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 27th September 2016, 02:00 PM   #281
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,007
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
... 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.
She got hammered and slept in her clothes?

Tape rolls, in general, still have a little stickiness because the edge exposes both the tape film and the adhesive backing even when rolled up. Duct tape especially so because its fabric base tends to fray(on the edge).


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? ...
Yes, with the entire MSM in a feeding frenzy and proclaiming that I'm the killer, Yes, I would (if I had the money). Would I do this if JBR was still missing? No.

Unfortunately, she was found dead. Now there is just a hostile Police Force and media onslaught to deal with. Remember 1996? Hard Copy? Stone Phillips and numerous other salacious "news" shows? I remember watching Larry King interviewing some correspondent from Newsweek or Time with the reporter boldly stating that an intruder could not have come into the house unless the intruder had "levitated" because there was snow everywhere and s/he would have left footprints.

That turned out to be not the case.
Elagabalus 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, 02:02 PM   #282
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,007
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
If they understood the way the legal system works, I don't blame them for insulating themselves with lawyers whether guilty or innocent. Cos 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.
Same reason why lawyers on youtube tell you not to talk to the police and not to take a polygraph. Even if you are innocent.
Elagabalus 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, 03:23 PM   #283
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
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.
I'll take this as a compliment - that I'm smarter than most people.

Quote:
The ransom note was written and left before the murder, and before the abduction.
Evidence for this?

Quote:
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!".
The intruder was so smart, so talented, and so thorough that he left no trace that he had ever been in the house even though he spent several hours there, rummaging through the Ramseys' mail, writing a ransom note, and committing a murder, but found during the commission of the crime that he:
1) forgot to bring the ransom note;
2) forgot to think about how he was actually going to get JBR out of the house.
Is this correct?

Incidentally, the BTK killer was comfortable waiting in peoples' houses because he didn't care if he was discovered. He intended to kill everyone who was there anyway.
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 02:42 AM   #284
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Likewise when a crime has so many indicators pointing to an inside job, it could just mean it was an inside job.

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.

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.

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?
This matter is explained by Jameson:

April 23rd, 1997
Ramsey Family Statement

MEDIA ADVISORY

Our clients, John and Patsy Ramsey, offered specifically to meet with the and Boulder police in a
formal interview on December 27, 1996 and again on January 18, 1997. Since then, we have made numerous

attempts to schedule interviews the Boulder Police Department. Yesterday at 4:00 p.m. the Boulder
Police Department canceled the separate interviews scheduled for today at 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.

We have forwarded the following letter today to the Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter.

Hal Haddon

Patrick Burke

April 23, 1997

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Alexander M. Hunter Boulder County District Attorney
Boulder County Justice Center
1777 Sixth Street
Boulder, CO 80306

Re: John and Patsy Ramsey

Dear Mr. Hunter:

By this letter, we express our profound dismay at yesterday's actions by the leadership of the Boulder

Police Department. After representatives of the Boulder Police with Department and your office
requested and agreed to a format for separate interviews of John Patsy Ramsey beginning at 9:30 a.m. today,
we were advised at approximately 4:00 p.m. yesterday afternoon that the interviews were canceled
because Boulder Police Department leadership no longer agreed to the format of the interviews -- despite
previous statements to the contrary.

When we received this information from your office yesterday, we offered to discuss any additional
matters which might facilitate the interviews but no one from the police department was willing to
even have that discussion. In view of the bizarre position of the police department, we then offered to
make Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey available this morning for separate interviews by Detective Lou Smit and any
member of the District Attorney's office who wished to attend. This offer was also declined.

This action is incomprehensible in light of the previous history of this issue. The Police Department,
directly and through a campaign of leaks and smears, has portrayed the Ramseys as unwilling to
grant police interviews or assist the investigation. Although we know this innuendo to be false, we have
avoided criticizing the police because we believed that it would only fuel a media war which would be
counterproductive to the overarching goal -- finding and prosecuting the killer of JonBenét Ramsey.
Yesterday's actions make further silence untenable.

HISTORY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RAMSEYS REGARDING TODAY'S INTERVIEWS

On Friday, April 11, 1997, John and Patsy Ramsey, with their attorneys, met with Peter Hofstrom of
your office and Tom Wickman of the Boulder Police Department. This meeting was held at Mr. Hofstrom's
request. The Ramseys were told at that meeting that they had been treated unfairly in the past and
that authorities wanted to put the investigation on a new track. They were told that "we need your help
to solve this crime." The Ramseys were asked to give interviews and continue their previous
cooperation. No conditions were placed on the manner in which the interviews would be conducted and, in fact, we
were invited to propose any conditions we considered reasonable. At that meeting, John Ramsey
immediately said that he would gladly meet with your representatives if it would help the effort to find his
daughter's killer.

The day after that meeting, Patsy Ramsey voluntarily provided a fourth handwriting sample. The
Ramseys also agreed to let authorities search their house again without a warrant; agreed to
destructive testing of materials located at their home; agreed to identify Patsy Ramsey's prior writings; and
agreed to make themselves available for separate interviews on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, beginning at 9:30
a.m. The Ramseys agreed to answer any questions put to them by any investigator chosen by your office
or the Police Department. We requested that these interviews be of two hour durations, respectively, but
we were certainly flexible on time and your agencies voiced no objection to that time frame.

