Question for both IDI and RDI

[Holdontoyourhat]

Since they had no motive, passed a lie detector test and the DNA excluded them, what is it that ties them (in terms of credible evidence of guilt) to the brutal murder of their daughter? Did they have a large life insurance policy on her?

That we know of.

Thanks SD you've indicated that RDI has no known motive for PR or JR killing JBR. IMO this could be a breakthru.

PLEASE, do not waste my time with that.

I think it is perhaps you wasting time, because instead you should be coming up with realistic plausible explanation non-wildcard and non ad hominem as to why PR and/or JR passed lie detector tests. What was wrong with the tests and how do you know it was wrong?



Wrong. The DA excluded them using that as an excuse, even when she should have known better.

She found more DNA to match DNA alread at the crime scene. This is a discovery, actually. Since the DNA was found exclusively in areas that relate to the crime, it is therefore probably crime-related.



How much time have you got?

Time for anything besides ad hominem, vague wildcard, or single sentence brushoffs for facts and data that have been duly reported.

 

[BBB167893]

OK statistics: What is the statistic, parent vs. non-parent globally, for <10 yr old femal victim of sexual assault and strangulation murder? Let me know what you find out there.

You've got me there. That wasn't my point, but still...

There was no probable cause to suspect the parents any more or less than a neighbor, relative, or burglar. Statistics and perp comfort aren't probable causes.

Probable cause is a VERY elastic term, HOTYH. Not that you're wrong completely. Just wanted you to know.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks SD you've indicated that RDI has no known motive for PR or JR killing JBR. IMO this could be a breakthru.

Insofar as RDI and IDI are in the same boat: any motive we attribute would be mere speculation. I'm confident with mine, but I'll be the first to admit that speculation is what it is.

I think it is perhaps you wasting time, because instead you should be coming up with realistic plausible explanation non-wildcard and non ad hominem as to why PR and/or JR passed lie detector tests. What was wrong with the tests and how do you know it was wrong?

HOTYH, you just made my day! I devoted an entire chapter to this very subject. The biggest problem is that it wasn't an official lie-detector test (which would have been suspect enough in my view); it was a test that they bought and paid for and would have kept going until they found one that they could pass.

As for the more specific problems, here we go:

It is possible to beat the machine. One way is substitution. If someone asks you a question, you just substitute the question in your mind with one you know is true. For example, if someone were to ask me, "is your name Dave," which they would do to establish a baseline, and I substituted that with "do I own a luxury yacht" and answered "no," it would come out as truthful.

Here's where the Ramseys come in. The first person they contacted was Gene Parker. He was interested, but said that he would have to insist on a drug test because the issue was so serious. He said he would pay, out of his own pocket, for a team of doctors and nurses to perform urine tests right on the premises. Lin Wood said he'd get back to Parker. Three hours later, he did. He told Parker they wouldn't need him. They found someone else who didn't require drug tests. Trouble is, Wood had already said on Larry King Live that they would submit to drug tests.

Jerry Toriello is a polygrapher based in New Jersey. The Ramseys settled on him. The Ramseys were put through a battery of tests by Toriello and neither John or Patsy was able to pass. The best Toriello could do for the Ramseys was label the tests, "inconclusive" and suggest they seek out the services of a different polygrapher The sting in that tale is that an expert polygrapher isn't supposed to give up that easily. If a test does come back inconclusive, the polygrapher will redouble his efforts, modifying the test questions to eliminate doubt. So you have to ask what made Toriello tell them to go elsewhere. Could it be that he was afraid "inconclusive" was the best he'd get? And that they'd only come out more deceptive if he tried again? But it will have to remain conjecture because whatever Toriello saw, he can't talk about it. When an attorney contracts for a polygraph test, he will have the examiner sign a confidentiality agreement. And Toriello has never spoken about it. We may never know for sure, but according to Ed Gelb, the polygrapher the Ramseys finally settled on, when you buy a polygraph test you specify the results you want. And if getting those results isn't possible, make sure the truth is protected from reaching the public. No attorney worth his retainer will have his client(s) take a polygraph without knowing how they're going to do; he doesn't want to be accused of malpractice.

