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 29th September 2016, 01:53 PM   #361
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,881
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
I have lamb skin gloves thin enough I can write with a pen outside in winter without problems. And yes seeing the thickness I am reasonably sure no fingerprint whatsoever would show through.

It is neither difficult nor out of the ordinary to write with some gloves.
For me, that just strengthens the idea it was an intruder -and increases the likelihood it was just a stranger, too.

I've been thinking it was someone they knew because it seemed the person would have to take off gloves for some of things they did, but that whatever fingerprints he left behind were not seen as unusual.

If he was able to wear gloves to break in, write the note, gather the blanket, assault and kill the girl, and finally get back out again I see no reason to believe he would've left any other trace of himself. Footprints would be about the only other thing likely, and that could be prevented by removing his shoes or even by covering them with plastic bags or something.
__________________
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, 01:54 PM   #362
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Re: Giving the "reason" in the ransom note...

It would have been easy to make some generic comment like "You know why we did this" or "This was your fault".
Which would have the problem of:

1) might still give hints to the police about who was involved (such as "Oh, yea, I remember I ran over somebody's dog last week. Maybe you should go talk to him")

and

2) It would destroy the "mystique" that the kidnapper was trying to install, that he was part of some organization
__________________
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 29th September 2016, 01:57 PM   #363
Cat Not Included
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 132
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? 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.
I'm not exactly a crime expert.

I can try to find the reference, but I have read an article discussing a girl who claimed an intruder had broken in, tied her up and raped her. The police didn't believe any intruder even existed, and even pressed charges for false reporting against her. They didn't believe her until years later a serial rapist was arrested who's MO matched what she described, and who had photos of her from when he had attacked her.

Did evidence of that person exist? Doesn't matter; the police didn't find it. Maybe they didn't even look. But they didn't even believe he existed.

However, I think your statement misses a few things.

First, there is some very solid evidence, and some possible evidence.

The killer left a long ransom note. That is most definitely evidence.
Apparently, there was a footprint, hairs, fibers from fabric and DNA residue.

Were any of them from the killer? We don't know. But they might have been, so it is entirely possible that the killer left a ransom note, footprint, hairs, fibers and DNA traces. That's a far cry from "no evidence".

I'm also not very knowledgeable about forensic science, but on reading a bit they make it pretty clear that to discover trace evidence - small hairs, skin pieces, saliva, etc, it is very important to have an uncontaminated crime scene. This was absolutely not the case here. There were around 8 hours of numerous people moving around before they even started treating it as a murder. That really messes up the potential for trace evidence. Was that hair from a killer, or did someone track it in? No way to know.

And I'm really not sure what the state of DNA evidence was like 20 years ago when this happened - I gather it has come a long way since then.

I ask again, and I'm genuinely wanting to know - what sort of evidence are you expecting an intruder to have left that the police would find and make use of? And how would that differ from what evidence you would expect if the killer were a family member?
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 29th September 2016, 02:00 PM   #364
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
If he was able to wear gloves to break in, write the note, gather the blanket, assault and kill the girl, and finally get back out again I see no reason to believe he would've left any other trace of himself. ...
But don't all kidnappers constantly gush blood and deposit semen on every surface? That's the impression I get from the Inside Jobbers. "Everything must be covered in trace evidence that must be easily identifiable if it were an intruder".
Quote:
Footprints would be about the only other thing likely, and that could be prevented by removing his shoes or even by covering them with plastic bags or something.
They actually did find a bootprint in the basement that was not matched to any boots in the house. Now, that doesn't definitively tie it to the crime. It could have been from a policeman, or from a workman who had been in the house days before. On the other hand, it could also be from boots the killer was wearing.
__________________
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 29th September 2016, 02:02 PM   #365
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,881
Quote:
(snip)....You gave an accounting of the vague police theory back in post 228, but it is in no way comprehensive. It doesn't explain things like: the marks on her body (attributed by some as burns from a stun gun). It doesn't take John's role into account (knowing or unknowing?) It doesn't explain what happened to the roll of duct tape. (I should also point out that it was found the tape came from a roll that was already used, i.e. torn on both ends. Yet to the best of my knowledge nothing 'taped' has ever been found in the house.) It doesn't give possible scenarios for the presence of the flash light.

(I could also mention it also doesn't explain how unidentified hairs could have gotten on the duct tape since they don't match anything from inside the house.).... (snip)
My theory is the tape came from the same painting supplies as the brush. Many (most?) artists who paint on paper tape it to a board first. That explains the fibers from Patsy's sweaters, and the animal hair may have been from her brushes, or if she painted outdoors a lot, the tape might have picked up all kinds of random stuff.
__________________
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

Last edited by DragonLady; 29th September 2016 at 02:05 PM.
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, 02:15 PM   #366
Cat Not Included
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
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.
This is not a nitpick. I think it is a very important concept, especially for a skeptics forum.

When trying to decide between two options, A and B, "I don't know the details on A" does not mean B is automatically true. It just means you don't know. Either B needs to be proven, or A needs to be disproven. "I don't know" doesn't prove anything.

Quote:
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?
None of those are required by a plausible narrative.

The father could have been sleeping or watching a movie. Or he could have been involved. We don't know - heck, I'm just randomly speculating. But given the intruder hypotheses, we have people in the house unaware of what was going on. So it must be plausible to have people in the house unaware of what was going on.

The marks on the body (you mean the "taser"/train track marks right?) might not even be connected.

We know she was hit, so of course it was plausible that she was hit. In neither the intruder or the family case do we know what she was hit with.

People getting murderously mad happens. It is well within the realm of plausibility. We don't have to know WHY this particular instance happened for this to be plausible, nor can we know why. We also don't know why an intruder would be murderously hostile to the family.

Quote:
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.
Absolutely. I said that as well; the entire incident is strange and bizarre, so of course either hypotheses is going to be bizarre.

