Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[Zak]

Your argument about statistics and probability has validity that RDI obviously hasn't appreciated but I have separately read about:

The fallacy of sweeping generalization is also at work when a statistical average is applied to specific people.

Example: "Divorce is rampant in America, Mary. I heard that 50% of marriages end in divorce within three years. So I've decided not to marry you because the odds are against us."

Here, a statistic is used to arrive at a conclusion, when the situation in question (between the speaker and Mary) may be quite different from the average. This couple may be much more serious about marriage than all those couples that were divorced, and consequently their chances of success may be better. They should find out what the main causes for divorce are, then determine whether these things are worth considering. Link please. I'd like to read about this.
What RDI has generally failed to recognize is that the statistics for filicide can't be applied blindly despite RDI's obvious desire to do so.

Instead, the R's first need to be categorized as well-off people with no criminal record, no history of abuse. Of the families like this, with demonstrated core values, financially secure, high-functioning, loving, caring, and healthy children, how many filicides? What are the odds? This probability is the only probability that is truly applicable to this case. Anything else is propaganda and hype. What are the odds? Link please

Another way to look at it is this: RDI would never quote statistics or make sweeping generalizations if there were actually evidence that JR or PR killed their daughter.

Where can I read about these statistics and odds? Just trying to understand this post.

 

[WHITEFANG]

=SuperDave;5362418]Proof of what? That he illustrated it better than I could have? Fang, I've been following this case from Day One, man. First on one side, then the other. And in all of that time, one thing has remained constant: every time an authority in their field comes out with something that reflects badly on the Rs, IDI will always claim that he/she is a hack just out for money or publicity or some other damn thing.

I'd also like to say that when you and MurriFlower decide to get serious, you do very well for yourselves. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'd have to say that your ideas seem like the best ones. In fact, let me go a bit further.

If my answers frighten you, don't ask scary questions.

I'd also like to say that when you and MurriFlower decide to get serious, you do very well for yourselves. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'd have to say that your ideas seem like the best ones. In fact, let me go a bit further.

I hope you realize that you're the best free publicity agent I could have asked for!

I'd also like to say that when you and MurriFlower decide to get serious, you do very well for yourselves. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'd have to say that your ideas seem like the best ones. In fact, let me go a bit further.

The way you conduct business, a Ph.D would have trouble understanding the questions.

I'd also like to say that when you and MurriFlower decide to get serious, you do very well for yourselves. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'd have to say that your ideas seem like the best ones. In fact, let me go a bit further.

It happens. I get overamped sometimes. And when it happens, I try to scale back.

I'd also like to say that when you and MurriFlower decide to get serious, you do very well for yourselves. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'd have to say that your ideas seem like the best ones. In fact, let me go a bit further.

 

[BBB167893]

I'd also like to say that when you and MurriFlower decide to get serious, you do very well for yourselves. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'd have to say that your ideas seem like the best ones. In fact, let me go a bit further.

Perhaps, Fang, when your hiatus is over, we can do some serious business. At least I hope so.

 

[BBB167893]

I'd like to extend a vote of thanks to Roy, HOTYH, and Fang. Between them, they have illustrated my point--and Zak's-- FAR better than I could have on my own.

I have no problem with someone who will actually make the effort to walk in my boots, come out with the scars to prove it and STILL disagree with me. I have yet to see any attempts to do that. That's fine. But until you do, don't bother telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm not convinced it was a staged crime scene to cover up an "accident". I believe she was struck in the head out of anger. I think Pasty was extremely tired, stressed and had little to zero help from John. I think she staged the scene in the basement to avoid prison.

More children are abused, by a parent, at Christmas time than any other time of the year. For some reason that I'll never understand, but wetting enrages many parents and leads to abuse. It's the number one reason children are abused physically. There was too much going on in that bathroom that night. Too much going on with her panties and clothing.

