Poll: Will this case ever be solved?

[Sophie]

Okay. You claim that's what the prima facie evidence shows. That's fine. I respect that.

Here's what happens when I start thinking:

The Rs are the only people who can be proven to be in the house that night. Their statements are riddled with inconsistencies. There is physical evidence from them in key places that they cannot (and in some cases, will not) credibly account for. The crime scene is a mishmash of motives and methods, all of which play on popular American fears.

Now contrast that with the far more elaborate idea that someone unfamiliar with the house was able to break in through an entry point that was hard to find, spend several hours inside without drawing notice, write about things that only family and a few very close friends knew about, commit an extremely complicated murder (it's only complicated IF an intruder committed it; my idea accounts for just about everything quite simply) right under their noses and then just vanish into thin air.

Occam's Razor holds that the simplest answer is the right one. When we apply it...

You said that much better than I did!

 

[Kimster]

Where is the "unsure" button? :crazy:

 

[Sophie]

I dig.



Well, what you have to understand is that my brother and I went over all of this one night. I ran a whole lot of scenarios past him--calling in sick, cancelling the flight, JR flying them himself, and all the rest, and they ALL flop for one reason or another. The Rs didn't really have a choice.

Ty, Dave. Everything being normal until the point at which Patsy found the ransom note and very quickly called 911 was critical to their plan working, I agree.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, I used the expression 'prima facie' on Monday and a good 80% of your posts since then have included it. Prima facie means, 'at first glance,' or 'on first appearance.' It doesn't suggest that the first glance is necessarily the right glance. At first glance, this was a case in which a child was murdered in her own home on Christmas night with a ransom note left behind by someone with some familiarity with the house and the family.

Well, duh. I've used the expression before.

You were doing really well up until now. Thats about as vague a characterization of prima facie as you could possibly get and still type something. Are you being vague on purpose?

How about this for prima facie (what was obvious before any investigation):

Three individuals, at least two males, of a group representing a small foreign faction entered the Ramsey home. They removed JBR from her bed while her parents slept. They wrote a ransom note threatening to kill her if 118,000 wasn't paid.

The ransom note author also expressed a disrespect for this country, labelled JR a 'fat cat' and threatened others with JR's 'fat cat' status.

The parents called 911 against the ransom note demands. JBR was found strangled in the basement. She was wrapped in a blanket with tape over her mouth and had a loose wrist ligature. A basement window was open.

A prima facie investigation should assume these items to be facts, and initiate further investigations. Linguistics becomes important to develop a profile from the language, occupation, political, religious interests.

Your prima facie: someone. My prima facie: three individuals, at least 2 male. See what I mean?

 

[coco puff]

What happens when I think about it is this:

Some whacked socialist may have killed JBR and left a note for exactly 118,000 with some socialist ideology mixed in, to call public attention to JR's excessive bonus. They didn't care about sharing handwriting or DNA because they live in an area not sharing with international LE organizations.

This really makes sense to you? Sneaking into a house with a complicated floorplan, taking time to practice writing a ransom note instead of bringing it with them, taking a chance that all of their writing material will be available to them, spending hours in the home during a time when no schedule is adhered to. Oh and while they are at it, they try to make it look like a sexual assult, even though that is not the purpose of the murder? So they thought that the sickining mutilation of a little girl in her own home during at Christmas time would be OVERSHADOWED by the revelation of frickin 100k bonus recieved by her dad?

Holdontoyourhat, No disrespect attended but I don't know you like the others that post on this thread but are you playing devil's advocate or do you honestly believe the theories that you post?

 

[Jane Osa]

Hmmm, if we're going to put this in economic terms: I think a couple of 'whacked' capitalists did this...just my two cents....speaking of capitalism...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This really makes sense to you? Sneaking into a house with a complicated floorplan, taking time to practice writing a ransom note instead of bringing it with them, taking a chance that all of their writing material will be available to them, spending hours in the home during a time when no schedule is adhered to. Oh and while they are at it, they try to make it look like a sexual assult, even though that is not the purpose of the murder? So they thought that the sickining mutilation of a little girl in her own home during at Christmas time would be OVERSHADOWED by the revelation of frickin 100k bonus recieved by her dad?

Holdontoyourhat, No disrespect attended but I don't know you like the others that post on this thread but are you playing devil's advocate or do you honestly believe the theories that you post?

Maybe I'd suggest reading the news, where JR or PR getting away with murder simply is not discussed. Instead...we have unknown male DNA, exhonerations, JMK looked at seriously. After reading the news, and the intruder idea finally sinks in, maybe you can figure things out. I say that because you've really no idea that someone tried to make it look like a sexual assault, your just CLAIMING that and STATING it as if were FACT when you really don't know.

 

[Jane Osa]

your just CLAIMING that and STATING it as if were FACT when you really don't know.

Sincerely, HoldOntoYourHat - you do not know, either. You choose to believe something, maybe it's true maybe it is not - you don't have proof. As I pointed out in another post you seemed not keen on - neither do I. I guess professing to be omnipresent might have worked better!:waitasec: OR NOT!!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

However, I am still baffled by your view of my comments on Occam's Razor and Prima Facie being paradoxical. They are entirely different things - one refers to initial appearances which may or may not be right, Occam's Razor refers to the simple solution being the right one - irrespective of how many looks you've taken at the evidence.

Wha?


Occam's Razor: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible"

"In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities."

If you're looking for the simplest solution, better start with prima facie. The key words being 'simplest' and 'solution' as opposed to a 'simple' 'guess'. RDI is just that, a simple guess.

RDI claims to own Occam's Razor but really they dont. When RDI 'explains' crime scene phenomenon, the assumptions fly. RDI is riddled with assumptions, inconsistencies and paradoxes which actually subtract from a perceived simplicity.

