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 21st September 2016, 01:04 PM   #41
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Jonbenet was also strangled with a garrot, and if I remember correctly, the lack of blood from the headwound suggests the garrot may have been applied first. For the brother to have done it, he would have had to have strangled her first, then hit her. Something that most people would assume would be beyond the capacity of a young preteen boy. The CBS program believes the head wound was caused by the flashlight without bleeding and that the garrote was applied afterwards as part of the staging.


First of all, the head is rather rich in blood vessels. Head wounds tend to bleed.

Secondly, the autopsy report showed hemoraging associated with the strangulation, implying that JonBonet was alive when the garrot was used. (At least that's my understanding.)

Now, in theory its possible that she was struck, then strangled while she was still alive but dying from the head wound. But if it were her parents, why would they not actually call a doctor in hopes of saving their daughter, rather than finishing her off?

Quote:
If they did, then they are somehow the most cold-blooded accomplices ever, being able to hold up after all the questioning. This happens frequently.
I don't doubt that there are cold blooded people around. But there's never been any evidence that the Ramseys have had problems before. If they were really so cold-blooded, why isn't there evidence of this from before the killing?
Quote:
The grand jury vote seems rather... strange. "You killed her but we can't prove it. So we recommend other charges". The grand jury wanted to bring conspiracy charges against the parents because they believed the son killed Jonbenet.
I am unaware of any explanation about any theories the grand jury had about who actually killed JonBenet (whether it was the son or someone else.) If you have any evidence that the grand jury blamed the son, then lets see it.

(By the way, it should be noted that a grand jury is not a 'trial'. No real attempt is made to provide a "defense".)
Quote:
Actually there was plenty of evidence of an intruder.
- a boot impression not matching anyone in the house...is not evidence of an intruder in the house only of someone outside the house.


Actually yes it is evidence. Perhaps not 100% conclusive evidence. But if an intruder were involved, finding footprints would not be surprising.
Quote:
- not finding the roll of tape used in the crime, which suggests the tape was taken by the intruder. (It wouldn't have been necessary to take the tape away if the crime was "staged".)
I notice you ignored this particular point. Does that mean you accept that the absence of the roll of tape used on JonBonet is evidence of an intruder?

Quote:
- Marks on the body suggesting the use of a taser, something the Ramseys did not have. CBS program states she was not tased and that the marks on her were from a model train track, whose "points" match exactly.
So, the son was so angry, he first hit her with parts of his train track (without her running to her parents and saying "waah! I was hit!"), THEN he got out the flashlight and hit her with it.
Quote:
No stun gun...flashlight was found on the kitchen table.


Nobody knows exactly where the flashlight came from. The Ramseys aren't saying its theirs. It may have been from the intruder, or it may have been left there by one of the keystone cops. If its a coverup as you suggest, why would the Ramseys leave the weapon in plain sight?
Quote:
The is very little evidence to even suggest an intruder and much evidence to suggest John and Patsy were responsible, at least for the cover up.
Actually there's plenty of evidence of an intruder... you just seem to want to discount or ignore it.

In order to assume "coverup", you have to assume that this relatively normal family is really a bunch of psychopaths (all of them), who go from innocuous to criminal masterminds at the drop of a hat.

Quote:
It should also be noted that the cobwebs don't automatically rule out the use of the window as an entry/exit point. Depending on the size of the intruder and/or the way they were oriented when they came in, they may have simply avoided touching the corner of the window. The CBS program demonstrates it would have been virtually impossible for an adult to enter through the window without disturbing the cobwebs.


How do you define "virtually impossible"? How many tests did they do? Did they use smaller people who actually attempted to avoid the webs? Saying its "virtually impossible" to get in without disturbing the webs based on a couple of haphazard tests seems to be setting the bar a little low.

And again, what about the possibility of the intruder using one of many keys that were distributed to workmen? Or through an unlocked door (of which we know there was at least one).

Oh, and from: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93419&page=1

Among the other photographs were pictures taken in the basement showing what could be a shoe scuff mark on a wall under a basement window, where an intruder could have entered. There was also one showing a suitcase propped up under the window, which could have been used to make it easier for the intruder to leave and indications that cobwebs around the window had been swept away.



(I don't have photos showing "cobwebs swept away", but ABC is a pretty reputable network.)
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 01:14 PM   #42
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by snoop_doxie View Post
I have not seen or heard how the train track "points" could have left those marks.

Was she hit with the train tracks?