There's a comment I recall from Snopes discussing conspiracy theories and airplane crashes; only an unusual set of circumstances is likely to bring down a passenger plane, so of course any passenger plane crash is going to be unusual.
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 29th September 2016, 02:31 PM   #367
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,725
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Which would have the problem of:

1) might still give hints to the police about who was involved (such as "Oh, yea, I remember I ran over somebody's dog last week. Maybe you should go talk to him")

and

2) It would destroy the "mystique" that the kidnapper was trying to install, that he was part of some organization
Or if all speculation is equal, it can be parsed as an attempt to point in 360 degrees away from the residents of the home.
__________________
"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, 02:35 PM   #368
Cat Not Included
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 132
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.
That keeps showing up... "how could the killer be sure of not leaving evidence?", "how could an the killer be sure of not running into anyone?"

Why does the intruder (if there was one) have to be completely, accurately confident of these things?

People do stupid things. People get stupid ideas into their head. People get overconfident. People don't think things through.

Maybe the killer thought wearing gloves was enough, and just happened to get lucky and be right.
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 29th September 2016, 02:52 PM   #369
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
It doesn't explain things like: the marks on her body (attributed by some as burns from a stun gun).
The stun gun theory has been discredited. The marks were too close together to have come from a stun gun.

Quote:
(I could also mention it also doesn't explain how unidentified hairs could have gotten on the duct tape since they don't match anything from inside the house.)
They don't match anything that the police inventoried from the house. Which was not everything that the Ramseys owned or ever owned. Reportedly, JBR had a pair of fur ear muffs that were not taken and there are question about whether the boots that PR wore to the White's party were taken.

[quote[And Burke, a 9 year old, is shipped off to school, and is subjected to multiple police interviews, yet at no point did he ever let it slip that he did something. 9 year olds generally aren't that smart.[/quote]

Burke was only interviewed once.
__________________
"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 29th September 2016, 03:09 PM   #370
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
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?
Uhhh... no. We know that the police were focusing on the Ramseys. That was obvious from media leaks, actions by the DA, etc.
Quote:
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?
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.
First of all, do you have any reference to show that DNA showed the hair to come from someone in the extended family? I have googled things and found no such information.

Secondly... I notice you overlooked the second piece of the evidence... that the tape contained animal hair not matched to anything in the house. Even without the human hair, the presence of that animal hair should be considered evidence that there was an intruder. (Unless of course you're suggesting that as part of the staging, Patsy went and found a beaver to rub on JonBenet's face after death.)

Quote:
It's beyond me why you think that no one over the age of 30 watches these movies.
I never said that. You are building strawmen.

What I have said is that it is less common for middle age people to watch action movies. That's what I've always said. Less common. Do you even understand what that means?

Quote:
What it boils down to is that you're making a completely unsubstantiated assumption simply because it provides "evidence" for your scenario.
I regularly read movie news, including box office results. They are often broken down by age and gender. While I don't have the results for movies like Dirty Harry and Speed, I have seen results for other action movies released more recently. Result: A higher portion of young men see the movie than middle age men or women.

Now, I am not saying that is proof of anything. But it certainly hints that, all things being equal, that the note was written by someone that was younger.
Quote:
You're making assumptions strictly based on your own personal experience.
I'm making assumptions based on box office data. Go to Box Office Mojo. Read some of their articles on box office receipts. Not every movie is broken down by age/sex, but many are. And action movies tend to attract a higher percentage of young males.
Quote:
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?
I think its pretty well accepted by both those favoring the invader theory, and those thinking it was an inside job. (In fact, some people have tried suggesting Patsy wrote the note because they had movie posters in the house, even though those posters were for a different genre of movie.)
Quote:
In "Dirty Harry", the ransom note says "she dies" rather than "she will die.".
Not sure how relevant that is. I doubt very much that the killer was sitting there watching videos to get the wording correct. If he were going from memory (which he probably was) then you would expect variations in wording.
Quote:
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?
Doesn't really take any talent or smarts not to leave traces.

Seriously, what are you expecting? I've known some pretty dumb people in my life. But even the dumbest of them had no problem walking from one room in a house to another without gushing blood on the walls or depositing semen on the floor.

Quote:
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.
And don't forget the tape, of which the roll was never found. And the rope, which again didn't match anything in the Ramsey household. Oh, and hair on the tape that wasn't matched to anything in the house.

Oh, and possibly some DNA.

And maybe (just maybe) a boot print.

Even without the bootprint or DNA, things like the tape roll and the unknown hairs should be enough physical evidence to cast doubt on the inside job theory.
Quote:
Quote:
- 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.
I cannot say anything about your case because I have no independent news stories or any way to verify the details. So continually referring to the case is kind of pointless.

Even if I knew your case was true and had all the details, it would only be relevant if the person "snapped" but then was able to cover up the crime (which is one of the problems with the insider theory... even if a parent snapped, they'd then have to become totally emotionless while doing the staging... that's the big problem; snapping/crazy response, then cold and calculating.)
Quote:
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.
I thought it was pretty well accepted that JonBenet was penetrated (via finger or paint brush).

Quote:
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?
That seems to be the common argument from the inside jobbers, isn't it? Patsy gets so stressed out over something JonBenet did that she kills here (accidentally or in anger). She panics and decides she has to stage it. You don't think that if someone has the mental stability to sit down and write a ransom note, that they wouldn't also have the ability to, you know, check for a heartbeat?

Quote:
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.
And 9/11 is the only case where buildings were brought down due to fire.

The fact that hasn't happened before doesn't necessarily mean that it is in any way impossible, or unlikely should the ideal conditions occur.

Quote:
But you toss out other scenarios because they require something "bizarre" (at least in your opinion).
I also toss them out for the same reason I toss out 9/11 conspiracy theories. Because they are generally incomplete, and when people start trying to come up with an actual complete narrative they quickly get completely nutty.

Perhaps if you could actually develop a complete narrative. But you won't. Because it would show that the Inside Job theory is bunk.

Quote:
Quote:
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.
Uhh.. no.

