This is an archive historical web site on the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case
AND A WEBSITE DEDICATED TO VICTIMS AND THE SEARCH FOR JUSTICE
September 11, 2001
|"If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder.
If there is no intruder, then it has to be the Ramseys." (Lou Smit)
Letter to Boulder Colorado District Attorney, Mary Keenan
May 20, 2003
Mary Keenan, Boulder District Attorney
1777 Sixth Street (Sixth St. and Canyon Blvd.)
Boulder, CO 80302
Re: Ramsey Case
Dear Ms. Keenan,
I am a very private person who seeks neither fame nor fortune, hence the reluctance and delay in writing this letter. I prefer to "let George do it" and not get involved in such matters, but "George" has not materialized, so here I am.
To begin at the beginning, at least, my beginning, more by accident than design, I began looking into the case via internet resources in March of 2000. It did not take long to see the game was not being played according to Hoyle. After viewing the politics, favoritism, dishonesty and gross incompetence for quite some time, I departed in utter disgust. After months of total absence, I recently looked in to see if there had been any change. There hadn't. The Judge Carnes' ruling and her alleged "evidence" of an intruder was the last straw. It was either simply forget about the case entirely, or do something to try to remedy the six years plus of myths and misconceptions. As you can see, I chose the latter.
For those of us, which are most, children are to be protected, nurtured and taught. When this simple tenet of decency is violated, it takes on a personal meaning and personal importance no matter who the child is, or the circumstances of abuse.
The death of JonBenet Ramsey is a tragedy of ultimate magnitude. She had but one life and that life was ended by some person or persons. To the tragedy is added travesty; a travesty which is a sad commentary on the prevailing value system of most, but in particular those who have contributed to the travesty and continue to do so.
The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.
Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.
Had a crime in parallel been investigated in a run down, low income neighborhood, the investigative actions and outcome would have been far different. Please don't insult me with the pretentious cliche that all are treated equally under the law. We both know better.
In the course of events following the initial monetary\political favoritism and inept investigation, the only viable suspects, i.e., the Ramseys, in blatant defiance of literally all the evidence to the contrary, took their protest of innocence to the public at large beginning with the unprecedented appearance on CNN just six days after the death of their daughter. This shameful display of lying arrogance is an insult to the intelligence of any marginally competent person not comatose. I and many others have seen enough and intend to end the farce. The Ramsey Show has had a long run. The time is long overdue for the final curtain call.
"We will work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys, and the Boulder Police Department." (Your words )
"We are all focused on the apprehension and successful prosecution of the killer of JonBenet." (Your words also)
The fact that you obviously don't see the horrendous contradiction, I find more than a bit disturbing. Based on what I have observed during the three plus years I have been looking into the case, including your promised cooperation with the most viable suspects, indeed, the only viable suspects, the statement about successful prosecution of the killer rings a bit hollow to say the least.
If the past is an indicator, the content of this letter will be ignored; which means the truth about the death of JonBenet Ramsey will be ignored as well as it has been for over six years. In any event, ignored or not, it will be on record. Govern yourself accordingly.
"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." (Your words)
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? Surely, you can do this with no problem if you believe "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." Indeed, would you point out to me some evidence that it IS a murder case.
The reason I make this request is that during my long time looking into the matter, I have heard and read many claims about evidence of murder and evidence of an intruder, but been unable to find any, not a trace. I really tried. For quite some time I posted on a forum or two. I asked that anyone who believes there is evidence of an intruder to meet me on line and answer some questions about the alleged evidence of an intruder. No takers. Not one.
Why do you suppose this is since Smit, Carnes, you and other Ramsey supporters have repeatedly declared that the weight of the evidence indicates an intruder is responsible for the crime. Perhaps the answer lies in the method of gathering "evidence."
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.
A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.
This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.
The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?
Based on the foregoing basis for truth, i.e, the natural law of proper epistemology, it follows that whatever the unknown, if and when the unknown becomes known, it will not contradict known facts. This is the indispensable directive for productive speculation in trying to determine the cause of a foot print, palm print, whatever.
This clearly means that real investigative speculation about the unknown in the crime scene never departs from the known facts as reference for conclusion, or probable conclusion. The boot print found in the basement of the Ramsey home will serve as representative of all unknowns in the scene. Given the known facts of the crime scene, and given the necessity of consistency to determine truth, what is the probability that the boot print or any of the other unknowns are connected to an intruder. The probability is absolute zero.
What Judge Carnes, Smit, you and others are calling evidence of an intruder is nothing more than speculation on a list of unknowns, each speculation dependent on the other, with none going to ground; that is, with not a one connected to known facts without contradiction.
These floating conclusions are embellished by the imagination of Mr. Smit, then presented as fact and alleged to be evidence of an intruder. The fact that Smit's delusions and illusions have now entered the record as Statements Of Fact in a federal court is a bit scary, nay, more that a bit. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
What is expressed and implied about proper epistemology and determination of truth via non contradiction will be the basis for further examination. Wrong premise. Wrong answer. Wrong method. Wrong answer. Do you find any flaw in what I have expressed and implied as the foundation of my thinking and conclusions? If so, what? Please elaborate.
Lou Smit: "You know, we have been here for three days now. We have gone over a lot of things and I think I have gotten to know you pretty good at this time, and you have probably gotten to know us, and, you know there is a lot of people out there that really do believe that you did this to your daughter, or that your wife did this. 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."
Unbelievable! This is an "experienced detective conducting an interrogation? The fact that he was not pulled from the case immediately does not speak well for those in authority who allowed the farce to continue.
Do you grasp that to take someone's word for something means that the concept of evidence is irrelevant; that there will be no investigation? As elementary as this is, apparently, this simple truth eludes Smit. Since you propose to " work cooperatively" with Lou Smit and the Ramseys, evidently it eludes you as well.
Is it within your job description as District Attorney to spend taxpayer money to join the Ramseys, Smit, Wood, Carnes and others in defense of suspects rather than investigate with the potential of indictment and prosecution?
Smit's behavior shows up even more absurd when you look at the crime scene environment in which Mr. Smit excludes John and family as suspects.
By crime scene environment, I mean actual and factual environment, not the fantasies of Lou Smit. Here's the real deal of evidence that has been right under your nose since day one.
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.
If the note was phony, as it appeared to be, it meant there was no kidnapping. The only known persons who had ability and opportunity to be the perpetrators of whatever happened and the only ones who could have staged a crime scene were the Ramseys, hence, the only viable suspects who knew what happened to JonBenet. This truth still holds.
The logical inference of the suspect circumstance of a probable bogus note was strongly reinforced when the body was "found" in the basement by John Ramsey. At face value appearance, the body evidenced a kidnapping and murder. However, the face value appearance quickly disappeared when the scene was determined to be bogus by numerous factors inclusive of an ad hoc amateurish construction of a "garrote."
Like the note, ALL material evidence whose source is known is connected to the Ramsey household. There is no evidence that any came from anywhere else.
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 in this atmosphere of all materials, and material facts, including a staged crime scene linked to the family household that Lou Smit reached the conclusion of Ramsey innocence. On what? Admittedly, on John's word.
After excluding the Ramseys on John's word, Smit has only one direction to go: Find the alleged intruder. First find evidence of the alleged intruder to lead to said alleged intruder. Suppose there is no intruder, meaning there is no evidence of an intruder, what does Mr. Smit do then?
