Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[andreww]

No, Andreww, I don’t dismiss the opinions of the experts. But, I am only interested in the opinions of those experts found credible by the Court, and, in this case, those experts found credible by the Court did not identify anyone as author, “and the experts' consensus was that [Mrs Ramsey] ‘probably did not’ write the Ransom Note.”

Will you stop saying that. The experts said Patsy definitely wrote that note, but they weren't allowed to testify. The Ramseys expert thought they didn't write the note.

So, Mrs or Mr Ramsey could have written the note regardless of what any expert might say. This is why it is important to consider other aspects of this piece of evidence; such as the fact that the ransom note and the body in the house are contradictions. I can understand why you would not wish to discuss such things as they do not support the RDI position.

Myself and others have explained why the Ramseys would written that note. A 2-year old could understand it. Apparently you don't, and we go around in circles.

I’ll be back later to comment on the four month wait.

You can spin that any way you want, but show me one innocent parent of a murdered child that has waited 4 months to talk to LE. Show me just one!!!

 

[Mama2JML]

As a matter of fact I do, the murder of Janelle Patton. The actual perp, Glenn McNeill (whose DNA was absent), was convicted based on his confession and fingerprint evidence.



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...od-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516

Thanks, andreww. I am aware of this case. Turns out, GM may not be guilty of JP's murder, according to a juror that helped convict him. The evidence certainly suggests GM's involvement in the concealment, transport, disposal, etc. of the victim's body, but there is a lack of forensic evidence tying him to the actual assault & murder. Unless LE's, the ME's, & the lab's quality assurance standards were severely lacking, there is plenty of evidence to ignite an investigation focusing on the "mystery DNA" and any remaining unsourced evidence.

 

[andreww]

Thanks, andreww. I am aware of this case. Turns out, GM may not be guilty of JP's murder, according to a juror that helped convict him. The evidence certainly suggests GM's involvement in the concealment, transport, disposal, etc. of the victim's body, but there is a lack of forensic evidence tying him to the actual assault & murder. Unless LE's, the ME's, & the lab's quality assurance standards were severely lacking, there is plenty of evidence to ignite an investigation focusing on the "mystery DNA" and any remaining unsourced evidence.

Whatever, you asked for an example and I supplied it.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Its elementary,


the ransom note was penned to explain why JonBenet was moved down to the basement.

So the ransom note does indeed explain the body in the house, in particular the body in the wine-cellar, and not the body formerly located somewhere upstairs!

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged completely by the Ramsey's, all three remaining R's are linked by forensic evidence to the wine-cellar, all three have a motive for staging the crime-scene, the case is unmistakebly RDI.

.

The ransom note does not explain why Jonbenet was moved down to the basement. That’s ridiculous; the ransom note could only explain why Jonbenet was removed from the house, except she wasn’t.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Again you are distorting facts. One sample had 9 markers. Do you know how many markers were found on the waistband? The whole basis of the IDI argument is that matching foreign DNA was found in the underpants and longjohns. If only one marker was found on the waistband, that is not a match. if two markers are found on the waistband, that is not a match. Get it?

Again I ask, HOW MANY MARKERS DID MARY LACY MATCH IN ORDER TO EXCLUDE THE RAMSEYS???

No, Andreww, the 9 marker sample was later strengthened to reveal the 10th marker and that sample is in CODIS. This is a fact. 10 markers.

YOU are the one distorting the facts by continually insisting that this sample was only 9 markers.

No one knows how many markers were found on the leggings.

Your question “HOW MANY MARKERS DID MARY LACY MATCH IN ORDER TO EXCLUDE THE RAMSEYS???” is a meaningless question and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the basic concepts involved.

You only need one (un-matched) marker to exclude. One.

.

“If only one marker was found on the waistband, than that is not a match.”
Nonsense.

If that one marker is the same on all samples collected, then there is a match. If two markers are the same on all samples collected, then there is a match. And, so on... Every marker matched increases the probability that the samples collected came from the same person. It’s all a matter of probability.

Consider an eyewitness who only remembers a person’s eye color. You can compare eye color to eye color. If the eyewitness remember blue eyes and the suspect had brown eyes – we have an exclusion. We don’t need to look at anything else. The blue eyes suspect might not be the person seen by the eye witness, but there is still a match if the eyes are blue. If the eyewitness remembers blue eyes and tall height then we can include all tall, blue eyed suspects and exclude all without blue eyes and/or without height. Now, the eyewitness remembers weight, then hair, then tattoos. And so on. With every attribute compared and matched we increase the probability that we are looking at the same person. But, just one un-matched attribute and we have an exclusion.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Typical IDI arguments. You dismiss the opinions of experts with years of experience in handwriting analysis, yet you argue the semantics of whether the existence of the note makes sense or not. Nice smokescreen, but I don't debate hypothetical theories.