I also firmly believe JonBenet was a sexually abused child. Her toileting issues and chronic vaginal issues, lack of any sort of normal modesty point to that. I am also more than willing to believe it wasn't John sexually abusing her, it very well could have been Patsy. It was someone in that home.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Your argument about statistics and probability has validity that RDI obviously hasn't appreciated but I have separately read about:

The fallacy of sweeping generalization is also at work when a statistical average is applied to specific people.

Example: "Divorce is rampant in America, Mary. I heard that 50% of marriages end in divorce within three years. So I've decided not to marry you because the odds are against us."

Here, a statistic is used to arrive at a conclusion, when the situation in question (between the speaker and Mary) may be quite different from the average. This couple may be much more serious about marriage than all those couples that were divorced, and consequently their chances of success may be better. They should find out what the main causes for divorce are, then determine whether these things are worth considering.

What RDI has generally failed to recognize is that the statistics for filicide can't be applied blindly despite RDI's obvious desire to do so.

Instead, the R's first need to be categorized as well-off people with no criminal record, no history of abuse. Of the families like this, with demonstrated core values, financially secure, high-functioning, loving, caring, and healthy children, how many filicides? What are the odds? This probability is the only probability that is truly applicable to this case. Anything else is propaganda and hype.

Another way to look at it is this: RDI would never quote statistics or make sweeping generalizations if there were actually evidence that JR or PR killed their daughter.

There is FAR more evidence that Patsy did it than some intruder. The fiber evidence in the knot, on the duct tape, and the paint brush tote is stronger IMO than any touch DNA that can not be sourced.

Unless of course while this intruder was casually strolling around the house that night he also lifted Pasty's sweater and wore it during the deed and then returned it...like the pen used to write the "ransom note"

You'd think an intruder that was oh so comfortable to spend all that time in the house would have atleast brought the tools he planned on using. How did he know how soon they would be returning? Why write the note at all let alone write it in the house.Why risk going back upstairs to leave the note after she's dead? Kidnapper or pedophile? Can't be both..

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There is FAR more evidence that Patsy did it than some intruder. The fiber evidence in the knot, on the duct tape, and the paint brush tote is stronger IMO than any touch DNA that can not be sourced.

Unless of course while this intruder was casually strolling around the house that night he also lifted Pasty's sweater and wore it during the deed and then returned it...like the pen used to write the "ransom note"

You'd think an intruder that was oh so comfortable to spend all that time in the house would have atleast brought the tools he planned on using. How did he know how soon they would be returning? Why write the note at all let alone write it in the house.Why risk going back upstairs to leave the note after she's dead? Kidnapper or pedophile? Can't be both..

The fibers are only claimed to exist. They were claimed to exist by investigators that were attempting to get PR to cave or admit that they had smoking gun evidence. It was a despicable ploy that didn't work.

Have you seen these fibers and if so when? Where?

Nobody who hasn't quit LE is waving the PR fiber or PR handwriting banner, or touting these things as if they actually exist.

I suggest reviewing what you don't know, instead of what you think you know to be real: What happened from 11 PM to 6 AM? Who actually handled either the cord, tape, paintbrush, pen, paper, or JBR during that time? How many times were they handled? By how many people?

Who owns the cord? the tape? the handwriting? the DNA?

The DNA is real, submitted to CODIS by the FBI. It has been partially profiled: it was discovered on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear and it belongs to a male not living there. That should be enough of a profile for most people.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm not convinced it was a staged crime scene to cover up an "accident". I believe she was struck in the head out of anger. I think Pasty was extremely tired, stressed and had little to zero help from John. I think she staged the scene in the basement to avoid prison.

More children are abused, by a parent, at Christmas time than any other time of the year. For some reason that I'll never understand, but wetting enrages many parents and leads to abuse. It's the number one reason children are abused physically. There was too much going on in that bathroom that night. Too much going on with her panties and clothing.

