Patsy Ramsey

[bettybaby00]

I actually didn't know that police could not subpoena - many articles report that they can, but I know newspapers get this stuff wrong all the time. And DAs do not issue either of those things - a court does, usually on request form the DA of course.

I think the issue is administrative subpoenas, which do not require probable cause but also do not need to be complied with, can only sent out by a D.A.

Steve Thomas's letter of resignation details the frustration of LE with regard to dealing with the DAs office. The whole thing is worth the read if you haven't already done so.

The very entity with whom we shared our investigative case file to see justice sought, I felt, was betraying this case. We were never afforded true prosecutorial support. There was never a consolidation of resources. All legal opportunities were not made available. How were we expected to "solve" this case when the district attorney's office was crippling us with their positions? I believe they were, literally, facilitating the escape of justice. During this investigation, consider the following:

• During the investigation detectives would discover, collect, and bring evidence to the district attorney's office, only to have it summarily dismissed or rationalized as insignificant. The most elementary of investigative efforts, such as obtaining telephone and credit card records, were met without support, search warrants denied. The significant opinions of national experts were casually dismissed or ignored by the district attorney's office, even the experienced FBI were waved aside.
• Those who chose not to cooperate were never compelled before a grand jury early in this case, as detectives suggested only weeks after the murder, while information and memories were fresh.
• An informant, for reasons his own, came to detectives about conduct occurring inside the district attorneys office, including allegations of a plan intended only to destroy a man's career. We carefully listened. With that knowledge, the department did nothing. Other than to alert the accused, and in the process burn the two detectives [who captured that exchange on an undercover wire, incidentally] who came forth with this information. One of the results of that internal whistleblowing was witnessing Detective Commander Eller, who also could not tolerate what was occurring, lose his career and reputation undeservedly; scapegoated in a manner which only heightened my concerns. It did not take much inferential reasoning to realize that any dissidents were readily silenced.
• In a departure from protocol, police reports, physical evidence, and investigative information was shared with Ramsey defense attorneys, all of this in the district attorney's office "spirit of cooperation". I served a search warrant, only to find later defense attorneys were simply given copies of the evidence it yielded.
• An FBI agent, whom I didn't even know, quietly tipped me off about what the DA's office was doing behind our backs, conducting investigation the police department was wholly unaware of.
• I was advised not to speak to certain witnesses, and all but dissuaded from pursuing particular investigative efforts. Polygraphs were acceptable for some subjects, but others seemed immune from such requests.
• Innocent people were not "cleared", publicly or otherwise, even when it was unmistakably the right thing to do, as reputations and lives were destroyed. Some in the district attorney's office, to this day, pursue weak, defenseless, and innocent people in shameless tactics that one couldn't believe more bizarre if it were made up.
• I was told by one in the district attorney's office about being unable to "break" a particular police officer from his resolute accounts of events he had witnessed. In my opinion, this was not trial preparation, this was an attempt to derail months of hard work.
• I was repeatedly reminded by some in the district attorney's office just how powerful and talented and resourceful particular defense attorneys were. How could decisions be made this way?
• There is evidence that was critical to the investigation, that to this day has never been collected, because neither search warrants nor other means were supported to do so. Not to mention evidence which still sits today, untested in the laboratory, as differences continue about how to proceed.
• While investigative efforts were rebuffed, my search warrant affidavits and attempts to gather evidence in the murder investigation of a six year old child were met with refusals and, instead, the suggestion that we "ask the permission of the Ramseys" before proceeding. And just before conducting the Ramsey interviews, I thought it inconceivable I was being lectured on "building trust".

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/07thomle.html

I'm sure some will find "the source unreliable"

I remember reading an interview with him where he explained how trying to circumvent the DAs office to get a warrant is technically possible, but in reality it ain't gonna happen. Wish I could find it...anyone?

