The cross-fingerpointing defense

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
"You can't charge JR, because there's too much "evidence against PR. You can't charge PR, because there's too much evidence against JR.

Thats got to be tabloid junk.

Don't you wish. After all, I've only got Pete Hofstrom, Vincent Bugliosi, Wendy Murphy and Henry Lee on my side, NONE of which from tabloid sources, I'll have you know.

Still, I suppose I could have worded that better than I did. So, in this instance, I'll let someone else do the wording. Allow me to quote from Wendy Murphy's 2008 book, And Justice For Some specifically Chapter Ten, which shares its title with this thread:

I call this the cross-fingerpointing trick, because each suspect has the potential to point the finger of blame at the other.

SNIP

Many people believe that one of the parents, John or Patsy, killed JonBenet; if this is true, the cross-fingerpointing trick, more than anything else, explains why neither parent was charged with a crime.

If [John] forced Patsy to help with the cover-up, he could easily demonstrate reasonable doubt by implying that Patsy was the real killer. Patsy's seeming involvement would continue to frustrate prosecution efforts because of the very real risk that John could prevail at trial by pointing the finger at Patsy.

SNIP

The cross-fingerpointing trick in the Ramsey case is especially effective because the public is uncomfortable accepting the idea that people who look so nice on the outside can be dastardly on the inside. This feel-good bias makes it harder to conceptualize that a parent could commit a horrific crime against his or her own child or that an innocent parent could possibly want to help the killer-parent avoid prosecution.


Nobody's complaining about excess evidence against either PR or JR.

Yes, I'm afraid I should rephrase that. So, once again, I'll let Wendy do the talking:

The defense bar loves this trick. They have a sarcastic saying that sums up this tactic: nobody talks, everybody walks. It works quite well when the two suspects are family members who live together because police can't gain sufficient access to either one, alone.

I'm surprised you fall in for this tabloid faire, usually thats for older women.

Even if it WAS tabloid faire, I'd resent your statement. Don't presume that you know anything about me.
 
Yeah. How sick is this?

While I don't care in the least for your implication, HOTYH, I must admit that you just pegged it: it IS sick. What makes it even WORSE is that, from a legal standpoint, it's 100% true. Allow me to quote Wendy again:

In a cross-fingerpointing situation, death of one suspect changes nothing. The prosecutor still has to deal with the very real problem that the surviving suspect can raise reasonable doubt by pointing at the dead suspect.

You're right, HOTYH: it IS sick. The question is, what do we DO about it?
 
While I don't care in the least for your implication, HOTYH, I must admit that you just pegged it: it IS sick. What makes it even WORSE is that, from a legal standpoint, it's 100% true. Allow me to quote Wendy again:

In a cross-fingerpointing situation, death of one suspect changes nothing. The prosecutor still has to deal with the very real problem that the surviving suspect can raise reasonable doubt by pointing at the dead suspect.

You're right, HOTYH: it IS sick. The question is, what do we DO about it?



Not to seem dense or anything, but what do we do about what?

Do we do something about the parental fibers found on the daughter? Because that seems to be RDI's biggest and strongest link.

Or, do we do something about JBR's SFF killer, who goes unchecked for handwriting, linguistics, fiber, DNA, motives, or alibis?

BTW you had given me an idea:

You said that the political angle was thin, so if I review political events from entire 1996-1997 time frame I'll come up empty, right? What do you think would be empty and what would be not empty? IOW what type of event would convince you of a possible link that should be investigated further?
 
I believe there were computers in 1996, and the phone company used them. Its not like phone records for one number just vanish. Maybe consider the source, or take it with a grain of salt?

Yes, there were computers in 1996. However, data back up architecture was pretty ancient back then and not all all following the protocols that we use today. And then there is that pesky problem of, IF there WAS a viable copy of the data, would it continue to exist today, in 2010?
 
Not to seem dense or anything, but what do we do about what?

Well, what I meant specifically was "how do we prevent the cross-fingerpointing trick?" How do we take away its power?

BTW you had given me an idea:

You said that the political angle was thin, so if I review political events from entire 1996-1997 time frame I'll come up empty, right?

Pretty much. Although, there is one thing: it was right around August of 1996 that regular people in the US started to hear the name Osama bin Laden. He'd been active much longer than that, but he didn't start to become the household name that he is today until then. And as far as I go, that may or may not have a bearing on the RN content. I've often said, only half-jokingly, that PR used the words "foreign faction" because she wasn't familiar enough with these Islamist groups to know how to spell their names. I don't think that's too far beyond the realm of possibility, since the government can't decide how to spell them, either.

What do you think would be empty and what would be not empty? IOW what type of event would convince you of a possible link that should be investigated further?

Darn good question. I'll have to think about it.
 
Darn good question. I'll have to think about it.

Does this help?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/ramsey.ransom.note

"Mr. Ramsey:

Listen Carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your business, but not the country it serves.

At this time, we have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

You will withdraw $118,000 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank.

When you get home, you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 a.m. tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence and earlier pickup of your daughter.

Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for a proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.

Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in way marked or tampered with, she dies. You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics.

You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% of getting her back. You and your family are under constant scrutiny, as well as the authorities.

Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us, John. Use that good, Southern common sense of yours. It's up to you now John!

Victory!

S.B.T.C."
 
It might. Meanwhile, have you given any thought to my question?

Presuming your question is on cross-fingerpointing:

A cross-fingerpointing situation is only possible when there are at least two defendants who are each able to attribute the evidence to the other, right?

If A is evidence against a and B is evidence against b then AB=total evidence against both, right?

Step 1: Decide if an evidence item really belongs to a or b. You have to know for a fact that the evidence item does belong to either a or b. If it is known, then it is AB evidence item.

Step 2: If AB represents a winning case against somebody, go to step 3 otherwise you're done.

Step 3: If A>B then charge a. If B>A then charge b.

Step 4: Pleabargain with the defendant for a lesser sentence if they rat out the other.

----------------------------

Personally, I don't think you can get past step 2 in JBR's case.

Now then, about those 1996 news events. What would be the criteria based on the RN?
 
Presuming your question is on cross-fingerpointing:

It is. More specifically, how do we avoid (or at the least minmize) people using it in the future?

A cross-fingerpointing situation is only possible when there are at least two defendants who are each able to attribute the evidence to the other, right?

That's really good!

If A is evidence against a and B is evidence against b then AB=total evidence against both, right?

That's a good way to say it. The key here is that a prosecutor can't just say "AB=total against both" to a jury.

Step 1: Decide if an evidence item really belongs to a or b. You have to know for a fact that the evidence item does belong to either a or b. If it is known, then it is AB evidence item.

Step 2: If AB represents a winning case against somebody, go to step 3 otherwise you're done.

Step 3: If A>B then charge a. If B>A then charge b.

Step 4: Pleabargain with the defendant for a lesser sentence if they rat out the other.

----------------------------

Personally, I don't thing you can get past step 2 in JBR's case.

Ah, but that's just it: they COULD have gotten past it early on. Your chart is a fine one, but it seems to have left out one vitally important part: in cases such as these, what breaks it is not deciding if an evidence item belongs to a or b. Cases like this are very rarely solved on the forensic evidence. What breaks it is arresting the two suspects and tossing them into separate holding cells, letting them "get lost in the system" for a while, then seeing which one will crack first and "rat out" the other as you put it.

Actually, I'd have listed that one first. In most places, that IS "step 1:" Arrest suspects a and b, throw them into jail, let their imaginations run wild a little, then wave a "get out of jail free" card under both their noses to see which one will take it.

Now then, about those 1996 news events. What would be the criteria based on the RN?

I guess in order for me to believe it, there would have to be a terrorist group with a history of kidnapping or killing little girls in America. What you have to remember is that groups like Al Qaeda did not turn their fury on the US until a very short time before 1996. We were the "far" enemy. They were concentrated on the "near" enemy: Israel and the secular Arab tyrannies like Jordan and Egypt.

Other than that, I already made my feelings clear in the "bin Laden" posting.
 
I want someone to explain to me, if you can, WHY in a case where two people are suspected of a murder, but it can't be proved which one actually committed the murder, why can't they both be charged? If they were both involved, aren't they BOTH responsible, regardless of which one actually did the killing?
I don't mean specifically the Rs here, but in general.
Is this just in Colorado? Because I know I have heard of cases where both people were charged as accessories.
 
Actually, I'd have listed that one first. In most places, that IS "step 1:" Arrest suspects a and b, throw them into jail, let their imaginations run wild a little, then wave a "get out of jail free" card under both their noses to see which one will take it.

This seems maybe a little harsh. And, this is basically just a bluff, when you don't even know if a case exists in evidence and instead you're fishing for testimony. This applies to single suspects and their story can be cross-checked with other suspects or witnesses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it would work in many cases, especially if you knew you had the guilty party but couldn't really prove it with existing evidence or evidence gathered illegally. None of this would work in JBR's case though. The idea that this was even a factor in JBR's case is just a claim. Not known to be fact.

I guess in order for me to believe it, there would have to be a terrorist group with a history of kidnapping or killing little girls in America. What you have to remember is that groups like Al Qaeda did not turn their fury on the US until a very short time before 1996. We were the "far" enemy. They were concentrated on the "near" enemy: Israel and the secular Arab tyrannies like Jordan and Egypt.

Also a bit harsh. Would a local terrorist group need to have a history of kidnapping and killing little girls before you'd investigate?

BTW I kinda figured out how you came up with kidnapping, killing, little girls, and America but how did you come up with terrorist group? Did you just make that one up? Since when is a 'small foreign faction' automatically a terrorist group?

Other than that, I already made my feelings clear in the "bin Laden" posting.

I'm looking for criteria for a news event search. Either you've got some ideas or you don't. I understand if you don't, believe me.

May I suggest events where the US is the larger party and any foreign entity is the smaller party in any less-than-friendly exchange? I can almost guarantee at least one of those.
 
....