I thought the boot impression was on the basement floor inside the house?

If not, that boot print could have been left by any one working on the outside of the house.
The theory is that the two connecting points on a section of model train track that was present in the home may have been the source of the marks on her back - the idea was floated that someone may have poked her body with the object as a method to see if she would "wake up" after she had been struck in the head.
__________________
"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 21st September 2016, 01:24 PM   #43
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by snoop_doxie View Post
Quote:
- a boot impression not matching anyone in the house...is not evidence of an intruder in the house only of someone outside the house.
I thought the boot impression was on the basement floor inside the house?

If not, that boot print could have been left by any one working on the outside of the house.
The boot print was indeed in the basement.

Now, it does not necessarily prove that there was an intruder. (The print could have been left by one of the people that was doing work around the house, or one of the keystone cops investigating the case.) At best its circumstantial. But it does add a little weight to the intruder 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 21st September 2016, 01:26 PM   #44
Jungle Jim
Muse
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by snoop_doxie View Post
I have not seen or heard how the train track "points" could have left those marks.

Was she hit with the train tracks?
A stabbing motion with the a section of model train track. The two points at the end of a track section piercing the skin, causing what some people took to be the result of a taser.
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 21st September 2016, 01:34 PM   #45
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
The theory is that the two connecting points on a section of model train track that was present in the home may have been the source of the marks on her back - the idea was floated that someone may have poked her body with the object as a method to see if she would "wake up" after she had been struck in the head.
Assuming it was the son trying to wake her up with part of his train set, you have 2 problems:

- He would either have to have brought both the flashlight (or whatever weapon) and the train part with him when he killed JonBenet, or he would have to have hit her, then went to get the train part to come back and poke her. Seems like a rather strange set of events. Why not just poke her with the flashlight?

- The marks were on her face and back. That seems rather impractical if he were trying to wake her up. Why not marks in the same area of her body?
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 01:41 PM   #46
Jungle Jim
Muse
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 962
Segnosaur - I have pointed out a number of explanations provided by the CBS program. They seem reasonable. If you wish to have a more complete understanding of their point of view, I suggest you watch the show. They make a compelling case for the crime not being committed by an intruder.
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 21st September 2016, 01:45 PM   #47
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,724
Burke was not a normal and rational kid. He pooped in her bed and smeared feces on various things in her room. A real mental case with unexpected behavior.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 21st September 2016, 01:49 PM   #48
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Segnosaur - I have pointed out a number of explanations provided by the CBS program. They seem reasonable. If you wish to have a more complete understanding of their point of view, I suggest you watch the show. They make a compelling case for the crime not being committed by an intruder.
I do not have access to the documentary at this time. However, I have read up on the case (as well as watched a couple of documentaries), so I think I have a good idea of the details.

Between the details that have been given here, and the criticism of the CBS program provided in earlier references, it does sound like it would be a waste of time, based on the quality of arguments.

It should also be noted that this is a discussion forum. Usually its frowned upon when people use the excuse "Go watch this video". (Its expected for people to state things in their own words rather than relying on video sources.)
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 01:58 PM   #49
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Assuming it was the son trying to wake her up with part of his train set, you have 2 problems:

- He would either have to have brought both the flashlight (or whatever weapon) and the train part with him when he killed JonBenet, or he would have to have hit her, then went to get the train part to come back and poke her. Seems like a rather strange set of events. Why not just poke her with the flashlight?

- The marks were on her face and back. That seems rather impractical if he were trying to wake her up. Why not marks in the same area of her body?
The train tracks were loose in the basement area along with other toy train gear.

I do not believe the kid decided "now I'll kill my sister" and went about committing the act.

This was a nine year old kid. He gets wound up, hits the sister, her reaction scares him, she won't move, maybe he tries to poke her with the track and she doesn't "wake up" he tries again.

Again, this is a kid, not an adult - he thinks like a kid and acts like a kid. I would not expect him to act as an adult would.

One thing is certain, the marks in question were not caused by a taser.
__________________
"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 21st September 2016, 02:07 PM   #50
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,352
I don't know what to make of this case. A question for those who think the brother did it and the parents covered it up - why the big, long rambling ransom note and the garotte? Why not just take her out and hide her body somewhere and then smash a window and report her missing in the morning?
Strawberry 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 21st September 2016, 02:13 PM   #51
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Quote:
- He would either have to have brought both the flashlight (or whatever weapon) and the train part with him when he killed JonBenet, or he would have to have hit her, then went to get the train part to come back and poke her. Seems like a rather strange set of events. Why not just poke her with the flashlight?