You were smart enough to know that recovering after being knocked out for an hour is unlikely. One point in your favor. However, assuming that your experiences apply to everyone removes one point. Arguing by building strawmen and distorting things I actually said... deduct another point. Inability to create a plausible narrative for an inside job and/or the ability to recognize the importance of one? Deduct yet another point. So, one point for smart... 3 points for not so smart.
Quote:
Quote:
The ransom note was written and left before the murder, and before the abduction.
Evidence for this?
Explained already.

Killing someone is stressful. So would discovering your child's dead body and deciding to write a ransom note as part of a cover up. People tend not to react well to such stress.

Quote:
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...
Nope. The intruder was definitely not "smart". Certainly didn't make a very good plan. He only manged to get away partly because of incompetence by the police (allowing contamination of the scene) and luck.

"Trace" has been found. You just either ignore it (animal hairs on the tape) or suggest that "Its all staging".
__________________
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 29th September 2016, 03:13 PM   #371
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,990
Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

Absent a sudden witness with physical evidence, a verifiable confession or the development of the (physics impossibility) trans-temporal movement of large objects including life forms), we will never know!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair 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, 03:20 PM   #372
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
The stun gun theory has been discredited. The marks were too close together to have come from a stun gun.
Evidence from some medical examiners differs from your assertion.

Quote:
...They don't match anything that the police inventoried from the house. Which was not everything that the Ramseys owned or ever owned. Reportedly, JBR had a pair of fur ear muffs that were not taken and there are question about whether the boots that PR wore to the White's party were taken.
Interesting tactic...

"There's no evidence". "Here's some of the evidence". "That's not evidence because even though I have no proof I still think its not evidence".

Quote:
Quote:
And Burke, a 9 year old, is shipped off to school, and is subjected to multiple police interviews, yet at no point did he ever let it slip that he did something. 9 year olds generally aren't that smart.
Burke was only interviewed once.
From: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...9/20crmsy.html
Their son, Burke, has been interviewed by investigators at least three times since his sister's death, including a six hour interview last June...

And even if he was only interviewed once (my reference shows that that wasn't the case, but lets say he was).... He's still a child standing up to a police officer, and somehow manages to not crack and let something slip?

__________________
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 29th September 2016, 04:41 PM   #373
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,034
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Actually no you didn't.

You gave an accounting of the vague police theory back in post 228, but it is in no way comprehensive. It doesn't explain things like: the marks on her body (attributed by some as burns from a stun gun). It doesn't take John's role into account (knowing or unknowing?) It doesn't explain what happened to the roll of duct tape. (I should also point out that it was found the tape came from a roll that was already used, i.e. torn on both ends. Yet to the best of my knowledge nothing 'taped' has ever been found in the house.) It doesn't give possible scenarios for the presence of the flash light.

(I could also mention it also doesn't explain how unidentified hairs could have gotten on the duct tape since they don't match anything from inside the house.)

So they were incredibly loving parents to Burke that they would stage a cover up, yet had no problem strangling their daughter (i.e. the one who wasn't a murderer.)

And Burke, a 9 year old, is shipped off to school, and is subjected to multiple police interviews, yet at no point did he ever let it slip that he did something. 9 year olds generally aren't that smart.

Which I think is reasonable... the Ramseys were not experts in kidnapping. Supposedly the police were. If I were in their shoes I'd probably do the same thing.

They were distressed and upset. They wanted friends around for consolation.
I included a link to a video where it is laid out point by point. Thanks for playing.

The marks did not match any known stun gun.

The tape could have come from a doll. There is a school of thought that it was from the back of a doll they had in the house.

So you know if you are "caught talking to a stray dog" it will result in the death of your child and you call nearly a dozen people over to the house? Not only that, but your child was just snatched by someone targeting you who is on the loose so what do you do? You send Burke over to a friend's house.

It's just too inconsistent with what 99% of people would do.
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 29th September 2016, 05:10 PM   #374
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,627
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
I included a link to a video where it is laid out point by point. Thanks for playing.

The marks did not match any known stun gun.

The tape could have come from a doll. There is a school of thought that it was from the back of a doll they had in the house.

So you know if you are "caught talking to a stray dog" it will result in the death of your child and you call nearly a dozen people over to the house? Not only that, but your child was just snatched by someone targeting you who is on the loose so what do you do? You send Burke over to a friend's house.

It's just too inconsistent with what 99% of people would do.
You know what 99% of people would do when one sibling accidentally kills another? Cover it up to make it look like a kidnapping which includes fashioning a garrotte and actually strangulating your own flesh and blood child with it.
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 29th September 2016, 07:12 PM   #375
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,034
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
You know what 99% of people would do when one sibling accidentally kills another? Cover it up to make it look like a kidnapping which includes fashioning a garrotte and actually strangulating your own flesh and blood child with it.
Yes, because clearly I meant what 99% of guilty people would do.
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 29th September 2016, 07:44 PM   #376
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
You know what 99% of people would do when one sibling accidentally kills another? Cover it up to make it look like a kidnapping which includes fashioning a garrotte and actually strangulating your own flesh and blood child with it.
That's because after the first child is dead, the second beomes twice as precious.
marplots 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, 08:19 PM   #377
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Which would have the problem of:

1) might still give hints to the police about who was involved (such as "Oh, yea, I remember I ran over somebody's dog last week. Maybe you should go talk to him")
If a ransom note can give clues as to the author's identity, maybe one shouldn't leave a ransom note unless one truly wants to get a ransom. Could you remind me what the reason was that the killer didn't take the no longer needed ransom note with him?
__________________
"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 29th September 2016, 08:45 PM   #378
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
My post was accidental, as it wasn't finished, and I just discovered it. Anyway...

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Evidence from some medical examiners differs from your assertion.
It's not particularly subjective. If I jab myself with a fork, the marks are going to be the same distance apart as the prongs on the fork are. The Ramsey's paid flacks can say whatever they want.


Quote:
Interesting tactic...

"There's no evidence". "Here's some of the evidence". "That's not evidence because even though I have no proof I still think its not evidence".
Whatever. PR owned both a fur coat and fur boots. Neither were turned over to the police. I realize for you that if you can think of any way to make a theory plausible then the theory must be true, but that's not the way things work.


