Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[BBB167893]

This goes both ways.

Not in this case, it doesn't.

 

[BOESP]

Let me add something to that, BOESP. And I am NOT by any means trying to slime the Van Dams--they're heroic in my book. But if you compared the two sets of parents, and the ONLY thing you knew about them was their socio-economic status and their habits, which one would you think was more likely to have killed one of their children?

I think I will quote Han Solo: never tell me the odds.

At least the Van Dam's used their security system.

Truly, I don't think there is any way to decide beforehand who is most likely. I'm of the opinion that most anyone will do most anything if the circumstances are right.

 

[BBB167893]

I disagree. I feel like in this case it was staged to ultimately make it look like the parents did it.

To what purpose?

And how or where? They were leaving in the AM on their privet plain....as if they couldn't of gotten rid of the evidence along with JBR if they really wanted to.

I've heard that before, and there are a few problems with it. For one thing, their pilot was expecting them. What would he have thought if they had changed their flight plan last minute? To say nothing of how to explain JB's body. Were they going to pull a Weekend at Bernie's? "Don't mind JonBenet. She's just sleepy."

PLUS, their extended family was waiting for them. When they didn't show, someone was going to get worried.

They didn't have to call the police when they did. They could of done so many things and never been caught.

I'm sure that thought occurred to them later on!

 

[BBB167893]

Okay, I swear, I am NOT picking on you!

I promise.

I just want to say that I think you are describing aspects of staging, some if which I am in complete agreement with. I agree with staging. I see staging. But, I don’t see where anybody bothered to stage someone coming into or leaving the house which is the context for my post that you quoted.

…

AK

I've addressed that point many times.

 

[BBB167893]

It was Christmas time. There was wrapping paper, and envelopes and cards and packaging and all kinds of stuff laying about. It would have been easy to find something unidentifiable and scribble a line or two on it: NO coPs. wwaiT 4 CalL. $$$ Better yet! Write it on the wall.
…

AK

You're forgetting a crucial component: habit.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave, while there need to be 13 markers for acceptance into the FBI Offender database, only 10 markers are needed to get a sample accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database. Being the prolific writer that you are on the subject, I am really surprised that you do not seem to be aware of such a simple fact.

No, I am aware of it. I never said that they wouldn't use it, just that there are different categories, as you just illustrated.

The 10 marker profile obtained from JonBenet's panties, which by the way was NOT touchDNA, was sufficient to be accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database and can in no way be considered to be a partial profile.

Except that it had to be amplified just to get that 10th marker.

It might interest you to know that in the UK and in much of Europe only 10 markers are required for their databases. So it would seem that most of Europe and the UK are happy to match only 10 marker profiles. Maybe you should write to them and tell them it isn’t possible and try explaining why.

I already have enough issues with Europe and the UK and why we shouldn't imitate them, thank you.

 

[BBB167893]

Unless you are a female (especially a six-year-old female), or a male who has tried this, you might want to think about the accuracy of your above statement.

But he won't.

 

[BBB167893]

Why hasn't the housekeeper seriously looked at? Patsy had loaned her $2,000. shortly before Christmas so she could pay her rent. Her husband was a drunk that when he did work worked construction. They didn't have two sticks to rub together it sounds like, and she had access to everything in the Ramsey house.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the Rs were counting on that?

 

[BBB167893]

Well excuse them for having a murdered child on their mind. Yeah really? The support turned to they did it at the GJ

Because it became impossible for her to ignore the evidence anymore. I can identify with that personally.

 

[BBB167893]

If the panties were in inside out, it would have been noted in the AR.
…

AK

I don't think that's quite what BOESP meant. Not to be graphic, but when nature calls me, my undergarment often turns mostly inside out when it hits the floor.

 

[BBB167893]

For IDI, the complete failure of RDI – and, despite what some posters think, it is a failure, no one charged, arrested, tried, convicted, no consensus among believers as to who did what, when, how or why – is telling.

Oh, it is, for reasons different than you suggest! You have to TRY in order to fail, Anti-K. And the attempt was never even made. I've said it a million times: this wasn't a miscarriage of justice, it was an abortion.

As to coherent theories, I’m not even sure what that means as no coherent RDI theory exists.

You lost me.

 

[BBB167893]

It's from Perfect Murder Perfect Town. The book is older so new evidence could suggest otherwise. Do you have anything besides DNA, or not? There are at least possible explanations for the DNA there. Is there anything else that IDI's have to offer, though? Focusing in on one piece of potential evidence and excluding every other piece of the puzzle isn't a good strategy.

Not for finding the killer. For protecting the Rs, it's just the thing!

 

[BBB167893]

I wonder if one of the fundamental differences between IDI and RDI might be the way that they view Ramsey post-crime behavior.

I'm sure of it!

