LAST EDITED ON May-27-03 AT 03:24 PM (EST)
 
A. Beckner put together this as, I think you're right, as some sort of a press release, but I don't disagree with these numbers.

Q. How many of those 1,058 pieces of evidence were shared with the Ramseys or the Ramsey lawyers?

A. I don't know.

****

For years now, we have discussed some of those 1,058 pieces of evidence - a loose term to be sure. We have a fairly lengthy list of some of those 'pieces of evidence' and the majority of them point to nothing (example: computers, computer books/manuals, computer discs, books, magazine articles, rolodex, gifts, a variety of pens, a variety of clothing and bedding, video cassettes/tapes, audio tapes, etc)

ST implies many of those pieces of evidence point to Patsy guilt. If you've seen the partial list of items in evidence, you might ask yourself how that could be.

Okay, so ST and other RDI posters are convinced John, Patsy, Burke, or JAR committed this crime. Where I get stuck is - based on what? Based on what evidence - not theory - evidence? Where is this mountain of evidence?

All the pens and paper collected and presumably examined have done nothing to point to any specific guilt.
The ornaments and ornament bag? Have they provided evidence of guilt that would point to a Ramsey?
All those towels and sheets?
All that toilet 'liquid', tissue, seat lid?
All the collected handwriting specimens have been proven to not indicate guilt or association to the crime.
The fibers and clothing collected and compared do very little to narrow anything down to a Ramsey.
The computer paraphernalia appears to have led nowhere.
The video tapes - the same.
Bricks? And wire?
Old photos and film?
Cigarette butts don't seem to have narrowed the focus to a Ramsey.
The sleeping mask?

So, the 1,058 pieces of evidence were collected. Good for them. Most of those pieces did very little to advance the case. Besides a theory, what hard cold facts of Ramsey guilt have any of these pieces of evidence provided?

Yes, there are those who harp on cooperation issues, pageant issues (bleaching JB's hair is an indicated pathology of a killer?), handwriting issues (determined to reveal no more than many other submissions), fibers (clearly not matched), POSSIBLE ownership of boots (proving a negative is impossible), behavior issues (from people most of us do not KNOW and based on a traumatic experience none of us have had to endure), personality issues, truth issues, political connection issues, debatable presence of voices on an 'enhanced' 911 tape, etc ....

Where's the beef?

The only thing I can see that ST has as evidence of guilt is that John, Patsy, and Burke were in the home that night (and please don't miss the point - that he has learned to qualify his accusations of evidence that point to PR guilt with that specific notation.) Why he would be stubbornly objecting to the legal minds refusing to indict on that basis is something I really cannot understand.

Smoke and mirrors.