Quote:
From: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...9/20crmsy.html
Their son, Burke, has been interviewed by investigators at least three times since his sister's death, including a six hour interview last June...

And even if he was only interviewed once (my reference shows that that wasn't the case, but lets say he was).... He's still a child standing up to a police officer, and somehow manages to not crack and let something slip?

I mis-read Mark Beckner's statement (missed the "more" in "one more time"). He says twice: a brief interview the day JBR's body was found and an interview with a social services worker. Beckner said that they had more questions but were not permitted to interview Burke again. I agree that this at least on the surface is a problem for the BDI theory.
__________________
"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 29th September 2016, 08:59 PM   #379
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Quote:
You know what 99% of people would do when one sibling accidentally kills another? Cover it up to make it look like a kidnapping which includes fashioning a garrotte and actually strangulating your own flesh and blood child with it.
That's because after the first child is dead, the second beomes twice as precious.
Yes, the precious son. Who killed your daughter. But you won't hold that against him because he's so precious. After all, love is easily transferred between siblings. Sort of like a family version of Highlander. There can only be one!

And your remaining son is so precious that, despite the fact that you're not career criminals, you'll be able to go the rest of your life without ever letting it slip that your son killed JonBenet.

By the way, how are you defining 'accidentally kills'? A sort of 'slip and fall'? In that case why would you need to protect him, since it wasn't intentional. Something more direct (like hitting her with a flashlight)? Well, ok, there you need to protect him, but you do so with the knowledge that it wasn't just some playing that got out of hand but an intent to hurt, and you're protecting that person.
__________________
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 30th September 2016, 12:41 AM   #380
yodaluver28
Muse
 
yodaluver28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 569
I think the pineapple is largely irrelevant. Given variance in digestion times, we just can't know when she ate it. Maybe her killer gave her some, maybe not. Ultimately, I think it's one of the least illuminating pieces of evidence.

It makes far more sense if an intruder broke into the house, probably through the basement window, bringing the flashlight, cord, duct tape, cloth, and rope with him in a paper bag. The Ramseys were gone at Christmas dinner so this person would have had as much as 4-5 hours to scour the house and revel in his sadistic fantasies. He finds the pad and paper and, while waiting, uses them to write a taunting ransom note. He finds this brilliant and hilarious, since he already knows he’s going to kill her and never call them to make a ransom drop. He even added the flourish of the exact amount of John’s bonus to the note. This amount could've been easily discovered by a stalker rummaging through the house for hours but it's something that will give the Ramseys and the police pause. This detail would mess with everyone’s head and even implicate the Ramseys to some, even though it’s utterly meaningless IMO. Nothing in the note necessarily indicates that this person actually knew the Ramseys and had a real life beef with them. It's all movie dialogue bluster that could've been written by anyone.

After writing the note, he goes upstairs and hides in John Andrew Ramsey's bedroom, next to JonBenet’s. There was a dirty rope and paper sack found there that the Ramsey’s didn’t recognize, that the police have no proof of them purchasing, and fibers from the bag were found in JonBenet's bed and the body bag she was taken to the morgue in. The killer probably hid under the bed as it was photographed by police and the dust ruffle was disturbed. If the killer had been stalking the family all day, he would know that John's oldest son wasn’t staying with them and wouldn’t return to discover him in his room. This way, he could hear when they came back and would know when everyone was asleep. Once they were, he could quietly step into JB’s room and place the duct tape over her mouth and stun gun her on the side of her face (the stun gun theory has never been confirmed or disproven but nothing else fits the marks on her body better, certainly not the railroad tracks from the basement). She was unconscious and could easily and quietly be taken to the basement. Once he’d gotten that far, the rest would be horrifyingly easy, especially with her parents three floors away.

The Burke did it theory doesn't account for the hemorrhaging and defensive scratches on her neck, which indicate that she was alive and had regained consciousness while the garrotte was placed on her. The head wound caused massive damage and inflammation and hemorrhaging indicate that she was alive when the head blow was struck but the very small amount of blood (about 1 1/2 tsp) indicates that the blow to the head was likely peri-mortem (just before death, while her circulation was compromised). In other words, the head blow finished her off, it wasn't the beginning.

The Burke did it theory also doesn't account for the fact that she was sexually assaulted that night. The garrotte was tightened, probably from behind, causing her to urinate on the anterior portion of her long johns (the front portion of her clothing was urine stained but not her bedding, so the Patsy-killed-her-in-a-bedwetting-rage theory is also BS). The hyperemia in the vestibule and distal vaginal wall, the red blood cells, and semi-fluid blood found on her vaginal fourchette, vestibule, and perineum means she was sexually assaulted while still alive and the absence of white blood cells responding to the trauma means she was assaulted shortly before death. There’s abrasion near and involving the hymen, which was torn with blood presence, epithelial erosion, and capillary congestion, indicating a recent tear via penetration. Probably by the paintbrush handle as small shards of wood and varnish from the brush were found in her vagina. What parent with no history of abusive behavior would do that to cover up an accident committed by a 9 year old who couldn't be held legally accountable? The pubic area had also been wiped with a cloth or towel that wasn’t identified or found in the house. The sexual assault IMO proves that not only didn't the Ramseys kill her but neither did some family friend or business enemy out to get John Ramsey. What was done to JonBenet is something only a sadistic pedophile could do.

There was blood on her panties mixed with male DNA from saliva and the DNA doesn’t match anyone in her family. That same DNA is a match to the DNA found in different locations on the pants she was wearing. The amount of DNA found was 12 times more than manufacturing contamination can explain based on studies of manufacturing contamination so, the investigators on this show handwaving it away was utter nonsense. Scant manufacturing contamination cannot explain common DNA being in so many places on two different garments from two different manufacturers, mixed with her blood and under her fingernails (the fingernail DNA was too degraded to make a good match but there were several common markers so, it's believed to be that of her killer's as well). The DNA found on her body was of sufficient quality to meet the CODIS Core Loci requirements for inclusion in the CODIS database, which has standards to prevent incidental DNA from being included. Then there's the pubic or axillary hair found on the blanket her body was wrapped in which matches no one in the family.