All the arrangements for these interviews had been made and agreed upon. John and Patsy were
anxious to participate, based on Mr. Hofstrom's representations that such interviews would assist in
apprehending the killer of their daughter. We cannot describe their anguish and disappointment when we were
forced to advise them that the police had reneged on the very interviews you earnestly requested on April 11.

PREVIOUS INTERVIEWS AND OFFERS

This episode is the latest in an inexplicable series of events which appear to be senseless efforts to
intimidate and smear the Ramseys without any valid investigative purpose. We can document that
both John and Patsy Ramsey were extensively interviewed by Boulder police, including detectives, on
December 26, 1996, the day JonBenet's body was discovered. John Ramsey answered more police
questions the next day. On doctors' directions, Patsy Ramsey was not interrogated on December 27.

What occurred next was the most insensitive and outrageous action in this case, at least to date:
Boulder police refused to release JonBenet's body for burial unless the Ramseys agreed to come to the police
station and submit to a hostile interrogation. We had to threaten legal action to obtain her release
for burial. This was the first in a series of insensitive and incomprehensible actions by the Boulder Police
Department leadership to destroy every sincere attempt to have an open and honest relationship of
trust with the Boulder Police Department.

After John and Patsy returned from the funeral, we offered to make them available for a joint
interview on January 18, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. We told the police that Patsy Ramsey was too ill to attend the
entire session but that John Ramsey would answer all questions put to him. The police declined this offer
and stated in writing that such an interview would not "be helpful" because "the time for interviewing John
and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of
our investigation has passed." The police countered with an offer that the Ramseys come to the police
station at 6 p.m. on a Friday night and subject themselves to inquisition for as long as "the nature and
quality of the information" warranted. That absurd suggestion was rejected, especially since the police did not
believe that the Ramseys possessed any "critical information."

Since that time, law enforcement authorities from several agencies have launched a cowardly smear
campaign against John and Patsy, fueled by leaks and smears attributable only to "sources." We will
no longer endure these tactics in silence. It is beyond comprehension that law enforcement authorities
prefer to leak information rather than interrogate the persons who they characterize as "suspects" in this
investigation.

It is apparent that the leadership of the Boulder Police Department lacks the objectivity and judgment

necessary to find the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. Mr. Hofstrom told John and Patsy that he wanted
their help to solve this crime. They remain willing to meet with Mr. Smit, Mr. Ainsworth or any other
members of your office to that end.

Sincerely,

Harold A. Haddon

Patrick Burke
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 28th September 2016, 04:15 AM   #285
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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?
The Ramseys had a retractable movie screen in their master bedroom. I'm guessing that they watched movies from time to time.

http://www.people.com/article/jon-be...t-story-covers
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 04:43 AM   #286
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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?
And what 20-something man use phrases like "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache", "I advise you to be rested", or "I advise you not to provoke them" in a ransom note? What 20-something man ever uses "and hence"?
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 08:48 AM   #287
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
And what 20-something man use phrases like "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache", "I advise you to be rested", or "I advise you not to provoke them" in a ransom note? What 20-something man ever uses "and hence"?
I don't think you have much practical experience in writing ransom notes. A ransom note is almost invariably strange and difficult to understand. It's like people on the MacDonald case forums keep saying that "acid is groovy" is a sure sign of guilt by Jeff MacDonald when it is nothing of the sort.

Somebody is getting away with murder in the JonBenet case and it's Fleet and Priscilla White and Chris Wolf, and their associates. There is no evidence against the Ramseys, and Burke, apart from manufactured evidence and jumping to conclusions.

Patsy used the phrase 'and hence' in her Christmas card before the murder to Fleet And Priscilla White.

Detroit came close to the truth in an internet posting:

"EXACTLY. I was waiting for YOU TO SAY THAT. Patsy talked like that and FLEET KNEW IT. THAT`S WHY FLEET PUT THE PHRASE IN THE NOTE."
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 28th September 2016, 09:10 AM   #288
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
While there are areas of the documentary that I am extremely cautious about, I think their arguments that the ransom letter is like nothing they have ever seen has value.

Whoever wrote it, I think it actually pretty intelligent and sophisticated actually.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
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 28th September 2016, 09:13 AM   #289
Cat Not Included
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
I'll take this as a compliment - that I'm smarter than most people.



Evidence for this?



The intruder was so smart, so talented, and so thorough that he left no trace that he had ever been in the house even though he spent several hours there, rummaging through the Ramseys' mail, writing a ransom note, and committing a murder, but found during the commission of the crime that he:
1) forgot to bring the ransom note;
2) forgot to think about how he was actually going to get JBR out of the house.
Is this correct?

Incidentally, the BTK killer was comfortable waiting in peoples' houses because he didn't care if he was discovered. He intended to kill everyone who was there anyway.
Does that take talents and smarts? How much evidence was an intruder likely to leave?

So, the intruder shuffles some stuff around. Nobody is going to remember EXACTLY where every item is, especially in a house with kids that move things around without telling you.

Leaves some dirt or mud? Dirt or mud happens. How would you tell it apart from dirt left by the family (again, the KIDS) or guests or the many people entering the house to investigate?

DNA? It's not like there's a DNA tricorder. The intruder could sneeze all over the counter, but unless anyone specifically had a reason to check there, no one would ever know. And even if they did, would they have a way to sort it from all the other people that had been there?

Sherlock glancing at an out of place piece of lint and knowing exactly who the killer is doesn't happen in reality.
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 28th September 2016, 09:18 AM   #290
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't think you have much practical experience in writing ransom notes.
Evidence for this claim?

