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 25th September 2016, 11:04 AM   #201
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,034
IIRC, Fleet White became suspicious of John Ramsey sometime after the funeral. He realized that John probably knew the body was in the wine cellar because he yelled out before he turned the light on. Fleet had checked that room briefly when they made an earlier round of checking. Fleet didn't turn on the light and couldn't see anything in the windowless, dark room.

In return, John began pointing the finger at the Whites. The Whites have been cooperative with the police and cleared of any involvement in the death of JBR.
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 25th September 2016, 01:37 PM   #202
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
In particularly, the shoe print evidence is very iffy. AFAIK, it was not possible to narrow the date range for the print, so there are all sorts of possibilities. As I mentioned in another post, there is even the possibility that Burke Ramsey owned Hi-Tech shoes (perhaps not at the time of the murder). And there is the possibility of contamination: reportedly, Hi-Tech shoes were popular amongst police officers.
Multiple news agencies reported in 2002 that Burke Ramsey had indeed owned Hi-Tec shoes. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that he made the shoe print.
__________________
"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 25th September 2016, 05:52 PM   #203
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Handwriting analysis aside, there are a number of interesting things related to the ransom note:
- the demanded ransom matched John Ramsey's bonus
Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs
- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee at his office)
- Someone figured out that it worked out to something like 1 million mexican pesos at the time of the crime. (If the kidnapper originally thought he'd get money as a side benefit, that might have seemed like a rational amount.)

The amount of money asked for is certainly a curiosity, but that in itself does not implicate the Ramseys. They were worth millions. Asking for such a small amount (and one that would raise suspicions) seems like a very strange thing to do.

Quote:
- while the salutation was "Mr. Ramsey", in the body of the note Mr. Ramsey is addressed as "john" and in increasing frequency as the note progresses and takes on a more personal tone
- allusions are made to Mr. Ramsey's background (e.g., "use your southern common sense")[/quote]
Again, its believed that the killer was someone who had a personal vandetta against the Ramseys (for some real or imagined transgression). Pretending to know the person would fit in with that.

Quote:
- the note expressed a concern for Mr. Ramsey's welfare ("the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be well-rested")
- the note specifically stated that JonBenet would be killed if the Ramseys talk to anyone ("If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.") but the Ramseys allowed a number of friends to come to their house
Those particular phrases were similar to phrases in a couple of popular action movies out at the time. Since those type of movies tend to appeal more to young men than middle-aged housewives, it rather points away from the Ramseys and towards an outside intruder.
Quote:
- the author returned the notepad to the drawer after writing the ransom note
- the ransom was to be paid on the vague "tomorrow" rather than on a specific day
Neither one of these is particularly relevant.
Quote:
- the note was left on the back staircase rather than in a generic place that someone who didn't know the family's habits could be sure that it was found
Actually, an outside intruder may have left it on the back staircase because he didn't know the family's habits, and left it on whatever staircase was most convenient.
__________________
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 25th September 2016, 06:49 PM   #204
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs
This seems like a very weak/unlikely explanation. The payslip would have to have been lying around in plain view, and if so, that fact would have been picked up by the police. I can't imagine the killer rummaging around through drawers looking for payslips, when, as you say, they could simply name any amount they wanted.

Anyway, your point is simply speculation. I don't know if the police located any such payslips with $118,000 written on them (or even looked for them).

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee at his office)
Who would have access "at his office" to that sort of information? Don't know about you, but at my office no-one would have any access to another employees financial records. Even in a small company, you'd imagine that would be limited to a very small number of staff, and presumably they'd have been checked out. And besides, if they had that access to John's financial data, they'd know that he was worth more than one bonus payment of $118K.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The amount of money asked for is certainly a curiosity, but that in itself does not implicate the Ramseys. They were worth millions. Asking for such a small amount (and one that would raise suspicions) seems like a very strange thing to do.
If you ask me, looking at the images/video of their house (granted not extensively), I wouldn't pick that they were worth millions. It doesn't look very luxurious to me. I don't buy the payslip or the mexican pesos explanations, the one that makes most sense to me is a subconscious slip, or an effort to make it look like the kidnapper had knowledge of the family
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 06:55 PM   #205
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The DNA on the left and right fingernails may not match the other DNA, but neither of the Ramsey males are included, from what I can gather. Multiple studies have been done on DNA underneath the fingernails (Gill, Misleading DNA evidence, pp. 43-46; pp. 68-80). The numbers vary quite a bit, but between 5-20% of the time foreign (non-self) DNA was observed, excluding intimate partners. On the basis of casework and also using controlled studies of scratching, one can conclude that scratching increased the chances of finding non-self DNA to about 35%. Only one of the studies used YSTR technology, from what I can gather, but I have not yet reviewed the very recent literature.

Having the reports themselves would certainly help to ascertain which DNA samples did or did not match. I have found two citations which assert that the DNA on the panties did match the DNA on the long johns. link1, link2 I have only found a small number of citations in the forensic DNA literature, to DNA found on clothing, and non-self DNA can indeed be found on clothing. However, my preliminary opinion is that the presence of several instances of foreign DNA (especially underneath the fingernails) is sufficient to make it difficult to believe that John or Burke is guilty BARD. MOO.
I just wanted to make a few comments / questions -

The study on DNA under fingernails, has there ever been studies involving children? They have different operating rules than adults. They may touch each other more often and/or may handle toys which other children have handled.

With regard to the clothing, I would be curious to investigate the probable genetic origin of the dna on the clothing and the country of manufacture.

Even if Burke did commit the crime and his father helped conceal whatever happened (the mother is dead), I would prefer to let sleeping does lie and not try to take anybody to court. I think though that Burke is stupid for suing CBS.

The one item I hated was the phone call evidence. I don't know how many here are familiar with ghost voices where they try to pull it out of static from a TV / radio signal and/or just background noises. That si what it seemed to me to be.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 07:42 PM   #206
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs
I still fail to see that anyone committing a crime in an inhabited house would spend more than the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the task. It's hard to believe that anyone spent the time rummaging through the house to find financial information and on top of that was so careful that no one ever noticed that anything had been rummaged through.

Quote:
- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee)
We don't know who, if anyone, outside the Ramsey family knew the size of the bonus.

Quote:
- Someone figured out that it worked out to something like 1 million mexican pesos at the time of the crime. (If the kidnapper originally thought he'd get money as a side benefit, that might have seemed like a rational amount.)
Something like? And why not round it to, say, $120,000?

Quote:
The amount of money asked for is certainly a curiosity, but that in itself does not implicate the Ramseys. They were worth millions. Asking for such a small amount (and one that would raise suspicions) seems like a very strange thing to do.
Nothing proves anything. Otherwise this case would have been solved and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you're right that it a strange amount, one that raises suspicisons. Such as that the author knew the size of the bonus.

Quote:
Again, its believed that the killer was someone who had a personal vandetta against the Ramseys (for some real or imagined transgression). Pretending to know the person would fit in with that.
Believed by who?

Quote:
Neither one of these is particularly relevant.
I disagree. For an intruder to have left the notepad, the intruder either would have had to have been rather stupid or else been so well-prepared for the crime that he was completely confident that he left no fingerprints or DNA on the notepad or pen. Nor would have an intruder had any reason to care whether the notepad was left out or not (unless he was so embarrassed about forgetting to bring the note with him that he didn't want to be found out).

