Jonbennet Ramsey

[Wildy]

The evidence for and against an intruder can be found here. The evidence for an intruder is very convincing until you read the evidence against an intruder. This is true for just about every bit of evidence in this case.

Essentially the site you linked is saying that all the evidence of an intruder in the house could just be evidence for a staged crime scene.

It sounds like hand waving to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Segnosaur, I don't wish to spend hours answering questions I've already addressed in the thread. Please read through my past posts.

Can you honestly say that each and every allegation made against a parent for child abuse by a health care professional is valid? That you never get mistakes made?

This is an absurd false dichotomy. First you make a bizarre accusation about people harassed by police on false charges of child abuse then you write this straw man.

Health care workers generally do a good job diagnosing child and domestic abuse. There are signs and symptoms just as there are with other diagnoses, and just as with other diagnoses, one doesn't always get it correct the first time. What I said was, more often than not, if the abuse case is not obvious, health care workers are less likely to make the diagnosis.


The bulk of your post continues to address the straw man that I've based my conclusion solely on the Ramsey interviews. This is not correct so consider that my answer to the rest of your post if not addressed below. To understand my position here you need to understand the concept, "all the evidence together, no single piece alone".


It is not uncommon for a serious injury or death to be the first time child abuse in a family comes to light. Some but not all abusers are often good at hiding their abuse.


The link I posted has arguments for and against the 'intruder hypothesis' and the 'Patsy wrote the note' hypothesis. You are convinced by one side of those arguments, I'm convinced by the other side. The link addresses everyone of your arguments, from the leaves to the spider web that would have been broken had an intruder came or left through the window.

As for the source of the web page, it has any source anyone wants to add. It's a Wiki page. The site is clear about the sources of the information and about who proposed which hypothesis. Your source appears to be a book you read which was convincing to you. You are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Essentially the site you linked is saying that all the evidence of an intruder in the house could just be evidence for a staged crime scene.

It sounds like hand waving to me.

Can you point to the thing which proves one hypothesis over the other?

It's not hand waving to say the evidence is equivocal. Sometimes the evidence is equivocal.

 

[Matthew Best]

Can you point to the thing which proves one hypothesis over the other?

And:

To understand my position here you need to understand the concept, "all the evidence together, no single piece alone".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Finally something that can be considered evidence, unfortunately spiders can rebuild their webs at rather fast rates, the standard orb web can be done in just an hour, meaning that there was plenty of time to respin it after it was disturbed and before the police arrived.

I agree. So one then needs to look at the time of sunrise and the time the web was first noticed. This was winter. It's unlikely a spider would spin a web before sunrise. I'm not an expert in nocturnal spiders, but here where it isn't as cold in the winter as in Boulder, no spiders spin webs that time of year. An old web could remain, however, through the winter in a covered area.

Here's another web page with many of the pros and cons of intruder vs Ramseys scenarios. There are lots of crime scene photos including a discussion of the spider web, described as "cobwebs" by police. Unfortunately there isn't a good web photo. In any case, there was a way to open the grate without disturbing the web so it's a moot point. Just like everything else, it doesn't prove anything one way ot the other.

Interesting though, this site mentions fibers matching those of Patsy's clothes were found on the duct tape. The rebuttal is only red and not red and black fibers were found. But that might be explained if one of the two fibers was more inclined to fall off than the other.

So with the final point, we have only the second actual piece of evidence in a section labelled as "Specific Evidence." Unfortunately burn marks similar to those a stun gun makes were found on the body, in an intruder senario, it is likely that Jon Bennet was rendered unconscious and then gagged with the tape to prevent her crying out if she awoke. This would be highly consistant with the tape not having a tongue impression or resistance and with there still being an intruder. Suggesting that it can only be because it was staged is false.

No single thing proves or disproves the intruder hypothesis. But stun guns don't render people unconscious. They cause all your voluntary muscles to contract and you cannot move. Once the current stops, you regain the ability to move. I don't think you ever become unconscious.

So in the end all there is as evidence that the Ramsey's did it is a lot of speculation, loud disputing of the evidence, and gut feelings. It still totally ignores the lack of the tape or cord in the house, the animal hairs not found elsewhere in the house, the palm print, the missing pad pages, the DNA, the stungun, and so on and so forth. Honestly, the 9/11 CT's have a better case than the RDI crowd.

All of those pieces of evidence do not rule out the Ramseys. And there are other pieces of evidence the intruder hypothesis fails to explain.

