Criminal past?

[sissi]

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.

Absolutely!
St pushed these stats! Again, there are profiles of families that make up those stats, Patsy and John clearly don't fit!
I do not believe there is a statistic available that would help in solving this case. The murder was "off the charts" odd, and the killer will probably be found one day to be far from what we expect. He's likely a family kind of guy, who has enough money to go away and kill overseas, someplace nice and safe for him, where his money can buy what he needs.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Absolutely!
St pushed these stats! Again, there are profiles of families that make up those stats, Patsy and John clearly don't fit!
I do not believe there is a statistic available that would help in solving this case. The murder was "off the charts" odd, and the killer will probably be found one day to be far from what we expect. He's likely a family kind of guy, who has enough money to go away and kill overseas, someplace nice and safe for him, where his money can buy what he needs.

Good for you. Your POV is supported by the evidence:

• A handwritten note suggests the killer had confidence his handwriting could not be traced.
• Terms like attache, Victory!, and fat cat seem unusual and far removed from local norms.

 

[Cranberry]

Good for you. Your POV is supported by the evidence:

• A handwritten note suggests the killer had confidence his handwriting could not be traced.
• Terms like attache, Victory!, and fat cat seem unusual and far removed from local norms.

Those terms are used throughout the US: attache - business world
Victory! - religious or competitions
fat cat - social circles

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Those terms are used throughout the US: attache - business world
Victory! - religious or competitions
fat cat - social circles

Victory!, religious or competitions? When exclamated and used as a closing salutation, cannot be found in any religious or competions paper!

fat cat - social circles? The term fat cat is not used by social circles throughout the US at all. It is used by envious people who are referring to the affluent in a derrogatory way.

 

[Cranberry]

Victory!, religious or competitions? When exclamated and used as a closing salutation, cannot be found in any religious or competions paper!

fat cat - social circles? The term fat cat is not used by social circles throughout the US at all. It is used by envious people who are referring to the affluent in a derrogatory way.

Google church newsletters and publications - they often end in "Victory in Jesus Christ!"

I didn't say affluent social circles - social circles come from all walks of life in America, the term "fat cat" is known by all.

It may be a first for a ransom note though.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Google church newsletters and publications - they often end in "Victory in Jesus Christ!"

I didn't say affluent social circles - social circles come from all walks of life in America, the term "fat cat" is known by all.

It may be a first for a ransom note though.

I'm getting a zero on the religious scale overall for this ransom note. IMO the perp's not religious, so IMO there's no connection to church newsletters or publications.

The Victory! term as used in the note IMO actually stems from the militant cheer "Victory!." An FBI profiler called it a "Revolutionary term".

"Fat cat," as used in the ransom note IMO was a derrogatory remark aimed at affluent people like John. This was one of only a few aspects of the RN that were relevant to any motive because the ransom note author was partially explaining himself. He hates John for his money, he hates rich people like John.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

"Three-fourths of the public believe..." makes you sound like you're part of a lynch mob. I'm sticking with the theoretical angle for now.

"...almost all of us who have studied the crime in depth..."

BlueCrab, studying anything does not automatically give you the truth. Nor does studying make you any more entitiled to the truth than someone who just walking along, trips over it, stops, picks it up, and says "what's this?"

 

[Lacy Wood]

"Three-fourths of the public believe..." makes you sound like you're part of a lynch mob. I'm sticking with the theoretical angle for now.

"...almost all of us who have studied the crime in depth..."

BlueCrab, studying anything does not automatically give you the truth. Nor does studying make you any more entitiled to the truth than someone who just walking along, trips over it, stops, picks it up, and says "what's this?"

So you're sticking with the bad math that you call the "theoretical angle" and those who suggest otherwise are like a "lynch mob."

Nice of you to point out your view that "studying" is no better than "tripping over" stuff in seeking the truth. (As for "What's this?", maybe doggie poop?)

Every probability expression changes from the pre-event (a priori) value as additional facts and exclusions are learned. That's how probability works. The "a priori" probability of an intruder you claim to be still valid now, was in fact dramatically altered by each event that unfolded.

If the a priori probability of an intruder vs family was, as you say, 75%, then that value would change to reflect what was learned that is inconsistent with intruder cases. For example: If 80% of intruder cases are resolved or even PROVEN unequivocally to be intruder related within 8 years, then that alone would reduce the value p=3/4x1/4 or a probability of about 19%. And we must include a correction for those cases where an intruder kidnapping is claimed but the victim is deliberately not taken (maybe 5%, if that), and for a ransom note with suggestive facts, handwriting, and so unique for a hypothetical intruder that it could not be given an intruder case experience probability of more than 1%. One can easily get down to an intruder probability that is negligible...and this is derived by using the so called "theoretical" methods proposed by the originator of this thread. (Sample: p=3/4x1/4x1/20x1/100 or p=3/32,000) This can be calculated but it is subjective and has little (as opposed to no) relevance.

