Poll: Will this case ever be solved?

[madeleine]

Spot on Sophie.
And everybody knows it.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20263921,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines


"Call him Mr. Cautious. Boulder, Colo., District Attorney Stan Garnett isn't about to make the same mistakes as his two predecessors by opening or closing the umbrella of suspicion on any suspects in the unsolved murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey. "





Thank you.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/dec/26/jonbenet-ramsey-12-years-later/

Unlike his predecessor, Mary Lacy, who has made clear her view that an intruder killed JonBenet, Garnett said he doesn’t have any preconceived notions about the case or where any future investigation should lead.

“District attorneys have to be very thoughtful and very sober and clear-eyed,” Garnett said. “I have very high regard for Mary Lacy, and I’m not a person who second guesses other people’s decisions. But I’ve been elected by the people of Boulder County to use my own judgment.”



Wonderful.

 

[coco puff]

How does an individual enter a home, spend an large amount of time there moving from room to room, then kill a child violently (IMO!) write a ransom note (apprently with gloves on) and exit the house without leaving any fibers, hair, fingerprints, etc except for two small areas of touch DNA on JBR's clothing? How does all of that activity happen without leaving so much more of yourself at the crime scene (that we know about, in MY OPINION, without having been there). I mean, wouldn't you leave more than that? And why was the flashlight and other items clean of any prints. If you are wearing gloves, you wouldn't need to wipe things down and there should have been family member prints on those items? (even on the batteries, which i understand were clean of prints (but don't know for fact since I did not get to analize them.) And if you weren't wearing gloves, touch DNA should have been all over the place. AGAIN, ALL MY OPINION AND NO FACT TO BASE IT UPON, just observeration.

And why does it seem that there are folks that really want this IDI identified far more that the father of the slaughtered child? I would to my grave yelling for an answer if someone broke into my house and murdered my child, especially if they made it look like it was because me. I don't see this reaction from JR, and never have. Again, IMO, MOO, and whatever other initials i need to put for something that was suppose to be implied.

 

[madeleine]

I STILL wait for evidence that points to an intruder comitting this crime.I really do.And don't yell dna again cause as far as I am concerned that's no evidence that someone unknown killed JB.

 

[BBB167893]

You said that much better than I did!

You're too modest.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe I'd suggest reading the news, where JR or PR getting away with murder simply is not discussed.

Yeah, Wood saw to that. Why don't you mention that part?

JMK looked at seriously.

The fact that he WAS taken seriously should tell everybody all they NEED to know!

I say that because you've really no idea that someone tried to make it look like a sexual assault, your just CLAIMING that and STATING it as if were FACT when you really don't know.

Coco's not alone in that regard...

 

[BBB167893]

RDI claims to own Occam's Razor but really they dont.

I'm not aware of anyone who ever claimed that.

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

Nobody here introduced those concepts. Those were all outgrowths of the participants in the investigation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nobody here introduced those concepts. Those were all outgrowths of the participants in the investigation.

Uh, they are not proven, therefore they are simply additional elements/postulates added, against Occam's Razor.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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

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

Maybe you should check with the DA before characterizing his actions/views. After all, 'the umbrella of suspicion' is an abstract concept, and not taught in Criminal Science classes. IOW maybe thats only YOUR characterization now.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You know HOTYH, you really don't have to be rude to make a point. Just trying to fit in. Sorry.

I'm sure you knew what prima facie meant before I mentioned it: my mentioning it appears to have set off all sorts of light bulbs in your head and it has become your phrase du jour. I thanked you, didn't I?

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

On the point of Occam's Razor: well you have certainly proven you can use Google. You call me deliberately vague and I am getting perilously close to referring to broken circuits in your synaptic connections. Occam's Razor, by your definition, makes as few assumptions as possible. So lets assume prior abuse, a fit of rage, an accidental head bash, staging, ownership of the murder weapon materials, and authorship of the RN. In keeping with Occam's Razor, of course. :liar:. Prima facie is an assumption by definition: the assumption that first appearances are the right appearances. Correct. Occam's Razor allows a holistic view of the evidence. I don't remember that part. Did you make it up? Prima facie acceptance doesn't. I don't remember that part either. Did you make it up too? Holistic simply means taken as a whole. Prima facie evidence stands up better holistically because it allows a vicious personality who exists. It allows a real person who writes just like that, talks just like that, kills just like that, but has not yet been identified. The whole of RDI is premised on a personality of PR and JR that have been essentially contrived by RDI to suit their needs.


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

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

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


In any event, this is really all rather silly

There's always soccer.

 

[madeleine]

I'd like to know the names of the experts talking about this case who think IDI and are not part of the Ramsey team.Lawyers,prosecutors,investigators,profilers,pathologists,whatever you want...
And yep,that excludes Augustin,Gray,Smit,Douglas,Tracey and all.I mean people who never had contact with the Ramsey's whatsoever. (you know what I mean )
Cause I can make a pretty long list with experts who support RDI.

 

[madeleine]

Uh, they are not proven, therefore they are simply additional elements/postulates added, against Occam's Razor.

IDI wasn't proven either.All we've heard was the former DA's biased opinion.

IMO :angel:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd like to know the names of the experts talking about this case who think IDI and are not part of the Ramsey team.Lawyers,prosecutors,investigators,profilers,pathologists,whatever you want...
And yep,that excludes Augustin,Gray,Smit,Douglas,Tracey and all.I mean people who never had contact with the Ramsey's whatsoever. (you know what I mean )
Cause I can make a pretty long list with experts who support RDI.

Ever heard the expression 'all the news thats fit to print'? RDI isn't 'fit to print' anymore. When was the last time you read any RDI news?

 

[madeleine]

Ever heard the expression 'all the news thats fit to print'?

You don't know much about the media,do you.

RDI isn't 'fit to print' anymore.

Says who,you?
And I think I already replied to this topic of yours the other day but you chose to ignore it of course.Surprise,surprise.

When was the last time you read any RDI news?

The problem is I see very good RDI news among Garnett's lines and you don't.If you consider M.Lacy the only source of news in this case who am I to disagree.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You don't know much about the media,do you.



Says who,you?
And I think I already replied to this topic of yours the other day but you chose to ignore it of course.Surprise,surprise.



The problem is I see very good RDI news among Garnett's lines and you don't.If you consider M.Lacy the only source of news in this case who am I to disagree.

This sounds like we're reading tea leaves. I was thinking perhaps something more objective. You know, more like NEWS. Parental DNA or something like that.

 

[madeleine]

This sounds like we're reading tea leaves. I was thinking perhaps something more objective. You know, more like NEWS. Parental DNA or something like that.

yeah.Whatever HOTYH

 

[Sophie]

There's always soccer.

True and the season starts on Saturday followed by return to work from maternity leave on Monday so you'll no doubt be seeing less of me. Which I know will be a blow :tongue:

 

[Sophie]

There's always soccer.

BTW, HOTYH, my IDI alternative theory (if I had one) wouldn't be that far from yours - I just don't think you need to look that far from Boulder to find your suspects. In fact, I'd be surprised if, at one point, you hadn't highlighted their general strangeness etc.

 

[Sophie]

Maybe you should check with the DA before characterizing his actions/views. After all, 'the umbrella of suspicion' is an abstract concept, and not taught in Criminal Science classes. IOW maybe thats only YOUR characterization now.

If you say so. However, that is rich coming from someone who, on another thread, was sufficiently happy to characterise IDI as not being concerned about the latest developments to offer to eat a bug if you were wrong. It's not just RDI who claim ownership of the Ramsey case zeitgeist