it
relates to the Ramseys comes down to "I am going to take
your at your word." In short, none at all.

Let's paraphrase in interrogatory for clarity:

Smit\Douglas: John and Patsy, did both of you or either of
you have anything to do with the death of JonBenet and what
was found at the crime scene?

John\Patsy: No. You have our word on it.

Smit\Douglas: OK, that's good enough. From here on out, we
will look for an intruder. If the evidence appears to point
toward you, we know this can't be right, so we will
attribute it to an intruder.

What has been the consequence of this kind of "thinking?"

"To give you some perspective of the enormity of this
investigation and the effort that has been put forth in
solving this case, let me give you some statistics. Since we
began our investigation in December, 1996, we have formally
interviewed 590 people, some more than once; we have
utilized 64 outside experts and consultants; we have
investigated 68 people as possible suspects, plus an
additional 54 convicted sex offenders as possible suspects;
we have logged 1,058 items of evidence into property; over
500 pieces of evidence have been tested through federal,
state and private labs; we conducted the investigation in 17
states; we have received approximately 3,400 letters and 700
phone tips; and we have spent approximately 22,000 hours
investigating the case." (Beckner)

In direct contradiction, Mr. Wood says:

"The Boulder Police Department has failed to make progress,
Wood said, because it "focused on the Ramseys from almost
the first day of the investigation to the exclusion of an
unbiased, thorough investigation of all other possible
suspects." (Rocky Mountain News, December 21, 2002)

Reality is the flip side of Wood's fallacious nonsense.
Namely, spending all the time and money NOT FOCUSING UPON
THE EVIDENCE pointing to the Ramseys and chasing "Smit's
myths" is precisely the reason "The Boulder Police
Department has failed to make progress."

Since you appear to have failed to notice the evidence of
which I spoke in my previous letter, perhaps, some repeating
will remedy the oversight.

"On the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, a 911 call from Patsy
Ramsey prompted the police to go to the Ramsey house. The
first thing they were shown was a multi-page "ransom note."
Everything about the note made it strongly suspect,
including the fact it was written on a pad and with a pen
connected to the Ramsey household. Figuratively speaking,
this put up a billboard-size flashing neon sign reading:
WARNING: HIGHLY PROBABLE STAGED CRIME SCENE. BE ON LOOKOUT
FOR MORE."

"With the correct reading of the "garrote" as nervous,
amateurish bungling, the probability of a staged crime scene
was laid to rest. It was a staged crime scene without a
logical doubt."

IT WAS A STAGED CRIME SCENE WITHOUT A LOGICAL DOUBT."

Ms. Keenan, is it your argument that it was not a staged
crime scene, or that the staged crime scene was staged by an
intruder?

Of course, you are not going to try to answer the question
and we both know why. In large part, silence itself tells
where you stand. So does the following:

"in addition, Keenan's office plans to meet with private
investigators hired by the Ramseys to pore over information
they have gathered since the 6-year-old was found on the
afternoon of Dec. 26, 1996, strangled, beaten and hidden
behind the closed door to a basement room in the family's
Boulder home.

"private investigators hired by the Ramseys", "We will work
cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys....Douglas is
included for his "expertise."

Am I too assume that the "private investigators hired by the
Ramseys" have evidence to exonerate the Ramseys and have
kept it from authorities all this time? Only a fool would be
fooled by such a foolish notion. "Fresh eyes" approach?
Surely, thou jest. The correct label is ongoing head-in-the-
sand NON INVESTIGATION of the evidence and perpetuation of
FRAUD.

"Though Keenan won't speak in detail about the nature of her
office's inquiry - now 6 months old - one thing is clear:
Investigators are focusing on evidence and leads that point
to an intruder in the death of JonBenet and not to her
parents."

"focusing on evidence and leads that point to an intruder"

Boulder is now "magic town?" How in the hell do you focus on
something that does not exist?

I am really getting exasperated. For over three years, I
have heard claim after claim of evidence of an intruder.
Again and again and again, I have asked, begged, cajoled,
baited, threatened and pleaded for someone, anyone to show
me just one item of evidence of an intruder. Indeed, in my
last letter, I asked YOU.

"Would you mind pointing out to me just one item you claim
to be evidence of an intruder and hold still for some
questions about the alleged evidence?"

No response. Is my request to be shown some evidence of an
intruder that unreasonable? If you had complied with my
request, you would not be receiving this letter. Just show
me some evidence of an intruder. It's not going to happen is
it? We both know why. Still, you pretend.

