ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Colorado cases , Jon-Benet Ramsay , murder cases , unsolved crimes

Reply
Old 26th September 2016, 03:07 PM   #241
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,985
I've always thought this was probably done by an intruder who was hiding in the house -and possibly had been for a while, like Edward Coneys.

The house was huge, the family had lots of people in and out so were unlikely to notice if small things were moved around or be suspicious if food was disappearing.

I suspect the little girl simply bumped into him, and he killed her.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 03:14 PM   #242
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,985
In fact, a quick Google shows it happens far more often than I ever thought:
http://listverse.com/2015/03/31/10-c...peoples-homes/
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 03:53 PM   #243
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Quote:
As I've pointed out before... the killings were thought to be a personal cause... someone who had some sort of reason (real or imagined) to specifically target the Ramseys. He would have had at least some knowledge of the family.
Then the Ramseys were poor judges of character? They had someone who was close enough to them to know what their Christmas and vacation plans were who wanted their daughter to die a slow, painful death?
You don't have to know someone very close to know what they're doing for christmas. I talk about that sort of thing all the time to friends and coworkers. "Hey, you sticking around for christmas? Nah, I'm going to visit parents". Many people aren't really that secretive.

Quote:
If the killer knew the Ramsey's plans, why did he choose a night when they were getting home late and getting up early?
Why not?

Seriously, this is kind of like the choice of staircase to put the ransom note on... something must be selected, so picking one day over another doesn't really prove/disprove anything.

I should point out that there were advantages in picking that day.... being out at a party for so long means he'd have guaranteed time alone in the house. (Not all days would give that advantage.) And the family was leaving town soon... so, waiting until the return would cause anticipation.
Quote:
Quote:
Yup, pretty much. After all, we know that Jack the Ripper dissected his victims in the middle of the street, whereas he could have just killed them and slipped away. Why? Because he had a compulsion to do so. BTK stayed around his victims, even depositing semen at the crime scene, and then taunted police with letters. Why? again, he had a compulsion to do so.
Both of them were serial killers.
The same mentality applies in this case however.

I've read plenty of "true crime" books. Several by former FBI agents. Many of the same things that drive your average serial killer also drive people who kill single people. Also, its possible for a serial killer (or possible serial killer) to stop for some reason totally unrelated to the crime (arrested for some other reason, moved to another city, etc.)

Quote:
In addition, only a few of BTK's murders involved breaking in before they returned home...
But they do show that it is quite possible for someone with psychopathic tendencies to wait for their victims inside their home.
Quote:
...and in those cases he had been conducting surveillance on them so that he had a good idea of when they would return.
And, as I pointed out, the killer of JonBenet may have also had similar knowledge (not necessarily from long term sureilance but from familiarity with the family.)
Quote:
Quote:
Whomever the murderer of JonBenet is, they did not have a financial motive. It was not a random thing. He had both a desire to harm the Ramseys and a rather sick desire to torture JonBenet. Simply stabbing her and running away would not have achieved that goal.
That's one explanation. There are other plausible explanations.
Except of course nobody (and especially not you) has ever given any sort of narration that would justify any of those other explanations.
Quote:
Re: John Ramsey keeping pay stubs hidden from kids...
Quote:
You really think there are an army of 9 year olds running around bragging about their parent's income?
I don't recall mentioning anything about an army.
If you're thinking "the father has to worry about kids talking about his income" then you must think the problem is common enough to be a concern.
Quote:
Which evidence does your scenario fit? There is no conclusive evidence of an intruder.
There is. You just like to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I can't hear you!"

Quote:
The evidence that I've discussed are items that everyone appears to agree lean towards a Ramsey involvement.
No, they don't.

At best, they are irelevant. Or have explanations that have multiple explanations, many of which favor the intruder theory.
Quote:
I've made counter-arguments to arguments posted pointing to others' involvement.
Most of your counter-arguments have involved taking your own experiences (such as "hey I always get a house tour during parties") and incorrectly assuming that those such experiences apply to everyone. They do not.
Quote:
There have been a number of ideas posted in books and on the Internet about how the murder could have been accomplished by 1 or more of the Ramseys.
This is a discussion forum. Its expected for posters to state things in their own words.
Quote:
The theory in the link in Elagabalus' post is not contradicted by any evidence.
The link provided in Elagabalus (I assume you mean post 209) certainly does not provide a complete narrative. It doesn't discuss (for example) the missing roll of tape.

Furthermore, the article makes rather bizarre leaps of logic...
- the tombsone says "december 25" so they must know when she was killed... Uh, no. They probably felt it necessary to put some date on there, and might as well pick the day when you last saw her (and the day she would be happy at christmas)

Quote:
If the killer wasn't afraid to leave the notepad and the pen, why would he worry about taking the roll of tape?
Its the killer's tape. Why not take it?

The fact that its missing (meaning someone had to deliberatly walk out of the house with it, carrying it somewhere) is meaningful.

Quote:
(Incidentally, the tape that was over JBR's mouth contained fibers of the same color and composition as the jacket that PR wore the night before and the morning after).
It was the house the Ramseys lived in. Why wouldn't you expect to fibers from other household members around?

Quote:
So far you haven't posted any affirmative evidence, only that your theory can't be disproven by what we know. Which means that it's not impossible that you are correct. It's also not impossible that you are wrong.
It is most likely that I am correct. The reason?
- It would seem very bizarre for a woman who is largely viewed as a loving/doting mother, to suddenly snap, and not only punish her daughter for the bedwetting (something she's used to dealing with), but also to strangle her and/or violate her sexually. People tend not to do that.
- It would have also been bizarre for them not to get medical attention first.
- It would be very bizarre for a person, having just killed their daughter, to actually have the presence of mind to actually sit down and compose a ransom note. Most people would be far too agitated
- It would be very bizarre for people who didn't care about leaving the notepad behind, to suddenly decide "lets remove the tape roll", since leaving the tape roll behind would not necessarily lead to any suspicion
- It would be very bizarre for someone who is supposedly so prone to anger (Patsy, when she first strikes JonBenet because of betwetting) to mange not to crack after multiple days of intensive interviews

By all accounts the Ramseys were decent parents... None of John's other kids have ever stated that he was abusive, JonBenet's doctor certainly didn't see any bruises or any signs of physical abuse. And now you expect people's personalities to just turn on a dime.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 03:57 PM   #244
WayneK
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

Keep in mind that the '45 minutes' claim seems to come from an on-line "forum" hosted by the former chief of police. While the natural tendency is to believe someone with his background, he was not speaking in an official government capacity, nor were his comments subject to any sort of verification. .
The estimate of 45 minutes to two hours was given to investigators by Dr Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist for Philadeplphia Children's Hospital (per James Kolar's book "Foreign Faction").
WayneK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 04:38 PM   #245
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
How does that follow?

I watch over a hundred movies a year. I'm certainly a "movie buff". But there are genres (such as slasher movies) that I don't go anywhere near. Being a "movie buff" does not mean that you watch each and every movie that ever comes out.

The movie posters show they like movies for people with more mature tastes. The phrases in the note were from more straight-up action movies that appeal to a younger/male demographic.
You seem to be certain about the Ramsey's taste in film. Did you happen to discuss films with either John or Patsy?

