Solved or not?

[UKGuy]

Above is your original question in response to:

"Originally Posted by UKGuy

Darlene733510,
And I might think you are correct, JDI alone, does not explain away all the evidence.. "


You didn't ask what evidence proves John was the killer but your responses below seem to say you are looking for evidence that proves John did it. If I am wrong in this assumption please correct me. Investigative procedure looks for all evidence then evaluates it after the fact instead of looking for evidence that proves or disproves what the investigator already believes.

BOESP,
Could be I was being conversational in tone, rather than analytical.

I think an investigator has no option but to gather the evidence, evaluate it, propose a theory, all after the fact.

Any RDI theory should be falsifiable otherwise whats the point? So if you have evidence that is consistent with your favorite RDI theory then its a candidate solution.

There are three or four competing RDI theories. I would test these against the current forensic evidence to see if any fall down.

As an example the R's version of events falls down with the pineapple evidence.

In DocG's theory its assumed JR placed the ransom note on the stairs then returned to bed. This is not fact, so anything flowing from it might be moondust.

I look for coherence in a theory, to date, BDI exhibits this feature, it is also reasonably consistent, more so than either JDI or PDI. This does not prove BDI correct, it just seems to hang together better, or explains more of the forensic evidence.

.

 

[Chrishope]

Please, we are talking about highly trained people who specialize in handwriting analysis coming to the conclusion John could be eliminated but Patsy could not. The bias factor, imo, leans more toward QDEs working for the Ramseys than those working for the prosecution.

Please, we are talking about a conclusion to eliminate JR. We don't, most of us, think that ML could exonerate the Rs, and the reason is simply that to do so would mean it's not possible one of them did it, it had to be an intruder. ML, no matter what one thinks of her, is a highly trained specialist. Yet, presumably you do not agree that the Rs are exonerated.

Returning to QDEs, if they have eliminated JR, that must mean not only is it more likely someone else wrote the note, but that in fact JR could not be the one to have written it. That's a conclusion for which there is no solid basis. By what criteria do the QDEs figure JR can be eliminated? What is there about the writing itself, or the phrases used, or anything else that allows for a conclusion that JR could not have written the RN ?

I agree that there is something wrong with reliance on QED's hired by the Rs.

 

[Chrishope]

It would be nice if we could use Karl Popper's standard -falsification- to examine various theories of the case. Alas, that is not possible.

Much of the evidence is equivocal. Very little is not in dispute.

We have a dead body, we know the COD, and approximate TOD. We know the body was found in the WC at 13:05.

We know there is a garrote on her neck, and that she had been bashed in the head.

We know the items that were found in the WC (to the extent nothing has been withheld from the public)

We know there was a handwritten RN, on paper sourced from the victim's home. We know the exact wording of the RN, but not necessarily the exact meaning of everything in it.

We know that PR called the police at 05:52.

We know police failed to secure the crime scene, and that multiple searches of the house were conducted by police and freinds. JB remained undetected for about 7 hours after the 911 call.

We know JR told the police that he'd checked all doors and windows and all were locked. We know he told them that he himself broke the basement window. We know the police report would say there were no signs of forced entry.

We know JB ate pineapple and that she must have done so about 2 hours before death.

I'm not making a detailed and exhaustive list. There are a few other things we know. The point is, only one or two handfuls of facts are not open to interpretation.

All theories of the case that do not contradict these few undisputed facts are possible theories. Even the infamous IDI theory. The most that can be done is to suggest that IDI is extremely unlikely - and one can do it in a snarky manner, which is funny, but it can't be falsified. Try if you will.

All theories require assumptions. They require us to use our common sense and our own life experiences to say what seems likely/unlikely.
All theories are opinions. Most of us here have rejected IDI, but it's not because IDI has been falsified, it's because it strikes us as extremely improbable.

As an example of taking this falsification approach, and of how little value it is, we might look at the Rs version of events wrt the pineapple.

It has been said that the Rs version falls down because of the evidence that JB ate pineapple. But it doesn't. The Rs version of events is that they put JB to bed and they don't know anything about her eating pineapple after the party. Do we reject the idea she was put to bed shortly after arriving home? If we do, we make an assumption. The Rs don't claim that she didn't eat pineapple, just that they don't know anything about it. Their version of events is consistent with an IDI theory where, for some reason, the intruder entices her out of bed with pineapple.

We might regard such a theory as unlikely, (I certainly do) but we can't falsify it.