Quote:
Actually, an outside intruder may have left it on the back staircase because he didn't know the family's habits, and left it on whatever staircase was most convenient.
You've claimed that the intruder was unhurried, so why all of a sudden is the intruder worrying about convenience?
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 25th September 2016 at 07:45 PM.
TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 06:23 AM   #207
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,244
DNA on fingernails of children

Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
I just wanted to make a few comments / questions -

The study on DNA under fingernails, has there ever been studies involving children? They have different operating rules than adults. They may touch each other more often and/or may handle toys which other children have handled.
Desert Fox,

I don't recall seeing a study on children. However, I would say that overall, there have been more studies on DNA on fingernails than on some other subjects. Upthread I linked to a BBC report on contamination involving fingernails, so we cannot discount this possibility entirely.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 26th September 2016 at 06:27 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 06:28 AM   #208
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,721
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
No. No DNA or prints from the flashlight. I do not know if the train tracks were checked, as that theory came out much later.
That makes little sense.

How were the marks explained initially? There must have been some suggested explanation for the marks. They are quite obvious and unusual.
__________________
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 26th September 2016, 06:35 AM   #209
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,627
This site was mentioned in the JFK thread and I noticed he had written about JBR as well. So for what it's worth here it is:

http://dyingwords.net/who-really-kil...nbenet-ramsey/

I'm assuming that it is NOT the actual ransom note since the monetary figure is not spelled out?
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 26th September 2016, 06:52 AM   #210
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,678
Re: the $118,000.00 amount.

The letter was written to make it seem like it was directed at John. This way he could be the one to make the delivery while Patsy and Burke went to stay at a friend's house.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:49 AM   #211
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,728
I think that any scenario involving the family is stupid. First, there's no way both parents conspired to murder their kid, that would just not happen with this family. An accidental death, a parent snaps, disciplines, whatever. That's a possibility. But that scenario would require the other parent to agree to keep quiet and do so under all that police in media pressure. The innocent party IMO, would never be able to do that. The son, that's a bit ridiculous, first it would be pretty hard to outright murder a kid in the first place for a 10 year old, especially instantly, the parent surely would have sought medical help. Second, he was 10. The FAR easier cover-up is they were playing and she fell..... even in panic, I can't imagine they go for a murder ransom scenario; especially one that requires actual kidnapping.

Also, wasn't there unknown DNA found in the girls underwear or fingernails?
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:01 AM   #212
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Quote:
No. No DNA or prints from the flashlight. I do not know if the train tracks were checked, as that theory came out much later.
That makes little sense.

How were the marks explained initially? There must have been some suggested explanation for the marks. They are quite obvious and unusual.
From what I understand, the marks were initially ignored, overlooked or considered irrelevant. It was a special investigator that was brought in (Lou Smit, a retired detective who was fairly well regarded) who first brought up the idea that they were made by a hand taser. (This was supported by at least one pathologist who was able to recreate the marks.)

As the other poster mentioned, the idea that the marks came from part of a train set came much much later. (Not even sure if the Ramseys even had the same train set by the time they thought to make the connection, or whether they did their measurements by looking at similar train sets.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:12 AM   #213
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
IIRC, Fleet White became suspicious of John Ramsey sometime after the funeral. He realized that John probably knew the body was in the wine cellar because he yelled out before he turned the light on. Fleet had checked that room briefly when they made an earlier round of checking. Fleet didn't turn on the light and couldn't see anything in the windowless, dark room.

In return, John began pointing the finger at the Whites. The Whites have been cooperative with the police and cleared of any involvement in the death of JBR.
That's not absolutely correct. Right from the start Fleet White demanded to be cleared, even though he was a suspect along with Chris Wolf and Santa Bill. Mark Beckner of the Boulder Police Department, and his lousy detectives, immediately agreed to Fleet's demands and the Boulder DA's office eventually complied saying it would be possible to unclear Fleet White later on.

If the Boulder Police Department and the FBI don't have the detective skills to detects the real culprits in the JonBenet Ramsey case then they should not attempt to accuse innocent people like the Ramseys, and Burke, and arrange a media campaign with CBS to present fabricated evidence. It was just the same in the Jeffrey MacDonald case gross miscarriage of justice. The Whites have always refused to answer questions. They should confess to their crimes.

There is some background to this from a Boulder Daily Camera article in 2014:

"Fleet and Priscilla White exonerated in death of JonBenet Ramsey — for third time
Boulder police chief says Ramseys' friends never were suspects

By Charlie Brennan, Camera Staff Writer
POSTED: 01/23/2014 01:50:46 PM MST | UPDATED: 3 YEARS AGO

Fleet White is seen in a Boulder courtroom last October during a hearing in a lawsuit seeking the release of the secret indictment of JonBenet
Fleet White is seen in a Boulder courtroom last October during a hearing in a lawsuit seeking the release of the secret indictment of JonBenet Ramsey's parents. On Thursday, the Whites were exonerated of any invovlement in JonBenet's death for the third time. (Jeremy Papasso / Daily Camera)
RELATED STORIES
Fleet and Priscilla White ask judge to compel Boulder police to release records
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey exoneration statement by DA
Released indictment names John and Patsy Ramsey on two charges in JonBenet death
Judge to release indictment in JonBenet Ramsey case
Camera reporter sues Boulder DA seeking release of Ramsey indictment
JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute
A Boulder couple who were in John and Patsy Ramsey's home the day JonBenet Ramsey's body was discovered in the family's basement 17 years ago were officially exonerated Thursday in the notorious murder case — for the third time.

The latest public exoneration of Fleet and Priscilla White came from the Boulder Police Department, and it prompted some head-scratching from one legal analyst.

Denver defense attorney Dan Recht, who has followed the Ramsey saga closely, was surprised to see the Whites being offered another exoneration in the case.

"I know of absolutely no precedent for anyone ever being officially exonerated three times in one case," Recht said. "I'm wondering out loud what the motivation is for the chief of police to issue a third exoneration."

Recht also said, "In addition, one wonders why the Whites would want to have their names brought to national attention, once again, in association with this case."

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner released a statement Thursday noting that "innocent community members" had been the target of speculation throughout the investigation into JonBenet's murder, and had suffered as a result. Fleet and Priscilla White, he said, are among them.

"The Boulder Police Department recognizes the suffering the Whites have endured as a result of the accusations made against the White family during the course of the investigation," Beckner's statement said.

"The Boulder Police Department investigators have always considered the White family to only be witnesses in this case."

Beckner's statement also noted that "the Boulder Police Department has never considered the White family to be suspects in the case," adding, "We wish to express our gratitude for the White family's cooperation and contributions in regard to the investigation of JonBenet's death."

JonBenet Ramsey
JonBenet Ramsey (Daily Camera file photo)
In an emailed statement to the Daily Camera, Fleet White said, "We greatly appreciate Chief Beckner and the Boulder Police Department making this statement on behalf of our family.

"Along with the recent release of the 1998-99 Boulder grand jury indictments of John and Patsy Ramsey, we are hopeful Chief Beckner's statement today will further improve the public's understanding of the investigation of JonBenet's death."

Whites first cleared by police in 1997

The Whites' first public exoneration came when the case was still being feverishly worked by numerous department detectives as well as outside experts tapped by the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, and was in the constant glare of both national and international media attention.

In April 1997, then-Boulder police Chief Tom Koby said in a prepared statement: "They (the Whites) are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received from the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications."