By the method described above, Mr. Smit's finds a lot of "evidence" of an intruder: shoe print, palm print, scuff mark on a wall, anything and everything "unknown" becomes in Smit's confused mind "evidence" of an intruder. How can anyone, let alone a detective, judge, DA, et al, be so mentally incompetent as to believe the unknown is evidence.
That I am motivated by the circumstance to explain the concept, evidence, to those whose careers and job responsibility depend on knowing the character of evidence leaves me shuddering in horror and disbelief.
Evidence is in essence the verb, evidences, i.e., evidentiary cause; meaning cause known. By definition, the unknown is NEVER evidence. The totality of known evidence which evidences Ramsey guilt is simply ignored on John's word. It is mentally displaced by absurd claims of evidence of an intruder with said claims resting on and derived from the unknown. In other words, ALL the alleged intruder evidence is subjectively mentally invented and claimed to be objectively discovered. There is no way to conduct an "investigation" any more backward than this.
Over six years after the death of JonBenet, neither Smit, nor the BPD, nor DA have come up with the identity of an alleged intruder; nor will they in sixty or six thousand years.
The evidence said from the very beginning, and still says, there was no intruder. Everything that has happened in waste of time and money with no intruder found was easily predictable by the evidence from the outset. I, as well as many others, made such a prediction.
On page 2, Judge Carnes writes:
"Sometime on the night of December 25 or the early morning of December 26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered.(SMF 2.)"
This is the conclusion with which Judge Carnes BEGINS. The Plaintiff (Wolf) contends that Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet by accident. The Defendants (Ramseys) claim that JonBenet was murdered. This is an issue to be decided by the facts. However, even before any facts or alleged facts are examined, Judge Carnes rules in favor of the Ramseys. In effect, she rewrites Wolf's Complaint and obligates him to prove premeditated murder, not accident. The hearing is over. The decision has been rendered. The other 91 pages are merely filler. Wolf was poorly prepared enough without Judge Carnes rewriting his Complaint to compound the difficulty of his task.
What "evidence" directed her conclusion of murder? Is there any doubt that it was the word of her "expert witness", Lou Smit? Smit did what he did because he took the word of John Ramsey. So, in a round about way, John Ramsey directed the Carnes' ruling that declared him innocent. If all suspects were provided such luxury, all judges and juries would become redundant. I cite Judge Carnes as case in point.
There are many items of material evidence; each fitting into and creating the whole without contradiction. The pivotal area of evidence is the "garrote scene." The importance of understanding this area of evidence cannot be overstated.
Conclusion and beliefs about this area establishes the direction of investigation, and subsequent conclusions. This was clearly manifest in Judge Carnes' ruling wherein she concluded that the "garrote scene" was professional, thus requiring certain skills which the Ramseys did not posses. Regarding the "garrote scene" as "sophisticated" and "professional" set the investigative crime scene as murder while simultaneously excluding the Ramseys.
A false read means a search in the wrong direction without truthful resolution of the case possible. This is precisely what has been happening for over six years.
For years, in the media and now in court, the Ramseys, Lou Smit and others have repeatedly and emphatically described the "garrote scene" as "sophisticated", "complex", "intricate" and "professional." It is implied to be the work of someone very knowledgeable in the construction and use of what is referred to as a "garrote." Yet, not once have I seen or heard of Smit, nor anyone else presenting physical demonstration, or even definitive argument to establish the "garrote scene" as "sophisticated", "complex", "intricate" and "professional."
As a consequence, this propaganda sets up an "investigative" condition of murder calling for motive, premeditation and planning. In conjunction with the mindset, "No parent could do this to their child", the "investigation" was off and running in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE TRUTH. Over six years later, with no intruder found, most, including you, still don't have a clue as to what happened and is still happening.
What is the truth about the "garrote scene?" In reality, the claim of "sophisticated" and "expertise" arbitrarily verbally attached to the "garrote scene" is totally false, ridiculously so. The "garrote scene" is amateurish, childish, inept and inefficient. It was created by a bungling novice; something easy to prove by physical demonstration by one who knows the truth. If you like, I will be happy to do so, and in court if necessary.
With the truth buried, "garrote expertise" supporting the idea of murder is set as the primary fallacy on which all the others gain psychological support. Its the launch pad, the foundation of the fallacy tower. Its the make or break item in the whole crime scene. I am taken aback and appalled that this farce of "garrote scene" "expertise" has gone on and on for years without challenge until it is utilized to direct a decision in a federal court.
As the world becomes more and more urbanized, those of us who grew up in the rural with knowledge of ropes, cords, snares, lassos, handles and the like as result of daily use are a dying breed. I do not expect "city folk" to be knowledgeable of these things with which they have had no experience. I do not expect them to recognize at a glance as I do the gross ineptness and amateurish nature of the "garrote scene." What I did expect, but don't much any more, is some semblance of effective investigate process.
On the most elementary level, the quality of the "garrote scene" is a significant directive. Smit and the Ramseys saw this and took full advantage via lying distortions while the investigators and prosecutors twiddled their thumbs and let them get away with it.
Clearly, the "garrote scene" is the pivotal element of the case. If the construction and use of the "garrote" is of professional quality and none of the Ramseys possess such skills, then attention is directed outward. Judge Carnes cited this as a basis for excluding the Ramseys.
On the other hand, if the construction and use of the "garrote" shows the creator to be grossly amateurish in his efforts, the issue takes a different turn: Options.
Certainly, it is possible that an intruder could be an amateur in the area of garrotes, knots, nooses and that sort of thing. However, the amateurishness of the scene opens the matter to the possibility of every amateur who had opportunity to be a potential creator of the scene. The issue then becomes a matter of probability as determined by the relationship of the "garrote scene" to other known evidence. For instance, if one concludes the "ransom note" is staging, would one be all that surprised to find that the "garrote scene" is a continuation of the staging; indeed, from the conclusion that the note is bogus, no other logical conclusion is possible even if you are not a rope expert?
Instead of these elementary basics being utilized in the investigation to determine the quality, or lack thereof, of the "garrote scene", the most crucial evidence was simply ignored allowing claims contrary to fact to be frequently and widely dispensed without challenge. If truth be told, as stated before, there was no investigation of the "garrote scene", which is to say, no real investigation directed by the facts at all. In lieu of a bona fide investigation, the absurd claims and fantasies of Lou Smit was and are accepted by you and others as facts without a thought of questioning.
John Ramsey, Lou Smit and others realized the importance of having the "garrote scene" accepted as "professional" and "sophisticated." They went to great lengths to sell this idea. Photos of the "garrote", and close up photos of knots were put on the internet with the claim of "intricate" and "complex." The public was cautioned to be on the lookout for someone with the ability to tie these "special knots." Smit is too incompetent to know what is going on, but what about John Ramsey?
Could it be that he knows from personal involvement that the claim of "expertise" in garrote making and use is a lie? Is this possible Ms. Keenan? Do you know of any case fact or facts that contradict and rule out this possibility?
During my lifetime on this planet, which has been considerable at this juncture, I have never seen another con take hold in such degree that such gross absurdity and cascading contradictions are eventually officially labeled as "Statements Of Fact" in a federal court of law. Over six years of this farce is a bit too much garbage to swallow. I will have my say.