Once Ed Gelb entered the picture, things got even weirder. Ed Gelb has served as president, executive director and chairman of the board of the American Polygraph Association and is an honorary fellow of the Academy of Certified Polygraphists. Gelb was trained in polygraph technique at the Backster School of Lie Detection, founded by Cleve Backster of San Diego. Gelb claims to have performed over 30,000 polygraph examinations. While Gelb may or may not be considered the foremost polygraph examiner in the country, he certainly is the most well-known, having appeared over the years on several TV programs. Once he got involved in this case, his background fell under scrutiny. Gelb claims to have received his doctorate from LaSalle University in Louisiana. That's bad, because LaSalle was found to be a fraud. Thomas Kirk, the man who founded LaSalle, was arrested by the FBI and was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years in federal prison. Kirk earned millions of dollars from people looking to obtain fraudulent college degrees at a discount rate with little or no actual course work needed. Sounds like the man who detects deception is a master of it himself. His main claim to fame is that he found several people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens to be truthful.

From a technical standpoint, the Ramsey polygraph had more problems. In her book And Justice For Some, Wendy Murphy points out that "a proper question should be short and shouldn't contain words that have loose meanings. For example, a good question would be 'did you kill JonBenet?' Not much wiggle room. Instead, the Ramseys were asked long, murky questions like 'Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?' Adding extra words and fuzzy terms like 'regarding' and 'for sure' gives the test subject's mind time and space to wander. Short direct questions force the subject to focus."
She also mentions a part of the polygraph that often is overlooked by those not in the know: the pre-test interview. It's not known today what the pre-test interview for the Ramseys was like, or if there even was one. During a pre-test interview, the examiner will, ideally, get the subject to focus. It's also a good opportunity for the examiner to show that he is aware of the facts of the case, which tells the subject, "don't try anything or I'll know." Lastly, it gets the subject's memory working. One gets the feeling this is what the Ramseys were afraid of when the FBI test was offered.

And at the end of the day, it took Patsy three attempts to get a reading close enough where Gelb could say she passed. Anybody can pass a test if they take it enough times. Like Chris Rock says, "Passed it. Got a 65!" Any halfway intelligent suspect can beat it when they have three years-plus practice time.

Yeah, that'll just about cover it!

She found more DNA to match DNA alread at the crime scene.

And no one to match it to. DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape, and I mean in the classic sense, and even then if there was only one rapist and if the victim was not sexually active. Otherwise, DNA can only include suspects; it cannot exclude them. If ML didn't know that, then she was stupid. If she DID know it and went along anyway, then I can only imagine what her motivation was. Either way, she had no place making that call.

Since the DNA was found exclusively in areas that relate to the crime, it is therefore probably crime-related.

That's exactly my point, HOTYH: you have to have already decided that those areas ARE related to the crime in order to reach that conclusion. You IDIs like to trash on the police for making up their minds before they had evidence and then twisted the evidence to fit their theories. But you don't seem to have ANY problem when the people on YOUR side do it. I just want to know if any of you are ethical enough to actually call them on it objectively. Because the first one who does it will just about impress the HELL out of me.

Time for anything besides ad hominem, vague wildcard, or single sentence brushoffs for facts and data that have been duly reported.

Would you like a numbered list?

 

[WHITEFANG]

No, I would think not. But motive really only plays a part in a premeditated murder, and that is only one classification of murder. In this case, I don't believe JB's death was intentional; it was the result of a sudden burst of uncontrollable rage OR a sudden, violent reaction to her scream. There was no motive.
There is a reason why polygraph tests are not admissible in court. The test can be manipulated (even by the one giving the test) to bypass the truth.
The Rs finally passed, after several attempts, with a polygraph expert they hired, not one provided by the BPD. According to police, though the Rs claimed otherwise, the Rs never submitted to a polygraph they administered.

"DeeDee249
Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by MurriFlower
I think WF that this is the only reason that sits well with me so far as to why no external bruising, bleeding or swelling. The strangle and bash happened at or about the same time. Yep, happy with that theory.

Me, too."


I am confused. Would you clarify your position on this? The strangulation of Joni occurred before her head was bludgeoned, and thus, the lack of visible bruising, swelling and bleeding according to Dr. Wecht. Ergo, the Ramsey's were not attempting to cover up an accident in which they wounded their daughter.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Insofar as RDI and IDI are in the same boat: any motive we attribute would be mere speculation. I'm confident with mine, but I'll be the first to admit that speculation is what it is.



HOTYH, you just made my day! I devoted an entire chapter to this very subject. The biggest problem is that it wasn't an official lie-detector test (which would have been suspect enough in my view); it was a test that they bought and paid for and would have kept going until they found one that they could pass.

