Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Anti-K]

Sorry, you are making very vague points. "the Ramsey's wouldn't have done this" and "an intruder would have done that" just don't cut it. Patsy was identified by more than one expert as having written the note. Patsy was identified by every other expert as maybe writing the note.

And although my point were many, the underlying theme is that they have lied like thieves throughout this investigation and they have been extremely uncooperative. That is not how innocent people act. Why? Answer that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, Andreww, I don’t think that I was being vague at all. in fact, I think I was being quite clear. And, I did not at any point write anything that could be construed as "an intruder would have done that." stating such a thing makes me think that you didn’t actually read through my post, or, at least, that you did so without actually considering what I’d written.
.

M only concerned with the opinion of these experts deemed by the Court – in this case – to be credible. I know of at least one expert who identified Mr (John) Ramsey as the author, one of the experts cited in Carnes claims that he could not exclude Chris Wolf, and, there are experts who have identified Karr as the author, and on it I would be shocked if Mrs Ramsey hadn’t also been identified by someone, somewhere!

Regardless, your claim that “Patsy was identified by every other expert as maybe writing the note” is not true. Mrs Ramsey “could not be excluded” would be closer to the truth, and according to evidence and testimony presented to Court, “the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note.”

Anyway, citing expert opinions on the handwriting is never going to convince anyone of anything. People are convinced by other factors: the note was written in the house; the note was written with materials from the house; etc.
.

It is your opinion, and the opinion of most (all?) RDI that the Ramseys “lied like thieves.” Many of these lies appear to be solely in the imaginings of the beholder, IMO. But, I would agree that the Ramseys certainly earned their status as suspects!

As far as being “extremely uncooperative,” that is at best an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that they did not cooperate in the way that BPD, or the general public, wanted them to.

All your doing here, Andreww, is giving us reasons why the Ramseys should have been on the suspect list and why they should have been investigated. I’m in complete agreement; but these people were investigated to death and there aint nothing left. The end result is zero.
All that’s left is, as Lacey wrote to Kolar, “pure speculation as to what could've happened rather than evidence as to what did happen.”
Anyway, I think that the key behind the failure to act as innocent persons is that no one thought of them as innocent persons. BPD didn’t want to talk to them to clear them; they wanted to talk to them to nail them. Not in the first few days, but very early on. And, particularly if you have money, that changes everything.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I really don't care if every woman alive is offended. If JB was dead at the time of the paintbrush assault (lack of tongue marks on the duct tape indicates she was at least unconscious) and the intent wasn't sexual, but a masking of evidence, then in my books that isn't a true sexual assault.

What I am getting at, that you IDI's seem to want to ignore, is that the true sexual assault, the one that stretched her hymen to twice its normal size, happened BEFORE that night. How long before? We don't know. Was the DNA from that assault? We don't know.

Beyond that, from what I can find on the subject, the DNA itself is suspect. The best sample as I understand it (please prove me wrong) had between 9 & 10 markers. That is LESS than the acceptable amount for CODIS (at least 10 markers). That in itself is not a huge deal, but the samples that it is being compared to had less than 3 markers. It seems to me that the reason CODIS requires 10 markers (out of a possible 13) is because that is a number that ensures an accurate result. If you have a sample that has one or two markers, how reliable is that sample? what are the probabilities of an error? Do you know that answer? because if you don't, then you cannot with any certainty say that any of that DNA matches.

“DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in Jonbenet’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases.” Kolar; P. 140

It is simply a fact, easily verified, that the sample in question eventually had that 10th marker was eventually “identified” and the sample subsequently accepted by CODIS. This isn’t even arguable. It is a fact.
.

What sample are you claiming only had 3 markers? Please, be clear.

How reliable is a sample with only 3 identified markers? I’m not sure what you mean by “reliable,” but as far as excluding someone all that you need is ONE marker, and anything over that is meaningless.

For inclusion, it’s always a matter of probability. We can use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66 to calculate: 1/13.66 x 1/13.66 x 1/13.66 = 1/2548.89. So, one out of every two thousand, five hundred and forty-eight could share three markers.
.

Does the CODIS sample match the leggings (tDNA) sample? Yes. That means that every identified marker matches. No one knows how many markers were identified on the leggings.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Thats one of the advantages of killing your own 6 year old. Your DNA is supposed to be on her so it means nothing.

Ah, but Ramsey DNA was not found in incriminating locations.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Well, Andreww, I don’t think that I was being vague at all. in fact, I think I was being quite clear. And, I did not at any point write anything that could be construed as "an intruder would have done that." stating such a thing makes me think that you didn’t actually read through my post, or, at least, that you did so without actually considering what I’d written.