I also firmly believe JonBenet was a sexually abused child. Her toileting issues and chronic vaginal issues, lack of any sort of normal modesty point to that. I am also more than willing to believe it wasn't John sexually abusing her, it very well could have been Patsy. It was someone in that home.

I had also read that about abuse escalating at Christmastime. Tempers are short, people are stressed, so much to do, bills to pay- end of the year also means busy times for many businesses and---pink slips and layoffs. Lots of stress.
I think the wetting gets to parents because they feel it is something the child should have control over or is doing on purpose. The soiling, especially in a child that age who HAD been trained, would be especially aggravating.

 

[BBB167893]

The fibers are only claimed to exist. They were claimed to exist by investigators that were attempting to get PR to cave or admit that they had smoking gun evidence. It was a despicable ploy that didn't work.

Oh, but it did. Her reaction and subsequent attempt to account for them just dug her deeper.

Nobody who hasn't quit LE is waving the PR fiber or PR handwriting banner, or touting these things as if they actually exist.

Big deal. That just means they've learned to play it close to the chest. Indeed, the fact that those who did quit waved that banner so strongly, when they could have just chosen to move on with their lives, tells me a great deal.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not convinced it was a staged crime scene to cover up an "accident". I believe she was struck in the head out of anger.

Yes, given some of the conversation around here, I get the feeling that the term "accident" has been misinterpreted. When we say "Accident," we mean that it was not an intentional killing. Manslaughter as opposed to Murder One.

I think she staged the scene in the basement to avoid prison.

Slim is better than none.

I also firmly believe JonBenet was a sexually abused child. Her toileting issues and chronic vaginal issues, lack of any sort of normal modesty point to that. I am also more than willing to believe it wasn't John sexually abusing her, it very well could have been Patsy. It was someone in that home.

Well said, in all respects. Some here have referred to these issues as "sordid." But that sounds like a way to avoid addressing them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh, but it did. Her reaction and subsequent attempt to account for them just dug her deeper.

How do you figure?

Big deal. That just means they've learned to play it close to the chest. Indeed, the fact that those who did quit waved that banner so strongly, when they could have just chosen to move on with their lives, tells me a great deal.

Thats your guess only. You have no idea about that. Besides, quitting to write sensationalistic books or quitting to move on with their lives. Hmm, maybe the choice wasn't there like you claim it was. Maybe they HAD to write an income-generating sensationalistic book, having quit their job and all. That would be MY guess, since we're all just guessing here.

 

[BBB167893]

How do you figure?

I'm glad you asked. I'm even more glad to answer. For one thing, when they tell her that (and they did not ask, they TOLD), she recoils like she's about to faint or vomit or both. But more importantly, it took her two full years to come up with an explanation (which was NOT made to LE, but to a softball interviewer). And that explanation ("I had my whole body on her body") is directly contradicted by JR's own account in their own book!

Thats your guess only.

True, but it's made in good faith.

You have no idea about that.

Do YOU?

Besides, quitting to write sensationalistic books or quitting to move on with their lives.

I know which choice I'd make! If this case was affecting MY health, I'd do my best to forget I ever heard of it!

Hmm, maybe the choice wasn't there like you claim it was. Maybe they HAD to write an income-generating sensationalistic book, having quit their job and all.

I can think of a few problems with that line of thinking.

That would be MY guess, since we're all just guessing here.

You certainly may be right. Then again, I might, at that. Who knows?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I can think of a few problems with that line of thinking.

Like what?

Seems to me the book was in the works while still in LE. Were the proceeds to go to charity or to a cause that supports children? Was the book strictly a public service in order to alert the public not to worry about intruder and focus on the parents for justice?

Now that all seems a bit premature, what with the DNA of an unknown male showing up all over JBR's clothing.

Lets be honest here, SD: the book was for profit and was started while in LE. ST had to quit before the book went into publication, right?

Where's part two? Where's the sequel that explains away the new IDI evidence and the DA's letter? Where's that fight for justice for JBR?

