Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Anti-K]

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.


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.

.

I’ll ignore the ad hominem. I don’t know how to respond to the rest of your post as I cannot tell if you are being serious.
.

It is opinion, and not fact, that the evidence is totally RDI. And, I shall not move on. This thread is titled “Are the Ramseys involved or not?” The questions, etc that I am raising go straight to that question. If you choose to ignore, I promise that I won’t complain (or, notice).
...

AK
.

 

[Tawny]

They likely wrote the note with the intention of it coming across as a failed kidnapping that ended up with a dead child. THAT'S how it "explains" the dead child in the basement.

Would a kidnapper who accidentally killed the child during the abduction take the body?

 

[Anti-K]

They likely wrote the note with the intention of it coming across as a failed kidnapping that ended up with a dead child. THAT'S how it "explains" the dead child in the basement.

Why do you think that that is likely?

Would a kidnapper who accidentally killed the child during the abduction take the body?

I don’t know. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t.

But, I think that this is one of the arguments RDI have been using against IDI for forever: a kidnapper wouldn’t leave the body behind (they could still collect the ransom as long as the parents didn’t know that she was dead). So, I’m a little amused to see, first UK Guy, and now, you, seemingly accepting the premise that (if IDI) this could be a failed kidnapping.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I try to imagine the decision tree that could bring one to fake a kidnapping to explain a dead body in the house and I’m really stalling out on that. Now, to think that the decision was to fake a failed kidnapping? How does one ever come to that? I mean, even if we imagine a stupid person; how does one come to that? Even if that stupid person is also desperate and temporarily insane; how does one come to that? What is the process; the reasoning used?

You have a dead, or dying child; critically injured through accident.

Ok. Let’s make it look like someone killed her.

How does one arrive at that?

Let’s make it look like someone killed her.

Who?
A kidnapper.
But, she’s not kidnapped.
A failed kidnapper.
Ok.
A kidnapper breaks in...

But, investigators are told that all the doors were locked. Every step along the way, I see nonsense. Faking an intruder always starts with a fake intruder entry – an unlocked door, an open window; something broken. But, investigators are told that all the doors were locked.
Even if they somehow, in bizarre fashion, as stupid, desperate and insane people stumbled upon the idea of faking a failed kidnapping it becomes unreasonable to believe that they would then turn around and tell investigators that all the doors were locked, (they heard nothing they saw nothing).

I do see evidence strongly suggestive of a fake kidnapping, but I don’t see evidence that shows that then Ramseys faked it. And, with the body in the house, no reason for them to fake it.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

I don't accept the premise that it could be a failed kidnapping because it's not. It's a failed attempt at staging a failed kidnapping.

 

[UKGuy]

I’ll ignore the ad hominem. I don’t know how to respond to the rest of your post as I cannot tell if you are being serious.
.

It is opinion, and not fact, that the evidence is totally RDI. And, I shall not move on. This thread is titled “Are the Ramseys involved or not?” The questions, etc that I am raising go straight to that question. If you choose to ignore, I promise that I won’t complain (or, notice).
...

AK
.

Anti-K,
Well everyone else will note I don’t know how to respond to the rest of your post meaning you patently have no answers.

There is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household, yet there is forensic evidence linking all three remaining Ramseys to the wine-cellar, and thats fact not opinion!


.

 

[Anti-K]

I don't accept the premise that it could be a failed kidnapping because it's not. It's a failed attempt at staging a failed kidnapping.

Okay, that’s fair. Burt, why do you think that such a thing is likely? Not trying to start anything, just curious.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Well everyone else will note I don’t know how to respond to the rest of your post meaning you patently have no answers.

There is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household, yet there is forensic evidence linking all three remaining Ramseys to the wine-cellar, and thats fact not opinion!


.

I wasn’t aware that you spoke for everyone, but thanks.

Of course there’s forensic evidence linking all three remaining Ramseys to the wine-cellar! They all lived in the house.

There is unsourced, trace evidence found on the victim in incriminating locations – DNA, hair, fibers (handwriting). This is evidence indicative of an intruder, and if any of these items are ever sourced then we would say that they are evidence connecting someone outside of the Ramsey household.
...

AK

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Anti-K,
Well everyone else will note I don’t know how to respond to the rest of your post meaning you patently have no answers.

There is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household, yet there is forensic evidence linking all three remaining Ramseys to the wine-cellar, and thats fact not opinion!


.

This is so silly. Of course there is evidence that there was someone else there that killed her. It is in CODIS.

 

[Tawny]

Okay, that’s fair. Burt, why do you think that such a thing is likely? Not trying to start anything, just curious.
...

AK

Why do I think that what is likely? You lost me

 

[Anti-K]

Why do I think that what is likely? You lost me

You said, “They likely wrote the note with the intention of it coming across as a failed kidnapping that ended up with a dead child.”

I’m asking why you think that is likely.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

You said, “They likely wrote the note with the intention of it coming across as a failed kidnapping that ended up with a dead child.”

I’m asking why you think that is likely.
...

AK

Because the handwriting matches PR's.

 

[Anti-K]

Because the handwriting matches PR's.

Oh.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

This is so silly. Of course there is evidence that there was someone else there that killed her. It is in CODIS.

