Michael Tracey. Hypocrisy Doesn't Begin to Describe this Arrogant A$$

Excellent retaliation, Delmar!

 

Proof?

I hate it when someone makes me re-read the DE pages. This time I could only skim them. Page after page of quality physiological analysis. All Leading to a personal preformed conclusion. Which of course is........ John and Patsy did it! The facts of the case are laid out and then we are shown how it relates to.......... why can't everyone see that John and Patsy did it!

All good stuff for a "witch hunt" but your going to need hard evidence in a court of law. I'll be happy to spin anything mentioned by DE into the "intruder" theory, and so would the Ramsey lawyers.

 

HEY! WY you ornery girl.

Excellent work EW! BRAVO! I can't wait until the trial!!!! Someone has to stop the Ramsey's Gravytrain Fraud Machine.

 

How about you and any lawyers you choose (or the whole RST) having a go at it right on this forum. I been looking forward to such a confrontation for over four years. I'm waiting. Bring it on. Thank you.

 

Enough space for this confrontation?

This would be a great way for me to pass the cold Canadian winter this year, Delmar. I'm thinking, Tricia may not have enough "space." :yow:

 

My little heart just went pitty patty when I read these posts. Like EW said, Zman, bring it on. This could get interesting. :winko:

 

Easy Writer

That was an excellent analysis and rebuttal of Tracey's hypocritical column and his entire crockumentary.

RMN has extremely low standards for its editorial column writers.

 

I'd like to see a good debate!

 

Off topic of Tracy, but on topic of arrogant a$$e$, I saw on the front page of the National Enquirer that the arrogant a$$ OJ may be going to jail for tax evasion.

 

Rev up the Bronco! Time for another exciting chase!!!!

 

My little heart just went pitty patty when I read these posts. Like EW said, Zman, bring it on. This could get interesting.

Well I'm not sure how interesting such a "conforntation" would be.

I did not mean to make light of the DE analysis or anyone else's analysis or opinions. In fact I have a great deal of admiration for all of those who continue to seak justice for JBR and other victims.

I only meant to point out that documents like the DE analysis are not real evidence against the Ramseys. Or maybe I'm worng. Maybe they are the "smoking gun" we need.

I can see the Ramsey's in the defendent chair's. Holding their head in their hands as the D.A. waves the DE analysis in the air. The jury is sure to convict the Ramseys now. There could be no defense against this OPINION.

From a Ron Ryan article:

Wood got Epstein to concede that he had reached that conclusion without having access to the original of the note. Vassar professor Foster had told Patsy Ramsey before having access to the note that he believed she didn't write it. The reliability of handwriting and linguistic text analysis is much disputed. And other experts have said they can't conclude Patsy wrote the note. In fact, D.A. Hunter testified in a 2001 deposition taken by Ramsey attorney Wood that the experts he had obtained analysis from concluded, by his estimate, that the odds Patsy wrote the note were 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being that she didn't.

The jury will most likely not be made up of physiologists, handwriting experts or even garotte experts. Just twelve ordinary people who need only be given a reasonable doubt.

The authorities may (hopefully) be in possession of evidence that we know nothing about. Although if that were true you would think that John and Patsy would already be behind bars.

However if you wish to put John and Patsy on trial in this forum be my guest.
Call your first witness. Submit your first piece of "solid" evidence against the Ramsey's. Maybe it would be interesting for all the members of the forum to speculate on how the defense attorneys would counter the evidence presented here.

Fire when ready grizzly!

 

Zman:
"However if you wish to put John and Patsy on trial in this forum be my guest.
Call your first witness. Submit your first piece of "solid" evidence against the Ramsey's. Maybe it would be interesting for all the members of the forum to speculate on how the defense attorneys would counter the evidence presented here.

Fire when ready grizzly!"

There IS no solid evidence, for OR against. However:

Given what we now know about the case (as opposed to what the police knew prior to the discovery of the body), there is only ONE explanation for the existence of that note which makes sense. It is in fact VERY hard to see it as anything other than an attempt to stage a phoney kidnapping, staging perpetrated by someone living in the house at the time of the murder. No kidnapper would have left the body in the house, dead or alive. No molester would have left a note. Someone "out to get" John Ramsey would have "got" John Ramsey, NOT his totally innocent child. And that person would have had no reason to write a phoney ransom note.

The only logical explanation of the note is that it was part of a coverup plan -- and as should be quite clear, that plan went wrong. Something happened that prevented the killer and writer of the note from getting the body out of the house before the police were called. IMO what went wrong was that Patsy called 911 when she did. But possibly there is some other reason. Regardless, it is the note which makes this case so special and so interesting. And it is the note which points very squarely in the direction of one (or both) of the Ramseys.

So that would be my exhibit A for sure.

 

Zman, on Oct. 5, 2004, you wrote:

“I'll be happy to spin anything mentioned by DE into the
"intruder" theory, and so would the Ramsey lawyers.â€

This the equivalent of saying that all my investigative and
analytical work on the case exposing the lies and revealing non
intruder, hence, Ramsey guilt, is just so much meaningless
rhetoric which you can “spin†and dismiss with word games.

In effect, you’re telling me that my analysis of elements of the
case is no better than the nonsensical prattle of Lou Smit,
JamNut and the ilk. I don’t mind being told that, but I
automatically go into the “put up or shut up†mode and want some
follow up to back up the claim. So far, I haven’t seen any;
indeed, not even an attempt.

