Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[LONGTABBER PE]

You're seriously asking this? He "disturbed" the scene because he isn't a cop, he was a father who just found the dead body of his 6 year-old daughter. He tore the duct tape off her face to check if she was still alive. Then he took the dead body of his daughter out of the dirty basement where it was lying.

I'm sure in hindsight, had he thought in terms of the area being a crime scene, and thought about the fact that not moving the body would help catch the person who murdered his daughter, he wouldn't have moved the body. But then, I'd imagine that the first thought of a grieving parent who just discovered the garroted body of his child wouldn't be to ponder the implications of last night's episode of Law & Order.

Make up your mind or do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

Upthread, you opined about how "calm" they were and whatever- now you give him an out for disturbing a crime scene which may or may not have a direct result in identifying the perp?

Which one is it.

I dont know how many dead bodies you have seen but its hard to mistake one thats been dead for hours( which she was at that time). ( face turns, eyes cave in, rigor and contractions and such)

I dont buy the "checking to see if she was breathing" bit at all and even if so- untying her ( dead) and carrying her upstairs is a little more than checking for a pulse or breathing. ( lack of both is a good indicator of death) rather than summoning officers to the location

>>>I'm sure in hindsight, had he thought in terms of the area being a crime scene, and thought about the fact that not moving the body would help catch the person who murdered his daughter, he wouldn't have moved the body. But then, I'd imagine that the first thought of a grieving parent who just discovered the garroted body of his child wouldn't be to ponder the implications of last night's episode of Law & Order

What else would he think it was? If this was within minutes of finding the note- I could see it. That would be shock of the moment- 7.5 ish hours later after LE was onsite is hard to accept

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Make up your mind or do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

Upthread, you opined about how "calm" they were and whatever- now you give him an out for disturbing a crime scene which may or may not have a direct result in identifying the perp?

They were (relatively) calm because they still thought their child was alive. And for the billionth time, neither John Ramsey nor his wife are cops, as such there is no expectation that they would be held responsible for disturbing a "crime scene." They don't need an "out."

You don't understand the difference between finding out your child is missing and finding him/her dead, and why they might react differently in each situation?? I'll explain it for you: In one case, there is a good chance the child is alive and could be returned (especially if you've been told the child was kidnapped, and there is a ransom demand). Staying calm and together is pretty important, since it could lead to the return of your child. In the other.. dun dun dun... THE CHILD IS DEAD!

I dont know how many dead bodies you have seen but its hard to mistake one thats been dead for hours( which she was at that time). ( face turns, eyes cave in, rigor and contractions and such)

Again, you seem to have little to no concept of the fact that John Ramsey is not a cop, probably had never seen a dead body before, and would have no idea whether she had been seriously injured, or killed just by looking at her.

I dont buy the "checking to see if she was breathing" bit at all and even if so- untying her ( dead) and carrying her upstairs is a little more than checking for a pulse or breathing. ( lack of both is a good indicator of death) rather than summoning officers to the location

Again -- you're expecting that a father who just discovered the dead body of his child is going to immediately think about the fact that he is in a "crime scene," rather than have a typical human reaction, which is to take your child out of the dirty basement and bring her to her family.

What else would he think it was? If this was within minutes of finding the note- I could see it. That would be shock of the moment- 7.5 ish hours later after LE was onsite is hard to accept

And I explain once again: up until he found the body, he had every reason to believe that his child was still alive, and could be returned to him alive. Finding the body -- obviously -- is a big shock if you are under the impression that your child is still alive.

And given that the police didn't treat the area like a crime scene, why would he treat it like one? Talk about having it both ways. "Upthread" you demanded that I "leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals." Now you are expecting John Ramsey to have acted more like a "trained professional" than the actual "trained professionals" who were there.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

You don't understand the difference between finding out your child is missing and finding him/her dead????? I'll explain it for you: In one case, there is a good chance the child is still alive and could be returned to you (especially if you've been told the child was kidnapped, and there is a ransom demand). As such, staying calm and together is pretty important, since it could lead to the return of your child. In the other.. dun dun dun... THE CHILD IS DEAD!



Again, you seem to have little to no concept of the fact that John Ramsey is not a cop, probably had never seen a dead body before, and would have no idea whether she had been seriously injured, or killed just by looking at her.