"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case." (From ruling)
"In addition, the Court notes that defendants have provided' compelling testimony from homicide detective Andrew Louis Smit, who is widely regarded as an expert investigator, in support of the intruder theory. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.)" (ibid)
Although not set in formal and official context, it is clear that Judge Carnes regards Lou Smit as an expert witness providing "compelling testimony." His words are all that's necessary. No claim need be corroborated by facts. She refers to Smit as an experienced detective. Apparently, this is her basis for regarding him as an expert witness.
She does not seem to notice that the broad description, experienced detective, does not meet the criteria for expert witness. An expert witness is qualified as an expert witness by training and\or experience in a particular field.
Judge Carnes treats Smit as an expert witness in ALL fields without establishing his qualifications in ANY as pertains to the "Statements Of Fact" referenced in her ruling.
Let's us remedy the oversight and first try to establish Mr. Smit as an expert witness in the matter of the "garrote scene" before we accept his word as a "Statement Of Fact." Would you contact him and ask about his training and\or experience in this area? Better yet, would you ask him to explain on what and how he reached the conclusion that the "garrote scene" was "sophisticated" and "professional".
I'm looking for an explanation in terms of physics as related to the issue of "professional" vs non professional, efficient vs inefficient. Would you have him put this in writing and send a copy to me?
Mr. Smit not only employs the flawed method of "evidence" via the unknown, his capacity for fabrication knows no bounds. Again and again, he presents arbitrary and false declarations as unquestionable fact. Of course, Mr. Smit is an "experienced detective" and "expert witness", so is to be believed, not questioned. Let's do it anyway and see if this "expert witness" is as unimpeachable as Judge Carnes, you and others appear to believe.
Smit: "The knot-tying of the garrote used on JonBenet shows special knowledge. The paintbrush was broken to create a perfect handle. "It almost looks like a lawn mower starting (handle). . . . Somebody really knew what they were doing when they did it and somebody has done this before."
"special knowledge", "perfect handle" "It almost looks like a lawn mower starting (handle). . . . "
What babbling nonsense! Anyone who has ever spun the flywheel of a lawn mower engine by pulling a starter rope handle and seen photos of the "garrote" knows instantly that Smit is simply prattling on to embellish his claim of expertise, and doing so quite absurdly. Of course, a lawn mower start rope handle can be made in a lot of ways, but we're talking about efficiency in structure and use. How does a competent lawn mower starter rope handle compare with the handle at the "garrote scene?" It doesn't. It contrasts. Its fundamentally the exact opposite.
A lawn mower starter rope handle has the cord running through a hole in it, or one turn around. This prevents unnecessary side pressure on the fingers providing more comfort and efficiency. The many wraps on the "garrote scene" handle not only is a ridiculous waste of material, but tends to spread the fingers and makes the grip more uncomfortable and inefficient.
A quality lawn mower starter rope handle has the center larger and tapered evenly toward each end. This allows the maim leverage point of the middle of the hand to exert the most force while the rest is linearly distributed beyond. The "garrote scene" handle is "mummy wrapped" unevenly and not completely to each end. The force distribution is uneven, uncomfortable and inefficient.
Last but not least, a lawn mower starter rope handle is only a few inches away from the housing when it engages the engine on compression stroke. This is a pull position of maximum power for the puller.
On the other hand, the "garrote scene" handle is 17" away from the object decreasing the leverage factor which works against the puller. "Expertise"? Give me a break!
This may be a minor point in the scheme of things, but its a major point in revealing that Mr. Smit will, in ignorance of that which he speaks, pretends to hold extensive knowledge. In other words, he will claim anything as fact no matter how absurd if it suits his purpose.
Let's look at a more serious example.
Lou Smit: "The killer had a stun gun. I am sure the killer had a stun gun."
Mr. Smit weaves quite a story in which the stun gun idea plays a large part. The importance he puts into the stun gun part of his theory is emphasized in the made for tv movie, "PORK RINDS AND OTHER CHEWY SUBJECTS", a film produced and directed by THE RAMSEY PRODUCTION COMPANY. How is Mr. Smit so sure the "intruder" used a stun gun? One of the reason he gives is this:
Smit: "The stun gun that we came up with is this one and it’s the Air Taser stun gun. When the stun gun is energized you see a light blue mark and if you look closely at the blow-up you'll see a light blue mark extending from one of the marks to the other on the back of JonBenét."
Totally absurd. The blue color of the arc of a stun gun is cause by the high voltage ionization of air molecules. It is not a magic marker. This color does not transfer to skin, nor to any other object. It is literally impossible. No matter, Smit is sure he "sees" the mark and is "sure" it was caused by a stun gun.
The fabrications of Mr. Smit, often absurd beyond description, are so numerous that to list just half of the ones I know about would take many pages. To include the discrepancies in the stories of John and Patsy Ramseys, one would need to fell a couple of giant redwoods just to make the necessary paper to hold them all.
I do not propose to do this. The above examples are typical of the source of Mr. Smit's "evidence" of an intruder. They are easily dismissed with elementary facts. All need be treated the same as the two examples above. What does this leave of Mr. Smit's "evidence of an intruder?"
Although, I won't even think about covering 10%, let alone all, of Mr. Smit fabrications and contradictions, I will look at a few more very critical to getting at the truth.
SMIT: "The intruder had to come in through the window. I see a brutal first-degree murder. I see a very violent death of JonBenet. I see someone fashioning a garrote and putting it around her neck. I see someone tightening that garrote to control her. I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently tight and killing her."
"Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF 136; PSMF 136.)" (from the ruling)
There is only one broken window in the scene, but the stories connected to it are numerous and infinitely variable. John said he deliberately broke it during the summer when he lost his keys and entered through said window in his underwear. One would think that such an experience would be set in mind for a long time and one would have no doubt. However, John later says I "think" I broke the window as if he weren't totally sure. What's going on here? Did John become unsure after Smit declared the window to be the way the "intruder" got in?
It seems the window affects a lot of minds. Patsy couldn't recall whether she had it repaired or not. Smit mentions it in relation to a photo that it may have been opened by John Ramsey and Fleet White. Exactly when this "may have" took place, Smit did not say.
At another time, the window story goes like this:
KING: A window. Was that window open when they investigated it?
SMIT: Yes. When John Ramsey had first seen the window...
Mr. Smit leaves out some information about the "open" window when John first saw it. When John Ramsey was asked about the window in reference to when he first entered the basement on the morning of Dec. 26, he said, "it was open an inch or so."
"open an inch or so" By jove, it looks like we have a very small intruder, or else, a very considerate one who took the time to close the window except for "an inch or so" as he departed.
The window bit warrants further examination:
LOU SMIT: "Now this is a photograph that really caught my eye because the window was wide open but what also caught my attention was mark on the wall leading directly from this open window down to the floor. When I first seen that photograph I thought, "Oh oh, looks like somebody could have got in here."
Don't you find it more than a bit strange that Smit would use the photo of the open window as reference AFTER John Ramsey has already said he found the window open "an inch or so" AND had closed it? It becomes even more strange when noted that Smit himself said that John Ramsey or Fleet White "may have" opened it? What's with the "may have?" Could it be that he knows damn well the window was opened by John or Fleet, and the "may have" is nothing more than a verbal dance around a deliberate lie? Ms. Keenan, are you getting a clear picture of this "expert witness" and how he obtains "evidence?"
Smit did not arrive upon the scene until months after the death of JonBenet. This means he was left to determine second hand the facts of the situation. This in itself is not an unsurmountable problem, but what he says about the window and believing an intruder came through show either outright gross incompetence or deliberate deception.
