The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Tawny]

Tawny, are you aware of more recent national polls?

No... Why?

 

[borndem]

Circumstantial evidence is based upon fact. What facts prove RDI?

Below is a good & practical definition of "circumstantial evidence" -- I did not copy it all. Here is the source and the rest of the definition:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.
Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused.
.
.
.
circumstantial evidence n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
.

 

[gramcracker]

:goodpost:

 

[Anti-K]

Bugliosi wasn’t talking about circumstantial evidence in general, he was speaking in reference to a specific case. The case against the Ramseys is simply not comparable. In fact, it barely exists. To the extent that it does exist, it is vague and amorphous. JDI, PDI, BDI, etc. who did what and why and who knew what and when, etc. Thomas “cleared” Burke, gave dad a pass and pinned it on mom, Kolar seems to be pinning it on all three of them. The grand jurors don’t seem to have any better idea about who did what or why than anyone else, and thought that maybe further investigation might reveal something more (it did: DNA).

Here’s Bugliosi on the Ramsey case:
The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case is nothing that directly implicates them. [It is] the implausibility that anyone else committed [the murder]. But paradoxically, the strongest evidence…, by its very nature, is the weakest evidence against the Ramseys…. If we come to the conclusion that JonBenét was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which [parent] did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up…" There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder. http://www.usfca.edu/jco/mysteryofjonbenetramsey/ also, PMPT p. 1506 -07
BBM
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case is nothing that directly implicates them. [It is] the implausibility that anyone else committed [the murder].

plus the FBI's "look to the parents"

I'm usually the first one in the room to question authority but re this case I'm with the feds and an experienced and very successful prosecutor

although his words were quoted during one particular trial, VB most definitely was speaking about circumstantial evidence in general. hence his comparison to the more commonly used "links in a chain" definition

many murders/violent crimes are committed without witnesses, or witnesses who are willing to speak about what they know. that doesn't make the victim(s) any less dead/injured. people who conspire to hide the truth aren't willing to pay the consequences of their actions so we should just shrug off the "more perfect" crimes? I think not

"The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case ... is the implausibility that anyone else committed the murder."

 

[Anti-K]

The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case is nothing that directly implicates them. [It is] the implausibility that anyone else committed [the murder]. But paradoxically, the strongest evidence…, by its very nature, is the weakest evidence against the Ramseys…. ~ Bugliosi

Yes, I think you can make the argument that Bugliosi was making reference to circumstantial evidence in general.

However, iirc, his “comparison to the more commonly used ‘links in a chain’ definition” was in direct response to the defence’s claim, in that particular trial, that circumstantial evidence was like the links in a chain. He was presenting a rebuttal. So, this doesn’t support the claim of Bugliosi “speaking about circumstantial evidence in general.”

Regardless, there is always circumstantial evidence, and sometimes that evidence is sufficient to weave a case such as Bugliosi describes, but, sometimes, it is not. In the Ramsey case, it is not.
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

it was not sufficient because an incompetent and cowardly district attorney unjustly rewarded them for being crafty, sly, cunning, and evasive. they also attempted to flee the jurisdiction which is commonly regarded as consciousness of guilt

I believe that VB views CE as a rope rather than a chain in EVERY trial, whether or not he is personally in attendance and whether or not he is offering rebuttal. I believe that most prosecutors and judges hold the same view while most defense attorneys do not
__________________

It is not necessary for the evidence to provide an answer to all of the questions raised in a case. You may think that it would be an unusual case indeed in which a jury can say "We now know everything there is to know about this case", nor is it necessary that each fact upon which the prosecution relies, taken individually, prove that the defendant is guilty. You must decide whether all of the evidence has proved the case against him. A very distinguished judge expressed the test in this way over one hundred years ago.

