Evidence against the Ramseys

Jc

I thought the same thing myself. Usually if you call that time of evening you get an answering service. Maybe an answering service got the call and told Patsy they would have the doc call her back and she got impatient and called them back a couple of times. If one of my kids needed to see a doctor that urgently I would take them to the ER.

 

This was the beginning of this thread on April 27, 2006. I did not respond to it at the time because it came across as just another Ramsey shill playing games. Your spiel paralleled the attitude and rhetoric at the swamp. I usually don’t bother with “Swamp Creatures.†I bother now for two reasons: 1. To let
you know your transparent con fell flat from the start. 2. To
illustrate just to what lengths some will go to push the myth of
Ramsey innocence.

If you were sincere, you would have taken a different tact. Big
blunder. There is an abundance of arguments of evidence against
the Ramseys appearing on this forum (including my own). You have
been invited to challenge. You didn’t and don’t challenge. You
simply ignore that your request has already been met a thousand
times over. This is the same swamp mentality that ignores
refutation and keeps repeating alleged evidence of an alleged
intruder. Ergo, your request ignoring all of this, tells me you
have a different agenda from what you pretend. With the present
post, you leave no doubt as to what that agenda is: More fallacy
and nonsense aiding and abetting the Ramsey con.

Today, Sun May 21 4:54:19 CDT 2006
Little_Angel_1990's Avatar

“Actually, I had to change a few things around. As the intruder
perspective was too broad of a topic to cover, I had decided to
focus my paper on how the media circus totally bungled the case
and used samples to back up my claims. No doubt the media ruined
the family, the case and JonBenet's innocence. FYI, Elle, I'm 22,
not "a lot older than she is making herself out to be." Thanks
for taking interest!â€

Since I already know you are a fraud, I don’t take your word for
your age or anything else. Age is immaterial. What is material is
your portraying the Ramseys as victims of the media. Reality 101:

On the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, the Ramseys called in friends
and their pastor. It was not because any had any special
knowledge that would aid in finding JonBenet. It was the primary
test run to insulate themselves from questions and seek
acceptance of their version of events. Six days later, they
appeared on CNN as an extension of the earlier effort. This media
at this time was not forced on them. It was their choice for
their agenda. It was not to help find a lost child. It was not
about finding JonBenet’s killer. What it was was a national
platform from which to launch their act of poor, distraught
victims. This public appearance, like many others that were to
follow, was identical to the rest in that there were no probing
questions; only the providing of a forum for the Ramseys to tell
lie after lie without challenge.

There is no doubt that the death of JonBenet was a media draw of
international proportions. All wanted to get in on the action
with a Ramsey print interview, tv appearance, book deal, or
whatever. To get a piece of this lucrative “news pieâ€, to utilize
the Ramseys appearance, it was necessary to not offend lest they
bolt with the story and revenue lost. So, like a parade of robots
in flesh tones, parrots and shills, “journalistic integrity†took
a holiday while the myth of Ramsey innocence grew and grew.

By this “benign reportingâ€, the “evidence of an intruder†grew so
huge that few doubters remained. It became a mantra that set
stage after stage for appearance after appearance. The myth took
on such “reality†that any who would dare to question was likely
to find themselves the defendants in a lawsuit. The media who,
for the benefit of the bottom line, aided and abetted the biggest
con since the Cardiff Giant, denied their own responsibility
while locking their own door against the truth in fear of
litigation. For a few more magazine sales or points in tv
ratings, they played deaf and dumb to keep the cash cow in sight.
In the deal, the Ramseys get to stay out of jail and reap
monetary benefits from the ongoing lie. Who is playing whom?