We can go on and on, showing how very little can actually be falsified, but there is no need. Most of us understand that solving the case mainly boils down to is what is likely. More correctly, what strikes us as likely, or fantastically improbable. Since people are different, this accounts for the wildly different theories of the case.

The courtroom standard is reasonable doubt. If the standard were that the prosecution's case had to be unfalsifiable, there would almost never be convictions.

 

[BOESP]

Please, we are talking about a conclusion to eliminate JR. We don't, most of us, think that ML could exonerate the Rs, and the reason is simply that to do so would mean it's not possible one of them did it, it had to be an intruder. ML, no matter what one thinks of her, is a highly trained specialist. Yet, presumably you do not agree that the Rs are exonerated.

Returning to QDEs, if they have eliminated JR, that must mean not only is it more likely someone else wrote the note, but that in fact JR could not be the one to have written it. That's a conclusion for which there is no solid basis. By what criteria do the QDEs figure JR can be eliminated? What is there about the writing itself, or the phrases used, or anything else that allows for a conclusion that JR could not have written the RN ?

I agree that there is something wrong with reliance on QED's hired by the Rs.

Mary Lacy passed her bar exam and was elected or selected to a political position (not sure how Colorado works but based on what I know it is worse than where I live, which is bad enough). That does not make Lacy an expert on the Ramsey case.

No one can intelligently exonerate anyone until someone is caught, tried, and convicted. Pardon, maybe, but exonerate ... I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

As to how/why the QDEs excluded John Ramsey as author of the ransom note, well, I guess you need to ask them. Based on my complete lack of knowledge in this area, but based on other training, I think it is obviously written by an educated female of a certain age and culture.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Could be I was being conversational in tone, rather than analytical.

I think an investigator has no option but to gather the evidence, evaluate it, propose a theory, all after the fact.

Any RDI theory should be falsifiable otherwise whats the point? So if you have evidence that is consistent with your favorite RDI theory then its a candidate solution.

There are three or four competing RDI theories. I would test these against the current forensic evidence to see if any fall down.

As an example the R's version of events falls down with the pineapple evidence.

In DocG's theory its assumed JR placed the ransom note on the stairs then returned to bed. This is not fact, so anything flowing from it might be moondust.

I look for coherence in a theory, to date, BDI exhibits this feature, it is also reasonably consistent, more so than either JDI or PDI. This does not prove BDI correct, it just seems to hang together better, or explains more of the forensic evidence.

.

BBM. I agree but that is a different approach than asking for information that proves or disproves a theory that has already been made. The theory shouldn't be made until it has been tested against everything that is known at the time. If there isn't enough data to come to a conclusion then there just isn't enough data to come to a conclusion. (I am a Yogi Berra fan :facepalm:.)

In the long run, I agree with whoever said they were convinced one or more of the Ramseys did it and/or was involved (was it Nom de plume who just said that????).

I am convinced Patsy wrote the note.

I am convinced that Patsy's demeanor and body language suggested she was telling the truth when she replied in agreement to Steve Thomas, on national television, that whoever wrote the note killed JonBenet.

 

[questfortrue]

:kimsterwink: or :ufo: ?? LOL

I guess we misunderstood each other. ITA the evidence has to lead to the suspect and not the other way around. I've spent many years studying this evidence without having a firm belief about it, except RDI. I was just trying to look at all of it and see which one has the most evidence against them.

For the last few months, I was leaning towards JDI alone, but wasn't 100% convinced. I've recently changed my mind to JR & PR both being guilty. I read something that some may, and some may not, consider evidence, I do. I tried to bump a thread about it, but it disappeared, so I'm guessing :kimsterwink: or :ufo: are to blame, so I'll just leave it at that.

Please share which thread you tried to bump; might help some of us newer posters understand more.

 

[Chrishope]

Mary Lacy passed her bar exam and was elected or selected to a political position (not sure how Colorado works but based on what I know it is worse than where I live, which is bad enough). That does not make Lacy an expert on the Ramsey case.

No one can intelligently exonerate anyone until someone is caught, tried, and convicted. Pardon, maybe, but exonerate ... I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

As to how/why the QDEs excluded John Ramsey as author of the ransom note, well, I guess you need to ask them. Based on my complete lack of knowledge in this area, but based on other training, I think it is obviously written by an educated female of a certain age and culture.[/quote]

I see no reason to conclude that it was written by someone educated beyond HS, nor by a female. That's not to say it couldn't have been, but what reason is there to think it was? johns use of percentages, the talk about electronic countermeasures and references to movies that are usually much more popular with males might suggest a male author?