Additionally, the Whites also were cleared in September 2008 by then-District Attorney Mary Lacy. In a letter to the Whites she authored Sept. 12, 2008, Lacy stated, "I am writing to reaffirm that you are not suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

"My office has been solely responsible for this case since December 2002," Lacy's letter added. "Since that date, I am not aware of any person associated with this office making any comment referring to any member of the Fleet White family as a suspect in this murder or otherwise suggesting any change to the conclusion in Chief Koby's statement that you are only key witnesses."

Beckner did not return calls Thursday seeking comment on the latest exoneration.

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett said Thursday, "The Boulder police announced that the Whites were not suspects in April of 1997.

"As as far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed since then with regard to the Whites as suspects. I don't think they are suspects, and I know the police department doesn't think they are suspects."

Fleet and Prescilla White, as photographed in 2008 after receiving a letter from then-District Attorney Mary Lacy saying they were never suspects in
Fleet and Prescilla White, as photographed in 2008 after receiving a letter from then-District Attorney Mary Lacy saying they were never suspects in JonBenet Ramsey's death. (Helen H. Richardson / The Denver Post)
JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the family's basement Dec. 26, 1996, about eight hours after Patsy Ramsey called 911 to report the child missing and that she had discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 for the 6-year-old's safe return.

Fleet White was with John Ramsey when JonBenet's father found the girl's body in a little-used room of the family's basement, while a lone detective, Patsy Ramsey and other visitors remained upstairs.

The Ramseys had summoned the Whites — along with another couple and the minister from their church — to their home for support, shortly after calling 911.

A grand jury heard evidence in the case for 13 months, and disbanded in October 1999, with no further action by the Boulder County District Attorney's office.

The Camera reported in a Jan. 27, 2013, exclusive that the grand jury actually had voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey, but that then-District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to prosecute the case, believing he lacked the evidence needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Oct. 25, those indictments were made public by a judge's order, showing that each parent had been indicted on charges of felony child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime.

The statute of limitations on those charges expired after three years, and Patsy Ramsey succumbed to cancer in June 2006.

Allegation in 2000 put Whites in spotlight

The White family did come in for more public scrutiny than some Ramsey associates during the star-crossed investigation.

In his statement, Becker noted that, in 2000, "The police department did investigate allegations made by a California woman to District Attorney Alex Hunter, as reported in the press, that were intended to cast suspicion on the White family. The department found no evidence to support the unfounded allegations.

"There has never been any evidence to link the White family to the JonBenet Ramsey homicide."

The Camera in February 2000 reported that a 38-year-old woman had told Hunter that, when she was young, she had been ritually and sexually abused in a manner similar to the way JonBenet Ramsey died.

Her claims drew attention because she said she knew John and Patsy Ramsey through Fleet White. Other media also published reports about the unidentified California woman after publication of the Camera`s initial article.

But in May 2000, Boulder police said they found no connection between the Ramsey case and the California woman's allegations of having been victimized in a child-sex ring.

And in saying so, Beckner at that time said the Whites were not under any suspicion in the case, commenting, "We have never had evidence to support such an allegation."

In August 2000, the Whites filed a criminal libel complaint against the Camera for reporting the woman's claims. Because of Hunter's status as a potential witness in such a case, then-Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin appointed a special prosecutor from Pueblo County. In October of that same year, Bailin terminated the criminal libel investigation.

Then, in June 2001, a state appeals court dismissed the Whites' request to reconsider Bailin's decision to end the criminal libel investigation.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327, brennanc@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/chasbrennan.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:19 AM   #214
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Re: The ransom amount matching the bonus amount on John Ramsey's pay
Quote:
Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs
This seems like a very weak/unlikely explanation. The payslip would have to have been lying around in plain view...
Not sure about you, but in my house I don't necessarily make an effort to hide things like paystubs, or bills.

Quote:
...and if so, that fact would have been picked up by the police.
Why? The initial case (when they thought it was a kidnapping) was badly bungled. And after that the police were largely focused on the Ramseys as suspects.

Quote:
I can't imagine the killer rummaging around through drawers looking for payslips, when, as you say, they could simply name any amount they wanted.
It wouldn't necessarily be an intruder searching out a paystub. It would more likely be "I need paper to write (or rewrite) the ransom note. I'll look on this desk. Oh, what's this? A pay stub. Hey, I'll use that as a ransom amount."

Quote:
Anyway, your point is simply speculation.
Yes, it is speculation. Nobody knows for sure why $118k was asked for. But my suggestions make just as much sense (if not more) than the family who was worth millions and who were such criminal masterminds giving themselves away by asking for such a little amount.

Quote:
Who would have access "at his office" to that sort of information? Don't know about you, but at my office no-one would have any access to another employees financial records.
Depends on how "friendly" the office staff is.

Could have also been an accidental disclosure.
Quote:
If you ask me, looking at the images/video of their house (granted not extensively), I wouldn't pick that they were worth millions. It doesn't look very luxurious to me.
So, you don't think they look wealthy, and you think that supports your "insider theory"? If anything, it actually makes it less likely since, if an intruder didn't think they were wealthy, a $118k amount would seem more feasible.

Quote:
I don't buy the payslip or the mexican pesos explanations...
And what is your problem with the 'pesos' explanation?

(Keeping in mind that I don't have any proof that either explanation is valid, just that they make as much sense as any "inside theory" explanations.)
Quote:
the one that makes most sense to me is a subconscious slip, or an effort to make it look like the kidnapper had knowledge of the family
So, this family, who was able to mastermind the deception of covering up the murder of their daughter, and failed to "crack" in the hours before the body discovery, or during days of intensive questioning, somehow had a "subconsious slip" by asking for $118k.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:26 AM   #215
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,259
The Liverpool UK crime writer Keith Andrews, who I admit is not exactly famous, had an interesting 'Fleet White did it' theory on the internet for several years. It vanished for several years and then came back again. It now seems to have vanished again but it may still be on the internet somewhere. This is part of it:

KEITH ANDREWS--Criminologist:
"I have analysed the 'ransom note' left at the Ramsey's home by the killer, and noted several strong matches regarding grammar, phrasing and style between the note and the wording of Fleet White's letter of January 16, 1998 to the Daily Camera. The phrase:'At this time' immediately caught my eye. The phrase 'At this time' starts the third sentence of the ransom note:'At this time we have your daughter in our possession.' I do not believe Fleet White acted alone. I am certain that his wife Priscilla aided and abetted him."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:39 AM   #216
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Quote:
Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs
I still fail to see that anyone committing a crime in an inhabited house would spend more than the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the task. It's hard to believe that anyone spent the time rummaging through the house to find financial information...
First of all, they would not have been searching an occupied house... they would have been searching a house that was empty, while the family was at the party.

Doing so would provide minimal risk.

Quote:
...and on top of that was so careful that no one ever noticed that anything had been rummaged through.
You're talking about paper sitting on a desk. Do you really have such a photo-graphic memory that you could automatically detect whether some slip of paper or bill has been moved on a day-to-day basis?
Quote:
Quote:
- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee)
We don't know who, if anyone, outside the Ramsey family knew the size of the bonus.
You're right.. we don't. That's why I've given multiple possibilities as to how an outside intruder could have come up with $118k for the ransom amount. And while we may never know what the actual reason is, those possibilities are just as reasonable (if not more so) than an inside job where the ramseys were master criminals but somehow "slipped up" the Ransom amount.

Quote:
Quote:
- Someone figured out that it worked out to something like 1 million mexican pesos at the time of the crime. (If the kidnapper originally thought he'd get money as a side benefit, that might have seemed like a rational amount.)
Something like? And why not round it to, say, $120,000?
Why would they need to? It wouldn't have been necessary.