I am simply stating that as movie buffs, they may be familiar with the (quite popular) films referenced in the ransom note.
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 04:39 PM   #246
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,729
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
On both. From 3 different men, none of whom was one of the family or friends who gave DNA samples. If the DNA is related to the murder, then there would have had to have been at least 3 men involved.


Wait? What are you talking about? How can you possibly draw that conclusion. The possibilities are.

1. All three DNA profiles were involved.
2. 2 out of 3 of the DNA profiles were involved. One profile found their way on her clothing.
3. 1 out of 3 profiles were involved. Two profiles found their way on her clothing.
4. All three DNA profiles found their way on her clothing and none were involved in the crime.
5. There were more then 3 men involved, but only 3 left their DNA profiles.

All are possibilities, but to me 3 or 4 is most likely. The fact you think only 1 is a possibility says something about your reasoning skills. Or I'm missing something.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 04:51 PM   #247
WayneK
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
All are possibilities, but to me 3 or 4 is most likely. The fact you think only 1 is a possibility says something about your reasoning skills. Or I'm missing something.
I agree with your conclusion but according to Kolar they found the DNA of 6 unidentified people (5 male, 1 female). This certainly strengthens the likelihood that at least some of the DNA is unrelated to the crime.
WayneK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:00 PM   #248
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Quote:
The movie posters show they like movies for people with more mature tastes. The phrases in the note were from more straight-up action movies that appeal to a younger/male demographic.
You seem to be certain about the Ramsey's taste in film.
No, I'm not certain. I'm stating probabilities.

Maybe they are big action movie fans. Maybe John had a tattoo of Dirty Harry on his buttocks and Patsy went to the video store and rented action movies every night.

But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.

Without any sort of proof that the Ramseys liked the action genre, their status as "movie buffs" doesn't necessarily lend any sort of credibility to the note being written by Patsy than me being a movie buff means that I've watched the latest Friday the 13th film.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:02 PM   #249
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,729
Originally Posted by WayneK View Post
I agree with your conclusion but according to Kolar they found the DNA of 6 unidentified people (5 male, 1 female). This certainly strengthens the likelihood that at least some of the DNA is unrelated to the crime.
I would say surely that would be the case. It's probably very hard to 1) avoid getting DNA on yourself and 2) Kill someone in that manner and avoid leaving any DNA.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:06 PM   #250
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
You don't have to know someone very close to know what they're doing for christmas. I talk about that sort of thing all the time to friends and coworkers. "Hey, you sticking around for christmas? Nah, I'm going to visit parents". Many people aren't really that secretive.
There's a difference between knowing that someone is going to visit someone else on Christmas and knowing what time they are going to return.

Quote:
Seriously, this is kind of like the choice of staircase to put the ransom note on... something must be selected, so picking one day over another doesn't really prove/disprove anything.
It does lend credence to the belief that the killer knew the Ramseys very well.

Quote:
But they do show that it is quite possible for someone with psychopathic tendencies to wait for their victims inside their home.
But can you cite a case in which the killer wouldn't have known what time they would return? And how many were similar - spending a minimum of 45 minutes to kill a child while the parents slept?

Quote:
Except of course nobody (and especially not you) has ever given any sort of narration that would justify any of those other explanations.
Do you seriously believe this?

Quote:
At best, they are irelevant. Or have explanations that have multiple explanations, many of which favor the intruder theory.
I see no explanations that favor the intruder theory. Only your belief that parents would never kill their own children.

Quote:
This is a discussion forum. Its expected for posters to state things in their own words.
No, we are free to cite other's statements as long as we attribute them. I don't have a theory.

Quote:
Furthermore, the article makes rather bizarre leaps of logic...
- the tombsone says "december 25" so they must know when she was killed... Uh, no. They probably felt it necessary to put some date on there, and might as well pick the day when you last saw her (and the day she would be happy at christmas)
Which doesn't change the fact that the author's theory is consistent with the evidence.

Quote:
Its the killer's tape. Why not take it?
Evidence that it was the killer's tape?

Quote:
It was the house the Ramseys lived in. Why wouldn't you expect to fibers from other household members around?
We are to surmise that the killer carried the tape around in his hands and put it down here and there, and at least 1 place where there were fibers from PR's jacket?

Quote:
It is most likely that I am correct. The reason?
- It would seem very bizarre for a woman who is largely viewed as a loving/doting mother, to suddenly snap, and not only punish her daughter for the bedwetting (something she's used to dealing with), but also to strangle her and/or violate her sexually. People tend not to do that.
It would seem very bizarre for someone to hide in a house not knowing when his intended victim would come home and then spend a minimum of 45 minutes killing the victim when there was a risk that his presence would be discovered when he could have killed the victim. The fact is that far more children are killed by their parents than by psychopathic stalkers.

Quote:
- It would have also been bizarre for them not to get medical attention first.
See above.

Quote:
- It would be very bizarre for a person, having just killed their daughter, to actually have the presence of mind to actually sit down and compose a ransom note. Most people would be far too agitated
See above.

Quote:
- It would be very bizarre for someone who is supposedly so prone to anger (Patsy, when she first strikes JonBenet because of betwetting) to mange not to crack after multiple days of intensive interviews
Exactly when did these "multiple days of intensive interviews" happen?

Quote:
By all accounts the Ramseys were decent parents... None of John's other kids have ever stated that he was abusive, JonBenet's doctor certainly didn't see any bruises or any signs of physical abuse. And now you expect people's personalities to just turn on a dime.
One of my best friends growing up killed his wife and then himself last month. His wife's sister posted in both his online obituary and his Facebook page what a great husband he had been for her sister and how great a friend he had been for her.

Even the BTK killer left traces of his presence, both DNA and evidence of break-ins. It was only because the police didn't have a DNA sample from him that it took so long to catch him.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 26th September 2016 at 05:18 PM.
TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 06:06 PM   #251
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,050
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
No, I'm not certain. I'm stating probabilities.

Maybe they are big action movie fans. Maybe John had a tattoo of Dirty Harry on his buttocks and Patsy went to the video store and rented action movies every night.

But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.

Without any sort of proof that the Ramseys liked the action genre, their status as "movie buffs" doesn't necessarily lend any sort of credibility to the note being written by Patsy than me being a movie buff means that I've watched the latest Friday the 13th film.
I would surmise that older people would have a much larger repertoire of movies they've watched than a 20 year old. Therefore they would have a much larger movie-phrase knowledge base. Dirty Harry was over 25 years old in 1996. Who do you think would be more likely to have seen it, a middle aged person or a 20 year old?
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 06:38 PM   #252
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
No, I'm not certain. I'm stating probabilities.

Maybe they are big action movie fans. Maybe John had a tattoo of Dirty Harry on his buttocks and Patsy went to the video store and rented action movies every night.

But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.

Without any sort of proof that the Ramseys liked the action genre, their status as "movie buffs" doesn't necessarily lend any sort of credibility to the note being written by Patsy than me being a movie buff means that I've watched the latest Friday the 13th film.
So you think the intruder who had a personal vendetta against John Ramsey was a 20 year old?
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:00 PM   #253
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The blow would not have immediately killed her, they were in a part of the house that provided significant privacy, and the killer still had a desire to torture/inflict suffering. Why would he want to "get the heck out of dodge"?