 

[Mama2JML]

Lou Smit offers a different perspective:

"September 20, 1998

Dear Alex:

It is with great reluctance and regret that I submit this letter of resignation. Even though I want to continue to participate in the official investigation and assist in finding the killer of JonBenet, I find that I cannot in good conscience be a part of the persecution of innocent people. It would be highly improper and unethical for me to stay when I so strongly believe this.

It has been almost 19 months since we talked that day in your office and you asked me to assist you in this investigation. It has turned out to be more of a challenge than either of us anticipated. When we first met I told you that my style of approaching an investigation is from the concept of not working a particular theory, but working the case. Detectives collect and record information from many sources, analyze it, couple that with their experience and training and let "the case" tell them where to go. This process may take days, weeks or years, depending on the direction the case tells you to go. Sometimes you must investigate "many paths" in order to find the killer. It is not a political speed contest where expediency should outweigh justice, where "resolving" the case is solving the case.

Alex, even though I have been unable to actively investigate, I have been in a position to collect, record and analyze every piece of information given to your office in the course of this investigation. I believe that I know this case better than anyone does. I know what has been investigated and what hasn't, what evidence exists and what doesn't, what information has been leaked and what hasn't. I am a detective with a proven record of successful investigations. I have looked at the murder of JonBenet Ramsey through the eyes of age and experience and a thorough knowledge of the case.

At this point in the investigation "the case" tells me that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter, that a very dangerous killer is still out there and no one is actively looking for him. There are still many areas of investigation which must be explored before life and death decisions are made.

When I was hired I had no agenda one way or the other, my allegiance was to the case, not the Police Department nor John and Patsy Ramsey. My agenda has not changed. I only desire to be able to investigate the case and find the killer of JonBenet and will continue to do so as long as I am able. The chances of catching him working from the "outside looking in" are very slim, but I have a great "Partner" who I'm sure will lead the way. There is no doubt that I will be facing a great deal of opposition and ridicule in the future, because I intend to stand with this family and somehow help them through this and find the killer of their daughter. Perhaps others who believe this will also help.

The Boulder Police Department has many fine and dedicated men and women who also want justice for JonBenet. They are just going in the wrong direction and have been since day one of the investigation. Instead of letting the case tell them where to go, they have elected to follow a theory and let their theory direct them rather than allowing the evidence to direct them. The case tells me there is substantial, credible, evidence of an intruder and lack of evidence that the parents are involved. If this is true, they too are tragic victims whose misery has been compounded by a misdirected and flawed investigation, unsubstantiated leaks, rumors and accusations.

I have worked in this profession for the past 32 years and have always been loyal to it, the men and women in it, and what it represents, because I believed that justice has always prevailed. In this case, however, I believe that justice is not being served, that innocent people are being targeted and could be charged with a murder they did not commit.

The law enforcement Code of Ethics states it very well. My fundamental duty is to "serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, the peaceful against violence or disorder. To respect the constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice." This applies not only to JonBenet but to her mother and father as well.

I want to thank you and the others in the office for the wonderful support and treatment I have received. You have a great D.A.'s Office and the men and women who work with you are some of the most honest and dedicated people I have ever met. My life has been enriched because of this memorable time together. I have especially enjoyed working closely with Peter Hofstrom and Trip DeMuth, who also have dedicated so much of their lives to this case. I have never met two more fair, honest and dedicated defenders of our system.

Alex, you are in a difficult position. The media and peer pressure are incredible. You are inundated with conflicting facts and information, and "expert" opinions. And now you have an old detective telling you that the Ramseys did not do it and to wait and investigate this case more thoroughly before a very tragic mistake would be made. What a double travesty it could be; an innocent person indicted, and a vicious killer on the loose to prey on another innocent child and no one to stop him.

History will be the judge as to how we conducted ourselves and how we handled our responsibilities.

Shoes, shoes, the victim's shoes, who will stand in the victim's shoes?

Good Luck to you and your fine office and may God bless you in the awesome decisions you must soon make.