As for the more specific problems, here we go:

It is possible to beat the machine. One way is substitution. If someone asks you a question, you just substitute the question in your mind with one you know is true. For example, if someone were to ask me, "is your name Dave," which they would do to establish a baseline, and I substituted that with "do I own a luxury yacht" and answered "no," it would come out as truthful.

Here's where the Ramseys come in. The first person they contacted was Gene Parker. He was interested, but said that he would have to insist on a drug test because the issue was so serious. He said he would pay, out of his own pocket, for a team of doctors and nurses to perform urine tests right on the premises. Lin Wood said he'd get back to Parker. Three hours later, he did. He told Parker they wouldn't need him. They found someone else who didn't require drug tests. Trouble is, Wood had already said on Larry King Live that they would submit to drug tests.

Jerry Toriello is a polygrapher based in New Jersey. The Ramseys settled on him. The Ramseys were put through a battery of tests by Toriello and neither John or Patsy was able to pass. The best Toriello could do for the Ramseys was label the tests, "inconclusive" and suggest they seek out the services of a different polygrapher The sting in that tale is that an expert polygrapher isn't supposed to give up that easily. If a test does come back inconclusive, the polygrapher will redouble his efforts, modifying the test questions to eliminate doubt. So you have to ask what made Toriello tell them to go elsewhere. Could it be that he was afraid "inconclusive" was the best he'd get? And that they'd only come out more deceptive if he tried again? But it will have to remain conjecture because whatever Toriello saw, he can't talk about it. When an attorney contracts for a polygraph test, he will have the examiner sign a confidentiality agreement. And Toriello has never spoken about it. We may never know for sure, but according to Ed Gelb, the polygrapher the Ramseys finally settled on, when you buy a polygraph test you specify the results you want. And if getting those results isn't possible, make sure the truth is protected from reaching the public. No attorney worth his retainer will have his client(s) take a polygraph without knowing how they're going to do; he doesn't want to be accused of malpractice.

Once Ed Gelb entered the picture, things got even weirder. Ed Gelb has served as president, executive director and chairman of the board of the American Polygraph Association and is an honorary fellow of the Academy of Certified Polygraphists. Gelb was trained in polygraph technique at the Backster School of Lie Detection, founded by Cleve Backster of San Diego. Gelb claims to have performed over 30,000 polygraph examinations. While Gelb may or may not be considered the foremost polygraph examiner in the country, he certainly is the most well-known, having appeared over the years on several TV programs. Once he got involved in this case, his background fell under scrutiny. Gelb claims to have received his doctorate from LaSalle University in Louisiana. That's bad, because LaSalle was found to be a fraud. Thomas Kirk, the man who founded LaSalle, was arrested by the FBI and was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years in federal prison. Kirk earned millions of dollars from people looking to obtain fraudulent college degrees at a discount rate with little or no actual course work needed. Sounds like the man who detects deception is a master of it himself. His main claim to fame is that he found several people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens to be truthful.

From a technical standpoint, the Ramsey polygraph had more problems. In her book And Justice For Some, Wendy Murphy points out that "a proper question should be short and shouldn't contain words that have loose meanings. For example, a good question would be 'did you kill JonBenet?' Not much wiggle room. Instead, the Ramseys were asked long, murky questions like 'Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?' Adding extra words and fuzzy terms like 'regarding' and 'for sure' gives the test subject's mind time and space to wander. Short direct questions force the subject to focus."
She also mentions a part of the polygraph that often is overlooked by those not in the know: the pre-test interview.



They went through extensive pre-test interviews. WF




It's not known today what the pre-test interview for the Ramseys was like, or if there even was one. During a pre-test interview, the examiner will, ideally, get the subject to focus. It's also a good opportunity for the examiner to show that he is aware of the facts of the case, which tells the subject, "don't try anything or I'll know." Lastly, it gets the subject's memory working. One gets the feeling this is what the Ramseys were afraid of when the FBI test was offered.

And at the end of the day, it took Patsy three attempts to get a reading close enough where Gelb could say she passed. Anybody can pass a test if they take it enough times. Like Chris Rock says, "Passed it. Got a 65!" Any halfway intelligent suspect can beat it when they have three years-plus practice time.

Yeah, that'll just about cover it!
And no one to match it to. DNA can only exclude suspects in cases of rape, and I mean in the classic sense, and even then if there was only one rapist and if the victim was not sexually active.