You seem to be looking at this as if the killing were the only goal. It wasn't. Satisfying his twisted desires was.
Hitting someone in the head so hard as to render them unconscious seems like a very bizarre thing to do if the object was to torture them to death. Sticking around to torture an unconscious person seems like a very bizarre thing to do. One would think that the killer would have realized after around 10 minutes that JBR had been gravely injured. Going to the trouble of fashioning a garotte to strangle someone who is unconscious and near death seems like a very bizarre thing to do.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:21 PM   #254
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,317
substrate controls

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Presumably you meant to say "not any of the Ramseys" rather than "not JonBenet". The DNA also didn't match any of their friends' DNA.

My understanding is that the DNA was mixed in with JB's blood, but that it hasn't been established that it was from someone else's blood, only that it came from some sort of fluid that came from someone else.
TellyKNeasuss,

If one identifies blood and independently finds DNA, there is a good chance that the DNA individualizes the blood. The only exception to this can arise in old blood stains. One way that the connection between the blood and the DNA might be made stronger is if they forensic team had performed substrate controls on an area near the stain. However, it is my understanding that substrate controls are not routinely done.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:26 PM   #255
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,317
some but not all may be there innocently

Originally Posted by WayneK View Post
I agree with your conclusion but according to Kolar they found the DNA of 6 unidentified people (5 male, 1 female). This certainly strengthens the likelihood that at least some of the DNA is unrelated to the crime.
WayneK,

Some of the DNA is probably unrelated to the crime. That is why I have been focusing on the DNA underneath the fingernails; there is data which suggests that DNA transfer does not happen there frequently. I also think that the DNA in the blood drop is worth examining because we have a probable source for this DNA.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:29 PM   #256
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
TellyKNeasuss,

If one identifies blood and independently finds DNA, there is a good chance that the DNA individualizes the blood. The only exception to this can arise in old blood stains. One way that the connection between the blood and the DNA might be made stronger is if they forensic team had performed substrate controls on an area near the stain. However, it is my understanding that substrate controls are not routinely done.
According to Mark Beckner, there was too little material to determine the source but the Colorado Bureau of Investigation technician thought that it was sweat or saliva. It's easy to envision a killer becoming really sweaty doing something like this and dripping perspiration. On the other hand, we don't know of anything that the killer did that would have posed a high risk of getting cut.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:34 PM   #257
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Wait? What are you talking about? How can you possibly draw that conclusion.
It was an intentional exageration. The point is that if one were to concede that some of the DNA has an innocent explanation then one would have to concede that all of the DNA could have an innocent explanation. Either all of the DNA is related to the crime or else the DNA does not provide conclusive evidence of an intruder.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:42 PM   #258
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Some of the DNA is probably unrelated to the crime. That is why I have been focusing on the DNA underneath the fingernails; there is data which suggests that DNA transfer does not happen there frequently. I also think that the DNA in the blood drop is worth examining because we have a probable source for this DNA.
I think we still need to look at other evidence and that ransom note is really strange. It does seem to be written by somebody with [At least] reasonably good writing skills. Certain parts seem to be written with the art of somebody who is trying to say nothing while seeming to say a lot. Other parts seem pretty familiar in style.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell

Last edited by Desert Fox; 26th September 2016 at 07:54 PM.
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:54 PM   #259
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Then why did s/he write a 3-page ransom note when the child was already dead? How did s/he silence JBR where she was taken, in the bedroom? Why did s/he place an extra nightgown next to the child (which just happened to be JBR's favorite one)? Why did s/he come with no tools for the job. The ransom note was written on Patsy's notepad, with Patsy's pen and the garrote was made from Patsy's paintbrush.
Indeed, why write a ransom note at all? It wouldn't make sense for an intruder to write a ransom note to make it seem like there had been an intruder.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:18 PM   #260
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Quote:
But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.
I would surmise that older people would have a much larger repertoire of movies they've watched than a 20 year old. Therefore they would have a much larger movie-phrase knowledge base. Dirty Harry was over 25 years old in 1996. Who do you think would be more likely to have seen it, a middle aged person or a 20 year old?
First of all, go back and what I wrote... I posted that a 20 year old male would be more likely to see an action movie than a middle age woman. Gender is important here... If it were 2 men (one 20, one middle age) the middle age one would be more likely to see a decades-old action movie like Dirty Harry. But if its a 20 year old male and a middle age female, i don't think you can say that the older woman would be more likely to see the decades-old action movie, since demographically those movies still appeal to men.

More importantly, the movie Dirty Harry was not the only action movie that appears to be referenced in the note. Both Speed and Ransom (both which were released only a year or 2 before the murder) both seem to be referenced. And those 2 movies definitely would appeal more to someone in their 20s at the time. (And with those movies you can't claim "well they are older movies so older people would be more likely to know them".)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:30 PM   #261
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Quote:
But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy....if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.
So you think the intruder who had a personal vendetta against John Ramsey was a 20 year old?
I cannot say 20 is the exact age, but I suspect somewhere between late teens and late 20s/early 30s. I base that on 2 factors:
- That is the age that would be most likely to know the movie references that appear to have been used in the ransom note
- The type of sexual molestation appears to be more of a curiosity/experimental thing

I also want to point out that I have no idea of the reason for the vendetta someone like that may have had against the Ramseys. Perhaps a former worker who was fired, perhaps someone jealous of his wealth. It doesn't necessarily mean the Ramseys did anything to him, only that he thinks he was wronged by them.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:39 PM   #262
WayneK
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
WayneK,

Some of the DNA is probably unrelated to the crime. That is why I have been focusing on the DNA underneath the fingernails; there is data which suggests that DNA transfer does not happen there frequently. I also think that the DNA in the blood drop is worth examining because we have a probable source for this DNA.
The following info is from the Kolar book, which I happen to be re-reading. The DNA from her fingernails belonged to two males and one female subject. The amounts were too small to determine the type of source (eg blood vs skin cells). They were also too small to enter into national databases for comparison.

It was conjectured that the DNA came from cross-contamination since the examiner failed to use sterile clippers. They took DNA samples from the eight previous autopsy exams but failed to match the DNA. So at this point, the source remains unknown.

I agree that the DNA evidence is important but not in isolation. The amounts are so tiny that they could easily be from innocent sources. Or, they could be from the killer. They only become important when combined with other evidence.

For example, if you develop a suspect through other evidence, then find that his DNA matches the DNA collected from her body, then you have a solid, meaningful link.

Edit: Patsy's sister Pam told Steve Thomas that JonBenet played hard, always had dirt under her fingernails, and wouldn't let you trim them. That makes it even less surprising that she would have collected random DNA under her fingernails.

Last edited by WayneK; 26th September 2016 at 09:07 PM.
WayneK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:14 PM   #263
WayneK
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Indeed, why write a ransom note at all? It wouldn't make sense for an intruder to write a ransom note to make it seem like there had been an intruder.
I agree that it seems illogical to leave a ransom note after killing JonBenet. How are you going to collect a ransom when you've left your only leverage in the house? Even if the murder happened in some unplanned way, why not take the body with you and still try to collect the ransom?

