Simple question...

[Sophie]

Say what? I don't agree with one word of it. In fact, speaking purely for myself, I'm extremely relieved that it isn't up to him. If our justice system operated the way he recommends, we'd have to scrap the whole enterprise, because no one would ever be arrested, much less convicted.
He calls it making the defendant into the criminal, I call it conducting an investigation!

I agree totallly Dave. I meant that most RDI would agree that having more pre-murder exemplars would be helpful. This business of turning a defendant into a criminal is just plain wrong. I am not sure what HOTYH means. If he is referring to the Ramseys being the defendants in the Wolff case and LW not wanting to allow them to be criminalised in a civil case, then I think he is being naive - the rules of discovery etc allow for pertinent evidence to be acquired by either side and Patsy's writing was obviously germane to the case. I'd also ask what he thinks of LW trying to criminalise ST in the Ramsey v Thomas suit.

If he means that the Ramseys were treated as defendants in the criminal investigation. Well, their lawyers made that happen. Until then, LE were bending over backwards to treat them as victims. So his argument doesn't work there either.


ETA: Apologies for the stream of consciousness writing. I'm going out now or I'd try to translate it into English

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I agree totallly Dave. I meant that most RDI would agree that having more pre-murder exemplars would be helpful. This business of turning a defendant into a criminal is just plain wrong. I am not sure what HOTYH means. If he is referring to the Ramseys being the defendants in the Wolff case and LW not wanting to allow them to be criminalised in a civil case, then I think he is being naive - the rules of discovery etc allow for pertinent evidence to be acquired by either side and the Patsy's writing was obviously germane to the case. I'd also ask what he thinks of LW trying to criminalise ST in the Ramsey v Thomas suit.

If he means that the Ramseys were treated as defendants in the criminal investigation. Well, their lawyers made that happen. Until then, LE were bending over backwards to treat them as victims. So his argument doesn't work there either.


ETA: Apologies for the stream of consciousness writing. I'm going out now or I'd try to translate it into English

Don't bother.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's pretty spurious, HOTYH. The RN writer would try to make his/her writing as anonymous as possible but, even when printing, we give away some of our usual attributes and, in any case, most of us don't give a moment's thought from one decade to the next about how distinctive our writing is.

This is asking me to accept the premise that the RN was somehow required to be written in the first place. I have accepted no such thing.

That there was some overwhelming need for PR or JR to decide "Oh, we need a ransom note, something to explain this dead child in the basement" is RDI conjecture, presented as a given. Its very weak because JBR in the basement provided ample evidence of an intruder. There was NO RATIONAL REASON for anyone who lived in the house to write a 2 1/2 page, 300 word, 1500 character essay.

Remember this is YOUR premise not mine. IOW RDI is presenting the RN as a required component when really its not a known fact or established that it would serve any purpose.

IDI is similar, because with JBR dead in the basement, there seems to be no rational reason for leaving behind this note.

 

[BBB167893]

Those with a 'solid basis in life experience' would know its absolutely foolish to leave 150 let alone 1500 characters of ones own personal handwriting at a murder scene.

I don't know about that, HOTYH. The FBI, who have more experience in one finger than you or I combined, gave some pretty good reasons why someone would.

But because I find your statement interesting, I'll take it on its face and say that you may well be right. Of course, those with a solid basis in life experience ALSO know that desperate people do desperate things, and that when you want something so, so bad, you can convince yourself of anything.

Those with knowledge are aware that there is evidence of an intruder.

Like I said, knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing.

RDI does not own either knowledge or wisdom.

HOTYH, I'm in a good mood, so I won't take that personally.

 

[BBB167893]

Wonderful post, Dave, and incredibly insightful. Also tallies with what you said earlier in the week about a selective approach to prima facie.