- The marks were on her face and back. That seems rather impractical if he were trying to wake her up. Why not marks in the same area of her body?
The train tracks were loose in the basement area along with other toy train gear.
But probably not with the flashlight (which may not have even belonged to the Ramseys.) Normally things like flashlights are kept in kitchen drawers, or workshops. Usually not in a children's toy room. So if he were so wound up, why would he go out of his way to go get a flashlight to hit her with? And why switch from the flashlight to the train set to try to "wake her up"?
Quote:
Again, this is a kid, not an adult - he thinks like a kid and acts like a kid. I would not expect him to act as an adult would.
Yes, he was a kid. Yet remarkably managed to keep from cracking under police interrogation.
Quote:
One thing is certain, the marks in question were not caused by a taser.
The fact that you keep saying that does not make it true.

An intruder bringing a stun gun to control a kid (even one as young as JonBenet) makes logical sense... kids can squirm, try to get away, etc. And if nothing else, it can be used as a torture device. A 9 year old boy, going out of his way to get a flashlight to hit his sister with, then going to get the train track to poke her with (on 2 totally separate parts of the body I might add) makes less 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 21st September 2016, 02:22 PM   #52
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
I don't know what to make of this case. A question for those who think the brother did it and the parents covered it up - why the big, long rambling ransom note and the garotte? Why not just take her out and hide her body somewhere and then smash a window and report her missing in the morning?
Well, if the parents WERE involved, I can see them not taking her body out and hiding it since they might be detected during the body dump.

But yea, if it were some sort of conspiracy they certainly did a lot of things the hard way. They would simultaneously have to be criminal geniuses and incredibly stupid at the same time. Almost like a 9/11 conspiracy 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 21st September 2016, 02:23 PM   #53
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Well, if the parents WERE involved, I can see them not taking her body out and hiding it since they might be detected during the body dump.

But yea, if it were some sort of conspiracy they certainly did a lot of things the hard way. They would simultaneously have to be criminal geniuses and incredibly stupid at the same time. Almost like a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Why not just leave her body in the basement and report her missing in the morning then?
Strawberry 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 21st September 2016, 02:25 PM   #54
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,907
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
I don't know what to make of this case. A question for those who think the brother did it and the parents covered it up - why the big, long rambling ransom note and the garotte? Why not just take her out and hide her body somewhere and then smash a window and report her missing in the morning?
That's why the John did it but Mom didn't know theory makes a little more sense in regards to the ransom note - it was necessary to give John an excuse to leave the house and buy time to not immediately inform the police of the disappearance.

If they're both involved then the ransom note becomes more like a miscalculation. You could argue that Patsy didn't want to dump the girls body in some unmarked grave, so compromised between keeping the body and trying to throw off the investigators.

That they never thought writing a 20 minute ransom note on their own pen and paper would be suspicious is to me in itself suspicious. The whole case is strange.
bagels 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 21st September 2016, 02:31 PM   #55
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Why not just leave her body in the basement and report her missing in the morning then?
Exactly.

People point out how "evil" the family is (smart enough to fool police in interviews, etc.) but then if they were guilty, they could have done a much better job at staging the break in.... leave a door open, have an explanation for the pineapple, etc.
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 02:33 PM   #56
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
That's why the John did it but Mom didn't know theory makes a little more sense in regards to the ransom note - it was necessary to give John an excuse to leave the house and buy time to not immediately inform the police of the disappearance.

If they're both involved then the ransom note becomes more like a miscalculation. You could argue that Patsy didn't want to dump the girls body in some unmarked grave, so compromised between keeping the body and trying to throw off the investigators.

That they never thought writing a 20 minute ransom note on their own pen and paper would be suspicious is to me in itself suspicious. The whole case is strange.
The first option would make most sense, but the handwriting doesn't match John.

This case doesn't make any sense whether its the family or an intruder.
Strawberry 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 21st September 2016, 02:35 PM   #57
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Exactly.

People point out how "evil" the family is (smart enough to fool police in interviews, etc.) but then if they were guilty, they could have done a much better job at staging the break in.... leave a door open, have an explanation for the pineapple, etc.
Exactly. I can see how anyone might over look the pineapple, but you don't need to be a criminal genius to work out that if someone is killed in the house and there's no visible sign of a break in, the family will be suspected.
Strawberry 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 21st September 2016, 02:36 PM   #58
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
That's why the John did it but Mom didn't know theory makes a little more sense in regards to the ransom note - it was necessary to give John an excuse to leave the house and buy time to not immediately inform the police of the disappearance.
Except of course handwriting analysis has completely cleared John as the author of the note.