It seems to me that we can see whatever we want in the RN. IOWs it is subject to multiple interpretations, which makes me wonder just why JR is excluded as the author.

 

[BOESP]

Mary Lacy passed her bar exam and was elected or selected to a political position (not sure how Colorado works but based on what I know it is worse than where I live, which is bad enough). That does not make Lacy an expert on the Ramsey case.

No one can intelligently exonerate anyone until someone is caught, tried, and convicted. Pardon, maybe, but exonerate ... I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

As to how/why the QDEs excluded John Ramsey as author of the ransom note, well, I guess you need to ask them. Based on my complete lack of knowledge in this area, but based on other training, I think it is obviously written by an educated female of a certain age and culture.[/quote]

I see no reason to conclude that it was written by someone educated beyond HS, nor by a female. That's not to say it couldn't have been, but what reason is there to think it was? johns use of percentages, the talk about electronic countermeasures and references to movies that are usually much more popular with males might suggest a male author?

It seems to me that we can see whatever we want in the RN. IOWs it is subject to multiple interpretations, which makes me wonder just why JR is excluded as the author.

Imo, the physical act of calligraphy is a product of Patsy Ramsey. Several professional QDEs thought so and their opinions are the ones that count. John and Patsy may have collaborated on the verbiage just like they said they did for Death of Innocence but Patsy wrote the note. She may also have composed it. She was a very intelligent lady.

As to the BBM'ed portion of your last post above, trained professionals possessing integrity do not see what they want to see.

 

[Chrishope]

Imo, the physical act of calligraphy is a product of Patsy Ramsey. Several professional QDEs thought so and their opinions are the ones that count. John and Patsy may have collaborated on the verbiage just like they said they did for Death of Innocence but Patsy wrote the note. She may also have composed it. She was a very intelligent lady.

IMO, that is not definite, merely a possibility.

As to the BBM'ed portion of your last post above, trained professionals possessing integrity do not see what they want to see.

We don't even have agreement on which came first, the blow to the head or the asphyxiation. And that disagreement is by experts who are doctors -you know, people who actually use some science in their profession. Why must we pretend that the opinions of non-scientific professionals are superior to our own eyes?

It doesn't look like PRs writing to me, though I can pick out some letters that are similar, I can also pick out some that look very different. Likewise for JR's writing. Given that people can alter their handwriting how can you be so certain?

 

[DeeDee249]

IMO, that is not definite, merely a possibility.



We don't even have agreement on which came first, the blow to the head or the asphyxiation. And that disagreement is by experts who are doctors -you know, people who actually use some science in their profession. Why must we pretend that the opinions of non-scientific professionals are superior to our own eyes?

It doesn't look like PRs writing to me, though I can pick out some letters that are similar, I can also pick out some that look very different. Likewise for JR's writing. Given that people can alter their handwriting how can you be so certain?

We don't have an agreement HERE as to whether the head blow or strangulation came first, but there is agreement among forensic experts and LE (the ones who have actually seen the body and crime scene and/or witnesses the autopsy) that the head bash came first. I think only Wecht (and maybe one other) forensic specialist who had NOT seen the body or witnessed the autopsy who feel otherwise.

 

[BOESP]

IMO, that is not definite, merely a possibility.



We don't even have agreement on which came first, the blow to the head or the asphyxiation. And that disagreement is by experts who are doctors -you know, people who actually use some science in their profession. Why must we pretend that the opinions of non-scientific professionals are superior to our own eyes?

It doesn't look like PRs writing to me, though I can pick out some letters that are similar, I can also pick out some that look very different. Likewise for JR's writing. Given that people can alter their handwriting how can you be so certain?

I have no reasonable doubt Patsy wrote the note and no reasonable doubt the head trauma preceded the ligature strangulation.

We can agree to disagree or at least that's what I'm going to do. As to the "Why must we pretend" remark, speak for yourself.

 

[BOESP]

Just want to clear up post #30. It shows that it is quoting me but I didn't say the words in the quote. I believe those are Chrishope's word.

 

[chlban]

No. The Ramseys were under no obligation to talk to the police, ever. They could set limits and conditions on any interviews, and the police could take it or leave it. The Ramseys were well advised by their legal team, and exercised their rights very intelligently.

The police are used to having their way, but the Ramseys weren't going to go along with anything that didn't suit them, and they didn't have to.

It didn't hurt that they had a friendly DA's office, but even with a hostile DA's office the Rs could have done exactly the same thing.