I'd take a bow, but that would grind it in a little much. Besides, I'm not done yet. I was going to bring this up, but I see that HOTYH has opened the door for me:

This is asking me to accept the premise that the RN was somehow required to be written in the first place. I have accepted no such thing. That there was some overwhelming need for PR or JR to decide "Oh, we need a ransom note, something to explain this dead child in the basement" is RDI conjecture, presented as a given.

Well, speaking for myself, Sophie, I'm not so much asking him or other IDIs to accept it unquestioningly. Far from it. What I AM asking is to think outside the box and consider that what might seem totally irrational to them might have seemed like just the thing to an amateur completely over their head. I'm asking them to consider that the Rs thought that there WAS a need to write the RN, because, to them, "JBR in the basement" alone did not provide enough evidence of an intruder: it created a CRIME. But the RN created the CRIMINAL to go with it. That, of course, leaves aside my idea about JR setting PR up for a fall, covered in the thread "No Honor Among Thieves." (I've really got to get that one restarted.)

I PRAY everyone got all that!

I agree totallly Dave. I meant that most RDI would agree that having more pre-murder exemplars would be helpful.

Got it.

This business of turning a defendant into a criminal is just plain wrong. I am not sure what HOTYH means.

I'm not either. His examples left much to be desired. Why WOULDN'T someone have OJ try on the gloves? Why WOULDN'T you ask a suspect to give a lot of samples.

Moreover, if I were in PR's position, I'd give samples on the moon if I thought it would help! Anything to find my baby's killer.

If he is referring to the Ramseys being the defendants in the Wolff case and LW not wanting to allow them to be criminalised in a civil case, then I think he is being naive - the rules of discovery etc allow for pertinent evidence to be acquired by either side and the Patsy's writing was obviously germane to the case. I'd also ask what he thinks of LW trying to criminalise ST in the Ramsey v Thomas suit.

:applause:

IDI is similar, because with JBR dead in the basement, there seems to be no rational reason for leaving behind this note.

I'll be darned.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't know about that, HOTYH. The FBI, who have more experience in one finger than you or I combined, gave some pretty good reasons why someone would.

Like what?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't know about that, HOTYH. The FBI, who have more experience in one finger than you or I combined, gave some pretty good reasons why someone would.

Can you list one reason why someone would?

 

[BBB167893]

Can you list one reason why someone would?

I already did. To repeat:

"JBR in the basement" alone did not provide enough evidence of an intruder: it created a CRIME. But the RN created the CRIMINAL to go with it.

That's not even considering the possibility of a double-cross. But let's leave that aside for a moment.

Moreover, in PMPT, the FBI said pretty much exactly what I said: JBR in the basement created the how, where and what. But the RN created the who and why. They also said that by creating the criminal to go with their staged crime scene, the writer was committing a cathartic act. It allowed them to "undo" the crime in their mind by saying, both to others and him/herself, "Oh, I didn't do it. This evil person did it!

That's not a direct quote, mind you. But it's the essentials.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I already did. To repeat:

"JBR in the basement" alone did not provide enough evidence of an intruder: it created a CRIME. But the RN created the CRIMINAL to go with it.

That's not even considering the possibility of a double-cross. But let's leave that aside for a moment.

Moreover, in PMPT, the FBI said pretty much exactly what I said: JBR in the basement created the how, where and what. But the RN created the who and why. They also said that by creating the criminal to go with their staged crime scene, the writer was committing a cathartic act. It allowed them to "undo" the crime in their mind by saying, both to others and him/herself, "Oh, I didn't do it. This evil person did it!

That's not a direct quote, mind you. But it's the essentials.

The criminal was already created. It is implied by JBR and the basement crime scene. There may have been a perceived need to 'create a criminal' but the actual need did not exist. Who said that anyway? Please tell me they're not in LE.

You'll be needing just one precedent for the 'cathartic undoing of the murder by threatening more murder' idea. Otherwise this isn't even worth a discussion. Who said this?

 

[BBB167893]

The criminal was already created. It is implied by JBR and the basement crime scene.

Key word there: "implied." Not stated clearly.