If the window was barely open on the morning of the 26th and closed by John Ramsey, by what mental machinations does a photo taken later with the window opened (perhaps by John or Fleet) warrant the conclusion: "Oh oh, looks like somebody could have got in here."
Smit even went on tv and demonstrated the process of getting in the window. The window was wide open. Nothing was said in the program about the window being open only an inch or two when John first looked on the morning of the 26th. What are we talking about here, gross mental incompetence, or deliberate fraud? Since this was a national presentation with potential jurors influenced by the deception, if the deception was intentional, is this a prosecutable offense? I don't know, just wondering.
Is Smit really so mentally out of it that he doesn't grasp the importance of the TIME FACTOR? If he did not know that John had said he found it open an inch of so and closed it, he's one poor detective. On the other hand, when he says that John or Fleet "may have" opened it, it indicates he did know that the window had been closed earlier and opened later when he made the statement; meaning that HE HAD TO KNOW the photo of the open window was not an authentic representation of the crime scene as he led the audience to believe. Where I come from, we call this fraud.
The mentality of this defective detective is really a whole lot worse than you can imagine. Smit speculates that the intruder may have planned to put JonBenet in the suitcase and take her away.
Smit speculates that the intruder planned to use the suitcase to stand on to aid in getting out the window. What Mr. Smit does not speculate on is how the intruder planned to take JonBenet out the window in a suitcase at the same time he stood on it. Geesh!
As I write this, even in disgust, annoyance and anger, I feel considerable embarrassment for Mr. Smit and wish I could avoid this unpleasant task. Unfortunately, the events which have transpired to displace any semblance of justice are in very large part due to Smit being regarded as a universal "expert witness." His conclusions have and do directly and indirectly influence important decisions and actions in the Ramsey case.
In other words, Smit's unwarranted status as "expert witness" has and does stand as a barrier precluding getting at the truth. This barrier must and will be removed. He has made his own bed and now must lie in it. I'm here to see that he doesn't lie out of it.
Ms. Keenan, do you understand that I'm not asking you to take my word for anything? That's the last thing I want. There's been far to much of taking someone's word. Let's let the facts talk for a change. I don't operate like Smit. I do not manufacture "facts." I am merely pointing out facts that have been hidden, denied and kept apart from the investigation by taking the word of Lou Smit as a universal "expert witness." Let's look a bit more at this "expert witness."
Smit: "He had to put a noose on this garrote. He had to put it around JonBenet's neck,"
Smit: "Her hair was actually entwined right in the wrappings of the garrotte as the killer made it right on the back of her neck, most likely when she was lying face down on the floor. He made a noose on the other end of this garrotte."
Smit: "I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently tight and killing her."
"put a noose on this garrote"? The noose IS the "garrote", meaning "put a noose on a garrote" is incoherent gibberish. There is "double evidence" in this picture as well.
"noose...put...around JonBenet's neck." This means the noose was made BEFORE it was put around JonBenet's neck. It also means there had to be a knot tie of some sort to create and hold the noose BEFORE it was put around her neck. If this is the way it happened, there may have been some hair on the outside of the cord, but not entangled in the knot itself. However, Smit correctly states: "Her hair was actually entwined right in the wrappings of the garrotte as the killer made it right on the back of her neck,..."
This is in direct contradiction of Smit's claim the perpetrator made the noose, put it over her neck and violently strangled her to death by pulling on the handle.
This doesn't make sense does it? What does make sense of Smit's nonsense? In Smit's fantasy he "sees" a sadistic pedophile planning and carrying out a fatal plan with JonBenet as the victim. In Smit's fantasy, he "sees" the perpetrator making a "sophisticated" garrote and putting it over JonBenet's neck and violently pulls.
Smit's fantasy is fixed in his mind as absolute and unquestionable fact. The evidence of the hair entwined in the knot irrefutable tells that it didn't happen the way Mr. Smit fantasizes. That doesn't phase him. He goes on and on prattling about his fantasy after looking directly at the evidence that refutes it.
Smit: "Just the way that the ligature on her hands was constructed, again is a fantasy in the mind of this killer. This wasn't just tied on her wrist, with little granny knots on both sides, and a rope tied to her. The way that this was constructed was to make two loops with a tether about 15 inches in between. The loops were then placed over the hands of JonBenet, with a slipknot, and tightened to give the appearance of bondage."
Can you believe this guy? Unreal! There were no loops made and placed over her hands. These wrist ties were finished with a bow of some sort. They were tied at several inches apart, which is not the way to efficiently bind wrists. They were tied so poorly that one wrist tie fell off. The wrist ties evidence the same amateurishness as the rest of the "garrote scene."
The audacity of Lou Smit to present his ignorant and stupid fantasies as "facts" staggers the imagination. I have no idea how much rhetoric Smit has uttered about the case during the last six years. What I do know that his fantasies paraded as fact is ludicrous and literally every utterance claiming evidence of an intruder is false, and can easily be proven to be false as already demonstrated herein and can be repeated in a court of law with expansion if necessary. I don't think expansion will be necessary. I think there is more than enough facts named in this letter alone to convince a jury there was no intruder.
Mr. Smit pays lip service to let the evidence lead, but practices it not at all. When he saw the hair entwined in the knot, this evidence told him loud and clear that his fantasy did not fit the facts. No matter, he held to the fantasy. This "double evidence" not only tells of the amateurish nature of the "garrote scene", it tells that Mr. Smit knows no more about garrotes than the bungling fool who created the "garrote scene."
In Smit's fantasy, the "sadistic pedophile intruder" is a calm, cool, and deliberate character who has no fear as shown by the time spent in the house. The evidence provides a different profile.
Aside from literally every aspect of the "garrote scene" being flawed, the creator of this scene appeared to be extremely stressed as well. Even those with no experience in this area knows that the primary purpose of a lasso or noose is to make the noose larger than the object of its intended use, put it over said object, then slip it down to tighten.
Smit's intruder failed to show even this absolute minimal knowledge of a noose and its application. He failed to make a noose, then put it over the head and tighten it around the neck. The hair entangled IN the knot as the head leaves no doubt that the cord around JonBenet's neck was TIED, not a noose made, then slipped down to tighten. Smit absurdly calls it both ways.
The "garrote scene" evidence tells that the mind of the creator was not even thinking of the slip action of a noose. The detail of what this mind was thinking, I cannot say, but for sure, to tie the cord around the neck reveals a mind not contemplating pulling and tightening.
What was the "handle" all about? An after thought. It is nothing more than a grossly amateurish silly prop, a construct the novice creator of this scene "thought" a "garrote handle" should look like. It was never used. Hair entangled in the ridiculous "mummy wrapped handle" tells that it was constructed after the cord was tied around the neck. The hair stuck to the hands of the perpetrator and transferred to the cord around the stick. The picture the facts paint is the exact opposite of the absurd fantasy Smit would have us believe.
(Contrary to popular opinion, the cord deeply embedded in JonBenet's neck was not because it had been violently pulled. It was due to normal post mortem swelling.)
The forgoing is an accurate representative sampling of Mr. Smit's gross ineptness at seeing evidence and his unlimited capacity for "creating evidence" in his role of Ramsey public relations expert and master propagandist.
Let's see how he stays on as a purveyor of myth while officially cast in the role of BPD detective and interrogator.