Again -- you're expecting that a father who just discovered the dead body of his child is going to immediately think about the fact that he is in a "crime scene," and not a typical human reaction, which is to take your child out of the dirty basement and bring her to her family.



And I explain once again: up until he found the body, he had every reason to believe that his child was still alive, and could be returned to him alive. Finding the body -- obviously -- is a big shock if you are under the impression that your child is still alive.

And given that the police didn't treat the area like a crime scene, why would he?

Talk about having it both ways. "Upthread" you demanded that I "leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals." But apparently, you also expect John Ramsey to have acted like a "trained professional" rather than what he was -- a grieving father.

>>>You don't understand the difference between finding out your child is missing and finding him/her dead????? I'll explain it for you: In one case, there is a good chance the child is still alive and could be returned to you (especially if you've been told the child was kidnapped, and there is a ransom demand). As such, staying calm and together is pretty important, since it could lead to the return of your child. In the other.. dun dun dun... THE CHILD IS DEAD!

I understand the difference quite well. Heres the contradiction in profile from your earlier post. ( contradictions are things that flag)

On the one hand- he has a ransom note so he believed his child was kidnapped ( thus gone) so there was no reason to search past the bedroom.

On the other hand, with the above still in effect- 7.5 hours later he decides to search the house looking for her with a friend? ( but she wouldnt be there so why search- since there was a note and all that?)

What changed?

>>>Again, you seem to have little to no concept of the fact that John Ramsey is not a cop, probably had never seen a dead body before, and would have no idea whether she had been seriously injured, or killed just by looking at her.

Sure, I'll buy every bit of that as likely correct- seems odd the calm person who didnt search ( then did) finds his child ( dead) and rather than calling out ( police are still there)- unties here and brings her up for everyone? I assure you that a person can tell a 7.5 hour corpse immediately. If this was within minutes- thats another story.

I dont accept that.

>>>Again -- you're expecting that a father who just discovered the dead body of his child is going to immediately think about the fact that he is in a "crime scene," and not a typical human reaction, which is to take your child out of the dirty basement and bring her to her family.

I find it impossible to accept that a rational and educated person ( who was calm remember ) would find a body that has been dead to the point of rigor untying her, picking her up, walking up the stairs and dropping her on the table in front of the mother and LE just saying "look what I found" rather than calling for assistance from people who were less than 50 odd feet away.

>>>And I explain once again: up until he found the body, he had every reason to believe that his child was still alive, and could be returned to him alive. Finding the body -- obviously -- is a big shock if you are under the impression that your child is still alive.

Shock I understand, grief also- not his actions tho

>>>And given that the police didn't treat the area like a crime scene, why would he?

Different story altogether- there can be a difference of opinion and legitimate suspicion regarding his actions as he was a civilian- there is no explantion or justification for LE conduct /performance in this case.

>>>Talk about having it both ways. "Upthread" you demanded that I "leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals." But apparently, you also expect John Ramsey to have acted like a "trained professional" rather than what he was -- a grieving father

Thats right. I dont expect him to tape off the scene and pull out the magnifying glass- I do expect a rational human to stand there, do nothing and call for assistance when they are literally up the stairs.

 

[Kestrel]

Thats right- thats why it takes a little time

You dont think the little kid who walked in the woods lived and played in the woods and took walks too? ( heres a clue- they all do)

You ever wonder why the dogs find the trail the deer is on instead of following everywhere he has ever been?

FYI, hounds follow skin cells more than "scent" and those cells stay mostly in the air. Its not all about the ground so carrying wont make much difference. The most cells ( most recent) is what they normally zero in on.

Dogs have been proven to be able to track people in vehicles

Skin cells floating in the air will float away with the breeze. Sounds more like woo than a scientific explanation of how a bloodhound follows a trail that is an hour or two old.

Has anyone done a proper scientific double blind test to prove that dogs can follow people in vehicles? Or does it only work when the handler knows where the dog has to go?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I understand the difference quite well. Heres the contradiction in profile from your earlier post. ( contradictions are things that flag)

On the one hand- he has a ransom note so he believed his child was kidnapped ( thus gone) so there was no reason to search past the bedroom.