Quote:
A ransom note is almost invariably strange and difficult to understand. It's like people on the MacDonald case forums keep saying that "acid is groovy" is a sure sign of guilt by Jeff MacDonald when it is nothing of the sort.
My point was that the wording of the ransom note contains phrases that are much more typical of women than of 20-something men. And phrases that are more familiar to people who attend Christian churches than people who don't (e.g., "and hence", "watching over").

Quote:
Somebody is getting away with murder in the JonBenet case and it's Fleet and Priscilla White and Chris Wolf, and their associates. There is no evidence against the Ramseys, and Burke, apart from manufactured evidence and jumping to conclusions.

Patsy used the phrase 'and hence' in her Christmas card before the murder to Fleet And Priscilla White.

Detroit came close to the truth in an internet posting:

"EXACTLY. I was waiting for YOU TO SAY THAT. Patsy talked like that and FLEET KNEW IT. THAT`S WHY FLEET PUT THE PHRASE IN THE NOTE."
You've argued both that Priscilla White must have written the note because it contains phrases that Patsy Ramsey claims that Priscilla White used in her presence and that Priscilla White must have written the note because it contains a phrase that Patsy Ramsey used in the presence of Priscilla White.
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 09:40 AM   #291
Sergei Walankov
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
And phrases that are more familiar to people who attend Christian churches than people who don't (e.g., "and hence", "watching over").
Are you serious? "And hence" and "watching over" are utterly mundane phrases that are used by twenty-something men, and indeed every other category of standard English speaker the world over, every second of the day.
Sergei Walankov 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 28th September 2016, 09:57 AM   #292
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Sergei Walankov View Post
Are you serious? "And hence" and "watching over" are utterly mundane phrases that are used by twenty-something men, and indeed every other category of standard English speaker the world over, every second of the day.
I can't tell whether this is sarcasm. I can't remember that last time that I heard or read "and hence". OK, "watching over" might be common, but not in the manner it was used in the rn: "The two gentlemen watching OVER her" as opposed to "The two gentlemen watching her". Used in the manner that "watching over" was used in the rn generally happens when the person doing the "watching over" is protective rather than guarding. (And that's not even getting into why the author found it necessary to specify that there were 2 entities "watching over her".)
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 28th September 2016 at 10:00 AM.
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 28th September 2016, 01:07 PM   #293
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 Henri McPhee View Post
A ransom note is almost invariably strange and difficult to understand.
Says who?

No law enforcement entity has ever seen a ransom note like the one in this case. "Most" ransom notes are short and to the point, not rambling and full of filler. Since the purpose of a ransom note is to obtain money, by nature it needs to be easy to understand, otherwise its sole purpose is defeated.
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 28th September 2016, 01:31 PM   #294
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Cat Not Included View Post
Does that take talents and smarts? How much evidence was an intruder likely to leave?

So, the intruder shuffles some stuff around. Nobody is going to remember EXACTLY where every item is, especially in a house with kids that move things around without telling you.

Leaves some dirt or mud? Dirt or mud happens. How would you tell it apart from dirt left by the family (again, the KIDS) or guests or the many people entering the house to investigate?

DNA? It's not like there's a DNA tricorder. The intruder could sneeze all over the counter, but unless anyone specifically had a reason to check there, no one would ever know. And even if they did, would they have a way to sort it from all the other people that had been there?

Sherlock glancing at an out of place piece of lint and knowing exactly who the killer is doesn't happen in reality.
How many cases of serious crimes do you know of in which the only evidence that the perpetrator even existed was that the crime was committed? Were any of these committed by common street criminals? Were any of them committed without some amount of planning? According to what I've read in the Amanda Knox threads, murderers always leave traces of themselves in the murder room.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 28th September 2016 at 01:40 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 28th September 2016, 01:38 PM   #295
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,574
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
No law enforcement entity has ever seen a ransom note like the one in this case. "Most" ransom notes are short and to the point, not rambling and full of filler. Since the purpose of a ransom note is to obtain money, by nature it needs to be easy to understand, otherwise its sole purpose is defeated.
Most ransom notes are probably written by people who's main goal is financial (often written by people who are experienced).

In the JonBenet ramsey case, it is assumed (by, for example, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas) that the kidnapping/murder was not done by an experienced professional with money as the goal. It was a personal cause crime, done by a younger male with the primary goal of causing harm. (If they actually managed to get money, it would probably be a bonus for them.) How the ransom note was worded reflects that... much of it was done to try to inflate the ego and reputation of the unsub (with talk of "foreign factions" and the like).
__________________
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 28th September 2016, 01:56 PM   #296
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,856
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Most ransom notes are probably written by people who's main goal is financial (often written by people who are experienced).

In the JonBenet ramsey case, it is assumed (by, for example, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas) that the kidnapping/murder was not done by an experienced professional with money as the goal. It was a personal cause crime, done by a younger male with the primary goal of causing harm. (If they actually managed to get money, it would probably be a bonus for them.) How the ransom note was worded reflects that... much of it was done to try to inflate the ego and reputation of the unsub (with talk of "foreign factions" and the like).
Considering the batting average for successful kidnapping/ransom incidents in the United Sates over the past 100 years I'd take a swag that there is no such thing as an experienced kidnap/ransom artist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap..._United_States

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 28th September 2016, 01:56 PM   #297
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,574
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
The Ramseys had a retractable movie screen in their master bedroom. I'm guessing that they watched movies from time to time
Nobody questioned whether they watched movies. The issue was whether they (in particular Patsy Ramsey since her handwriting was the only one that could not have been ruled out as the author, even know it was far from a good match) watched the type of action movies (such as Speed, Ransom, and Dirty Harry) that were referenced in the note.

