Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[BBB167893]

I think you mean Epstein and Wong.

The method is questioned because the defendants challenged it.

If you read Carnes (and, the Epstein depo, and the Kane letter) it becomes pretty clear why Wong was not permitted, however, if the defendants hadn’t raised a challenge, I think she probably would have been allowed.

And, Carnes is very clear in regards to Epstein. But, I think every case is different (in some cases Daubert or similar “guidelines” might not apply) and Epstein might do fine elsewhere. However, as with Wong, I think that if there had been no challenge, Epstein would have also been allowed.
…

AK

You know, Anti-K, maybe we CAN come to an understanding, after all. Leaving aside that the defendants (that's the Rs just in case anyone doesn't know) challenged the entire field of handwriting analysis (after trying to claim it themselves), I don't think it was the fact that the Rs challenged it (which you figure they would do). Rather, it was the way Hoffman answered the challenge (or more accurately, did not answer it).

 

[BBB167893]

And, I’ve never said that “no expert believed that Patsy wrote the note.” But, this aspect of the investigation has been through the Courts, and I’m only really interested in those experts the Court accepted. Í think to do otherwise is to simply choose an expert that fits one’s belief.
…

AK

We've been over that.

 

[BBB167893]

I think the reason people don't like Smit is because he was hired for the sole reason of pushing the intruder agenda. If you read Thomas' book you'll see how Smit walked in to the very first meeting without having read the case file, and stated his IDI allegiance. Ask yourself why Smit would be brought in when every LE officer connected to the case could only come to the conclusion that this crime was committed by one of the Ramseys. Lou Smit was nothing but a paid shill for Alex hunter, hired in an effort to take heat off himself and the AG's office.

I've got a whole chapter devoted to him, andreww. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

And we've all read Carnes report AK. I've read a lot of stuff from Judge Ito as well.

Yeah, that's the part he doesn't seem to get, andreww. We know WHY Carnes did it. We just acknowledge that it would have likely been different if Hoffman had done a half-decent job.

I didn't devote a whole chapter to the Carnes fiasco for nothing.

 

[BBB167893]

As far as I know, it is only RDI who have a problem with Smit.

There's a shock. Next thing you'll tell us, the sun is hot.

All kidding around aside, I sometimes wonder why more IDI don't have a problem with him, given his, shall we say flexible credibility.

Another RDI distortion/myth: every LE officer connected to the case could only come to the conclusion that this crime was committed by one of the Ramseys.
…

AK

You have to admit, Anti-K, the roster's pretty lopsided.

 

[BBB167893]

Another thing, I don't like your appeal to emotions. Please stop saying that we're 'accusing people of murder' as if it had any real life consequence for anyone. The R's are gonne be just fine. We're doing no more damage than they did to themselves and than the media did before this forum began. I think by saying this you're trying to silence people by attempting to make them feel like a bad person just for theorizing.

It's a common ploy used by the IDI side. I've seen it many times.

Sidenote: they don't take it half as well as they dish it out.

 

[Anti-K]

Actually, there is really only one part of the evidence that causes some guessing and wondering with RDI. I think the one thing is probably the trace DNA. Some people have no issue with this. They just explain it by saying there was a lot of trace DNA evidence on JBR's body and clothing. This is acceptable. Some say a factory worker sneezed/coughed on the clothing as he worked. This too is a reasonable explanation. This is the main thing they have to explain in debates, and in my opinion they do it pretty well.

For IDI, you have to take in not just one strange idea, but in my guess over twenty. I can list them all out if you want, but the last time I did that you ignored this section of my post and focused on insulting RDI's.

Another thing, I don't like your appeal to emotions. Please stop saying that we're 'accusing people of murder' as if it had any real life consequence for anyone. The R's are gonne be just fine. We're doing no more damage than they did to themselves and than the media did before this forum began. I think by saying this you're trying to silence people by attempting to make them feel like a bad person just for theorizing.

They are NOT on trial here, we are NOT a court of law, and there are NO consequences for them. No one's going to jail for life over someone's theory. Also we don't have to abide by the same rules so there's no reason to hold us to court-standards. In a court it's almost a game over which side gets the best jurors, which side gets the best experts (who work for their theory) and which evidence is never brought out. Who can trick the jurors best? It's a freaking game, and I honestly have a huge problem with it, but whatever.