On the other hand, with the above still in effect- 7.5 hours later he decides to search the house looking for her with a friend? ( but she wouldnt be there so why search- since there was a note and all that?)

What changed?

A valid question -- and it has a valid answer, and a rather stunning one: the single detective at the house (Linda Arndt), asked him to. That's right -- the police asked him to take someone else to go search around the house. It might have been a kindhearted attempt to keep him occupied and keep his mind off what was happening. As it was, it was yet another stupid move by the police.

Sure, I'll buy every bit of that as likely correct- seems odd the calm person who didnt search ( then did) finds his child ( dead) and rather than calling out ( police are still there)- unties here and brings her up for everyone? I assure you that a person can tell a 7.5 hour corpse immediately. If this was within minutes- thats another story.

And I assure you that parents who find dead children a) may be in denial initially and may not want to believe their child is dead and b) having never seen a dead body 7.5 hours after death, would still not be confident in saying their child was dead. Whether he, deep down, knew she was dead -- maybe he did. But emotion isn't logical. And finding the garroted body of your 6 year-old is an emotional event if there is one.

I find it impossible to accept that a rational and educated person ( who was calm remember ) would find a body that has been dead to the point of rigor untying her, picking her up, walking up the stairs and dropping her on the table in front of the mother and LE just saying "look what I found" rather than calling for assistance from people who were less than 50 odd feet away.

I'm pretty sure he didn't say "look what I just found." In fact, they brought the body up while yelling to call for an ambulance. As for being calm -- apparently I have to repeat myself numerous times here -- I doubt he was calm once he realized his daughter was seriously injured or dead.

Shock I understand, grief also- not his actions tho

So you understand he was shocked, probably filled with grief, but can't understand how that might affect his behavior? Really?

Thats right. I dont expect him to tape off the scene and pull out the magnifying glass- I do expect a rational human to stand there, do nothing and call for assistance when they are literally up the stairs.

Or bring the child to the people who could offer assistance. Which is what he did. Do you think it's incredibly illogical that he brought the child upstairs to the police, rather than demanding that they come downstairs??

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Skin cells floating in the air will float away with the breeze. Sounds more like woo than a scientific explanation of how a bloodhound follows a trail that is an hour or two old.

Has anyone done a proper scientific double blind test to prove that dogs can follow people in vehicles? Or does it only work when the handler knows where the dog has to go?

Thats only because you have zero knowledge on how hounds track so listen to one who grew up running hounds, raising them, training them, still has kennels for them and has worked K9 so you can learn.

The hound ( not all species as the hound is particularly suited for tracking- all can sniff the same and larger dogs work better for takedowns) has big floppy ears that concentrate the scent and cells he smells to his nose ( like a dish antenna) and salivates adding humidity. ( some people will tell you they can taste it as well- I've personally seen evidence supporting that but far from conclusive)

The handler never knows when the K9 will hit or where he goes.

I cant speak to tests ( dont generally read them regarding dogs but in my current life as a PE with a PhD, I conduct tests to standard and am intimately familiar with the process and protocols) but I'm sure they have been.

I can say from personal experience as well as hundreds of documented cases- they can track a person in a vehicle ( how do you think lost dogs find owners who have moved- thru the internet?) and in some cases from a vehicle.

The skin cells dont "float" but move like pollen and settle. ( they are heavier than air)- thats why dogs follow the general direction more often that in the footsteps as portrayed in the movies. Like everything else- they lose the scent, find concentrations and what not. They also fail at times. Nothing is perfect or infallible.

Good thing is that they succeed a lot more often than not. Thats why the K9 nose has been ruled and accepted as probable cause even by the USSC

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

A valid question -- and it has a valid answer, and a rather stunning one: the single detective at the house (Linda Arndt), asked him to. That's right -- the police asked him to take someone else to go search around the house. It might have been a kindhearted attempt to keep him occupied and keep his mind off what was happening. As it was, it was yet another stupid move by the police.



And I assure you that parents who find dead children a) may be in denial initially and may not want to believe their child is dead and b) having never seen a dead body 7.5 hours after death, would still not be confident in saying their child was dead. Whether he, deep down, knew she was dead -- maybe he did. But emotion isn't logical. And finding the garroted body of your 6 year-old is an emotional event if there is one.