As for the four month wait being a good thing, you are just showing your ignorance. The police wanted to interview the Ramseys separately, within hours of the murder so the events would be fresh in their minds, and before they could align their stories (if they were guilty). After four months the Ramsey's developed acute cases of Ramnesia, so dont try to tell anybody hear that they did LE any favours. That stuff may fly on your IDI thread but it doesn't here.

I don’t live in a black and white world. The four month wait was good for some in some ways, and bad for some in other ways.

If the “police wanted to interview the Ramseys separately, within hours of the murder” than they would have done so. They didn’t and no one is to blame for that except BPD. It was only later, in retrospect that BPD lamented their failure to get those early interviews.

To solely blame the Ramseys for the four month delay shows an incredible bias and no regard for the intricacies and complexities involved. Sure, the Ramseys deserve some blame for this, but there’s plenty to go around. But, to say that no one gained any advantage from the delay is to show some degree of naiveté.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Exactly. With no note, the police would be looking directly at the Ramseys the second they walked in the door. The note gave them a little bit of a buffer and gave the police a second theory. Without that note there is absolutely NOTHING that points to an intruder.

Not necessarily. This would depend on what (if RDI) the Ramseys decided to do. For instance, they could report an accident, call an ambulance or rush to the hospital and not have any police coming over to begin with.

As a ruse, the note only works until the body is discovered and then the gig is up. So, what use is that?
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Exactly. With no note, the police would be looking directly at the Ramseys the second they walked in the door. The note gave them a little bit of a buffer and gave the police a second theory. Without that note there is absolutely NOTHING that points to an intruder.

andreww,
Even with the note there is nothing that points to an intruder, something I've been saying for years.

Another aspect is the staging which I reckon was premeditated and not simply some reaction to events.

Its the staging that confounds people, i.e. ransom note, who cares what it says, who wrote it, when they they wrote it. Its a staged artifact, it is not part of the primary crime-scene so cannot inform you about those events.

The staged aspects send people down wormholes seeking red herrings so to demonstrate that the case is IDI, when its really RDI, with JonBenet's main assailant still alive today and unwilling to talk to cold case detectives!

.

 

[Anti-K]

Will you stop saying that. The experts said Patsy definitely wrote that note, but they weren't allowed to testify. The Ramseys expert thought they didn't write the note.



Myself and others have explained why the Ramseys would written that note. A 2-year old could understand it. Apparently you don't, and we go around in circles.



You can spin that any way you want, but show me one innocent parent of a murdered child that has waited 4 months to talk to LE. Show me just one!!!

I won’t stop saying it because what I say is true and factual and I am quoting directly from the source.

And, as a rule, I tend to discount the opinion of the Ramsey experts and generally only refer to those experts hired by BPD, and, as the Courts stated, “the experts' consensus was that [Mrs Ramsey] ‘probably did not’ write the Ransom Note.”

NO ONE has ever offered a reasonable explanation for the Ramseys to write the note, never mind for them writing it as it was written. The note only makes sense for them if they had disposed of the body, they didn’t do that.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

Actually, reasonable explanations have been provided numerous times, you're just choosing not to accept them because you don't want to. JMO.

 

[Anti-K]

Actually, reasonable explanations have been provided numerous times, you're just choosing not to accept them because you don't want to. JMO.

Oh, I’ve read various explanations, but none of them have been reasonable. Kidnappers don’t leave bodies in the house. So, a ransom note cannot explain the body in the house.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

It was (if RDI) written by people who weren't kidnappers, why are you expecting them to behave like actual kidnappers?

 

[UKGuy]

Oh, I’ve read various explanations, but none of them have been reasonable. Kidnappers don’t leave bodies in the house. So, a ransom note cannot explain the body in the house.
...

AK

Anti-K,

Kidnappers don’t leave bodies in the house. So, a ransom note cannot explain the body in the house.

Oh my, why must kidnappers not leave a body in the house, please explain?

In your universe, what is the definition of reasonable so we can map it to any IDI claims?

The ransom note exists to explain why the R's moved JonBenet down to the basement, without the ransom note the searchlight of scrutiny would focus on the R's.

What part of reasonable does that not match, or is your nickname pitbull?

A kidnapper who leaves a body in the house is by definition a failed kidnapper, maybe he was inebriated, maybe he was under the influence of LSD, Cannibis Sativa, or MDMA, who knows, patently not you!

The evidence for RDI is overwhelming, claims for IDI have no evidential basis, its simply wishful thinking.