Arguing the fact that they didn't write the ransom note because the could have written it on scrap wrapping paper is speculation on your part. Arguing that the Ramsey's wouldn't have written a rambling 2.5 page note is speculation on your part.

Regardless, your claim that “Patsy was identified by every other expert as maybe writing the note” is not true. Mrs Ramsey “could not be excluded” would be closer to the truth, and according to evidence and testimony presented to Court, “the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note.”

I stand by that statement. Not one, including the Ramsey's expert could eliminate her. If their expert was prepared to say that she probably didn't write the note, why didn't he exclude her? Probably thought that she might be convicted at some point and he better cover his arse.

It is your opinion, and the opinion of most (all?) RDI that the Ramseys “lied like thieves.” Many of these lies appear to be solely in the imaginings of the beholder, IMO. But, I would agree that the Ramseys certainly earned their status as suspects!

It is not my opinion that they lied. It is fact. There are countless instances where they tell completely different versions of events. Their stories don't jibe between the three of them. Their timelines don't add up. I am an excellent judge of people and I can tell these people have been lying since day one.

As far as being “extremely uncooperative,” that is at best an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that they did not cooperate in the way that BPD, or the general public, wanted them to.

You are kidding right? More that 4 months before submitting to an interview? What parent of a murdered child has ever done that. The fact that Burke still won't even talk to police says they still ain't cooperating nearly 20 years later.

BPD didn’t want to talk to them to clear them; they wanted to talk to them to nail them. Not in the first few days, but very early on. And, particularly if you have money, that changes everything.

When a child is killed in a house, odds say it was probably someone in that house. The police need to put that hurdle behind them with an interview. Generally a detective will be able to eliminate the parents with one interview, taking in to account their demeanour, how their story adds up and compares to that of other people in the house, and their truthfulness. The Ramseys failed on all three counts.

 

[andreww]

“DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in Jonbenet’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases.” Kolar; P. 140

Ah, so the DNA was manipulated to meet CODIS standards.

For inclusion, it’s always a matter of probability. We can use the FBI’s frequency rate of 13.66 to calculate: 1/13.66 x 1/13.66 x 1/13.66 = 1/2548.89. So, one out of every two thousand, five hundred and forty-eight could share three markers.

So what are the chances that the 9 marker sample matches the 1991 sample where less than two markers were found? How many markers were found in the waistband of the long johns? I'm not disputing the legitimacy of the 9 marker sample even though it doesn't meet CODIS standards. I do wonder about the other samples that it was compared to and would like to know how many markers were in those samples.

 

[andreww]

Do you know of any case in which a "meaningless", male DNA profile was found in a victim's underwear and at least two other locations, either on the victim's clothing or on the body, AND in which the actual perpetrator's DNA was absent?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants, coupled with the ferocity of the attack, suggested motives such as "jealousy, rage, anger and revenge" –– emotions that could be felt only by someone who, unlike McNeill, knew Patton, Garling said.

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

 

[elannia]

You cannot tell a persons age from DNA. It does tell us its a male, thats all. So yes it could have come from one of JBs playmates.

I meant BR, I just said "someone who couldnt be charged" lol. Because obviously if BR bashed her, and the parent(s) covered it up then thats why BR was never convicted, because of his age. My point is could the DNA be BR, and thats why the case has went nowhere, because its already solved. Like I said I do not understand the DNA much

 

[OliviaG1996]

I meant BR, I just said "someone who couldnt be charged" lol. Because obviously if BR bashed her, and the parent(s) covered it up then thats why BR was never convicted, because of his age. My point is could the DNA be BR, and thats why the case has went nowhere, because its already solved. Like I said I do not understand the DNA much

You raise a really good point! Can it be possible that they didn't release the name of the person whose DNA was on JB for the same reason they didn't release whose feces were on the box of chocolates in JB's room (assuming DNA can be extracted from excrement, which I'm not sure if it can or not)?

 

[elannia]

You raise a really good point! Can it be possible that they didn't release the name of the person whose DNA was on JB for the same reason they didn't release whose feces were on the box of chocolates in JB's room (assuming DNA can be extracted from excrement, which I'm not sure if it can or not)?

Thanks. the whole DNA stuff is confusing to me, but it was just a thought. But BR did give samples, and IF he did it he cannot be publicly named, so maybe the DNA cannot be either, because the public would know the ACTUAL truth

 

[Anti-K]

Arguing the fact that they didn't write the ransom note because the could have written it on scrap wrapping paper is speculation on your part. Arguing that the Ramsey's wouldn't have written a rambling 2.5 page note is speculation on your part.



