Intruder probability more, less, or same?

Did probability of intruder change with DNA evidence?

  • Probability went way up.

    Votes: 17 28.3%
  • Probability went up somewhat.

    Votes: 9 15.0%
  • Probability went down.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Probability was unchanged.

    Votes: 34 56.7%

  • Total voters
    60
Thats up to you. But if I'm to be the judge, then here's my ruling:

Dr. McCann is apparently referenced by Steve Thomas and by the Bonita Papers which are both RDI. This fails to provide an unbiased report of what Dr. McCann's views are.

There are plenty of unbiased reporting for PR, JR, LS, LW, ST, AH, ML why not McCann? Why are the only sources for McCann RDI sources? Its an honest question, really. Its pretty obvious you're OK with just RDI sources and I understand that.

Saying ST's information is 'first hand' as if it should be enough, when he's obviously over-the-edge RDI (quit the job that could've solved the case), says it all for me.

Please note ST's choice of words "stating in clear language evidence of prior trauma and sexual abuse" Not Prior sexual abuse. See what I mean? The prior trauma is chronic inflammation from soap, and the sexual abuse is from acute injuries from that night. There's nothing wrong with his statement except what it implies.
ST is quite clear with respect to what the experts said:
"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253
 
ST is quite clear with respect to what the experts said:
"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

I guess you're a ST fan, and don't care about sourcing. I also guess his source isn't first hand like you claim but cannot prove. Instead its the Bonita Papers.

Its impossible to reconcile this rant with the autopsy, which references no prior injuries. I call it a rant because there are statement that make no sense (highlighted red).
 
ST is quite clear with respect to what the experts said:
"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

@bold
I have to disagree with this one.It doesn't necessarily point to someone inside the family.

With a father like JR who was away on business most of the time,there were probably other men who had access to her more often than him.

I am sorry but these kind of mistakes are the reason why most of the people don't trust ST.

With this kind of mentality on one side and L.Smit's on the other I am not surprised this was never solved.I am sorry but this is how I see it.

I am beginning to agree with those who think that ST was fixated on PDI and this was it.Nothing else mattered.Another know-it-all just like Lacy.He was sure from day one that PDI and that JR had nothing to do with it.GMAB.HOW DID HE KNOW?
 
@bold
I have to disagree with this one.It doesn't necessarily point to someone inside the family.

With a father like JR who was away on business most of the time,there were probably other men who had access to her more often than him.

I am sorry but these kind of mistakes are the reason why most of the people don't trust ST.

With this kind of mentality on one side and L.Smit's on the other I am not surprised this was never solved.I am sorry but this is how I see it.

I am beginning to agree with those who think that ST was fixated on PDI and this was it.Nothing else mattered.Another know-it-all just like Lacy.He was sure from day one that PDI and that JR had nothing to do with it.GMAB.HOW DID HE KNOW?



I just want to say I agree with you here...
 
Actually WHERE? In an office? JBR was murdered in the basement, remember?

I should have been more specific: actually there, in the sense that they were part of the investigation.

Ooooh, well thats it then. JBR was previously, chronically abused because Dan Hoffman's secretary said so.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

That is beneath me.

Isn't there ONE OTHER SOURCE for McCann besides the Bonita Papers (I'm pretty sure those books you quoted all use these 'papers' as source).

In a sense, you're right: they used the information contained in the police files.
 
That you have no reason to doubt McCann, I can see THAT for SURE.

Quite so.

The question is whether or not the 'account of McCann's findings' even exists in the first place. You'll need more sourcing than some secretary who was 'going' to write a book, notes that were sold to the tabloids by her nephew (you're not really serious, are you?).

You ought to know by now that I am DEADLY serious when it comes to this case.
 
Sorry, but it seems I need to ask for the source lately because I've not been able to independently confirm some of the more recent posts claims. Presuming you have your source and its more than simple 'Elvis on Mars' tabloid junk:

I do, and it is. It's actually from PMPT.

Its going to be impossible for Dr. Meyer to theorize on prior abuse, because the doctor didn't list even one prior injury in the final diagnosis.

You're awful confident as to what is or isn't possible for someone who wasn't there.
 
I don't think you understand corroboration either. Where did ST get his information about a panel of experts, and where did PMPT get its information?

You're asking me where one of the lead detectives got his information? I'd think it would be fairly obvious, wouldn't it?

Maybe you're better off using that paper written by those two doctors that use JBR as their classic example, even though they don't know what happened to her. At least THAT is corroborated.

Now, why didn't I think of that?
 