Sincerely

Detective Lou Smit"

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/28ramsle.html

 

[Anti-K]

It struck me last night that what we're all really up against in this thread is a logic problem. This is going to be a long post, but I'll do my best to make it worth your time and hope you will read on. Who knows? The information may be useful for something later.

It's been a while since college but, far as I can tell, the argument that the matching unidentified DNA found in two different places on JBR's clothing proves that she was killed by an intruder is a logical fallacy.

In deductive reasoning, an argument is valid when both premises are true, and it is not possible for the conclusion to be false when both premises are true. The most famous example is:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The one you'll remember from high school if you didn't have algebra right after lunch is:
If A = B
and B = C
then A = C


Assuming for a moment that the two DNA samples of interest here absolutely match, it is logically valid to say, for instance:

1. Unidentified DNA matching the same profile was found in two different places on JBR's clothing. (True)
2. The DNA of JBR's family members is known. (True)
3. Therefore, the unidentified DNA described belongs to someone who is not a Ramsey.(Valid)


It is not logically valid to say (for example):

1. The unidentified DNA described did not come from the Ramseys. (True)
2. It has been proved that the unidentified DNA described was deposited at the time of the murder. (False)
3. Therefore, the unidentified DNA described belongs to JBR's killer. (Invalid)

OR

1. It is proven fact that the DNA described could only have come from JBR's killer. (False)
2. It is proven fact that said DNA did not come from the Ramseys. (True)
3. Therefore, none of the Ramseys killed JBR. (Invalid)


OR Construct your own argument:

1. No one here but BlueBottle knows for sure who killed JBR. (True)
2.
3. Therefore,


Just razzin' you, BB : ) :seeya:


Moving right along.... There is a second type of argument using inductive reasoning. This is the type we use every day. One advantage of the inductive argument is that the logic is less rigorous so it's easier to construct. One disadvantage is that it is more prone to fallacy. This means that even the strongest inductive argument can never be the foolproof, all-other-bets-off-the-table creature that a valid deductive argument is.

Here's an inductive argument:
Since the beginng of recorded time, the sun has risen in the east. Therefore, it will continue to rise in the east.

Pretty strong.

Here's another one:
Our unspayed outdoor cat has never had kittens. Therefore, she will probably never have kittens.

Surprise!


Below are two examples of inductive arguments specific to the Ramsey case, and those of you who have stuck it out this far can decide how strong or weak they are and how they compare.

1. In the overwhelming majority of cases where a minor child is found violently killed in the home, one or both parents had a role in, or have knowlege of, the child's death. Since JonBenet was found violently killed in her own home, there is a very high probability that her parents, who were at home at the time of the murder, were involved in her death or know who was.

2. The increasingly sophisticated science of DNA mapping and identification continues to solve cold cases, sometimes for murders that occurred even 40 years before. Unidentified DNA matching the same profile was found in two different places on JBR's clothing, and the profile has been entered into CODIS. Although no identification has been made so far, there is a very high probability that the DNA will one day be ID'd, and we will then know who killed JonBenet Ramsey.


So where I am going with all of this? Here's the wrap-up:

-- Deductive arguments can be good or bad (well constructed, poorly constructive), but all are either valid (airtight) or invalid (open to further argument).

-- Inductive arguments can be strong or weak, but even the strongest inductive argument is never airtight ; i.e., it cannot prove something to a certainty, only to a degree of probability.

-- A valid deductive argument is always superior to an inductive argument. (the "A Smith & Wesson beats four aces." principle).

-- An inductive argument cannot become a deductive argument or carry the vaildity of one.

-- A string of facts alone does not constitute a logical argument.


It is a logical fallacy, then, to claim that an inductive argument makes an absolute case. And, while it is possible to do, it is not nice to beat fellow Inductivites over the head with a logical fallacy. As long as one is in Inductionland, the matter remains arguable - period, end of story ; ) This is not a matter of opinion. It is a principle of logic.

Perpetrators of assault often leave trace evidence in incriminating locations.
Trace evidence was found in incriminating locations.
Therefore, the trace evidence found in incriminating locations may have been left by the perpetrator.
...