 

[Roy23]

Oh, but it did. Her reaction and subsequent attempt to account for them just dug her deeper.



Big deal. That just means they've learned to play it close to the chest. Indeed, the fact that those who did quit waved that banner so strongly, when they could have just chosen to move on with their lives, tells me a great deal.

It is pretty easy to have a strange reaction to something when it is possible that it wasn't true. And it is also possible that even if it were true, her reaction could also have to do with just how bad the professionals contained the crime scene. I wouldn't necessarily expect the Ramsey's to be able to recount all of their actions unless they really did cover something up. The bottom line is that there is a real reason why law enforcement can't put all of the pieces together. Thank God for DNA.

 

[BBB167893]

Like what?

Well, for one thing, he already had another line of work in the making: a carpentry business. Nothing wrong with that, BTW. One of my uncles is an independent carpenter and he makes a very good living. Plus, as a former police officer, he probably had a pension plan. Most cops I know do.

Seems to me the book was in the works while still in LE.

I've heard that claim. Not sure I believe it, though. Let's examine the timeline. He quit in August of 1998 and the book came out in March 2000. Now, this is an area where I can speak from experience. I started writing in August of 2008. I was finished by the summer of 2009. Before that, I think. It doesn't take long when you're committed enough.

Were the proceeds to go to charity or to a cause that supports children?

Not that I know of. But then, that's an area you probably don't want to pursue too much.

Was the book strictly a public service in order to alert the public not to worry about intruder and focus on the parents for justice?

Given what I know, I'd have to say it probably was.

Now that all seems a bit premature, what with the DNA of an unknown male showing up all over JBR's clothing.

Premature? Perhaps, but for different reasons than you might claim. I'll go on record as saying I think writing it was a bad idea. I definitely understand WHY he did it, but I think it was a bad idea. And let's not exaggerate so grossly. "All over her clothing," indeed.

You know, I still regret not getting an answer out of Bode.

Lets be honest here, SD: the book was for profit and was started while in LE.

I doubt it, on both counts. But then, I wasn't there. I have no doubt that he'd made up his mind to do it as he was getting ready to leave.

ST had to quit before the book went into publication, right?

IF it was written yet.

I stand by what I said before, HOTYH: the fact that he chose to wave that banner when 99% of people in his position would have just moved on, suggests to me that it needs to be taken seriously.

Where's part two? Where's the sequel that explains away the new IDI evidence and the DA's letter?

An interesting question. Good or ill, my upcoming may be the closest we'll ever get.

Where's that fight for justice for JBR?

That's what I want to know, too! From ALL parties involved!

 

[BBB167893]

It is pretty easy to have a strange reaction to something when it is possible that it wasn't true. And it is also possible that even if it were true, her reaction could also have to do with just how bad the professionals contained the crime scene.

I could buy that rather easily, Roy, if it weren't for the larger context. It's one thing to have that "faint or vomit" reaction. It's another thing altogether to make the decision to address it TWO FULL YEARS later in public (as opposed to a private meeting with investigators) in a manner that provides yet another glaring inconsistency, when you had the choice to just leave it alone. All I can say is that if her lawyer suggested that course of action, I hope she asked for her money back.

Also, let's be perfectly accurate when we talk about things that are possibly not true. It sounds like the implication is that the interviewer was lying. Is that it?

I wouldn't necessarily expect the Ramsey's to be able to recount all of their actions unless they really did cover something up.

Good point. So let me make a few. One, even if they did cover something up, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be able to recount everything either, for whatever reasons. Two, and perhaps most pregnant of all, there's a BIG difference between minor inconsistencies over time and what I'm talking about. In this instance, the subject was brought up and an answer was not forthcoming. That's a right in America. Then, after two years, presumably with a lot of advice from lawyers, an explanation was given which is contradicted by their OWN book which had been released 2-1/2 years earlier (BEFORE the interviews even took place) and was presumably easy to gain access to. I'm no legal expert, but that sounds like a big problem.