Re:Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253
I have to disagree with this one. It doesn't necessarily point to someone inside the family.
Looking at the elements of abuse and homicide strictly from a statistical standpoint, ST is correct:

90% of child sexual abuse victims know the perpetrator in some way; 68% are abused by family members.
http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics

Percent of Homicides of Children under age 5 by Relationship with the Offender - 1997
56.9% Killed by parent
6.2% Killed by family member other than parent
23.5% Killed by friend/acquaintance
2.3% Killed by stranger
11.1% Undetermined
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/kidsreltab.cfm

This from Canadian statistics:
Infants under the age of one were at highest risk of homicides, according to national data on homicides collected between 1998 and 2003.

During this six-year period, 401 children aged 17 and under were victims of homicide. Two-thirds of the 350 solved homicides against children and youth were committed by a family member. Over one-half of these were committed by the victim's father followed by the mother (32%) and other family members (9%).

Police data showed that the youngest victims, those under 6 years of age, were usually the victims of some form of physical force, such as strangulation or suffocation, beatings or forceful shaking.

The motive most often reported in homicides of young children was frustration. Conversely, teenagers aged 14 to 17 were most often killed as a result of an argument.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050420/dq050420a-eng.htm

I am beginning to agree with those who think that ST was fixated on PDI and this was it.Nothing else mattered.Another know-it-all just like Lacy.He was sure from day one that PDI and that JR had nothing to do with it.GMAB.HOW DID HE KNOW?
I didn’t get the impression that he was immediately fixated on PR, or the Ramseys in general.
The first official suspect was LHP, and it seems to me that the turning point for ST was the CBI analysis of the RN. I think most investigators would have focused their attention on the person deemed likely to have written the RN.
I remembered the LKL interview as I was writing this, and actually ST does seem to identify that as a pivotal point:

KING: It's fair to say this? You certainly approached this impartially, one would assume? You didn't know the Ramseys, right? You didn't know JonBenet, you didn't know any of the Ramseys?
THOMAS: Absolutely.
KING: When did you come to the conclusion you came to, and that conclusion is what?
THOMAS: Well, despite what the Ramseys assert, that it was the 26th, they now know I came to the case, was called into the case two days later. It was probably spring of '97 or later when evidence continued to come back indicating Patsy's involvement in the authorship of the ransom note
…
KING: We'll get their theory. What's your theory?
THOMAS: My theory is quite simple: Whoever authored the ransom note killed the child
KING: So you agree that whoever authored the ransom note probably killed the child?
J. RAMSEY: I agree.
P. RAMSEY: I would agree with that.
KING: Your contention is she wrote the note. What do you base that on?
THOMAS: I do. I do. I base that on questioned document examiners. By the time I left the Boulder Police Department June of 1998, Patsy, out of 73 suspects whose handwriting had been looked at, you were the only one who showed evidence to suggest authorship.
KING: And why then didn't they go right in and arrest?
THOMAS: These people know better than anybody. Probable cause was not the issue in this case. Patsy, you could have been arrested in this case.

I will take issue with the statement that, "Whoever authored the ransom note killed the child," but whoever authored the ransom note definitely had a part in the death of JBR, and if you believe that PR was the author, it certainly narrows the suspect list.
 
I will take issue with the statement that, "Whoever authored the ransom note killed the child," but whoever authored the ransom note definitely had a part in the death of JBR, and if you believe that PR was the author, it certainly narrows the suspect list.[/COLOR][/FONT]

I think it goes without saying that whoever authored the RN had a part in the child's death.

I would ask all those who think that PDI, what if the 'experts' are wrong and Patsy definitely did not write it? Who would you look at next?
 
Looking at the elements of abuse and homicide strictly from a statistical standpoint, ST is correct:


Yes I know and I agree that in such cases you have to look at the family first.But it seems to me that in this case every side takes these statistics and uses them only whenever it conveniently backs up their own opinion and not in order to really solve this crime.




I will take issue with the statement that, "Whoever authored the ransom note killed the child," but whoever authored the ransom note definitely had a part in the death of JBR, and if you believe that PR was the author, it certainly narrows the suspect list.


I agree.I always said that if PR wrote the note that doesn't mean she killed the child but it definitely involves her and it narrows the suspect list.BUT IMO it seems that this suspect list was narrowed way too soon.

If I recall correctly it was right after the crime when the FBI showed up and told LE that something's wrong because the RN seems to be bogus.I am afraid that this is when LE started to act like the R's were guilty.Actually the thing I am concerned about is that maybe because of this other leads were not followed.FW and Santa and CW were cleared way too soon.Burke as well.Everything about how this case was handled stinks BIG TIME and I don't trust anything/anyone anymore.
 
I think it goes without saying that whoever authored the RN had a part in the child's death.

I would ask all those who think that PDI, what if the 'experts' are wrong and Patsy definitely did not write it? Who would you look at next?

I am not a PDI (dunno what I am anymore) but if she didn't write the note I would say that it was someone who tried to make it look like she did (practice note).
 
I am not a PDI (dunno what I am anymore) but if she didn't write the note I would say that it was someone who tried to make it look like she did (practice note).