Like many lines of argument in this case, though, it's possible to spin things a different way, even if it seems farfetched. It's been suggested that the ransom note plus murder was a deliberate attempt to further torture John Ramsey by first raising his hopes to recover his daughter safely, only to find out later that she's dead after all.
WayneK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:15 PM   #264
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Hitting someone in the head so hard as to render them unconscious seems like a very bizarre thing to do if the object was to torture them to death. Sticking around to torture an unconscious person seems like a very bizarre thing to do. One would think that the killer would have realized after around 10 minutes that JBR had been gravely injured. Going to the trouble of fashioning a garotte to strangle someone who is unconscious and near death seems like a very bizarre thing to do.
You used the word 'bizarre'. I am starting to think you really don't understand what that word actually means.

I doubt very much that whomever the killer was had any sort of medical training. As such, I doubt very much whether they'd be able to recognize when someone was gravely injured. If they could detect a heart beat (probably pretty simple for most people to do) then they would have a reason to think she might wake up.
Quote:
Indeed, why write a ransom note at all?
Perhaps because the intruder saw it as a way to further hurt the Ramseys. (Even if he planned to kill her right from the start once he got her out of the house, having the Ramseys run around to get the ransom money would cause further distress for them.)

Or perhaps he thought it would be an added bonus... both hurt the Ramseys by depriving them of their daughter, AND get some money out of it.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:27 PM   #265
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by WayneK View Post
I agree that it seems illogical to leave a ransom note after killing JonBenet. How are you going to collect a ransom when you've left your only leverage in the house?
Simple... The note was written and left on the stairs before JonBenet was killed.

The initial plan was likely to take her from the house. Why he didn't so so is unknown (maybe she struggled more than he was expecting.) Whatever happened, his plans changed. He decided to take her to the basement to kill her. Once done, his main mission would have been accomplished. Going back and picking up the note would have been a waste of time (even if he had thought of it).
Quote:
Even if the murder happened in some unplanned way, why not take the body with you and still try to collect the ransom?
The intruder was probably not some sophisticated criminal. The death probably would have put him on edge, or left him agitated. In that state he probably wasn't thinking about ransom demands.

Or perhaps he thought it was just too risky to be seen carrying a body though the neighborhood.
Quote:
Like many lines of argument in this case, though, it's possible to spin things a different way, even if it seems farfetched. It's been suggested that the ransom note plus murder was a deliberate attempt to further torture John Ramsey by first raising his hopes to recover his daughter safely, only to find out later that she's dead after all.
Which makes perfect sense.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 10:52 PM   #266
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Quote:
You don't have to know someone very close to know what they're doing for christmas. I talk about that sort of thing all the time to friends and coworkers. "Hey, you sticking around for christmas? Nah, I'm going to visit parents". Many people aren't really that secretive.
There's a difference between knowing that someone is going to visit someone else on Christmas and knowing what time they are going to return.
You have this very strange infatuation with the idea that everybody in the world leads these secret lives, when in reality many people are quite open with their plans. I doubt very much that the party they were going to was secret, and the fact that the Ramseys had children was a pretty good indicator that they would be home before midnight.

Quote:
Quote:
Seriously, this is kind of like the choice of staircase to put the ransom note on... something must be selected, so picking one day over another doesn't really prove/disprove anything.
It does lend credence to the belief that the killer knew the Ramseys very well.
Not really. You don't have to know a person very well to overhear "The Ramseys are gonig to a party tonight".

Quote:
But can you cite a case in which the killer wouldn't have known what time they would return?
Uhhh... yeah. BTK.

You really are infatuated with the whole "don't know return time" argument, aren't you, despite the fact that it means absolutely nothing.
Quote:
And how many were similar - spending a minimum of 45 minutes to kill a child while the parents slept?
And how many criminals stab women and dissect them on the street, leaving themselves open for discovering? But there you have Jack the Ripper.

That a crime has some unique elements does not mean that the crime is impossible. It could just mean that there were unique events that preceded the crime.
Quote:
Quote:
Except of course nobody (and especially not you) has ever given any sort of narration that would justify any of those other explanations.
Do you seriously believe this?
Well, if someone HAS come up with a plausible storyline about how it could be an inside story, nobody has ever mentioned it here, nor in anything I've read, nor documentaries I've watched.
Quote:
I see no explanations that favor the intruder theory. Only your belief that parents would never kill their own children.
At no point did I ever say "parents would never kill their own children".

What I said was that in this particular case, for us to assume the parents killed one of their children would be to require rather severe changes in the personalities of the people involved.... such severe changes as to make the likelyhood of an inside job minisule.
Quote:
Quote:
This is a discussion forum. Its expected for posters to state things in their own words.
No, we are free to cite other's statements as long as we attribute them.
All you said i your previous post was: "There have been a number of ideas posted in books and on the Internet about how the murder could have been accomplished". That's not "citing other's statements". You're not even giving a reference to a particular source.

In a discussion forum like this, whomever makes a claim is responsible for providing supporting evidence. You have not done that. Just saying 'there are books/internet sites" is not "supporting evidence"

Quote:
I don't have a theory.
You should have that tattooed on the inside of your eyelids.

If you can't come up with a plausible narrative how something could have happened (such as how 9/11 was an inside job, or one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet) then by default you should accept the alternative (that an intruder was involved), regardless of whatever biases you might have.
Quote:
Re: reference to an article which supposedly provides a narrative to events...

Quote:
Furthermore, the article makes rather bizarre leaps of logic...
- the tombsone says "december 25" so they must know when she was killed... Uh, no. They probably felt it necessary to put some date on there, and might as well pick the day when you last saw her (and the day she would be happy at christmas)
Which doesn't change the fact that the author's theory is consistent with the evidence.
First of all, I notice that you ignored the part where I pointed out at least one thing that was ignored in that particular narrative... namely the missing tape.

Secondly, that's not the only thing that that particular article left out or got wrong... It didn't explain where the marks on JonBenet came from. It also suggested that she was injured in a fall or when pushed into a "hard blunt surface" like a door frame, which is inconsistent with the autopsy report which suggests an object like the flashlight or baseball bat that were found in or around the house.

So no, the account provided in that article is not "consistent with the evidence".

Lastly, if a source makes one stupid statement (such as "they put a date on the tombstone so obvously they must know when they were killed") then I think anything else that that source says should be viewed with a little more skepticism.

Quote:
Quote:
Its the killer's tape. Why not take it?
Evidence that it was the killer's tape?
Really not sure what your point is.

The main thing is, the tape was removed from the house. That means either:
- The tape was taken by the intruder, who would have had no reason to leave it behind

or:

- The Ramseys, after carefully staging the crime, decided "Hey, lets get rid of the tape (but not the flashlight or pad of paper for some reason)" and decide to walk or drive around hoping to find a spot to dump the roll, even though being seen wandering around trying to find a spot to leave it might arouse suspicions.