Quote:
That they never thought writing a 20 minute ransom note on their own pen and paper would be suspicious is to me in itself suspicious. The whole case is strange.
Well what would truly be strange is that if this was an inside job, they would be smart enough to get rid of so much evidence (eliminating the roll of tape used on JonBonet, cleaning up any and all blood trace evidence), yet aren't smart enough to get rid of the writing pad/pen used on the note.
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 02:42 PM   #59
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
This case doesn't make any sense whether its the family or an intruder.
Well I'd have to say that regardless of what theory, there will be elements that will always be in question. (Much like 9/11.)

With the intruder theory, the "strange" elements are more or less minor points... the pineapple, the entrance that was used (of which there were multiple possibilities), why the particular ransom amount. In many cases, we can suggest solutions, but we'll never be sure which is the correct one.

With the inside job theories (whether one of the parents killed her, or they're covering for their son), not only do you have the tiny little details that are strange, you also have significant issues with motive and abilities.
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 02:44 PM   #60
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,907
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post


Well what would truly be strange is that if this was an inside job, they would be smart enough to get rid of so much evidence (eliminating the roll of tape used on JonBonet, cleaning up any and all blood trace evidence), yet aren't smart enough to get rid of the writing pad/pen used on the note.
That's what I meant, I'm suspicious that they didn't write it. But like everything else with this case, I lack enough information to feel comfortable forming a conclusion.
bagels 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 21st September 2016, 02:49 PM   #61
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
But probably not with the flashlight (which may not have even belonged to the Ramseys.) Normally things like flashlights are kept in kitchen drawers, or workshops. Usually not in a children's toy room. So if he were so wound up, why would he go out of his way to go get a flashlight to hit her with? And why switch from the flashlight to the train set to try to "wake her up"?

Yes, he was a kid. Yet remarkably managed to keep from cracking under police interrogation.

The fact that you keep saying that does not make it true.

An intruder bringing a stun gun to control a kid (even one as young as JonBenet) makes logical sense... kids can squirm, try to get away, etc. And if nothing else, it can be used as a torture device. A 9 year old boy, going out of his way to get a flashlight to hit his sister with, then going to get the train track to poke her with (on 2 totally separate parts of the body I might add) makes less sense.
This photo shows the flashlight as found at the crime scene:

[IMG][/IMG]


A reasonable answer to the question of "why not the flashlight" could be that once the flashlight had been used and the girl didn't get up after the blow the flashlight was discarded and the "poker" (for lack of a better term) thought a sharp object might bring the girl around. The kind of thing a kid might think up. Or it could also be that the wounds were made before the flashlight was employed.

To the best of my knowledge, the son wasn't "interrogated" as a suspect or a witness, as his parents insisted that he did not see the body or have any knowledge of the events. The CBS documentary did show segments of video showing the boy in conversations with adults that were in no way any type of "interrogation" but appeared to be in a therapeutic environment.

I'm a retired cop. I've been tased. I've tased I don't know how many offenders.The reaction of a tased individual is not silence and compliance. Watch the CBS program - they tase a 215 lb. man twice. Watch his reaction - it is not exaggerated in any way. If you're really interested you should test your theory, get a taser and tase yourself - I guarantee you'll do exactly what you claim the taser will prevent someone from doing.

The reason that certain facts in this case don't make sense is that stupid amateur nuttiness rarely does make sense, violent acts in particular. One of my friends was murdered in a road rage incident for giving a truck driver the finger while he was on his motorcycle - the driver of the truck simply drove right over him and he was dead at the scene. I could cite a whole laundry list of violent incidents that don't make any kind of sense.
__________________
"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 21st September 2016, 02:49 PM   #62
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,352
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Well I'd have to say that regardless of what theory, there will be elements that will always be in question. (Much like 9/11.)

With the intruder theory, the "strange" elements are more or less minor points... the pineapple, the entrance that was used (of which there were multiple possibilities), why the particular ransom amount. In many cases, we can suggest solutions, but we'll never be sure which is the correct one.

