Evidence Vs Pretense

Thank's for the notice, RR.

I don't post at WS, but anyone who does is welcome to carry the posts to the forum.

Delmar England

 

jamnut has tried to refute some of EW's irrefutable writings. It's good for a laugh, if nothing else, since she's not adequately represented upstairs to refute any of EW's facts.

Here's one for you - jammy sue says the "stun gun" marks on JBR do not match because:

"When the two prongs came in contact with the skin, one made a good contact, tightly pressed to the skin and the mark is smaller and more defined. The other allowed the current to "dance" a bit and affect more area on the skin."

The jambots then join in to say Delmar and the rest of us should read "current" articles, as if we don't, LOL. Well, as much as jammy sue and her cohorts would like all the BPD evidence to go away, it's not going anywhere, regardless of who is spinning the BS. It's there and it will be used in any trial involving anyone who might be arrested years from now for this crime, whether a Ramsey or non-Ramsey. No "intruder" will ever be convicted of this crime on the evidence available. But we are supposed to believe there is "new evidence" that Smit et al have found. I don't know how anyone "finds" new evidence years after the fact. What they have been working with is all the evidence collected by the BPD - the same evidence that has been there since the beginning. Evidence isn't just something that changes over time - but the spin on the evidence can change, especially if a suspect-friendly moron is on the investigation team.

 

Quote:
The foregoing deals with only a few items of mainline evidence. I
did not mention the pineapple, fibers, suspect behavior, ad
infinitum evidence all correlating with and supporting the same
conclusion dictated by the highly visible evidence addressed.
Just these mainline items are more than adequate to leave no
evidentiary doubt there was no intruder.


The suspect behavior is not "tangible" evidence in a court of law and can and has been explained a thousand different ways

The fibers can also be legally explained away, as with most evidence of a Ramsey because they lived there, blah, blah.

BUT...

There is no room for alternative explanations for the pineapple. The only RST explanations have been that it is NOT pineapple. We've heard "lemon rinds" from the crab, we've even heard that the intruder fed it to her.

In this case, we can't argue with the scientific FACT that there was pineapple matching that in the Ramsey house in the contents of JBR's intestine. What I don't understand is why this gets so little attention (to our knowledge) by the authorities. Obviously, somebody in the Ramsey household lied about her being asleep when she came home. To me, it is as close to a smoking gun as we can get in this case. I would very much like to hear EW's thoughts on this (as well as others naturally)

There are some things that there are just no other explanations for. The pineapple is one of those things.

I posted the above at WS, but brought it here as well for EW and anyone else to respond.

Now for the stun gun:


1. Stun gun or no stun gun does NOT omit the Ramseys either way :lame:

2. There WAS a video on stun guns in the Ramsey house. I don't know about anyone else, but at 50 years old, and having been around the block more than a few times and knowing many, many people, I don't know a single person who owns a video of stun gun instructions. :lame:

As far as the stun gun, I will say this for the umpteenth time Ms. Bennett:

One of the reasons the RST claim that there must have been a stun gun is that there is no other "reasonable" explanation for the marks. Now, for anybody who has taken a course in LOGIC and even those who never did, and just have plain old common sense:

ABSENCE OF ANOTHER EXPLANATION DOES NOT MAKE THE CURRENT EXPLANATION FACT. :fishslap:

Just because nobody has proven what those marks ARE does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT have to make the marks stun gun marks. :banghead:

 

Yet another topic that has also bothered me (I will start a thread on WS about this as well, special for the entertainment I suspect Maikai will bring there)

As I am not scientifically oriented:

What about the lack of fingerprints on the ransom note? How is it possible (is it?) that neither Patsy nor John's fingerprints were on the note?

We have heard that Patsy and John "washed" therefore, their fingerprints were nowhere to be found.

Patsy and John admittedly touched the note, yet NONE of their fingerprints were on it.

For me, these little things are smoking guns

 

This is a follow up post with a twofold purpose. 1. Reduce the
crime scene area parameters to the area set by the facts. 2.
Issue yet another challenge to the Ramseys, Wood, RST, et al.