"Keenan says Boulder police exhausted their investigation of
John and Patsy Ramsey, who were never charged in the crime.
The police agreed to turn the case over to Keenan last
December, in part because of repeated statements from the
Ramseys that they had lost faith in the police to look
beyond the couple to other suspects."

It's the evidence that "targets" the Ramseys, not the BPD.
There are no other evidentiary suspects. Some in the BPD
tried to follow the evidence.

This is what really troubled the Ramseys and prompted a
shift away from them; said shift helped along by a threat of
a lawsuit by Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood.

There have been comments about movie references found in the
"ransom note." The whole investigative environment reminds
me of a movie released in 1959: "THE MOUSE THAT ROARED."

A small principality suffering economic woes due to a fall
off in wine trade decided to remedy their economic problems
with a bold plan. The plan was to declare war on the United
States, be quickly defeated, then receive financial aid.

To initiate the war, they threatened the U.S. with nuclear
annihilation. Much to their surprise, the "enemy"
capitulated and they took over New York without firing a
shot. No one bothered to check to see if the "MOUSE" had the
means to back up the threat.

"If it is believed this was a deal for Mary Keenan to take
the investigation and cut a deal with Lin Wood to avoid
being sued, it just didn't happen," Wood said. "I say that
even though I made it very clear to Mary Keenan that we
would be willing to forgo the lawsuit if she transferred the
case." (Rocky Mountain News
December 24, 2002}

The statement is clearly self-contradictory and self-
convicting. What meaning has the phrase, "willing to forgo"
without the presence of a proposed action subject to
cancellation if certain conditions are met? Indeed, the case
WAS transferred to the DA's office held by you. Are we
assume that this was mere coincidence and totally unrelated
to Wood's threat? You subsequently stated:

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

The comical whimsy found in the '59 movie is not to be found
in this real life situation. It is pathetic and disgusting
beyond description. No one bothered to check out the basis
for Wood's threat to find it had no substance; to find that
it was all huff and puff dependent on the illusions and
delusions of Lou Smit.

Since no one bothered to check out the mythical basis for
Mr. Wood's lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, the fallacy
was allowed to compound without challenge until it was
utilized for a de facto take over of investigative offices;
namely, the Boulder Police Department and Office of District
Attorney.

Throughout history, in certain cases a very large amount of
time, effort and money has been spent on investigating the
evidence to identify, apprehend, charge and convict the
guilty party or parties. I dare say the Ramsey case is
shamefully unique in that never before has so much time and
money been spent TO AVOID identifying and charging the
guilty party or parties.

Ms. Keenan, do you think I am mistaken? Do you care to find
out? If so, by all means ask Mr. Wood to show you the
alleged evidence of an alleged intruder on which his threat
of suit depended. Unless you can find fault in what I cited
earlier as criteria for determining evidence, evaluate
Wood's claim of evidence of an intruder by reference to
this criteria.

By all means, give it a go. Don't you owe it to the long
suffering taxpayers before you spend more and more of their
money chasing a non existing intruder? Ask Mr. Wood to put
his claim of intruder evidence in writing so that the story
can't change from moment to moment. If he dares claim
evidence of an intruder, send it to me and I will respond.

Do you suppose Mr. Wood will go for this? Easy answer:
"No." Failure to sustain the claimed evidence of an intruder
means a default accusation of the Ramseys, his clients.
There is no way Mr. Wood will take this risk. He knows he
will lose going in. There is the "MOUSE THAT ROARED" and
"THE RAT THAT RANTED." Neither has realistic substance, but
at least there was humor in the former.

As pointed out in my previous letter, the illusions and
delusions of Lou Smit were, by cowardice and incompetence,
allowed to be entered into federal records as "Statements Of
Facts" by Judge Carnes. This is what you initially had to
say on April 7, 2003 about Judge Carnes's decision :

"I have carefully reviewed the Order of United States
District Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf
v. John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the Court's
conclusion 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."

Although issued in the context of a civil case, the Court's
ruling is a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision based on
the evidence that was presented by the parties in that case.
It should be read in its entirety." (Press release by PIO)

Is there any doubt this is a full endorsement of Judge
Carnes decision? There isn't, at least not in the mind of
Mr. Wood who presumes to use your endorsement as support for
threatened lawsuits:

"[From: LLWood47@aol.com
To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:54 PM
Subject: Ryan Ross
If you want to pay significant monetary damages to John,
Patsy and/or Burke Ramsey, please feel free to publish the
false and defamatory accusations against my clients
contained in this Internet garbage article. But let me
remind you that Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan has
spoken clearly and unequivocally -- after 6+ years of
investigation, the weight of the evidence points toward an
intruder as the murderer of JonBenet Ramsey. If you are
prepared to print otherwise, be prepared to prove otherwise
in a court of law.]"

