Criminal past?

Do you think the perp or ransom note author have a criminal past that includes either murder, kidnapping, or extortion?

Can't vote because I think he may have committed some petty crimes so this wasn't his first illegal act but I'm not convinced he was a previously violent offender.

I believe similarly, the perp had committed minor offenses in the past, nothing felonious.

tipper said:

Can't vote because I think he may have committed some petty crimes so this wasn't his first illegal act but I'm not convinced he was a previously violent offender.

Click to expand...

Question was whether the perp has committed either murder, kidnapping, or extortion before.

You're not a fair pollster, but I'll bite.

We don't have the police files so it's unknown whether John and/or Patsy have ever been arrested before. To me, that's not as important as knowing whether they have committed any crimes since JonBenet's death.

I'm confident that if either had an arrest record we would already know about it.

Tipper,

I totally agree with you.

Halycon,

Trust me,I highly doubt the Ramsey's would do anything unlawful since JB's death. They know the media and police would jump on that like moths to wool sweaters!

"An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary."

Chances are, the arrestee in this case will be a violent career criminal. There's less than a 1 in 5 chance the perp has a clean criminal record.

In addition, the use of the ransom note, combined with its terminology, seems appropriate for a violent career criminal.

Also, the killing itself has attributes of a career criminal.

Holdontoyourhat said:

"An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary."

Chances are, the arrestee in this case will be a violent career criminal. There's less than a 1 in 5 chance the perp has a clean criminal record.

In addition, the use of the ransom note, combined with its terminology, seems appropriate for a violent career criminal.

Also, the killing itself has attributes of a career criminal.

Click to expand...

Holdontoyourhat,

You are assuming the perp was an intruder. That's not likely. Three-fourths of the public believe a Ramsey is involved in the killing of JonBenet, and almost all of us who have studied the crime in depth (and who have no hidden agendas) believe a Ramsey is involved. But none of the Ramseys have a criminal record. So there is an almost zero chance that the perp, if arrested, will be a career criminal.

And please check your arithmetic in your post. 74.6% would be 1 in 4, not 1 in 5.

BlueCrab said:

Holdontoyourhat,

You are assuming the perp was an intruder. That's not likely. Three-fourths of the public believe a Ramsey is involved in the killing of JonBenet, and almost all of us who have studied the crime in depth (and who have no hidden agendas) believe a Ramsey is involved. But none of the Ramseys have a criminal record. So there is an almost zero chance that the perp, if arrested, will be a career criminal.

And please check your arithmetic in your post. 74.6% would be 1 in 4, not 1 in 5.

Click to expand...

I assume you are basing that "Three-fourths of the public believe..." on some sort of poll. What poll and when was it taken.

I expect I could quote you a poll that said 95% of the public believes Richard Jewell is responsible for the Olympic bombings, if I went back far enough.

BlueCrab said:

Holdontoyourhat,

You are assuming the perp was an intruder. That's not likely. Three-fourths of the public believe a Ramsey is involved in the killing of JonBenet, and almost all of us who have studied the crime in depth (and who have no hidden agendas) believe a Ramsey is involved. But none of the Ramseys have a criminal record. So there is an almost zero chance that the perp, if arrested, will be a career criminal.

And please check your arithmetic in your post. 74.6% would be 1 in 4, not 1 in 5.

Click to expand...

BC--

Ignoring the stats wont make IDI go away. Chances of IDI are 3 in 4.

Holdontoyourhat said:

"An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary."

Chances are, the arrestee in this case will be a violent career criminal. There's less than a 1 in 5 chance the perp has a clean criminal record.

In addition, the use of the ransom note, combined with its terminology, seems appropriate for a violent career criminal.

Also, the killing itself has attributes of a career criminal.

Click to expand...