Given the 2 options, I'd say the first option makes the most sense.
Quote:
Quote:
It was the house the Ramseys lived in. Why wouldn't you expect to fibers from other household members around?
We are to surmise that the killer carried the tape around in his hands and put it down here and there, and at least 1 place where there were fibers from PR's jacket?
And why not? Or alternatively JonBenet might have had fibers on her body (or on her hair) from when she was brought in from the car.

Overall though, I'm not sure how the presence of fibers is supposed to help those believing in the "inside theory". After all, how were the fibers supposed to get there? Was patsy cold when molesting her daughter and decided to thrown on her jacket?

Quote:
Exactly when did these "multiple days of intensive interviews" happen?
On the day of the kidnapping/murder the Ramseys answered all the questions asked by the police. And while they did restrict their participation (largely after the police became hostile) they still talked with certain officers that they trusted.

Furthermore, while it may have been over a year after the murder, they were still questioned for (I think) 3 days each.

Yet despite all the chances for one of them to 'slip up' (on the day of the murder, or the later interviews, or when talking to one of the officers they actually did trust) neither of them did.

Quote:
Even the BTK killer left traces of his presence, both DNA and evidence of break-ins. It was only because the police didn't have a DNA sample from him that it took so long to catch him.
BTK was captured because he sent a computer disk to the police, not realizing that there was information on the disk that could be traced back to the computer it was written on.

Not really sure how that statement helps your argument. BTK killed many people and the cops couldn't catch him. Its reasonable that another killer (who also "invaded" the home of JonBenet) was able to do so and not get caught. If anything, referring to the inability to catch BTK actually supports the invader theory.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 03:48 AM   #267
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,317
the first law of DNA profiling

Originally Posted by WayneK View Post
The following info is from the Kolar book, which I happen to be re-reading. The DNA from her fingernails belonged to two males and one female subject. The amounts were too small to determine the type of source (eg blood vs skin cells). They were also too small to enter into national databases for comparison.

It was conjectured that the DNA came from cross-contamination since the examiner failed to use sterile clippers. They took DNA samples from the eight previous autopsy exams but failed to match the DNA. So at this point, the source remains unknown.

I agree that the DNA evidence is important but not in isolation. The amounts are so tiny that they could easily be from innocent sources. Or, they could be from the killer. They only become important when combined with other evidence.

For example, if you develop a suspect through other evidence, then find that his DNA matches the DNA collected from her body, then you have a solid, meaningful link.

Edit: Patsy's sister Pam told Steve Thomas that JonBenet played hard, always had dirt under her fingernails, and wouldn't let you trim them. That makes it even less surprising that she would have collected random DNA under her fingernails.
WayneK,

It is almost an axiom of DNA forensics that the mere existence of DNA does not tell you when or how the DNA arrived on any given item. This works both ways: one cannot be sure it got there during the commission of the crime, but one cannot be sure it got there via contamination or other innocent means. With respect to the clippers, I cited once case upthread where this kind of contamination did indeed happen. However, given that none of the previous eight autopsied individuals donated the DNA, contamination by this route looks less likely than if they had not performed this step.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 04:24 AM   #268
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Well, if someone HAS come up with a plausible storyline about how it could be an inside story, nobody has ever mentioned it here, nor in anything I've read, nor documentaries I've watched.
So you didn't watch the current CBS documentary? That presents a very plausible explanation of an inside job, with testimony from experts in their field. There are certain parts that I don't find overly convincing, but it at least fits in with the evidence. It's certainly more plausible than invoking a disgruntled 20-30 year old glove-wearing movie buff employee who needs 1,000,000 Mexican Pesos in a hurry, and who doesn't seem to know whether he's a killer or a kidnapper.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
If you can't come up with a plausible narrative how something could have happened (such as how 9/11 was an inside job, or one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet) then by default you should accept the alternative (that an intruder was involved), regardless of whatever biases you might have.
CBS have provided the current narrative that triggered this thread (Burke did it), so I don't think every poster needs to regurgitate the content of that documentary and attach their own name to it. I largely subscribe to that is how it *could* have happened, but *your* alternative isn't very convincing at all. There are too many if's, maybe's, and supposition pulled out of thin air for me to buy it.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
First of all, I notice that you ignored the part where I pointed out at least one thing that was ignored in that particular narrative... namely the missing tape.
Not sure why the missing tape is such a big issue, John had plenty of opportunity to dispose of it. I live in a suburban area. If you gave me half an hour to walk out my front door and dispose of a roll of duct tape where it wouldn't be found, I bet I could do a pretty good job of it. How far did the police go to try to locate the tape - or did they just search the Ramseys' property?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
- The Ramseys, after carefully staging the crime, decided "Hey, lets get rid of the tape (but not the flashlight or pad of paper for some reason)" and decide to walk or drive around hoping to find a spot to dump the roll, even though being seen wandering around trying to find a spot to leave it might arouse suspicions.
Come on, the 911 call was made at 5:45 am, they would have had the cover of some darkness if JBR had been killed earlier that morning. It's not like they have to do it in broad daylight. Get in the car, drive for 10 minutes, drop it into a trash can somewhere, and it would quickly be in the landfill, never to be found.

Why not the pad and the flashlight? If they had used the pad anywhere else around the house, they couldn't get rid of it. How would they explain to police that they had the exact same note paper their supposed "intruder" used for the ransom note he brought with him? Perhaps it was just they didn't think there was anything unusual about an intruder borrowing their target's stationery to write their ransom note, so didn't think it worth disposing of. There are plenty of statistics about criminal behaviour that people have wrong - possibly skewed by watching a lot of movies.

If they knew that the flashlight was the murder weapon, then, yes, I would have expected them to dispose of it. Perhaps Burke just told them that he hit her over the head and they didn't think to ask him "with what?" in time for them to get rid of it...leading to the denial of owning the flashlight later on. Whether it was the Ramseys or an intruder, whoever wrote the ransom note was not thinking very clearly.


Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Overall though, I'm not sure how the presence of fibers is supposed to help those believing in the "inside theory". After all, how were the fibers supposed to get there? Was patsy cold when molesting her daughter and decided to thrown on her jacket?
It points to the Ramseys *owning* the duct tape roll rather than an intruder bringing it with him...after all, if it belonged to the intruder, how could the fibers from Patsy's jacket have possibly got there? And if the roll is missing, that indicates that it was the Ramseys who disposed of it, rather than the intruder taking it away with him.

To me, the fibers indicate that the duct tape had been owned by the Ramseys for some time, rather than the scenario where Patsy has to be wearing her jacket to stage the crime. I would imagine that the gluey side edges of the roll pick up all sorts of loose material.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 27th September 2016 at 04:29 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 04:51 AM   #269
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I doubt very much that whomever the killer was had any sort of medical training. As such, I doubt very much whether they'd be able to recognize when someone was gravely injured. If they could detect a heart beat (probably pretty simple for most people to do) then they would have a reason to think she might wake up.
I don't think that it requires medical training to figure out that someone who remains unconscious for more than a few minutes has suffered a serious injury. Anyway, if the purpose was to torture and then kill her, smacking her extremely hard on the head with a hard object doesn't fit.