The DNA proved a male, an unknown male, left his DNA on JBR in several locations on her where he wasn't permitted to be, at the time she was murdered. She was strangled and died or was nearly dead when her skull was bludgeoned. The Ramsey's had/have no known reason or motive to strangle their daughter and then smash her skull. WF



Otherwise, DNA can only include suspects; it cannot exclude them. If ML didn't know that, then she was stupid. If she DID know it and went along anyway, then I can only imagine what her motivation was. Either way, she had no place making that call.
That's exactly my point, HOTYH: you have to have already decided that those areas ARE related to the crime in order to reach that conclusion. You IDIs like to trash on the police for making up their minds before they had evidence and then twisted the evidence to fit their theories. But you don't seem to have ANY problem when the people on YOUR side do it. I just want to know if any of you are ethical enough to actually call them on it objectively. Because the first one who does it will just about impress the HELL out of me.

Would you like a numbered list?

"Final conclusion: Based on extensive polygraph examination, neither John nor Patsy Ramsey were attempting deception when they gave the indicated answers to the relative questions." Gelb Report.....

False positives occur as well.

I think it is fair to say that very roughly the same number of problematic issues and a similar degree of the "appearances of impropriety" contaminate the evidence and the supporting material on both sides of this debate.
__________________

 

[BBB167893]

They went through extensive pre-test interviews. WF

Could you be a bit more specific? Not that it matters. "Extensive" doesn't mean "good," especially since this was their baby and they were running it start to finish.

The DNA proved a male, an unknown male, left his DNA on JBR in several locations on her where he wasn't permitted to be, at the time she was murdered.

Actually, it proves none of that. All it proves is that somehow male DNA wound up on those areas, possibly by JB herself. The viewer's imagination has to provide the rest of that. Don't get me wrong: like I've said, solving cases requires imagination, but make sure that people know that's what it is.

She was strangled and died or was nearly dead when her skull was bludgeoned.

Sorry, Fang, but the estimates favor my side heavily. The estimates are anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. Don't kill the messnger either. Take it up with Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ron Wright and Henry Lee.

The Ramsey's had/have no known reason or motive to strangle their daughter and then smash her skull.

It's been said Odin-knows how many times, Fang: don't need a motive.

False positives occur as well.

That's right. I say it flat-out, Fang: I think polygraphs are pure BS. Even if I KNEW I was innocent, I still wouldn't take one. That's how strongly I believe in this.

I think it is fair to say that very roughly the same number of problematic issues and a similar degree of the "appearances of impropriety" contaminate the evidence and the supporting material on both sides of this debate.

I would agree, in part. Those issues do exist on both sides. But as I see it, the scale does not balance out. I will give you credit, though: you face it head-on, and I applaud that.

 

[WHITEFANG]

MURPHY: Because the more they inject themselves into our faces, the harder the law enforcement officials are going to be in terms of following them, and I think they should be following them hard. If they are truly innocent, they should shut up. The fact that they are not shutting up leads me to believe they are worried that come January, when there is a new DA involved, they may well be indicted. And this is all part of their large façade and bunch of baloney, and it's nonsense.

Would she make up her mind? Which is it, Ms. Murphy? Shut up, or tell all, because if they're innocent they would blab all over?

Maybe Joni tried on Pat's jacket/sweater and that's how the fibers ended up in the garrote?

Refuting the value of the DNA as it eliminates the Ramsey's as suspects "because Joni could have put it there" does not survive the Rules of Evidence. It could have "felleth from heaven" too? It stands as the best proof that Joni's death was the result of a brutal attack by an unknown male who entered their home that night.

Shall we start over? When blood vessels break, they leak blood. If the heart continues to pump, the bleeding will continue. Shock will not stop the bleeding. Death will. Imminent death, the body's shutting down, will slow the flow of blood to the ruptured vessels. Shock will preserve the body's resources like blood. If someone ruptures surface blood vessels, shock will not return or redirect that already leaked blood. Broken blood vessels begin to leak immediately. (Cut any part of the body and just watch.) Shock does not capture that leaked blood.

If Joni was not dead or nearly dead when she was bludgeoned on the top of her head, then the blood vessels which broke at impact would continue to leak. Shock doesn't occur instantaneously and before it could begin to conserve the body's resources/blood, she would have continued to leak blood through all of the vessels that were broken. But, she didn't. She had been strangled first.