I agree. I was bit surprised by the results on this. I think the Ramsey's were too smart to have talked without their attorney's even if everything had been handled better.

But, like so many other things with this case, we will never know for sure.

 

[gramcracker]

I think one indicator speaks louder than any other that this case has been solved: the media contacts certain families for statements/appearances when there is a new crime involving the murder of a child, or an anniversary of a murder. these certain families also reach out to offer support/advice behind the scenes (without media involvement) and their efforts are gratefully and publicly acknowledged by the newest family to join that sorrowful club

we hear/see the names Walsh, Klaas, Smart, van Dam, Runnion, Holloway, Lunsford, and too many others. but, Ramsey? never. (or Anthony)

 

[midwest mama]

I think one indicator speaks louder than any other that this case has been solved: the media contacts certain families for statements/appearances when there is a new crime involving the murder of a child, or an anniversary of a murder. these certain families also reach out to offer support/advice behind the scenes (without media involvement) and their efforts are gratefully and publicly acknowledged by the newest family to join that sorrowful club

we hear/see the names Walsh, Klaas, Smart, van Dam, Runnion, Holloway, Lunsford, and too many others. but, Ramsey? never. (or Anthony)

:yourock: gramcracker! !

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think one indicator speaks louder than any other that this case has been solved: the media contacts certain families for statements/appearances when there is a new crime involving the murder of a child, or an anniversary of a murder. these certain families also reach out to offer support/advice behind the scenes (without media involvement) and their efforts are gratefully and publicly acknowledged by the newest family to join that sorrowful club

we hear/see the names Walsh, Klaas, Smart, van Dam, Runnion, Holloway, Lunsford, and too many others. but, Ramsey? never. (or Anthony)

How does that show the case has been solved? But yes, it's very telling that the R's never got involved in the missing children/violent against children cause..at all. I honestly wonder why they didn't, to help their image of being victims, and act like the are in the same situation as the other parents you mentioned. I guess the JBR Children's Foundation was their half-assed attempt? LOL

 

[gramcracker]

How does that show the case has been solved? But yes, it's very telling that the R's never got involved in the missing children/violent against children cause..at all. I honestly wonder why they didn't, to help their image of being victims, and act like the are in the same situation as the other parents you mentioned. I guess the JBR Children's Foundation was their half-assed attempt? LOL

the media and the majority of the public doesn't include them on the list of innocent parents. this case is solved in the mind of the public: the family is responsible

their involvement in missing children/violence against children causes would be as welcome as that of the Anthonys. ie: not welcome

 

[eileenhawkeye]

the media and the majority of the public doesn't include them on the list of innocent parents. this case is solved in the mind of the public: the family is responsible

their involvement in missing children/violence against children causes would be as welcome as that of the Anthonys. ie: not welcome

I think the media does include them on the list of innocent parents. Or at least they seem to treat John like he is one. The interviews for John's book were very sympathetic to him, and definitely portrayed him as someone whose daughter was killed by an intruder, and then was blamed for it. When the indictment came out, I watched so many cable news shows about it, and they were still pro-Ramsey, bringing up how they were cleared over and over. John's interviews with the media are no different than how they would be if they were with the parents you mentioned, yet would be much different from an interview with Susan Smith or Casey Anthony.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

the media and the majority of the public doesn't include them on the list of innocent parents. this case is solved in the mind of the public: the family is responsible

their involvement in missing children/violence against children causes would be as welcome as that of the Anthonys. ie: not welcome

I think the tide has turned and that a lot of people do not believe that the R's are responsible but I guess that would depend on who you ask and where you ask. JMO.

I don't think it is solved. [modsnip] IT is not solved because there are too many options/scenarios/theories and the experts don't even agree.

 

[Nom de plume]

I think the tide has turned and that a lot of people do not believe that the R's are responsible but I guess that would depend on who you ask and where you ask. JMO.

I don't think it is solved. [modsnip] IT is not solved because there are too many options/scenarios/theories and the experts don't even agree.

Seriously? More people than ever KNOW the Rs are responsible after the GJ indictments were revealed. JR and/or BR could confess, a "death bed confession" from PR could be revealed, and it would still be "that means nothing to ME" " this person isn't credible to ME" "nothing indicates the Rs are responsible to ME". Blah blah blah...

Welcome to the Twilight zone folks! :banghead: It must be nice to live in "La La Land" where reality and evidence "mean nothing to YOU". Wake up and smell the cold, stale, 17 year old coffee! THEY KILLED HER!

And that's not JMO!