There's tons of trials where stuff is just never brought out and I think forums get an advantage over a court in this way... at least we aren't being forced to ignore things due to court politics. This could give us an advantage in discovering a plausible theory, but of course what we say/believe has no consequence for anyone. That's fine. I think we're all here for the same reasons. We want to solve a mystery. We want justice for a little girl who didn't deserve to die, too, but this won't ever happen on a forum.

hi ellie9,
(i’m writing in word, and it’s decided it doesn’t like capital letters and i’m too lazy to fix it, now. sorry)

that was a really nice, well thought out and written post. thank you.

i apologize if i have insulted you in some way, that is not my intent.

and, i didn’t mean to offend you by ignoring the section of your last post (listed things you would need to believe to be IDI). but, if you think about it, it is pretty much me vs everybody and i have to pick and choose who i want to respond to, or what i want to address. also, because i’ve been at this so long i know that what isn’t addressed now will come up later. anyway, i’ll address that section of that post in a bit.

elllie9, i understand what you’re saying about appeals to emotion. i wasn’t making any such appeal, i was stating a fact: if you accuse someone of something than it is up to you to prove and defend that accusation. but, i do understand what you’re saying and, again, i apologize for any offence.

as a quick aside, i think that accusing anyone of anything can, and often does, have negative consequences for the person being accused. but, we can just agree to disagree on that, i guess?
okay, i’m going back to the post with the section that i didn’t comment on.

i’m addressing your DNA comments on the DNA thread.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

bbm

Also how come every single expert that thinks the Ramsey's played a role are all incompetent? I mean, I'm fairly sure they played a role here, at least staging, but I don't go around call Lou smit an idiot. I think he's a good detective, but I think he's probably wrong in this particular case.

The way that other evidence is completely brushed aside is causing a noticeable backfire effect in myself. I came to this forum thinking maybe seventy five percent chance that RDI. But the way that IDI speak to RDI and fail to even consider another side makes me lean further and further from this theory. I think bias sets off red flags for me, and I'm probably not alone in thinking this.

Coming up with wild ideas to explain away every single thing makes certain posters seem closer to those alien conspiracy theorists. Even though they think that lizard people control the government they sure enough have an answer for every single thing thrown at them. The problem is that their answers, when taken all together, are too convoluted to be realistic.

Right now if I want to fully believe IDI, I have to put aside all reason. The Ramsay's have basically the worst memories in the world. Jonbenet started a brand new habit of sneaking food coincidentally the day she died. This intruder has handwriting that looks a ton like Patsy, by coincidence. The killer brought along only a couple things, possibly, of his own. He knew where the wine cellar was and the latch and light switch, somehow. He left no finger prints, and like maybe three small DNA samples. He didn't try any other doors. The alarm wasn't set. The Ramsay's decided to just not set their alarm, lucky for intruder. Jonbenet decided this day she would also start a new habit of wearing panties for girls twice her age.

Do I need to go on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you’re in italics; i’m not.

The Ramsay's have basically the worst memories in the world

i don’t think this is true. it is the opinion of some people. if you can find it, read ‘the invisible gorilla: how out intuitions deceive us.’ even if you only read the chapter on memory and eyewitness accounts. you will be surprised and your opinion that the Ramsey’s have the worst memories in the world might even change.

Jonbenet started a brand new habit of sneaking food coincidentally the day she died.

one doesn’t have to believe this. and, i don’t think anyone does. some IDI really do believe that the intrude might have fed her pineapple, so you could go that route (i don’t), some think she ate it before going to the white’s (possible onset of illness slowed or halted digestive process), and, yes, some think she got up in the middle of the night (there was an empty tupperware container in her room, some think she ate pineapple from that) and ate it, but no one thinks it was the beginning of a new habit and no one thinks she was sneaking anything. so, you don’t have to believe this to be IDI, either.

This intruder has handwriting that looks a ton like Patsy, by coincidence.

i tend to just point at the BPD experts when it comes to the handwriting, but imo the importance of the similarities is vastly overstated (it’s printing!). i think if we set up an experiment and all us posters were to be given a printed letter to be matched and printed samples from 10 different people to compare, the failure rate would be high. because of similarities. so, to be IDI, you don’t have to believe this, either.