LS: Yeah...see, that is the question, when did JonBenet eat pineapple?
JR: Well, I don't know. I mean, I will guarantee you it was not after she came home. She was sound asleep. So it had to be at the Whites or prior to that.
LS: The pineapple is inside her. so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there. She had to eat it at some point.
JR: Are you sure it was pineapple?
LS: No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo.
JR: What's the - is there a timeline based on where it is in the digestive system?
LS:...There is...it could be anywhere from two hours to more than that....
Smit asked many questions about the entire day and eating. He reached back and back to early in the day, to White's party trying to find an out for John. Keep in mind, all this looking for source and time of consumption of the pineapple was made with the knowledge of a bowl of fresh pineapple sitting in the Ramsey home on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996.
What could he do but avoid this evidence? After all, he took John's word for his innocence and the course was set. After the expected denial of John of any knowledge about the pineapple and JonBenet eating it, Smit attempts to put the time frame in a more favorable light for John by saying that it could have been two hours or more that she ate the pineapple before she died.
Again, ignorance paraded as fact to suit the preconceived and preferred conclusion of Ramsey innocence.
According to three Internet sources dealing with nutrition and digestion, pineapple (fresh) falls within the category of acid fruits. The maximum full digestion time is two hours with pineapple being one of those which digest faster than some of the others. A ratio number isn't given, but taking this information at face value, we know that pineapple digests fully in less than two hours. If the digestion is linear and "IF" the pineapple was half digested, this sets the time of death at one hour after eating the pineapple give or take a few minutes. What we can rely on with certainty is maximum gap. Although the degree of digestion was not given in the autopsy report, we know that JonBenet died less than two hours after eating the pineapple.
This fact in conjunction with a bowl of pineapple being found sitting out of the refrigerator in the Ramsey home on the 26th December 1996 created something of a sticky wicket for the Ramseys and Lou Smit. The Ramseys were already committed to the story that JonBenet was asleep upon arriving home and was carried upstairs to bed. The later autopsy report about the partially digested pineapple casts serious doubt on the Ramseys' claim.
After much back and forth between John Ramsey and Lou Smit, an explanation for the pineapple in her system was sought within what had been established in the exchange.
Since John and Patsy Ramsey had denied any knowledge of when JonBenet ate the pineapple, the "explanation" fell upon the notion that the "intruder" had fed it to her, or allowed her to eat it.
The suspect "intruder" in this instance (and the Ramseys provided a very long lists of "suspects") was Santa Claus, aka, Bill McReynolds. John "reasoned" that if anyone else but Santa had approached JonBenet, she would have cried out. He "reasoned" that McReynolds enticed JonBenet to come with him and subsequently provided the pineapple from some source. Whether he thought Santa brought the pineapple with him or took it from the refrigerator, John did not say.
There was no discussion about how this version of the Ramseys' story fit or doesn't fit with the claim of stun gun and a lot of other items, including the huge coincidence that McReynolds handwriting was so close to Patsy's that it had been adjudged by some handwriting experts as a match, and by others as a probable match to the note. Smit quickly moved away from the subject.
JR: I think the person was in the house, if not when we got home, shortly after. I think she was killed that night, versus in the morning.
LS: What makes you think that?
JR: Well, the note talked about, 'I'm going to call you tomorrow.'
So, at this time and place, John had no doubt that tomorrow meant the 26th. At another time and place, he claimed confusion about whether tomorrow meant the 26th or the 27th.
At many times and in many places, it has been claimed by Smit, Ramsey, Wood, Carnes, you and others that there is a lot of credible evidence of an intruder. Yet, at another time and place, John says the intruder did not leave any "good evidence." According to John, the note was "amateurish", but the intruder was "clever." (I have worked on "tank circuits" in communication equipment that did not oscillate above the frequency of the changes in the Ramsey stories.)
Getting back to the pineapple question, if JonBenet did die on the 25th as John believes, and on this rare occasion, I agree with the conclusion, this poses numerous interesting questions. The first is by what thinking did the "intruder" believe that John would see the note before tomorrow, therefore, see the admonition to be rested for the delivery tomorrow.
If the Ramseys were up and about until ten and JonBenet died on the 25th, then the pineapple eating and degree of digestion had to take place within the two hours between ten and twelve.
This, and all the other is a lot of activity for the time slot even if the note were written prior to the alleged abduction, alleged sexual assault, and alleged murder by an alleged intruder.
How the alleged intruder knew when the Ramseys would get home, and when they would go to bed and clear the way is not explained by John Ramsey and Lou Smit. Nevertheless, if the alleged intruder wrote the note in advance, he had made these calculations.
I could go on and on listing the numerous discrepancies in this version of an alleged intruder, but one or all indicate that the alleged explanation for the pineapple in JonBenet's system falls woefully short of validity; indeed, nothing but an absurd mess and mass of contradictions. Is there a feasible explanation for the pineapple in JonBenet's system? Yes, there is, but there is no way an alleged intruder fits into it. [I will get to this later in the letter.]
(John was shown a photo of a chair blocking the door into the train room and window area.)
LS: So you think that chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it.
LS: In other words, let's say the intruder got into the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?
JR: Uh, huh.
LS: How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying.
JR: I don't know....I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went into the room.
LS: So you couldn't have gotten in without moving the chair?
JR: Correct.....I had to move the chair.
LS: The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him....because that would have to be his exit...so that's not very logical as far as.....
JR: I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they...are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left.
Are you with me here, Ms. Keenan? Do you see what's going on? The gist of it is that if we take "John's word" for it, the alleged intruder entered the house through the window and door in question, wrote the note, abducted and killed JonBenet, creating havoc and chaos with abandon, but upon leaving, backed through the doorway, while reaching around the door as he closed it to take hold of the chair and pull it as close to the door as he could.
He also reached through the broken pane and closed the window as he left except for an "inch or so."
Smit says about the chair and door "....that's not very logical as far as..."
John interrupts and says, "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they...are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left.
"clever", "funny clues"? At this juncture, what does an actual interrogation call for. How about: A clue to what, John? How is this a clue to an intruder? Why would an intruder do this?
Do you think the intruder just wanted to put things back like he found them, so you wouldn't know he had been there? Did the intruder think that you wouldn't notice your dead daughter? Clue to what and why, John?
Does this evidence point to an intruder, or contradict the idea of an intruder? Is this door situation with the chair a clue? Sure is. Its a very large clue that goes along with a lot of other large clues. A clue to what? A clue to the fact that John and Patsy Ramsey have been lying through their teeth from the git go.
Instead of asking these prompted questions, what did Smit do following John's claim of a "funny clue." He showed John a photo of a blanket and asked, "Where was that blanket on her kept."
Throughout the interrogation, which is more aptly labeled a non adversarial conversation, if anything came up where pursuit might bring out the truth conflicting with "John's word", Smit quickly abandoned it, no matter how absurd John's response was such as "funny clues" and "clever" intruder. (Also note, Smit says, "almost have to", not absolutely have to as if there was another way the chair could have been left blocking the door.)
LS: ...Just a couple of questions, and these are just miscellaneous questions that I had. In what area of he house do you think that JonBenet received the injuries to her head? That is just from your own....
JR: Well, I guess my impression is that it was in the basement. But that's just purely an assumption. We didn't hear a thing. I think if she had cried out or - you know, we would have heard that. I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see....
LS: You had no knowledge?