Quote:
Perhaps because the intruder saw it as a way to further hurt the Ramseys. (Even if he planned to kill her right from the start once he got her out of the house, having the Ramseys run around to get the ransom money would cause further distress for them.)
Leaving the body in the house doesn't fit. It's hard to imagine anyone who wouldn't thoroughly search their house immediately upon reading a note saying that their kid had been kidnapped.

Quote:
Or perhaps he thought it would be an added bonus... both hurt the Ramseys by depriving them of their daughter, AND get some money out of it.
Leaving the body in the house argues against this explanation.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 07:59 AM   #270
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
I found a website that lists historical exchange rates. According to it, the exchange rate in the second half of December 1996 hovered around 7.85 pesos to the dollar. At that rate, $118,000 would be about 926,300 pesos. It wasn't until 1998 that the exchange rate hit the level that would make $118,000 equal to 1,000,000 pesos.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/dat...ny/day-fxmx2us
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:07 AM   #271
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,375
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post

So you see, as speculation that one or both of the Fleets were involved repeatedly becomes rampant, the public needs to be reminded that they were investigated and cleared.

All of this:

Was because they were trying to get the grand jury indictments released.
Leads and suspects, like the Whites, in the JonBenet case were disregarded. It was never a complete investigation. Fleet White has always been very keen to get the Ramseys prosecuted because it deflects attention from the fact that he did it. Fleet White has always refused to answer questions when properly called upon to do so. Beckner should have been fired years ago. Beckner is idle and incompetent. A proper murder squad, like perhaps the Toronto Homicide Squad ,would have solved the JonBenet case years ago, and the Jeffrey MacDonald gross miscarriage of justice case.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:22 AM   #272
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,375
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
It points to the Ramseys *owning* the duct tape roll rather than an intruder bringing it with him...after all, if it belonged to the intruder, how could the fibers from Patsy's jacket have possibly got there? And if the roll is missing, that indicates that it was the Ramseys who disposed of it, rather than the intruder taking it away with him.

To me, the fibers indicate that the duct tape had been owned by the Ramseys for some time, rather than the scenario where Patsy has to be wearing her jacket to stage the crime. I would imagine that the gluey side edges of the roll pick up all sorts of loose material.
I posted this about the matter of the fibers in 2007:

I don't think you can say with reasonable medical certainty that those red fibers did "match" Patsy's clothes. There are millions of red fibers in this world. Some red fibers come from Santa suits. Some from a scarf. Or dare I say some of Priscilla White's clothes might have similar, or consistent, or grossly similar red fibers to the JonBenet crime scene red fibers.

Nobody on this forum has ever seen any forensic reports about the matter.

This matter was discussed at the Steve Thomas deposition in 2001 with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood:

18 Q. I think I understand you. The

19 red fibers, we're talking about the red

20 fibers off the duct tape, right, the ones

21 that Mr. Hoffman asked you about?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That were consistent or a likely

24 match with Patsy Ramsey's jacket?

25 A. Yes.

251

1 Q. That was the red and black and

2 gray jacket that she was wearing?

3 A. I've always heard it referred to

4 as a red and black jacket, yes.

5 Q. It's the one in the photograph,

6 though, that was produced where they went

7 back a year afterwards and tried to find what

8 they were wearing, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you aware of the fact that

11 Priscilla White owned an identical jacket,

12 that in fact Patsy Ramsey bought her jacket

13 because she liked Priscilla White's so much?

14 A. Until you told me that right now,

15 no.

16 Q. So I assume that no request, that

17 you're aware of, was ever made for the Whites

18 to give articles of clothing with respect to

19 this investigation?

20 A. They may have been asked to give

21 clothing; I'm unaware of that.

22 Q. There were no black fibers that

23 were found on the duct tape that were said

24 to be consistent with the fibers on Patsy

25 Ramsey's red and black jacket, were there?

252

1 A. It's my understanding that the

2 four fibers were red in color.
I
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:40 AM   #273
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Quote:
Well, if someone HAS come up with a plausible storyline about how it could be an inside story, nobody has ever mentioned it here, nor in anything I've read, nor documentaries I've watched.
So you didn't watch the current CBS documentary?
No I didn't.

As I have mentioned before, the documentary was several hours long, which is quite a time commitment, especially for something that has been criticized heavily for the quality of its investigation.

While there may be nothing wrong with using a documentary as a reference source (along the lines of "The documentary stated X"), expecting someone to sit though a documentary just to get answers is generally frowned upon. It would be like someone saying "9/11 was an inside job! Just sit through Loose Change".

Quote:
That presents a very plausible explanation of an inside job, with testimony from experts in their field.
Experts like the 911 operator who claimed the call from the Ramseys "sounded fake"? (I wonder how many kidnapping calls she actually has to deal with on a yearly basis. If she had more than 1 in her career.)

Experts like Dr. Spitz, who seems to have testified for the defense in the Phil Spector trial (which rather implies he's a "gun for hire")

Quote:
CBS have provided the current narrative that triggered this thread...
Although the CBS documentary triggered the thread, the title of the thread was a generic "Did brother kill her". As such, it is a thread discussing the case in general, rather than one specifically about the documentary.

Quote:
(Burke did it)
That's not a narrative. That's a simple statement of belief.

A complete narrative would be "Burke was in room X with JonBenet. He was motivated by Y. He did Z. Parents then did A, B and C".

Quote:
...so I don't think every poster needs to regurgitate the content of that documentary and attach their own name to it.
Nobody said every poster needs to regurgitate the content of the documentary. But if its so convincing, at least one should. In more detail than just "Burke did it".

Quote:
I largely subscribe to that is how it *could* have happened, but *your* alternative isn't very convincing at all. There are too many if's, maybe's, and supposition pulled out of thin air for me to buy it.
Yes, there are a lot of "ifs" and supposition in my narrative. That's because I've attempted to give a complete description from start to end. I haven't just said "An outside intruder did it. End of story".

I suspect that if a complete narrative of the Brother Did It theory was put together, it would have just as many ifs and supposition . In fact, in what I've read about it, they state that the fight was either over a toy or pineapple.

Quote:
Not sure why the missing tape is such a big issue, John had plenty of opportunity to dispose of it. I live in a suburban area. If you gave me half an hour to walk out my front door and dispose of a roll of duct tape where it wouldn't be found
I have no doubt that, had the Ramseys wanted to dispose of the tape roll, they could have. But that would mean going out of the house which, even at night, would mean they'd risk being seen. Seems like a rather strange risk to take when they could have just said "We don't recognize that roll of tape" like they did with the flashlight.

Quote:
Why not the pad and the flashlight? If they had used the pad anywhere else around the house, they couldn't get rid of it. How would they explain to police that they had the exact same note paper their supposed "intruder" used for the ransom note he brought with him?
They could claim "its common paper". Or claim "The intruder must have used our pad of paper and taken it with him".

Quote:
There are plenty of statistics about criminal behaviour that people have wrong - possibly skewed by watching a lot of movies.
Yes, and the statistics favor the fact that it was an intruder.