 

[BBB167893]

Would she make up her mind? Which is it, Ms. Murphy? Shut up, or tell all, because if they're innocent they would blab all over?

Fang, you've managed to strip Mrs. Murphy's statement of all context. Her remark about shutting up is in reference to propaganda ploys by the Rs like the polygraph fiasco, sort of a "methinks the Rs doth protest too much." She even says that if they don't want to talk to the police, they don't have to, but don't turn around and play to the cameras. I quote: "you have the right to remain silent. You do not have a right to lie." Later on, she sticks to this, but mentions how PR is always saying weird stuff and could possibly give herself away.

Maybe Joni tried on Pat's jacket/sweater and that's how the fibers ended up in the garrote?

I doubt it!

Refuting the value of the DNA as it eliminates the Ramsey's as suspects "because Joni could have put it there" does not survive the Rules of Evidence.

What are you saying here? That it's not possible for her to have done it, or you just don't think it's the most likely scenario? And it doesn't eliminate the Ramseys as suspects except in the minds of believers.

It could have "felleth from heaven" too?

Fang, you ought to know by now that I'm deadly serious.

It stands as the best proof that Joni's death was the result of a brutal attack by an unknown male who entered their home that night.

I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.

Shall we start over?

Will it make a difference?

When blood vessels break, they leak blood. If the heart continues to pump, the bleeding will continue. Shock will not stop the bleeding. Death will.

Let's stop right there. No one says shock stopped the bleeding. There was an extensive amount of blood INSIDE the wound. What I'm saying is that with shock, it shuts the body down to conserve vitality.

Shock will preserve the body's resources like blood.

:clap:

If someone ruptures surface blood vessels, shock will not return or redirect that already leaked blood.

I don't believe anyone said it did.

Broken blood vessels begin to leak immediately. (Cut any part of the body and just watch.) Shock does not capture that leaked blood.

There's a difference between an open cut and a compartmentalized injury. And I've been through enough pain these last few days, thanks.

If Joni was not dead or nearly dead when she was bludgeoned on the top of her head, then the blood vessels which broke at impact would continue to leak.

Given the wound's nature, wouldn't they leak into the head? Besides, didn't you read what Dr. Brega said?

Shock doesn't occur instantaneously and before it could begin to conserve the body's resources/blood, she would have continued to leak blood through all of the vessels that were broken. But, she didn't. She had been strangled first.

Except there's that little problem of the brain swelling, among many other problems. "A" for effort, Fang, but it doesn't wash.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am confused. Would you clarify your position on this? The strangulation of Joni occurred before her head was bludgeoned, and thus, the lack of visible bruising, swelling and bleeding according to Dr. Wecht. Ergo, the Ramsey's were not attempting to cover up an accident in which they wounded their daughter.

Very good.

Within the RDI scenario, it seems to me that at some point, PR and JR would have to have decided: Hey, do we call in an accident and simply deny culpability in prior abuse? Or, do we create the impression of a capital child murder scene in the basement, AND combine that with an FBI invitation in the form of a long handwritten ransom note?

I mean, exactly how unrealistically self-defeating for JR and PR is this scenario going to be and expect us to still believe in it?

Not only does hard evidence contradict the RDI scenario, but the scenario is simply not plausible in the first place. The idea that someone who lives in the same house put pen to paper for 350 words and placed it next to a capital murder is simply not plausible. I would have to question whether or not an LE promoting the idea has chosen the right line of work.

 

[WHITEFANG]

"SuperDave Fang, you've managed to strip Mrs. Murphy's statement of all context. Her remark about shutting up is in reference to propaganda ploys by the Rs like the polygraph fiasco, sort of a "methinks the Rs doth protest too much." She even says that if they don't want to talk to the police, they don't have to, but don't turn around and play to the cameras. I quote: "you have the right to remain silent. You do not have a right to lie." Later on, she sticks to this, but mentions how PR is always saying weird stuff and could possibly give herself away."

Cops do. Funny, if it weren't a glaring injustice in this case.

But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood.

 

[BBB167893]

Within the RDI scenario, it seems to me that at some point, PR and JR would have to have decided: Hey, do we call in an accident and simply deny culpability in prior abuse? Or, do we create the impression of a capital child murder scene in the basement, AND combine that with an FBI invitation in the form of a long handwritten ransom note?

Agreed; they would have to make that decision. Which is why I think it's important to understand their personalities.

I mean, exactly how unrealistically self-defeating for JR and PR is this scenario going to be and expect us to still believe in it?