I'm pretty sure he didn't say "look what I just found." In fact, they brought the body up while yelling to call for an ambulance. As for being calm -- apparently I have to repeat myself numerous times here -- I doubt he was calm once he realized his daughter was seriously injured or dead.



So you understand he was shocked, probably filled with grief, but can't understand how that might affect his behavior? Really?



Or bring the child to the people who could offer assistance. Which is what he did. Do you think it's incredibly illogical that he brought the child upstairs to the police, rather than demanding that they come downstairs??

>>>A valid question -- and it has a valid answer, and a rather stunning one: the single detective at the house (Linda Arndt), asked him to. That's right -- the police asked him to take someone else to go search around the house. It might have been a kindhearted attempt to keep him occupied and keep his mind off what was happening. As it was, it was yet another stupid move by the police.

As i said before- thats another subject for another thread- there is simply no excuse for their conduct.

>>>And I assure you that parents who find dead children a) may be in denial initially and may not want to believe their child is dead and b) having never seen a dead body 7.5 hours after death, would still not be confident in saying their child was dead. Whether he, deep down, knew she was dead -- maybe he did. But emotion isn't logical. And finding the garroted body of your 6 year-old is an emotional event if there is one.

I dont dispute any of that- still no excuse

>>>I'm pretty sure he didn't say "look what I just found." In fact, they brought the body up while yelling to call for an ambulance. As for being calm -- apparently I have to repeat myself numerous times here -- I doubt he was calm once he realized his daughter was seriously injured or dead.

He obviously knew the child was dead at that point as rigor had set- what did he think an ambulance was going to do? I dont accept that either

>>>So you understand he was shocked, probably filled with grief, but can't understand how that might affect his behavior? Really?

Sure, I've seen it up close and personal too many times already. Every time an IED goes off and someone gets hit. Still no excuse.

>>>Or bring the child to the people who could offer assistance. Which is what he did. Do you think it's incredibly illogical that he brought the child upstairs to the police, rather than demanding that they come downstairs

dead is dead- what assistance would he think they could offer? The "assistance" would be to gather evidence to hopefully identify the killer. No, I dont excuse his actions there at all.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

As i said before- thats another subject for another thread- there is simply no excuse for their conduct.

Uh... it's not "another subject for another thread." You asked a question about why John Ramsey decided to search the house 7 hours later. And the answer is that the police asked him to. As such, there is no contradiction with his behavior. He didn't search the house when the ransom note was found, believing his daughter to have been kidnapped. The detective asked him to search the house to look for things that might be missing or out of place. So he did, and stumbled upon the body of his daughter.

I dont dispute any of that- still no excuse

He doesn't need you to "excuse" him for anything, so I'm not sure what "excuse" you're talking about. It's an explanation, and a perfectly valid one. Whether you morally approve of it is irrelevant.

He obviously knew the child was dead at that point as rigor had set- what did he think an ambulance was going to do? I dont accept that either

Obviously if he was yelling for an ambulance he didn't know she was dead, or was in denial about it.

Sure, I've seen it up close and personal too many times already. Every time an IED goes off and someone gets hit. Still no excuse.

Non-sequitor. John Ramsey has nothing to do with IEDs, nor does this thread. And yet again -- he was not a trained soldier, or a cop, or anything like that, so comparing his actions with those of somebody who is trained to handle situations like that is absurd.

dead is dead- what assistance would he think they could offer? The "assistance" would be to gather evidence to hopefully identify the killer. No, I dont excuse his actions there at all.

Again, you seem to think I care whether you "excuse" his actions. This thread isn't about your moral approval for how he acted.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Uh... it's not "another subject for another thread." You asked a question about why John Ramsey decided to search the house 7 hours later. And the answer is that the police asked him to. As such, there is no contradiction with his behavior. He didn't search the house when the ransom note was found, believing his daughter to have been kidnapped. The detective asked him to search the house to look for things that might be missing or out of place. So he did, and stumbled upon the body of his daughter.



He doesn't need you to "excuse" him for anything, so I'm not sure what "excuse" you're talking about. It's an explanation, and a perfectly valid one.