I stand by that statement. Not one, including the Ramsey's expert could eliminate her. If their expert was prepared to say that she probably didn't write the note, why didn't he exclude her? Probably thought that she might be convicted at some point and he better cover his arse.



It is not my opinion that they lied. It is fact. There are countless instances where they tell completely different versions of events. Their stories don't jibe between the three of them. Their timelines don't add up. I am an excellent judge of people and I can tell these people have been lying since day one.



You are kidding right? More that 4 months before submitting to an interview? What parent of a murdered child has ever done that. The fact that Burke still won't even talk to police says they still ain't cooperating nearly 20 years later.



When a child is killed in a house, odds say it was probably someone in that house. The police need to put that hurdle behind them with an interview. Generally a detective will be able to eliminate the parents with one interview, taking in to account their demeanour, how their story adds up and compares to that of other people in the house, and their truthfulness. The Ramseys failed on all three counts.

You seem to be missing the point I raised; re: the ransom note.

I’m not saying that the Ramseys would have done this, or, that they would not have done that. I am saying that that the ransom note is contradictory to what they (if RDI) would have needed to do (explain dead body in house). That’s just a simple fact.

Removing items from the house shows a forensic concern, that they didn’t want investigators to trace things back to them. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. This, too, is just a simple fact.

There is nothing speculative about these points.
.

Conflicting versions of events do not equal lies. They can be the result of lies, but this is not the only explanation for such. Of course, I don’t think that they were 100% honest about everything (and, they have admitted as much; for example: Burke being awake). Who is?
Andreww, I completely agree that much of what the Ramseys did (or, didn’t) often made them look guilty, or, at least, as if they were hiding something. They belonged on the suspect list and they needed to be investigated. That happened, and nothing came of it.
.

The Ramseys provided investigators with virtually everything that they needed to begin their investigation within the first 48 hours. The four month delay before formal interviews was the fault of both parties involved and actually benefitted BPD because it allowed them the time to – well, to investigate. Check out the Ramseys, their family, their friends, etc. It gave them time to get the results back from various forensics tests (handwriting, hairs, fibers, etc). It gave them the opportunity to determine the direction the interviews should take.
.

All that any of this boils down to is that the Ramseys didn’t behave the way that you think they should have. That doesn’t make them guilty and it isn’t exactly evidence against them. It makes them suspicious, and that’s why they were investigated so thoroughly. That investigation revealed nothing.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Ah, so the DNA was manipulated to meet CODIS standards.



So what are the chances that the 9 marker sample matches the 1991 sample where less than two markers were found? How many markers were found in the waistband of the long johns? I'm not disputing the legitimacy of the 9 marker sample even though it doesn't meet CODIS standards. I do wonder about the other samples that it was compared to and would like to know how many markers were in those samples.

It is a 10 marker sample. Advancements in the “science” of DNA analysis identified the 1oth marker. It is in CODIS.
We don’t know if the CODIS sample matched the ’91 sample. Kolar doesn’t even mention that sample in his book.
.

What are the chances that 9 markers match 2 markers? I’m not sure how to answer that question, it seems oddly phrased. If the samples came from the same person than the chances that 9 would match the 2 is 100%. How many people share two markers? Once again using the FBI frequency rate, about one in 186. That’s a fair number of people, but in a case like this we have to wonder what are the chances that two different people sharing these markers also had contact with the victim (in incriminating locations)?
...

AK

 

[andreww]

It is a 10 marker sample. Advancements in the “science” of DNA analysis identified the 1oth marker. It is in CODIS.

Well thats very simply put, but what exact advancements in science allowed them to turn 9+ markers in to 10? Do you actually know the method? Because either its there or it isn't. Seems to me Lin Wood was pretty pleased with himself that they'd worked many months to get this sample in to CODIS, but everyone was pretty vague on how they did it. Just like Mary Lacy was very vague about the match on the waistband. Exactly how many markers matched Mary? Oh right, she refused to answer questions about it after she inexplicably cleared the Ramseys.

Truth is that nobody has proved that there is anything more than touch DNA here. And yes, im speaking about the comingled sample as well. You seem like a bright person, so you are probably aware that touch DNA can be spread very easily, both with direct contact and secondary contact. You are also aware that JB was wiped down with something, as reported in the autopsy. So it is very conceivable that the DNA was transferred from whatever was used to wipe her. Touch DNA is not as reliable as DNA from blood or saliva. So as a DNA case this one is weak at best, although team Ramsey has done a good job of convincing some people otherwise.