"It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then, if any one link breaks, the chain would fall. It is more like the case of a rope comprised of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence-there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction or more than a mere suspicion; but the three taken together may create a conclusion of guilt with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of."
http://www.jsbni.com/Publications/BenchBook/Pages/4-1-Circumstantial-evidence.aspx

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is suggestive evidence that helps build the main point. Whether or not circumstantial evidence is believed will have a large influence on the verdict, especially in cases with little direct evidence. The presentation of circumstantial evidence in jury cases, where the prosecution typically has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, is critical.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/criminal-evidence-circumstantial-vs-direct

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved based on all the evidence.
http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/200/223.html

Circumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence.
http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html

 

[renah]

You go, gram! That definitely IS the bottom line

 

[Nom de plume]

I haven't found a more recent poll. This data was collected prior to the 10 marker + amel DNA profile's CODIS submission and WELL before discovery of the two matching TDNA profiles. I imagine the evidentiary DNA had an impact on public opinion. FWIW, I only feel like I'm in the minority @ WS/FFJ & Topix. :dunno:

"FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll.
Latest: Dec. 12-13, 2001.
N=900 registered voters nationwide.
MoE ± 3.

"On December 26, 1996, the body of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found in the basement of the family's home. Do you think her parents were involved in her murder?"
12/01 10/99 2/99 11/98 8/97 3/97
% % % % % %
Yes 53 49 56 60 51 54
No 14 15 9 13 13 14
Not sure 33 36 35 27 36 32

.

"Do you think we will ever know what happened to JonBenet Ramsey?"
12/01 10/99 2/99 11/98 4/98 12/97
% % % % % %
Yes 15 23 15 21 25 29
No 72 62 73 68 64 59
Not sure 13 15 12 11 11 12


The Gallup Poll. Latest: March 17-19, 2000. N=1,024 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.

"Do you think the case involving the murder of JonBenet Ramsey will ever be solved, or not?"
3/00 12/97 11/97
% % %
Will be 24 31 32
Will not be 66 58 56
No opinion 10 11 12
.

"Do you, personally, have an opinion about who murdered JonBenet Ramsey?"
%
Yes 33
No 65
No opinion 2
.

Asked of those who answered "Yes" to preceding question (N=337; MoE +/- 6):
"Just your opinion: Who do you think killed JonBenet Ramsey?"
%
Both parents 30
Mother 17
Father 11
Brother 9
Total stranger 5
Disgruntled employee 1
Other 19
No opinion 8"​

Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/news4.htm

Tawny, are you aware of more recent national polls?

Hmm...let's think about this. Who is going to have a better idea of who committed this crime? Some Joe Blow off the street that knows next to nothing about this case other than the BS spewed by AH, ML & the RST, or people that have spent 17 years reviewing every single piece of evidence available to the public? :waitasec: Gee, that's a hard one to figure out.

Polls taken in 2000 & 2001? Seriously? That's your proof the public thinks they're innocent? :floorlaugh: Now let's see a poll taken after the GJ indictment was released! Convenient you couldn't find one.

Why do you think the majority here, and at FFJ, Topix, etc. believe the Rs are guilty? Are we all incompetent like you claim the BPD was? Are we all "out to get the Rs" like you IDIs claim the BPD was? I suppose the FBI was incompetent too when they said BPD would find her and to look at the parents? Or are you IDIs just so superior intellectually to RDIs? All rhetorical questions. I don't expect, or even want answers.

"Common sense" has to be the biggest oxymoron of all time.

 

[Nom de plume]

Bugliosi wasn’t talking about circumstantial evidence in general, he was speaking in reference to a specific case. The case against the Ramseys is simply not comparable. In fact, it barely exists. To the extent that it does exist, it is vague and amorphous. JDI, PDI, BDI, etc. who did what and why and who knew what and when, etc. Thomas “cleared” Burke, gave dad a pass and pinned it on mom, Kolar seems to be pinning it on all three of them. The grand jurors don’t seem to have any better idea about who did what or why than anyone else, and thought that maybe further investigation might reveal something more (it did: DNA).

Here’s Bugliosi on the Ramsey case:
The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case is nothing that directly implicates them. [It is] the implausibility that anyone else committed [the murder]. But paradoxically, the strongest evidence…, by its very nature, is the weakest evidence against the Ramseys…. If we come to the conclusion that JonBenét was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which [parent] did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up…" There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder. http://www.usfca.edu/jco/mysteryofjonbenetramsey/ also, PMPT p. 1506 -07
BBM
...