With the inside job theories (whether one of the parents killed her, or they're covering for their son), not only do you have the tiny little details that are strange, you also have significant issues with motive and abilities.
I dunno, I think that ransom note is bizarre either way, whether inside job or intruder.
Strawberry 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 21st September 2016, 02:50 PM   #63
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,095
fingernail DNA

"Findings. "The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 174; PSMF P 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under JonBenet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 173.)" (Carnes 2003:22)" link

Some of the links at this site are broken, and I don't know how carefully and objectively the data were assembled by whoever the host is. However taking the information as a given, I would say that it points to the likely involvement of an outside male. Foreign DNA under fingernails is found roughly 5-20% of the time in various studies. One study put the number higher, but most of that was intimate partner DNA (see "Misleading DNA Evidence, pp. 67-80 and pp. 43-46). If the nails still exist, someone should try Y-chromosomal DNA profiling. That might work even in the presence of JonBenet's DNA, although degradation and depletion of the sample is an issue.
__________________
“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 online now   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 21st September 2016, 02:55 PM   #64
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Quote:
Well what would truly be strange is that if this was an inside job, they would be smart enough to get rid of so much evidence (eliminating the roll of tape used on JonBonet, cleaning up any and all blood trace evidence), yet aren't smart enough to get rid of the writing pad/pen used on the note
That's what I meant, I'm suspicious that they didn't write it. But like everything else with this case, I lack enough information to feel comfortable forming a conclusion.
Of course you should feel suspicious that they didn't write the not. Because the Ramseys did NOT write it. It was written by an intruder, who had a significant length of time in the empty house while waiting for the Ramseys to return home. Its a theory that makes logical sense and fits with the evidence.

If the Ramseys did write the note, it would seem illogical that they would be smart enough to cover their tracks in so many ways, but were dumb enough to somehow make the note point back to themselves by not getting rid of the note pad and making a ransom amount equal to John's bonus. Its not logical.

Granted, we don't have perfect information. But we can look at what's possible, and apply Occam's razor.
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 03:21 PM   #65
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
This photo shows the flashlight as found at the crime scene:
And, as I have pointed out before, at this point we do not know if the flashlight belonged to the Ramseys (they said it wasn't theirs), was brought in by the intruder, or was left by one of the keystone cops.
Quote:
A reasonable answer to the question of "why not the flashlight" could be that once the flashlight had been used and the girl didn't get up after the blow the flashlight was discarded and the "poker" (for lack of a better term) thought a sharp object might bring the girl around. The kind of thing a kid might think up. Or it could also be that the wounds were made before the flashlight was employed.
But you still have the issue of the different items being located in different rooms... was she killed in the kitchen with the flashlight (after which Burke would have to go downstairs to get the train parts)? Killed downstairs (in which case he'd have to bring the flashlight with him)?

Quote:
To the best of my knowledge, the son wasn't "interrogated" as a suspect or a witness
From: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/b...n-tapes-110989 (not a great source, but I'm in a hurry)
“After the murder, Burke was interrogated three times. Once when he was 9, twice when he was 12 — those tapes disappeared,” Dr. Phil exclusively tells In Touch.

Not sure how intensive the interrogations were, but hey, he was 9 years old. Don't think kids are that smart at that age.

Quote:
I'm a retired cop. I've been tased. I've tased I don't know how many offenders.The reaction of a tased individual is not silence and compliance. Watch the CBS program - they tase a 215 lb. man twice. Watch his reaction - it is not exaggerated in any way.
I cannot speak for your experiences, nor for the CBS program. But, I have seen videos of people being tased, and they do end up collapsing. (Whether that is a common reaction or not I do not know.)

But lets say tasing doen't cause compliance.... JonBenet was taken to the basement, which was very isolated from the rest of the house. The taser could have been used there, as a form of torture (after having tape appllied to her mouth), where any sounds would not be heard in the upstairs parts of the house.
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 04:44 PM   #66
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And, as I have pointed out before, at this point we do not know if the flashlight belonged to the Ramseys (they said it wasn't theirs),was brought in by the intruder, or was left by one of the keystone cops.

But you still have the issue of the different items being located in different rooms... was she killed in the kitchen with the flashlight (after which Burke would have to go downstairs to get the train parts)? Killed downstairs (in which case he'd have to bring the flashlight with him)?


From: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/b...n-tapes-110989 (not a great source, but I'm in a hurry)
“After the murder, Burke was interrogated three times. Once when he was 9, twice when he was 12 — those tapes disappeared,” Dr. Phil exclusively tells In Touch.

Not sure how intensive the interrogations were, but hey, he was 9 years old. Don't think kids are that smart at that age.