The killer brought along only a couple things, possibly, of his own.

if IDI, this is probably true however one does not have to sat aside reason to do this, as this is a tactic known to the law enforcement community. a criminal brings what he cannot be without and uses found objects on-site.

He knew where the wine cellar was and the latch and light switch, somehow.

one wouldn’t have to set reason aside if the killer was familiar with the house. however, the killer might not have needed light to set the body on the wc floor, and he may have had a flashlight; although while any of these things could be true, you don’t have to accept them to be IDI. as soon as you get to the bottom of the stairs you see the wc door. you can see the latch. no one needed to know any of these things in advance

He left no finger prints, and like maybe three small DNA samples.

and, possibly, hair and fibers in incriminating locations (in the hands, on the tape, the garrote, the genital area, her shirt); plus, 2 ½ pages of handwriting, and the acts committed (indicative of suspect type). more trace evidence than what is often found.

He didn't try any other doors.
sorry, i have no ide what this means.

The alarm wasn't set.
i have no idea why you would have to set aside reason to believe this.

Jonbenet decided this day she would also start a new habit of wearing panties for girls twice her age.
doesn’t have to have been a habit. it may not have been the first time she wore over-size panties. if IDI, these two things – wearing over-size panties and the murder – are not related.
…

AK

 

[indridcold]

Patsy didn't do this. The Boulder police put in everyone's head and now that's the "common knowledge" everyone knows about this case. She had been more or less conclusively ruled out.

This Burke theory is kind of interesting, the parents may have known more than they were telling, but I'm still sticking with an intruder, one who most likely knew JonBenet.

 

[Ellie9]

Patsy didn't do this. The Boulder police put in everyone's head and now that's the "common knowledge" everyone knows about this case. She had been more or less conclusively ruled out.

This Burke theory is kind of interesting, the parents may have known more than they were telling, but I'm still sticking with an intruder, one who most likely knew JonBenet.

I was a teen when this happened, and I did not follow the case and at my age I rarely watched the news. My first documentary was the Lou smit one. So the only thing put into my head was that an intruder did this.

However, once I learned more about the crime, I slowly but surely went to the RDI camp.

So I wouldn't say that everyone is just biased due to their first experience. There's plenty of RDI evidence but little IDI.

The problem is that from a legal perspective they need to have strong proof for which Ramsey did it. Because they all live in the same house, their DNA and prints are of little help in finding the exact one. So they had little choice but to not start a trial. And also, John's lawyer claimed he made more from his council to them than someone would make in a year. They had a scary lawyer, like the o.j. Simpson case, and the state didn't want to fight and lose due to some dumb little rhyme to fool a jury filled with average people of average intelligence.

One of the Ramsey's did this and two others kept their mouths shut and lied. They lie a lot. Innocent people rarely have to lie, and when they do its usually to cover up an embarrassing situation, like drug use unrelated to murder, or scandalous sex unrelated to the crime.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

bbm


you’re in italics; i’m not.

The Ramsay's have basically the worst memories in the world

i don’t think this is true. it is the opinion of some people. if you can find it, read ‘the invisible gorilla: how out intuitions deceive us.’ even if you only read the chapter on memory and eyewitness accounts. you will be surprised and your opinion that the Ramsey’s have the worst memories in the world might even change.

Jonbenet started a brand new habit of sneaking food coincidentally the day she died.

one doesn’t have to believe this. and, i don’t think anyone does. some IDI really do believe that the intrude might have fed her pineapple, so you could go that route (i don’t), some think she ate it before going to the white’s (possible onset of illness slowed or halted digestive process), and, yes, some think she got up in the middle of the night (there was an empty tupperware container in her room, some think she ate pineapple from that) and ate it, but no one thinks it was the beginning of a new habit and no one thinks she was sneaking anything. so, you don’t have to believe this to be IDI, either.

This intruder has handwriting that looks a ton like Patsy, by coincidence.

i tend to just point at the BPD experts when it comes to the handwriting, but imo the importance of the similarities is vastly overstated (it’s printing!). i think if we set up an experiment and all us posters were to be given a printed letter to be matched and printed samples from 10 different people to compare, the failure rate would be high. because of similarities. so, to be IDI, you don’t have to believe this, either.