 

[andreww]

Removing items from the house shows a forensic concern, that they didn’t want investigators to trace things back to them. Creating THIS ransom note contradicts that intent. This, too, is just a simple fact.

You are kidding right? The ransom note was written to explain why the child didn't wake up alive in her bed. It was meant to firmly introduce the possibility of an intruder, and it was meant to cast suspicion on business acquaintances of Johns. There was no reason to discard the pad of paper or the pen because they belonged to the Ramseys, and even if it had their prints or DNA on them, who cares? But you will notice the practice note was nowhere to be found. The rope and duct tape would be discarded because you cant exactly wipe them clean can you? Sure they could have discarded the flashlight, but its easily wiped, and how would they explain what happened to theirs?

The Ramseys provided investigators with virtually everything that they needed to begin their investigation within the first 48 hours. The four month delay before formal interviews was the fault of both parties involved and actually benefitted BPD because it allowed them the time to – well, to investigate. Check out the Ramseys, their family, their friends, etc. It gave them time to get the results back from various forensics tests (handwriting, hairs, fibers, etc). It gave them the opportunity to determine the direction the interviews should take.

Okay, I can't believe you just said that. That has to be the single most BS filled paragraph I have ever read. Team Ramsey put out this propaganda that the Ramseys cooperated to the first 48 hours and its simply not true. The Ramseys were treated as victims of a kidnapping on that first day. There wasn't even a murder to investigate, so how could they have cooperated? On the second day, when asked to come in for an interview John told them he was not able to leave the house, yet he did manage to make it to the funeral home to begin arrangements. And you really think by waiting four months the Ramseys did LE a favour? I wont even begin to explain how stupid that statement is.

All that any of this boils down to is that the Ramseys didn’t behave the way that you think they should have. That doesn’t make them guilty and it isn’t exactly evidence against them. It makes them suspicious, and that’s why they were investigated so thoroughly. That investigation revealed nothing.

When a suspect in a murder lies in their statement to police, it certainly is evidence against them.

 

[Anti-K]

Well thats very simply put, but what exact advancements in science allowed them to turn 9+ markers in to 10? Do you actually know the method? Because either its there or it isn't. Seems to me Lin Wood was pretty pleased with himself that they'd worked many months to get this sample in to CODIS, but everyone was pretty vague on how they did it. Just like Mary Lacy was very vague about the match on the waistband. Exactly how many markers matched Mary? Oh right, she refused to answer questions about it after she inexplicably cleared the Ramseys.

Truth is that nobody has proved that there is anything more than touch DNA here. And yes, im speaking about the comingled sample as well. You seem like a bright person, so you are probably aware that touch DNA can be spread very easily, both with direct contact and secondary contact. You are also aware that JB was wiped down with something, as reported in the autopsy. So it is very conceivable that the DNA was transferred from whatever was used to wipe her. Touch DNA is not as reliable as DNA from blood or saliva. So as a DNA case this one is weak at best, although team Ramsey has done a good job of convincing some people otherwise.

To 1972
The sample would have been submitted to CODIS by either BPD or the DA’s office.

I have no idea what sort of advancements, etc may have been used for that 10th marker.

IMO, people get too hung up on the number of markers. One is all that we need to exclude someone or some other sample. Everything after that is a matter of probability. Using the FBI frequency rate we see that 13.66 people out of every hundred “share” a marker. Fewer people share two markers, and even fewer three; and so on.

The odds of a random match for 9 markers is astronomical. I mean, truly huge. Odds are in the hundreds of thousands with only 5 markers!
.

I do have a pretty good grasp on DNA transfer (primary, and otherwise) and I know that primary transfer is always the likeliest method of transfer.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You are kidding right? The ransom note was written to explain why the child didn't wake up alive in her bed. It was meant to firmly introduce the possibility of an intruder, and it was meant to cast suspicion on business acquaintances of Johns. There was no reason to discard the pad of paper or the pen because they belonged to the Ramseys, and even if it had their prints or DNA on them, who cares? But you will notice the practice note was nowhere to be found. The rope and duct tape would be discarded because you cant exactly wipe them clean can you? Sure they could have discarded the flashlight, but its easily wiped, and how would they explain what happened to theirs?



Okay, I can't believe you just said that. That has to be the single most BS filled paragraph I have ever read. Team Ramsey put out this propaganda that the Ramseys cooperated to the first 48 hours and its simply not true. The Ramseys were treated as victims of a kidnapping on that first day. There wasn't even a murder to investigate, so how could they have cooperated? On the second day, when asked to come in for an interview John told them he was not able to leave the house, yet he did manage to make it to the funeral home to begin arrangements. And you really think by waiting four months the Ramseys did LE a favour? I wont even begin to explain how stupid that statement is.