JR: I don't know. I just, that's something that's been difficult for me to think about it, is what exactly happened.
LS: And where?
JR: And where.
LS: Do you think that the head injury occurred at the same place as the other injuries, say, with the ligature?
JR: I mean, its just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say, I just - that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her.
John is speculating on whether the head injury came first, then strangulation? Of course, this potential doesn't go along with Smit's theory and could really mess it up. Smit want's nothing to do with this idea. He blocks this avenue of inquiry quickly and emphatically:
LS: All right. This is getting way off of that. Do you know who brought John Andrew to the airport, when he left for Atlanta?
Unlike Mr. Smit, I am very interested in the head injury and strangulation thing and really interested in John's comments on it. To put things in perspective and see where I'm coming from and why, let's back up a bit and take it from there.
Prior to March, 2000, all I heard or knew about the Ramsey case were occasional sound bites from newscasts. During the Barbara Walters interview in March of 2000, John Ramsey said that the autopsy report said that JonBenet died from strangulation. He expressed no doubt then, nor later that I know of. Death by strangulation was the persistent story put out by John Ramsey, Smit and others.
However, in reading the NE Police Files, I came across this:
JR: "I mean, there's just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say - I just, that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her."
Everything that moves leaves tracks. Believe it or not, this applies to thought as well as the physical. No thought exists in isolation. It is always connected to antecedent thoughts. A competent "mind tracker" can usually follow a given thought back to its source and motivation.
I won't take the time to validate by explaining the natural laws of mind operation, but demonstrate sufficiently to provide some insight into John's statement.
In Smit's theory of an intruder, with which John is usually in agreement, JonBenet is "controlled" by the "garrote", then strangled. The blow to the head is the last thing the intruder does according to Smit.
If JonBenet was being "controlled" by the "garrote" in some sexual happening as Smit declares, she was very much alive when she was strangled. If you interject the conclusion that she was dead from the head trauma before the cord was put around her neck, Smit's pedophile intruder story falls apart.
In the foregoing quote, John says you can't know. He speculates that maybe she was dead when the cord was put around her neck. Why would John introduce this thought and speculation which undermines the story of an intruder, hence, jeopardizes the basis for his claim of innocence?
Although it is the basis for the pedophile intruder story and his claim of innocence, for some reason John is uncomfortable with the conclusion that JonBenet was strangled to death. The fact that he utters the forgoing quote casting doubt on the pedophile intruder story, tells there is a very strong emotional motivation for the speculation that maybe JonBenet was dead when she was strangled. Indeed, we can take it a step further.
If he were comfortable with the idea of strangulation first, he would not question it and cast doubt on his defense. This tells me, even if not you, John DESIRES the conclusion that JonBenet was dead from the head trauma before she was strangled. Why?
To expedite matters, I will forego lengthy explanation of how the mind works and how John's situation conforms to the principles of mind operation. To get to the nitty gritty, I will offer a hypothesis which will perhaps explain John's interest in knowing if JonBenet was killed by the head trauma, then strangled afterwards.
On the evening of Dec. 25, 1996, after John and Burke had gone upstairs, JonBenet and Patsy were alone. JonBenet had either not gone to bed, or came down from her room.
Some understanding of this mother and daughter relationship is necessary to grasp the rest. Earlier in the day, there was a confrontation between JonBenet and Patsy about what clothes to wear. Other instances as well indicate that JonBenet had something of a mind or her own and did not hesitate to make it known. The indication is that she would not necessarily seek her mother's permission before doing something.
When Patsy says she would not have put the pineapple in such a bowl with such a spoon, most likely she is telling the truth. When she says she did not feed JonBenet pineapple, most likely she is telling the truth. This leaves JonBenet getting the pineapple for herself. Patsy was occupied with making some preparations for tomorrow, and at first, did not notice that JonBenet had gotten out the pineapple; maybe she had even forbidden her to do so.
A confrontation over something happened for sure; perhaps JonBenet eating pineapple when Patsy wanted her in bed was what provoked the confrontation that began as verbal and culminated in violent physical contact. During the confrontation, JonBenet was either hit by an object heavy large enough to fracture her skull without lacerating the scalp, or was pushed, slung, or fell against an object resulting in the fractured skull immediately rendering her unconscious.
Patsy tried desperately to revive her, but with no success. In panic, she called John. John was either in bed or getting ready for bed. He rushed down in his underwear. They desperately tried to revive JonBenet. Again, no success. They concluded that JonBenet was dead. If she was dead, there was no point in calling for help. However, the cause of her death was of much concern. If the truth were known, it would cause John and Patsy all sorts of problems and not bring JonBenet back.
The scalp was not lacerated. There was nothing that one could readily see as the cause of death.
"I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see...." (John)
They never thought that anyone would see anything other than what they saw. They never thought of an autopsy and head trauma discovered. They decided to try to make JonBenet's death look like it came about from some other cause. Why not? JonBenet was gone. There is no undoing; no bringing her back. Why suffer the unpleasant consequences if the truth were known about her death? What would it gain? Who would it help? In their minds, no one.
They decided to try to hide the truth. The question was how. Children of wealthy parents are often kidnapped and held for ransom, hence, nearly an automatic selection. Also, young girls are often the target of a pedophile. Also, nearly an automatic selection of motive.
The classic picture of a kidnap victim is bound and gagged. This was accomplished with some tape and cord. The pedophile idea was manifested by a genital assault with an object. There remained the question of setting up the "cause of death." A blow to the head was out of the question because head damage as cause of death was what they were trying to hide. Knife? Manual strangulation? What? For whatever reason, strangulation with a "garrote" was chosen to appear as the cause of death.
The washing and clothes change took place upstairs, the rest in the basement. The basement was dark, but turning on a ceiling light there at that time of night might well attract unwanted attention.
To minimize this risk, they used a flashlight to illuminate, but not too much. In the stress of the situation, the flashlight was not returned to its usual place in the drawer, but left on the counter.
There is a similar situation with the pineapple. Fresh pineapple spoils quickly if not refrigerated. Patsy made a knowing remark to this effect in one of the questioning sessions, implying that in normal circumstances, she would quickly return the pineapple to the refrigerator after use. Yet, the bowl of pineapple was left sitting out. It was found the next day by the police. This indicates a serious distraction from the norm during the time that the pineapple would usually have been put back in the refrigerator.
All of these things are quite understandable under the circumstance. They were, of course, new to the experience, emotionally distraught, and not knowledgeable about ransom notes, nor garrotes. All this in conjunction with the necessity to utilize materials on hand combined to produce an amateurish and transparent staging only the most naive and gullible would believe to be authentic.
I doubt that anyone was more surprised that they officially got away with it than the Ramseys themselves. Initial success encouraged defiance and media appearances. Although always living in fear of discovery, they put up a good front. It seemed the plan had worked quite well. Then came the disturbing autopsy report:
"CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."
Is the autopsy report correct? Could it be that JonBenet was still alive and maybe could have been saved before she was strangled?
"I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her." (John)
Why does he want to know? Translation: "Please tell me that she was dead from the head injury before the strangulation. I don't want to believe there was a chance she could have survived and wasn't given that chance."
The intensity of the concern is revealed by the utterance itself which sought assurance that she was dead before strangulation. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that death by head trauma is precisely what they sought to hide, but John sought to establish as fact in direct contradiction. There had to be a very personal and very intense reason for this.