How about a couple of samples:

BARBARA WALTERS: This is a very brutal murder, and yet some of
the authorities have said that you staged this. Um, that you
loosely tied your daughter's hands. That you put the noose, the
garrote, to make it look as if some terrible person had done
this. That this whole… picture was staged. (2020 Mar. 2000)

Focus on “loosely tied.†Where did BW get this. The autopsy
report says a loosely tied ligature around the right wrist -
singular, not wrists. Being the “live prop†in a Ramsey “pablum
productionâ€, BW challenged not at all when John said:

JOHN RAMSEY “.... Her hands were tightly bound, I couldn't get
the knot untied, I tried to get it untied, even before I brought
her upstairs,...., tried to untie the hands before I brought her
upstairs..... (2020 tv, Mar. 2000)

Granted a cord\knot competent intruder would have tightly bound
JonBenet’s wrists, but there is no such evidence in this crime
scene. The actual evidence clearly reveals that JonBenet’s wrists
were not bound at all. Don’t take my word for it. Read the
autopsy report and look at the photos. Do you know of single TV
show, interview, newspaper or magazine article, or statement put
out by law enforcement that even mentions this critical evidence.
Trying to sell the idea of a kidnaper\intruder who couldn’t even
manage a simple wrists tying job is a different ball game, isn’t
it?

Do go away. The best is yet to come. I have more for your
“report.â€

“An intricate noose apparatus — called a garrote — was tightly
pulled around her neck, cutting into the flesh. (Barbara Walters,
ibid)

Oh yes, more “evidence†of a vicious intruder\killer. Right?
Wrong. It’s not evidence. There was no noose apparatus. There was
no garrote. There was no tightly pulled around her neck. What
there was, factually and evidence wise was was a cord TIED
around the neck after the failing attempt at wrists binding, but
before wrapping cord around the broken paint brush handle.
Entangled hair tells the sequence. The tie around the neck was
finished with a knot compression that could not and did not slip
to reduce the size of the loop around JonBenet’s neck. Ergo, the
mummy wrapped piece of the broken paint brush was an impromptu,
useless and unused add on by a perp who had no idea of what
he\she was doing. The circumferential embedding with consequent
furrow came from fixed loop encountering post mortem swelling,
i.e., bloat.

As surely as violence begets violence, myth begets myth in
cascading and compounding repercussions.

“JonBenet's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a
garrotte attached to her body..... (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ.
J. [67] at 19; SMF163; PSMF 163.) The slipknots and the garrote
are both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control
to the user. (SMF 161, 164; PSMF 161, 164.)... .No evidence
exists that either defendant knew how to tie such knots.â€
(Judge Carnes’ ruling, Wolf vs Ramseys)

Where do you suppose that Judge Carnes got this “evidence?â€

“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."

What was left for Smit to do except “find evidence of an
intruder.†Indeed, he did in great abundance. If it meant turning
the world of facts and physics upside down and backward, that’s
what Looney Lou would do, and did. This was Judge Carnes main
source of “evidenceâ€; a judge who shows she has little common
sense and no familiarity with THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE at
all.

This alleged evidence, i.e., Lou Smit’s aberrations and
fabrications, directly contradict the actual cord\knot evidence.
First, the issue is objectively functional, or non functional,
not subjectively complicated, or simple. Second, yielding to the
ruling vernacular, a slipknot is hardly complicated. Third, a
slipknot in this circumstance is a flaw, not evidence of
expertise. It precludes working function. Fourth, there was no
garrote anywhere in the crime scene. Fifth, there was no binding,
so there was no “bondage device.†Six, since the tying was done
on an unconscious body, control was never a factor. Pointedly, in
this same ruling:

“Although plaintiff agrees the garrote is the instrument used to
murder JonBenet, he argues that the cord with which the wrists
were tied would not have bound a live child and is evidence of a
staging. (PSDMF 51.)â€

I believe the plaintiff’s contention of “would not have bound a
live child†is validated by the autopsy report, photos and
explanatory argument herein. The inability to bind does go to
incompetence and staging. Nevertheless, this evidence and
argument was summarily dismissed by Judge Carnes for no other
reason than it did not come out of the mouth of Looney Louie.

In this segment of the ruling, Judge Carnes exonerated the
Ramseys on the basis of “....sophisticated bondage devices...â€
etc., and the declaration that the Ramseys did not know how to
“tie such knots.†Not only did she show total ignorance of the
actual evidence, how she knew what the Ramseys could or could not
do, she did not say.