Quote:
If they knew that the flashlight was the murder weapon, then, yes, I would have expected them to dispose of it. Perhaps Burke just told them that he hit her over the head and they didn't think to ask him "with what?" in time for them to get rid of it...leading to the denial of owning the flashlight later on. Whether it was the Ramseys or an intruder, whoever wrote the ransom note was not thinking very clearly.
Lots of "ifs" and supposition there. I thought I was the only one that was supposed to be guilty of that.

Quote:
Re: Fibers on the roll of duct tape

It points to the Ramseys *owning* the duct tape roll rather than an intruder bringing it with him...after all, if it belonged to the intruder, how could the fibers from Patsy's jacket have possibly got there?
Fibers get transferred. Patsy was carrying JonBenet while wearing the jacket. Or the tape gets put down on a surface that had the fibers.

Nobody has established that the Ramseys owned or purchased duct tape.

Quote:
And if the roll is missing, that indicates that it was the Ramseys who disposed of it, rather than the intruder taking it away with him.
Nope, it implies the intruder, who brought the tape with him in the first place, thought "I'm going to take this on my way out the door".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 27th September 2016 at 08:46 AM.
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:46 AM   #274
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,375
There is an interesting newspaper article about Fleet White on the internet:

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

"Fleet White : Although never a suspect in JonBenet's murder, White is the only person at the murder scene who has spent time in jail stemming from the case.
Fleet White cares a heck of a lot about every leak of his testimony in this case, and even sued Lacy (then Keenan) over leaks of his grand jury testimony:

White turns his focus to Keenan

By Travis Henry

The Daily Times-Call

BOULDER - Relentless is the word that best describes Boulder businessman and peripheral Ramsey character Fleet White Jr.

The tall, silver-haired former best friend of John Ramsey often can be seen poring over court documents in the Boulder County Clerk's Office as he pursues whatever particular legal action he is working on at the moment.

White's latest crusade is aimed at District Attorney Mary Keenan, who, he claims, has failed to prosecute whoever leaked information from grand jury proceedings in the summer of 1999 that centered around JonBenet Ramsey's murder on Dec. 25, 1996.

Along with his wife, Priscilla, the 54-year-old White filed a motion earlier this month demanding a court hearing at which Keenan would have to explain why she refused to prosecute or cite any person who violated grand jury secrecy laws. On Tuesday, Judge Dan Hale told White that he must serve Keenan with the complaint and that she will have 20 days to respond.

White wouldn't specify the violation out of fear he would be releasing grand jury information himself, he said in an affidavit.

Keenan shook her head Tuesday when hearing about the latest court action filed by White and said she forwards most of his court proceedings to Assistant District Attorney Bill Nagel, who has become the pointman on all things Ramsey.

"If we were convinced there was a violation of grand jury secrecy, we would follow up on it," Keenan said. "That is our job."

Nagel said he would file a response but also would need to be vague in order to not divulge any testimony that came out in the grand jury proceedings.

White has been involved in the Ramsey case since day one. He was with John Ramsey when JonBenet's body was found in the wine cellar of the Ramseys' home, and at first he supported John and Patsy Ramsey's claims of innocence.

At some point, White became convinced of their guilt and started a campaign to have the governor remove former District Attorney Alex Hunter and appoint an independent prosecutor to the case. White also was a big supporter of former Boulder police Detective Steve Thomas, who wrote a book claiming Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.

In 2000, White's name surfaced again when a California woman came forward with allegations of ritualistic sexual abuse by a group that included people associated with the murder case, including Fleet White.

Since that woman's claims were discredited, White has been on a rampage against the media, seeking criminal libel charges against outlets who told the woman's story.

Two special prosecutors were appointed in the case, but neither filed charges.

In February, El Paso County Deputy District Attorney Robert Harward, who was assigned to look into the allegations, notified Boulder County Chief District Judge Roxanne Bailin that he was declining to file charges.

"The published material, on its face, does not support charges of criminal libel under the Colorado libel statute," Harward's report said.

After White failed to show up for a hearing he had demanded regarding the reasoning behind the special prosecutor's decision, Bailin closed the case.

Last week, White petitioned the Boulder District Court to turn over records of court proceedings in the investigation as he appeals the special prosecutor's decision. The appeal process is the only way he can go, since time has run out for any law enforcement agency to file criminal libel charges.

Keenan was the driving force behind having a special prosecutor appointed after White complained loudly when the first one was dismissed.

"We tried to do what we could to help him within the statute of limitations," Keenan said.
Although never a suspect in JonBenet's murder, White is the only person at the murder scene who has spent time in jail stemming from the case.

In October 2001, White was sentenced to 30 days in jail after he ignored two subpoenas in a Ramsey-related trial.

White was subpoenaed in May and June 2001 to appear as a witness in a criminal bribery trial.

He said he chose not to appear because he didn't think he had any relevant testimony to give.
The case involved lawyer Thomas Miller, who was accused of trying to buy a copy of the ransom note found in the house. Miller was acquitted.

White refuses to talk to reporters.

And several people in law enforcement and the media have wondered aloud why a man obsessed with punishing news outlets for publicizing his name keeps himself in the spotlight.
www.longmontfyi.com
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 09:04 AM   #275
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Quote:
I doubt very much that whomever the killer was had any sort of medical training. As such, I doubt very much whether they'd be able to recognize when someone was gravely injured. If they could detect a heart beat (probably pretty simple for most people to do) then they would have a reason to think she might wake up.
I don't think that it requires medical training to figure out that someone who remains unconscious for more than a few minutes has suffered a serious injury. Anyway, if the purpose was to torture and then kill her, smacking her extremely hard on the head with a hard object doesn't fit.
The idea of someone getting a head wound and "waking up" hours later is extremely common in popular culture (even though it is not medically accurate). I can probably point to a dozen TV shows/movies that had characters knocked out, and a few hours later are walking around with nothing worse than a headache.

Once again, you seem to be falsely taking your own experiences/opinions, and extending them to include other people. The fact that you recognize that being knocked out for hours is usually fatal doesn't mean that others don't think differently.

Quote:
Re: The ransom note...
Quote:
Perhaps because the intruder saw it as a way to further hurt the Ramseys. (Even if he planned to kill her right from the start once he got her out of the house, having the Ramseys run around to get the ransom money would cause further distress for them.)
...
Or perhaps he thought it would be an added bonus... both hurt the Ramseys by depriving them of their daughter, AND get some money out of it.
Leaving the body in the house doesn't fit. It's hard to imagine anyone who wouldn't thoroughly search their house immediately upon reading a note saying that their kid had been kidnapped.
You have a very bad habit of building strawmen. You take what I post, mangle it badly, ignore sections, and then claim that your distorted version of what I wrote is somehow wrong.

The ransom note was written and left before the murder, and before the abduction. The original plan in my narrative was to remove JonBenet from the house. In such a scenario, a search of the house would have turned up nothing. The decision to kill JonBenet in the house was a change in plans. And after the murder, going back to pick up the ransom note may not have occurred to the killer, or he may not have cared.

This has been explained multiple times.