I never cease to be amazed at what people think other people will believe. Besides, I doubt they were thinking that clearly anyway.

Not only does hard evidence contradict the RDI scenario,

I laugh at that assertion.

but the scenario is simply not plausible in the first place. The idea that someone who lives in the same house put pen to paper for 350 words and placed it next to a capital murder is simply not plausible.

It works just fine for me.

I would have to question whether or not an LE promoting the idea has chosen the right line of work.

It's quite a long list, then!

 

[BBB167893]

Cops do. Funny, if it weren't a glaring injustice in this case.

Don't hand me that. The injustice here was done to JB. She was killed and her killer got away with it. Comparing anything else to that is a good way to push my berserk button.

 

[WHITEFANG]

not directed at you. a truism, is all. not only may and do they lie, they deceive intentionally with the purpose of tricking others into making statements they can use against them. i am a law and order person, too, btw. nevertheless, it is true.

and the DNA cries "intruder"

 

[BBB167893]

not directed at you. a truism, is all. not only may and do they lie, they deceive intentionally with the purpose of tricking others into making statements they can use against them. i am a law and order person, too, btw. nevertheless, it is true.

Granted.

and the DNA cries "intruder"

I respect your opinion.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Agreed; they would have to make that decision. Which is why I think it's important to understand their personalities.

If we were to go by their personalities, they would've never had an umbrella of suspicion in the first place. At least when we limit ourselves to the facts and not hearsay or speculation. Did you know that in more than 80% of filicide, there were socioeconomic factors?

I never cease to be amazed at what people think other people will believe. Besides, I doubt they were thinking that clearly anyway.

Wildcard generalizations don't work on me.



I laugh at that assertion.

I hope your sense of humor doesn't get lost.

It works just fine for me.

To each his own.



It's quite a long list, then!

More bad news then. Hey good news for job seekers. BPD will be hiring!

 

[BBB167893]

If we were to go by their personalities, they would've never had an umbrella of suspicion in the first place.

Perhaps I did not word that as well as I'd liked. I meant that you had to take into account the psychological factors. You make it sound like the first choice (report an accident and deny culpability in prior abuse) was so darned easy. Just WHAT were they going to say? Who were they going to try and stick THAT on? I'm legit in asking those questions.

Moreover, think about PR's background. She came from the South, where the law is VERY tough on crminals. The image of the hard-a** cracker judge and the mirror-shade-wearing brutal sheriff didn't come out of nowhere. She had no reason to think that Boulder, a town she admits she was uncomfortable in, was any different, if not worse. Then you have JR, a man who strikes me as the type who won't admit he's wrong. Not to mention that we all know what happens in prison to people who mistreat kids. With that in mind, I can clearly see how they would choose to, as you put it, "create the impression of a capital child murder scene in the basement, AND combine that with an FBI invitation in the form of a long handwritten ransom note." Because that way, you can name ANYONE (even your friends) as suspects. The whole WORLD is open to you. And it gives you the opportunity to portray yourself as a victim. If it doesn't work (as you say it wouldn't), just double-down on the victimhood angle by claiming that you're being unfairly targeted by the big bad police/Feds. Someone will believe you. (Judging from around here, that dodge seems to work on some people!) You're TWICE the victim that way!

That's not even taking into account the possibilities I raised in the "Loved to Death" thread, but that's neither here nor there.

At least when we limit ourselves to the facts and not hearsay or speculation.

Well, as I've always said, HOTYH, you need speculation because you almost never have all the facts. I don't like it either, but it's all we've got.

Did you know that in more than 80% of filicide, there were socioeconomic factors?

HOTYH, my parents didn't raise any foolish children. Of course I know it, if for no other reason than IDI never keeps quiet about it. I can see why: it feeds the myth that only "those" people do these things. Trouble is, that doesn't help you, for a couple of reasons. One, I'd like to know a little bit more about the other 20%. Two, and more importantly, those stats apply primarily to premeditated murder. What I'm talking about is a horse of a different color.

Wildcard generalizations don't work on me.

It's a legitimate issue, HOTYH. It has to be considered. You keep dismissing these issues with phrases like "wildcard generalizations." Well, that won't work with ME, either, not anymore.

I hope your sense of humor doesn't get lost.

I hope it doesn't, too.

To each his own.

With you 100% on that one. Like you, I just hope that people understand why I take a certain position.