AK

You missed the entire purpose of the quote. It wasn't to prove which R did it. It was to show that when you take all the strands of circumstantial evidence and weave them into a rope, that rope "hangs" the Rs (1, 2, or all 3 of them), and disproves the possibility of an IDI.

Regardless of what you, or any other IDI says, there is a TON of circumstantial evidence against the Rs! Maybe someone should start a thread listing all the individual items of circumstantial evidence against the Rs, and all against an IDI. That would be a list of about 1000 to precisely 1! (And a pathetically weak one at that!)

 

[Anti-K]

You missed the entire purpose of the quote. It wasn't to prove which R did it. It was to show that when you take all the strands of circumstantial evidence and weave them into a rope, that rope "hangs" the Rs (1, 2, or all 3 of them), and disproves the possibility of an IDI.

Regardless of what you, or any other IDI says, there is a TON of circumstantial evidence against the Rs! Maybe someone should start a thread listing all the individual items of circumstantial evidence against the Rs, and all against an IDI. That would be a list of about 1000 to precisely 1! (And a pathetically weak one at that!)

No, I didn’t miss the “entire purpose of the quote.” The mistake is yours, and everyone’s, who believes that such a case against the Ramseys exists.

As I previously stated: The case against the Ramseys is simply not comparable. In fact, it barely exists. To the extent that it does exist, it is vague and amorphous. JDI, PDI, BDI, etc. who did what and why and who knew what and when, etc. Thomas “cleared” Burke, gave dad a pass and pinned it on mom, Kolar seems to be pinning it on all three of them. The grand jurors don’t seem to have any better idea about who did what or why than anyone else, and thought that maybe further investigation might reveal something more (it did: DNA).

While the Bugliosi quote on the strength of circumstantial evidence is nice, it does not describe the Ramsey case. Since you are all fond of Bugliosi (as am I), why not quote him on the Ramsey case?

Bugliosis on the Ramsey case: There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. PMPT p. 1507
...

AK

 

[Nom de plume]

No, I didn’t miss the “entire purpose of the quote.” The mistake is yours, and everyone’s, who believes that such a case against the Ramseys exists.

As I previously stated: The case against the Ramseys is simply not comparable. In fact, it barely exists. To the extent that it does exist, it is vague and amorphous. JDI, PDI, BDI, etc. who did what and why and who knew what and when, etc. Thomas “cleared” Burke, gave dad a pass and pinned it on mom, Kolar seems to be pinning it on all three of them. The grand jurors don’t seem to have any better idea about who did what or why than anyone else, and thought that maybe further investigation might reveal something more (it did: DNA).

While the Bugliosi quote on the strength of circumstantial evidence is nice, it does not describe the Ramsey case. Since you are all fond of Bugliosi (as am I), why not quote him on the Ramsey case?

Bugliosis on the Ramsey case: There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. PMPT p. 1507
...

AK

Yes, you did miss the point. No one said anything about taking the case to a jury. Your mistake! The point was there is enough circumstantial evidence that points to someone living in that house committing the crime to rule out any IDI! Don't tell me what my point was!!! :banghead:

 

[Venom]

Nom's quote:

You missed the entire purpose of the quote. It wasn't to prove which R did it. It was to show that when you take all the strands of circumstantial evidence and weave them into a rope, that rope "hangs" the Rs (1, 2, or all 3 of them), and disproves the possibility of an IDI.

Regardless of what you, or any other IDI says, there is a TON of circumstantial evidence against the Rs! Maybe someone should start a thread listing all the individual items of circumstantial evidence against the Rs, and all against an IDI. That would be a list of about 1000 to precisely 1! (And a pathetically weak one at that!)

No, I didn’t miss the “entire purpose of the quote.” The mistake is yours, and everyone’s, who believes that such a case against the Ramseys exists.