Your stats are correct,however, stats give the odds of a parent as the killer nearing 12 to 1. Westerfield had a clean record, Leopold and Leob committed only ONE crime, John Gacy was clean ,as well. Most murders in our country are not thought out crimes, they are violent acts committed by violent people. Statistically she shouldn't have been murdered. She was a white wealthy child , the "chances" of her being murdered should have been near zero, how can we apply numbers that represent our violent streets to this crime? At best how can we apply statistics to a crime that statistically doesn't happen?
I believe, JMO, that the murderer had minor offenses, the kinds that are typical for someone who doesn't have to play by the rules, piled up parking tickets, driving without a license, taking things from his jobsite, domestic violence ( not that this is minor), just small things that would indicate he believed playing by the rules wasn't for someone as "smart as him" , he could bypass them and live well.

sissi said:

Your stats are correct,however, stats give the odds of a parent as the killer nearing 12 to 1. Westerfield had a clean record, Leopold and Leob committed only ONE crime, John Gacy was clean ,as well. Most murders in our country are not thought out crimes, they are violent acts committed by violent people. Statistically she shouldn't have been murdered. She was a white wealthy child , the "chances" of her being murdered should have been near zero, how can we apply numbers that represent our violent streets to this crime? At best how can we apply statistics to a crime that statistically doesn't happen?
I believe, JMO, that the murderer had minor offenses, the kinds that are typical for someone who doesn't have to play by the rules, piled up parking tickets, driving without a license, taking things from his jobsite, domestic violence ( not that this is minor), just small things that would indicate he believed playing by the rules wasn't for someone as "smart as him" , he could bypass them and live well.

Click to expand...

The 12 to 1 stat is misleading because it does not point out that in practically all (90%) of filicide, there were major socioeconomic and psychopathic issues which led up to the crime.

Remember, the evidence also points to a career criminal, so its OK to apply the statistic. You have a ransom note, and a child murdered by garrote and headbash. These are signs of a career criminal.

There are all kinds of studies out there showing that murderers start out with lesser criminal behaviors earlier in life. That it is part of a pattern of crime. The fact that L & L or Gacy had no priors simply means that they weren't caught. The FBI statistic obviously doesn't take into consideration crimes committed by those who don't get caught. If it did, the stat for the number of violent crimes previously committed by an arrestee for murder would be even higher.

The 12 to 1 figure is also heavily weighted towards infants killed by overwrought/depressed/first-time parents. Somewhere online there is a chart that breaks this down by age and gives a more accurate picture. ST pushed the 12 to 1 statistic because it superficially added to his theory not because it actually reflected the parent-as-killer figures for a child JonBenet's age.

Look at cases past were family members murder family members---many have no criminal record whatsoever. That would fit if this murder was an accident----wether during sex play or not.

Jeffrey MacDoanld had no criminal history.

Susan Smith had no criminal history.

Diane Downs had no criiminal history.

Scott Peterson had no criminal history.

I don't think in this type of crime that you would see an offender who had an extensive criminal background---especially a violent one.

Holdontoyourhat said:

Do you think the perp or ransom note author have a criminal past that includes either murder, kidnapping, or extortion?

Click to expand...

These polls are wasting bandwidth IMO...

What's next....was the murderer a Catholic or a Scientologist?

Holdontoyourhat said:

BC--

Ignoring the stats wont make IDI go away. Chances of IDI are 3 in 4.

Click to expand...

Selective choosing of statistical manipulations involving features of this case is not particularly useful in the underlying reality of "who did it." This is not just because sometimes "statistics lie", but because of a fundamental reality of probability and statstics: The only truly valid probability model for a specific case arises from its internal dynamics, and not from characteristics derived from aggregates. However, the fact is that the complexity of internal dynamics of most cases makes true probability incalculable. The type of aggregate derived statistical probabilities mentioned here earlier actually show this phenomena: "If I say that the family did it in a population of similar cases, then I will be correct X% of the time." The derived probabilities are valid in your "statements", but not to the underlying reality of a specific case. There are in fact seperate probability "universes" for each element of the case. Much like your having 2 kids and someone randomly learning one's a girl and someone else learning selectively that at least one is a girl. These individuals exist in seperate observational "universes" in which the first sees it's 50-50 the other is a boy, but for the 2nd it's 2 to 1 the other is a boy. The probabilities do not add or subtract and they are not reconcilable. (If you don't get it, stay away from quantum theory.) Probabilities derived from aggregates are indeed useful to show trends or for actuarial calculations, but the act of applying them "backwards" to a specific case is wrong, just like the "gambler's fallacy."