Movies like Speed and Dirty Harry appeal more to younger males. A far smaller portion middle age women like those types of movies.

So while they may have watched movies on their big movie screen, they were probably watching movies like Officer and a Gentleman (a movie that they had a poster for in the house, and one that would appeal more to a more mature demographic) than Speed and Dirty Harry.

Its such a simple argument. Not sure why it seems to be beyond you.

Quote:
And what 20-something man use phrases like "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache", "I advise you to be rested", or "I advise you not to provoke them" in a ransom note?
Simple, a 20 year old that has watched a lot of movies that are geared towards his particular demographic. I know I often quote lines from movies I've seen (although I don't always get the quotations completely accurate).

Its pretty widely assumed that phrases appearing in the note mimic phrases from various action movies very closely. The line "I advise you to be rested" was similar to a line in the movie Dirty Hairy.

Dirty Harry is a movie that appeals more to Young men than middle age women.
__________________
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 28th September 2016, 02:29 PM   #298
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,574
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
How many cases of serious crimes do you know of in which the only evidence that the perpetrator even existed was that the crime was committed?
We've provided plenty of evidence that the unsub was an intruder. You just choose to pretend that it means something that it does not.

Quote:
According to what I've read in the Amanda Knox threads, murderers always leave traces of themselves in the murder room.
Whether traces were left behind is irrelevant if the police are not actively searching for those traces. If the police are convinced that the Ramseys were involved, they won't be as intent on searching for evidence that points to an outsider. Plus, given the botched handling of the crime scene and the number of people, the killer could have left significant evidence behind but its relevance got lost due to contamination.

Did you know there were reports of an unidentified pubic hair found on the blanket that was covering JonBenet? And reports of animal hair not matching anything in the house found on the tape covering her mouth?

From: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/.../1323/2567726/
Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)
...
a Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. (SMF 79; PSMF 79.) The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced. (SMF 80; PSMF 180.)
__________________
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 28th September 2016, 02:33 PM   #299
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,574
Originally Posted by Sergei Walankov View Post
Quote:
And phrases that are more familiar to people who attend Christian churches than people who don't (e.g., "and hence", "watching over").
Are you serious? "And hence" and "watching over" are utterly mundane phrases that are used by twenty-something men, and indeed every other category of standard English speaker the world over, every second of the day.
Oh, but didn't you know? If TellyKNeasuss never uses the phrase or hears other people using it, it never happens. His experience is the only one that matters. His anecdotes apply to everyone in the world.
__________________
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 28th September 2016, 02:34 PM   #300
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Most ransom notes are probably written by people who's main goal is financial (often written by people who are experienced).

In the JonBenet ramsey case, it is assumed (by, for example, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas) that the kidnapping/murder was not done by an experienced professional with money as the goal. It was a personal cause crime, done by a younger male with the primary goal of causing harm. (If they actually managed to get money, it would probably be a bonus for them.) How the ransom note was worded reflects that... much of it was done to try to inflate the ego and reputation of the unsub (with talk of "foreign factions" and the like).
Is this the same John Douglas who wrote "So where was all the blood?
Did Patsy clean it up? And if she did, what did she do with the numerous towels and other cleaning supplies she would have needed? Did she take the car out in the middle of the night and dump them somewhere? It would be virtually impossible to clean up as much blood as would gush from a head wound of this nature and not leave traces that crime scene specialists and/or luminol would pick up.
In all of my years of investigative experience, I have never witnessed a crime scene in which the blood from a violent act could be covered up or eliminated completely." when the coroner's report stated that there was no external head wound?
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 02:37 PM   #301
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,574
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Quote:
Most ransom notes are probably written by people who's main goal is financial (often written by people who are experienced).

In the JonBenet ramsey case, it is assumed (by, for example, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas) that the kidnapping/murder was not done by an experienced professional with money as the goal. It was a personal cause crime, done by a younger male with the primary goal of causing harm.
Considering the batting average for successful kidnapping/ransom incidents in the United Sates over the past 100 years I'd take a swag that there is no such thing as an experienced kidnap/ransom artist.
Ah yes, a pointless nitpick by someone who wants to deflect from the main point of a post.

Ok, most kidnappers are probably caught. So what? The main point was that the goal of the unsub in this case was causing harm... not financial gain.
__________________
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 28th September 2016, 02:41 PM   #302
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
We've provided plenty of evidence that the unsub was an intruder. You just choose to pretend that it means something that it does not.
The only "evidence" that you've provided of an intruder is that there must have been an intruder because there was a murder.

Quote:
Whether traces were left behind is irrelevant if the police are not actively searching for those traces. If the police are convinced that the Ramseys were involved, they won't be as intent on searching for evidence that points to an outsider. Plus, given the botched handling of the crime scene and the number of people, the killer could have left significant evidence behind but its relevance got lost due to contamination.
That the police didn't find any traces is proof that they weren't looking for traces?

Quote:
Did you know there were reports of an unidentified pubic hair found on the blanket that was covering JonBenet? And reports of animal hair not matching anything in the house found on the tape covering her mouth?