More bad news then. Hey good news for job seekers. BPD will be hiring!

Well, HOTYH, that's one thing that you and I have agreed on in the past: darn good thing you don't call those shots.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Perhaps I did not word that as well as I'd liked. I meant that you had to take into account the psychological factors. You make it sound like the first choice (report an accident and deny culpability in prior abuse) was so darned easy. Just WHAT were they going to say? Who were they going to try and stick THAT on? I'm legit in asking those questions.

Stick WHAT on? A skull fracture? Happens every day.

When PR and JR were placed under the umbrella, it had nothing to do with psychological factors, fibers, or prior abuse.

It seems to me that JR and PR were put under the umbrella, or microscope, while other possible suspects were only given a passing glance. There should've been a standard screen for everyone. There was no difference between JR, PR, hired help, neighbors, relatives, or friends at that time in the investigation.

Really, the only reason JR and PR got the microscope was because of statistics and premature gut feelings before all the facts were in. Thats why these same experts are mum now. I would venture that any expert opinion that was subjective in nature from prior to 2008 isn't valid unless the opinion is restated. This is out of respect for the expert.

The sweeping generalizations typically provided by statistics are not applicable in this case. This is because sexual assault and murder by strangulation with no socioeconomic factors, combined with atypical ransom note, clearly place this crime well outside the bell curves for filicide.

Moreover, think about PR's background. She came from the South, where the law is VERY tough on crminals. The image of the hard-a** cracker judge and the mirror-shade-wearing brutal sheriff didn't come out of nowhere. She had no reason to think that Boulder, a town she admits she was uncomfortable in, was any different, if not worse. Then you have JR, a man who strikes me as the type who won't admit he's wrong. Not to mention that we all know what happens in prison to people who mistreat kids. With that in mind, I can clearly see how they would choose to, as you put it, "create the impression of a capital child murder scene in the basement, AND combine that with an FBI invitation in the form of a long handwritten ransom note." Because that way, you can name ANYONE (even your friends) as suspects. The whole WORLD is open to you. And it gives you the opportunity to portray yourself as a victim. If it doesn't work (as you say it wouldn't), just double-down on the victimhood angle by claiming that you're being unfairly targeted by the big bad police/Feds. Someone will believe you. (Judging from around here, that dodge seems to work on some people!) You're TWICE the victim that way!

Nice narrative, but there is no 'reasonable man' in the world that is going to pen 350 handwritten words, place it next to a child murder, and climb back in bed. The reasonable man skipped town in a hot minute.

That's not even taking into account the possibilities I raised in the "Loved to Death" thread, but that's neither here nor there.



Well, as I've always said, HOTYH, you need speculation because you almost never have all the facts. I don't like it either, but it's all we've got.

"Patsy wrote the note" is speculation. "The killer wrote the note" is speculation. If your life depended on being right, which speculation would you choose?

Obviously some speculation is better than others.

HOTYH, my parents didn't raise any foolish children. Of course I know it, if for no other reason than IDI never keeps quiet about it. I can see why: it feeds the myth that only "those" people do these things. Trouble is, that doesn't help you, for a couple of reasons. One, I'd like to know a little bit more about the other 20%. Two, and more importantly, those stats apply primarily to premeditated murder. What I'm talking about is a horse of a different color.



It's a legitimate issue, HOTYH. It has to be considered. You keep dismissing these issues with phrases like "wildcard generalizations." Well, that won't work with ME, either, not anymore.

When its a real issue and not a sweeping generalization, I'll be glad to consider it.



Well, HOTYH, that's one thing that you and I have agreed on in the past: darn good thing you don't call those shots.

Aw, c'mon.

 

[BBB167893]

Stick WHAT on? A skull fracture? Happens every day.

I know that. That's not what I meant. Sorry about that. I meant who were they going to stick the prior abuse on? You said it yourself: "simply deny culpability in prior abuse?" Trouble is, that doesn't leave a whole lot of people, does it? So I'll ask again: who would they stick that on?

When PR and JR were placed under the umbrella, it had nothing to do with psychological factors, fibers, or prior abuse.It seems to me that JR and PR were put under the umbrella, or microscope, while other possible suspects were only given a passing glance. There should've been a standard screen for everyone. There was no difference between JR, PR, hired help, neighbors, relatives, or friends at that time in the investigation.

Precisely!

Really, the only reason JR and PR got the microscope was because of statistics and premature gut feelings before all the facts were in.