 

[patchbunny]

Credibility? In the Enquirer? The first I ever read of this theory was in the post above, so how much credibility could it have?

Dunno. And since this thread is largely a pissing match, let's take a look at it.

Took a little digging, but I found this page that has details on the theory that Michael Helgoth killed Jonbenet (about halfway down the page). It certainly looks compelling. Helgoth committed suicide one day after the Boulder DA announced at a press conference that they were closing on on the killer. He owns boots of the same brand that left footprints at the crime scene. He owns a stun gun. The suicide looks suspicious, and perhaps a partner killed Helgoth to keep him from talking.

But the evidence against Helgoth doesn't hold up. His boots weren't a match, and his DNA doesn't match. Much of the accusations against Helgoth comes from John Kenady, who is a possible suspect himself. Evidence against Helgoth comes from Kenady's testimony, and Kenady has a long criminal record and recovered the boots he claims matched those in the Ramsey case after breaking into Helgoth's house and stealing them, passing them along to PIs working for the Ramsey family afterwards. If you want a conspiracy angle, Kenady did it, and tried to frame Helgoth to cover himself.

 

[PhantomWolf]

All of those pieces of evidence do not rule out the Ramseys.

But they certainly point away from them and make no sense in a senario in which they did it. They would have had to aquire the cords, duct tape, something with beaver hair (probably gloves), a pair of Hi-Tech shoes, a pubic hair, a stun-gun, a sack of rope, and a baseball bat, then manage to disappear the rest of the cords, the roll of tape, the stun-gun, and the shoes, while leaving no evidence of themselves on the sack, the baseball bat or the body. They would also have had to somehow create a partial thumbprint on the window and a palm print on the wall of the wine celler all without it being traced back to them. I think most people would suggest that this was rather unlikely. Further more, there is more evidence about the house that someone else was there, the disturbed guest room. While not out of the realms of possiblity, it seems unlikely that the parents who had so brutally murdered their child would then calmly set up a number of crime scenes about the house to make it look like an intruder spent time there.

And there are other pieces of evidence the intruder hypothesis fails to explain.

Like what?

 

[Moss]

No single thing proves or disproves the intruder hypothesis. But stun guns don't render people unconscious. They cause all your voluntary muscles to contract and you cannot move. Once the current stops, you regain the ability to move. I don't think you ever become unconscious.

All of those pieces of evidence do not rule out the Ramseys. And there are other pieces of evidence the intruder hypothesis fails to explain.

A few remarks about stun guns: Stun guns do not knock out people but can disorient and daze people if used long enough. Certainly long enough to subdue and bind someone.
Stun guns are built with adults in mind. I'm curious if they have a greater effect on children (smaller bodymass etc.).
The stun gun also seems to have been applied to JonBenét's face. I'm not sure if that makes a difference in the effect but certainly amps the fear instilled by the weapon.

The pieces do not need to rule out the Ramseys. Presumption of innocence requires the evidence to be conclusive in proving the guilt.
What exact pieces of evidence are not explained by the intruder hypothesis?

 

[Segnosaur]

A few remarks about stun guns: Stun guns do not knock out people...

They don't?

From: http://www.stungundirect.com/Products-Stun_Gun_Information_law.html
A person hit with a stun gun will feel dazed for several minutes. The pulsating electrical output causes involuntary muscle contractions and a resulting sense of vertigo. It can momentarily stun or render an attacker unconscious.

There's also: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/18/taser.death/index.html
A deputy used a Taser device on one of the men, who fell unconscious.... (Granted that was a Taser, rather than a 'stun gun' but there are a few similarities...)

It may be that usually stun guns don't knock people out, but from the looks of things its certainly not without precedent.

 

[Moss]

They don't?

From: http://www.stungundirect.com/Products-Stun_Gun_Information_law.html
A person hit with a stun gun will feel dazed for several minutes. The pulsating electrical output causes involuntary muscle contractions and a resulting sense of vertigo. It can momentarily stun or render an attacker unconscious.

There's also: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/18/taser.death/index.html
A deputy used a Taser device on one of the men, who fell unconscious.... (Granted that was a Taser, rather than a 'stun gun' but there are a few similarities...)

It may be that usually stun guns don't knock people out, but from the looks of things its certainly not without precedent.

After reading a lot of pages before my post I preferred to stay with what I found on sites of law enforcement and related pages. I'm a bit cautious with producer or sales websites. But it still does not really seem that relevant. Dazing and disorienting a child is enough to subdue and tie it up in my book.