The killer brought along only a couple things, possibly, of his own.

if IDI, this is probably true however one does not have to sat aside reason to do this, as this is a tactic known to the law enforcement community. a criminal brings what he cannot be without and uses found objects on-site.

He knew where the wine cellar was and the latch and light switch, somehow.

one wouldn’t have to set reason aside if the killer was familiar with the house. however, the killer might not have needed light to set the body on the wc floor, and he may have had a flashlight; although while any of these things could be true, you don’t have to accept them to be IDI. as soon as you get to the bottom of the stairs you see the wc door. you can see the latch. no one needed to know any of these things in advance

He left no finger prints, and like maybe three small DNA samples.

and, possibly, hair and fibers in incriminating locations (in the hands, on the tape, the garrote, the genital area, her shirt); plus, 2 ½ pages of handwriting, and the acts committed (indicative of suspect type). more trace evidence than what is often found.

He didn't try any other doors.
sorry, i have no ide what this means.

The alarm wasn't set.
i have no idea why you would have to set aside reason to believe this.

Jonbenet decided this day she would also start a new habit of wearing panties for girls twice her age.
doesn’t have to have been a habit. it may not have been the first time she wore over-size panties. if IDI, these two things – wearing over-size panties and the murder – are not related.
…

AK

Apparently I do need to go on. One day when I have some time I'll create a list of the rarities one would have to accept fully if trying to assume an intruder did this. Some rarities and coincidences happen, but in this case you'd have to go to alien among us levels of suspension of disbelief in order to think an intruder did this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Apparently I do need to go on. One day when I have some time I'll create a list of the rarities one would have to accept fully if trying to assume an intruder did this. Some rarities and coincidences happen, but in this case you'd have to go to alien among us levels of suspension of disbelief in order to think an intruder did this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't bother, you'll be wasting your time. Some people have for one reason or another chosen to preach their IDI theories with no regard for logic.

AK wrote a nice long post, but what did he say really? He talks about ...

-small quantities of unidentified DNA (explainable, but I'll give him that)

-hairs a fibers (think dirty basement floor and sticky duct tape. I'd be more surprised if their were no fibers. But let's ask how Ramsey fibers got all over the murder scene?)

-the intruder may have brought a flashlight (yet the Ramsey flashlight drawer is wide open, their flashlight is not in it, and an identical model is in the kitchen)

-the ransom note (let's be serious here, you have just killed a child in a strangers basement, what possible reason would you have to write 3 pages of fiction plus an extra page of practice for good measure? And just out of miraculous coincidence your handwriting is so similar to one of the two adults in the house, that they can't be eliminated as the author by a single expert, including those provided by the Ramsey's.

-the doors, you are right, why didn't they leave by a door? Your friend AK will tell you that he thinks an intruder did leave through a self locking door, I believe in the pantry? But he will alway fail to explain why the suitcase was moved under the window? John swore it didn't belong there, so why was it there?

-the alarm, John paid to have someone install it but claimed they stopped using it because the alarm was too loud when the kids had set it off. I wonder if any call had been made to the installer asking to reduce the volume? I'll bet you right now there wasn't [emoji6]

-and for good measure, what about those other key pieces of evidence, like the HiTek boot print or the Mysterious Santa Bear? Oh right, the Ramsey's all denied knowledge of either of these things until other sources came forward. Liars.

So AKs long winded post is simply an illusion designed to convince you that there is more evidence then their actually is. In reality there is three pieces of DNA. Keep in mind this DNA is easily transferred and that it wasn't detected until two years after the murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Patsy didn't do this. The Boulder police put in everyone's head and now that's the "common knowledge" everyone knows about this case. She had been more or less conclusively ruled out.

This Burke theory is kind of interesting, the parents may have known more than they were telling, but I'm still sticking with an intruder, one who most likely knew JonBenet.

Patsy has been conclusively ruled out? Where is that coming from? Of the three remaining Ramsey's, Patsy is the only one we can say with 100% certainty was involved in this crime. She wrote the note, her fibers are all over the crime scene and she has been far from truthful in her interviews.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Apparently I do need to go on. One day when I have some time I'll create a list of the rarities one would have to accept fully if trying to assume an intruder did this. Some rarities and coincidences happen, but in this case you'd have to go to alien among us levels of suspension of disbelief in order to think an intruder did this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would be interesting to see, Ellie9. No offence, but it wouldn’t really help your case much, as rare events and coincidences happen all the time – yes, even rare events (see Law of Large Numbers), and none of these things add up to anything. I’ve learned, during my education (some formal some informal; some mentored) in Critical Thinking and How Thinking Goes Wrong, arguments from rare occurrences and coincidences are always fallacious.

