Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by terralee, Jun 20, 2006.
No they aren't.
I agree they aren't the most likely suspects. But I have been surprised by unexpected evil from seemingly good people enough times in my life that I am loathe to rule anyone or anything completely out without a sufficient level of proof that they were not involved. And what may be sufficient proof for you may not be sufficient proof for me. So the McReynoldses remain on my mental list of suspects. Not high up on that list, mind you, but they are there.
A negative cannot be proved.
That isn't always true. And in this context it most certainly is not. If, for example, there was sufficient evidence to establish that someone other than the McReynoldses committed the crime, the lack of the McReynoldses' involvement would thereby be proven.
That said, I completely understand how a person could feel that sufficient evidence already exists to establish that someone else (i.e., the Ramseys) committed the crime.
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.
No, the assertion would be proven incorrect.
In trial if a second party is determined to be guilty the charges against the accused are dismissed the accused is not declared innocent.
Ironically, I'm not the one who made an assertion requiring me to "prove" anything. You did though, when you made the (incorrect) claim that a negative cannot be proved. Moreover, while it may be true that in the situation Adler discusses -- a hypothetical situation that arises when a person makes a claim that something doesn't exist anywhere in the universe -- a universal claim cannot be proven, that doctrine wouldn't apply here. It's the difference between someone claiming there are no unicorns in the universe (which, although exceedingly unlikely, cannot definitively be proven, as Adler points out) and someone claiming there are no unicorns in her living room (which can be determined by looking for unicorns in her living room).
And although it is true that a person isn't technically declared innocent in a legal trial, we aren't speaking in terms of a legal burden of proof, which is a whole other independent concept. I think most people would agree that a determination that the McReynoldses didn't kill JB would logically flow from a determination that another person or people killed JB, regardless of how the issue is framed.
I think it unlikely that the McReynoldses could have committed this crime, and all of the staging, with the family in the home, and yet left not a single fiber, print, or other forensic evidence, including on the RN. In a crime, material is always exchanged between the victim and perp, whether a murder occurred or not. Added to the fact that no one other than Patsy was considered as the author of the RN brings me back to the same 3 people who were in the R house besides JB that night. This crime took a while to stage, including writing the note. I cannot see ANYONE else remaining in the home to do this, especially JB screamed. This scream was able to be heard across the street, as well as in the parents' bedroom. This killer took their time. No worries about the scream bringing family members running. IMO, the scream DID bring the parents running- to discover a fatally injured JB yet no physical evidence apparent to explain why she seemed to be dead. No blood, no swelling of the head or face (though mild swelling of the brain and blood under the scalp as well as blood inside the vagina were all found ONLY on autopsy, along with that horrific hole punched into her skull. Obviously there was blood visible on JB' s thighs and pubic area, which had been found to have been wiped off by a cloth, leaving dark fibers behind. At that point, staging this assault to APPEAR like a kidnapping/strangulation seemed like the only way to deflect blame from family member(s).
What I have never got.
If your child is missing in your house, don't you immediately search the entire house? Why was there a delay on that?
What I wonder although I think Burke took a lie detector, is did they find Jonbenet, suspect Burke, then cover up because they did without knowing for sure but being afraid it was? (Therefore on a lie detector, wouldn't the questions Did you kill? or do you know who killed? can truthfully be answered "No.")
Another theory: Patsy did write the ransom note but she never carried out the intended kidnap as a random stranger got in the way? (I know this one is probably too far off the wall.) However, despite the Ramsey's suspicions, Burke had nothing to do with it as a stranger did. Then, having covered up, they are too far in to explain what they did. (I very much doubt all this, but it kind of woke me up one night as a theory.) Or of course, what I just said, but Patsy or rather, one of her alters did it and then Patsy herself really does not know what happened as she was not her primary self at the time. Leaving John either knowing this, or not knowing and suspecting one or other of the other two. This is pure speculation and I acknowledge both John Ramsey, Patsy and Burke could really be innocent. It has happened before that innocent people have looked guilty and not been.
First thoughts were mine exactly. Why on earth would you not run in a house so massive from top to bottm looking? Even supposing there was a ransom note, you would still search the house wouldn't you? Also, I believe the basement was one if not the first places that were checked. Coincidence or did John know she was already there?
I didn't know Burke had actually taken a lie detector. What I do know is he lied about being in bed during and after the 911 call as he can be heard in the background. I am not sure he did do anything. A garrote and the way JonBenet was tied up seems a bit complicated for a 9 year old. Whether he hurt her- who knows?
What I have also wondered is , time of death? Let's say for arguments sake the Ramsey's were involved in her death. Her estimated time of death is said to be between 12 and 2am. If Pasty got up after 5, are we to believe that in the instance of accidental death on Burke's part he left her and went to bed alerting his parents in the moring OR alerted them at the time and they panicked and chose to cover it up but not to ring until the morning? Presumably they needed time to think up a ransom note and get their story "straight". They could have been up all hours delibertaing on what to do. Here is another thing - if your child has been kidnapped you will look stressed and in a right state- BUT did both Patsy and John or either one or the other look to detectives like there were signs of being up all night that could be distinguished seperately from shear shock or stress? If there is any evidence of them having been up or had no sleep , anything that could have been OBVIOUS- then that makes the intruder theory fall down.
Imo PR never went to sleep. That is why she was still wearing the same clothes from the party the night before and had make up on/hair done. Her friends said she would never wear an outfit 2 days in a row.
Sure, totally agree. Just wonder why PR decided not to redress herself, after all JR did, including a shower, e.g. flushing away any forensic evidence?
She didn’t have to if Burke and John were the only ones with contact with JB.
Yet Patsy's fibers are embedded into the knotting on the ligature and are to be found on the sticky side of the duct-tape placed over her mouth?
She was in a panic and traumatized? And maybe not as smart as JR to shower and change?
Could be she was in a panic and traumatized, quite likely. I guess participating in a homicide was not a daily event.
Yet the object of the exercise was to stage JonBenet's death and for Patsy to wear the same clothes is a bit like the size-12's, its in your face, a red flag.
Its contradictory if you assume the case is PDI, as Patsy seems to end up flagging herself up as the killer?
Also Patsy knows John is redressed in clean clothes from the night before as well as having taking a shower, i.e. I'm assuming John's underwear appearance is a fabrication?
You could be right and Patsy just thinks I'll tell folks I just put on yesterday's clothes, a bit lame but plausible.
This may have been posted before but here is an interesting video report about the Ransom Note:
Interesting information about the John Douglas book Mind Hunter and the case with the words listen very carefully.
Of course this raises the possibility that whoever wrote the Ransom Note had read the book or part of it. Whoever wrote it was directly taunting the FBI and John Douglas was of course a FBI Profiler.
It may just have come from the killers liking the character Scorpio out of the 1971 movie Dirty Harry:
Mr. Cruel wrote the Jonbenet ransom note, a fan of Dirty Harry, Ransom and Speed