By May 25, 2003, the unequivocal support of the Carnes's
ruling wanes:

"Keenan declined to comment for this story, but when the
lawsuit was dismissed, she said she agreed with the judge's
conclusion and that her office is following new leads that
support the intruder theory. However, she said she was not
influenced by the judge's decision, which was only based on
partial evidence, and would not exclude the Ramseys from
investigation." (DailyCamera, May 25, 2003)

This visible shift away from full endorsement of Carnes'
decision is very significant. Let's take a close look.


"partial evidence?" Partial evidence has the same
relationship to truth as all the evidence. The pad and pen
connected to the Ramsey household are "partial evidence."
The "garrote scene" also connected to the Ramsey household
is more "partial evidence." The same is true of any and
every item of evidence. Whether talking about all or some
particular item of evidence, evidence cannot point in two
different directions. It either points toward an intruder or
toward the Ramseys.

The issue is not "partial evidence." If you are not
influenced by the judge's decision because of rejecting it
on the issue of evidence, it has nothing to do with partial.
The only valid rejection is the conclusion that the alleged
evidence upon which the judge made her decision is false.

So, by the overland route, you inadvertently admit to the
fallacy of the alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. This
is the belief you present although not intentionally. This
prompts a serious and pivotal question: On what basis do you
propose to waste more time and money pursuing claims of
intruder evidence which you already conclude are without
factual support?

If Carnes' ruling is suspect because it was on "partial
evidence", and if the Ramseys are not excluded from
investigation, isn't this saying they are suspects?

If they are suspects, don't you think "private investigators
hired by the Ramseys", "We will work cooperatively with Lou
Smit, the Ramseys....Douglas is included for his
"expertise", etc. might raise some eyebrows when these make
up the bulk of your "investigative team?" In gaming circles,
this is called a stacked deck.

"Keenan rejected a suggestion that using the resources of
Douglas, Smit and Ramsey-hired private investigators - all
of whom have embraced the intruder theory - might hinder the
district attorney's office efforts to look objectively at
the evidence." (From article)

Hinder objectivity? No indeed. It obliterates it! The
"investigators" you choose are admittedly pro intruder from
taking the Ramseys' word for their innocence. Smit has also
been proven to be grossly incompetent and creator of fairy
tales as "evidence."

The exception, is the presently unknown Mr. Bennett. This
appears to be nothing more than a token selection, an
attempt to sell the illusion of independence and objectivity
in the "new" investigation.

As stated earlier, I do not know Mr. Bennett and do not
presume to make any judgement in regard to what he thinks or
doesn't think at this time. However, I can tell you this
much. If Mr. Bennett is a competent and honest investigator,
there is no way he can work harmoniously with the likes of
Smit and Douglas.

Ms. Keenan, this "tokenism" attempt to appease opposition
via pretense of a "fresh look" investigation is absurd. I
also find it insulting. Do you really think that everyone is
as stupid as you appear to believe? Please do not judge
everyone by those incompetents with which you have
surrounded yourself.

"We all have the same approach to the case; we're going to
follow the evidence wherever it goes. And we're not going to
ignore any of it," she said.

Say what? Let's recall a bit from my earlier letter. Smit
falsely claims the "garrote scene" is "sophisticated" and
"professional". This is the core basis on which
intruder\murder is claimed as opposed to accident. I pointed
out that the "garrote scene" is amateurish and flawed in
every respect. Smit claims and that's all he does. On the
other hand, I provide definitive argument to support my
claim of amateurish as evidence AND offer physical
demonstration in court if necessary.

Are you going to tell me that "Smit said" is evidence and
forensic facts are not? If so, please explain. If not,
please explain how ignoring my letter is not ignoring
evidence.

One more. How about that open window Smit crawled through
that was a misrepresentation of the crime scene. This is
evidence? The letter reveals a lot more of the same ilk,
which you ignored as well.




As pointed out in my letter, the ruling by Judge Carnes was
primarily based on the testimony of Lou Smit. There is
little doubt the decision of the grand jury to not indict
was derived from similar fallacious testimony. Hasn't the
absurdities permeating and saturating the investigative
environment gone far enough and done enough damage? Don't
you think the time is long overdue to displace the
destructive fantasies with facts? If a new grand jury were
convened and given a look at the actual evidence, what do
you think the outcome would be? Why not find out?