When a suspect in a murder lies in their statement to police, it certainly is evidence against them.

The Ramseys (if RDI) didn’t need to explain why the child didn’t wake up alive in her bed. They needed to explain the dead body in the house. The body in the house and the ransom note are contradictions. One doesn’t explain the other.

There was a so-called ransom note found in the notepad.

Creating THIS ransom note is to unnecessarily create self-incriminating evidence to be handed over to investigators. Persons concerned with forensic evidence don’t do such things. Either they had such concerns or they didn’t. Disposing of items shows forensic concern, and THIS note shows the opposite. It’s a contradiction.

To dispose of the cord, but to use the paintbrush handle is contradictory. To want investigators to believe that someone entered your home but then tell them that all the doors were locked is contradictory.
.

The Ramseys called the police to their home and they spent several hours with the police on that day providing police with much of the information needed for investigators to start their investigation. Early reports issued by BPD to the media claimed full cooperation. Sadly, things quickly fell apart.

Regardless of the exact nature of the crime all the basic info required by BPD would have been the same and that information was gathered in the first few hours: what did they do the night before, did anyone hear/see anything, who else had access to the home, whom might wish to harm them, etc, etc.

And, yes, the four month delay was to BPD’s benefit as already explained.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

The Ramseys (if RDI) didn’t need to explain why the child didn’t wake up alive in her bed. They needed to explain the dead body in the house. The body in the house and the ransom note are contradictions. One doesn’t explain the other.

There was a so-called ransom note found in the notepad.

Creating THIS ransom note is to unnecessarily create self-incriminating evidence to be handed over to investigators. Persons concerned with forensic evidence don’t do such things. Either they had such concerns or they didn’t. Disposing of items shows forensic concern, and THIS note shows the opposite. It’s a contradiction.

To dispose of the cord, but to use the paintbrush handle is contradictory. To want investigators to believe that someone entered your home but then tell them that all the doors were locked is contradictory.
.

The Ramseys called the police to their home and they spent several hours with the police on that day providing police with much of the information needed for investigators to start their investigation. Early reports issued by BPD to the media claimed full cooperation. Sadly, things quickly fell apart.

Regardless of the exact nature of the crime all the basic info required by BPD would have been the same and that information was gathered in the first few hours: what did they do the night before, did anyone hear/see anything, who else had access to the home, whom might wish to harm them, etc, etc.

And, yes, the four month delay was to BPD’s benefit as already explained.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Its elementary,

The body in the house and the ransom note are contradictions. One doesn’t explain the other.

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.

.

 

[andreww]

To 1972

IMO, people get too hung up on the number of markers. One is all that we need to exclude someone or some other sample. Everything after that is a matter of probability. Using the FBI frequency rate we see that 13.66 people out of every hundred “share” a marker. Fewer people share two markers, and even fewer three; and so on.

The odds of a random match for 9 markers is astronomical. I mean, truly huge. Odds are in the hundreds of thousands with only 5 markers!
.

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???

 

[andreww]

The Ramseys (if RDI) didn’t need to explain why the child didn’t wake up alive in her bed. They needed to explain the dead body in the house. The body in the house and the ransom note are contradictions. One doesn’t explain the other.

There was a so-called ransom note found in the notepad.

Creating THIS ransom note is to unnecessarily create self-incriminating evidence to be handed over to investigators. Persons concerned with forensic evidence don’t do such things. Either they had such concerns or they didn’t. Disposing of items shows forensic concern, and THIS note shows the opposite. It’s a contradiction.

To dispose of the cord, but to use the paintbrush handle is contradictory. To want investigators to believe that someone entered your home but then tell them that all the doors were locked is contradictory.
.

The Ramseys called the police to their home and they spent several hours with the police on that day providing police with much of the information needed for investigators to start their investigation. Early reports issued by BPD to the media claimed full cooperation. Sadly, things quickly fell apart.

Regardless of the exact nature of the crime all the basic info required by BPD would have been the same and that information was gathered in the first few hours: what did they do the night before, did anyone hear/see anything, who else had access to the home, whom might wish to harm them, etc, etc.

And, yes, the four month delay was to BPD’s benefit as already explained.
...

AK

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.

 

[andreww]

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.

.

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.

 

[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.

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.”

Of course, experts can be fooled.

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.
.

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

AK