Calculating probability does not work to the family's advantage. Using "a priori" probabilities when subsequent events change parameters is invalid. It was, in fact, the math that pointed to the family early on and it has only gotten worse for them with no intruder identified. In the "a priori" world that gives a 3/4 probability of an intruder, JonBenet is still alive. The best defense to the "math" for family supporters is the one I proposed earlier, that this is a unique case with no aggregate of similar cases for comparison.

 

[capps]

Quote from Lacy Wood post #28

"that this is a unique case with no aggregate of similar cases for comparison."

Couldn't have said it any better ... this is very true.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So you're sticking with the bad math that you call the "theoretical angle" and those who suggest otherwise are like a "lynch mob."

Nice of you to point out your view that "studying" is no better than "tripping over" stuff in seeking the truth. (As for "What's this?", maybe doggie poop?)

Every probability expression changes from the pre-event (a priori) value as additional facts and exclusions are learned. That's how probability works. The "a priori" probability of an intruder you claim to be still valid now, was in fact dramatically altered by each event that unfolded.

If the a priori probability of an intruder vs family was, as you say, 75%, then that value would change to reflect what was learned that is inconsistent with intruder cases. For example: If 80% of intruder cases are resolved or even PROVEN unequivocally to be intruder related within 8 years, then that alone would reduce the value p=3/4x1/4 or a probability of about 19%. And we must include a correction for those cases where an intruder kidnapping is claimed but the victim is deliberately not taken (maybe 5%, if that), and for a ransom note with suggestive facts, handwriting, and so unique for a hypothetical intruder that it could not be given an intruder case experience probability of more than 1%. One can easily get down to an intruder probability that is negligible...and this is derived by using the so called "theoretical" methods proposed by the originator of this thread. (Sample: p=3/4x1/4x1/20x1/100 or p=3/32,000) This can be calculated but it is subjective and has little (as opposed to no) relevance.

Calculating probability does not work to the family's advantage. Using "a priori" probabilities when subsequent events change parameters is invalid. It was, in fact, the math that pointed to the family early on and it has only gotten worse for them with no intruder identified. In the "a priori" world that gives a 3/4 probability of an intruder, JonBenet is still alive. The best defense to the "math" for family supporters is the one I proposed earlier, that this is a unique case with no aggregate of similar cases for comparison.

The dreaded statistic:

"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."

My interpretation:

Any arrestee for any murder has a 3 in 4 chance of prior arrest for violent felony or burglary. I can apply this statistic to JBR case because I haven't decided who did it.

IMO the statistic relates to a well-documented pattern of increasingly violent behavior that starts out early in life, that culminates in murder. Its the career-criminal syndrome.

Since the JBR murder has several attributes of a career criminal murder, and there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise, it cannot be ruled out. The attributes are

1. Use of garrote for quiet bloodless killing.
2. Use of headbash to preclude any resuscitation attempt.
3. Use of ransom note.
4. Terms and expressions with multiple references to violence, that several posters here have noted would be superfluous to any coverup scheme.

The unusual violence in both word and deed is IMO hard core career criminal stuff.

Beheading a 6 year old is beyond the imagination of your scapegoats, but within the imagination of a hard core career criminal, IMO.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab, studying anything does not automatically give you the truth. Nor does studying make you any more entitiled to the truth than someone who just walking along, trips over it, stops, picks it up, and says "what's this?"

Holdontoyourhat,

Your post reminds me of my PTA days when we lobbying for an increase in the education budget but were opposed by taxpayer groups. We came up with a slogan and put it on billboards all over the county, and successfully got the teachers a raise in salary. What did the billboards say?

IF YOU THINK EDUCATION IS EXPENSIVE, TRY IGNORANCE.

BlueCrab

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Your post reminds me of my PTA days when we lobbying for an increase in the education budget but were opposed by taxpayer groups. We came up with a slogan and put it on billboards all over the county, and successfully got the teachers a raise in salary. What did the billboards say?

IF YOU THINK EDUCATION IS EXPENSIVE, TRY IGNORANCE.

BlueCrab

I never had any argument against studying, education, or research.

