Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Do you think the perp or ransom note author have a criminal past that includes either murder, kidnapping, or extortion?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Question was whether the perp has committed either murder, kidnapping, or extortion before.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.
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.
I assume you are basing that "Three-fourths of the public believe..." on some sort of poll. What poll and when was it taken.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.
BC--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.
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.
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.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.
Holdontoyourhat said:Do you think the perp or ransom note author have a criminal past that includes either murder, kidnapping, or extortion?
Holdontoyourhat said:BC--
Ignoring the stats wont make IDI go away. Chances of IDI are 3 in 4.
Exactly.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.
:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: Would you run that verbage past me one more time???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.