 

[Segnosaur]

Segnosaur, I don't wish to spend hours answering questions I've already addressed in the thread.

Except you haven't answered all the questions raised in this thread. You were asked "what about the human hair/animal hair/shoe print/palm print". All you do is shout "You have to look at all the evidence". Except that you don't seem to understand that 100 pieces of non-evidence (which is basically what you have) are not as relevant as 1 single piece of good evidence.

Can you honestly say that each and every allegation made against a parent for child abuse by a health care professional is valid? That you never get mistakes made?

This is an absurd false dichotomy. First you make a bizarre accusation about people harassed by police on false charges of child abuse then you write this straw man.

You were the one that claimed that "You suspected tell the Ramsey's were guilty from the interviews". You were the one that was claiming that virtually all your suspicions of child abuse were 'confirmed'.

Heck, i was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when I suggested that perhaps you do have a "good record" at detecting child abuse. But that in no way justifies your ability to analyze the Ramsey case, because you don't have the same level of access, and the scope of the case is different than the ones you're dealing with.

In fact, as I pointed out, you even contradict yourself... at one point you claim to identify their deception, yet you suggest that "guilty people always cave in", which obviously has not happened here.

The bulk of your post continues to address the straw man that I've based my conclusion solely on the Ramsey interviews.

That is an incredibly incorrect statement.

I addressed that particular issue in my last post (see post #199) when I wrote: But the fact that you consider your analysis of the interviews to be evidence at all is false. I'm dealing with one issue of B.S. at a time.. Note in that post when I specifically pointed out that I was addressing "one issue" at a time? Yes, you has other "evidence"; I was dealing with one claim at a time.

If you didn't think your ability to detect "lying" in the Ramseys was important then why did you bring it up? Why did you attempt to defend your abilities in multiple posts?

It is not uncommon for a serious injury or death to be the first time child abuse in a family comes to light. Some but not all abusers are often good at hiding their abuse.

Except there has never been any claims of abuse from any friends, from John's ex-wife, or from other children. Furthermore, autopsy reports showed no sign of previous abuse of JonBonet. Yeah, some abusers are good at hiding abuse, but its also possible that there were no indications of previous abuse because there actually was no abuse.

The link I posted has arguments for and against the 'intruder hypothesis' and the 'Patsy wrote the note' hypothesis. You are convinced by one side of those arguments, I'm convinced by the other side. The link addresses everyone of your arguments...

No, it doesn't. It doesn't explain the source of the palm print, it doesn't explain the shoe print. It doesn't explain the animal hairs. etc. . And when it does try to "explain", most of the explanations are along the lines of "Well, it could have been staged".

As for the source of the web page, it has any source anyone wants to add. It's a Wiki page.

Ummmm... so? While the page can be modified, the fact is, you considered it significant enough to use as a source (regardless of how the page was created). If you didn't think the page had a good description of evidence supporting your opinions, or contained information that actually contradicted your beliefs, then don't use it.

Your source appears to be a book you read which was convincing to you.

That is of course only one of my sources (although he does a good job at summarizing all the evidence). Another good source is the TruTV web site (which has a detailed description of the case).

Not only that, details of the case have been well reported in the media. I didn't need John Douglas to explain that unknown shoe prints found in the basement suggest someone who was not a family member was likely in the house, or that unidentified hairs mean the victim had contact with someone who was not a family member near the time of death.

Finally something that can be considered evidence, unfortunately spiders can rebuild their webs at rather fast rates, the standard orb web can be done in just an hour, meaning that there was plenty of time to respin it after it was disturbed and before the police arrived.

I agree. So one then needs to look at the time of sunrise and the time the web was first noticed. This was winter. It's unlikely a spider would spin a web before sunrise.
...
In any case, there was a way to open the grate without disturbing the web so it's a moot point.

Well, the body was found at approximately 1pm, right in the middle of the day.

No single thing proves or disproves the intruder hypothesis. But stun guns don't render people unconscious..

Actually I pointed out a couple of references which suggest that in some cases, stun guns can leave the victim unconscious.

Essentially the site you linked is saying that all the evidence of an intruder in the house could just be evidence for a staged crime scene.

It sounds like hand waving to me.

Can you point to the thing which proves one hypothesis over the other?

It's not hand waving to say the evidence is equivocal. Sometimes the evidence is equivocal.

