Patsy Ramsey

[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?

 

[gramcracker]

beyond those questions, what did you think about the book?

I found BR miming a head blow and the train tracks being an exact match very disturbing

 

[noneareworthy]

I really liked the book. I felt like I was listening to him discuss the case and think about it. So many questions.....however I also think many of the questions could have been put to rest if the parents had cooperated and had been involved in a real interrogation (guilty or not). People lie...you just need to find out why they lie....

 

[Meara]

Sorry, this is ridiculous. You know if someone is alive or dead. All you have to do is put your head to their chest. You don't need fancy equipment just an ear..

If this was the case there would be a lot of people murdered to cover up knocks on the head..

I disagree. As many here have pointed out, a person as severely injured as JBR can be breathing so shallowly as to appear dead. Out of curiosity I just googled "people in morgue still alive" and got over 9.8 million results. Even of only 1% of the stories are true, that's still 98,000 people. But results get duplicated, so let's cut that by, say, 4. That's still 24,500 people who were alive but showed no signs of life. Some of these people were hospital patients and thought to be dead by more than one staff member. Presumably, they checked for a pulse and evidence of respiration. There's no reason to assume the Ramseys were better observers.

Going back a ways, during the 18th and 19th centuries people recognized the possibility that signs of life could be faint enough to avoid detection, and some were buried in safety coffins, in case they were pronounced dead while still alive. These were coffins fitted with a rope attached to a bell above the grave, which a prematurely buried person could ring to summon help. These people were not considered crazy, by the way. Even George Washington asked not to be buried until he had been dead for two full days!

If may seem like a simple enough thing but, no, you don't always know whether someone is alive or dead.

 

[bettybaby00]

I disagree. As many here have pointed out, a person as severely injured as JBR can be breathing so shallowly as to appear dead. Out of curiosity I just googled "people in morgue still alive" and got over 9.8 million results. Even of only 1% of the stories are true, that's still 98,000 people. But results get duplicated, so let's cut that by, say, 4. That's still 24,500 people who were alive but showed no signs of life. Some of these people were hospital patients and thought to be dead by more than one staff member. Presumably, they checked for a pulse and evidence of respiration. There's no reason to assume the Ramseys were better observers.

Going back a ways, during the 18th and 19th centuries people recognized the possibility that signs of life could be faint enough to avoid detection, and some were buried in safety coffins, in case they were pronounced dead while still alive. These were coffins fitted with a rope attached to a bell above the grave, which a prematurely buried person could ring to summon help. These people were not considered crazy, by the way. Even George Washington asked not to be buried until he had been dead for two full days!

If may seem like a simple enough thing but, no, you don't always know whether someone is alive or dead.

Gotta love goggle. Another moor taint element in this case is panic and fear.

 

[questfortrue]

Excellent post on reasoning, Meara. Applauds that you described some issues in disagreement in such a nice way. 

There’s a couple of other ingredients which could be tossed into this veritable mulligan stew of theory differences:

Confirmation bias – I’m going to back up my ‘peeps,’ ‘cuz they agree with me. (Kind of like ML did with some others in Boulder.)

Cognitive dissonance – Hard to hold two conflicting beliefs – like the R’s seem to be loving parents, but there is the matter of the dead daughter in the basement.

moo

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Yes, I used the word presumption, but I also DEFINED the word - that which must be disproved, it is that which is assumed to be true because in most cases it is true. Presumption is the “assumed fact when lacking evidence to the contrary.” The presumption is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations are the result of transfer during the most recent contact with those areas.

I also noted that IDI do not used the DNA as PROOF of anything. It also seems as if you are commenting on my post without actually having read it fully.

And, no, we don’t get to presume that it must be a family member because in most child murder cases it is a family member. We may presume that family members should be investigated because in most child murder cases it is a family member, but to claim that it must be a family member as based on statistics is a fallacy (as I explained in my reply to Meara’s post).

It is also misleading to say that the DNA proves nothing. It tells us something, it is trace evidence found in incriminating locations that has not been traced to any innocent source. The DNA is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match. It does not prove anything in itself, but it is a piece of a body of evidence that that excludes the Ramseys and includes an intruder.
...

AK

 

[Meara]

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.

BBM

Thank you, Det. Pinkie. The bolded portion needs saying, and you say it so well. I agree on the RDI point. Even in a criminal trial, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not beyond all doubt.

 

[Meara]

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

No worries, AK. The first thing I learn from your post is that you read all of mine and worked with it. Doesn't get better than that - thanks! Nice work with your arguments, too.