Quote:
Quote:
Again, its believed that the killer was someone who had a personal vandetta against the Ramseys (for some real or imagined transgression). Pretending to know the person would fit in with that.
Believed by who?
Well, for one, John Douglas, former criminal profiler (with significant experience dealing with serial killers, kidnappings, etc.)
Quote:
I disagree. For an intruder to have left the notepad, the intruder either would have had to have been rather stupid or else been so well-prepared for the crime that he was completely confident that he left no fingerprints or DNA on the notepad or pen.
I disagree. For an intruder to have left the notepad, the intruder either would have had to have been rather stupid or else been so well-prepared for the crime that he was completely confident that he left no fingerprints or DNA on the notepad or pen.[/quote]
Once again... this case was decades ago. At the time, I doubt any criminal was particularly concerned about 'touch DNA'. As for the fingerprints... a pair of gloves would have sufficed.
Quote:
Nor would have an intruder had any reason to care whether the notepad was left out or not
Many people put stuff back where they found it out of habit.

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, an outside intruder may have left it on the back staircase because he didn't know the family's habits, and left it on whatever staircase was most convenient.
You've claimed that the intruder was unhurried, so why all of a sudden is the intruder worrying about convenience?
[/quote]
Doing something that's convenient (such as leaving the note on the back staircase) doesn't mean he wasn't unhurried. He had one ransom note. He could have left it on either set of stairs. He had to pick one. Why not pick the one that was closest to the door he might have left from or used on his way to get JonBenet?

I somehow get the feeling that had he left it on the other staircase, you would be howling about how it shows "staging because obviously they put it on the main staircase to make it look like a home invasion".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:53 AM   #217
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Also, wasn't there unknown DNA found in the girls underwear or fingernails?
On both. From 3 different men, none of whom was one of the family or friends who gave DNA samples. If the DNA is related to the murder, then there would have had to have been at least 3 men involved.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:54 AM   #218
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Many of the posts in this thread are good examples of why LEO's don't engage in discussions about investigations with lay persons.

I'll leave further comment to the good ladies and gentlemen of the 101st Chairborne Investigators Guild.
That's quite an amazing big of arrogance you're exhibiting there.

Keep in mind that many of the posters here are not necessarily making up their own theories, but are reflecting comments made by people who are associated with law enforcement. Lou Smit was a well regarded retired detective investigating the crime who thought it was an intruder. John Douglas was a former FBI profiler with years of experience dealing with serial killers and other murderers, who similarly discounts the idea of it being an inside job.

They are experienced (probably a lot more experienced at dealing with crimes like the JonBenet murder than you), yet neither of them think it was an inside job.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:06 AM   #219
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
I hate to respond to my own post, but I think its something that bears repeating.
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
For anyone who thinks the JonBonet murder was an "inside job" (either with the murder done by one or both parents, or by the son and just covered up by the parents), I have a challenge for you...

Describe what happened, from the time the family returned from the party, until the time the body was found and the case went from a kidnapping to a murder investigation. Describe where each action happened (e.g. which room), who was involved, and if possible the character's motivation. Where details are unknown, give possible options. And make it so that it explains as much of the evidence as possible (the equal-spaced marks on completely different parts of JonBenet's body, the evidence that suggest she was strangled while still alive, the DNA under her fingernails, the missing tape roll, etc.)
I asked that several days ago. I recognize that people get busy, and are under no obligation to respond to any specific post. But the fact that so many "inside jobbers" have continued to post in this thread but nobody has touched this subject is rather revealing.

People who think that one of the Ramseys did it are looking more and more like 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Just watch (loose change/the CBS documentary) , it explains everything! It had to be an inside job. After all, (fires don't cause buildings to collapse/ransom notes don't get left in the same house as the body). Plus you have all the other strange aspects of the case, like (the fire chief saying "pull it"/the strange ransom note).

So once again, "Inside Jobbers"... tell us what happened during the murder of JonBenet. Give us your complete story, not just little snippets. (Oh it must have been one of the Ramseys because X.) But a complete accounting. Lets see how rational your "inside theory" is. Because if you can't come up with a believable story about an inside job (one that doesn't involve bizarre leaps of logic) then the "inside job" theory must be discarded in favor of one that makes more sense (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 26th September 2016, 09:14 AM   #220
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,721
Assuming it was an intruder...

It seems unlikely that this was this intruder's first and last fling into such activity.

Were there other similar crimes in the area before or after?

Regarding the unknown DNA, it also seems unlikely that 3 people could maintain radio silence about the crime for very long.
__________________
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 26th September 2016, 10:25 AM   #221
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,244
DNA from the blood droplet, as source

LTC8K6,

I am on my lunch break, so this will have to be quick. I posted a link to a news story, possibly from CBS, upthread that mentioned a similar case 9 months later.

About the DNA on JonBenet's underwear, from what I can gather this had the profile of an unknown male but not JonBenet (it would be nice to have the laboratory reports or some other reliable source of information). One has to be careful because of the exceptional case*, but in general when you find one DNA profile from a blood droplet, it means that the blood came from the person who is linked to that DNA profile. A different way to frame this is to say that this DNA is probably from the blood (it is source DNA), and source DNA is generally better evidence than sub-source DNA, DNA that is not associated with a particular body fluid or tissue. I don't have the best possible citation about this "hierarchy of propositions" at the moment, but this abstract would be a good place to start.
*details available upon request.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 26th September 2016 at 10:31 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 10:59 AM   #222
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
First of all, they would not have been searching an occupied house... they would have been searching a house that was empty, while the family was at the party.

Doing so would provide minimal risk.
A scenario involving an intruder who arrived before the Ramseys returned home requires that:
1) the intruder knew that the Ramseys were just away for the evening and hadn't left on vacation;
2) the intruder knew approximately what time the Ramseys would return home;
3) the intruder knew of a place in the house where there was no chance that any of the Ramseys would go that evening;
4) the intruder's hiding place, though in a place where the Ramseys were guaranteed not to go that evening, permitted him to monitor what was going on so that he knew when it was safe to come out of hiding.

Quote:
You're talking about paper sitting on a desk. Do you really have such a photo-graphic memory that you could automatically detect whether some slip of paper or bill has been moved on a day-to-day basis?
5 reasons why I find it unlikely that the Ramseys would be leaving pay stubs and the like lying around.
1) the Ramsey's had young children. Most people do not want their children to get ahold of their financial information;
2) the Ramsey's children had friends. Most people do not want their childrens' friends snooping through their pay stubs, bank statements, and bills;
3) the Ramseys had a housekeeper and undoubtedly used other domestic help (e.g., a gardener). Most people, especially affluent ones, do not want people doing work on their homes to know anything about their finances nor do they want their help to have access to the personal information contained in pay stubs and bank statements;
4) the Ramseys had hosted a party 2 days previously. People don't ordinarily leave bills and bank statements lying around when they're hosting a party.
5) affluent people tend to be meticulous about keeping track of financial information because their income taxes are complicated.

Quote:
You're right.. we don't. That's why I've given multiple possibilities as to how an outside intruder could have come up with $118k for the ransom amount. And while we may never know what the actual reason is, those possibilities are just as reasonable (if not more so) than an inside job where the ramseys were master criminals but somehow "slipped up" the Ransom amount.
I'm not sure that I think that the ransom amount being close to 1 million pesos is a more reasonable explanation than that it was equal to JR's bonus.