Obviously if he was yelling for an ambulance he didn't know she was dead, or was in denial about it.



Non-sequitor. John Ramsey has nothing to do with IEDs, nor does this thread. And yet again -- he was not a trained soldier, or a cop, or anything like that, so comparing his actions with those of somebody who is trained to handle situations like that is absurd.



Again, you seem to think I care whether you "excuse" his actions. This thread isn't about your moral approval for how he acted.

LOL, you have an excuse for everything dont you- and yet people wonder why it was never solved and why they were under such scrutiny

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

LOL, you have an excuse for everything dont you- and yet people wonder why it was never solved and why they were under such scrutiny

Nonsensical post. If you actually have any substantive responses, I'm all ears. You don't get to wiggle out of things when your arguments get blown out of the water (e.g. the "contradiction" in when they searched the house -- which was a valid question, but apparently the answer was not to your liking).

The victim's family doesn't need to be "excused" for anything.

The case was never solved because the police botched the case. As such, the police may have needed excuses to explain what they did or failed to do. The victims don't.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Nonsensical post. If you actually have any substantive responses, I'm all ears. You don't get to wiggle out of things when your arguments get blown out of the water (e.g. the "contradiction" in when they searched the house -- which was a valid question, but apparently the answer was not to your liking).

The victim's family doesn't need to be "excused" for anything.

The case was never solved because the police botched the case. As such, the police may have needed excuses to explain what they did or failed to do. The victims don't.

All of my responses have been substansive and based on the REAL WORLD- not an internet forum by people who get their knowledge from google.

Since they are my observations and opinions- they are no more or less valid than yours or anyone elses. None of us have all the facts in this case.

>>>You don't get to wiggle out of things when your arguments get blown out of the water (e.g. the "contradiction" in when they searched the house -- which was a valid question, but apparently the answer was not to your liking).

You arent capable of blowing my argument out of the water so dont get excited. Their conduct was more than enough to bring suspicion upon them. I'm still not entirely convinced at least one of them doesnt know the whole story.

>>>The victim's family doesn't need to be "excused" for anything.

Yes they do- granted critical and high stress situations will make people do things they normally wouldnt but at the same time, its not a license to excuse everything either.

>>>The case was never solved because the police botched the case. As such, the police may have needed excuses to explain what they did or failed to do. The victims don't

I dont disagree- the police really blundered this from incident 1 forward.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not likely either of her parents... any 'evidence' against them appears to be rather flimsey at best. Plus, there are specific reasons that you could exclude the parents...

I think you're talking about what could exclude them from having physically done it, but they could still have contracted someone or been involved in covering for someone (see below).

- The body was found by John Ramsey... in most cases where someone murders a family member, the killer will set things up so that somone ELSE finds the body

Not for a helluva long time. The cops sure did a poor job of handling a missing child/kidnapping call. I would think a thorough search of the premises should've been the first thing they did.

- The Ransom note was rather, ahem, strange... it asked for a very small sum of money (far less than what the Ramseys could afford.) If the note was made up by either parent to deflect suspicion, why not make it a reasonable amount?

Not so. The figure corresponded to a work bonus Ramsey received or was about to receive. If they made it up (and there's evidence that they did), using a number like that would throw suspicion on any number of business acquaintances.

Personally, I always thought it might've been that the brother killed her accidentally (some kind of weird accident where he wasn't necessarily innocent of some sort of crime), and the family did an elaborate cover-up. Unlike TV shows, in real life you sometimes can remove all trace of whodunit and manage to leave red herrings around. Still--I mostly based my opinion (and it's just that) on a book I read some time back. As I recall, the Boulder cops sure didn't handle the crime scene like CSI! All sorts of people in and out of the house (granted that was when they thought it was *only* a missing child and not a murder, yet).

There was some weird stuff going on, though. There was a 911 call from their home the evening of the party (the 23rd) where the caller just hung up. An officer even went out and left when nothing seemed to be wrong.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Personally, I always thought it might've been that the brother killed her accidentally (some kind of weird accident where he wasn't necessarily innocent of some sort of crime), and the family did an elaborate cover-up. Unlike TV shows, in real life you sometimes can remove all trace of whodunit and manage to leave red herrings around. Still--I mostly based my opinion (and it's just that) on a book I read some time back. As I recall, the Boulder cops sure didn't handle the crime scene like CSI! All sorts of people in and out of the house (granted that was when they thought it was *only* a missing child and not a murder, yet).