From: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/.../1323/2567726/
Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)
...
a Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. (SMF 79; PSMF 79.) The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced. (SMF 80; PSMF 180.)

Yes, I was aware of that hair, and I am also aware that it was determined not to be a pubic hair. And that the DNA test showed that it came from someone in JBR's mother's family.
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 02:54 PM   #303
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Nobody questioned whether they watched movies. The issue was whether they (in particular Patsy Ramsey since her handwriting was the only one that could not have been ruled out as the author, even know it was far from a good match) watched the type of action movies (such as Speed, Ransom, and Dirty Harry) that were referenced in the note.

Movies like Speed and Dirty Harry appeal more to younger males. A far smaller portion middle age women like those types of movies.

So while they may have watched movies on their big movie screen, they were probably watching movies like Officer and a Gentleman (a movie that they had a poster for in the house, and one that would appeal more to a more mature demographic) than Speed and Dirty Harry.

Its such a simple argument. Not sure why it seems to be beyond you.
It's beyond me why you think that no one over the age of 30 watches these movies. What it boils down to is that you're making a completely unsubstantiated assumption simply because it provides "evidence" for your scenario.

Quote:
Simple, a 20 year old that has watched a lot of movies that are geared towards his particular demographic. I know I often quote lines from movies I've seen (although I don't always get the quotations completely accurate).
You're making assumptions strictly based on your own personal experience.

Quote:
Its pretty widely assumed that phrases appearing in the note mimic phrases from various action movies very closely. The line "I advise you to be rested" was similar to a line in the movie Dirty Hairy.
How widely is it assumed?

In "Dirty Harry", the ransom note says "she dies" rather than "she will die.". Same with the JBR ransom note. In "Dirty Harry", the girl was already dead. In the case of JBR?
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 28th September 2016 at 02:56 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 28th September 2016, 03:05 PM   #304
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,574
Originally Posted by Cat Not Included View Post
Quote:
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".
Fine, if you want to nitpick, I should have said:
f 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, As long as it doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Quote:
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.
Even if nobody knows exactly what happened, it should still be possible to construct a narrative. Heck, the unknowns may actually HELP since a possible explanation doesn't have to be perfect and leaves some wiggle room..

Quote:
And on a side note, is it actually hard to come up with a plausible narrative?
Well, nobody here has posted any sort of plausible narrative for an insider theory, either for the "Burke did it" or the "Parents did it" theories.

We did get one poster saying "One was given in the documentary", but for some reason they chose not to share it with us here. Another poster pointed to one given in an online article, but that particular reference didn't exactly cover all the evidence, and left out items of significance.
Quote:
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.
Ok, that's a start. But somewhere along there you have to explain things like the marks on the body, what the role of the father was (was he a participant, or was he kept in the dark)? And what was she hit with. the Flashlight or Some other item? And what would be the cause of the initial anger by Patsy?

Ok, then, lets say you actually come up with a narrative, you then have to look at probabilities. The Outsider theory has gotten criticized because certain people think "its bizarre". Fine, some elements do seem weird. But then, if you are claiming "insider" you have to look up all the things that are bizarre with that theory...
- That a parent that has shown no sign of abusing their kid all of a sudden snaps? , and even shows a willingness to strangle and sexually molest her as part of the cover up? (Yes, parents kill their children, but that type of snapping would be very bizarre indeed)
- That a middle age woman would write a note that referenced various action movies, despite the target audience being young men?
- That a parent would kill their child and leave them covered with a blanket, when statistically most cases where people kill love ones they tend to be more careful with wrapping the body.
- That a mother who is so prone to panic that she'd feel the need to molest her daughter would somehow manage to stand up to hours of police questioning without once slipping up?
- that the mother, so prone to panic over killing the daughter, would have the mental capacity to sit down and compose a ransom note, considering most people would be rather frazzled at that point.

So, as strange as certain elements of the "invader theory" are, once you start trying to build an "insider theory" you end up with just as many if not more strange things.
__________________
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 28th September 2016, 03:19 PM   #305
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Nobody questioned whether they watched movies. The issue was whether they (in particular Patsy Ramsey since her handwriting was the only one that could not have been ruled out as the author, even know it was far from a good match) watched the type of action movies (such as Speed, Ransom, and Dirty Harry) that were referenced in the note.

Movies like Speed and Dirty Harry appeal more to younger males. A far smaller portion middle age women like those types of movies.

So while they may have watched movies on their big movie screen, they were probably watching movies like Officer and a Gentleman (a movie that they had a poster for in the house, and one that would appeal more to a more mature demographic) than Speed and Dirty Harry.

Its such a simple argument. Not sure why it seems to be beyond you.


Simple, a 20 year old that has watched a lot of movies that are geared towards his particular demographic. I know I often quote lines from movies I've seen (although I don't always get the quotations completely accurate).

Its pretty widely assumed that phrases appearing in the note mimic phrases from various action movies very closely. The line "I advise you to be rested" was similar to a line in the movie Dirty Hairy.