I can see you're confused. Maybe it would help if I reword my analogy:

Truth is fickle, it doesn't care who discovers it.

What if, while you were "studying this case in-depth," and naming names, a suspect came along who totally matched all the profile characteristics, who had a motive, triggering events, and all that.

What if the suspect's handwriting was an exact match, and the suspect's terminology was identical? What would happen to your in-depth analysis? What would happen to your public opinion poll?

Should I call this suspect the hypothetical perp?

 

[Lacy Wood]

Any arrestee for any murder has a 3 in 4 chance of prior arrest for violent felony or burglary. I can apply this statistic to JBR case because I haven't decided who did it.

Participation in mathematical reality is not optional...even if for those who "haven't decided who did it", and there are in fact no "arrestees" here. The family is not even in your base. When there is "any arrestee" you can add this case to the data base. Until then I hope the statistical fact there is a 100% ratio between all killers and first time killers will not prejudice you against the Ramseys.

( P.S. Surely someone has pointed out already that the items of the note you claim show criminal sophistication are actually amateurish... almost like a committee effort.)



i

 

[capps]

This is all too analytical and statistical for me!

 

[Britt]

Quote from Lacy Wood post #28

"that this is a unique case with no aggregate of similar cases for comparison."

Couldn't have said it any better ... this is very true.

The only unique thing here is some of the staging - i.e. superficial coverup. The perp was simply more creative than the average perp, that's all.

Otherwise, this crime is not unique at all. See (among other things) Chapter 15 - Hurting the Ones We Love in John Douglas's Mindhunter (written, of course, before the Ramseys hired him).

In the other similar cases, if the staging were mistaken for the real crime, they too might seem "unique." IMO

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

( P.S. Surely someone has pointed out already that the items of the note you claim show criminal sophistication are actually amateurish... almost like a committee effort.)

I know someone has pointed out to you that your "amateur" is still on the loose despite a murder weapon, a body, a ransom note, a huge handwriting sample, unidentified fiber evidence, unidentified DNA evidence, etc., etc.

 

[Lacy Wood]

Since the JBR murder has several attributes of a career criminal murder, and there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise, it cannot be ruled out. The attributes are

1. Use of garrote for quiet bloodless killing.
2. Use of headbash to preclude any resuscitation attempt.
3. Use of ransom note.
4. Terms and expressions with multiple references to violence, that several posters here have noted would be superfluous to any coverup scheme.

The unusual violence in both word and deed is IMO hard core career criminal stuff.

This earlier post you made has bearing on your recent post since you repeatedly characterize the circumstances by assuming an intruder. For example, I don't assume the note writer was the killer, but your posts assume both that and an intruder. By projecting bias backwards to characterize the evidence, you commit the logical flaw of "begging the question."

This is clear in the 4 points you cited above as attributes suggesting a hard core career criminal as intruder/killer. These points are flawed as follows:

1. A "hard core career criminal" (HCCC) would have no reason to do anything but use his hands to immediately silence and strangle a small child if he came to kill. There's no need to a HCCC for a garrote or to leave it as evidence. Fiddling with a rope gives time to scream...and why would a HCCC care more about shedding a child's blood than, say, a parent would? If a HCCC came to kill, a note seems unlikely, but even if written, why leave evidence if he unexpectedly killed her?

2. Use of "headbash"? Would an HCCC intruder or someone close to the child have a greater stake in making sure she did not survive to identify him/her? Sorry, no HCCC advantage over family. Overkill suggests someone close. Strike ll.

3. Use of ransom note? Your supposed "HCCC" writes a lengthy note for ransom which he leaves as evidence, but then forgets to take the victim? OK, maybe so, but who as killers would have a greater need to suggest an alternative scenario, family or intruder? Stated another way, would someone who can quietly slip away in the night be as likely to try to put a spin on events as someone who has to stay in the house and explain things? Sorry, no presumption for a HCCC kidnapper who leaves the victim and evidence he could take with him.

4. You think comments from movies with violent themes in the note suggest a hard core career criminal? What about a kid, teenager, or anyone else who sees this violent stuff in most of the movies and video games of the day? Superfluous content and violent content point to its being written for dramatic effect, like trying to prove something is "real". So who needs to work hard to prove it's all real, the career criminal or someone desperate to disguise what really happened? Histrionics in writing is not presumptive of a career criminal. Sorry, zero for four in hard core criminal presumptions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This earlier post you made has bearing on your recent post since you repeatedly characterize the circumstances by assuming an intruder. For example, I don't assume the note writer was the killer, but your posts assume both that and an intruder. By projecting bias backwards to characterize the evidence, you commit the logical flaw of "begging the question."