I used to list contradictions that arise from RDI but vanish with IDI. Try it. Occam’s razor, and all that.
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

That would be interesting to see, Ellie9. No offence, but it wouldn’t really help your case much, as rare events and coincidences happen all the time – yes, even rare events (see Law of Large Numbers), and none of these things add up to anything. I’ve learned, during my education (some formal some informal; some mentored) in Critical Thinking and How Thinking Goes Wrong, arguments from rare occurrences and coincidences are always fallacious.

I used to list contradictions that arise from RDI but vanish with IDI. Try it. Occam’s razor, and all that.
…

AK

I said this before. I except some coincidences and rarities in any case. But a case full of nothing but bizarre happenings and convoluted excuses and explaining away just won't cut it.

 

[Anti-K]

Don't bother, you'll be wasting your time. Some people have for one reason or another chosen to preach their IDI theories with no regard for logic.

AK wrote a nice long post, but what did he say really? He talks about ...

-small quantities of unidentified DNA (explainable, but I'll give him that)

-hairs a fibers (think dirty basement floor and sticky duct tape. I'd be more surprised if their were no fibers. But let's ask how Ramsey fibers got all over the murder scene?)

You want to know how Ramsey fibers got all over the murder scene? If you can understand how fibers not traced to the home can get into incriminating locations than it should be child’s play to understand how fibers traced to the house can get into the same places. Fibers all behave according to the same rules and principles. The victim was in the Ramsey home and had regular, frequent and recent contact with Ramsey people and Ramsey items in the Ramsey home.

This is one aspect of RDI reasoning that is almost laughable – we’re supposed to believe that IDI fibers can be present without meaning, but that RDI fibers – fibers the victim was known to have innocent contact with – MUST be RDI evidence. This is a very clear example of biased and theory-driven reasoning (aka cherry picking).

-the intruder may have brought a flashlight (yet the Ramsey flashlight drawer is wide open, their flashlight is not in it, and an identical model is in the kitchen)

I’ve challenged you in this before, because I do not recall anything about any flashlight drawer being open. I think this is another thing that you’ve gotten wrong. The flashlight found is not known to have been used in the crime. (Thomas offered three theories for the flashlight, 1) it belonged to the family, 2) it was left behind by an intruder, and 3) it was left behind by “some cop.” He writes, “that it bore no fingerprints was consistent with a piece of equipment being handled in cold weather by a cop wearing gloves.” P. 240).

-the ransom note (let's be serious here, you have just killed a child in a strangers basement, what possible reason would you have to write 3 pages of fiction plus an extra page of practice for good measure? And just out of miraculous coincidence your handwriting is so similar to one of the two adults in the house, that they can't be eliminated as the author by a single expert, including those provided by the Ramsey's.

IDI reasons for writing the ransom note have been addressed a million times. Denialism doesn’t make for much of a counter-argument. The note is IDI evidence, and, if RDI, it is a monstrously huge contradiction (kidnappings don’t explain dead bodies in houses). Everyone’s printing is similar, so no coincidence here.

-the doors, you are right, why didn't they leave by a door? Your friend AK will tell you that he thinks an intruder did leave through a self locking door, I believe in the pantry? But he will alway fail to explain why the suitcase was moved under the window? John swore it didn't belong there, so why was it there?[/QUOTE]

Andreww, you’re confused. I’ve never said that he left through a self-locking door, I consistently say that I think he left through the butler door. I’ve never been asked to explain why the suitcase was moved under the window (White moved the suitcase), I’ve only been asked to explain why Ramsey didn’t mention it. IMO, the suitcase is probably not related to the crime.

-the alarm, John paid to have someone install it but claimed they stopped using it because the alarm was too loud when the kids had set it off. I wonder if any call had been made to the installer asking to reduce the volume? I'll bet you right now there wasn't [emoji6]

So?

-and for good measure, what about those other key pieces of evidence, like the HiTek boot print or the Mysterious Santa Bear? Oh right, the Ramsey's all denied knowledge of either of these things until other sources came forward. Liars.

