Backward Thinking

Speculating on discovered evidence is one thing. Speculating that
“creates evidence†is quite another. The former leads to the
truth. The latter leads everywhere except the truth. As you may
or may not have noticed, the RST’s “evidence of an intruder†can
be categorized as “could beâ€, “may beâ€, “missing†and “unknown.â€
Given the infinity of “unknown†as “evidenceâ€, is it any wonder
that the “intruder†has been “identified†as everything from
family friend, stranger\pedophile, fur trapper and\or Santa Claus
and an extensive cast of other characters thrown in for good
measure?. In addition to the “could beâ€, “may beâ€, “missing†and
“unknownâ€, to “extend the evidenceâ€, there is heavy reliance,
upon “somebody said.â€

Their theories are not limited to, or by, actual facts. Their
limits are only imagination and personal preference. They have
this mental defect that leads them to believe that they need only
declare something as true to make it so.

“The stun gun left marks on her body - it is not in the house.
The tape and cord were found on her body - they exist - and the
rest of the tape and cord is not in the Ramsey house - - no one
can link them to it. The foot print was FRESH in the mold. FRESH
- - where is the shoe that made it? The note is certainly part of
the crime -- the handwriting doesn't match the parents. The
DNA mixed with the blood of JBR is not from the parents - - the
BORG would ignore that??â€

Let’s take it item by item:

“The stun gun left marks on her body - it is not in the house.â€
(Ibid)

“The stun gun as part of the crime scene is, of course,
predicated upon the notion that the marks on JonBenet’s body were
caused by such an instrument. What is the source of this belief?
What is revealed in and by this declaration when viewed against
the backdrop of reality?

No forensic evidence is given to validate the claim the marks
were made by a stun gun. Were any tests conducted to see if the
marks line up with and match a particular stun gun electrodes?
More importantly, were any tests conducted to determine if the
skin damage on JonBenet was consistent with the damage from a
known stun gun use?? Also, time duration of stun gun marks are a
factor. Where is the information on this. Were these sound
investigative procedures utilized? If so, no such tests and
evidence are mentioned. In other words, “evidence†of a stun gun
is nothing but evidence-deficient speculation. It is only
“somebody saysâ€, with “says†treated as fact.

It is further admitted that no stun gun was found in the house.
This is not surprising since it exists only in the mind of the
writer. So the “stun gun connection†is not a connection to the
actual crime scene. It is connected only in and by the mind that
created and believed the idea without any evidentiary support
whatsoever. This leaves us with nothing but claim. Whose claim?
Primarily, Lou Smit’s claim?

According to Smit, blue marks on the skin of JonBenet is evidence
of a stun gun use. It’s what he cites as “proof†of an intruder.
The bluish arc from a stun gun is caused by the high voltage
ionization of air molecules. The color does not transfer to skin,
or other objects any more than the blue of a gas flame. Smit
claimed to know that which he did not know because what he
claimed to know is physically impossible. He made the claim
anyway. What does this tell us about Mr. Smit?

It tells us that Mr. Smit does not identify, nor verify what he
claims as fact. It tells us that Mr. Smit “invents “evidence†to
suit. He accepted his own ignorance as “evidence†since it fits
his intruder theory. To make such a silly claim of evidence that
can be easily and emphatically refuted is not just ignorance,
it’s just plain stupid. It tells that Mr. Smit is not very swift
on the uptake and is incapable of investigative discovery. It
tells us that Smit just makes it up as he goes along. What’s
worse and truly appalling is that nearly all in LE and the media
let him get away with it.

What is significant about this is that it shows Smit’s mode of
thought and almost nil analytical ability. The story he made up
about the blue marks is typical of literally every other item of
Smit’s “evidence.†It’s all fabrication as fabrication is the
only “evidence†that will fit a fabricated intruder. What is
amazing to me is this: By the blue mark fiasco alone, Smit
clearly reveals to one and all his ignorance, his poor thinking
skills and disregard for facts. He clearly illustrates his
“thinking†and his word are not to be trusted. Yet, his
aberrations are repeated in a court document as well as assorted
areas of the media. Smit acts like he is immune to questioning
and need not prove or explain anything. Among the idiot “powers
that beâ€, this may be true, but not here.