I agree that my sample arguments are not the best. They are probably more helpful in illustrating how easy it is to commit a fallacy of logic! My hope is that folks will remember your explanations of why my arguments are flawed when others post something similar : )

 

[Frigga]

Yes, I used the word presumption, but I also DEFINED the word - that which must be disproved, it is that which is assumed to be true because in most cases it is true. Presumption is the “assumed fact when lacking evidence to the contrary.” The presumption is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations are the result of transfer during the most recent contact with those areas.

I also noted that IDI do not used the DNA as PROOF of anything. It also seems as if you are commenting on my post without actually having read it fully.

And, no, we don’t get to presume that it must be a family member because in most child murder cases it is a family member. We may presume that family members should be investigated because in most child murder cases it is a family member, but to claim that it must be a family member as based on statistics is a fallacy (as I explained in my reply to Meara’s post).

It is also misleading to say that the DNA proves nothing. It tells us something, it is trace evidence found in incriminating locations that has not been traced to any innocent source. The DNA is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match. It does not prove anything in itself, but it is a piece of a body of evidence that that excludes the Ramseys and includes an intruder.
...

AK

BBM- That is just not true. It does no such thing, unless and until it is sourced to someone and then and only then, at that point, will it determine weather it was innocent transfer (some individual at a plant in malaysia- or some unknown person living /visiting Boulder at the time of the murder).

 

[BBB167893]

Yes by all accounts. There is no history of abuse. No reports, no DCF, No police, no reports nothing.. that is by all accounts.

That's a big part of the problem, Scarlett: for every one that is known, God knows how many are not known.

 

[Meara]

Thanks, Chewy :blushing: Cheers to the HOUSE in your house! I think we're all here because we have a passion to know what happened. Except for those three people, and they know who they are........just kidding: p About theories -- at the top of the homepage there's a no-comments sticky thread where members have posted their theories. Take a look when you have time.

 

[Venom]

Yes, I used the word presumption, but I also DEFINED the word - that which must be disproved, it is that which is assumed to be true because in most cases it is true. Presumption is the “assumed fact when lacking evidence to the contrary.” The presumption is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations are the result of transfer during the most recent contact with those areas.

I also noted that IDI do not used the DNA as PROOF of anything. It also seems as if you are commenting on my post without actually having read it fully.

And, no, we don’t get to presume that it must be a family member because in most child murder cases it is a family member. We may presume that family members should be investigated because in most child murder cases it is a family member, but to claim that it must be a family member as based on statistics is a fallacy (as I explained in my reply to Meara’s post).

It is also misleading to say that the DNA proves nothing. It tells us something, it is trace evidence found in incriminating locations that has not been traced to any innocent source. The DNA is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match. It does not prove anything in itself, but it is a piece of a body of evidence that that excludes the Ramseys and includes an intruder.
...

AK

BBM- But some IDI's say that it is proof of an intruder. Not you personally, but I do see some post that it.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I disagree. As many here have pointed out, a person as severely injured as JBR can be breathing so shallowly as to appear dead. Out of curiosity I just googled "people in morgue still alive" and got over 9.8 million results. Even of only 1% of the stories are true, that's still 98,000 people. But results get duplicated, so let's cut that by, say, 4. That's still 24,500 people who were alive but showed no signs of life. Some of these people were hospital patients and thought to be dead by more than one staff member. Presumably, they checked for a pulse and evidence of respiration. There's no reason to assume the Ramseys were better observers.

Going back a ways, during the 18th and 19th centuries people recognized the possibility that signs of life could be faint enough to avoid detection, and some were buried in safety coffins, in case they were pronounced dead while still alive. These were coffins fitted with a rope attached to a bell above the grave, which a prematurely buried person could ring to summon help. These people were not considered crazy, by the way. Even George Washington asked not to be buried until he had been dead for two full days!

If may seem like a simple enough thing but, no, you don't always know whether someone is alive or dead.