Trace evidence can sometimes be traced to an innocent source.
Despite effort and expense, this trace evidence has not been traced to an innocent source.
Therefore, this trace evidence may not have come from an innocent source; see above, perpetrators often leave trace evidence...
...

Trace evidence found in incriminating locations is often used to identify, prosecute and convict perpetrators of assault.
Trace evidence was found in incriminating locations.
Therefore, this trace evidence may be used to identity, prosecute and convict the perpetrator.
...

Trace evidence found in incriminating locations has been used to exonerate convicted persons, and to clear suspects.
Trace evidence was found in incriminating locations.
Therefore, trace evidence can be used to clear suspects. (The Ramseys are suspects,; therefore...)
...

Etc.
...

Your first inductive argument is not sound. “The majority of cases” tells us nothing about the probability in the specific case. That’s a logical fallacy. Your premise doesn’t support your conclusion. Yes, “the majority of cases” is a good starting point, an axiom of sorts but that’s it.

Your second inductive argument is also flawed. The premise “DNA continues to solve cold cases” does not support the claim of “a very high probability.” Actually, I don’t think the premise says anything about the probability. We would have to know something about the probability of the perpetrator’s DNA being entered into the database before we could say anything about that.

Sorry if I come off as being argumentative. Nice post.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It's amazing to me that despite the pages & pages of stats showing how often there is unreported molestation perpetrated by family members there still remains denial that it happens.

No one denies that it happens; some deny that it happened in this case. Statistics don’t – and, can’t – tell us what happened in this case.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Great post Meara.
I believe that is the problem when arguing over the DNA. IDI often uses it as proof that there was an intruder there that night and therefore it can't be RDI. All the DNA proves is that there was unidentified DNA found at the scene.

If it is ever identified that is when the investigation starts not ends. You have to discover how it got there and if there is any reason for it to be there, beyond it belongs to the killer. It is not until there is other evidence tying the identified person to the murder that the DNA counts. It is just one more nail in the coffin not a "smoking gun" (if a link is discovered).

As I said before both "sides" use probability and likelihood in their arguments but it seems to me it is often held against RDI more.

The presumption is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations are the result of transfer during the most recent contact with those areas. Presumption is that which must be disproved, it is that which is assumed to be true because in most cases it is true. If your DNA is found commingled in the blood and on the inside crotch of a sexual assault victim’s panties then you are the one who is going to have some explaining to do!

IDI don’t; use the DNA as proof that an intruder committed this crime. We use it as one piece of a body of evidence that excludes the Ramseys and includes an intruder.
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

I've never been one to try and discredit LS, I just never wanted to go there despite my belief that he got this one wrong, but who the heck signs off on a letter or resignation with....

"Good Luck to you and your fine office and may God bless you in the awesome decisions you must soon make."

:scared::scared::scared:

Clearly there is a difference of opinion regarding the investigators on this case, and those opinions align with one's IDI or RDI leanings.

 

[bettybaby00]

No one denies that it happens; some deny that it happened in this case. Statistics don’t – and, can’t – tell us what happened in this case.
...

AK

But the denial is based on "no history," despite the fact that no known history doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[lawstudent]

Steve Thomas's letter of resignation details the frustration of LE with regard to dealing with the DAs office. The whole thing is worth the read if you haven't already done so.



http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/07thomle.html

I'm sure some will find "the source unreliable"

I remember reading an interview with him where he explained how trying to circumvent the DAs office to get a warrant is technically possible, but in reality it ain't gonna happen. Wish I could find it...anyone?

Thank you for providing me with this. Very interesting.

I have to say one thing that catches my eye is this:

"There is some consolation that a greater justice awaits the person who committed these acts"

The singular "person" is interesting, as does the "committed" instead of say "involved in" and the plural "acts."