Dirty Harry is a movie that appeals more to Young men than middle age women.
It's just as credible to argue that people tend to watch movies from their own generation. Men who were 20-something in 1996 were either not yet born when "Dirty Harry" was released or would have been too young to know or remember it (and far too young to have actually seen it). "Dirty Harry" was from the Ramsey's generation; in fact, JR was a 20-something man when it was released.
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 03:42 PM   #306
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,321
non-intimate cohabitation and DNA transfer

Originally Posted by WayneK View Post

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,

I am not sure. There was one study (Nakanishi, Legal Medicine 5 (2003) S194S197) on the effect of the environment on obtaining DNA from nails. Wet soil gave the highest degradation rate, and the authors speculated that nucleases from bacteria were the cause. However, IIUC only self DNA was studied, and the degradation rates in this experiment were very slow.

I am still reviewing the literature. However here is a quote from Matte et al. (Forensic Sciences International, Genetics, 2012): "Additionally it is important to note that of individuals who cohabited non-intimately, their household members were excluded as the source of the foreign DNA profiles detected, which suggests that sharing a household environment and common household items is not likely to result in the transfer of DNA beneath the fingernails and that it is unlikely that casual contact, for example a handshake, will result in foreign DNA under the fingernails. This supports the inference that intimate and close physical contact with someone or with a foreign body fluid is required for fingernails to retain foreign 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 28th September 2016, 04:26 PM   #307
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Cat Not Included View Post
Does that take talents and smarts? How much evidence was an intruder likely to leave?
Does it take talent and smarts to not only leave no trace behind but also be completely confident that you aren't leaving any trace behind? After all, the intruder left behind the ransom note, the notepad, the pen, and the strangulation device; 4 items which the intruder handled that he could have taken with him without any problem but felt no qualms about leaving behind. If the flashlight was used, that would make 5 items. He also went to the trouble of putting JBR's underpants and leggings back on and covering her with a blanket, all things that were absolutely unnecessary and would have provided some risk of leaving a trace behind if he hadn't taken any precautions. To me, to have done all this and been confident of leaving no evidence behind reflects some amount of forethought.
__________________
"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 28th September 2016, 04:57 PM   #308
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
.
- That a parent that has shown no sign of abusing their kid all of a sudden snaps? , and even shows a willingness to strangle and sexually molest her as part of the cover up? (Yes, parents kill their children, but that type of snapping would be very bizarre indeed)
As I stated in another post, a childhood friend of mine showed no signs of abusing his wife, to the point that even after he killed her his wife's sister continued to make a point of what a great husband he had been for her sister. But one day he did "snap" and kill her.

Quote:
- That a middle age woman would write a note that referenced various action movies, despite the target audience being young men?
A groundless assertion. There is no justification for assuming that someone who wasn't even born when these movies were made would be more likely to have seen them then someone who would have been a teenager when they were released. And even were it valid, it provides no evidence that she didn't see the movies. Young men are more likely to drive fast then middle aged men are. I'm middle aged and I've gotten 2 speeding tickets in the last 2 years.

Quote:
- That a parent would kill their child and leave them covered with a blanket, when statistically most cases where people kill love ones they tend to be more careful with wrapping the body.
Seems a bit self-contradictory, doesn't it? Though it isn't a particularly accurate. According to John Ramsey, "Well, she looked very, like someone had very carefully placed her on the blanket, wrapped the blanket around her to keep her warm." and "It was like an Indian papoose."

How many murderers cover the victim at all (except to hide the body)?

Quote:
- That a mother who is so prone to panic that she'd feel the need to molest her daughter would somehow manage to stand up to hours of police questioning without once slipping up?
Strawman argument. An insider theory does not require PR to have molested JBR.

Quote:
- that the mother, so prone to panic over killing the daughter, would have the mental capacity to sit down and compose a ransom note, considering most people would be rather frazzled at that point.
Where does this "prone to panic" come from?

As I stated in another post, this is the only known case where the victim's body and the ransom note were both left in the house in which the victim lived. This means that your scenario involves something with such a low probability of happening that it had in fact never happened before. But you toss out other scenarios because they require something "bizarre" (at least in your opinion).
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 28th September 2016 at 05:10 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 28th September 2016, 04:59 PM   #309
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,985
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Does it take talent and smarts to not only leave no trace behind but also be completely confident that you aren't leaving any trace behind? After all, the intruder left behind the ransom note, the notepad, the pen, and the strangulation device; 4 items which the intruder handled that he could have taken with him without any problem but felt no qualms about leaving behind. If the flashlight was used, that would make 5 items. He also went to the trouble of putting JBR's underpants and leggings back on and covering her with a blanket, all things that were absolutely unnecessary and would have provided some risk of leaving a trace behind if he hadn't taken any precautions. To me, to have done all this and been confident of leaving no evidence behind reflects some amount of forethought.
As I pointed out upstream, there have been intruders who have lived in houses, alongside their occupants, for months.

If the intruder was someone who had spent a lot of previous time in the house, it's possible fingerprints were found but eliminated because they belonged to someone who had been granted access in the past.
__________________
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 28th September 2016, 06:58 PM   #310
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
WayneK,

I am not sure. There was one study (Nakanishi, Legal Medicine 5 (2003) S194–S197) on the effect of the environment on obtaining DNA from nails. Wet soil gave the highest degradation rate, and the authors speculated that nucleases from bacteria were the cause. However, IIUC only self DNA was studied, and the degradation rates in this experiment were very slow.