I would also point out that the tendency of some offenders to "repeat" has no statistical bearing whatever that can be applied to suspects who are known not to be in that population group. Every offender would otherwise be excluded on the first go, and there would be no first offenses. If you want to say: "If an intruder killed JonBenet, then he's probably a repeat offender", then you can get by. You've defined a known population, i.e., killers. But if you were to say "That person has no criminal record so he should not be a suspect in killing JonBenet" then you would be engaging in the mathematical equivalent of prejudice, because you can only guess what populations he may be included in. It's the difference between the known, and unknown hypotheticals.

little1 said:

Look at cases past were family members murder family members---many have no criminal record whatsoever. That would fit if this murder was an accident----wether during sex play or not.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Anyway, statistics don't solve this or any other case. Evidence does, including the evidence of staging -- e.g. "ransom" note in a non-ransom case... "kidnapping" note in a non-kidnapping case.

This case has to be analyzed in light of its staged crime scene. It's a waste of time to try to evaluate it any other way.

Lacy Wood said:

Selective choosing of statistical manipulations involving features of this case is not particularly useful in the underlying reality of "who did it." This is not just because sometimes "statistics lie", but because of a fundamental reality of probability and statstics: The only truly valid probability model for a specific case arises from its internal dynamics, and not from characteristics derived from aggregates. However, the fact is that the complexity of internal dynamics of most cases makes true probability incalculable. The type of aggregate derived statistical probabilities mentioned here earlier actually show this phenomena: "If I say that the family did it in a population of similar cases, then I will be correct X% of the time." The derived probabilities are valid in your "statements", but not to the underlying reality of a specific case. There are in fact seperate probability "universes" for each element of the case. Much like your having 2 kids and someone randomly learning one's a girl and someone else learning selectively that at least one is a girl. These individuals exist in seperate observational "universes" in which the first sees it's 50-50 the other is a boy, but for the 2nd it's 2 to 1 the other is a boy. The probabilities do not add or subtract and they are not reconcilable. (If you don't get it, stay away from quantum theory.) Probabilities derived from aggregates are indeed useful to show trends or for actuarial calculations, but the act of applying them "backwards" to a specific case is wrong, just like the "gambler's fallacy."

I would also point out that the tendency of some offenders to "repeat" has no statistical bearing whatever that can be applied to suspects who are known not to be in that population group. Every offender would otherwise be excluded on the first go, and there would be no first offenses. If you want to say: "If an intruder killed JonBenet, then he's probably a repeat offender", then you can get by. You've defined a known population, i.e., killers. But if you were to say "That person has no criminal record so he should not be a suspect in killing JonBenet" then you would be engaging in the mathematical equivalent of prejudice, because you can only guess what populations he may be included in. It's the difference between the known, and unknown hypotheticals.

Click to expand...

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: Would you run that verbage past me one more time???

OK, maybe if I just said that virtually the entire population of parents who kill their child or children do so for the first time. Also, this case cannot be statistically compared to those parents with abuse records or criminal histories because, face it, those parents would already now be in jail if their abused, dead child had been found in the basement. It is the convoluted dynamics of this case that make it unsolved. It is the same convoluted dynamics that make it a topic of interest on this forum. Those same multifaceted dynamics exclude it from simplistic statistical models. If you want to suggest this case as a probability of famiy involvement, then that probability is the same as the likelihood that a family member wrote the ransom note.