“The tape and cord were found on her body - they exist - and the
rest of the tape and cord is not in the Ramsey house - - no one
can link them to it.†(Ibid)

Please focus upon this argument and what it reveals. It is a
pattern repeated over and over again in RST “thinking.†“Proof of
an intruderâ€, comes via arbitrary mental displacement of opposing
facts. What is very disturbing is how blind they are to the
obvious.

Were the Ramseys in the house? If unused cord or tape was
disposed of, is there any reason that one or more of the Ramsey
could not have disposed of it? If so, what prevented them from
taking such action. If not, and the Ramseys could have disposed
of unused tape or cord, by what rationale are they excluded as
potential cause for the “missing†tape and cord? If they are not
excluded, by what rationale and what argument is it claimed the
unused tape or cord HAD TO BE disposed of by an intruder? Just
about any pre-schooler can follow and understand this line of
thought and recognize the fallacy revealed, but this fully grown
adult apparently does not comprehend the elementary.

Obviously, if there was any disposing to be done, the Ramseys
were right there and could have done it. However, this fact was
simply denied with the subsequent conclusion that an intruder
“had to†dispose of the tape and cord. In other words, for sake
of argument and preferred conclusion, the Ramseys are temporarily
declared non existent.

Are you getting the picture of this self-contradictory, nonsense
“thinking? The Ramseys were the only ones known to have ability
and opportunity to do whatever was done including disposing of
cord and tape if there was extra to be disposed of. Although the
Ramseys are the only actual identities in the scene, they (the
real) are declared disconnected (non existent) from it while a
mental invention (non existent) is portrayed as the real. In
other words, the “thinking†is exactly backwards; meaning
disconnected from reality. The absurdity continues:

“–no one can link then to it†(ibid)

By ownership, by occupancy, by ability, by opportunity, the
Ramseys are linked to whatever was in the house and whatever
happened in the house. There is not an iota of evidence to sever
that link. Since no one, nor anything has or does disengage them
from the scene, saying “no one can link then to it†is an open
and silly contradiction from any and every angle. It is a
ridiculous pretense of a magical power to create reality solely
by declaration.

More “reality by decreeâ€:

“The foot print was FRESH in the mold.†(Ibid)

This is stated as fact. Who, when, where, how and why made this
determination is information not given. What is a time line for
FRESH?. What criteria was heeded in determining FRESH? Absent
supporting answers, I must assume the claim is purely arbitrary
to suit preferred conclusion. In other words, “creating evidenceâ€
as needed to support preconceived notion. What’s new?

“ FRESH - - where is the shoe that made it?†(Ibid)

Unless and until relevancy is established by answers to the
above questions, it’s non issue. Relevancy means evidence showing
the footprint was made within the general time frame of
JonBenet’s death and incorporated with other evidence. The
“mentally manufactured “FRESH†is an outright lie, more
fabrication as “evidence†of a fabricated intruder.

“The note is certainly part of the crime -- the handwriting
doesn't match the parents.†(Ibid)

Once again, arbitrary declaration set forth as “evidence.â€
All materials involved with the note are linked to the Ramseys by
location and possession. I see the arbitrary declaration that
“the handwriting doesn’t match the parents.†What I don’t see is
identification of a non Ramsey author. What I don’t see is any
evidence of access by a non Ramsey. What I don’t see is any
exculpatory evidence severing the Ramseys from the note. Sorry, I
can’t accept “blue marks†from a stun gun as evidence of an
intruder severing the Ramsey connection.