Many posts and mass media have paid much attention to the
suitcase found in the train room. Why? I can see it as part of
the RST propaganda, but why anyone else? If and how does the
train room get into the picture of the crime scene?

The location in the basement were the body of JonBenet was
“found†does not require entering the train room. There is a
photo of a chair against the door to the train room. This has not
been challenged as an authentic crime scene photo, not even by
Lou Smit. This means the chair was against the door during the
critical time frame.

To bring the train room into the crime scene picture, there are
certain things one must believe; mainly, that an intruder upon
exiting reached around the edge of the door and pulled the chair
back against it as he exited. If we believe John’s story about
being in the basement and train room between seven and nine that
morning, removing the chair upon entering and putting it back
upon returning upstairs, John confirms the situation in which an
intruder is alleged to have entered and exited the premises.

This is all there is to connect the train room to the crime: A
theory of an intruder who upon exiting puts the window and chair
back as found upon entering. Unless, you accept this version of
intruder, which by the way is without any supporting fact, there
is no way to include the train room in the crime scene. Ergo, the
suitcase and all else found in the train room is incidental to
the general environment and detached from the actual crime scene.

As a means of wholesale dismissal of the idiotic, Ramsey-serving
nonsense about the “garrote sceneâ€, I issue this challenge to the
lot, LE included:

Find a length of cord of same type and size as that found around
JonBenet’s neck. Stand before a set post approximating the
diameter of JonBenet’s neck (or general; size not critical).
While holding the cord in the left hand, run the end around the
post and back toward you and create a junction like that found at
the crime scene.

Also, as indicated by and in the crime scene, try to tie close
and tight. This means simultaneously pulling the short lead and
long lead as mentioned in the autopsy report. Once this junction
is tightened down by this pulling, attach a wood handle to the
long lead. Pull the handle. What happens? Circumferential
strangling pressure, or something completely different?

After this, remove the noose by slipping it over the post end.
With left hand holding the cord near the junction, probably thumb
and finger due to the small size of the cord, try pulling the
handle with the right hand while holding and\or pushing with the
left hand on the cord close to the junction. By this method, see
if you can get the cord to slip, thereby, reducing the size of
the noose. (Didn’t work, did it?)

Let’s really give it a test. Grip the (noose) cord on each side
of the junction and pull as hard as you can. This is the best
shot you’re going to have at it, and chances are, it won’t even
slip here. Strangled with this apparatus? Not on this planet.

The cord in focus is not only small and soft, it’s nylon which
frays at ends when cut if not burned to bind. The photo and
autopsy report reveal two leads with “one measuring 4 inches in
length and having a frayed end.†Getting a good grip on a four
inch length of cord is a tough go under the best of circumstance.
In the “garrote scene†circumstance of short lead, end frayed and
trying to tie hard, close and tight, the difficulty factor goes
way up.

In fact, if there is hair mixed in with the cord, and the hand
slips off on a hard pull, it’s a pretty good bet that some hair
is going to go with the hand. If the hair sticks to the hand,
there is a pretty good chance some of it will be transferred to
another object; say like the mummy wrapped handle which also has
hair entwined.

The evidence tells us that the tie preceded the handle thing;
meaning it was only decoration and never pulled as is much touted
in popular Ramsey myth. The evidence says that there was no
intent to strangle; only to make it look like it. To those of us
in the know, it looks like exactly what it is: A fatally flawed
amateurish attempt at staging.

Gee, the problems for RST just keep compounding, don’t they?

 

Video instructions were in Spanish

Barbara,

From what I remember of this video in John's desk. Instructions were in Spanish.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/1arams.html

John Ramsey also explains how a "stun gun instructional video" came to be in his house. He writes that he later got a copy of it and found out it was in Spanish.

 

Well a stun gun manual is still a stun gun manual. And Babs is right--I've never known anybody who has had a stun gun either, or even a manual ! If Lou Smit weren't such a liar by omission, he would include the Ramsey stun gun training tape in his propaganda sessions. It's kind of like how the police found out that John Ramsey watched the films quoted in the ransom note by looking at the film list from long flights he had recently taken. OOPS! But of course then suddenly Ramseys kind of remembered the films --and of course he watched them with the sound off. Doesn't everybody?