Nevertheless, as shown by the autopsy report, photos and
exhaustive explanation above, this Ramsey-exonerating decision
was made on fallacy and fallacy alone. The significance of this
is monumental. It not only validated past lawsuits dependent on
these fallacies, the decision encouraged more. This decision, by
“mythical evidenceâ€, tended not only to support the myth of
Ramsey innocence, but gave it renewed impetus moving faster and
further away from truth. DA, Keenan (Lacy) jumped on the
fallacy-driven bandwagon and publicly agreed with Judge Carnes’
decision. This is no less than a fallacy-based free pass for the
only viable suspects. Incredible!

Tracking: Lou Smit comes along and declares the Ramseys innocent
on the basis of John’s word as a Christian. Lou follows this by
concocting elaborate self-contradictory theories of an intruder,
inclusive of an imaginary stun gun that does the impossible and
leave a blue mark on the skin. He rattles on and on about a
“garrote†and “expertise†without a clue as to what he is talking
about. Nevertheless, this nonsense prattle of the “legendary
detective†is given much TV air time and print media coverage in
the interest of the bottom line. This utter nonsense and
cascading contradictions is taken as truth and directed the
decision of Judge Carnes. As the circle closes, along comes Mary
and sides with Carnes which is the same as taking John’s word for
his declared innocence. Ergo, the only viable suspects are
cleared, then allowed to direct the “investigationâ€, for no other
reason than their claim of innocence. I feel like I just had a
horrible nightmare only to wake up in the twilight zone.

If this is the way that all suspects are treated, that is,
declared innocent by simply claiming innocence, then closing the
DA’s office would not change a thing, would it. If this is not
the way all suspects are treated, then a different issue comes to
the forefront, does it not?

Let’s recap and summarize a bit for focus. The Ramsey story is
that JonBenet was kidnaped for ransom, bound and gagged, sexually
assaulted and deliberately murdered, intentionally and viciously
garroted to death by a sadistic pedophile\intruder. What and
where is the evidence to support these this alleged crime scene?

JonBenet’s body was found in her home. There was no ransom money
paid, nor any attempt by anyone to collect payment. There is not
a single evidentiary reason to conclude anything about the note
except bogus. Bound and gagged? Not bound at all as shown herein.
Sexually assaulted? No. Genitally assaulted with an object is not
evidence of sexual assault. Deliberately murdered by
strangulation with a garrote? No. A cord tied and knotted around
the neck is not garroting. (Must I include a reminder again that
I am aware of some possible strangulation during the tying of the
cord, but not by “garroting?â€) The real evidence is a fatally
flawed, amateurishly staged crime scene trying to sell the idea
of intruder and murder by strangulation. The intent was to create
a suspect outside of the Ramsey household with a corollary
purpose of diverting attention away from skull fracture as
primary.

It is often stated that the mystery of JonBenet’s murder by a
intruder\pedophile may never be solved. The imagined complexities
of the case are merely the product of confused, intermingled
fallacies. Shoddy police work and a compromised crime scene are
oft cited as reason that the case won’t be solved. Nonsense.
Whatever compromise of the crime scene, it had no effect upon the
main evidence. The real reason that the (premeditated) “murderâ€
will never be solved is because it didn’t happen. There is
literally not an iota of evidence to support the notion of
premeditated homicide. This notion did not come from any
evidence. It came from ignoring and denying the evidence. What
was premeditated was the attempt to hide the truth of fatal, or
near fatal accident resulting in a skull fracture.

Even though all details may not be known, the evidence provides a
simple and direct viable framework scenario without
contradiction: During the late evening of Dec. 25, 1996, JonBenet
Ramsey suffered a fatal, or near fatal, skull fracture. There is
no indication that this was premeditated, but there is indication
of desperation and panic. This accidental fatal, or near fatal,
head trauma was followed by an ad hoc, amateurish, inept staging
with materials at hand. The staging, as inept as it was,
attempted to portray a kidnaping, sexual assault and a deliberate
murder by strangulation, thereby implying intruder while
diverting attention from the head trauma as primary.