I cannot speak for your experiences, nor for the CBS program. But, I have seen videos of people being tased, and they do end up collapsing. (Whether that is a common reaction or not I do not know.)

But lets say tasing doen't cause compliance.... JonBenet was taken to the basement, which was very isolated from the rest of the house. The taser could have been used there, as a form of torture (after having tape appllied to her mouth), where any sounds would not be heard in the upstairs parts of the house.
The flashlight was in their home, it had no fingerprints on the item when tested. If it had been brought in by "the keystone cops" it would #1 have had all kinds of evidence on it because we generally don't take the step of sterilizing our duty gear and #2 very likely have a badge number engraved on it inside the tailcap or on the tube because we like to keep track of our duty gear. The fact that the parents denied owning the item isn't exactly exculpatory.

You find the issue of going room to room problematic. I don't as the toy train materials were in the room adjacent to where the body was initially discovered.

Floorplan of the Ramsey's basement - the hobby room is where the toy train materials were placed. The location of where her body was discovered is marked, as well as other facts of note:



If the videos shown in the CBS presentation are any indication, the boy wasn't questioned or interrogated in the way you're inferring. I've never had to deal with the issue of a kid of his age involved in a murder, but you don't get out the heatlamp and phone book on a kid. His parents continually insisted the boy knew nothing, he's absolutely a minor and it would have been a huge issue if the PD insisted on a real interview - the parents could insist that they'd be present, along with a lawyer representing them and most likely another attorney representing the kid. That didn't happen.

I'd drop Dr. Phil as a source on anything. The guy's a bottom feeder that's trying to claim the moral high ground simultaneously. At least Jerry Springer embraces his inner carny.

The marks on her body attributed to the use of a taser in no way conform to the type of injury you actually experience when you tase someone or you are tased. Whoever came up with that idea initially had no idea what they were talking about.

There is nothing that I've seen so far as I started paying attention to this case that adds up as anything more than a very sad set of circumstances surrounding a horrible moment - and unfortunately I've seen and/or have direct knowledge of enough ugly stupid decisions culminating in death that somebody tries to mitigate by lying, destroying or disposing of evidence that the actions possibly taken by the parents don't surprise me in the least, and in fact make much more sense than the various terrorist/sex offender/satanist boggeyman jive that this case seems to attract.
__________________
"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 21st September 2016, 04:54 PM   #67
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
I don't know what to make of this case. A question for those who think the brother did it and the parents covered it up - why the big, long rambling ransom note and the garotte? Why not just take her out and hide her body somewhere and then smash a window and report her missing in the morning?
That ransom note was all Patsy, with help from John. Once you cross the line, whatever that is, you've got to be all in.

Burke had several mental issues he probably wouldn't have been getting help for. Younger sister gets ALL the attention. John, Pasty, Jon Benet, and oh yeah, here's Burke. I don't think he meant to really hurt her but we'll never know. At that point, they're deeply invested in their remaining child. Shelter him from anyone by sending him away almost immediately with Fleet White. Keep him from prying eyes and mainly, the press. Constantly reassure him he didn't kill his sister. Eventually, he'll believe it.

There was no intruder. Too much time spent in the house means more DNA left behind, or an errant fingerprint. Much of that house was like a maze and the room Jon Benet was found in was certainly off the beaten track. Why did John run directly to that room, and allegedly found her in the dark?

The biggest offenders in this case, after the killers, are the Boulder Police. They let this spin out control so fast they couldn't contain the fallout. Letting John and Fleet run off on their own with no escort? Allowing John to move the body? Letting Patsy fling herself on Jon Benet's body? And for the love of heaven, why wasn't this treated as a kidnapping? Why were all extra people, meaning everyone but John and Patsy, not removed from the house? The note said NO POLICE but a patrol car pulls up to the house?

My first internet forum was the Boulder Daily News. 1996 & 1997 were banner years and a lot of information made its way through the forum. Eventually that shut down and people migrated elsewhere. Every theory, every possible motive, intruder, family member, it was all there.
__________________
What a time to be alive! It's like the collapse of Rome but with WiFi

Basically, if the GOP doesn't want to be called the white supremacy party, they should stop acting like they are.
-Mumbles
KatieG 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 21st September 2016, 05:07 PM   #68
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,724
Originally Posted by Segnosaur
If its a coverup as you suggest, why would the Ramseys leave the weapon in plain sight?
Maybe Burke didn't tell them that he hit her with the flashlight. Maybe he wouldn't say anything about what he had done. Maybe the parents had no idea that he had hit her with the MagLite and no idea that he had poked her with a train track.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 21st September 2016, 06:20 PM   #69
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,558
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I do not have access to the documentary at this time. However, I have read up on the case (as well as watched a couple of documentaries), so I think I have a good idea of the details.