There may have been a perceived need to 'create a criminal' but the actual need did not exist.

HOTYH--and I'm very cautious about this--you and I may come close to agreeing here. Follow me on this: the actual need may not have existed, but I think we can all agree that in a crime, the criminal is running the show, and as such, if they perceive something, they'll most likely act on it.

You're showing open-mindedness. That's admirable.

Who said that anyway?

The CASKU investigators.

Please tell me they're not in LE.

I can see how having people like that on my side would bother you.

You'll be needing just one precedent for the 'cathartic undoing of the murder by threatening more murder' idea.

Who's talking precedent? I'm talking psychology here. That's all I need.

Otherwise this isn't even worth a discussion.

I'd say it's fine material for one.

Who said this?

That would be CASKU again. Sorry.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The CASKU investigators. Actual source and quote please. Oh, are we going back to 1997?



I can see how having people like that on my side would bother you.



Who's talking precedent? I'm talking psychology here. That's all I need.

Riiiiight.


I'd say it's fine material for one.



That would be CASKU again. Sorry.

No apologies needed, believe me. Asking too much for actual source/quote? You seem to need to portray CASKU in RDI's pocket and I don't see that evidenced anywhere.

 

[Sophie]

Don't bother.

You flirt!

 

[Sophie]

I'd take a bow, but that would grind it in a little much. Besides, I'm not done yet. I was going to bring this up, but I see that HOTYH has opened the door for me:



Well, speaking for myself, Sophie, I'm not so much asking him or other IDIs to accept it unquestioningly. Far from it. What I AM asking is to think outside the box and consider that what might seem totally irrational to them might have seemed like just the thing to an amateur completely over their head. I'm asking them to consider that the Rs thought that there WAS a need to write the RN, because, to them, "JBR in the basement" alone did not provide enough evidence of an intruder: it created a CRIME. But the RN created the CRIMINAL to go with it. That, of course, leaves aside my idea about JR setting PR up for a fall, covered in the thread "No Honor Among Thieves." (I've really got to get that one restarted.)

I PRAY everyone got all that!



Got it.



I'm not either. His examples left much to be desired. Why WOULDN'T someone have OJ try on the gloves? Why WOULDN'T you ask a suspect to give a lot of samples.

Moreover, if I were in PR's position, I'd give samples on the moon if I thought it would help! Anything to find my baby's killer.



:applause:



I'll be darned.

This is exactly right. It's like the Ramseys hiding behind their lawyers, saying that they were just following advice. NO ONE is compelled to follow their lawyer's advice and successful CEOs are apt to only follow such advice as they agree with. People also talk of Patsy offering to take ten polygraphs as proof of her innocence. Well, first, if I was guilty, I would do that, too, in the ful knowledge that my lawyers would veto it later so I could say that I had co-operated but my lawyers had taken charge. It's actually a pretty standard strategy.

 

[BBB167893]

No apologies needed, believe me.

Wait until I get going. You may change your mind.

Asking too much for actual source/quote?

Not at all. Your wish is my command. PMPT page 307:

"Once JonBenet had been murdered, the only reason to write the note or to leave it behind was to provide a false motive for the crime. That was called staging within staging."

Then we have ITRMI, page 243:

"The note was created to misdirect law enforcement and focus attention elsewhere and was a cathartic act that allowed the offender to 'undo' the murder in one's own mind."

Allow me to add that when I speak of psychology, I'm being very serious. People often underestimate just what a powerful force self-hypnosis is. One of the police even said it:

"Patsy has completely rationalized this in her mind and can vizualize an intruder."

You seem to need to portray CASKU in RDI's pocket and I don't see that evidenced anywhere.

Not at all, HOTYH. Indeed, the idea that CASKU was/is in RDI's pocket is not MY characterization, but rather one used by most (a great majority) of your fellow IDIs. They understand only too well how bad this is for the Rs, so they would have us believe that the FBI were/are nothing but a bunch of unprofessional witchhunters only too glad to help the BPD railroad an innocent couple. JR himself has even claimed this, going so far as to say that the FBI was part of the "conspiracy" against him and PR.