Unfortunately, "proof" only really exists in mathematics. However, we can use Occam's Razor... namely, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

So, what makes more sense... that there was an outside intruder who left foot prints in the basement, or that the Ramsey's did it, left the shoe print, then managed to dispose of the shoes so that the cops didn't find them (yet didn't bother to similarly dispose of the pen and paper).

What makes more sense, that the animal hairs and human hairs found on JonBonet came from outside the house via the killer, or that the Ramseys just happen to have a collection of animal hair and pubic hair from strangers lying around the house?

What makes more sense, that some killer brought rope and tape with him, or that the Ramseys were able to dispose of all extra tape/rope so that the cops wouldn't find it (yet were dumb enough to leave the pen and paper used to write the note)?

 

[Segnosaur]

on Stun guns knocking peopel unconscious...

They don't?

From: http://www.stungundirect.com/Product...ation_law.html
It can momentarily stun or render an attacker unconscious.

There's also: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/18/taser.death/index.html
A deputy used a Taser device on one of the men, who fell unconscious.

It may be that usually stun guns don't knock people out, but from the looks of things its certainly not without precedent.

After reading a lot of pages before my post I preferred to stay with what I found on sites of law enforcement and related pages. I'm a bit cautious with producer or sales websites.

Your suspicious about sales websites is valid. (Although I should point out that one of my references was from CNN. Doesn't necessarily mean that their report was 100% accurate though, although it does at at least some credibility to the "stunning unconscious" idea.

But it still does not really seem that relevant. Dazing and disorienting a child is enough to subdue and tie it up in my book.

I agree... it would have been enough to daze the child in order to tie them up, etc.

I think the issue is the tape that was found over JonBonet's mouth. According to the site SkepticGinger linked to, the tape had: ...perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance.". This suggests it was not used to silence her but instead placed on her after she was unconscious, an indication of staging.. Even if the child was tied up, if they were awake, they might try to struggle (open their mouths, push on the tape with their tongue, etc.) Not sure if the disorientation caused by the stun gun would have prevented that. However, being rendered unconscious would explain that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I bet skeptigirl thought John Mark Karr looked guilty, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Segnosaur]

I bet skeptigirl thought John Mark Karr looked guilty, and we all know how that turned out.

Well, technically he was guilty, just wasn't guilty of JonBonet's killing.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, technically he was guilty, just wasn't guilty of JonBonet's killing.

I don't recall enough about the story. What was he guilty of?

 

[Wildy]

Can you point to the thing which proves one hypothesis over the other?

It's not hand waving to say the evidence is equivocal. Sometimes the evidence is equivocal.

No, because I don't know enough about the case.

It's true that evidence can be equivocal, but considering that there is foreign DNA that belongs to an as yet unidentified person it seems strange to try and argue "staged crime scene". They aren't saying that the evidence is equivocal, they are saying that the equivocal evidence is evidence against an intruder.

By the way, what is your opinion on the case? Who do you think did it?

 

[Loss Leader]

Sure. I imagine her father visits occasionally.

I'd just like to say how happy I am, as the second poster in the thread, to have really been the one to kick this pig into gear.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But they certainly point away from them and make no sense in a senario in which they did it. They would have had to aquire the cords, duct tape, something with beaver hair (probably gloves), a pair of Hi-Tech shoes, a pubic hair, a stun-gun, a sack of rope, and a baseball bat, then manage to disappear the rest of the cords, the roll of tape, the stun-gun, and the shoes, while leaving no evidence of themselves on the sack, the baseball bat or the body. They would also have had to somehow create a partial thumbprint on the window and a palm print on the wall of the wine celler all without it being traced back to them. I think most people would suggest that this was rather unlikely. Further more, there is more evidence about the house that someone else was there, the disturbed guest room. While not out of the realms of possiblity, it seems unlikely that the parents who had so brutally murdered their child would then calmly set up a number of crime scenes about the house to make it look like an intruder spent time there.



Like what?

The logic behind all the elements of the crime scene together weigh against an intruder. Killing the child in the house while also taking the time to write the ransom note, make no sense. One or the other but not both: if you accidentally killed the child, why waste time with the note? If you planned to kidnap the child, why waste time with the garrote? Planning a ransom note then leaving the body makes no sense.

The way JBR was killed with the Garrote being threaded through her hair meaning a killer would have had to take an inordinate amount of time in the house makes no sense for an intruder. Why do you need a paint brush and a cord to strangle a small child? Why not just the cord? If you are going to do something that elaborate, why do it in the basement?

Why clean up the murder scene and leave the body evidence?