I'll stick by what I said, that Occam's Razor and shunting prima facie are paradoxical, since prima facie actually introduces fewer assumptions than RDI does.

RDI-introduced assumptions/postulates include prior abuse, staging, ownership of all crime scene items, PR authorship of the RN, parental rage, an unplanned accident, and innocent unknown male DNA. RDI needs almost all these newly introduced items and can't prove even one of them.

IDI-SFF assumptions/postulates include the prima facie evidence. Only IDI-SFF didn't really introduce them. They were already there.

 

[Jane Osa]

Guess what = HoldOntoYourHat - I agree - but, not with your conclusions!

I'm looking for that bottom-line - the staging of the R.'s in my omnipresence (oy!) did what it was intended - to veil the actual reality. That is why this case has not been solve - and until the DNA wasn't even close - and despite the DNA - it is reopened & Lacie is gone....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

TY Jane Osa, I forgot staging.

 

[Jane Osa]

You are welcome. :blowkiss:

 

[Ravyn]

Have anyone ever tried to write the steps of the intruder...I did in a post but I can't see an unknown person(s) coming into this house...And this DNA really don't hold nothing to the other evidence...If PR didn't write the RN why did the R's set out to destory just one that said she wrote...There was many that said that PR wrote the RN..And why should anyony be cleared in a case that never be solved...Mary Lacy sure knew how to mess up that is all I see....

 

[Ravyn]

And other question tell me how did the intruder(s) knew they was coming home that night...And knew that no one was coming in unexpectant..And the amount of the bonus...See these are good questions cause I think these are the same these intruders would think about....

 

[madeleine]

Maybe I'd suggest reading the news, where JR or PR getting away with murder simply is not discussed. Instead...we have unknown male DNA, exhonerations, JMK looked at seriously. After reading the news, and the intruder idea finally sinks in, maybe you can figure things out. I say that because you've really no idea that someone tried to make it look like a sexual assault, your just CLAIMING that and STATING it as if were FACT when you really don't know.

@bold

That was Lacy's job,to PUBLICLY "exonerate" them so that it would be harder for the media to talk about it (law suits).

moo

 

[Sophie]

You know HOTYH, you really don't have to be rude to make a point.

I'm sure you knew what prima facie meant before I mentioned it: my mentioning it appears to have set off all sorts of light bulbs in your head and it has become your phrase du jour.

Of course my definition of 'prima facie' is vague - it's a generally a vague term and was in use long before it became a legal term of art in some jurisdictions. It's a Latin expression, you know. The Roman soldiers were probably using it as they patroled Hadrian's Wall (which I can just see from my bedroom and very pretty it looks in the sunshine, too) and cursed their first glance of the Northumberland snow.

On the point of Occam's Razor: well you have certainly proven you can use Google. You call me deliberately vague and I am getting perilously close to referring to broken circuits in your synaptic connections. Occam's Razor, by your definition, makes as few assumptions as possible. Prima facie is an assumption by definition: the assumption that first appearances are the right appearances. Occam's Razor allows a holistic view of the evidence. Prima facie acceptance doesn't.


Will you walk me through how your 'prima facie' arrives at three people at least two of them being men? (And how you would eliminate the three people in the house, two of them being male, using either prima facie acceptance or Occam's Razor - I'm not choosy in this instance - and without referring to the sainted DNA since that wasn't available for months and therefore could not be used in a prima facie accepting investigation any more than parental clothing fibres would be used). I'm guessing this where your first glance acceptance of the RN comes in. OK, fine. Well, you also have to conclude that the writer knew John. So you are back to investigators needing to talk to him and his company ASAP. Investigators tried this, apparently giving your scenario more credence than either John or his company. But they were stonewalled. No one in the intelligence services could help with SBTC or a threat against the Ramseys. Against this backdrop, what would you have done?

My 'someone' is one of three people, obviously, the three people in the house that night. That I'd suggest is slightly more specific than your three people, two of whom are men, the third may be a woman or a man, who may be anywhere in the world. However, I suggest you re-read the bit of mine that you are quoting - it's from a section where I use 'someone' in the context of first glances.

ETA: I hate how strident this exchange is making me seem.


In any event, this is really all rather silly

 

[coco puff]

Maybe I'd suggest reading the news, where JR or PR getting away with murder simply is not discussed. Instead...we have unknown male DNA, exhonerations, JMK looked at seriously. After reading the news, and the intruder idea finally sinks in, maybe you can figure things out. I say that because you've really no idea that someone tried to make it look like a sexual assault, your just CLAIMING that and STATING it as if were FACT when you really don't know.

Well so much for respect. I didn't realize you had facts. I never claimed to. All stated from me is my opinion which seems not to be welcomed.

 

[madeleine]

Well so much for respect. I didn't realize you had facts. I never claimed to. All stated from me is my opinion which seems not to be welcomed.

Your opinion IS welcomed coco puff! :blowkiss:

 

[madeleine]

People become rude or arrogant usually when they have no arguments left.

 

[Sophie]

Maybe I'd suggest reading the news, where JR or PR getting away with murder simply is not discussed. Instead...we have unknown male DNA, exhonerations, JMK looked at seriously. After reading the news, and the intruder idea finally sinks in, maybe you can figure things out. I say that because you've really no idea that someone tried to make it look like a sexual assault, your just CLAIMING that and STATING it as if were FACT when you really don't know.

Ok and in return will you read the statement by the current prosecutor that he was passing the case to the BPD for re-evaluation of all scenarios, including, by definition, RDI, essentially putting the Rs back under the umbrella of suspicion.

Anyway, an exoneration isn't worth the paper it's written on unless it's a court acquittal. Double jeopardy doesn't attach to Lacy's pronouncement.