This is clear in the 4 points you cited above as attributes suggesting a hard core career criminal as intruder/killer. These points are flawed as follows:

1. A "hard core career criminal" (HCCC) would have no reason to do anything but use his hands to immediately silence and strangle a small child if he came to kill. There's no need to a HCCC for a garrote or to leave it as evidence. Fiddling with a rope gives time to scream...and why would a HCCC care more about shedding a child's blood than, say, a parent would? If a HCCC came to kill, a note seems unlikely, but even if written, why leave evidence if he unexpectedly killed her?

2. Use of "headbash"? Would an HCCC intruder or someone close to the child have a greater stake in making sure she did not survive to identify him/her? Sorry, no HCCC advantage over family. Overkill suggests someone close. Strike ll.

3. Use of ransom note? Your supposed "HCCC" writes a lengthy note for ransom which he leaves as evidence, but then forgets to take the victim? OK, maybe so, but who as killers would have a greater need to suggest an alternative scenario, family or intruder? Stated another way, would someone who can quietly slip away in the night be as likely to try to put a spin on events as someone who has to stay in the house and explain things? Sorry, no presumption for a HCCC kidnapper who leaves the victim and evidence he could take with him.

4. You think comments from movies with violent themes in the note suggest a hard core career criminal? What about a kid, teenager, or anyone else who sees this violent stuff in most of the movies and video games of the day? Superfluous content and violent content point to its being written for dramatic effect, like trying to prove something is "real". So who needs to work hard to prove it's all real, the career criminal or someone desperate to disguise what really happened? Histrionics in writing is not presumptive of a career criminal. Sorry, zero for four in hard core criminal presumptions.

I'll refer to the intruder perp as a homicidal criminal, or HC, because I think career criminal may imply the perp's in it for the money.

Each of your four points makes some amazing assumptions on their own. Contrary to your POV,:

1. The HC doesn't have to abide by invoked standards for reasonability.
2. The HC may be as worried as a family member about being ID'd.
3. The HC doesn't have to be a kidnapper for ransom.
4. The RN may be an actual communication from the HC to Mr. Ramsey, where the violent content was a scare tactic to prevent him from calling the police. In any non-HC scenario, the violent content becomes superfluous.

 

[Lacy Wood]

I'll refer to the intruder perp as a homicidal criminal, or HC, because I think career criminal may imply the perp's in it for the money.

Each of your four points makes some amazing assumptions on their own. Contrary to your POV,:

1. The HC doesn't have to abide by invoked standards for reasonability.
2. The HC may be as worried as a family member about being ID'd.
3. The HC doesn't have to be a kidnapper for ransom.
4. The RN may be an actual communication from the HC to Mr. Ramsey, where the violent content was a scare tactic to prevent him from calling the police. In any non-HC scenario, the violent content becomes superfluous.

I commend you for dropping the "hard core career criminal" notion, but that was what you stated your 4 points supported. Please note that saying "your four points" is false, I quoted your 4 points and showed they were not valid unless one includes assumptions related to an intruder ("begging the question.") I did that by avoiding assumptions and asking cui bono questions which showed those points were not, on balance, presumptive for an intruder over the alternative. (Personally I think you could have made better points which better serve your position.) As you know, the 4 things you just wrote above are actually possibilities that are inclusive in the cui bono questions. They refute nothing. No one's opinion is refuted by simply citing a different possibility although that's what you seem to be attempting [exception of course if the opinion is that no other possibility exists]. {cui bono defined: Latin idiom for "who's to the good?", "Who gains", or "to whose advantage".}

 

[capps]

I know I sound like a broken record ... but here I go again ...

There was a reason for the ranson note.
The perp did not want to leave,letting JR to think this could have been done by just anyone (crazy person in the area,pedophile stalking JonBenet, etc.) The ransom note was covert enough to let JR know,maybe not exactly who did it,but narrowed it down.

The "inner" information: $118,000(JR's bonus),southern common sense(used jokingly by JR's inner circles),fat cat(his wealth,business),SBTC(JR's military service),Victory(possibly a word that was used often during JR's annual Regatta races in Chicago). These were all covert messages,that led JR to believe this was an "inside job". I believe the rest was "filler" to sound like a "standard" ransom note.

IMO ... I think the person who wanted revenge for JR is a powerful, important person,who would not personally kill JonBenet,but paid off someone,who knows someone,who would.I also believe,JR has a good idea of who this person is ...and for reasons we don't know ... he's not talking.