At no point did the killer think "I'll leave the corpse in the basement, and then write a ransom note and they'll never notice the body!".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 27th September 2016 at 10:21 AM. Reason: Clarified wording
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 09:13 AM   #276
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,375
It's not just me who thinks Fleet White is a suspicious character. This is what Holly posted about Fleet White on the now defunct Justice Watch forum in 2000:

"Why White?"
Posted by Holly on 06:42:40 7/24/2000
From the start FW has been integral to this case. The self-described star
witness. PMPT, DOI, INSIDE THE INVESTIGATION, the Lee Hill deposition,
and the Singular book have all detailed FW's odd (at least to me) behavior.
Beckner's statements, Hofstrom, Hunter and even a cop in Roswell GA and
others tell me this guy is not operating with a full deck. And I want to know
why.

While many feel FW has deported himself with dignity and compassion and
most of all a dedication to justice for JB, I disagree.

Long before MW surfaced, I was trying to figure White out. His letters were
over the top missives that seemed more focused on politics and Hunter than
anything else. His controlling intensity bothered me. He scribbled notes on
12/26, hustled Burke out of the house, claims to have looked in the
windowless room and seen nothing, violated a direct order from a law
enforcement officer, went back to the crime scene and touched the
blanket, tape, shadowed Patsy, bickered and insulted Ramsey friends and
relatives in Atlanta, his behavior merited a 911 call from Roswell, he openly
argued with JR about CNN, but their accounts are poles apart, he broke into
Hoverstock's office with a note from a tab reporter, hounded the BPD over
and over and over.

He refused to testify before the Grand Jury. He wanted transcripts of his
earlier statements. Why? He obstructed justice according to Beckner. He
required kid glove treatment. Hours and days of reasoning finally got him in
front of the Grand Jury. I would have RUN to the Grand Jury. But did he take
a polygraph, give DNA?

His daughter had been reported missing the previous October and found
hiding in a cupboard. The NUDE information was provided by another poster
via email, who heard it from a good source. But it's unconfirmed.

He admits to having direct contact with JB by changing her panties on at
least two occasions and wiping her in the bathroom. Sorry. I don't like
that. You might. I don't.

For months I have tried to confirm that White owns or works for Fleet Oil or
any oil/gas company, is a champion sailor, a millionaire, an advocate. He
does, however, share the same SS# with someone else. That's weird.


There is not confirmation of anything except some address hits. But I am
still trying. There is no website, no email addie, no internet info on White
except relating to JB.

Does this mean anything? Not really. Just deepens the mystery and intrigues
the hell out of me and others.

With the arrival of MW, the FW behavior finally seemed to make sense. But
without s full investigation of this woman's claims, they are just data and
not facts -- yet.

For those who want heroes, I hope White is one. But for now, based on my
experience and several decades on this planet, many inter-actions with all
kinds of people, some hiding dark secrets, some pushing private agendas,
Fleet White makes me uncomfortable.

I say this to myself every day. "Look with better eyes. The truth to this
horrible crime is there."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th September 2016 at 09:14 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 10:25 AM   #277
Cat Not Included
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 132
I'd caution the people saying "But that would be bizarre behavior" to keep in mind that we're talking about the murder of a child and a lot of really strange things done in connection with it; the entire situation is bizarre, so any behavior leading to it is very likely to be bizarre as well.

In the same vein, a very probable answer to any of the "why did they do X, but not Y" is simply that they weren't thinking very clearly. People in stressful situations - and even in normal situations - do silly things all the time. It is quite common for a person to become focused on one aspect of something while ignoring others, or to stress about minor details while ignoring major ones. There is nothing remotely unusual about that as human behavior.

==============================

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
If you can't come up with a plausible narrative how something could have happened (such as how 9/11 was an inside job, or one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet) then by default you should accept the alternative (that an intruder was involved), regardless of whatever biases you might have.
I disagree very strongly with that; you seem to be saying "If you don't know, then you must accept any alternative explanation". That's the whole foundation of a lot of really bad thinking. "I don't know what caused the noise, therefore ghost".

When going counter to a widely understood and accepted explanation, I think there's some obligation to provide a plausible narrative. But not so much when no one else knows exactly what happened either.

And on a side note, is it actually hard to come up with a plausible narrative? I don't have any opinion on the case either way, but it doesn't seem terribly implausible. Let's say...kid's mother loses it at her and bashes her/throws her, something. Panics, thinks kid is dead and stashes the kid in the basement. Decides to try to make it look like a kidnapping. Writes note. Tries to make it look like kid was deliberately murdered/kidnapped. Makes a quick run outside to throw away tape somewhere.

Likely? Eh, beats me. Rational? Probably not particularly, but again, neither is killing a kid in the first place. Plausible? I think it probably is.
Cat Not Included is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 12:14 PM   #278
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
If they knew that the flashlight was the murder weapon, then, yes, I would have expected them to dispose of it. Perhaps Burke just told them that he hit her over the head and they didn't think to ask him "with what?" in time for them to get rid of it...leading to the denial of owning the flashlight later on. Whether it was the Ramseys or an intruder, whoever wrote the ransom note was not thinking very clearly.
It isn't even known for sure whether that flashlight was used in the crime.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 12:24 PM   #279
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,050
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

That a crime has some unique elements does not mean that the crime is impossible. It could just mean that there were unique events that preceded the crime.
Likewise when a crime has so many indicators pointing to an inside job, it could just mean it was an inside job.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

Secondly, that's not the only thing that that particular article left out or got wrong... It didn't explain where the marks on JonBenet came from. It also suggested that she was injured in a fall or when pushed into a "hard blunt surface" like a door frame, which is inconsistent with the autopsy report which suggests an object like the flashlight or baseball bat that were found in or around the house.
Do you have a cite? The autopsy report I have does not say any such thing. The ME does not speculate what might have caused the injury, AFAIK.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

Overall though, I'm not sure how the presence of fibers is supposed to help those believing in the "inside theory". After all, how were the fibers supposed to get there? Was patsy cold when molesting her daughter and decided to thrown on her jacket?
You should probably familiarize yourself with the RDI theories before you dismiss them so readily. It is thought that Patsy did not change her clothes from the night before, because she was busy dealing with the tragedy that had occurred overnight. The fibers from her jacket were on the tape because she was involved.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

On the day of the kidnapping/murder the Ramseys answered all the questions asked by the police. And while they did restrict their participation (largely after the police became hostile) they still talked with certain officers that they trusted.
There were hardly any police available on the day of the murder, with whom did they sit down and answer questions?
Lin Wood was hired early on and the Ramseys would only answer questions if the police sent them to their lawyer in writing. Would you do this if that had been your daughter? As of 1/4/1997 when they went on CNN, they had not sat down with the police for formal interviews. They insulated themselves with lawyers.

Who are the police officers they spoke with and when was it?
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 01:58 PM   #280
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Lin Wood was hired early on and the Ramseys would only answer questions if the police sent them to their lawyer in writing. Would you do this if that had been your daughter? As of 1/4/1997 when they went on CNN, they had not sat down with the police for formal interviews. They insulated themselves with lawyers.
If they understood the way the legal system works, I don't blame them for insulating themselves with lawyers whether guilty or innocent. Cops can often get a person to make incriminating statements even when innocent.
Edit: I am not passing judgement in this post if they are innocent or guilty, just addressing one point.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell

Last edited by Desert Fox; 27th September 2016 at 02:09 PM.
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.