Since all action is directed by the intent to gain and\or
protect, we are further led to believe that this person doing the
staging was quite possibly motivated by culpability in the
accident. The extended effort to stage away from skull fracture
as primary tells us that this person did not want to deal with
the questions about the circumstances in which the head trauma
occurred. Why not, if not culpability? Why the staging if not
culpability? Further, since a long gone intruder stood to gain
nothing by the staging, the staging itself identifies the
perpetrator as someone who expected to be present during the
investigation.

I am moved to insert a reminder that I’m not talking about “just
my opinionâ€, or wild speculation. I’m talking about real physical
evidence and real demonstrable relevant physics. Would any jury
ever deny the autopsy report and photos and believe that JonBenet
was bound? Would any jury shown the physics of a fixed loop every
believe that JonBenet was circumferentially strangled by pulling
the useless attached handle? Would any jury shown the actual
evidence conclude anything except a grossly amateurishly staged
crime scene? Would any jury with no material evidence
connection, nor psychological motive to stage the crime scene
ever believe there was an intruder? Do you think the Ramseys
would like to find out?

OK, LA 1990, You wanted evidence against the Ramseys. Try on the
above for size. Can you refute it? Will you even try? Of course,
confronting facts is the last thing you want to do. Am I
mistaken? If so, show me. Quote anything I have written during
the last six years plus and try to reveal error. I will respond
to any and all questions. On the other side of the coin, suppose
you tell me what you view as evidence of an intruder and stand
ready to answer questions. Will you do that? Surely, if you think
the media has ruined the Ramseys’ lives, then you must believe
there was and is evidence of an intruder, right?

I’ve been making this same request for over six years. So far,
not a single taker? Will you be the first? Of course not, but
next time you think of attempting a con here, try a little
harder. This infantile ruse is downright insulting to my
intelligence.

 

Ah. The truth comes out. A Tracey disciple and Ramsey shill to the core.

I rest EW's case.

 

Not if the "injury" was something you didn't want to have to explain to LE.

 

The problem is not the question, it's the way it was asked. We've been down this road too many times. We can sniff out Team Ramsey a mile away.

Her intentions? Obviously, her intentions were to bait us for whatever her duplicitous reasons are. That's why she's not honest. Her last post says it all: she never intended to "present both sides." She intended to defend the Rams all along. It was obvious from her first question. Her following rudeness only revealed her disdain for the forum members from the start.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt. That's because I figured if she was sincere, I would help. If not, we'd find out.

We've found out.

As for my "educated" status on this case: you can KMG. If you know so much, why didn't YOU help her?

I did try to help her, and her "thanks" was another insult to the forum. That's why nobody jumped up to "list" for her--as EW pointed out. We debate the evidence all the time, but when someone is here just to shill for the Rams, they NEVER debate, and we end up wasting our time. As I did: LA has already stated she didn't "use" anything I wrote extensively about to help her. See how that works? She was looking for what she wanted, which was info TO SUPPORT the intruder theory. Or that's what she's claiming, but I suspect, like EW, she was lying across the board. She could have found that anywhere. Instead, she ended up writing about how the media, INSTEAD OF A CHILD KILLER, was the REAL problem, victimizing the Rams. How RAMSEY of her!

She came here to abuse us. It's that simple.

 

Could it be that Little_Angel_1990, who used the name "Aja" in one of her posts from several months ago

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=90426&postcount=1

be the same Aja who supplied the photos to maketoast's site?

http://www.maketoast.com/jonbenetpictures.htm

 

I did help her. I sent her links and page numbers to different books on the market to support the subject she was was writing about. Their was no bait involved... Besides if your beliefs are in fact the truth of the matter what are you afraid of? The media is good angle for research papers simply because you can back up your claims with the sources. I don't know what she ended up doing with the sources I sent her, none of my business really. I just answered her questions. Plain and simple.

 

I was under the impression that LAA was here to seek Justice for JonBenet, and only in this thread did I find out that she was here for educational purposes.