Quote:
Quote:
I disagree. For an intruder to have left the notepad, the intruder either would have had to have been rather stupid or else been so well-prepared for the crime that he was completely confident that he left no fingerprints or DNA on the notepad or pen.
Once again... this case was decades ago. At the time, I doubt any criminal was particularly concerned about 'touch DNA'. As for the fingerprints... a pair of gloves would have sufficed.
I would not have risked it, even with gloves. Of course, I find it impossibly difficult to write with gloves on.

Quote:
Many people put stuff back where they found it out of habit.
When breaking into houses?


Quote:
Doing something that's convenient (such as leaving the note on the back staircase) doesn't mean he wasn't unhurried. He had one ransom note. He could have left it on either set of stairs. He had to pick one. Why not pick the one that was closest to the door he might have left from or used on his way to get JonBenet?

I somehow get the feeling that had he left it on the other staircase, you would be howling about how it shows "staging because obviously they put it on the main staircase to make it look like a home invasion".
I somehow get the feeling that you're not a psychic.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 11:06 AM   #223
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
LTC8K6,

I am on my lunch break, so this will have to be quick. I posted a link to a news story, possibly from CBS, upthread that mentioned a similar case 9 months later.

About the DNA on JonBenet's underwear, from what I can gather this had the profile of an unknown male but not JonBenet (it would be nice to have the laboratory reports or some other reliable source of information). One has to be careful because of the exceptional case*, but in general when you find one DNA profile from a blood droplet, it means that the blood came from the person who is linked to that DNA profile. A different way to frame this is to say that this DNA is probably from the blood (it is source DNA), and source DNA is generally better evidence than sub-source DNA, DNA that is not associated with a particular body fluid or tissue. I don't have the best possible citation about this "hierarchy of propositions" at the moment, but this abstract would be a good place to start.
*details available upon request.
Presumably you meant to say "not any of the Ramseys" rather than "not JonBenet". The DNA also didn't match any of their friends' DNA.

My understanding is that the DNA was mixed in with JB's blood, but that it hasn't been established that it was from someone else's blood, only that it came from some sort of fluid that came from someone else.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 11:46 AM   #224
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
A scenario involving an intruder who arrived before the Ramseys returned home requires that:
1) the intruder knew that the Ramseys were just away for the evening and hadn't left on vacation;
2) the intruder knew approximately what time the Ramseys would return home;
3) the intruder knew of a place in the house where there was no chance that any of the Ramseys would go that evening;
4) the intruder's hiding place, though in a place where the Ramseys were guaranteed not to go that evening, permitted him to monitor what was going on so that he knew when it was safe to come out of hiding.
1) The Ramseys were very social people and were fairly well known in the community. Many people would have known their plans
2) No, he wouldn't. He knew they had children and would be back at some time. That's all he needed. (For comparison, the BTK killer waited in people's homes too, even though he didn't know exactly when they'd be home.)
3) Plenty of rooms in the basement. And even if an intruder could never be 100% sure of a perfect hiding spot, he still had a goal to achieve; a hiding spot with a small chance of risk would be superior to not achieving that goal
4) Not too difficult... wait until midnight, sneak out... see if there are lights on. If not, sneak further into the house

Quote:
5 reasons why I find it unlikely that the Ramseys would be leaving pay stubs and the like lying around.
1) the Ramsey's had young children. Most people do not want their children to get ahold of their financial information;
The kids were 9 and under. What exactly are they going to do with it?
Quote:
2) the Ramsey's children had friends. Most people do not want their childrens' friends snooping through their pay stubs, bank statements, and bills;
3) the Ramseys had a housekeeper and undoubtedly used other domestic help (e.g., a gardener).
The Ramseys were overly trusting people (e.g. leaving a broken window, not setting alarms, giving multiple keys to workmen, neighbors, etc.) Not locking up paystubs in a vault certainly fits into that trusting nature.
Quote:
4) the Ramseys had hosted a party 2 days previously. People don't ordinarily leave bills and bank statements lying around when they're hosting a party.
Who said they did?

Bank statements probably weren't sitting on the living room table for anyone to peruse. They would be in an office or bedroom. Not places that people attending a party would wander to.
Quote:
5) affluent people tend to be meticulous about keeping track of financial information because their income taxes are complicated.
I'm pretty sure anything like pay stubs would have copies sent to accountants, etc.

Quote:
I'm not sure that I think that the ransom amount being close to 1 million pesos is a more reasonable explanation than that it was equal to JR's bonus.
Why, because it shows how wrong you could be?



Quote:
Quote:
Once again... this case was decades ago. At the time, I doubt any criminal was particularly concerned about 'touch DNA'. As for the fingerprints... a pair of gloves would have sufficed.
I would not have risked it, even with gloves.
That's probably because you probably don't feel compelled to harm and murder others.

Once you have that compulsion, you do things that a non-murder might consider risky because otherwise you won't achieve your goal.
Quote:
Of course, I find it impossibly difficult to write with gloves on.
Yet thousands of people in the medical field have no problem doing so.

Quote:
Quote:
Many people put stuff back where they found it out of habit.
When breaking into houses?
The fact that an invader was breaking into a house doesn't mean that they would go out of their way to mess up the place. Heck, he might have done so to avoid the parents becoming suspicious before he put his plan into action.

Quote:
I somehow get the feeling that you're not a psychic.
Well, in that case, let me make this one prediction....

At no point will you ever take me up on my challenge to give a complete story of what happened that night/day. You will continue to harp on tiny little points, and expose broad claims ("It was an inside job!"), but you will fail to show how such an inside job could have actually been pulled off..
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:19 PM   #225
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
1) The Ramseys were very social people and were fairly well known in the community. Many people would have known their plans
How many? Which ones? At that point, I had worked in Boulder for 13 years, and I had never even heard of the Ramseys much less knew what their Christmas plans were.

Quote:
2) No, he wouldn't. He knew they had children and would be back at some time. That's all he needed. (For comparison, the BTK killer waited in people's homes too, even though he didn't know exactly when they'd be home.)
Again, how did he know that they would be back?

Quote:
3) Plenty of rooms in the basement. And even if an intruder could never be 100% sure of a perfect hiding spot, he still had a goal to achieve; a hiding spot with a small chance of risk would be superior to not achieving that goal
When he could have simply broken into the home in the middle of the night, strangled JBR, and slipped away? Because merely strangling her wouldn't have caused enough hurt, so he had to bash her on the head and then strangle her?

Quote:
The kids were 9 and under. What exactly are they going to do with it?
Tell all sorts of people. In the US, people are very private about their finances. I did not know how much my dad made until he died.

Quote:
The Ramseys were overly trusting people (e.g. leaving a broken window, not setting alarms, giving multiple keys to workmen, neighbors, etc.) Not locking up paystubs in a vault certainly fits into that trusting nature.
Keeping financial documents hidden fits in more with being casual about allowing workers into their home. Pay stubs contain enough information to allow someone to steal a person's identity.

Quote:
Bank statements probably weren't sitting on the living room table for anyone to peruse. They would be in an office or bedroom. Not places that people attending a party would wander to.
People who host parties are known to occasionally give tours of their homes.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure anything like pay stubs would have copies sent to accountants, etc.
And then just thrown onto a table? How many people's homes have you been in where their paycheck stubs or bank statements have been visible? I've been in only 1 (my own).