And Babs is also right about the lack of finger prints on the note. It's little clues like this that add up to parental involvement.

 

I've posted this on numerous occasions, but it is relevant so here goes. My Hubby bought me a serger several years ago and the instructional video is Japanese. No matter, I can follow the video and have watched it many times as the demonstrations are still valid. Besides, threading it is an absolute nightmare. I can't do it without watching the video - especially if I haven't used it in a while.

 

RR, thanks for transporting the posts to WS. I took a glance and
see the usual RST out in force trying to evade. I will address
this only once and briefly.

My writings prior to and during my involvement in the Ramsey case
are extensive and cover a wide range of topics involving a wide
range of persons and circumstances. I am more than willing to
discuss any and all in the proper setting such as correspondence,
or a public forum dedicated to a given subject matter. I will not
discuss them on the JonBenet forum. Those that presume to evade
by such attempted diversion need be informed of this here and
now.

On the JonBenet forum, I say what I believe about the case and
why I believe it. Any actual challenge quotes from my posts,
states what the person believes to be in error, and why said
person believes it to be in error. Anything else, is obvious
evasion and a transparent attempt to get away from the truth the
person doesn’t like, but can’t refute.

I do not intend to address the matter further and become an
accomplice in the attemped evasion.

 

Jayelle

What's important to remember is that nobody--NOBODY--except Lou Smit has ever embraced Lou Smit's stun gun theory. Now granted, it's good that Smit was thinking creatively when he first saw the marks on JBR--that's how cases get solved. But it is a fact that the marks on Jonbenet's body are of varying distances apart and so likewise they did not come from a stun gun. Lou Smit knows this and yet he still pushes this theory to deflect suspicion from the Ramseys. As long as people are talking about a stun gun, they aren't thinking Patsy Ramsey.

Lou Smit is protecting Patsy Ramsey.

If the police or FBI bought the stun gun theory, and they don't, that stun gun video would be very damning indeed. BUT NOBODY CARES. It, like the theory, is irrelevent. If lou Smit truly believed a stun gun was used he'd be all over that instructional video now, wouldn't he? But no. He never even mentions it. Just like he never mentions the ransom note and how it clearly states that international terrorism was the motive for the crime (theatrical Miss Patsy had to pull out all the stops--apparently just a plain old every day pedophile killer wasn't flashy enough for the Ramsey family!)

 

Don't get me started on the stun gun crap, k?

EW, my last post above wasn't made for the purpose of suggesting the crime was some kind of sexual bondage event. I was trying to emphasize the fact that, after all these years and forum/media discussion, JonBenet did not die of strangulation. She died of asphyxiation secondary to oxygen deprivation. That's an entirely different event than an intentional strangulation. The autopsy supports lack of force by any means on her throat sufficient to "strangle" as opposed to suffocate. In that true scenario then, the ligature, if it indeed was the weapon of asphxiation, could not have been the brutal strangulation device put forth all these years by the RST and Smit. It supports your analysis as well that it was not a strangulation device. It was either staging to mislead authorities into believing she was strangled to death or some kind of truss to keep her from fighting/running or whatever.

What is most important is to make the distinction between death by violent strangulation and what iy really was--suffocation when her oxygen was cut off by whatever on her throat. Yet all these years everyone has been stating she was "strangled" when what she was was suffocated!

To me that paints a whole different perp profile than what the RST want everyone to believe.

 

Indeed, it does. Wood goes around blabbing about some imaginary DNA evidence, but doesn't dare address the real evidence found in the truth about the "garrote scene." I suspect he has read enough of online truth about this so called "sophisticated strangling device" to know that the facts here will do in his clients poste haste, so pretends it doesn't exist. The problem is Mary Keenan, other LE, and the major media are pretending right along.

The sad part is I'm afraid Fox News doesn't get it either and will blow the opportunity big time as has been done before by others.