Between the details that have been given here, and the criticism of the CBS program provided in earlier references, it does sound like it would be a waste of time, based on the quality of arguments.

It should also be noted that this is a discussion forum. Usually its frowned upon when people use the excuse "Go watch this video". (Its expected for people to state things in their own words rather than relying on video sources.)
If you have internet access -- as you obviously do -- you can watch it on the CBS web site. If you are outside the U.S., you might be able to use a vpn to cloak your location.

Some of us are saying "watch the video" because the panelists have made a persuasive argument for their conclusion. They say there is no evidence of an intruder, that Burke had a long, weird history of abusing his sister -- including hitting her with a golf club -- and that the Ramseys never cooperated with the investigation, and in fact resisted the minimal cooperation that you would expect from parents of a murdered child. John was on the phone making arrangements to fly his family out of the state on his private plane while investigators were still in the house. And as with some other high-profile cases, some of what the public thinks is not supported by the known facts. Believing that she was killed by anyone other than a family member requires a string of "what-ifs" and "maybes" and "if thens" that is far less likely than the obvious conclusion supported by the evidence.

Last edited by Bob001; 21st September 2016 at 06:22 PM.
Bob001 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 21st September 2016, 06:28 PM   #70
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,558
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
....
Floorplan of the Ramsey's basement - the hobby room is where the toy train materials were placed. The location of where her body was discovered is marked, as well as other facts of note:

https://adriaen22.files.wordpress.co...t-basement.gif
....
The floor plan wasn't discussed on CBS as I recall, but another writer observed that the basement was a maze. No one who wasn't already familiar with the layout would have been able to hide her body where it was found. In fact, apparently the police themselves overlooked that room in their initial search of the house. More evidence for John or Patsy's involvement, less for a random stranger.
Bob001 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 21st September 2016, 06:45 PM   #71
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,558
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
....
I cannot speak for your experiences, nor for the CBS program. But, I have seen videos of people being tased, and they do end up collapsing. (Whether that is a common reaction or not I do not know.)
....
Videos show people dropping because their muscles contract and they are unable to stand up, not because they fall unconscious. And the source of the confusion may be terminology: A Taser is the brand name for the pistol-like gadget that fires electrified darts that stick to the subject. They are expensive and not widely used by civilians, and in 1996 -- soon after they were first marketed -- they would have been rare for anybody.

A stun gun is the hand-held gadget that sends a current through two attached electrodes. They vary enormously in power and quality, and when someone is touched by one his first reaction is always to pull away, probably screaming/yelling/cursing as loud as he can. The claim is that Jon-Benet was hit with a stun gun, and there is no evidence to support the claim.
https://www.taser.com/products/x2
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-...ods/7824770011
Bob001 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 21st September 2016, 07:01 PM   #72
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,809
Quote:
If you're really interested you should test your theory, get a taser and tase yourself - I guarantee you'll do exactly what you claim the taser will prevent someone from doing.
Would the prongs of a taser penetrate her skin if it wasn't turn on? That is, could someone have used a taser more like a stabbing (or poking) weapon?

If so, would it leave a mark that would resemble the ends of a piece of model train track?
__________________
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 21st September 2016, 07:24 PM   #73
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,095
not seeing the logic here

Why would a guilty John partially undo his own staging, by removing the tape over JonBenet's mouth? Why would a guilty John and Patsy hire John Douglas to profile the crime?
__________________
“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 online now   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 21st September 2016, 07:49 PM   #74
kwill
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Why would a guilty John partially undo his own staging, by removing the tape over JonBenet's mouth? Why would a guilty John and Patsy hire John Douglas to profile the crime?
The first answer might just be confusion. The second might be hubris combined with a desire to put it to rest.

I can find an accidental Burke-with-a-flashlight theory plausible. I can imagine that a boy who could leave feces in his sister's bed and on her box of Christmas candy would also be capable of assaulting her in various ways.