As I previously stated: The case against the Ramseys is simply not comparable. In fact, it barely exists. To the extent that it does exist, it is vague and amorphous. JDI, PDI, BDI, etc. who did what and why and who knew what and when, etc. Thomas “cleared” Burke, gave dad a pass and pinned it on mom, Kolar seems to be pinning it on all three of them. The grand jurors don’t seem to have any better idea about who did what or why than anyone else, and thought that maybe further investigation might reveal something more (it did: DNA).

While the Bugliosi quote on the strength of circumstantial evidence is nice, it does not describe the Ramsey case. Since you are all fond of Bugliosi (as am I), why not quote him on the Ramsey case?

Bugliosis on the Ramsey case: There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. PMPT p. 1507
...

AK

Nom's post stated R's, as in all three of them. There is enough circumstantial evidence that one or more of them had a hand in the crime. Which one specifically? No way to tell. But the circumstantial evidence is there to point at at least one if not more.
Bugliosi is correct that there is no case for a jury. If JR, BR, or even an intruder were to be tried for the crime, the defense would have enough to show reasonable doubt.

 

[chlban]

Yes, you did miss the point. No one said anything about taking the case to a jury. Your mistake! The point was there is enough circumstantial evidence that points to someone living in that house committing the crime to rule out any IDI! Don't tell me what my point was!!! :banghead:

Just so you know, I think most of us get it. The quote verifies exactly what many of us believe. It was a Ramsey. Few, if any, of us can say we are 100% sure which Ramsey it was. We may have pet theories, but most of us will acknowledge room for doubt on that point only.

But 100% sure it was a Ramsey? Definitely.

 

[Anyhoo]

Just so you know, I think most of us get it. The quote verifies exactly what many of us believe. It was a Ramsey. Few, if any, of us can say we are 100% sure which Ramsey it was. We may have pet theories, but most of us will acknowledge room for doubt on that point only.

But 100% sure it was a Ramsey? Definitely.

100% agree, and not because I want for it to be a Ramsey but because that is what everything points to. The parents showed us they were guilty of at a minimum the cover up, and we know what that means in terms of the actual murder.

 

[Anti-K]

There IS a circumstantial case to be made against the Ramseys. That is true. But, the circumstantial case against the Ramseys is not of the type that Bugliosi describes.

Is the circumstantial case against the Ramseys strong enough to eliminate (rule out) the possibility of an intruder? Nope. I mean, you’re all welcome to your opinion and I understand that for some – SOME – ruling out the possibility of an intruder is the first step in many an RDI theory, but the only way anyone is ever going to realistically do that is to show beyond reasonable doubt that a Ramsey committed this crime.

If you can’t prove PDI and you can’t prove JDI and you can’t prove BDI, than you can’t prove RDI. If you can’t prove RDI, than you can’t eliminate IDI. It really is that simple.

But, this elimination of IDI is the basis for much of the RDI rationale: elimination of an intruder means someone known to be in the house that night must have committed the crime. I guess we should be grateful that the Ramseys didn’t have a sleepover guest that night, otherwise we’d have to add GDI (or GDIs!) to the list of in-house suspects. Because that’s how bad the case against the Ramseys is – they are suspects by default, simply by virtue of being in the house that night.

Still, if you can’t prove RDI, than you can’t eliminate IDI.
...

AK

 

[ZBob]

There IS a circumstantial case to be made against the Ramseys. That is true. But, the circumstantial case against the Ramseys is not of the type that Bugliosi describes.

Is the circumstantial case against the Ramseys strong enough to eliminate (rule out) the possibility of an intruder? Nope. I mean, you’re all welcome to your opinion and I understand that for some – SOME – ruling out the possibility of an intruder is the first step in many an RDI theory, but the only way anyone is ever going to realistically do that is to show beyond reasonable doubt that a Ramsey committed this crime.

If you can’t prove PDI and you can’t prove JDI and you can’t prove BDI, than you can’t prove RDI. If you can’t prove RDI, than you can’t eliminate IDI. It really is that simple.