I don't doubt there were serious issues with the investigation, but the point remains that this letter emphasizes that the investigation was not properly completed - thus, it is hard to sort out what we truly know, which was my initial point. As you can probably tell, I'm not firmly on either side. I'm just trying to boil it down to the most clear evidence and stick to that, because I know how things can be twisted in the media and in court or police documents.

One thing that makes me a bit hesitant to take his word altogether is he seems a big appalled by some things that I believe police detectives are well aware of - that prosecutors consider the skill of defense attorneys in terms of whether to pursue a case, for example. And if they deny a warrant, then it's not shocking to tell them to ask the Ramseys - that's essentially what a denial of a search warrant is. And he also never implies why he thinks the DA is covering for the Ramseys, nor does he seem to refer to a pattern of them covering for certain types of people, which is kind of odd.


ETA: A number of searches were done on the homes and computer, correct? So it wasn't like everything was just shut down - that's pretty significant. Could the Ramseys even have provided detailed phone records? It's the phone company's decision. They could have provided their bill, assuming it contained that information. In that time, it's hard to say that phones or computers could have revealed much - now there would have been an incredible wealth of insight just from emails and searches, related to the incident or not. At that time, probably not much, and phone companies were probably targeted much less frequently for info for that reason. It may have seemed way too far to get those records, and no one was advancing the theory they'd been conspiring with outsiders - nowadays, it seems ridiculously easily to request cell phone info. I don't believe any DA could justify not going for it now. They can claim they need info on so many things - mainly location data and texts that could have incriminating info. Back then, the most you could get is who called who and probably for how long - I don't know how you argue that is necessarily relevant to this case. Calling in the middle of the night would have been a lot more noticeable back then and surfaced through interviews - less of a chance to claim covert information or people existed.

 

[bettybaby00]

Thank you for providing me with this. Very interesting.

I have to say one thing that catches my eye is this:

"There is some consolation that a greater justice awaits the person who committed these acts"

The singular "person" is interesting, as does the "committed" instead of say "involved in" and the plural "acts."

I don't doubt there were serious issues with the investigation, but the point remains that this letter emphasizes that the investigation was not properly completed - thus, it is hard to sort out what we truly know, which was my initial point. As you can probably tell, I'm not firmly on either side. I'm just trying to boil it down to the most clear evidence and stick to that, because I know how things can be twisted in the media and in court or police documents.

One thing that makes me a bit hesitant to take his word altogether is he seems a big appalled by some things that I believe police detectives are well aware of - that prosecutors consider the skill of defense attorneys in terms of whether to pursue a case, for example. And if they deny a warrant, then it's not shocking to tell them to ask the Ramseys - that's essentially what a denial of a search warrant is. And he also never implies why he thinks the DA is covering for the Ramseys, nor does he seem to refer to a pattern of them covering for certain types of people, which is kind of odd.

I think in part, prior to being with the BPD he hadn't witnessed that type of "fear," and Hunter's record illustrates how rarely he brought anyone to trial. His nick name was Alex "let's make a deal" Hunter.

Also, while DAs may find that they have a case that feel they can't "win," it's not usually from lack of trying to get the evidence to go to trial. Between the concessions afforded the Rs as well as the failure to secure standard types of evidence the case was doomed. I also don't think that too many DAs make a habit of misleading the public regarding the conclusions of a GJ.

 

[gramcracker]

I remember reading an interview with him where he explained how trying to circumvent the DAs office to get a warrant is technically possible, but in reality it ain't gonna happen. Wish I could find it...anyone?