There's no real evidence that anyone in her family killed her, it's all innuendo and supposition. The Boulder police screwed up so badly that they will never catch her killer unless they get extraordinarily lucky with the CODIS database and get a DNA hit. That the same detectives that botched the crime scene, deliberately planted bogus stories in the press to slander the family from the beginning, and refused to consider alternate suspects before it was too late are still trying to nail them even after the DNA has proven to not be their's is reprehensible. These people were in over their head from day 1 and are using conspiracy theories to cover their incompetence.The "experts" CBS used were not impressive in the least, especially the alleged profilers.
__________________
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. We must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind-Jedi Master Yoda.

Last edited by yodaluver28; 30th September 2016 at 12:42 AM.
yodaluver28 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 30th September 2016, 03:07 AM   #381
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,258
Has anybody checked to see if Burke was able then, or is able now, to tie the knot that was used in the JonBenet murder? I know that internet posters have said in the past that it was a simple knot and Burke was in the boy scouts and John Ramsey was in the Navy. All I know is that I was in the boy scouts and I can't tie that knot. John and Patsy Ramsey were tested to see if they could tie the knot and they were unable to do it. Fleet White has nothing to fear if he is innocent. There is some background waffle about all this on the internet:

"Non-Autopsy Findings

Judge Carnes Decision.
Complicated Knots. "JonBenet's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrotte attached to her body. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. 67 at 19; SMF P 163; PSMF P 163.)" (Carnes 2003:17).

Garrote Handle from Paintbrush. "The garrote consisted of a wooden handle fashioned from the middle of a paintbrush, found in the paint tray in the boiler room. The end of a nylon cord was tied to this wooden handle and, on the other end, was a loop with a slipknot, with JonBenet's neck within the loop. (SMF PP 157-158; PSMF PP 157-158.)" (Carnes 2003:17).

Missing Paintbrush End. "The end portion of the paintbrush used to construct the garrote was never found. (SMF P 159; PSMF P 159.)" (Carnes 2003:18).
Cord Fibers in JBR Bed. "Further, fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF P 168; PSMF P 168.)

John Van Tassel, a forensic knot analyst and corporal in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, gave expert advice on the knots to BPD, but it is unknown what his findings were except for those leaked in Steve Thomas's book.
Cord Wrapped Twice Around Neck? Internet poster MissOtisRegrets claims that in her 1999 Good Morning America interview, Linda Arndt said the cord was wrapped twice around JBR's neck. This is not visible in most autopsy photos because the first loop is buried so deeply in her neck. According to Internet poster MissOtisRegrets (see post at 10:14 PM, 9/24/06) Picture #6 reportedly shows a picture of the neck after the first loop was removed and the second loop remained. This detail about the 2nd wrapping may have been redacted from the autopsy report.

Garrotte Construction Instructions. Internet poster AntiK has posted 9 photos that include step-by-step instructions on how to construct the garrotte found around JBR's neck. An animated illustration of how to tie a rolling hitch (taut line hitch) is here and a similar illustration of how to tie a prusik knot (triple sliding hitch) is here.

How the Garrote Functioned. Internet poster AnitK has provided a clear and extensive discussion on how the garrote actually functioned.
How JBR Was Strangled. Internet poster Ruth Gerstenkorn has outlined her theory about how JBR was strangled.

Were Knots Sophisticated?
"The slipknots and the garrote are both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. (SMF PP 161, 164; PSMF PP 161, 164.)" (Carnes 2003:17). "Evidence from these devices suggests they were made by someone with expertise using rope and cords, which cords could not be found or "sourced" within defendants' home. (SMF P 169; PSMF P 169.)" (Carnes 2003:17).

Michael Kane Assessment. Special prosecutor Michael Kane (in response to Mary Keenan's statement that she supported the Carnes decision) stated: "First of all, the thing I was going to say is if Mary Keenan has reached this conclusion, she clearly has not reviewed her own file because I don’t want to get into a lot of specifics about this because of ethical reasons, but there are clearly in the police file answers to a lot of the things that the court said had never been established. I mean, I can give you-I don’t know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don’t know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots."

AntiK Assessment. Internet poster AntiK has done extensive experiments with the garrotte and argues that "the ligature/garrote and the knot used for it’s construction is very simple. It’s basic – kindergarten. There is nothing complex or complicated about it. anyone – anyone – who claims otherwise is wrong."
Delmar England Assessment. Likewise, Internet poster Delmar England, a self-reported expert in knots, has provided an in-depth analysis arguing that the garrote and wrist ties were done by someone with no familiarity with knots, hence they were part of staging. He has updated his analysis here and here.
Rainsong Rebuttal of England. A thorough rebuttal of England's analysis has been put up by Internet poster Rainsong here.

Could Ramseys Tie Such Knots?

No. "No evidence exists that either defendant knew how to tie such knots. (SMF P 162; PSMF P 162.)" (Carnes 2003:18).

Yes. Critics of the Carnes opinion note that John Ramsey had naval experience, that both he and Patsy were active sailors, and Burke Ramsey was in Scouts, all of which would have given them some expertise in knot-tying. Internet poster Tricia argues that the knot was a Prussik knot that easily could have been tied by any of the Ramseys.

Where Did Cord Come From?

Never Sourced to Ramsey Home. "sources for the....cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home." (Carnes 2003:10)."
Henri McPhee 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 30th September 2016, 03:22 AM   #382
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,258
This is an interesting extract from the Denver Post which is normally very biased against the Ramseys and it's also part of the FBI media campaign against the Ramseys. The FBI need to up their game:

"Sexual sadist intruder

But many law enforcement experts, including some former Boulder police officers, now believe the killer was not a relative, but a sexual sadist who broke into the home.

In the “Dateline NBC” special, “Who Killed JonBenét?” debuting at 9 p.m. Mountain Sept. 9, correspondent Josh Mankiewicz interviews Bob Whitson, a retired Boulder detective sergeant who was in the Ramsey home the day JonBenét’s body was found.