Not to mention, JBR wouldn't be able to perform in the "beloved and highly acclaimed" beauty pageant world that was so valued in PR's mind. And it was so very competitive. PR must've known the head blow was significant and substantial. A brain damaged, handicapped child would never be able to compete. And PR knew this and rationalized it away. Better to not let JBR suffer any longer so suffocation/strangulation may have seemed a "humane" solution for PR.
PR's reasoning could've gone like this if PR was as Histrionic as some may speculate: PR would have to know that the damage from the head blow was too far gone, so the suffering (if JBR could survive) would be a catastrophe...
....so just maybe, JBR would've been better off dead than a vegetable for the remainder of her days, PR could surmise.
And we know, (cough, cough) how so very important the beauty pageant world was to JBR. PR could reconcile the scenario that she did the final "bad deed" as a way to salvage a terrible, non-beauty-pageant world that JBR would live in if she could survive the head blow. Oh, how terrible it would be after all that hard work!
For PR, killing JBR through suffocation/strangulation may have been distorted in her mind into victory and salvation for JBR

All moo.....

 

[TaylurRose02]

Yes, I used the word presumption, but I also DEFINED the word - that which must be disproved, it is that which is assumed to be true because in most cases it is true. Presumption is the “assumed fact when lacking evidence to the contrary.” The presumption is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations are the result of transfer during the most recent contact with those areas.

I also noted that IDI do not used the DNA as PROOF of anything. It also seems as if you are commenting on my post without actually having read it fully.

And, no, we don’t get to presume that it must be a family member because in most child murder cases it is a family member. We may presume that family members should be investigated because in most child murder cases it is a family member, but to claim that it must be a family member as based on statistics is a fallacy (as I explained in my reply to Meara’s post).

It is also misleading to say that the DNA proves nothing. It tells us something, it is trace evidence found in incriminating locations that has not been traced to any innocent source. The DNA is exculpatory evidence for everyone that it does not match. It does not prove anything in itself, but it is a piece of a body of evidence that that excludes the Ramseys and includes an intruder.
...

AK

The strongest DNA found in the case is only 10 markers even after replication, making it only a partial profile. The amount is what makes me question it coming from an intruder. If an intruder carried JB from her bed all the way to the wine cellar and forcefully bashed in the back of her head, strangled her, and sexually assaulted her I believe there would be more DNA evidence. Many IDI's have linked the unknown palm print on the door to an intruder, so that would mean he or she wasn't wearing gloves. If they left enough of a trace for a palm print, why wouldn't they have left more tdna? The amount of movement involved for said intruder to pull off the heist is hefty and presumably would have caused an increased amount of deposited skin cells. AK, you've proposed that the fibers from PR's clothing that night ended up all over the scene of the crime based on person to person to person transfer. I can't understand how fibers from her mother's outfit would have been transferred that much, and the intruder's dna (skin cells, sweat, etc...) wouldn't have. "You can't have it both ways."

By the way, the DNA does not exclude the Ramsey's. It's a fallacy to assume a partial profile is exonerating to other suspects in the case. The DNA doesn't answer any questions surrounding the Ramsey's.

 

[Tawny]

I was under the impression the palm print was traced to Melinda Ramsey?

 

[Meara]

Not to mention, JBR wouldn't be able to perform in the "beloved and highly acclaimed" beauty pageant world that was so valued in PR's mind. And it was so very competitive. PR must've known the head blow was significant and substantial. A brain damaged, handicapped child would never be able to compete. And PR knew this and rationalized it away. Better to not let JBR suffer any longer so suffocation/strangulation may have seemed a "humane" solution for PR.
PR's reasoning could've gone like this if PR was as Histrionic as some may speculate: PR would have to know that the damage from the head blow was too far gone, so the suffering (if JBR could survive) would be a catastrophe...
....so just maybe, JBR would've been better off dead than a vegetable for the remainder of her days, PR could surmise.
And we know, (cough, cough) how so very important the beauty pageant world was to JBR. PR could reconcile the scenario that she did the final "bad deed" as a way to salvage a terrible, non-beauty-pageant world that JBR would live in if she could survive the head blow. Oh, how terrible it would be after all that hard work!
For PR, killing JBR through suffocation/strangulation may have been distorted in her mind into victory and salvation for JBR

All moo.....

A number of members have speculated along these lines, that it was a neurotic or psychotic version of mercy killing. I have often wondered whether there was something concrete that happened - maybe JBR began a death rattle, or went into convulsions from the head injury - that freaked out a perp who was already panicked.

 

[DeeDee249]

I was under the impression the palm print was traced to Melinda Ramsey?

It was.