I'm sorry, bettybaby, I'm not familiar with the interview but I remembered posting this awhile back. the IRMI quote mentions the difficulty encountered when the DA is not the source of the request

protocol is for the DA's office to request subpoenas/warrants from judges. it is a system of checks and balances that is intended as protection from improper investigation techniques. in this case the protective intention was abused by a DA who was afraid to mount a case

this procedure is faithfully portrayed in movies and TV shows. one example: LEOs are frustrated by or in conflict with the DA in nearly every episode of Law & Order/SVU

Thomas' Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation/kindle location 3876

As we walked out, DeMuth said that although we had the legal right to take the warrant directly to a judge, "Make sure you tell him it does not have the support of the district attorney's office."

the legal community is tightly woven. judges are not in the habit of approving requests that can, by such as the Ramsey defense team, be seen as an end run around established protocol (even though a legal alternative exists)

it is a moot point because the December cel phone records were poofed out of existence. no warrant from any source would have been of any value; no matter how the warrant was obtained, they could not examine information which had disappeared

 

[Detective Pinkie]

The presumption is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations are the result of transfer during the most recent contact with those areas. Presumption is that which must be disproved, it is that which is assumed to be true because in most cases it is true. If your DNA is found commingled in the blood and on the inside crotch of a sexual assault victim’s panties then you are the one who is going to have some explaining to do!

IDI don’t; use the DNA as proof that an intruder committed this crime. We use it as one piece of a body of evidence that excludes the Ramseys and includes an intruder.
...

AK

You used the word presumption. It is still not proof. All the DNA proves right now is that there is unidentified DNA on the panties. Until it is identified it is useless. Once it is identified then it can help to charge that person if there is no innocent reason for it to be there.

I can presume that because in most child murder cases it is a family member it must be a family member in this case. This is often shot down by IDI saying but you have no proof - no history of abuse, no history of molestation. No I have some evidence that points that way and a presumption, which to your mind is good enough.

I am not trying to argue who is right or wrong I am trying to point out some of the hypocrisy in this thread where people are called out for presuming and using common sense to argue their theory and those same critics do the same thing. I believe that those are valid tools, not as great as actual proof but sometimes they point you in the right direction. See Meara's post which said it better.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But the denial is based on "no history," despite the fact that no known history doesn't mean it didn't happen.

We have to deal in proof. If this family had any history we would know it. It would be out there. There is no way in the world that all the book writers in this case would not have paraded that out for all to see.

There is no proof and no even accusations of abuse. No DCF reports, nothing.

To get to this escalation there would be.

If this was a simple case of finding a child with a closed head wound and them lying about how that happened, I would be on board but you are trying to say that two parents who have no history then decided to make this the most gruesome of deaths for their child. To have their child shamed and left to be talked about and dissected.

To strangle the life out of their child with no previous abuse.

It is just not plausible.

 

[Darlene733510]

When ML exonerated the R's, because of the DNA, her letter of apology went to JR and PR.
We know that because of his age, BR could not have been accused, or prosecuted. His DNA could have been there, but never mentioned. Stating that the R's were exonerated, I believe, referred to J & P.
The GJ, in reaching their decision, did so because the parents knew what was going on, but they refused to put a stop to the molestation, and harm that was being done to JB.
Four people were in the home that horrible night. One is dead, two were exonerated, and the fourth will never be prosecuted, IMHO.

 

[Chewy]

It struck me last night that what we're all really up against in this thread is a logic problem. This is going to be a long post, but I'll do my best to make it worth your time and hope you will read on. Who knows? The information may be useful for something later.

It's been a while since college but, far as I can tell, the argument that the matching unidentified DNA found in two different places on JBR's clothing proves that she was killed by an intruder is a logical fallacy.

In deductive reasoning, an argument is valid when both premises are true, and it is not possible for the conclusion to be false when both premises are true. The most famous example is:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The one you'll remember from high school if you didn't have algebra right after lunch is:
If A = B
and B = C
then A = C


Assuming for a moment that the two DNA samples of interest here absolutely match, it is logically valid to say, for instance:

1. Unidentified DNA matching the same profile was found in two different places on JBR's clothing. (True)
2. The DNA of JBR's family members is known. (True)
3. Therefore, the unidentified DNA described belongs to someone who is not a Ramsey.(Valid)


It is not logically valid to say (for example):