After an initial full endorsement of Carnes' ruling with
attached conclusion of Ramsey innocence, later, you
expressed some doubt by applying the phrase, "partial
evidence" to the basis of Judge Carnes' ruling. In
conjunction, you stated that the Ramseys would not be
excluded from investigation.

Given your selection of Smit, Douglas, Ramsey private
investigators, et al, as part of the "investigating team",
you literally turn over the investigation to the suspects,
which, in effect, is to allow the Ramseys to investigate
themselves. Words of denial do not displace the truth told
by your actions. You claim intent to follow the evidence,
yet go out of your way to DENY AND AVOID EVIDENCE as has
been done for over six years.

In the letter of May 20, 2003. I pointed out again and again
that every item that Smit claimed as evidence of an intruder
is patently false. So, if you really want to go with the
evidence, the first evidence you go with is the evidence
that Smit is a hindrance to a bona fide investigation.

During over six years of Smit's "investigation", all he has
managed to do is make up fairy tales about an imaginary
intruder, direct attention away from the evidence and cost
taxpayers money. Allowing him within a hundred yards of the
investigation is ludicrous. He had his chance and blew it
big time.

With the combination of "investigators" you propose, you're
setting up a losing proposition for sure. Either Bennett
goes along with the nonsense of intruder (and I hope not),
with more waste of time and money, or else, there will a
disrupting clash within.


Honesty and any chance of truth-based end results demands
that you give Smit, Douglas and the rest of the RST their
walking papers. Leave Mr. Bennett alone. Don't saddle him
with the impossible task of trying to work around or through
the mental machinations of myriad misfits.

Ms. Keenan, I'm afraid you just don't get it. Maybe a few
irrefutable facts and a few simple questions will help you
gain a more realistic perspective.

After nearly six and one half years with Smit, Ramsey
investigators, and other members of the RST running the
"investigation" with an expenditure of around $2,000,000,
what do you have to show for it?

Has there been an intruder arrested, charged and convicted?

Do you have an intruder in custody?

Do you have an intruder identified?

Do you have any actual evidence of an intruder?

The answer is no to all four questions. The reason the
answer to the first three is no is because no is also the
eternal answer to the fourth question. So, after over six
years of effort and expenditure of around $2,000,000 you
have exactly NOTHING to "justify" the huge outlay of
taxpayer money. Right? AND YOU PROPOSE TO KEEP ON DOING IT?

From the very beginning, Dec. 26, 1996, the evidence said
loud and clear there was no intruder. It was easy to predict
that time and money spent chasing the imaginary would yield
nothing. Over six years later, this has come to pass to the
tune of who knows how much time wasted and around $2,000,000
for naught.

Again, it is easy to predict that pursuing the myth of
intruder from this point will likewise yield nothing but
cost in time and money. Ms. Keenan, no matter who or how
many play word games of self delusion, lying to each other
and pretending otherwise, the end result of no intruder
found is a 100% certainty. Do you really want to continue to
be a part of this expensive farce?


When my letter was received at your office, it became an
official part of the Ramsey case file. The information
provided by the letter is lawfully no different than
information from any other source, official or otherwise.

Since you took over the case, it was and is your legal
responsibility to evaluate what I allege to be evidence and
act accordingly as stipulated by law governing your office.
Your action was inaction. You chose to ignore. The evidence
and arguments which you chose to ignore are a definitive and
comprehensive dismissal of all the alleged intruder evidence
with consequent evidentiary indictment of the Ramseys.

There is the potential of a lawsuit to compel you to file
charges and take the case forward. However, given the fact I
am not a resident of Colorado, nor a victim, in conjunction
with several other reasons, I do not propose to do so. I
propose to induce you to take a more thorough look at the
situation. Although you may not see this at the moment, this
is for your benefit as well as for others You are flirting
with the disaster of too little too late. Failure to make a
choice now to go with the facts might well be your last
chance.

It is my contention that my certified letter to you dated
May 20, 2003 proves beyond any reasonable doubt that all the
alleged evidence of an alleged intruder is flawed by virtue
of method and content. This is to once again clearly and
unequivocally state there is no evidence of an intruder, nor
has there ever been, nor will there ever be.

You did not challenge this contention. You offered not a
word in opposing argument. Given the gravity of the
situation, excuses like "I didn't have time", nor any other
escapism will not suffice to justify ignoring.