 

[BBB167893]

The ransom note might be where we disagree the very most. This is why I ask you or anyone else to please point me to a some good IDI ransom note threads. This ransom note seems like one of the top most incriminating pieces of evidence against the R's usually in the RDI discussions! For example, I'm sure you have seen this, but check out this post comparing samples from PR's writing and the ransom note. And this is just writing alone. Phrasing, punctuation, indentation, and other things are all used to form a cohesive big picture, and the comparisons between notes really seem to point the finger at Patsy.

In all honesty looking at that comparison, and the note as a whole compared to Patsy's stylistics, really makes it painfully obvious she wrote it.

Seeing is believing.

 

[BBB167893]

Because similarities are common and expected and normal to see.

A FEW, maybe. Not THIS many. And it's not just the sheer number of similarities, it's the specific KINDS of similarities. Plus the other factors Ellie9 mentioned.

THAT's taking a holistic view of it, Anti-K.

 

[BBB167893]

The handwriting is one area where things SHOULD be pretty clear as we have the Carnes report which went into this aspect of the evidence in great detail.

BS in great detail is still BS, Anti-K.

Say what you want about Carnes, but it gave us the bottom line on the handwriting and it gave us Thomas vs Smit (Thomas lost, badly).

Pretty hard to win when one side is allowed to control the exchange of information. Carnes had no choice, given the circumstances.

None of the experts deemed credible by the Court identified Mrs Ramsey as the author, and – this includes the BPD experts – the general consensus was that she did NOT write the note.

The "consensus" if you can call it such a thing, was inconclusive. ie, she may have written it, but we can't say so in court. As Ellie9 pointed out, and as I've definitely tried to explain to you many times, the profession of handwriting analysis is heavily flawed. I'd rather not repeat it all now.

You can read an excerpt from McMenamon here: http://tinyurl.com/jfzt9ml Also, if you can find it, Fisher’s “Forensics Under Fire” has a pretty decent chapter on the handwriting analysis, and, yes, that’s right – Mrs Ramsey is NOT identified as the author.

I've read it. The main source is clearly the Ramsey-hired "experts" and frankly, not worth the paper.

Other factors to consider are the length – this, if RDI, is self-created, self-incriminating evidence. even morons know to keep things like this short.

Ah, but we're not claiming a moron did it! All jokes aside, I go back to what Michael Kane said: that this was the work of a very theatrical person. This letter had drama queen written all over it, figuratively AND literally.

They handed the notepad over to the cops, didn’t even try to hide it

Why the hell would they want to hide it if they went to all the trouble of writing it?

 

[BBB167893]

Patsy wrote the note. No examiner could eliminate her. And Carnes simply didn't allow the examiners that were anti Patsy to testify.

And let's not forget that Patsy's print was on that page despite her denials of ever touching it.

Patsy wrote the note.

Just because the Ramsey's lawyers were far better, and were clever enough to convince Carnes, does not make her decision to disallow certain handwriting experts correct. Just because they weren't allowed to speak, it does not negate what they had to say.

Just like when Johnny Cochrane said the glove didn't fit, it didn't mean the glove didn't fit. All it meant was that he was a better lawyer than Chris Darden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Precisely my point.

 

[BBB167893]

Carnes did not consider expert’s conclusions when deciding against experts.

That's not what andreww said.

Wong was disqualified because she was not found to be credible; even Epstein said she wasn’t credible and Kane, in preparation for the Grand Jury, wrote Wong a letter explaining why he did not consider her to be credible.

Isn't odd then, how other courts have found her to be credible before and since? (I will offer a slight olive branch to you, Anti-k: likely those cases didn't have stakes this high.) Point is, those three could have been wrong. Epstein even said he had changed his mind.

Epstein was found credible as an expert but his conclusion was not allowed because he was unable to show how he arrived at his questionable conclusion (100% certainty).

And WHOSE fault was that?

None of the other experts identified Mrs Ramsey and that, too, is a fact. Quote from Carnes: …the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF, 196; PSMF 196.)14 On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF 203; PSMF 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low."

The "experts" being referred to were the two Ramsey-hired guys. For one thing, there is no such scale. Thornton established a 1-9 scale, and a 4 would put PR on "indications did write.

 

[BBB167893]

It is not a fact that Mrs Ramsey changed her handwriting;

It isn't? I seem to recall she never used a typescript "a" again, just to name one example.

however, when the whole world seems to think that you murdered your child and that you wrote the ransom note, then altering one’s handwriting might seem a sensible thing to do. it seems more an act of paranoia than of guilt.
…

AK

Oh, that's just ridiculous.

For God's sake, Anti-K, LOOK at the damn comparison charts!

 

[BBB167893]

It was apparently written in Steve Thomas' book. The quotes are listed here. I'm kind of guessing you'll just say this is wrong and Thomas is wrong. It's hard to talk to anyone who won't even consider for a second any evidence that they don't like.

Yeah, I hear Johnny Cash again.