Thats been my personal primary theory as well- still havent ruled it out. ( I also think the apology given to them might have been a product of a feared lawsuit- I'm not aware of any fruits of an investigation that has effectively excluded the possibility of them being involved either directly or indirectly)

The main thing that keeps me looking internal is the ground in front of the alleged ingress/egress window.

Sure a small person could get thru with some difficulty but they couldnt without wiggling and pushing which would have disturbed the ground in front of it. ( digging with elbows/knees etc) Without that point- there were no signs of forced entry.

The key argument is valid but very weak.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

All of my responses have been substansive and based on the REAL WORLD- not an internet forum by people who get their knowledge from google.

I'll repeat: it's best not to make assumptions about the backgrounds of people you don't know. Your "real world" experience has limits. And since you already admitted that you have no real-world experience with victims of kidnappings and ransom demands, it's largely moot with regards to how/why the Ramseys acted as they did during the time their daughter was missing. Your "real world" experience also doesn't make up for not knowing some very well publicized facts about this specific case (like why they searched the house).

Since they are my observations and opinions- they are no more or less valid than yours or anyone elses. None of us have all the facts in this case.

I agree. That seems to contradict the tone of what you wrote a couple lines above that, but I'll go with it.

You arent capable of blowing my argument out of the water so dont get excited.

When you try to change the subject and blatantly ignore points, it's a pretty good indication that your argument is pretty well done. I thought you asked a valid question. I gave you a factual answer. You ignored it, apparently because it didn't fit with your POV. Bad form.

Their conduct was more than enough to bring suspicion upon them. I'm still not entirely convinced at least one of them doesnt know the whole story.

The scenario is enough to bring some suspicion on them (their daughter found dead in their home -- yes, the parents are an obvious suspect. No argument there). Their conduct, however, was not. You haven't given a single relevant example of any "suspicious" conduct on their part. All you've given are example of how you think they should have reacted if they were... heck I don't even know. You? Cops? Soldiers?

Yes they do- granted critical and high stress situations will make people do things they normally wouldnt but at the same time, its not a license to excuse everything either.

And we're not excusing "everything." We're excusing... what? That the father found his daughter's body and moved it upstairs? That's about it. In hindsight, I'm sure if he knew it could have helped catch the murderer, he would have left it there. Personally, I'm willing to "excuse" a father who just found his 6-year old's body, for not acting like a police officer (especially since he wasn't a police officer).

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'll repeat: it's best not to make assumptions about the backgrounds of people you don't know. Your "real world" experience has limits. And since you already admitted that you have no real-world experience with victims of kidnappings and ransom demands, it's largely moot with regards to how/why the Ramseys acted as they did during the time their daughter was missing. Your "real world" experience also doesn't make up for not knowing about some very well publicized facts about this specific case (like why they searched the house).



I agree. That seems to contradict the tone of what you wrote a couple lines above that, but I'll go with it.



When you try to change the subject and blatantly ignore points, it's a pretty good indication that your argument is pretty well done. I thought you asked a valid question. I gave you a factual answer. You ignored it, apparently because it didn't fit with your POV. Bad form.



The scenario is enough to bring some suspicion on them (their daughter found dead in their home -- yes, the parents are an obvious suspect. No argument there). Their conduct, however, was not. You haven't given a single relevant example of any "suspicious" conduct on their part. All you've given are example of how you think they should have reacted if they were... heck I don't even know. You? Cops? Soldiers?




And we're not excusing "everything." We're excusing... what? That the father found his daughter's body and moved it upstairs? That's about it. In hindsight, I'm sure if he knew it could have helped catch the murderer, he would have left it there. Personally, I'm willing to "excuse" a father who just found his 6-year old's body, for not acting like a police officer (especially since he wasn't a police officer).

>>>I'll repeat: it's best not to make assumptions about the backgrounds of people you don't know. Your "real world" experience has limits. And since you already admitted that you have no real-world experience with victims of kidnappings and ransom demands, it's largely moot with regards to how/why the Ramseys acted as they did during the time their daughter was missing. Your "real world" experience also doesn't make up for not knowing about some very well publicized facts about this specific case (like why they searched the house).