But, this elimination of IDI is the basis for much of the RDI rationale: elimination of an intruder means someone known to be in the house that night must have committed the crime. I guess we should be grateful that the Ramseys didn’t have a sleepover guest that night, otherwise we’d have to add GDI (or GDIs!) to the list of in-house suspects. Because that’s how bad the case against the Ramseys is – they are suspects by default, simply by virtue of being in the house that night.

Still, if you can’t prove RDI, than you can’t eliminate IDI.
...

AK

They are also suspects based on many very unusual (and deceptive) behaviors that are so far beyond the norm of 'innocent' victim parents that it is nearly impossible to conceive them not being involved. In my opinion, that is one facet (in addition to evidence) that creates much of the emotion on the RDI side. The behavior is so out of the box, especially for a successful technology executive like JR who I would anticipate to be a very detail oriented and thorough person who also based on his success has an extremely good memory. I have not ever read or heard anything about these attributes anywhere, but in my experience I would be very surprised if he was not like that.

 

[Darlene733510]

With only 10 o/o of the evidence presented, those who are RDI's may not know which of the 3 R's did what, while the IDI's argue that the R's could not have done this.
The problem here is that other 90 o/o sits in storage. Why doesn't SG have the guts to get this case solved? What items were not tested because AH decided not to send them to the lab? What else did he hide? He certainly should have had the R's testify. LS presented his fiasco that was really laughable.
It seems that Boulder didn't care that a child was murdered. If they cared they would have demanded justice for her, and AH, LS, and ML had only one result in mind, which was to exonerate the R's.

 

[DeeDee249]

With only 10 o/o of the evidence presented, those who are RDI's may not know which of the 3 R's did what, while the IDI's argue that the R's could not have done this.
The problem here is that other 90 o/o sits in storage. Why doesn't SG have the guts to get this case solved? What items were not tested because AH decided not to send them to the lab? What else did he hide? He certainly should have had the R's testify. LS presented his fiasco that was really laughable.
It seems that Boulder didn't care that a child was murdered. If they cared they would have demanded justice for her, and AH, LS, and ML had only one result in mind, which was to exonerate the R's.

There are some things which will never be revealed purposefully simply because it is an unsolved murder. There is no statute of limitations on murder, so whenever it MIGHT come to trial, this evidence will be brought up at that point. As far as why the present DA SG doesn't seem to "have the guts" to go forward- there is a very good reason why he has not. And with the release of the GJ indictments, all but those who WILL NOT see the truth know why. This case no longer has anything prosecutable. Here's why-BOTH parents are implicated in the crime. Fiber evidence from BOTH parents is present on items associated with the crime. One parent is dead. There is no way to prove who did what. With Patsy dead, JR can blame it all on her. The end. As for the person who actually committed the crime for which the parents were indicted for covering up- well that person is forever free from any kind of prosecution. The crimes which JR could have been prosecuted have statutes of limitation that expired years ago. So in reality, there is noting SG can prosecute.
I do not agree with those statutes of limitations, by the way. Like the crime itself (murder, sexual assault of a child) I believe the crime of covering up a murder or sexual abuse of a child or obstructing justice in the solving of such a crime should also have NO statutes of limitations either.

 

[Anti-K]

They are also suspects based on many very unusual (and deceptive) behaviors that are so far beyond the norm of 'innocent' victim parents that it is nearly impossible to conceive them not being involved. In my opinion, that is one facet (in addition to evidence) that creates much of the emotion on the RDI side. The behavior is so out of the box, especially for a successful technology executive like JR who I would anticipate to be a very detail oriented and thorough person who also based on his success has an extremely good memory. I have not ever read or heard anything about these attributes anywhere, but in my experience I would be very surprised if he was not like that.

“Many very unusual (and deceptive) behaviors.” I’m not sure what specific behaviors you’re talking about, but it seems a subjective pronouncement. You and I and someone else are not all going to behave the same way in any given circumstance. Of course, I note that you say “beyond the norm,” but I’m not sure how that is being defined, either.

I do know that there are as many innocent explanations for their behavior as there are nefarious ones. But, I do think that their behavior made them look suspicious. It still does. But, I don’t think investigation revealed anything to substantiate that suspicion. And, I do think that these people were investigated to exhaustion.
...

AK