Thus, I for one am thankful and grateful to you for putting that to rest!

Riiiiight.

Ah-ah! Your thinking is going into the box again.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You flirt!

non sequitur?

 

[Sophie]

non sequitur?

Minor ironic response to your charming (ahem) response to my post...

 

[LadyL]

I already did. To repeat:

"JBR in the basement" alone did not provide enough evidence of an intruder: it created a CRIME. But the RN created the CRIMINAL to go with it.

That's not even considering the possibility of a double-cross. But let's leave that aside for a moment.

Moreover, in PMPT, the FBI said pretty much exactly what I said: JBR in the basement created the how, where and what. But the RN created the who and why. They also said that by creating the criminal to go with their staged crime scene, the writer was committing a cathartic act. It allowed them to "undo" the crime in their mind by saying, both to others and him/herself, "Oh, I didn't do it. This evil person did it!

That's not a direct quote, mind you. But it's the essentials.

:clap:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Ah-ah! Your thinking is going into the box again.

My thinking? Something wrong with my thinking being too constrained?

I'm the one with the SFF, remember? While you are content to look only inside the house, as if it has no doors or windows. While LE is content to wait for CODIS. I believe neither approach will work.

And I'm in the box? Thats a laugh.

We have to take your word for it that CASKU is RDI here in 2009, which if true makes me doubt that a solution is anywhere close. Here's why:

There is no evidence that unequivocally links PR or JR to the crime. There are many, many, many opportunities for this not to have been the case. PR's handwriting could've been a better match. The DNA found on JBR under her fingernails could've been from a parent instead of a strange male. There could've been a past family incident that a family doctor, nurse, teacher, friend, or neighbor could've brought to light. We have some traces of PR and JR on JBR but no traces of the crime scene on JR or PR. That is, no injury to JR or PR's hands or face despite the violence. The murder weapon could've been traced to the house or even to JR or PR's hands.

This is just a partial list of 'coulda shoulda's'

 

[Sophie]

Philosophy 101: Is a selective insistence on prima facie analysis compatible with out-of-the box thinking? Discuss in no fewer than 3000 words.


Seriously, though, HOTYH, your inability to accept a scenario in which the DNA got there innocently despite the numerous examples given on here - often provided by rather eminent DNA experts - is a prime example why people might conclude your thinking is boxed in. Or the refinements on your theory that would make the perp easier to isolate that don't fit in with yout theory perfectly and which you therefore reject.

RDI has no monopoly on restricted thinking and in terms of understanding nuances of behaviour and evidence, RDI is probably more flexible than IDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Philosophy 101: Is a selective insistence on prima facie analysis compatible with out-of-the box thinking? Discuss in no fewer than 3000 words.


Seriously, though, HOTYH, your inability to accept a scenario in which the DNA got there innocently despite the numerous examples given on here - often provided by rather eminent DNA experts - is a prime example why people might conclude your thinking is boxed in. Or the refinements on your theory that would make the perp easier to isolate that don't fit in with yout theory perfectly and which you therefore reject.

RDI has no monopoly on restricted thinking and in terms of understanding nuances of behaviour and evidence, RDI is probably more flexible than IDI.

"numerous examples given on here - often provided by rather eminent DNA experts"

First of all, I haven't read one single scenario that places matching DNA in the blood in JBR's underwear AND on BOTH sides of the waistband of her longjohns AND underneath her fingernails, innocently.

Further, 'innocent DNA transfer proposed by eminent DNA experts' isn't saying the same thing as 'DNA Clears Ramsey Family' reported by CNN, NBC, FOXNEWS, BBC, etc. so maybe your eminent DNA experts who claim the DNA got there innocently haven't pushed their views too much for some reason?

My sinuses are better, thank you.