“ The DNA mixed with the blood of JBR is not from the parents - -
the BORG would ignore that??†(Ibid)

What’s to ignore? There is nothing to ignore. What is the source
of the DNA? When deposited? Can the DNA be connected to the
death of JonBenet? Can the DNA be used to isolate and identify
one particular person? Without these answers, there is nothing to
ignore except more of the same old RST “evidence.â€

Do you observe that the value of “intruder evidence†is always
dependent upon the unknown. Palm print, whatever, is “evidence of
an intruder†- until source is known, then it is no longer
“valuable evidence.†All this hoopla about the DNA is just plain
silly. Consistency is the character of truth, hence, the
character of evidence. One piece of evidence does not point in
one direction and another piece of evidence point in a different
direction. Convergence upon a central point is the nature of
ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

If it’s not Ramsey DNA, so what? It does not exonerate them in
the death of JonBenet. Given all the factors of ease of DNA
transfer, many methods of DNA transfer and unknown time of
transfer, it is doubtful the source and time of deposit of the
DNA in question will ever be known. No problem. It is irrelevant
to the crime scene. It matters only to the RST and is of value
only as long as the answers remain unknown. This is he only way
they can pretend the DNA is of significance. They talk about
Codis and pretend to seek the truth about the DNA when that’s the
last thing they want. The idea that a bit of DNA, contaminated
or otherwise, is going to magically dismiss the actual evidence
against the Ramseys is ludicrous. If this would work, Lou Smit
would have already served it up as a “blue light special.â€

 

The facts are so clear and so simple. The complications come when the RST try to make the evidence fit their theories and wishes. When they can't, they resort to repeating lies that have already been discredited over and over and over.

Repeating (and repeating and repeating) there was a stun gun, a theory presented by Lou Smit, shows the fraud perpetrated by That Woman on those who are of her bent. Whether or not there was a stun gun is a subject that the experts disagree on, with the most vocal of the experts, the one who sided with Smit, contradicting himself in first saying a decision can't be made with a photograph and then changing his tune at a later date. Defense lawyers would have a ball with that, doncha' know.

You're right on top of things, as usual EW. I love reading your posts.

 

A lot of wrong thinking in this world.

 

I missed this thread, Easy Writer, and I apologize. You have addressed something here that irritates me to no end: how anyone can listen to Legend-in-his-own-mind Smit. That a federal court judge did will never cease to amaze me. I blame Darnay for that, by the way. Talk about a barrels of monkeys...but that barrel was no fun.

I totally agree, EW. Smit used so much "bugaboo" to create his "intruder" that I could only watch in astonishment as allegedly responsible journalists were giving him so much air time to explain the "evidence" so clumsily: the "shoe print" below the cellar window--which JR could easily have left himself as he admitted he had his shoes ON when he climbed in the window previously, if that mark even was a shoe scuff; the "ruffled" bed skirt where the intruder hid--and what intruder intending to murder a child with the family sleeping in the 15 room home wouldn't hide under a nearby bed covered in clothes being packed in a suitcase, all lying on top of the same bed waiting for the packer to return to the task this Christmas holiday, when this oft traveling family with their own plane might be leaving any minute; and yes, the "blue mark" from the "stun gun" was priceless, if the detecting skills of the man in question are to be considered at all as he weaves an absurd tale of an "intruder," all ACTUAL evidence to the contrary.


Well, said, EW.

 

Beautifully put, EW.

It's the exact same backwards logic the RST uses with the very real evidence of prior vaginal injuries that the RST will not even consider, declaring it either non-existent or putting it about 10th on a list of possible causes of those "chronic" vaginal injuries.

If an INTRUDER got into the home, hid there, spent hours there, much of it murdering a child while her parents and brother slept upstairs like lambs, how can anyone consider it NOT POSSIBLE that the same person MIGHT have gotten to JonBenet BEFORE that night and molested her? It's absurd to make the argument that it's not possible, yet make that argument they will, and cut the knees out from under anyone challenging them.