For what it's worth.
RR

 

Oh. How interesting that instead of posting to her on this thread, like the rest of us, you made it private.

What am I afraid of? You know, SJ, you're sounding more and more like the swampsters yourself every post.

A good angle? I couldn't care less what angle anyone takes. What I do care about is people who come here with a hidden agenda to abuse us and cause problems.

Maybe you should ask LA just WHO she wrote that paper for. I have a very good idea, if in fact she wrote a paper at all and isn't just lying about everything.

 

I was under the impression that LAA came here to find Cookie. :2cents:

 

Well, a little review explains a lot about what's going on here, I think:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6790&page=1&pp=12

So several of us responded to your theory, JS. Details. Evidence. Reason. Sources. No response from you.

 

I would be happy to post what I sent her! I saw that things were getting ugly and didn't want to get into the issue... So I just PMed her.

What I sent her for those who must know:

“A Continuing Saga.†CrimeLibrary.com. 6 March 2006. 2005.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/saga_6.html

Bane, Vickie. “Neverending Story.†People Dec. 1998: 126+.

Griffy, Anna M. JonBenet: Our Little Miss America. April 2006. Justice Junction. 2 December 2006.http://www.justicejunction.com/innocence_lost_jonbenet_ramsey.htm


“Personal Attack.†CrimeLibrary.com. 6 March 2006. 2005. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/attack_3.html

Ramsey, John and Patsy. Death of Innocence. New York: Onyx, 2001.

Schiller, Lawrence. “Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder and the Grand Jury's Search for the Final Truth.†New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999

“The Bugeyman Came.†Newsweek 27 March 2000: 34-36.

“The Media Evidence.†CrimeLibrary.com. 2005. 6 March 2006. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

Thomas, Steve, and Don Davis. JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000.

Welch, Cyril and Charles Bosworth, Jr.. Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?. New York: Onyx, 1998.

 

Working on it...

Just got done with finals, and honestly, this week is the first time I have had a chance to read all of your responses. I will be posting and responding to your questions soon.

 

Two things:

First, why is your list of authors and articles any different than the numerous ones I posted, as well as others?

No, upon rereading, I see you accused ME of being rude. LA's rudeness you have no problem with.

Two: Another college student? Is this a trend? Or are you two classmates?

 

I thought you sounded older than high school age LA. So you must be doing a university or college course on this? You received an A, so it's over!

Sometimes we do get posters from Jameson's site pretending to be someone else. There are Patsy Ramsey clones, or Patsy herself. For sure, Susan Stine has been over here too. Just assumptions, of course, but definitely game players.

 

Darn, I wish I had all yall back when I had papers to write. If it's ok to ask, for what course did you write that paper, LLA?

 

Am I a college student? Yes. Is Angel a college student? Why don't you ask her? Yes, we sent her some of the same links I see. You wanted to know what I sent her so I posted it, and surprise surprise you still aren't happy. I was beginning process of typing up responces to your quesitons surrounding my theory, but I'm beginning to think that I am just waisting my time. The people on this forum clearly have their eyes set in one direction and aren't going to change their views. So why waist my time? Am I saying that your views are wrong, no, in fact agree with some of them.

I have always straddled the fense on this case... I don't believe that the answer to our questions is either extreme, but somewhere in between... I guess when the truth comes out we will see which slant holds the most truth.

 

Your paper was based on a false premise.

1. The media did not ruin "the family." The Ramseys did that by their own choices including the courting of the media when they thought it was to their advantage.

2. The media did not ruin "the case." That was done by a bungling Boulder Police Department and a dishonest district attorney named Hunter who hamstrung the investigation and gave the primary suspects vital case evidence.

As for your most impossible and preposterous conclusion ...

3. The media did not ruin "JonBenet's innocence." Her parents were responsible for that. JonBenet was already dead by the time the media was involved.

I am not a fan of today's media. Real journalism has been lost in a sea of flashy spin and celebrity madness. But the media is not to blame for what happened to the Ramseys and certainly not to blame for what happened to JonBenet.