I am still reviewing the literature. However here is a quote from Matte et al. (Forensic Sciences International, Genetics, 2012): "Additionally it is important to note that of individuals who cohabited non-intimately, their household members were excluded as the source of the foreign DNA profiles detected, which suggests that sharing a household environment and common household items is not likely to result in the transfer of DNA beneath the fingernails and that it is unlikely that casual contact, for example a handshake, will result in foreign DNA under the fingernails. This supports the inference that intimate and close physical contact with someone or with a foreign body fluid is required for fingernails to retain foreign DNA."
Kids often have sticky hands. . . .I don't know what is involved in that but it makes me think it might be more likely for DNA to get transferred including under nails.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
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 28th September 2016, 07:35 PM   #311
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 DragonLady View Post
As I pointed out upstream, there have been intruders who have lived in houses, alongside their occupants, for months.

If the intruder was someone who had spent a lot of previous time in the house, it's possible fingerprints were found but eliminated because they belonged to someone who had been granted access in the past.
The fact remains there is far more evidence pointing away from an intruder, despite what segnosaur believes. Segnosaur contends this guy was an intruder who was an unsophisticated 20-ish male who watched action movies. This unsub was stupid when it is necessary to explain unlikely acts (such as leaving the notepad and pen behind) and "tidy" for replacing the items where he found them, yet "confident" because he did not leave a trace of himself, even though he rifled through documents to locate paystubs the Ramseys left out, (but not bank statements, because you see the Ramseys only left out some private information.)

He had hours to wander around the house, hours to wait after cracking her in the skull, at least 1/2 hour to write the ransom note, not including the practice notes. But he did not have enough time to retrieve the ransom note he no longer needed, even though it was a huge clue about him.

He knew John Ramsey well because "allusions are made to JR's background" but not well enough to know he had millions. He had a vendetta against JR, but he'd rather torture and murder the girl because he had "curiosity/compulsion about the female body."

He was dumb enough to screw up what was originally a kidnapping, even though his original plan was to take her out of the house. He had a desire to torture JBR but not kill her. His stupidity kept him from realizing she would not wake up, but he garroted her anyway, because... why not? At the same time, he was clever enough not to get caught after he screwed up the kidnapping and left a dead body in the house and a ransom note the likes of which had never been seen in a kidnapping in history.

When you have to go to these lengths to force the puzzle pieces to fit, I say you are working on the wrong puzzle.
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 28th September 2016, 08:21 PM   #312
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,007
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
The fact remains there is far more evidence pointing away from an intruder, despite what segnosaur believes. Segnosaur contends this guy was an intruder who was an unsophisticated 20-ish male who watched action movies. This unsub was stupid when it is necessary to explain unlikely acts (such as leaving the notepad and pen behind) and "tidy" for replacing the items where he found them, yet "confident" because he did not leave a trace of himself, even though he rifled through documents to locate paystubs the Ramseys left out, (but not bank statements, because you see the Ramseys only left out some private information.)

He had hours to wander around the house, hours to wait after cracking her in the skull, at least 1/2 hour to write the ransom note, not including the practice notes. But he did not have enough time to retrieve the ransom note he no longer needed, even though it was a huge clue about him.

He knew John Ramsey well because "allusions are made to JR's background" but not well enough to know he had millions. He had a vendetta against JR, but he'd rather torture and murder the girl because he had "curiosity/compulsion about the female body."

He was dumb enough to screw up what was originally a kidnapping, even though his original plan was to take her out of the house. He had a desire to torture JBR but not kill her. His stupidity kept him from realizing she would not wake up, but he garroted her anyway, because... why not? At the same time, he was clever enough not to get caught after he screwed up the kidnapping and left a dead body in the house and a ransom note the likes of which had never been seen in a kidnapping in history.

When you have to go to these lengths to force the puzzle pieces to fit, I say you are working on the wrong puzzle.

Or the wrong assumptions.


Here's the overview of the options from websleuths in all its glory:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/.../December%2026

They even quote a certain Henrietta McPhee on one page.

John Douglas doesn't think it was a kidnapping.
Elagabalus 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 28th September 2016, 09:26 PM   #313
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Nobody questioned whether they watched movies. The issue was whether they (in particular Patsy Ramsey since her handwriting was the only one that could not have been ruled out as the author, even know it was far from a good match) watched the type of action movies (such as Speed, Ransom, and Dirty Harry) that were referenced in the note.

Movies like Speed and Dirty Harry appeal more to younger males. A far smaller portion middle age women like those types of movies.

So while they may have watched movies on their big movie screen, they were probably watching movies like Officer and a Gentleman (a movie that they had a poster for in the house, and one that would appeal more to a more mature demographic) than Speed and Dirty Harry.
If they had a screen in their bedroom why would they only be watching movies that Patsy liked? Surely John would get to choose as well, they might well watch a fair number of action movies, whether Patsy liked them or not.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Dirty Harry is a movie that appeals more to Young men than middle age women.
I would put it to you that a large proportion of men from 15-60 would enjoy both Speed and Dirty Harry, and probably more women than you give credit for. Clint Eastwood has the reputation as having a lot of sex appeal for women.

Anyway, Dirty Harry is a classic of the genre. If you're a movie buff in general you are likely to be familiar with all kinds of films across all kinds of genres. I would even put it to you that a movie involving kidnapping would be, for someone not used to writing ransom notes (i.e. 99.99% of the population), their only point of reference for the kidnapping process. So if you had to make a ransom note up on the spot, your only source of information (or the first thing that comes into your head) may be what you can recall from a movie.
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 29th September 2016, 02:12 AM   #314
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,985
Quote:
The fact remains there is far more evidence pointing away from an intruder, despite what segnosaur believes.
I disagree, because I think the timeline/narrative is a bit backwards.