May I suggest events where the US is the larger party and any foreign entity is the smaller party in any less-than-friendly exchange? I can almost guarantee at least one of those.

HOTYH, just the other day you chastised me for implying that your post suggested international political implications.

Sorry, but it seems ludicrous to me that John Ramsey and his daughter were that important in Colorado, let alone internationally.
 
HOTYH, just the other day you chastised me for implying that your post suggested international political implications.

Sorry, but it seems ludicrous to me that John Ramsey and his daughter were that important in Colorado, let alone internationally.

RN author: We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We respect your bussiness (sic) but not the country that it serves.

U.S. Secret Service: "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note."

Just how long did you want to ignore ransom note contents when some experts say PR didn't write it? When nobody who is anybody acts like PR is the author.

It would probably only take hours to review political events involving the US and smaller not-so-friendly entities. Were you in a hurry? I don't know about you, but when feds are saying she didn't write the RN and are entering DNA into CODIS, and locals are writing exhoneration letters, it should make one consider every alternative.
 
the RN author claims to be a small foreign faction but weather IDI or RDI that could be just made up, the whole ransom note seems so fake to me.
imo the main evidence of the ransom note is not what is said so much as why some of it is said. if you were going after money then why not just a quick note saying we have your daughter give us 1 million instructions will follow.
The note appears as an attack on JR.
 
the RN author claims to be a small foreign faction but weather IDI or RDI that could be just made up, the whole ransom note seems so fake to me.
imo the main evidence of the ransom note is not what is said so much as why some of it is said. if you were going after money then why not just a quick note saying we have your daughter give us 1 million instructions will follow.
The note appears as an attack on JR.



You're right, it could be just made up. But is it? I think if JR and/or PR had been charged, or no exhoneration letter, then I wouldn't be considering FFDI.

You're also right about the 'attack on JR'. Indirectly, the murder of JBR is an attack on JR, and the RN does appear an attack on JR, his status and his intellect.
 
You're right, it could be just made up. But is it? I think if JR and/or PR had been charged, or no exhoneration letter, then I wouldn't be considering FFDI.

You're also right about the 'attack on JR'. Indirectly, the murder of JBR is an attack on JR, and the RN does appear an attack on JR, his status and his intellect.

Hi Hotyh.

Through all the reading research that you have
done, have you ever read or heard the Ramseys refer to more than one individual as the perp? iirc the IDI is always referred to as A killer.

Early on in the case, did the media ever consider or report that a political group could have beeen responsible?
 
Hi Hotyh.

Through all the reading research that you have
done, have you ever read or heard the Ramseys refer to more than one individual as the perp? iirc the IDI is always referred to as A killer.

Early on in the case, did the media ever consider or report that a political group could have beeen responsible?

...the note purported to be from "a small foreign faction" calling itself S.B.T.C.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/ramsey.ransom.note/

--------------------------------------------------------

Not to change the subject, but why don't you go and check out the white space (spacing between words and sentences) differences between the RN and PR's exemplars:

The ratio of inter-word space to inter-sentence space in first paragraph of the scanned ransom note is 1.75 to 1. The white space between sentences is always larger then the white space between words. This is standard typing practice, to space twice after the end of a sentence:

xxxxxx____xxxxxxx._______Xxxxxx

The ratio of inter-word space to inter-sentence space in the first paragraph of PR's right handed exemplar copying the ransom note is .75 to 1. The white space between sentences is always smaller than the white space between words. The exact opposite of the ransom note:

xxxxxx____xxxxxxx.___Xxxxxx
 
...the note purported to be from "a small foreign faction" calling itself S.B.T.C.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/ramsey.ransom.note/

ty Hotyh.

article posting Thursday, August 17, 2006; purported ... as part summary.

But I was more so wondering about the first year, post crime.
Never having had the opportunity to watch the media coverage, I guess the purported political attachment was never considered.:waitasec:

although, iirc, perhaps in ST's book, he may have mentioned that uni students were questioned.
 
This is just an observation, & a little off topic, but it is about cross-finger pointing. I always felt that Patsy really didn't mind Burk being suspected. Yeah, she said things in his defense, but they rang false & over the top. It's like she was trying to give the impression that she was sheltering him from being investigated. The fierce mama lion, protecting her baby cub.
 
This is just an observation, & a little off topic, but it is about cross-finger pointing. I always felt that Patsy really didn't mind Burk being suspected. Yeah, she said things in his defense, but they rang false & over the top. It's like she was trying to give the impression that she was sheltering him from being investigated. The fierce mama lion, protecting her baby cub.

And of course, the State of Colorado helped, by not allowing anyone under 10 to be indicted or even accused of a crime.
I don't believe for one minute that BR was the sole perp here, if at all. No way could he have done this, from killing to staging, accident or not, alone. If he was involved at all, he was with JAR. The two step-brothers would be a very good reason for BOTH parents to cover up the crime.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
280
Total visitors
454

Forum statistics

Threads
609,631
Messages
18,256,292
Members
234,710
Latest member
Lisa Allen
Back
Top