Wrong again ( I see you are very well practiced at it tho) I'm basing my assumption on their actions compared to those of like. My not having direct experience with a kidnapping specifically is moot- its an investigation like any other. Same rules apply. ( that red herring didnt work) "How" they acted is VERY critical in assessing their possible involvement. ( why do you think they started off as prime suspects- it wasnt just me apparentally) I know the same "facts" ( thats a stretch) as everyone else knows- I just have the virtue of dealing with similar up close and a lot more personal. Part of the job is making assessments of people we dont know.

>>>When you try to change the subject and blatantly ignore points, it's a pretty good indication that your argument is pretty well done. I thought you asked a valid question. I gave you a factual answer. You ignored it, apparently because it didn't fit with your POV. Bad form.

I didnt ignore it- I explained it- you just think that repeating the same rant changes things- it doesnt

>>>The scenario is enough to bring some suspicion on them (their daughter found dead in their home -- yes, the parents are an obvious suspect. No argument there). Their conduct, however, was not. You haven't given a single relevant example of any "suspicious" conduct on their part. All you've given are example of how you think they should have reacted if they were... heck I don't even know. You? Cops? Soldiers?

Heres a newsflash- their "conduct" is the MAIN reason they maintained their status as prime suspects. I have cites several suspicious acts and circumstances- you just dont want to hear it or accept it.

>>>And we're not excusing "everything." We're excusing... what? That the father found his daughter's body and moved it upstairs? That's about it. In hindsight, I'm sure if he knew it could have helped catch the murderer, he would have left it there. Personally, I'm willing to "excuse" a father who just found his 6-year old's body, for not acting like a police officer (especially since he wasn't a police officer

Already covered that- I'm also very used to armchair types who think with their emotions advising us on how to conduct operations when they themselves dont have any idea.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Wrong again ( I see you are very well practiced at it tho) I'm basing my assumption on their actions compared to those of like.

Like who? You already said you have no experience in kidnapping. I cited an actual kidnapping case and a first-hand account of another reaction, which was similar to the Ramseys. You had no response to that, since again -- it didn't fit your hypothesis. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.

My not having direct experience with a kidnapping specifically is moot- its an investigation like any other. Same rules apply. ( that red herring didnt work)

The same rules apply -- in that you have no experience with the victims in this case, so you have no idea how they should or shouldn't react, let alone trying to psychoanalyze individual details of their reaction.

"How" they acted is VERY critical in assessing their possible involvement. ( why do you think they started off as prime suspects- it wasnt just me apparentally) I know the same "facts" ( thats a stretch) as everyone else knows- I just have the virtue of dealing with similar up close and a lot more personal. Part of the job is making assessments of people we dont know.

Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.

I didnt ignore it- I explained it- you just think that repeating the same rant changes things- it doesnt

Let's recap: You asked "what had changed" when John Ramsey searched the house, and that it was suspicious. I gave you the factual answer, which didn't fit with your hypothesis. You responded with, "That's a different subject." That's the very definition of changing the subject. If the answer to your question is "a different subject," then I'm not sure why you even asked it.

Heres a newsflash- their "conduct" is the MAIN reason they maintained their status as prime suspects. I have cites several suspicious acts and circumstances- you just dont want to hear it or accept it.

Do you have any proof that that was the MAIN reason they maintained their status as suspects, or are you just making that up? Cite, please.

They were considered suspects because:
a) Percentage-wise, the parents are most likely to be the perpetrators
b) The murder occurred in the house
c) The note was written in the house

Those are all perfectly valid reasons to consider them initial suspects. And they have nothing, whatsoever, to do with their conduct.

Not to mention that this is all a bit circular. If you start with the premise that how they acted is suspicious, then they are going to be suspects. And if you suspect that they killed their daughter, you are going to believe they acted suspiciously.

Your "suspicious acts" are based on poor analysis and a failure to grasp the facts. As I noted, a pretty significant part of your suspicion was easily answered by a very-well publicized fact that you didn't bother to know or look up. The rest of your "suspicions" are based on a faulty assumption: that there is one "right" way for victims to act when dealing with a crime. That is absurd on its face.