Not sure why you mention these things here when you’re supposedly addressing what i wrote, as these are things i’ve not mentioned.

...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I said this before. I except some coincidences and rarities in any case. But a case full of nothing but bizarre happenings and convoluted excuses and explaining away just won't cut it.

Sounds like you’re describing a different case than this one.

As an aside, if you accept some coincidences and rarities, how do you decide when there are too many? and, how do you know that there is such a thing as “too many?”
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

Sounds like you’re describing a different case than this one.

As an aside, if you accept some coincidences and rarities, how do you decide when there are too many? and, how do you know that there is such a thing as “too many?”
…

AK

There's no point in arguing it with you. I mean from a skeptical perspective. Obviously you're a true believer type, so you won't understand. For anyone else who cares, when everything is a complicated and convoluted series of rare events, then you have to see if another explanation fits. The other explanation is that one of the Ramsey's did this and the others covered up. When seeing what fits and doesn't in this above, I see that just about everything fits if RDI and there is no longer any need for crazy theories.

 

[Ellie9]

IDI reasons for writing the ransom note have been addressed a million times. Denialism doesn’t make for much of a counter-argument. The note is IDI evidence, and, if RDI, it is a monstrously huge contradiction (kidnappings don’t explain dead bodies in houses). Everyone’s printing is similar, so no coincidence here.

Okay I just can't let this one go unnoticed. It's obvious why there is a ransom note. It literally is there to pin the blame on someone else. That's its entire purpose. It tells us WHO ('sbtc') and WHY (they don't like America even though they think John's business is pretty awesome!) and the note even tells LE to pretty much expect a corpse (99% chance she dies.)

Without a fake note, all they got is a dead child in their house and no explanation. The note is the only thing that attempts to 'explain' what happened and that some other 'foreign group' did it, and it's written inside the house by hand on Patsy's tablet with Patsy's pen. They expected LE to just buy their bull**** based on a note alone. Probably they expected LE to start canvasing the neighbourhood so they could go dump the body. But they made John search twice, and the second time White was RIGHT NEXT TO HIM so he couldn't just pretend there wasn't a dead body there or else he'd look even MORE guilty.

The note is all they thought of to do to explain, to EXCUSE themselves of the entire thing. That's its purpose, and this isn't a crazy theory here. Guilty people try to blame someone else. That's the most common thing in crime there is.

Some random guy taking at least an hour or two to create two practices and one note? At the scene of the crime? And them blames a foreign faction, even though he's writing in normal American English and making normal English-speaking mistakes here and there? This right here is when you get into crazy town.

 

[questfortrue]

There's no point in arguing it with you. I mean from a skeptical perspective. Obviously you're a true believer type, so you won't understand. For anyone else who cares, when everything is a complicated and convoluted series of rare events, then you have to see if another explanation fits. The other explanation is that one of the Ramsey's did this and the others covered up. When seeing what fits and doesn't in this above, I see that just about everything fits if RDI and there is no longer any need for crazy theories.

Sometimes one simply feels it’s time to stop searching for zebras. Explanation follows.

We know many of the facts of the case through Kolar and Thomas. Once one begins to listen to someone spinning an ‘alternate realty’, it can lead anyone through the looking-glass into many alternate conclusions. Henry Lee who looked at all the evidence stated his belief that this was a tragic domestic event followed by a cover-up. The FBI, short of Lanning who did not know all the facts of the case and only sat in briefly on one meeting, believed the evidence pointed to the family.

According to the law books all circumstantial cases are comprised of facts which can be used to infer another fact. This is why some who believe in the intruder theory take apart each and every piece of evidence (like digestion of pineapple), because when these pieces accumulate, it only points to the Rs’ involvement. It’s also why one can find JR and PR pulling apart facts. There are some pretty good examples of this in DOI (and also in JR’s book TOSOS.) One of my favorite examples was JR claiming in DOI that it was an “urban legend” that he called his pilot to arrange for his trip to Atlanta. Yet, two detectives were involved in hearing this; one of them explained to JR that the Rs couldn’t leave the state and investigation. At a trial jurors would have made the determination whose version to believe.