For all I know, HOTYH, you may be right. It's a double-edged sword though. Plenty of people in the DA's office were guilty of this in the opposite way.

Thats why these same experts are mum now. I would venture that any expert opinion that was subjective in nature from prior to 2008 isn't valid unless the opinion is restated. This is out of respect for the expert.

That's a reasonable view, as I see it.

The sweeping generalizations typically provided by statistics are not applicable in this case.

You and I have to part company there. There had to be a first time for all of the other weird murders of kids by parents, too.

This is because sexual assault and murder by strangulation with no socioeconomic factors, combined with atypical ransom note, clearly place this crime well outside the bell curves for filicide.

That assumes an awful lot.

Nice narrative,

I thought so.

but there is no 'reasonable man' in the world that is going to pen 350 handwritten words, place it next to a child murder, and climb back in bed.

"Climb back into bed?" Are you kidding me?

The reasonable man skipped town in a hot minute.

Or let his wife take most of the risk... just thinking out loud.

"Patsy wrote the note" is speculation. "The killer wrote the note" is speculation. If your life depended on being right, which speculation would you choose?

I guess that would depend on WHO was holding my life in their hands at the time!

Obviously some speculation is better than others.

That it is. :innocent:

When its a real issue and not a sweeping generalization, I'll be glad to consider it.

Okay, then let me say it out loud: most people who commit crimes, especially ones like this, don't want to get caught. The instinct for self-preservation is the strongest one I know of.

Aw, c'mon.

LOL

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I know that. That's not what I meant. Sorry about that. I meant who were they going to stick the prior abuse on? You said it yourself: "simply deny culpability in prior abuse?" Trouble is, that doesn't leave a whole lot of people, does it? So I'll ask again: who would they stick that on?

Your point is not valid.

Parents are not expected to know who was molesting their daughter. They would be under no obligation to 'know' who was molesting their daughter, and if they did 'know' they'd be in trouble.



You and I have to part company there. There had to be a first time for all of the other weird murders of kids by parents, too.

Since there was a sexual assault with strangulation, and no socioeconomic issues, the murder does not fall within the stereotypes for filicide. You'd have a better argument if the strangulation was in fact staged, but it wasn't according to the autopsy report.


"Climb back into bed?" Are you kidding me?

OK what do you think JR did between the time the ransom note was written and the 911 call. Have you even thought of that?



Or let his wife take most of the risk... just thinking out loud. I know.


I guess that would depend on WHO was holding my life in their hands at the time!

Evading the question? OK I understand now.

 

[BBB167893]

Your point is not valid. Parents are not expected to know who was molesting their daughter. They would be under no obligation to 'know' who was molesting their daughter, and if they did 'know' they'd be in trouble.

Excellent point. But MY point is that it would pose some very uncomfortable questions nonetheless. "Did she tell you anything?" "Did you notice something wrong," etc. Not only that, but like I said, it's a very limited pool of people who could have done it. Once the investigators get through with them, what then? Moreover, don't you think it would strike the doctors a LITTLE odd that a little girl who supposedly had an accident (probably the old fell-down-the-stairs story, which never works) then turns up to have been a victim of molestation?

Since there was a sexual assault with strangulation, and no socioeconomic issues, the murder does not fall within the stereotypes for filicide.

Isn't that what I said?

You'd have a better argument if the strangulation was in fact staged, but it wasn't according to the autopsy report.

Pardon me, HOTYH, but I've read the autopsy report many times, as have a lot of other people, and I have yet to find anything in there that says the strangulation wasn't staged. Indeed, the lack of any sort of struggle favors staging heavily. I trust you're referring to JB being alive? Doesn't matter if the person THOUGHT she was dead. Even then, you'd pull it as deep as you could to make it convincing. Norm Early pointed that out.

OK what do you think JR did between the time the ransom note was written and the 911 call. Have you even thought of that?

HOTYH, it's me you're talking to, remember? Of course I've thought of it. And there are several factors to consider:

--when did the whole ghastly affair start?

--how soon did they decide to go for a cover-up?

--were there any arguments over how to do it? How much time did they take up?

--how long did the staging take?

So, as far as I know, there may not have been very much time between the two, HOTYH.

Now, having said that, there are several things that he could have done, including practicing their story, which makes the most sense.

Evading the question? OK I understand now.

I'm not evading the question at all. The question doesn't make sense. My life does not depend on it, so I honestly don't know how to answer it.