Not all mothers scream at the top of their lungs and go on a mad searching spree. Not all fathers find the body of their child and immediately think, "we'd better preserve this here crime scene!"

Already covered that- I'm also very used to armchair types who think with their emotions advising us on how to conduct operations when they themselves dont have any idea.

Who is "us"? You didn't work on this case. You noted above that your opinion is worth no more[/i] or less than anyone else's. You are as much an "armchair type" in regards to this thread as anyone. And all the background in the world won't make up for lousy analysis.

So here, I will quote John Douglas, who actually did a full analysis of the case, and is a 25-year FBI veteran and author. He compared the case to the Lindbergh's as well:

As we noted in the Lindbergh kindapping, each individual is going to react differently. Many people thought Charles Lindbergh might be involved in the disappearance of his toddler son because of his seeming coldness and aloofness....(next page): So on this first point, remember that each person reacts differently.

And this, by the way, jibes with my own REAL WORLD experience in seeing people in crisis situations.

 

[Olowkow]

I spent a few hours reading about the hand writing, psychological, and linguistic analysis comparing the ransom note and P. Ramsey's writings. Subtle stuff, like the use of "and hence", and just that it really appears to be written from a woman's perspective, and the change from Mr. Ramsey to John, etc. Pretty compelling stuff. Then, when you look at the "left handed" writing sample, and compare it to the ransom note, wow, awfully close, but I can see why they said that it is not close enough. Just the letter "R" at the beginning of "Ramsey", to me it is identical to hers.

 

[CptColumbo]

Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.

BTW they actually were supposed to hop a plane that morning to go on the Disney Cruise.

 

[doobiedoright]

Thats right- thats why it takes a little time

You dont think the little kid who walked in the woods lived and played in the woods and took walks too? ( heres a clue- they all do)

You ever wonder why the dogs find the trail the deer is on instead of following everywhere he has ever been?

FYI, hounds follow skin cells more than "scent" and those cells stay mostly in the air. Its not all about the ground so carrying wont make much difference. The most cells ( most recent) is what they normally zero in on.

Dogs have been proven to be able to track people in vehicles

This is correct! It is scents in the air thus that is why when deploying a k9 wind speed and direction is very important!


BTW I have a kennel and have 9 here @ the moment.tracking is not my specialty but it is not that hard.
training k9's is not hard,training the humans how to use the k9's
well it can be a pain in the

 

[Kestrel]

Thats only because you have zero knowledge on how hounds track so listen to one who grew up running hounds, raising them, training them, still has kennels for them and has worked K9 so you can learn.

The hound ( not all species as the hound is particularly suited for tracking- all can sniff the same and larger dogs work better for takedowns) has big floppy ears that concentrate the scent and cells he smells to his nose ( like a dish antenna) and salivates adding humidity. ( some people will tell you they can taste it as well- I've personally seen evidence supporting that but far from conclusive)

The handler never knows when the K9 will hit or where he goes.

I cant speak to tests ( dont generally read them regarding dogs but in my current life as a PE with a PhD, I conduct tests to standard and am intimately familiar with the process and protocols) but I'm sure they have been.

I can say from personal experience as well as hundreds of documented cases- they can track a person in a vehicle ( how do you think lost dogs find owners who have moved- thru the internet?) and in some cases from a vehicle.

The skin cells dont "float" but move like pollen and settle. ( they are heavier than air)- thats why dogs follow the general direction more often that in the footsteps as portrayed in the movies. Like everything else- they lose the scent, find concentrations and what not. They also fail at times. Nothing is perfect or infallible.

Good thing is that they succeed a lot more often than not. Thats why the K9 nose has been ruled and accepted as probable cause even by the USSC

I asked for some scientific proof that a dog can track a person traveling in a vehicle. All you did was repeat the assertion. Repeating a claim does nothing to prove the claim.

Claiming that dogs can track the occupants of a vehicle is the kind of extraordinary claim that requires scientific validation before a skeptic accepts it as true. What tests have been done to prove this is possible and what were the conditions of the test?

We do know that dog handlers can be dishonest, working to produce the results the police and prosecutors want instead of searching for the truth.