“The behavior at the scene does not match up” with the Ramseys, Whitson tells Dateline. “It matches up with a sexually sadistic person and a psychopath.”
Henri McPhee 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 30th September 2016, 03:36 AM   #383
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
The stun gun theory has been discredited. The marks were too close together to have come from a stun gun.
I don't know where some of those autopsy photos on the internet came from. They could have come from the Globe. Lou Smit did say once that it might not have been an Air Taser stun gun, which makes sense. I don't know what the actual measurements were and I doubt anybody at the Boulder coroner office will ever provide me with that information. I don't intend trying to calculate the measurements myself without seeing the actual evidence.

The matter was discussed with stun gun expert Stratbucker and Lin Wood during the Chris Wolf case:

6 Q. Listen carefully.
7 The truth is, you had, when you say
8 you didn't ascribe very much credence to the
9 theory of stun gun usage on JonBenet Ramsey, you
10 had never at that point in time laid eyes on
11 any crime scene or autopsy photograph that you
12 say as an expert you would have to see before
13 you would professionally render an opinion, true?
14 A. I don't think that is entirely true,
15 no.
16 Q. Well, what part is entirely false?
17 A. Well, the part that you couldn't,
18 from a well done autopsy narrative such as we
19 have here, implicate a stun gun from the
20 dimensions and the nature of the marks and so
21 forth as called out by the autopsy physician.
22 Q. But you don't think there is an
23 autopsy physician, sir -- taking you back to
24 your sworn testimony in North Carolina, you
25 don't think there is a pathologist or an autopsy
00073
1 physician that is capable of identifying a stun
2 gun mark; do you?
3 A. I don't say that they need to be
4 capable of identifying a stun gun mark. They
5 need to be capable of making accurate
6 measurements and then citing some menu of
7 possibilities that those accurate measurements
8 could refer to.
9 Q. Sir, do you know that, in fact,
10 there are crime scene photographs of JonBenet
11 Ramsey and autopsy photographs of JonBenet Ramsey
12 made by the Coroner's Office, Boulder County,
13 that, in fact, contain a very legible scale with
14 respect to the marks on her face and her back?
15 Are you aware of that fact?
16 A. It has been alleged that that is the
17 case. I don't know that the autopsy photographs
18 that you are referring to are official. I
19 don't know that they are official in any way.
20 Q. Well, let me suggest to you, sir,
21 that they are.
22 A. Well, you could suggest it.
23 Q. Well, don't you think that before
24 you put your professional reputation on the line
25 that you might want to look over and say, you
00074
1 know, there are some allegations that there are
2 some photographs out there that show by scale,
3 taken by the coroner, the distance apart of
4 these marks and before --
Henri McPhee 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 30th September 2016, 06:19 AM   #384
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,725
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yes, the precious son. Who killed your daughter. But you won't hold that against him because he's so precious. After all, love is easily transferred between siblings. Sort of like a family version of Highlander. There can only be one!

And your remaining son is so precious that, despite the fact that you're not career criminals, you'll be able to go the rest of your life without ever letting it slip that your son killed JonBenet.

By the way, how are you defining 'accidentally kills'? A sort of 'slip and fall'? In that case why would you need to protect him, since it wasn't intentional. Something more direct (like hitting her with a flashlight)? Well, ok, there you need to protect him, but you do so with the knowledge that it wasn't just some playing that got out of hand but an intent to hurt, and you're protecting that person.
Assuming facts not in evidence. I don't have any idea of how the family dealt w/ the son after the incident, other than to attempt to keep him insulated from the investigation.

You might be surprised, but there are many folks that won't even report the criminal victimization of themselves due to the shame they feel - male victims of sexual assault being the #1 demographic in that stat with female victims right behind.

It's not unprecedented that a family wouldn't disclose facts related to a crime committed within the family, and it's not at all unprecedented that individuals refrain from disclosing their darkest secrets.

My swag is that protecting the family and their reputation was the prime consideration.

That they had to protect the son was only a by-product.
__________________
"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

Last edited by BStrong; 30th September 2016 at 06:21 AM.
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 30th September 2016, 09:05 AM   #385
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by yodaluver28 View Post
It makes far more sense if an intruder broke into the house, probably through the basement window, bringing the flashlight, cord, duct tape, cloth, and rope with him in a paper bag.
...
After writing the note, he goes upstairs and hides in John Andrew Ramsey's bedroom, next to JonBenet’s. There was a dirty rope and paper sack found there that the Ramsey’s didn’t recognize, that the police have no proof of them purchasing, and fibers from the bag were found in JonBenet's bed and the body bag she was taken to the morgue in.
As you've probably noticed in other postings, I agree that it was in intruder.

However, I myself am a little hesitant in referring to the rope found in the bedroom as solid evidence. The reason is that I've heard many conflicting reports... it was in a paper sack vs. it was in a knapsack, and that the parents thought it might belong to John Andrew because he was into camping and climbing. (I'm not completely discounting it, just that as evidence goes, its a lot less solid than other pieces.)
__________________
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 30th September 2016, 09:09 AM   #386
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by yodaluver28 View Post
I think the pineapple is largely irrelevant. Given variance in digestion times, we just can't know when she ate it. Maybe her killer gave her some, maybe not. Ultimately, I think it's one of the least illuminating pieces of evidence.

It makes far more sense if an intruder broke into the house, probably through the basement window, bringing the flashlight, cord, duct tape, cloth, and rope with him in a paper bag. The Ramseys were gone at Christmas dinner so this person would have had as much as 4-5 hours to scour the house and revel in his sadistic fantasies. He finds the pad and paper and, while waiting, uses them to write a taunting ransom note. He finds this brilliant and hilarious, since he already knows he’s going to kill her and never call them to make a ransom drop. He even added the flourish of the exact amount of John’s bonus to the note. This amount could've been easily discovered by a stalker rummaging through the house for hours but it's something that will give the Ramseys and the police pause. This detail would mess with everyone’s head and even implicate the Ramseys to some, even though it’s utterly meaningless IMO. Nothing in the note necessarily indicates that this person actually knew the Ramseys and had a real life beef with them. It's all movie dialogue bluster that could've been written by anyone.