Imo, one can only rely on facts substantiated by the detectives involved and by one’s personal judgement pertaining to the validity of the R statements in their interviews. Alternate realities do not honor the truth in the case, but it is obvious who will benefit in the realm of public opinion from the tearing down of well-established facts.

One might remember the aphorism, “when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” Supposedly this precept was coined by a doctor teaching interns how to evaluate a patient. . . a physician must consider common diagnoses before rare ones because “common things are common.” So when a physician “hears” about symptoms that can be explained by a common diagnosis, the common diagnosis is usually the correct one — not the rare diagnosis. (http://michaelaaronsonmd.com:8080/2010/07/occams-razor-parsimony-quacks-hoofbeats.html).

The problem is not so much in someone’s reasoning capability. The problem is that some simply will never concede well-established facts in the case and will look for the circus semi truck carrying zebras.

 

[Fides]

Sometimes one simply feels it’s time to stop searching for zebras. Explanation follows.

We know many of the facts of the case through Kolar and Thomas. Once one begins to listen to someone spinning an ‘alternate realty’, it can lead anyone through the looking-glass into many alternate conclusions. Henry Lee who looked at all the evidence stated his belief that this was a tragic domestic event followed by a cover-up. The FBI, short of Lanning who did not know all the facts of the case and only sat in briefly on one meeting, believed the evidence pointed to the family.

According to the law books all circumstantial cases are comprised of facts which can be used to infer another fact. This is why some who believe in the intruder theory take apart each and every piece of evidence (like digestion of pineapple), because when these pieces accumulate, it only points to the Rs’ involvement. It’s also why one can find JR and PR pulling apart facts. There are some pretty good examples of this in DOI (and also in JR’s book TOSOS.) One of my favorite examples was JR claiming in DOI that it was an “urban legend” that he called his pilot to arrange for his trip to Atlanta. Yet, two detectives were involved in hearing this; one of them explained to JR that the Rs couldn’t leave the state and investigation. At a trial jurors would have made the determination whose version to believe.

Questfortrue:

Yours is one of the more fascinating examples of Ramsey doublespeak and obfuscation. Actually, John and Patsy carefully claim in their book that an "urban legend floated by the media" is John's call to his pilot early in the morning on 12/26. This is false. No one perceived anything suspicious or newsworthy about that call, in which he informed pilot Mike Archuleta of the kidnapping and presumably postponed/cancelled their flight to Michigan. No news outlet I know of claimed that the early AM call was made to schedule a flight to Atlanta. There was no legend, no interest in THAT call. That call made complete sense, and one would suppose that the Ramseys knew that, which is why they could use THAT call to imply there was no call made to the pilot to travel to Atlanta.

From DOI:
"Patsy and I heard that Mike Archuleta was subpoenaed to testify, and I knew he would clarify one of the urban legends that had been floated by the media, if he were asked. They had reported that I had called Mike early on the morning of December 26, 1996, to arrange a hasty trip to Atlanta. Of course, that wasn't true. I had called Mike to tell him what had happened. (p. 324)"

The real news story, the one people still talk about, is that John called his pilot to go to Atlanta less than an hour after his daughter's body was found, while she lay cold on his living room floor. And that story, the real news story, John Ramsey does admit is true. Not in their book, where they very intentionally throw out the red herring of the early morning call, but on television, in an interview with Barbara Walters on 3/17/2000:

BARBARA WALTERS It was reported also Mr. Ramsey that shortly after you found your daughter's body, that you called the pilot of your plane to arrange a flight to Atlanta. Is that true?
JOHN RAMSEY I did. We had um… been asked to leave the house. Within minutes of that happening the police took the house over. We had no where to go. Atlanta was our home. Uh, we lived in Atlanta for 25 years. That's where our family was. We wanted to go home.

That information, that call, will forever be a salient point for amateur detectives. We can't help ourselves; it is just too weird. Because when you are a multi-millionaire and, surrounded by your best friends and your minister you have just discovered the dead body of your precious little daughter, you don't quick get on a plane, leave her body all alone and fly across the country. If you are told you cannot stay in your house, you go to the Boulder equivalent of the Ritz. You fly your Atlanta relatives to you. You have options.

The fact that the Ramseys took the trouble to obfuscate the call by deliberately confusing it with the early morning call in their book makes it all the more important.

I don't usually care for Barbara Walters' softball interviews, but once in awhile she lands one.

​