Can you think of anything other than him thinking he had put a noose around a dead person's neck, his daughter's, only to find out later that maybe it wasn't true, that maybe he, by deliberate action contributed to her death?
Ms. Keenan, could this be the way it happened? Would this explain John's trying to establish head injury as cause of death although the opposite was his defense? If the "supposing" is true, could this prompt the remark, "that's very difficult to think about and imagine"
Getting back to the staging itself, naturally, a ransom note was a primary part of a kidnapping scenario. Contrary to Smit's declaration, the note does not show calm, cool and collected. Its nervous and spastic with at least seven mood changes with "mind tracks" as easy to follow as water buffalo through a mud flat.
Let's look at one very revealing item. " The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested."
Truth is fluid and flows smoothly. Lies, especially, in a serious situation, puts the mind in a strenuous pose. It is uncomfortable to maintain. There is an everpresent desire to drop the pretense, to relax. A brief lack of focus brings the mind back to truth and personal concerns. As John was concerned about the cause of death, Patsy was concerned about the ordeal she was going to face tomorrow. It showed up in the note.
Later, after he discovered the revealing error, John tried to dance around this blunder by saying there was much confusion to whether tomorrow meant the 26th or the 27th. A check of numerous documents, including, their first interview on CNN failed to turn up a word or action indicating that there was any doubt that "tomorrow" was the 26th. As usual, John's rewrite of history failed. The pen moves on and that sort of thing.
You may also notice that the writer of the note had no doubt as to what day it was. If a person awakes from a sleep, there is no way the person will instantly know how long he or she has been asleep. The mind of the note writer neither expressed nor implied any doubt that it was before midnight on the 25th. The inference is that she had not been to sleep.
When we factor in the time required for the staging, the pineapple evidence, meaning that JonBenet did not die instantly from the head trauma, that the digestive system continued to function although she was unconscious, couldn't the pineapple eating itself be the very thing that set off the confrontation? Suppose we now include Patsy wearing the same clothes the next day. Do not all these factors converge upon the conclusion that the confrontation took place before midnight and Patsy never went to bed? She was up most of the night setting up the staging. The rest was nervous waiting for the time to call.
It was decided that if caught in any discrepancy, it would be attributed to the hysteria and panic of the stressful situation. This was in conjunction with avoiding any commitment that wasn't necessary by "I think", "maybe", "not sure" and "don't recall."
This tactic became a staple in John's and Patsy's interviews and interrogations. The tactic backfired. The attempted disassociation from certain crucial areas of the crime scene served only to call focused attention to them.
How about it Ms. Keenan, could it all have happened as laid out in my supposing? Do you see any contradictions of the known facts? Which really makes more sense, this or the absurd contradiction-riddled intruder stories?
I may not know every detail of the confrontation and subsequent actions, but what I do know with absolute certainty is that the crime scene was staged. Are you going to tell me an intruder staged it?
In contrast to the supposing scenario above, let us take known facts and try to incorporate said facts with the notion of intruder.
An intruder plans to kidnap, sexually assault and kill JonBenet, or changed the plan along the way. He climbs down into the window well. He reaches through the broken pane and cranks the window open. He enters through the window. He then comes to a door which opens away from him. It has a chair against it on the other side. He pushes the door open and the chair away from the area.
He fails to bring any material needed to carry out his plan. He uses paper and pen from the Ramsey house to write a multi-page ransom note. He demands the odd amount of $118,000, which by coincidence, matches the figure of John's bonus.
He goes upstairs to JonBenet's bedroom and takes her from it. He takes her to the basement. He puts tape over her mouth, apparently garnered from the Ramsey household like the paper, pen, cord, and paint brush handle. The tape and ties give the appearance of a kidnap victim, a kidnap victim which was never taken from the house, and for which no ransom was collected, nor attempt made to collect.
He commits no sexual act, only genital assault. He decides to kill his kidnap victim, not by a blow to the head, not with a knife and not by manual strangulation.
His weapon of choice is a "garrote" with which he is obviously unfamiliar, hence, leaves a bungled amateurish mess.Finally, he hits her over the head with something, with said something never being found and matched to the blow.
Somewhere in all this he retrieves a blanket and wraps the body in it, and drew a heart on her hand. We may also note that somewhere within this activity, there is an interim wherein she was fed or allowed to eat pineapple.
The intruder decides to leave. As he goes through the door into the train room, he reaches around the door and grasps the chair to pull it back close to the door the way he found it. He also stops to reach through the broken pane and close the window except for an inch or two.
I think this is a reasonable facsimile as basis for my request. You have cast yourself in the role of defense attorney. Humor me and play the role a while longer.
Take the intruder story as depicted above and think about it long and hard. Please tell me what arguments you would use before a jury to try to convince them the intruder story is true?
Are you still sure 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?" If so, I sure would like to hear the argument you would put before a jury. If not, don't you think a public retraction of your statement is in order?
After over six years, no intruder has been found. What's this intruder like? What is his profile as indicated by the facts when one tries to tie them to Smit's "evidence?"
He is an enemy of John Ramsey in that he kidnapped John's daughter. He is a friend of John Ramsey in that he is concerned for John's comfort and admonishes him in the ransom note to be rested for tomorrow. He is a master planner and organizer in that he puts together an elaborate plan of kidnapping, assault and murder. He is ultimately and carelessly random in that he brings no materials to carry out his plan. He is mercenary in that he demands a $118,000 ransom for the safe return of John's daughter. He disdains wealth in that he makes no effort to collect. He is the standard of calm, cool and collected in that he lingers long in the house writing a long ransom note and carrying out other tasks without fear of being discovered. He is the portrait of confusion, agitation and disorientation in that his mind cannot grasp the simple concept of making a noose and putting over the head rather than tie the cord around the neck. He is a pedophile driven by his sexual desires in that he targets a six year old female. He is a celibate, a frustrated eunuch who performs no sexual act, only genital assault with an object. He is vicious and cruel in that he murders John's daughter. He is kind and compassionate in that he tenderly wraps the body in a blanket. He is openly contemptuous of the Ramseys in that he enters their home and tears their tranquility asunder. He is respectfully mindful of the Ramseys' wishes in that he thoughtfully closes the basement door and window as he departs to leave them as he found them.
He is the epitome of stupidity in that he leaves the body in the house for early discovery losing his leverage of ransom. He is a genius of cleverness beyond description in that he has eluded the police and thwarted all their efforts for over six years. He is the sum of his parts. The sum of contradiction is zero.
Where did it all go wrong? How could such a basically elementary crime scene take so many twists and turns weaving an obscuring veil of deceit until the truth is buried so deeply that it is not even seen in contrast to the confusion and illusions now officially labeled as "Statements Of Fact."
There is plenty of blame to go around and many to share. No doubt, not isolating the house as a crime scene was one. Yes, a serious error, but not fatal to the case. Preferential treatment did not aid finding the truth either; indeed, was and is a major hindrance. At first, it was given freely as is the "custom" dictated by social status, but vehemently denied. Later, the preferential treatment was extorted by threats of lawsuits. If the "super detective", Lou Smit, says there was an intruder, then it is not in doubt. The Ramseys must be innocent and any word or action to the contrary is persecution.
Smit, Wood, Ramseys and the whole RST were and are a cacophony of protests that the police were not following evidentiary lead; that they were focusing only on the Ramseys. The truth is that's the only place the evidence points. Still many thousands of dollars were spent on wild goose chases to placate the only viable suspects, but it was never enough. The absurd demands still go on.