1. The unidentified DNA described did not come from the Ramseys. (True)
2. It has been proved that the unidentified DNA described was deposited at the time of the murder. (False)
3. Therefore, the unidentified DNA described belongs to JBR's killer. (Invalid)

OR

1. It is proven fact that the DNA described could only have come from JBR's killer. (False)
2. It is proven fact that said DNA did not come from the Ramseys. (True)
3. Therefore, none of the Ramseys killed JBR. (Invalid)


OR Construct your own argument:

1. No one here but BlueBottle knows for sure who killed JBR. (True)
2.
3. Therefore,


Just razzin' you, BB : ) :seeya:


Moving right along.... There is a second type of argument using inductive reasoning. This is the type we use every day. One advantage of the inductive argument is that the logic is less rigorous so it's easier to construct. One disadvantage is that it is more prone to fallacy. This means that even the strongest inductive argument can never be the foolproof, all-other-bets-off-the-table creature that a valid deductive argument is.

Here's an inductive argument:
Since the beginng of recorded time, the sun has risen in the east. Therefore, it will continue to rise in the east.

Pretty strong.

Here's another one:
Our unspayed outdoor cat has never had kittens. Therefore, she will probably never have kittens.

Surprise!


Below are two examples of inductive arguments specific to the Ramsey case, and those of you who have stuck it out this far can decide how strong or weak they are and how they compare.

1. In the overwhelming majority of cases where a minor child is found violently killed in the home, one or both parents had a role in, or have knowlege of, the child's death. Since JonBenet was found violently killed in her own home, there is a very high probability that her parents, who were at home at the time of the murder, were involved in her death or know who was.

2. The increasingly sophisticated science of DNA mapping and identification continues to solve cold cases, sometimes for murders that occurred even 40 years before. Unidentified DNA matching the same profile was found in two different places on JBR's clothing, and the profile has been entered into CODIS. Although no identification has been made so far, there is a very high probability that the DNA will one day be ID'd, and we will then know who killed JonBenet Ramsey.


So where I am going with all of this? Here's the wrap-up:

-- Deductive arguments can be good or bad (well constructed, poorly constructive), but all are either valid (airtight) or invalid (open to further argument).

-- Inductive arguments can be strong or weak, but even the strongest inductive argument is never airtight ; i.e., it cannot prove something to a certainty, only to a degree of probability.

-- A valid deductive argument is always superior to an inductive argument. (the "A Smith & Wesson beats four aces." principle).

-- An inductive argument cannot become a deductive argument or carry the vaildity of one.

-- A string of facts alone does not constitute a logical argument.


It is a logical fallacy, then, to claim that an inductive argument makes an absolute case. And, while it is possible to do, it is not nice to beat fellow Inductivites over the head with a logical fallacy. As long as one is in Inductionland, the matter remains arguable - period, end of story ; ) This is not a matter of opinion. It is a principle of logic.

This is such a fantastic post that I quoted it again. Brava!!! :loveyou::loveyou::loveyou::loveyou::loveyou:

I don't necessarily know or have a specific theory on what happened that night. But I do know when I see logical fallacies and dramatic emotional gossip being presented as an "argument" or "theory."

I would love to hear the theories that people have spelled out, not because this is a competition to see who "wins" the discussion. :truce::truce:

The truth is, we'll probably never know. But at the same time I see a possibility to actually discover some ideas that have not been considered and maybe, just maybe actually solve the case.

It's the HOUSE in me that wants to solve the puzzle. :blushing:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

When ML exonerated the R's, because of the DNA, her letter of apology went to JR and PR.
We know that because of his age, BR could not have been accused, or prosecuted. His DNA could have been there, but never mentioned. Stating that the R's were exonerated, I believe, referred to J & P.
The GJ, in reaching their decision, did so because the parents knew what was going on, but they refused to put a stop to the molestation, and harm that was being done to JB.
Four people were in the home that horrible night. One is dead, two were exonerated, and the fourth will never be prosecuted, IMHO.