I suspect the intruder was someone close enough to the family that his fingerprints would not be suspicious, anywhere. I suspect he probably had a key, and used it.

I think he cooked up the idea to kidnap the little girl, let himself into the house, found the paper and wrote the note.
Then he went looking for her; but I think the plan went awry when she found HIM. He was already jumpy and on edge, so he freaked and clocked her with something -possibly the flashlight, especially if he was using it to navigate the household.
He realized he'd lost his note, the little girl was unconscious, he had no clue what to do next and really muddied the water just trying to figure out how to get back to the original plan.
I think he molested her, then decided that things were just FUBAR, so he killed her, tossed a blanket over her and ran for the hills.

Terrible thing is: the muddy waters have made it impossible at this point to really determine who or exactly how it was done at this stage. No matter who we offer up, there will always be room for reasonable doubt.

In the meantime the killer is likely still out there, and quite possibly has made other victims -or will before it's all over.
__________________
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 29th September 2016, 02:34 AM   #315
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I suspect the intruder was someone close enough to the family that his fingerprints would not be suspicious, anywhere. I suspect he probably had a key, and used it.
That would be a pretty short suspect list, wouldn't it? Who was known to have a key to their house, and if so, how did they get it?
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 29th September 2016, 02:48 AM   #316
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Says who?

No law enforcement entity has ever seen a ransom note like the one in this case. "Most" ransom notes are short and to the point, not rambling and full of filler. Since the purpose of a ransom note is to obtain money, by nature it needs to be easy to understand, otherwise its sole purpose is defeated.
There is an interesting opinion about this on the internet:

"In "The Cases that Haunt Us" by John Douglas, he writes about the spelling errors in the ransom note in the Lindberg kidnapping case. Example: We have warned you note to make anyding public also notify the police now you have to take consequences--
There, most of the errors he attributes to the writer not being a native english speaker. Getting the difficult words correct, he attributes to the writer using a dictionary for them.
We've speculated in the past that Z was a true crime buff. Perhaps he had read the Lindberg notes and took a similar approach. Deliberately misspelling easy words, but getting the difficult ones correct."
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 29th September 2016, 02:58 AM   #317
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
That would be a pretty short suspect list, wouldn't it? Who was known to have a key to their house, and if so, how did they get it?
This matter of a key has been explained by Patsy in the past. Fleet and Priscilla White used a key to get into the Ramsey house:

Fleet and Priscilla White were given a key to the Boulder Ramsey house. This is part of a transcript from the Patsy Ramsey interview with the Boulder police in 1997:

"PRCoughing, response unknown) Excuse me. Uh, my cleaning lady had a key, Linda. The Barnhills I believe actually gave two keys, because I had given her one and she couldnt find it. I think I gave them another one? Uh, Barbara Fernie had one at one time, Im not sure. I think I might have gotten that back from her. Priscilla had one I believe. Uh ...

ST: Does Priscilla still have that key?

PR: I dont know. I cant remember. It seems like I gave it to her before we went to the lake, because she was going to have a lot of house guest and I thought if she wanted to, you know, use the house for any reason she could have the key.

ST: What is the status of the key or keys that you gave the Barnhills?

PR: The status right now?

ST: Yeah. Have you gotten those back?

PR: I havent, no, I dont know where they are. I dont know what the status is of those?

ST: Would it be inaccurate if the Barnhills were saying that they returned the key to you? Could that be possible?

PR: Um, it could be possible I guess. I dont remember, and I think, I think I gave it to them and the intent was if I got, anybody got locked out of the house they would have a key. So I dont, I mean, it wasnt like, you know, keep this for two days and then give it back to me or something, you know."
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 29th September 2016, 04:38 AM   #318
Azrael 5
Philosopher
 
Azrael 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,880
Isn't the ransom note the most dumbest thing?
What killer/s hang around to write a three page essay asking for ransom and also why bother not kidnapping the child dead or not?
Whoever killed her that to me is the strange part.
__________________
"I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown
Azrael 5 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 29th September 2016, 05:41 AM   #319
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,856
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Ah yes, a pointless nitpick by someone who wants to deflect from the main point of a post.

Ok, most kidnappers are probably caught. So what? The main point was that the goal of the unsub in this case was causing harm... not financial gain.
It establishes that kidnapping as a rule is the purview of the amateur or the deviant, not the garden variety bad actor.

Kidnapping comes up in certain other types of situations too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-cl...lling-the-boy/

My .02 remains the same as it was in my first post - plausible explanation provided in the CBS documentary.

The crime was a horrible confluence of bad decision making by everyone involved, and there's no popular fiction master villain anywhere in the mix.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 29th September 2016, 05:45 AM   #320
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,985
Quote:
Who was known to have a key to their house, and if so, how did they get it?
Apparently there were a bunch of keys floating around. I don't know if they knew this particular individual had one, and maybe he didn't. I just think it's possible he either found a spare key, or was given one at some point.

I think he was someone who was in the house often enough (whether anyone knew he was there or not) that he was comfortable wandering around touching things, and that he was close enough to the family that his prints were strewn in enough places they didn't stand out.

Someone like an extended family member, an occasional babysitter, a temporary or seasonal worker -someone who was known to the family, and had at least occasional legitimate access.
__________________
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
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 05:15 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.