I will certainly consider any explanation. However, from
where I sit, to all appearances, you simply ignored the
content of the letter because of unwanted truth you could
not refute. If you could not refute, you had to at least
tacitly agree to its accuracy.





If this is a correct assessment, you hold knowledge
affirming there is no evidence of an intruder. If this isn't
the case, what is? If this is the case, spending more and
more money in the pretense of following "intruder leads" is
a conscious and deliberate fraud. Can you spell malfeasance?

Why was Tom Bennett hired? Do you expect him to find
evidence of an intruder? I know and you know, it won't
happen. When the false idea of an intruder is dismissed with
finality, what remains except the finger of guilt pointing
toward the Ramseys? Not only is it impossible to connect any
of the actual evidence to an imaginary intruder, ALL the
evidence is inextricably linked to the Ramseys on numerous
levels and in many ways.

Given the aforementioned facts, the only question remaining
is what charges to file and how to proceed with the
prosecution. Certainly, I am not a prosecuting attorney, nor
a licensed attorney of any sort. However, the law is
displayed in words and I can read with substantial
comprehension of the material. From this comprehension, I
arrive at a laymen's conclusion on the issue of charges.

The autopsy report reads in pertinent part:

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

This evidence that JonBenet did not die immediately from the
head trauma opens the door to more than the charge of
involuntary manslaughter. The circumstance of the head
trauma in conjunction with conscious and deliberate action
following the head trauma, perhaps contributing to her
death, provides several options. I'll leave you to
contemplate the options.

As indicated from the foregoing, I see no reason to continue
the pretense of an investigation looking for a non existing
intruder. Prosecution is in order, not pretense. However, if
you insist on going through with this charade, I have a
request: When Mr. Bennett officially becomes investigator of
the Ramsey case, I presume the case files will be turned
over to him. I request that my letter to you dated May 20,
2003 and this letter be included and put on top of the
pile. It may help to expedite matters.

Ms. Keenan, maybe you and your propaganda team can keep the
farce and fraud hidden indefinitely from most. But suppose
you can't. Suppose that bye and bye the taxpayers and
general public come to know the truth of the $2,000,000
waste of their money. Suppose they come to know that you had
and have information and evidence to stop the fraud, but
refused to do so. Then what?

Once again, govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

__________________________
Delmar England

cc: Bill Owens

 

--

HOLY CHIT !

A+

 

I hope this one goes to the media in Boulder and Denver, and not just a private letter for the KFC (Keenan Flying Circus) to round-file.

It's way too good not to be made public.

 

Tricia:

"Adrian Monk it has been sent to the media from what I
understand."

Hard copies of the first letter were sent to Dateline, 20\20, 48
Hours with url for the letter sent to 70+ media outlets. Other
than a hard copy to governor Owens, I did not send out anything
regarding the second letter.

Rest assured, admitting that around $2,000,000 of taxpayer money
has been squandered on chasing Smit's illusions while the guilty
walk is not something any of the responsible parties are likely
to do.

Even an arrest now would leave them trying to explain the delay
and waste of time and money. They can't claim new case-breaking
evidence because there is none. This leaves the question as to
why the evidence was not acted upon in the first place before all
the waste. Do any of them dare to address this question and
provide truthful answer? I think not.

You may expect every evasion and dodge in the book. Meanwhile as
the fraud continues, so does the compounding of cost and personal
liability; especially, the liability of Mary Keenan. It is not a
position I envy.

Delmar

 

Wow!

<i>Great Job Delmar. Proud to say we know you.</i>

Hear, hear!

Let's hope this isn't another exercise in futility... though my hopes aren't high given the track record.

Ayeka

 

Delmar, I want to commend you on the good job you are doing with these letters. I don't have the brain skills to think up this stuff and I love you for it. My head was hurting so badly after reading this because of the fact that everything you say is so true. It makes me sick to my stomach that this is still going on almost 7 years later. And, due to the fact that the media so far has not touched this angle (just the RST angle), I am more convinced than ever before something very hinky is going on with this investigation. I have ALWAYS thought this, just not sure how up the ladder the hinkiness (should I say cover up?) was going on.

I may not have been on the forums as long as the rest of you folks, but I have been following this case just about from the getgo. Why the hell are we not getting a response from the other side, if not the media? Is it Limp (horse-loving) Wood that is scaring everyone away? Good God, what power does this Puke have?

Is anyone else gonna watch Perfect Murder Perfect Town this Sunday?