What you've described is a scenario in which someone broke into a house, spent considerable time rummaging through the house, wrote a letter using a pen and notepad from that house and left both the pen and notepad in the house, left the letter in an unconventional location, went into a bedroom and carried off JBR, bashed her on the head, carried her down to the basement, decided to molest her with a paintbrush, after waiting at least 45 minutes strangled her, and eventually left. All without leaving any trace that anyone else was ever in the house, except perhaps a couple of drops of perspiration or saliva on her underpants. The intruder would either have to be incredibly lucky to have pulled this off or been a very experienced criminal. There were no remotely similar crimes before or after.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:25 PM   #226
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
I am most worried about people who are suppose to be professionals in law enforcement passing off what I consider voodoo science with regard to voice recordings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izUi0zZFZ5M

It sounds a lot like voice recordings of ghosts by ghost hunters
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:28 PM   #227
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,034
That the Whites had to be publically defined as non-suspects is explained in your wall of text here:


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
In April 1997, then-Boulder police Chief Tom Koby said in a prepared statement: "They (the Whites) are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received from the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications."
and here:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner released a statement Thursday noting that "innocent community members" had been the target of speculation throughout the investigation into JonBenet's murder, and had suffered as a result. Fleet and Priscilla White, he said, are among them.
So you see, as speculation that one or both of the Fleets were involved repeatedly becomes rampant, the public needs to be reminded that they were investigated and cleared.


All of this:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

There is some background to this from a Boulder Daily Camera article in 2014:

"Fleet and Priscilla White exonerated in death of JonBenet Ramsey — for third time
Boulder police chief says Ramseys' friends never were suspects

By Charlie Brennan, Camera Staff Writer
POSTED: 01/23/2014 01:50:46 PM MST | UPDATED: 3 YEARS AGO

Fleet White is seen in a Boulder courtroom last October during a hearing in a lawsuit seeking the release of the secret indictment of JonBenet
Fleet White is seen in a Boulder courtroom last October during a hearing in a lawsuit seeking the release of the secret indictment of JonBenet Ramsey's parents. On Thursday, the Whites were exonerated of any invovlement in JonBenet's death for the third time. (Jeremy Papasso / Daily Camera)
RELATED STORIES
Fleet and Priscilla White ask judge to compel Boulder police to release records
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey exoneration statement by DA
Released indictment names John and Patsy Ramsey on two charges in JonBenet death
Judge to release indictment in JonBenet Ramsey case
Camera reporter sues Boulder DA seeking release of Ramsey indictment
JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute.
Was because they were trying to get the grand jury indictments released.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:44 PM   #228
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
So once again, "Inside Jobbers"... tell us what happened during the murder of JonBenet. Give us your complete story, not just little snippets. (Oh it must have been one of the Ramseys because X.) But a complete accounting. Lets see how rational your "inside theory" is. Because if you can't come up with a believable story about an inside job (one that doesn't involve bizarre leaps of logic) then the "inside job" theory must be discarded in favor of one that makes more sense (the intruder theory).
I will tell you what the police thought in the beginning. They theorized that it was accidental. That JonBenet had wet the bed (urine was in the bed, clothes on the bathroom floor, nighttime huggies hanging out of cabinet) and that Patsy had pushed her or hit her and she fell against something in the bathroom cracking her head. She appeared dead (physicians have said she probably had shallow breathing and that she could very well have been perceived as dead) and Patsy flipped out over killing her daughter. The rest was staged to point away from the Ramseys. It has been nearly confirmed there was sexual abuse going on (which I have always waivered on until a recent post here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/...use-guest.html) which would explain why the digital and/or paintbrush penetration was performed, to mask the prior abuse.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:46 PM   #229
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
1)
Well, in that case, let me make this one prediction....

At no point will you ever take me up on my challenge to give a complete story of what happened that night/day. You will continue to harp on tiny little points, and expose broad claims ("It was an inside job!"), but you will fail to show how such an inside job could have actually been pulled off..
Segnosaur,

What do you think happened? If you think IDI, what was the purpose? Let's hear you lay out your theory from an IDI point of view.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 01:07 PM   #230
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
Quote:
1) The Ramseys were very social people and were fairly well known in the community. Many people would have known their plans
How many? Which ones? At that point, I had worked in Boulder for 13 years, and I had never even heard of the Ramseys much less knew what their Christmas plans were.
As I've pointed out before... the killings were thought to be a personal cause... someone who had some sort of reason (real or imagined) to specifically target the Ramseys. He would have had at least some knowledge of the family.

Claiming you had no knowledge of them is irrelevant.

Quote:
2) No, he wouldn't. He knew they had children and would be back at some time. That's all he needed. (For comparison, the BTK killer waited in people's homes too, even though he didn't know exactly when they'd be home.)
Again, how did he know that they would be back?[/quote]
Already explained.

Quote:
Quote:
3) Plenty of rooms in the basement. And even if an intruder could never be 100% sure of a perfect hiding spot, he still had a goal to achieve; a hiding spot with a small chance of risk would be superior to not achieving that goal
When he could have simply broken into the home in the middle of the night, strangled JBR, and slipped away? Because merely strangling her wouldn't have caused enough hurt, so he had to bash her on the head and then strangle her?
Yup, pretty much. After all, we know that Jack the Ripper dissected his victims in the middle of the street, whereas he could have just killed them and slipped away. Why? Because he had a compulsion to do so. BTK stayed around his victims, even depositing semen at the crime scene, and then taunted police with letters. Why? again, he had a compulsion to do so.

Whomever the murderer of JonBenet is, they did not have a financial motive. It was not a random thing. He had both a desire to harm the Ramseys and a rather sick desire to torture JonBenet. Simply stabbing her and running away would not have achieved that goal.

Quote:
Quote:
The kids were 9 and under. What exactly are they going to do with it?
Tell all sorts of people. In the US, people are very private about their finances. I did not know how much my dad made until he died.
You really think there are an army of 9 year olds running around bragging about their parent's income?

I knew how much my dad made. Granted, I was a few years older than the 2 Ramsey kids. I doubt my parents were that concerned.

Quote:
Quote:
The Ramseys were overly trusting people (e.g. leaving a broken window, not setting alarms, giving multiple keys to workmen, neighbors, etc.) Not locking up paystubs in a vault certainly fits into that trusting nature.
Keeping financial documents hidden fits in more with being casual about allowing workers into their home. Pay stubs contain enough information to allow someone to steal a person's identity.
And not locking doors, not setting burglar alarms, and giving keys out to dozens of people that you don't really know well is a way to allow people to break into your house and steal your possessions. Yet that's exactly what the Ramseys did. If these people were willing to risk their possessions, its not exactly a leap of faith to assume they'd also show a lack of concern regarding pay stubs.

Quote:
Quote:
Bank statements probably weren't sitting on the living room table for anyone to peruse. They would be in an office or bedroom. Not places that people attending a party would wander to.
People who host parties are known to occasionally give tours of their homes.
Not at any house party I've been to.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure anything like pay stubs would have copies sent to accountants, etc.
And then just thrown onto a table? How many people's homes have you been in where their paycheck stubs or bank statements have been visible? I've been in only 1 (my own).
I certainly have confidential information visible in mine, if someone were to break in.
Quote:
What you've described is a scenario in which someone broke into a house, spent considerable time rummaging through the house, wrote a letter using a pen and notepad from that house and left both the pen and notepad in the house, left the letter in an unconventional location, went into a bedroom and carried off JBR, bashed her on the head, carried her down to the basement, decided to molest her with a paintbrush, after waiting at least 45 minutes strangled her, and eventually left.
Yup. A complete scenario (although I did go into more details). A scenario that describes almost all the evidence.. A scenario where the main actors have modifications and personalities that are consistent.