.

 

[Anti-K]

It was (if RDI) written by people who weren't kidnappers, why are you expecting them to behave like actual kidnappers?

I’m not sure that I have any expectations. I am simply stating what should be obvious: the ransom note could only explain why Jonbenet was removed from the house, except she wasn’t. It contradicts what the Ramseys (if RDI) would have needed to do: explain a dead child in the house.

If they wanted investigators to believe that someone had entered the house, then why tell them that all the doors were locked. This is another contradiction. It just doesn’t make sense.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Oh my, why must kidnappers not leave a body in the house, please explain?

In your universe, what is the definition of reasonable so we can map it to any IDI claims?

The ransom note exists to explain why the R's moved JonBenet down to the basement, without the ransom note the searchlight of scrutiny would focus on the R's.

What part of reasonable does that not match, or is your nickname pitbull?

A kidnapper who leaves a body in the house is by definition a failed kidnapper, maybe he was inebriated, maybe he was under the influence of LSD, Cannibis Sativa, or MDMA, who knows, patently not you!

The evidence for RDI is overwhelming, claims for IDI have no evidential basis, its simply wishful thinking.

.

So, now you’re arguing an IDI position: a real kidnapper might leave a body in the house. Interesting!
.

If the body had been disposed of then the Ramseys (if RDI) would need to explain why she was missing. In such a case, it would be reasonable to fake or report a kidnapping.
This – reporting a kidnapping – is the solution to a problem that was not presented.
...

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

Oh, I’ve read various explanations, but none of them have been reasonable. Kidnappers don’t leave bodies in the house. So, a ransom note cannot explain the body in the house.
...

AK

What if the true intent of the note was that of a confession stemming from the writer's subconscious mind?

 

[UKGuy]

So, now you’re arguing an IDI position: a real kidnapper might leave a body in the house. Interesting!
.

If the body had been disposed of then the Ramseys (if RDI) would need to explain why she was missing. In such a case, it would be reasonable to fake or report a kidnapping.
This – reporting a kidnapping – is the solution to a problem that was not presented.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Presumably you are deluded or an aplogist for the R's, since I asked the questions and recieved no answers except more IDI promotion.

a real kidnapper might leave a body in the house. Interesting!

Why not, what world do you inhabit, Ramsey Central? Kidnappers can fail just as presidents, i.e. Bush Junior, or Nixon did, there is nothing deterministic about presenting a ransom note and expecting the abductee to be magically transported from the premises that only happens in movies and fairy tales.

The ransom note is part of the staging, JonBenet located in the wine-cellar is part of the staging, the kidnapping failed precisely because it never took place.

The case and the evidence is totally RDI, move on.

.

 

[tlcya]

I once thought the Rs had no involvement and an IDI situation was involved. Over the years I have come to believe that IF an R did it, it was a minor R at the time of the crime which may cause both adult Rs to cover and go into circle the wagons mode early on. It is my opinion that at the very least, it is likely that the adult Rs BELIEVED a minor R was involved.

 

[inspector rex]

andreww,
Even with the note there is nothing that points to an intruder, something I've been saying for years.

Another aspect is the staging which I reckon was premeditated and not simply some reaction to events.

Its the staging that confounds people, i.e. ransom note, who cares what it says, who wrote it, when they they wrote it. Its a staged artifact, it is not part of the primary crime-scene so cannot inform you about those events.

The staged aspects send people down wormholes seeking red herrings so to demonstrate that the case is IDI, when its really RDI, with JonBenet's main assailant still alive today and unwilling to talk to cold case detectives!

.

I guess it depends on which RDI thread you are on, because I also read that the FBI were 'onto them' right from the start.
If they never believed the RN was true and the parents were involved:
Why leave a single officer in charge of these supposed murderers?
Why not search the property thoroughly?
Why send the supposed murderer to search?
Why not take both parties down to the precinct and interview them separately?

If the Ransom note fooled the BPD into thinking there was an intruder:
why not call in dogs from the start?

You say the staging was premeditated but:
If the note was written by the Ramseys to explain her disappearance, why hadn't she disappeared?
If they for some reason didn't get to move the body, why call and report the ransom note? Simply say we went to her room and she was gone!
If they were trying to throw suspicion from themselves, why tell Police all the doors were locked?
Why deny having tape and cord in the house?
Why say she didn't eat pineapple?
Why leave the pineapple they say she didn't eat in plain view on the table?

Why wipe down their own flashlight inside and out?

 

[Anti-K]

What if the true intent of the note was that of a confession stemming from the writer's subconscious mind?

I have no idea how one wold go about establishing such a possibility.
...

AK