Of course, the reason they won't "go there" is simply because what follows is a much smaller circle of suspects, the "intruder" then having to have gotten to JonBenet before that night, and once is tough enough to explain, but twice without anyone noticing a thing is much harder. It starts to look like maybe it WAS someone close to JonBenet, doesn't it? Can't go there!

And that's just another example of what you described so brilliantly: if an intruder can get in, spend hours in the home, even with the family there, committing awful acts undetected, and then leave without anyone so much as noticing one indication that a stranger has been in the home, except for a ransom note and a missing child, just why couldn't the Ramseys THEMSELVES get out with a small roll of duct tape and cord?

Yes, it's amazing how willfully people will make their illogical arguments, and how willingly others will follow--common sense not allowed.

Well, said, EW. I'm sorry I missed this before. You have a new fan.

 

Oh, yeah, the never-ending intruder's HiTec print.

Even more telling is the fact that the RST NEVER brings up another very damning fact about that HiTec brand: it's UNDISPUTED that JAR had owned a pair of HiTec shoes when he was younger, as part of his scouting uniform, I believe. Those shoes were said to be in Atlanta, but whose word do we have for that? Is there one person on these forums who is not aware that children often hand down their clothes and shoes to younger siblings? And how many of us had ever heard of this brand of shoes before this murder? They are somewhat specialized, used for outdoor sports or by cops. I asked a shoe clerk in a sports shoe store about them some years after the murder, here in Georgia, and he vaguely knew of the brand and said they'd have to be special ordered around here.

But JAR had a pair. Again, that's undisputed. It's said White claimed Burke had a pair, as well, but I haven't seen that verified by any concrete source. The HiTec's being traced to a family member was reported in a news article, I think, with no source given then, either. Of course, the RST says JAR's shoes--not relevant! Any question that Burke had a pair of these shoes--NO HE DIDN'T AND WE SAID SO!

Considering this is a murder case, you'd think that something as relevant as one KNOWN owner of those brand of shoes who actually lived in the home MIGHT be at least debated by the RST as worth a look. But no. They prefer to point to some poor dead guy who happened to own a pair of HiTecs at his TOD, ignoring that Helgoth has never once been connected to the Ramseys or JonBenet except by the aftermath rantings of a mentally unstable wingnut looking for attention, obviously--and boy, did they give Kenady that! Nevermind that nothing Kenady said could be linked to JonBenet's case, except in pure convoluted speculation spun for the profit of all involved, except the poor dead guy and his family, not to mention, a murdered child.

Yep, EW, if they can't find actual evidence, they can make it up. If they make it up and find out it's not flying due to interference of the actual evidence, then they simply deny the actual evidence because jams or smit declares it not relevant or non-existent, due to a conflict with their intruder theory.

If I need a good laugh, I go read Evening2's posts. I saw one the other day where she declared that she believed "paint" was applied to JonBenet's face, and as absurd as it sounds, I'm NOT making this up! She believes both the McReynolds did it, and how she'd managed to figure a painted face into her imaginative, twisted, and irrational theory of this case, I have no idea, because some more sane posters gently put her off of that theory, using the autopsy...OF ALL THE GALL! I'm sure it would have been priceless.... E2 is constantly coming up with stuff that is based in nothing but whatever fantasy she's thought of latest to explain the widening gap between her ideas and reality.

Just like you say, EW, if they can't find real evidence to support any suspect but a Ramsey, or if known evidence contradicts any suspect but a Ramsey, they just make it up or dismiss it. Poof! Next intruder suspect!

 

You see, this kind of reasonable thinking is just not possible for the RST. If it were, they'd not be RST.

That not one piece of evidence has ever been linked directly to any intruder or any actual source outside the Ramsey home means nothing to RST. That so much evidence used in the crime itself comes straight from the Ramsey home means nothing to RST.

Ten years later, and they're still hunting for ONE piece of evidence leading to someone...ANYONE...but a Ramsey.

 

Someone should tell the RST that even if they found that "match" they so desperately believe in, it would not result in any conviction for this murder.