Yeah, I'd be surprised if there was any intent to try to implicate Patsy by the RN author, just a lucky coincidence.

I really question just how accurate the 'expert' analysis of handwriting really is. I can see a lot of it is based on probability and similarity, but I think it's a very subjective science. My own handwriting is an example. I was raised in a different country to Patsy, but probably around the same era. At school we learned a 'new' type of 'running writing' (the first year to do so), called "Modified Cursive" that my parents and older siblings thought of as 'joined printing'.

As I got older (high school) and was free to express my own style, it became very 'embelished'. It must have been the fashion then, as quite a few of my friends adopted a similar style, with curls and twists on the y and g and large decorated capitals. This has settled into a simpler style in adulthood, but it is still quite distinctive. I have two types of writing, my 'Sunday best' 'Dear.... Hope you have a very happy Birthday' as above - well formed even letters even slope, and my 'everyday' - 'Gone to a meeting. Dinner's in the oven' - untidy, slope mixed, no embelishment. I do wonder what an expert would make of these two styles and if they would believe they were even written by the same person. My son's usual writing is very similar to my everyday style.

On the other hand, I can remember someone who was educated at around the same time as me, but a long way from my home town, who later came to work at the same place (different department). She once wrote a note for the front door 'closed for....... holidays' which my work colleagues firmly believed had been written by me (in the same style) and even I had to admit was very similar.

I too went to 'college', but not the same as Patsy which I think we would call 'University'. It was a full time 12 month Stenography (shorthand and typing) course, where we were taught letter writing, punctuation, indenting paragraphs, sentence construction etc, and the same types of things that apparently were part of a Journalism Degree in the USA.

When years later, I later went to work for a large Corporation, there was a uniform (and more modern) 'Corporate Style' of letter, memo and diary note writing that ALL staff were required to adopt. So despite what I learned at school and college, after 12 years working there, I still use the same 'Corporate Style' today, both in typed and handwritten correspondence.

So, while I agree with much of the analysis, there is no flexibility or allowance for people to change style. A person raised in the same era as Patsy could have very similar style. There was an obvious effort to disguise the writing. What a tragedy if this just happened to 'look' like it was Patsy's writing!!

I ask again - If Patsy did not write the RN, who would you then suspect?
 
Dunno..maybe the other one who considered himself the fat cat in town....

"You are not the only fat cat around..." (I see this something like "hey,don't forget about ME) this is all about ego.And the silly ego battle continued even after the murder....one controlling LE and the other one controlling the DA office.

I know,maybe it's silly....but could explain why JB was never mentioned by her name in the RN,she wasn't the target here,it's obvious who was.
 
Yes I know and I agree that in such cases you have to look at the family first.But it seems to me that in this case every side takes these statistics and uses them only whenever it conveniently backs up their own opinion and not in order to really solve this crime.

Someone once told me that you should use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.

I agree.I always said that if PR wrote the note that doesn't mean she killed the child but it definitely involves her and it narrows the suspect list.

From a legal standpoint, you're quite correct.
 
I really question just how accurate the 'expert' analysis of handwriting really is. I can see a lot of it is based on probability and similarity, but I think it's a very subjective science.

There is some truth to that, MurriFlower.

So, while I agree with much of the analysis, there is no flexibility or allowance for people to change style.

You just said the magic words. Patsy was described as having more handwriting styles than a class of six-graders.

There was an obvious effort to disguise the writing.

Right.

What a tragedy if this just happened to 'look' like it was Patsy's writing!!

It's not just that. Her own mother couldn't tell the difference.
 
I've always thought that Patsy wrote the note, but I have to admit, there were things in it that made me think of John. The immaturity, the stroking of his ego, ( I think he was very impressed with himself & that bonus), the foreign faction...that sounds like an idea from a man. It switches from girly to businessy, (but for some reason, those are 2 traits that I associate with John). This disjointedness has made me wonder if John dictated parts to her. Also, I think writing it would be almost impossible for a mother to do alone. I don't care what kind of person she was before, I just find it da**ed near impossible to imagine Patsy having the composure to sit down & systematically form this ransome note. John strikes me as colder & more detached, but I think Patsy would've been in the thros of a frenzy.
 
I don't care what kind of person she was before, I just find it da**ed near impossible to imagine Patsy having the composure to sit down & systematically form this ransome note. John strikes me as colder & more detached, but I think Patsy would've been in the thros of a frenzy.

I think it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that either of the parents killed their own daughter (accidentally or on purpose), then calmly sat down and wrote such a note. It's equally absurd that an intruder wrote the note after killing the child. Nope - the note was definately written before (perhaps quite a while before).
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
1,179
Total visitors
1,258

Forum statistics

Threads
596,560
Messages
18,049,588
Members
230,029
Latest member
myauris11
Back
Top