 

PICTURES SAY A THOUSAND WORDS. FOR THOSE THAT STILL BELIEVE THE STUN GUN THEORY YOU DON'T NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE TO UNDESTAND THE PICTURES!

 

Why did the John and Patsy claim that JonBenet had been asleep?

Why did the Ramseys feel the need to say JonBenet was already asleep? Why didn't Patsy just admit her daughter had been awake on arriving home and say "JonBenet had a little pineapple snack when we got home"? Wouldn't that have been a far more credible story, with which they would have prevented the pineapple from later becoming the 'big bugaboo', as Lou Smit called it?
But then the Ramseys' time line would have been blown apart. For admitting that JonBenet had pineapple after arriving home would imply admitting she died so shortly afterwards that her stomach wasn't even fully empty, i. e. an hour or maybe even less, considering the rapid digestion rate of pineapple.
So we would have the intruder killing JonBenet at a time when Patsy was probably still upstairs packing suitcases.
Imo that's why they made up the story about JonBenet being asleep. To conceal that she was killed not long after the family arrived home.

jmo

 

Patsy the liar weaving some element of truth into her concocted story?

I've read somewhere that paper is not a very good material to get fingerprints from.
According to the Ramseys' story, John touched the note since he took it from the spiral stairs and laid it down on the floor.
What has always caught my interest was his strange position in which he allegedly studied the note: "down on his hands and knees".
Now this is a very strange position to examine a ransom note, especially when the ceiling light is right over one's head.

Picture from the hallway where John allegedly put the note on the floor (ninth picture down from the left):

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html

For the shadow of one's head will be cast on the paper, therefore it becomes actually more difficult to study something written on paper laid out on the floor.

Imo the scene of John being down on his hands and knees, examining
something, was an element of truth which the liar Patsy wove into
her fabricated story. For offenders often do take some elements of what actually happened and build it into their concocted story.

I do believe that John was down on his hands and knees, but not when examining any ransom note: I think he was down on his hands and knees after
being called by a frantic Patsy, and looking for signs of life on JonBenet lying on the floor, very severely injured to the head by her own mother ….


jmo

 

Of course it would have been a far more credible story, rashomon. You're right! Much more than the ones the Ramseys concocted, but the exasperating thing here, is the Ramseys got away with it. The Ramseys got away with everything, lets face it. Patsy Ramsey was kept out of jail by the Ramsey team of lawyers, Lou Smit and John Douglas.

 

Couldn't agree with you more, rashomon, about John Ramsey on his knees. What a ridiculous lie. Of course maybe this was the way he read all his business papers in his office (?). Rich as they were, they didn't have a well lit kitchen table,or dining room table to place these papers on to read them properly (?). LIES!


About the finger prints on the ransom note:

Courtesy of Little

 

Rashomon, I just want to say I think you are a fantastic and very knowledgeable poster in the JBR case. I haven't always had time to comment on your excellent posts, but I do want you to know I appreciate them. I have recently had reason to peruse the JBR forum at Crime Library, and I want to thank you for being a voice of reason over there among a veritable gang of IDI/RST truth-twisters. You, and a few others (I can't remember all their hats), have singlehandedly kept that forum from becoming a Ramsey love-fest. I wish I had time to join you in the fight for truth there.

And yes, there may be an element of truth to "John's underwear, hands and knees" alleged reading of the the ransom note. As you say, perhaps that's the position John was in when he examined JonBenet for any signs of life. It reminds me of what Why_Nut brought up over at Topix recently ... that in a video interview, John was supposedly showing how he unwrapped JonBenet from being folded papoose-like in a blanket, but when he went through the motions on the video, his actual hand movements showed the folding of the blanket INTO a papoose-like covering, not an uncovering. It was like he was remembering how he folded the blanket around her.

The best lies contain elements of truth.

 

I think she is too Cherokee. She has sincerely done her research on this case. I always pay attention to whatever she posts.

Little

 

I remember you telling me a few years ago, there was an excellent poster had joined Crime and Justice, Little, and that poster was rashomon. You were right. I have enjoyed posting with her.