After writing the note, he goes upstairs and hides in John Andrew Ramsey's bedroom, next to JonBenet’s. There was a dirty rope and paper sack found there that the Ramsey’s didn’t recognize, that the police have no proof of them purchasing, and fibers from the bag were found in JonBenet's bed and the body bag she was taken to the morgue in. The killer probably hid under the bed as it was photographed by police and the dust ruffle was disturbed. If the killer had been stalking the family all day, he would know that John's oldest son wasn’t staying with them and wouldn’t return to discover him in his room. This way, he could hear when they came back and would know when everyone was asleep. Once they were, he could quietly step into JB’s room and place the duct tape over her mouth and stun gun her on the side of her face (the stun gun theory has never been confirmed or disproven but nothing else fits the marks on her body better, certainly not the railroad tracks from the basement). She was unconscious and could easily and quietly be taken to the basement. Once he’d gotten that far, the rest would be horrifyingly easy, especially with her parents three floors away.

The Burke did it theory doesn't account for the hemorrhaging and defensive scratches on her neck, which indicate that she was alive and had regained consciousness while the garrotte was placed on her. The head wound caused massive damage and inflammation and hemorrhaging indicate that she was alive when the head blow was struck but the very small amount of blood (about 1 1/2 tsp) indicates that the blow to the head was likely peri-mortem (just before death, while her circulation was compromised). In other words, the head blow finished her off, it wasn't the beginning.

The Burke did it theory also doesn't account for the fact that she was sexually assaulted that night. The garrotte was tightened, probably from behind, causing her to urinate on the anterior portion of her long johns (the front portion of her clothing was urine stained but not her bedding, so the Patsy-killed-her-in-a-bedwetting-rage theory is also BS). The hyperemia in the vestibule and distal vaginal wall, the red blood cells, and semi-fluid blood found on her vaginal fourchette, vestibule, and perineum means she was sexually assaulted while still alive and the absence of white blood cells responding to the trauma means she was assaulted shortly before death. There’s abrasion near and involving the hymen, which was torn with blood presence, epithelial erosion, and capillary congestion, indicating a recent tear via penetration. Probably by the paintbrush handle as small shards of wood and varnish from the brush were found in her vagina. What parent with no history of abusive behavior would do that to cover up an accident committed by a 9 year old who couldn't be held legally accountable? The pubic area had also been wiped with a cloth or towel that wasn’t identified or found in the house. The sexual assault IMO proves that not only didn't the Ramseys kill her but neither did some family friend or business enemy out to get John Ramsey. What was done to JonBenet is something only a sadistic pedophile could do.

There was blood on her panties mixed with male DNA from saliva and the DNA doesn’t match anyone in her family. That same DNA is a match to the DNA found in different locations on the pants she was wearing. The amount of DNA found was 12 times more than manufacturing contamination can explain based on studies of manufacturing contamination so, the investigators on this show handwaving it away was utter nonsense. Scant manufacturing contamination cannot explain common DNA being in so many places on two different garments from two different manufacturers, mixed with her blood and under her fingernails (the fingernail DNA was too degraded to make a good match but there were several common markers so, it's believed to be that of her killer's as well). The DNA found on her body was of sufficient quality to meet the CODIS Core Loci requirements for inclusion in the CODIS database, which has standards to prevent incidental DNA from being included. Then there's the pubic or axillary hair found on the blanket her body was wrapped in which matches no one in the family.

There's no real evidence that anyone in her family killed her, it's all innuendo and supposition. The Boulder police screwed up so badly that they will never catch her killer unless they get extraordinarily lucky with the CODIS database and get a DNA hit. That the same detectives that botched the crime scene, deliberately planted bogus stories in the press to slander the family from the beginning, and refused to consider alternate suspects before it was too late are still trying to nail them even after the DNA has proven to not be their's is reprehensible. These people were in over their head from day 1 and are using conspiracy theories to cover their incompetence.The "experts" CBS used were not impressive in the least, especially the alleged profilers.
Wow, great post! Very informative, and I agree with your conjecture. Would you care to cite a source for your specifics? If we can point to official information it will help convince the Burke-or-Patsy-did-it theorists.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 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 30th September 2016, 09:12 AM   #387
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Quote:
Yes, the precious son. Who killed your daughter. But you won't hold that against him because he's so precious. After all, love is easily transferred between siblings. Sort of like a family version of Highlander. There can only be one!

And your remaining son is so precious that, despite the fact that you're not career criminals, you'll be able to go the rest of your life without ever letting it slip that your son killed JonBenet.

Assuming facts not in evidence. I don't have any idea of how the family dealt w/ the son after the incident, other than to attempt to keep him insulated from the investigation.
Hey, I'm just following up on a post by marplots. He was the one who suggested that the Ramseys willingly covered up the murder by the son because, as he said, "after the first child is dead, the second beomes twice as precious". (Although to be honest I have no idea if that was a serious argument on his part or a joke that got misinterpreted as being serious.)
__________________
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 30th September 2016, 09:16 AM   #388
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Hey, I'm just following up on a post by marplots. He was the one who suggested that the Ramseys willingly covered up the murder by the son because, as he said, "after the first child is dead, the second beomes twice as precious". (Although to be honest I have no idea if that was a serious argument on his part or a joke that got misinterpreted as being serious.)
Welcome to marplots.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 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 30th September 2016, 09:28 AM   #389
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,627
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
... (Although to be honest I have no idea if that was a serious argument on his part or a joke that got misinterpreted as being serious.)

I believe that you just got "Marplots'd".