The bottom line is that there is a real reason why law enforcement can't put all of the pieces together.

SEVERAL reasons, Roy! Many of which I've done my absolute best to bring to people's attention! And a hell of a lot of good it's done me! I'm not ranting at you, Roy. I'm just frustrated in general with people who dismiss everything and then have the unmitigated gall to claim that they're the only ones with open minds. And I'm SURE I'm not the only one.

Thank God for DNA.

Agreed, but not necessarily in all cases. DNA is a great thing, but you have to know how to use it properly in the context of building a case, just like everything else.

I never like to pile on, Roy. And for all I know, you may be absolutely right: there may in fact be a LOT that we the public don't know because they're playing it close to the vest. But with what we have to go on NOW, Linda7NJ is absolutely right: There is FAR more evidence that Patsy did it than some intruder.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Premature? Perhaps, but for different reasons than you might claim. I'll go on record as saying I think writing it was a bad idea. I definitely understand WHY he did it, but I think it was a bad idea. And let's not exaggerate so grossly. "All over her clothing," indeed.

Sorry, just telling it like it is...don't shoot the messenger! I mean, its not like they checked everywhere for this DNA. They only checked places that would be relevant to crime. For all you know, it was in a dozen more places. You don't know this to not be true.

I have no doubt that he'd made up his mind to do it as he was getting ready to leave.

I don't doubt that either.

I read that he already contacted and had had discussions with publishers while still holding a badge. This is wildly inappropriate conduct, far exceeding anything the R's ever did. This conduct earned him a trip before a judge, right?

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, just telling it like it is...don't shoot the messenger!

Sorry, HOTYH. I didn't mean to come down so hard. As for telling it like it is, let's say you're telling it like it MIGHT be. I won't argue with that.

I mean, its not like they checked everywhere for this DNA. They only checked places that would be relevant to crime.

Maybe that's part of the problem, HOTYH. But that's for another time.

For all you know, it was in a dozen more places. You don't know this to not be true.

That's certainly true. And if it is, it raises a whole slew of other issues on all sides.

I don't doubt that either.

Works for me.

I read that he already contacted and had had discussions with publishers while still holding a badge.

Hmm. That's news to me. You'll have to show me (or at least tell me) where you read that.

This is wildly inappropriate conduct, far exceeding anything the R's ever did.

That, my friend, is a matter of opinion. But if true, it certainly is inappropriate, no denying that.

This conduct earned him a trip before a judge, right?

I'm afraid you'll have to explain that one. I'm not aware of any action taken against him by the city or state.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's certainly true. And if it is, it raises a whole slew of other issues on all sides.

Really? All sides? Do you believe that more unknown male DNA discovered on clothing JBR was wearing while she was being murdered somehow equates to less probability of intruder?

I only know of one other poster who believes the discovery of the waistband DNA reduced the significance of the crotch DNA. Should that be two posters?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hmm. That's news to me. You'll have to show me (or at least tell me) where you read that.



That, my friend, is a matter of opinion. But if true, it certainly is inappropriate, no denying that.



I'm afraid you'll have to explain that one. I'm not aware of any action taken against him by the city or state.

He was talking with publishers and magazines while still holding a badge. There's all kinds of stories about Vanity Fair and leaks to the media. There's a very interesting deposition at acandyrose that has LW making mincemeat out of poor ST. The alleged tape recorded telephone conversations with Shapiro are a riot.

I believe he had managed to settle out of court. Or his publisher did for undisclosed amount. Basically tail between legs.




"I have just never heard of a detective writing a book when you have an ongoing case, a viable case in progress," Hunter said Sunday.

"This is just pure and simple blood money." But Thomas said writing the book was not about money. He called it "a story that should be told." However, Hunter said Sunday the book will damage Thomas' credibility as a witness if the case goes to trial.
"This guy is toast," the DA said. "I hope the public sees it for what it is."

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon041000a.htm