Which is more than what you've provided, which is a vague "Inside Job" claim, without any sort of ability to put forward a reasonable scenario about how such a job could have come about.
Quote:
All without leaving any trace that anyone else was ever in the house, except perhaps a couple of drops of perspiration or saliva on her underpants.
Not to mention the missing roll of tape. And while the presence of an unlocked door in the house doesn't guarantee an intruder, it certainly shows the viability of unlocked entrances as a way in or out of the building.
Quote:
The intruder would either have to be incredibly lucky to have pulled this off or been a very experienced criminal.
Despite your claims, you're not likely to find DNA spewed all over every surface of the house, regardless of how long a criminal is there. And simply wearing latex/rubber gloves would have eliminated fingerprints.

Of course luck might have had something to do with it... incompetent police procedures early on (allowing non-police free range in the house) would have corrupted whatever evidence did exist, and a mistaken focus on the Ramseys would have meant that the search for other suspects would be minimized.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 01:13 PM   #231
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
If the crime was a personal cause, I would expect there to be clues in the "ransom note"
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 01:25 PM   #232
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
I will tell you what the police thought in the beginning. They theorized that it was accidental. That JonBenet had wet the bed (urine was in the bed, clothes on the bathroom floor, nighttime huggies hanging out of cabinet) and that Patsy had pushed her or hit her and she fell against something in the bathroom cracking her head.
Yes, JonBenet wet the bed. She had been doing it for a long time. (Apparently it was a trait that ran in John's family.)

Patsy was used to dealing with it. So for Patsy to flip out this time seems a little strange. "OK you've wet the bed 100 times this year. But now that its the 101st I'm going to push you".

Quote:
She appeared dead (physicians have said she probably had shallow breathing and that she could very well have been perceived as dead) and Patsy flipped out over killing her daughter. The rest was staged to point away from the Ramseys.
Patsy is so paniced over killing her daughter, yet she is calm and collected enough to stage a crime scene. Its this dual-nature that seems so unbelievable to me.

Quote:
It has been nearly confirmed there was sexual abuse going on (which I have always waivered on until a recent post here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/...use-guest.html) which would explain why the digital and/or paintbrush penetration was performed, to mask the prior abuse.
There were certainly a few accusations floating around about long-term sexual abuse, but nothing has been proven, and the FBI certainly didn't think it was happening.

Penetration by the paintbrush or finger would be consistent with a male intruder with a certain curiosity/compulsion regarding the female body.
Quote:
What do you think happened? If you think IDI, what was the purpose? Let's hear you lay out your theory from an IDI point of view.
I've already done so a couple of times in this thread. Perhaps the most complete description was in post 85. In that post, I give a complete accounting... the order of events, why certain evidence appeared as it does, what the thought process of the invader would have been.

And that's more than any of the "inside jobbers" have ever done, who seem to be unable to put together any sort of coherent narrative about how the events might have occurred.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=85

As I pointed out before... this was likely some sort of personal cause... someone with a grudge against the Ramseys (either real or imagined), as well as a dash of psychopath thrown in. He wanted to both hurt the Ramseys, and satisfy certain base urges (living out certain fantasies about killing/torturing). Nobody could ever know for sure what exactly was going through his mind, but we certainly have seen plenty of other killers with the same mentality. (And it certainly makes more sense than the mother who dotes on her daughter, yet decides to strangle her to death rather than get medical treatment.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 01:52 PM   #233
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post


Those particular phrases were similar to phrases in a couple of popular action movies out at the time. Since those type of movies tend to appeal more to young men than middle-aged housewives, it rather points away from the Ramseys and towards an outside intruder.
The Ramseys had several movie posters hanging on the wall.
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 02:11 PM   #234
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
Yes, JonBenet wet the bed. She had been doing it for a long time. (Apparently it was a trait that ran in John's family.)

Patsy was used to dealing with it. So for Patsy to flip out this time seems a little strange. "OK you've wet the bed 100 times this year. But now that its the 101st I'm going to push you".
You never know what sets someone off. To say it happened a million times before and this reaction was different is useless.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

Patsy is so paniced over killing her daughter, yet she is calm and collected enough to stage a crime scene. Its this dual-nature that seems so unbelievable to me.
The theory was that John staged the scene and Patsy wrote the note.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

There were certainly a few accusations floating around about long-term sexual abuse, but nothing has been proven, and the FBI certainly didn't think it was happening.
There's quite a list of people at that linked article who say it did:

John McCann, MD - Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, UC Davis, acknowledged to be the foremost expert on child sexual abuse in the country;

David Jones, MD - Professor of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, UC Boulder;

Robert Kirschner, MD - University of Chicago Department of Pathology;

James Monteleone, MD - Professor of Pediatrics at St Louis University School of Medicine and Director of Child Protection at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital;

Ronald Wright, MD - former Medical Examiner, Cook County, Illinois; and

Virginia Rau, MD - Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner.

I will also add, although anecdotal, that I originally did not believe there was indication of chronic abuse. I was talking to my daughter (a CRNP) and I was saying she had been to the pediatrician a lot for vaginitis. My daughter's head whipped around and she asked, "Was she being abused?" I said I didn't think so, and she said, "They taught us in pediatrics that was a number one sign of abuse. Girls do not get reoccurring vaginitis for no reason."

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
As I pointed out before... this was likely some sort of personal cause... someone with a grudge against the Ramseys (either real or imagined), as well as a dash of psychopath thrown in. He wanted to both hurt the Ramseys, and satisfy certain base urges (living out certain fantasies about killing/torturing). Nobody could ever know for sure what exactly was going through his mind, but we certainly have seen plenty of other killers with the same mentality. (And it certainly makes more sense than the mother who dotes on her daughter, yet decides to strangle her to death rather than get medical treatment.)

Then why did s/he write a 3-page ransom note when the child was already dead? How did s/he silence JBR where she was taken, in the bedroom? Why did s/he place an extra nightgown next to the child (which just happened to be JBR's favorite one)? Why did s/he come with no tools for the job. The ransom note was written on Patsy's notepad, with Patsy's pen and the garrote was made from Patsy's paintbrush.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 02:14 PM   #235
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,006
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
As I've pointed out before... the killings were thought to be a personal cause... someone who had some sort of reason (real or imagined) to specifically target the Ramseys. He would have had at least some knowledge of the family.
Then the Ramseys were poor judges of character? They had someone who was close enough to them to know what their Christmas and vacation plans were who wanted their daughter to die a slow, painful death?

If the killer knew the Ramsey's plans, why did he choose a night when they were getting home late and getting up early?

Quote:
Claiming you had no knowledge of them is irrelevant.
But the comment was funny. To probably everyone but you.

Quote:
Yup, pretty much. After all, we know that Jack the Ripper dissected his victims in the middle of the street, whereas he could have just killed them and slipped away. Why? Because he had a compulsion to do so. BTK stayed around his victims, even depositing semen at the crime scene, and then taunted police with letters. Why? again, he had a compulsion to do so.
Both of them were serial killers. There are no comparable murders to JBR's. In addition, only a few of BTK's murders involved breaking in before they returned home, and in those cases he had been conducting surveillance on them so that he had a good idea of when they would return. One intended victim avoided death by returning home later than usual.