ETA: Doh! Ninja'd by Vortigern99

Last edited by Elagabalus; 30th September 2016 at 09:30 AM.
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 30th September 2016, 10:45 AM   #390
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,027
For what it is worth, here are some autopsy images with both stun gun and train tracks super imposed. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...C-AUTOPSY-PICS!!
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 30th September 2016, 11:05 AM   #391
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,244
contacting the police or not as interpreted by Douglas and Olshaker

In Law and Disorder (pp. 177-178) John Douglas and Mark Olshaker wrote about the note, "Then they add all of the window dressing about not contacting the police or FBI, and not having the drop site surveilled, which almost no one follows. Even the kidnappers don't expect you to comply with this part."
__________________
“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 30th September 2016, 11:12 AM   #392
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In Law and Disorder (pp. 177-178) John Douglas and Mark Olshaker wrote about the note, "Then they add all of the window dressing about not contacting the police or FBI, and not having the drop site surveilled, which almost no one follows. Even the kidnappers don't expect you to comply with this part."
So the kidnappers don't trust the people they're demanding ransom from? Now we know who the real criminals are!
__________________
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 30th September 2016, 11:49 AM   #393
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In Law and Disorder (pp. 177-178) John Douglas and Mark Olshaker wrote about the note, "Then they add all of the window dressing about not contacting the police or FBI, and not having the drop site surveilled, which almost no one follows. Even the kidnappers don't expect you to comply with this part."
Thanks for this. I tire of the baseless speculation that Patsy or John must have been complicit in the murder or its cover-up by dint of the fact that she called the police upon finding the note. Attempting to attribute rational behaviors to persons under this kind of duress is itself unreasonable.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 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 30th September 2016, 12:07 PM   #394
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,725
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Thanks for this. I tire of the baseless speculation that Patsy or John must have been complicit in the murder or its cover-up by dint of the fact that she called the police upon finding the note. Attempting to attribute rational behaviors to persons under this kind of duress is itself unreasonable.
That's actually the least suspicious aspect of the story.

Having seen the difference between actor/victim behaviors, calling LE is more consistent with being victimized than being the offender.

The parents lawyering up separately is the opposite - two sets of lawyers allow for more delays and more opportunities to stymie investigators.
__________________
"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 30th September 2016, 01:03 PM   #395
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,721
If the Ramsey's staged this, why call the police at 5:52am? Why not take a couple more hours to get ready, and call the police at 8:00am?

The child is already dead, and if you need to protect someone, then you can take the extra time.

One obvious answer is that only one of the Ramsey's staged it, and the timing of the call was dictated by whenever the other one was alerted to the missing child.

The other answer is that the Ramsey's simply didn't stage it, and they just called right away.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 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 30th September 2016, 01:34 PM   #396
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by yodaluver28 View Post
I think the pineapple is largely irrelevant. Given variance in digestion times, we just can't know when she ate it. Maybe her killer gave her some, maybe not. Ultimately, I think it's one of the least illuminating pieces of evidence.
JBR ate pineapple a few hours before she was attacked. There was no pineapple at the White' party, but there was pineapple in the Ramsey's kitchen. Therefore, JBR ate pineapple after the Ramseys got home. The Ramseys claimed that JBR fell asleep on the drive home and that JR carried her up to her room and put her in bed. Therefore, the Ramseys' account of what happened that night is established to not be true.
__________________
"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 30th September 2016, 01:40 PM   #397
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Quote:
In Law and Disorder (pp. 177-178) John Douglas and Mark Olshaker wrote about the note, "Then they add all of the window dressing about not contacting the police or FBI, and not having the drop site surveilled, which almost no one follows. Even the kidnappers don't expect you to comply with this part."
Thanks for this. I tire of the baseless speculation that Patsy or John must have been complicit in the murder or its cover-up by dint of the fact that she called the police upon finding the note. Attempting to attribute rational behaviors to persons under this kind of duress is itself unreasonable.
Heck, I don't even think contacting the police when a ransom note says not to even is an irrational behavior.

Most people aren't experienced at dealing with kidnappers. The police (in theory) are.
__________________
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 30th September 2016, 01:44 PM   #398
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
That's actually the least suspicious aspect of the story.

Having seen the difference between actor/victim behaviors, calling LE is more consistent with being victimized than being the offender.

The parents lawyering up separately is the opposite - two sets of lawyers allow for more delays and more opportunities to stymie investigators.
The meaning of your statement is lost in your use of gerunds.
Having seen the difference between actor/victim behaviors, calling LE is more consistent with being victimized than being the offender.
Do you mean that you personally have seen the difference between such behaviors? And that in your opinion, calling the police is consistent with the Ramsays' being victims?
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 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 30th September 2016, 02:14 PM   #399
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
JBR ate pineapple a few hours before she was attacked. There was no pineapple at the White' party, but there was pineapple in the Ramsey's kitchen. Therefore, JBR ate pineapple after the Ramseys got home. The Ramseys claimed that JBR fell asleep on the drive home and that JR carried her up to her room and put her in bed. Therefore, the Ramseys' account of what happened that night is established to not be true.
Actually, it does not establish that.

The Ramseys said they didn't give her pineapple. It doesn't mean that either:
1) there was a source of pineapple earlier in the day, such as at the party (you claimed there was no pineapple at the party, but I doubt the police searched the house where the party was held in fine detail to verify that)
2) she went and got pineapple on her own and returned to bed without her parents hearing (and before she was taken by the killer)
3) It was given to her at some point by the killer
Any of these could have happened without the parents knowing. Alternatively they might simply have forgotten, with no intent to deceive.

The pineapple (both in her stomach and in the bowl) is a mystery, and we will probably never know where it came from.

The thing is, regardless of where the pineapple came from, it doesn't really have much value as evidence. If it was a staging, why not just say "Oh, we gave her a snack" and nobody would have batted an eye.
__________________
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 30th September 2016, 02:18 PM   #400
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,627
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
If the Ramsey's staged this, why call the police at 5:52am? Why not take a couple more hours to get ready, and call the police at 8:00am?

The child is already dead, and if you need to protect someone, then you can take the extra time.

One obvious answer is that only one of the Ramsey's staged it, and the timing of the call was dictated by whenever the other one was alerted to the missing child.

The other answer is that the Ramsey's simply didn't stage it, and they just called right away.
I agree with this. If only one parent is involved then it is, at least , plausible. It starts to go off the rails when one parent says to the other "heh, I killed JBR in a fit of rage (fill-in your own thoughts here), help me cover it up!"
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
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 04:12 AM.
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.