It does not matter if he could not be prosecuted if it was him it would have come out that it was him and that he was not going to be prosecuted. However then DCF would have been involved and there would be more about that.

BR did not do this. IT is not his DNA on her either.

 

[bettybaby00]

I'm sorry, bettybaby, I'm not familiar with the interview but I remembered posting this awhile back. the IRMI quote mentions the difficulty encountered when the DA is not the source of the request

Don't you love quoting yourself? :lol:

That was the exact quote I was referring too, I thought I had read it in some sort of interview, but he probably recounted this experience many times!

 

[bettybaby00]

When ML exonerated the R's, because of the DNA, her letter of apology went to JR and PR.
We know that because of his age, BR could not have been accused, or prosecuted. His DNA could have been there, but never mentioned. Stating that the R's were exonerated, I believe, referred to J & P.
The GJ, in reaching their decision, did so because the parents knew what was going on, but they refused to put a stop to the molestation, and harm that was being done to JB.
Four people were in the home that horrible night. One is dead, two were exonerated, and the fourth will never be prosecuted, IMHO.

Good point, plus no one ever asserted that abuse had been occurring for a long, extended period of time. If that had been the case, then there might have been a paper trail, but that would have only happened if it was reported.

It's also important to note that when BR was interviewed by the psychiatrist with children's services oversight, the recommended follow up was blown off.

Who gets away with that?

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The trail is one of use not solely abuse.

 

[bettybaby00]

Thank you for providing me with this. Very interesting.

I have to say one thing that catches my eye is this:

"There is some consolation that a greater justice awaits the person who committed these acts"

The singular "person" is interesting, as does the "committed" instead of say "involved in" and the plural "acts."

I don't doubt there were serious issues with the investigation, but the point remains that this letter emphasizes that the investigation was not properly completed - thus, it is hard to sort out what we truly know, which was my initial point. As you can probably tell, I'm not firmly on either side. I'm just trying to boil it down to the most clear evidence and stick to that, because I know how things can be twisted in the media and in court or police documents.

One thing that makes me a bit hesitant to take his word altogether is he seems a big appalled by some things that I believe police detectives are well aware of - that prosecutors consider the skill of defense attorneys in terms of whether to pursue a case, for example. And if they deny a warrant, then it's not shocking to tell them to ask the Ramseys - that's essentially what a denial of a search warrant is. And he also never implies why he thinks the DA is covering for the Ramseys, nor does he seem to refer to a pattern of them covering for certain types of people, which is kind of odd.


ETA: A number of searches were done on the homes and computer, correct? So it wasn't like everything was just shut down - that's pretty significant. Could the Ramseys even have provided detailed phone records? It's the phone company's decision. They could have provided their bill, assuming it contained that information. In that time, it's hard to say that phones or computers could have revealed much - now there would have been an incredible wealth of insight just from emails and searches, related to the incident or not. At that time, probably not much, and phone companies were probably targeted much less frequently for info for that reason. It may have seemed way too far to get those records, and no one was advancing the theory they'd been conspiring with outsiders - nowadays, it seems ridiculously easily to request cell phone info. I don't believe any DA could justify not going for it now. They can claim they need info on so many things - mainly location data and texts that could have incriminating info. Back then, the most you could get is who called who and probably for how long - I don't know how you argue that is necessarily relevant to this case. Calling in the middle of the night would have been a lot more noticeable back then and surfaced through interviews - less of a chance to claim covert information or people existed.

Regarding your ETA...

yes not everything was shut down. Why of course is the question.

 

[noneareworthy]

Just finished Kolar's book and a few things stand out (I'll just do these first four):
1. Burke went to a public grief counseling on December 28?! (His friend Doug's mother telling about his discussion of jonbenets murder). They sent him off or?
2. When Burke was telling about her murder he mentioned hammer hit and stabbing...stabbing could refer to stabbing with the paint brush...sexual assault.
3. Were no forensics done on the golf clubs?
4. Interesting that John mentioned playing with the train set and the track left marks on jonbenet...
Comments?