 

[Meara]

The strongest DNA found in the case is only 10 markers even after replication, making it only a partial profile. The amount is what makes me question it coming from an intruder. If an intruder carried JB from her bed all the way to the wine cellar and forcefully bashed in the back of her head, strangled her, and sexually assaulted her I believe there would be more DNA evidence. Many IDI's have linked the unknown palm print on the door to an intruder, so that would mean he or she wasn't wearing gloves. If they left enough of a trace for a palm print, why wouldn't they have left more tdna? The amount of movement involved for said intruder to pull off the heist is hefty and presumably would have caused an increased amount of deposited skin cells. AK, you've proposed that the fibers from PR's clothing that night ended up all over the scene of the crime based on person to person to person transfer. I can't understand how fibers from her mother's outfit would have been transferred that much, and the intruder's dna (skin cells, sweat, etc...) wouldn't have. "You can't have it both ways."

By the way, the DNA does not exclude the Ramsey's. It's a fallacy to assume a partial profile is exonerating to other suspects in the case. The DNA doesn't answer any questions surrounding the Ramsey's.

The paucity of foreign DNA has always bothered me. If the killer was in JBR's bedroom, in the kitchen and back hall, on the spiral stairs, traveled to the basement (and that's a long walk, whether through the kitchen or down through the butler's kitchen), spent a significant amount of time there, and handled JBR, her body, and her clothing, and maybe entered and exited through the basement window, too, why isn't there more - and fresh - DNA? It's true that some killers don't leave DNA at the scene, but then most killers don't spend so much time at the scene, either. It's hard to fathom how such an intruder managed not to leave at least one hair or a couple of full profile samples....

 

[questfortrue]

Not to mention, JBR wouldn't be able to perform in the "beloved and highly acclaimed" beauty pageant world that was so valued in PR's mind. And it was so very competitive. PR must've known the head blow was significant and substantial. A brain damaged, handicapped child would never be able to compete. And PR knew this and rationalized it away. Better to not let JBR suffer any longer so suffocation/strangulation may have seemed a "humane" solution for PR.
PR's reasoning could've gone like this if PR was as Histrionic as some may speculate: PR would have to know that the damage from the head blow was too far gone, so the suffering (if JBR could survive) would be a catastrophe...
....so just maybe, JBR would've been better off dead than a vegetable for the remainder of her days, PR could surmise.
And we know, (cough, cough) how so very important the beauty pageant world was to JBR. PR could reconcile the scenario that she did the final "bad deed" as a way to salvage a terrible, non-beauty-pageant world that JBR would live in if she could survive the head blow. Oh, how terrible it would be after all that hard work!
For PR, killing JBR through suffocation/strangulation may have been distorted in her mind into victory and salvation for JBR

All moo.....

Your post triggered some other thoughts about JB's death and some considerations about PR, the cancer and PR's behavior within the children’s pageantry circuit.

A good friend who survived a brain aneurism in Africa, and a long recovery, commented in a blog how “these ‘encounters’, which come to all of us eventually, bring fear, suffering, and sorrow. But they can also help us to focus on what matters most and nudge us towards seeing our lives from a bigger perspective than our day to day "to-do's" that so often dominate our attention.” PR’s life was also under a death sentence and her reactions were significant for other reasons.

PR’s response to the recovery from cancer was to embrace her Christian faith thereafter. However, more ominously, there was a secondary response which was very prominent. As JR and some of PR’s friends described, the cancer caused PR to virtually run at life. So much “busyness” that it’s evident even PR’s folks observed that the kids were not receiving the structure they required and gave PR child rearing self-help books.

Further, the cancer seemed to enflame a competitive drive for success, especially in the pageant world through her daughter. Anyone here who’ve attended a competitive sport has viewed either “tiger moms” or overly vociferous “sports dads.” Some time back in 2013 Time printed an article about Stage Moms/Sports Dads. The article described a study of this phenomena and its effects on a mom or dad and child. (I’ll use the mom analogy since this thread is in regard to PR.) Interestingly, the study showed that a mom could resolve her own issues by pushing a child to succeed where the mom’s life ambitions had not succeeded (Miss America, e.g.) Basking in children’s reflected glory, parents’ feelings of regret and disappointment may gradually resolve and make way for pride and fulfillment.

The effects of that resolution on a child (resolving a parent's need to succeed), however, may not be so positive. They may protest in conspicuous ways which disrupt the family dynamic. Unforgettable are JR’s words on LKL when asked what JBR would have been like as a teenager. (BTW, BR was standing off stage during this conversation.) Instead of saying something like, JB would have been popular, succeeded in high school theater or succeeded in her academic studies, JR said, “She would have been a handful.”

Obviously, the ‘family dynamic’ dam broke on Christmas 1996. Someone within the family dealt with “that child” in a violent way. All mho.