Like every other IDI you overestimate the value of DNA. It may have been on her clothing prior to the murder, it could have been deposited after the murder, or it may have been transferred via whatever was used to wipe her down.

Yes it could have come from the murderer but that definitely isn't a fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

From Kolar's AMA:

"DNA can be very powerful evidence of proof of involvement or innocence, but it has to be evaluated in the context of all other evidence."
​

Then he went on and gave a good example of how it could be misinterpreted (and this is less than 10% of what he said):

"We're strangers riding an elevator together and I, suffering from a cold, sneeze on you. I apologize profusely, wiping your coat. We part ways at the 1st floor and 2 blocks later you are accosted by a robber. He grabs your coat and gets your wallet and shoots you dead. His DNA is found on your coat, but so is mine, from saliva and the transfer of skin cells. Police get two separate DNA profiles - can you safely assume that there were two people responsible for the murder.

"Sometimes its easy - the rapist's semen was collected, tested, and identified. The totality of the circumstances need to be evaluated and weighed as to probative value. Just because there are trace amounts of DNA present, it doesn't mean it absolutely belongs to a perpetrator."
​

 

[andreww]

Seattle lab's DNA supervisor, George Chan, was chatting with a forensic scientist who was examining evidence in a child rape case. Although Chan had no other exposure to the case, a subsequent test found Chan's DNA, as well as that of the suspect, in the evidence -- a sample taken from a pair of boxer shorts. The likely culprit: saliva spewed during Chan's conversation.

DNA analysts are now required to use a Plexiglas screen, wear a mask or refrain from talking while testing DNA, Shutler said.

These DNA tests are so sensitive that you really have to be careful in the weight that you put on them. As Chief Kolar said, you have to take the results in context with the other evidence. In this particular case, all the evidence points to it being an inside job, so most likely that DNA got their by some other method than direct contact. Given the sloppy police work from day one and the negligence of the coroner for not using sterile nail clippers, it is not hard for one to imagine exactly how that DNA got there. My guess is that the DNA likely came from a towel or piece of clothing from one of the many people that had recently done renovation work in the Ramsey home. it was used to wipe her down and the DNA transferred from her skin to he clothing. But who knows? Thats the problem with touch DNA, people have the perception that it is beyond reproach and that if it exists it must belong to the perp. While that may be true with things like blood or semen, touch DNA is a little more tricky to deal with. More of a tool for investigation than a definitive proof of guilt.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

These DNA tests are so sensitive that you really have to be careful in the weight that you put on them. As Chief Kolar said, you have to take the results in context with the other evidence. In this particular case, all the evidence points to it being an inside job, so most likely that DNA got their by some other method than direct contact. Given the sloppy police work from day one and the negligence of the coroner for not using sterile nail clippers, it is not hard for one to imagine exactly how that DNA got there. My guess is that the DNA likely came from a towel or piece of clothing from one of the many people that had recently done renovation work in the Ramsey home. it was used to wipe her down and the DNA transferred from her skin to he clothing. But who knows? Thats the problem with touch DNA, people have the perception that it is beyond reproach and that if it exists it must belong to the perp. While that may be true with things like blood or semen, touch DNA is a little more tricky to deal with. More of a tool for investigation than a definitive proof of guilt.

That is not true. If the test provides the markers it shows who that is. The biggest challenge is finding the match. No matter what the DNA in this case matters. It would not matter if we had the arm of the killer and the R's still had all their limbs, People would still find a way to spin it back to RDI.

 

[BBB167893]

DNA in her underwear that does not belong to a Ramsey. That is clear and concise.
It is not DNA from 5 different factory workers. It is DNA that was mingled with hers in her underwear that day and was left by the killer.

Funny how the actual investigators don't agree, isn't it?

 

[BBB167893]

It is not known that Jonbenet was sexually assaulted before Christmas, or at any time prior to her murder and the assault of that night.
While I provisionally accept as true that Jonbenet suffered from some sort of prior abuse, no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc).

You interest me, Anti-K. Go on.

One can imagine all manner of wild scenarios to explain away the DNA, but the matching tDNA makes them all very unlikely and barely believable.

YOU say.

Besides the male, foreign DNA found in incriminating locations there are 2 and ½ pages of unidentified handwriting. Say what you will about Mrs Ramsey not being excluded (she was not unique in this regard) butt none of the credible (as decided in Court) experts identified ANYONE as author.

I'm puzzled as to how you can say a court decided who was credible, since the case never went to trial. Maybe you haven't heard, but JURIES decide who is credible.

Garnett said the case file was equivocal and, iirc, pointing in no direction; there’s no prior history, no motivation, no sense to it.

Those things are not evidence. Murder doesn't NEED to make sense. It doesn't NEED motive. And it doesn't NEED prior history. I don't know how many MORE examples we need to show that.

Additionally, the case against the Ramseys is weak, non-specific, nebulous and bizarre. The only consensus there seems to be is that one of them did it.

You just nailed it, Anti-K: without a confession, who can tell which one did what and to what length?

 

[BBB167893]

What amazes me is the attempt to take the obvious facts and twist and turn them so they don't exist when clearly they do.

Don't I know it!