I can't credit any theory that involves horrified parents finding their little girl dead and deciding to make it appear that she was strangled and tied up, especially absent any reason to think they were superhumanly cold. So I don't know what the hell to think.
kwill 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 21st September 2016, 07:57 PM   #75
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,095
too young to be prosecuted

One problem with the Burke theory is why stage, when Burke could not have been prosecuted due to his age.
__________________
“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 online now   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 21st September 2016, 08:11 PM   #76
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,724
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
One problem with the Burke theory is why stage, when Burke could not have been prosecuted due to his age.
See post #18.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 21st September 2016, 09:44 PM   #77
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,252
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
That ransom note was all Patsy, with help from John. Once you cross the line, whatever that is, you've got to be all in.

Burke had several mental issues he probably wouldn't have been getting help for. Younger sister gets ALL the attention. John, Pasty, Jon Benet, and oh yeah, here's Burke. I don't think he meant to really hurt her but we'll never know. At that point, they're deeply invested in their remaining child. Shelter him from anyone by sending him away almost immediately with Fleet White. Keep him from prying eyes and mainly, the press. Constantly reassure him he didn't kill his sister. Eventually, he'll believe it.

There was no intruder. Too much time spent in the house means more DNA left behind, or an errant fingerprint. Much of that house was like a maze and the room Jon Benet was found in was certainly off the beaten track. Why did John run directly to that room, and allegedly found her in the dark?

The biggest offenders in this case, after the killers, are the Boulder Police. They let this spin out control so fast they couldn't contain the fallout. Letting John and Fleet run off on their own with no escort? Allowing John to move the body? Letting Patsy fling herself on Jon Benet's body? And for the love of heaven, why wasn't this treated as a kidnapping? Why were all extra people, meaning everyone but John and Patsy, not removed from the house? The note said NO POLICE but a patrol car pulls up to the house?

My first internet forum was the Boulder Daily News. 1996 & 1997 were banner years and a lot of information made its way through the forum. Eventually that shut down and people migrated elsewhere. Every theory, every possible motive, intruder, family member, it was all there.
I'm sorry but Websleuths is that way -->>

When I was living in Europe I watched John and Patsy being interviewed by the BBC. They were very forthright about everything. Here's a transcript from the American version:

http://www.jameson245.com/doc1of2.htm
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 21st September 2016, 10:13 PM   #78
kwill
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 722
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
One problem with the Burke theory is why stage, when Burke could not have been prosecuted due to his age.
Yeah, the ONLY reason I can imagine for staging is that they knew (maybe had just learned & were trying to deal with?) Burke was abusing her in some really heinous way. That might be enough to make them want to keep the police as far away as possible.

But I don't really believe that. Honestly, their behavior hardly makes sense to me under any theory. I mean, they have this crazy ransom note loaded with dark threats about not calling the police & they aren't fazed at all by it. Call the police, don't mention the threat, let the police park in the driveway ... it's barely more credible than what I just speculated about above.
kwill 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 21st September 2016, 11:08 PM   #79
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Some of us are saying "watch the video" because the panelists have made a persuasive argument for their conclusion. They say there is no evidence of an intruder, that Burke had a long, weird history of abusing his sister -- including hitting her with a golf club -- and that the Ramseys never cooperated with the investigation, and in fact resisted the minimal cooperation that you would expect from parents of a murdered child.
...so "watching the video" won't reveal anything new then.

There is no "minimal level of cooperation" that you expect from parents of murdered children. But if you think there are then please provide the cite.

Quote:
John was on the phone making arrangements to fly his family out of the state on his private plane while investigators were still in the house.
If this is true: we don't need to watch the video. Supply the transcripts of John on the phone and what he was saying.

Quote:
And as with some other high-profile cases, some of what the public thinks is not supported by the known facts. Believing that she was killed by anyone other than a family member requires a string of "what-ifs" and "maybes" and "if thens" that is far less likely than the obvious conclusion supported by the evidence.
As with some other high-profile cases, the public think things like parents offering "minimal cooperation that you would expect from parents of a murdered child" is something that points to guilt or innocence. It does neither.
banquetbear is online now   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 21st September 2016, 11:15 PM   #80
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,462
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Would the prongs of a taser penetrate her skin if it wasn't turn on? That is, could someone have used a taser more like a stabbing (or poking) weapon?

If so, would it leave a mark that would resemble the ends of a piece of model train track?
The suggested weapon was not a taser (an object that fires electrodes at a target), but a stun gun (a handheld device where you hold the electrodes against the skin.) So, there wouldn't be 'prongs' to penetrate the skin. Just an electrical discharge that would cause small burn marks.
__________________
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
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 04:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.