While broken glass could have ended up on a suitcase as someone crawled out the window, the suitcase wasn't under the window when the supposed intruder crawled in. J Ramsey said the suitcase wasn't previously under the window, and the window was broken long ago. How do you get broken glass on the suitcase leaving? It could happen, but it also suggests staging.

Here is the summary of arguments against an intruder I already linked to:

Evidence Against an Intruder
Overview
Critics of Lou Smit's analysis argue that he was biased in favor of the Ramseys because they were Christians. Some believe Smit has approached this case like a lawyer for the defense. His analysis is full of misleading statements, half truths and errors
Judge Carnes' opinion is dismissed by some on grounds that she did not have access to police files, but instead merely catalogued evidenced favorable to the Ramseys.
A new book by Laurence Smith devotes Chapter 1 to laying out the most plausible intruder scenario and Chapter 2 to rebutting it, concluding that "the likelihood of an intruder having been in the Ramsey home on the night JonBenet was murdered is more than highly unlikely."
Specific Evidence
House Alarm Off. No one disputes the Ramsey house alarm was not on, but this does not prove an intruder entered.
Open Doors and Windows? The claim that there were 7 open windows and 1 door is disputed.
Entry through Basement Window? No one disputes that in principle someone could have entered through the window well, but they argue strongly that if an intruder had done so, there would have been far more evidence of a disturbance both inside the well itself and inside the basement room in which this window is located.
Broken Window. No one disputes the window was broken, but there is a major dispute about whether this was staged.
RDI theorists further argue that the failure of John Ramsey to bring this broken window to the attention of police when he went down to the basement at 10 AM is evidence of lying or cover-up.
Suitcase Under Window. No one disputes the suitcase evidence, but again, this is as consistent with a staging theory as an intruder theory.
Foliage Under Window Grate. The foliage found under the window grate could have occurred during the police investigation of the house on December 26 and is not necessarily an indication of an intruder.
Spider Web on Grate. Moreover, a spider web was found on the grate and RDI theorists are insistent that an intruder would have broken/removed this web and that it could not have been re-spun before police arrived.
If the window was broken the preceding summer as claimed by John Ramsey, then all the leaves/packing nuts could easily have blown into the basement over time and are not indicative of an intruder.
Lights in Basement. No one disputes that lights were on in the basement, but this is as consistent with a staging theory as an intruder theory.
Butler Door. RDI theorists dispute whether the butler door actually was found open, but if it was, this may easily have been the result of an early-arriving neighbor or police investigator and is not proof of an intruder.
Duct Tape. "Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF P 53.)" (Carnes 2003:19). This suggests it was not used to silence her but instead placed on her after she was unconscious, an indication of staging. Why would an intruder stage the crime scene?

The link discussing Smit's arguments also has a pro and con for everything suggesting an intruder.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They don't?

From: http://www.stungundirect.com/Products-Stun_Gun_Information_law.html
A person hit with a stun gun will feel dazed for several minutes. The pulsating electrical output causes involuntary muscle contractions and a resulting sense of vertigo. It can momentarily stun or render an attacker unconscious.

There's also: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/18/taser.death/index.html
A deputy used a Taser device on one of the men, who fell unconscious.... (Granted that was a Taser, rather than a 'stun gun' but there are a few similarities...)

It may be that usually stun guns don't knock people out, but from the looks of things its certainly not without precedent.

That wasn't the issue with the stun gun. It wasn't that JBR couldn't have been rendered immobile long enough to put the tape on her mouth. The issue was, she couldn't have been awake after the tape was applied because there is no evidence she moved her mouth or tongue once the tape was applied.

It suggests she was hit on the head first and strangled after she was unconscious.

This is just more evidence against an intruder. If you use a stun gun, why crack her skull open? If you crack her skull open why use a stun gun? She was likely unconscious from then on considering the extent of the skull injury: an 8 inch long horizontal fracture.


BTW, I believe I read in these notes the police were not convinced the marks were from a stun gun.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: John Mark Karr

Well, technically he was guilty, just wasn't guilty of JonBonet's killing.

I don't recall enough about the story. What was he guilty of?

Actually, Karr had been charged with possession of child pr0n. (He was in Thailand after he had skipped bail; that's where he was picked up.) So, he is guilty of "fleeing justice/skipping bail" (although I don't know if he's ever been charged over that.)

The child pr0n charges against him were dropped (mostly because the police didn't handle evidence properly), so technically he is "innocent until proven guilty", although I suspect that the case probably would have gone against him.