It is a sad truth of our present society that no one wants to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. There is always someone else to blame. This is the height of self-centered immaturity and a rejection of moral adult responsibility. We have become a nation of whining babies who throw screaming fits when things don't go our way. It's easy to blame others in order to try to escape the consequences of our actions. It is difficult to admit our mistakes and try to do better.

Whether they are guilty or innocent, the Ramseys have no one to blame for their present situation but themselves. In making the media their scapegoat, you are enabling their dishonest, immature and self-centered world view. They would love for the world to see them as persecuted individuals when the truth is - they are the ones who have persecuted others in a myriad of ways including frivolous lawsuits, the planting of false information during questioning, the attempted destruction of reputations, the badgering of innocent individuals and documented lies.

You will find NO OTHER innocent family in the history of true crime who has behaved in the same fashion.

Now THERE is a topic for a great research paper.

 

Wow, a lot of replies. Impressive.

Yes I am a college student and I just finished school last week. Good to have it finished and over with.

I wrote the paper as an argumentative essay for my composition class along with a power point presentation.

I just want to say: You can think what you guys want, but I am not from Jameson's site and I am not taking anyone's side. I have my own beliefs on what I think happened in the case, as well as everyone else, and no one can change that. However, I did not come here with any stupid "hidden agenda" or to "abuse" anyone, how can you think such BS?

WHO did I write my paper for? Read above. Again, you can come to any conclusion you want, but I will always know the truth myself, no matter what anyone says. And I did not come here to "find" anyone. It just happened that Cookie revealed herself and I asked a few things, that doesn't mean I came look for her. Gosh didn't realize this would turn into such a big spectacle. One simple question into something big. Geez...

-LA 90

 

You know, SJ, you worked a lot on your theory and your post of it. I know how much time and energy that takes. That's the only reason I spent so much time responding. When I first came to the forums, there was much I didn't know about this case, in spite of the books. It's so much to fathom. So I was simply trying to help you out with some holes in your theory and maybe some things you didn't know because I thought you were sincerely interested in the case.

As for you choosing not to respond to the discussion of your theory: you started it. It was a hell of a lot of work to get through your theory and then break down for you where you got off track. You'd have to do quite a bit of reading and thinking, then writing, to get back on track. Maybe once you realized the time involved, you weren't inclined to follow through with what you started.

It's exactly as EW said, exactly why Moab laughed at the first request on this thread, and exactly as experience has taught us: once the facts of evidence are laid out, which takes lots of time, considering this case has a 40 thousand page case file, not many step back up to the plate. So it ends up being we who get our time wasted, because we took the time.

It's really not that hard of a case to understand, but it takes a great deal of effort and intelligence to sift through the powerful efforts by skilled people to obstruct justice for JonBenet. The evidence is clear. All it takes is finding out what the factual evidence is and following that to the truth--not what you want the truth to be. You can't pick and choose and misinterpret and then throw out the evidence you don't like, and then grab onto disinformation fed to you by those who have an agenda far from the journey to the truth.

Most posters here have spent many years researching, studying, and debating this case, as well as theorizing, testing, changing our theories as we learned, trying to hone in on the fine details of evidence that put the truth or the lie to what we theorize happened that night. We didn't just wake up one day and think, oh, we don't like the rich Ramseys, let's lynch them, even though they're innocent! That myth came from the swamp and from people like Tracey who couldn't find the truth with God as their guide. We're not barking mad. I'd call a professor of journalism barking mad who broadcasts out and out lies, who serially labels clearly innocent people as child killers from documentary to documentary, solely because that's where his bread is buttered.

So you're going to find out in discussing the case here that people will tell you the facts of the case where you go wrong, will question what you theorize, as we question each other and ourselves--and yes, we do find from time to time we've mucked up some long held belief. That's what we're here for...to learn and to share info on the journey to the truth of who killed JonBenet.

And we take all this serious enough to get miffed occasionally when we're baited by those who think it's some media game, or who come here with clear disdain for us to waste our time. A child died. Horribly. We never forget that.