Your evaluative “thinking†is noted in:

“I can see the Ramsey's in the defendent chair's. Holding their
head in their hands as the D.A. waves the DE analysis in the air.
The jury is sure to convict the Ramseys now. There could be no
defense against this OPINION.â€

If a 50 pound lead ball is dropped on an unprotected pane of
window glass lying on a concrete floor, the pane of glass will
shatter. This is my “OPINION.†Do you really believe that you or
some attorney are going to convince a jury my “OPINION†is
incorrect, especially, when they see a validating demonstration?

You choose to dismiss whatever you feel like on the absurdity
that it’s all just “OPINION.†Evidently, you do not notice there
are opinions based on fact and opinions rooted in fallacy. It can
be demonstrated that the “garrote scene†is fatally flawed by
recourse to natural law and physics no less than the lead ball
window pane example. Yet, you claim to be able to “spin†and
hide this truth, i.e., spin it into an intruder theory.

Ordinarily, I don’t even bother to respond to such nonsense.
However, over four years of RST propaganda and evasion of
confrontation and exposure of their direct lies,
misrepresentations and misconceptions makes me a bit sensitive
to this Ramsey-serving tactic. I’ve seen all this BS I want to
see. Therefore, I responded to your claim:

“How about you and any lawyers you choose (or the whole RST)
having a go at it right on this forum. I been looking forward to
such a confrontation for over four years. I'm waiting. Bring it
on. Thank you.â€

I’m still waiting. Your post on Oct. 9, 2004 which begins with
“Well I'm not sure how interesting such a "conforntation" would
be†and ends with “Fire when ready grizzly! is a rather
transparent attempt to “spin†away from the issue; therefore,
with the exception above, I will not bother with the meaningless
diversion filler .

“I'll be happy to spin anything mentioned by DE into the
"intruder" theory,......â€

You did write that didn’t you? It’s a pretty clear claim is it
not? So, where the fruition? Where the validation of the claim?
Where is there any attempt at validation of the claim? Don’t you
want to be happy as in “happy to spin?†I repeat, bring it on.

I’ve seen every dodge in the book a thousand times over, so
please don’t insult my intelligence and waste my time with
attempted evasion that is NEVER going to work. You set the issue
and it’s not going to go away:

“I'll be happy to spin anything mentioned by DE into the
"intruder" theory,...†(Zman)

Do it. Quote anything from any analysis I have written and show
me and the rest of the forum readers how you spin it into an
intruder theory.

“Fire when ready grizzly!†(Zman)

Yeah, do that. Not going to happen is it? Don’t feel too badly
about it. All the lawyers in the world wouldn’t do any better.
However, next time, you might want to be a bit more careful about
what you claim to be able to do.

 

Exactly Doc G! It doesn't make any sense an intruder out to get John, will ignore the sleeping John, for his daughter!

Zman what do you think of this- John went looking for clues, that fateful morning, saw a 'strange' van in the alley. Watched it for a few minutes and incredibly decided the monitoring kidnappers couldn't possibly be in the van.

Didn't even inform the LE....hey a strange van is out back.

I also like the part in the 911 call, where Patsy, who didn't read more that the first few lines of the note is able to tell the operator the note says "S.B.T.C."

Huh? How'd Patsy know that?

 

Easywriter has contributed a great deal to our understanding of the case, so I don't want to come down TOO hard on him. However, there are aspects of his analysis which are simplistic and considerably weaken his argument. One of those is the "SBTC issue." A written document is NOT a movie or a TV show. It is nonlinear. One can glance at the beginning, skip the rest and glance at the end. So Patsy's mention of SBTC is NOT evidence. I happen to believe she DID read the whole note -- simple common sense is enough to tell us that. But the fact that she referred to SBTC is NOT what tells us that.

 

He certainly has, and I'll stop right there!

 

Michael Tracey has contributed very little.

 

Confrontation

Easywriter
“I'll be happy to spin anything mentioned by DE into the
"intruder" theory,......â€

This will serve as a lesson to me to choose my words more carefully in the future. I do not wish to challange the DE analysis as an overall document. In fact I am not trying to imply that it is wrong or right. I simply wish to express that this expert opinion (that Patsy worte the note) will be counterd by the RDT by expert opinion that Patsy did not write the note. Which I have already done in the previous post.

The jury will not be 12 members of the Hang Patsy Now club. They may be 12 people who have even forgotten about the case. I guess it would come down to who seemed more beliveable during the presentation of the evidence.

DocG

There IS no solid evidence, for OR against. However:

Exactly my point. I do not think I'll have to spend much time spinning because it's already been done. There seems to be no finger that points to them and no finger that points away from them. I wish there was. I always thought someday there would be solid evidence. I still think that even if they did not murder thier daughter that they must know what happend and who did.

Easywriter

Do you really believe that you or
some attorney are going to convince a jury my “OPINION†is
incorrect, especially, when they see a validating demonstration?

Well, they don't have to convince a jury that your incorrect. They only have to put a doubt in thier minds. I have not seen the validating demonstration so maybe that would change my mind. I have sat as a juror and listened to expert testimony form both sides. I will admit I was left pretty much 50/50.

 

I’ve seen every dodge in the book a thousand times over, so
please don’t insult my intelligence and waste my time with
attempted evasion that is NEVER going to work. You set the issue
and it’s not going to go away:

See, it's still not working.

“I'll be happy to spin anything mentioned by DE into the
"intruder" theory,......â€


I'm still waiting.