The threats rested on nothing more than the illusions and delusions of Lou Smit: Judge Carnes universal "expert witness" and through the mouth of Lin Wood, your instructor, your director who tells you to cooperate with the Ramseys. The victimized taxpayers of Boulder are being defrauded from every direction.
Smit was called in to help in the investigation. He was reputed to be a competent detective of the first order. Much was expected. Much was delivered, but not what was expected. I don't know what happened prior to the incident, but Smit's giving the only viable suspects a free pass had to create tension and turmoil with any competent detective obliged to work with him. I can only imagine the frustration and exasperation of anyone in this position. By no means do I fully agree with Steve Thomas, but I do admire his restraint in walking away from the scene without breaking something first.
Any detective, professional or amateur, knows that taking the word of a prime suspect is the epitome of incompetence. Why Smit was not booted then and there, I do not know. Maybe those that hired him did not want to admit such a blunder. Maybe this. Maybe that. I really don't know. What I do know is that the circumstance snowballed into a colossal fraud with many repercussions which are reverberating to this day.
Smit came in with the billing of super detective. Apparently, the hype and spotlight compelled him to try to put on a spectacular performance to live up to the billing. Oh, he did. In mystical fashion, he "found" clues where none existed. He found "facts" without factual foundation. He wove fantasies of fantasies undeterred by obvious contradiction. He was on stage front and center. Dazzle the audience as all "superstars" do. That was his destiny. Truth be damned. The performance is all that counts.
He went on the touring circuit with the Ramseys. He was a loud and vocal proponent of their innocence bolstered by what seemed to be an endless supply of "evidence" of an intruder. He was brought in and built up with the official sanction and praise of the BPD and others. However, he was not taken down by same when the truth of his incompetence was realized.
In the "public eye" of those who had not studied the case and relied on general dissemination as truth, Smit was still the great detective he had been touted to be. Even after resigning, in the minds of most, Smit was still the spokesperson for authority correlated with declarations of Ramsey innocence with many years of experience in his resume to convince many of the great detecting abilities.
Smit "built his case" for intruder perpetrator far and wide, and without noticeable opposition. Smit's public appearances as point man and spokesperson for the Ramseys was and is monumental in scope. The scene took on an air of absolutism. There was no other version to be heard.
The mass of rhetoric solidified into a wall that obscured all else projecting a facade of truth taken by most to be the real thing.
In this environment of Smit's unquestionable "proof" of an intruder, the Ramseys are totally innocent and any word to the contrary could well make you the defendant in a libel\slander suit. This threat knows no bounds. Not even the BPD or DA's Office are off limits of this tactic. Anyone trying to do their job by going with the evidence is accused of persecuting the Ramseys and may find themselves looking down the barrel of US Code 42, Section 1983, the "shotgun" code.
Smit's "evidence" of an intruder is only a figment of his imagination and upon confrontation with facts disappears like a will of the wisp. What then? Without an identified intruder or evidence of an intruder, what suspects are there. Smit called it: "If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder. If there is no intruder, then it has to be the Ramseys."
Question: When all alleged evidence of an intruder is proven to be invalid, thereby accusing the Ramseys by default, on what basis can a libel\slander suit be filed since the Ramseys are the ONLY suspects by virtue of the evidence?
Smit's illusions and aberrations have been regarded by many as factual evidence of an intruder. Lin Wood is on the list. If truth were known and Wood were deprived of this fictional basis paraded as truth, how many libel\slander lawsuits do you think he would have filed and\or threatened?
Throughout this letter, I have shown that Smit's alleged evidence of an intruder is invalid; that there was no intruder. By this statement, I cannot help but accuse the Ramseys. The only way I can avoid this is to agree with Mr. Smit. I can agree if I find his arguments valid. I can agree by taking his word for it.
However, since in examining, I may find Mr. Smit's arguments flawed, the only way that I can avoid any chance of accusing the Ramseys is not to examine Smit's arguments, just take his word for it.
Therefore, if accusing the Ramseys is libel and slander, which is illegal, it follows that it is illegal for me to question the conclusions of Mr. Smit in search of the truth.
In other words, when we brush aside all the obscuring rhetoric, Mr. Wood's suits and threats of suits are, in effect, saying that all are compelled by law to accept the word of Lou Smit without question or else they are guilty of libel and slander. I've done a lot of legal research in my time, but somehow I must have overlooked the law that says it is illegal not to take Mr. Smit's word as absolute fact. Perhaps, Mr. Wood will be kind enough to point it out to me.
Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone about anything, but filing a lawsuit for the purpose of harassment or intimidation can have very serious consequences. With exactly what would Wood propose to back up a suit? After over six years, no intruder has been found. All of what has been and is alleged to be evidence of any intruder is refuted and gone. Unless Mr. Wood, can show otherwise, he is obliged to admit that the finger of guilt points to no one but the Ramseys.
Some person or persons in that household must be the cause of JonBenet's death and staged crime scene. If I accuse Patsy of something, Wood's defense of Patsy automatically results in him accusing John or Burke. In chess, this is called checkmate. In case you don't know about chess, the term, checkmate, means the game is over.
I believe I have clearly expressed my conclusions and basis for them. Although this missive is quite lengthy, it would be a simple matter to add another hundred pages of facts and arguments in solid support. That eventually may come to pass.
Although this letter is addressed to you, it is the capacity as District Attorney in the public domain that this informative document is sent. No confidentiality agreement is expressed or implied. Who is already aware of this document, or who may be aware in the future is dependent upon numerous variables; none of which are restricted by any notion of privileged information.
Ms. Keenan, you have a decision to make. If you can refute the facts alleged and arguments herein, by all means do so. I will gratefully stand corrected with apologies all around and become the Ramseys' most staunch supporter. If you can't refute, what then?
You have ten days from receipt of this letter to answer the question in writing by regular mail, certified or otherwise with signature affixed; no fax, no phone.
If I do not hear from you within the allotted time period, I will assume you have decided to ignore and "... work cooperatively with Lou Smit, the Ramseys..." At this time, I will initiate Plan B. As I stated earlier in this letter: Govern yourself accordingly.
In the past, it has been my unpleasant experience that what I verbally conveyed to another or others was arbitrarily and severely revised, yet attributed to me via newsprint and radio. For at least a partial safeguard against a similar happening, I am obliged to insist that communication on the issues raised in the letter to DA, Keenan, be committed to writing with proper name included. For quick recognition, put "LETTER" in the subject line.
Please address comments and\or questions to email@example.com
Return to previous version of letter to Keenan with 'Reference Links'
|Internet Subculture and the JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case
Depositions, Transcripts, Screen Captures, Exemplers, Analysis, Court Orders, Lawsuits, Whistle Blowers, Interrogation Transcripts, Testimony, Timeline, Forums, News Articles, Archives, House Photos, Grave Photos, Side Shows, Audio, Vigils, Victims, Parody, Links, Harassment, Memories, Hacking, Get Togethers, Forum Wars, Poster Wars, Live Chats, Radio Shows, Egos, Hoaxes, Secrets, Flaming, Deaths, Dedications, Transcripts, Books, Hats, Truth, Lies, Virtual Tours, Pro-Rams, Anti-Rams, Fence Sitters
For questions regarding this web site, contact the webmaster
|.||Home||First Amendment||Send E-mail||Disclaimer||Sister Site||.|