Quote:
Whomever the murderer of JonBenet is, they did not have a financial motive. It was not a random thing. He had both a desire to harm the Ramseys and a rather sick desire to torture JonBenet. Simply stabbing her and running away would not have achieved that goal.
That's one explanation. There are other plausible explanations.


Quote:
You really think there are an army of 9 year olds running around bragging about their parent's income?
I don't recall mentioning anything about an army.

Quote:
Not at any house party I've been to.
That's very surprising. I've been to lots of parties where I've been shown around the house.

Quote:
Yup. A complete scenario (although I did go into more details). A scenario that describes almost all the evidence.. A scenario where the main actors have modifications and personalities that are consistent.
Which evidence does your scenario fit? There is no conclusive evidence of an intruder.

Quote:
Which is more than what you've provided, which is a vague "Inside Job" claim, without any sort of ability to put forward a reasonable scenario about how such a job could have come about.
The evidence that I've discussed are items that everyone appears to agree lean towards a Ramsey involvement. I've made counter-arguments to arguments posted pointing to others' involvement. There have been a number of ideas posted in books and on the Internet about how the murder could have been accomplished by 1 or more of the Ramseys. The theory in the link in Elagabalus' post is not contradicted by any evidence.

Quote:
Not to mention the missing roll of tape. And while the presence of an unlocked door in the house doesn't guarantee an intruder, it certainly shows the viability of unlocked entrances as a way in or out of the building.
If the killer wasn't afraid to leave the notepad and the pen, why would he worry about taking the roll of tape? (Incidentally, the tape that was over JBR's mouth contained fibers of the same color and composition as the jacket that PR wore the night before and the morning after).

Quote:
Despite your claims, you're not likely to find DNA spewed all over every surface of the house, regardless of how long a criminal is there. And simply wearing latex/rubber gloves would have eliminated fingerprints.
This contradicts what's been posted in the Amanda Knox thread.

So far you haven't posted any affirmative evidence, only that your theory can't be disproven by what we know. Which means that it's not impossible that you are correct. It's also not impossible that you are wrong.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 26th September 2016 at 02:18 PM.
TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 02:15 PM   #236
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Quote:
Those particular phrases were similar to phrases in a couple of popular action movies out at the time. Since those type of movies tend to appeal more to young men than middle-aged housewives, it rather points away from the Ramseys and towards an outside intruder.
The Ramseys had several movie posters hanging on the wall.
And which movies would they have been for?

The only video I've seen shows them having posters for Officer and a Gentleman (a romantic drama) and Death on the Nile (based on an Agatha Cristie novel). Both of those movies are significantly different than the type of action movies that contains the lines used in the ransom notes.

Maybe if they had posters for Dirty Harry or Speed it might be relevant, but to my knowledge there were no posters for those movies in their 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 26th September 2016, 02:16 PM   #237
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
I've already done so for the intruder theory, back in post 25, when I wrote (with some minor additions):
An intruder (possibly with a grudge against the Ramseys) breaks in when they are away, either through the window or an unlocked door, or using one of the many keys known to be in circulation. He brings with him duct tape and some rope. Maybe he brings a note, maybe not. He waits for the family to come home, exploring the house and writing the ransom note (because he didn't bring one originally, or because he saw John's pay stub for $118k and thought that would be a good amount to ask for) when waiting. Family comes home and goes to bed. Intruder leaves the note on the stairs, incapacitates JonBenet and brings her downstairs. However, for some reason his plans change. (Perhaps she struggles at an inopportune time, perhaps the stress of the situation gets to him, perhaps he realizes he can't get her out of the house safely). He takes her to the basement to the wine cellar, stuns her, starts to strangle her and hits her with the flashlight (or, alternatively, with a baseball bat he found in the house), and leaves either through the door that was found unlocked, taking the roll of tape with him. (If he used the baseball bat, he left it outside.) He leaves his flashlight in the kitchen on his way out of the house. (Or, the flashlight actually belonged to a policeman who had left in there by mistake and its irrelevant.)
Problemmo:

Something goes wrong and you hit her over the head and you don't get the heck out of dodge? There was AT LEAST 45 minutes between the head injury and the strangulation, possibly up to 2 hours.

He did not bring the note with him, as it came from Patsy's note pad, written by Patsy's pen, per the FBI.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 02:35 PM   #238
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And which movies would they have been for?

The only video I've seen shows them having posters for Officer and a Gentleman (a romantic drama) and Death on the Nile (based on an Agatha Cristie novel). Both of those movies are significantly different than the type of action movies that contains the lines used in the ransom notes.

Maybe if they had posters for Dirty Harry or Speed it might be relevant, but to my knowledge there were no posters for those movies in their house.
The point is that they were movie buffs (even had a home studio of sorts). It follows that they may be familiar with all sorts of films.
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 02:52 PM   #239
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Quote:
The only video I've seen shows them having posters for Officer and a Gentleman (a romantic drama) and Death on the Nile (based on an Agatha Cristie novel). Both of those movies are significantly different than the type of action movies that contains the lines used in the ransom notes.

Maybe if they had posters for Dirty Harry or Speed it might be relevant, but to my knowledge there were no posters for those movies in their house.
The point is that they were movie buffs (even had a home studio of sorts). It follows that they may be familiar with all sorts of films.
How does that follow?

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

The movie posters show they like movies for people with more mature tastes. The phrases in the note were from more straight-up action movies that appeal to a younger/male demographic.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 03:02 PM   #240
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,047
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Quote:
An intruder (possibly with a grudge against the Ramseys) breaks in when they are away, either through the window or an unlocked door, or using one of the many keys known to be in circulation. He brings with him duct tape and some rope. Maybe he brings a note, maybe not. He waits for the family to come home, exploring the house and writing the ransom note (because he didn't bring one originally, or because he saw John's pay stub for $118k and thought that would be a good amount to ask for) when waiting. Family comes home and goes to bed. Intruder leaves the note on the stairs, incapacitates JonBenet and brings her downstairs. However, for some reason his plans change. (Perhaps she struggles at an inopportune time, perhaps the stress of the situation gets to him, perhaps he realizes he can't get her out of the house safely). He takes her to the basement to the wine cellar, stuns her, starts to strangle her and hits her with the flashlight (or, alternatively, with a baseball bat he found in the house), and leaves either through the door that was found unlocked, taking the roll of tape with him. (If he used the baseball bat, he left it outside.)
Problemmo:

Something goes wrong and you hit her over the head and you don't get the heck out of dodge?
The blow would not have immediately killed her, they were in a part of the house that provided significant privacy, and the killer still had a desire to torture/inflict suffering. Why would he want to "get the heck out of dodge"?

You seem to be looking at this as if the killing were the only goal. It wasn't. Satisfying his twisted desires was.
Quote:
There was AT LEAST 45 minutes between the head injury and the strangulation, possibly up to 2 hours.
Keep in mind that the '45 minutes' claim seems to come from an on-line "forum" hosted by the former chief of police. While the natural tendency is to believe someone with his background, he was not speaking in an official government capacity, nor were his comments subject to any sort of verification.

ETA: I certainly don't deny that there could have been significant time between the head blow and the strangulation. Just not sure how reliable the '45 minutes-2 hours' is.
Quote:
He did not bring the note with him, as it came from Patsy's note pad, written by Patsy's pen, per the FBI.
Possible reasons for an intruder doing so have already been given, multiple times.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 26th September 2016 at 03:57 PM.
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 05:13 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.