This goes both ways.
Not in this case, it doesn't.
This goes both ways.
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.
I disagree. I feel like in this case it was staged to ultimately make it look like the parents did it.
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.
They didn't have to call the police when they did. They could of done so many things and never been caught.
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 dont see where anybody bothered to stage someone coming into or leaving the house which is the context for my post that you quoted.
AK
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
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.
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.
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 isnt possible and try explaining why.
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.
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.
Well excuse them for having a murdered child on their mind. Yeah really? The support turned to they did it at the GJ
If the panties were in inside out, it would have been noted in the AR.
AK
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.
As to coherent theories, Im not even sure what that means as no coherent RDI theory exists.
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.
I wonder if one of the fundamental differences between IDI and RDI might be the way that they view Ramsey post-crime behavior.
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.
Because similarities are common and expected and normal to see.
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.
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).
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.
You can read an excerpt from McMenamon here: http://tinyurl.com/jfzt9ml Also, if you can find it, Fishers Forensics Under Fire has a pretty decent chapter on the handwriting analysis, and, yes, thats right Mrs Ramsey is NOT identified as the author.
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.
They handed the notepad over to the cops, didnt even try to hide it
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
Carnes did not consider experts conclusions when deciding against experts.
Wong was disqualified because she was not found to be credible; even Epstein said she wasnt credible and Kane, in preparation for the Grand Jury, wrote Wong a letter explaining why he did not consider her to be credible.
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).
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."
It is not a fact that Mrs Ramsey changed her handwriting;
however, when the whole world seems to think that you murdered your child and that you wrote the ransom note, then altering ones handwriting might seem a sensible thing to do. it seems more an act of paranoia than of guilt.
AK
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.