Unless it's the victim's blood on a stranger under damning circumstances, a DNA match alone is not enough evidence to convict anyone of any crime. It's too easily explained away--well enough for reasonable doubt, anyway. Even in rape cases where semen is identified, as happens every day, the defendant claims consensual sex. There must be other evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The DNA found in JB's panties can be played up because of its location, of course, to sound like the damning evidence that would convict. But if you look closer, you can see how easily a defense lawyer would shoot this little myth down. It's not semen. It's not blood. It's so small as to be unviewable under a microscope. The number of ways it could have gotten in those panties is infinite. As has already been argued, a sneeze, a cough, transfered indirectly if not directly, from a touch, a doorknob, the scratching of an itch, from toys, a seat in a restaurant, a glass with a drink, or a toilet, a bar of soap in a dance studio, a handshake at the mall, a nail file at the salon....

Infinite. Not blood or semen. In new panties never washed, never even opened before the day of the 25th, still in their sealed packaging, all the way from China. Was it ever determined if the DNA came from one or more people besides JonBenet, as the DNA profile we recently had reviewed for us at the swamp clearly said: IF the only contributors of the DNA are JonBenet and ONE OTHER PERSON, then the Ramseys are excluded.

Let me repeat that: IF THE DNA IS CONTRIBUTED BY JONBENET AND ONLY ONE OTHER PERSON...THEN IT'S NOT A RAMSEY'S DNA.

Yeah, how about that?

Does this mean if the DNA is contributed by MORE than one other person, then ONE COULD BE A RAMSEY? Let me specify this DNA profile and the conclusions were from the original "mixed DNA" sample from the panties, I believe.

Did the "new DNA" found come from the panties? I think it has been implied that no, it didn't, but I can't remember if Beckner actually stated outright that it didn't or just danced around the issue. I don't think anyone has ever said exactly where this "new DNA" did come from, have they? Does it match the "OLD DNA"? From the panties? From the fingernails? That which was degraded and so wouldn't deliver a complete strand of DNA?

Sorry, EW, I digress. Excellent post. Razor sharp logic. We must drive you crazy on these forums. :winkaway:

 

Oh, for Heaven's sake! That squiggly blue line is nothing more than part of JonBenet's circulatory system, not the mark from the arc of a stun-gun. (I think someone on FFJ also mentioned this.)

-Tea

 

It's simple. Do the math: Smit decided they were innocent after three days. The cops had already been working the case for--What?--three months?

 

EW:

How could Lou Smit have such a terrific record as a homicide investigator? He ruined the whole Ramsey investigation. Did the Heather Dawn Church case get to his head where he had found out that the parents were not guilty and he emerged as an absolute hero? Did he get so carried away by that success that this prevented him from looking at the Ramsey evidence unbiased? I have the impression that his approach to the crime scene was biased right from the start towards the parents' innocence, and he interpreted the evidence to suit his claims, instead of doing it the other way round, which he should have: look at the evidence first and then construct a theory which has to take into account that evidence. Recognize evidence for what it is, and don't mix up fact with fiction, i. e. don't see stun gun marks where there are none.
Incredible. And after only seventy-two hours, he had come to the conclusion the Ramseys were innocent? Oh my. Makes me shudder, that types like that have a say in murder investigations.
I don't know nearly as much about the case as you people, but I'm begining to understand why EasyWriter calls Smit 'Loonie Louie', lol.

And it is ironic that it was in fact Smit who had told SteveThomas (JB, p. 148): Murders are usually what they seem. Rarely are they perfectly planned."
But strange enough, Smit seems to have forgotten his personal commandment when it came to the Ramsey case: yes indeed, the Ramsey case was 'exactly what it seemed': a cover-up so poorly staged that many elements should have raised red flags. And nothing in that killing pointed to perfect planning, quite the contrary.

 

He's not the only one to break his own rules and contradict his own writings in regards to this case!