Jonbennet Ramsey

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

All of this stuff is addressed in the links I've posted. If the palm print or the foot print were proof of an intruder and not staging or random marks from past people in the house, the police would have ruled out the Ramseys based on that evidence.

You seem to believe that because you are convinced of [X] everyone who disagrees isn't listening to you or is ignoring the evidence.

That is not the case. We have different opinions. So do lots of people regarding this case. That's nice you are convinced you have the answer the rest of us should have, but I for one, don't share your opinion. And I don't care that you don't share mine.

I've spent enough time addressing your posts. Most of what you have posted here is a repeat of what you already said and I already answered.

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.

I'm not sure you understand what I said about the link. I said every pro and con hypothesis is spelled out there. You keep saying what about [X]? The rebuttal to X,Y and Z are spelled out on that web site. There's no reason for me to redundantly repeat arguments which you can read for yourself.

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

But the window well in question with the 'cobwebs' was examined by the police shortly after 6 am. The body wasn't relevant at that time. They were looking for evidence of an entry and exit by an intruder.

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

And I pointed out the issue was JBR being unconscious for a long period of time, not a brief period. Her mouth didn't move after the tape was applied, but she wasn't dead for a while after it was applied.

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)?

The Ramsey's had all night to stage the crime scene. Contrary to the TV version of murder, all you need to do is find a random trash can to get rid of stuff. The police wouldn't be able to search every trash can within a few miles for missing items, let alone disposal locations a short drive away. So getting rid of shoes, the murder weapon or the practice ransom note is hardly a big deal. Leaving some stuff while getting rid of other stuff suggests staging, not a planned murder or kidnapping.

I think the animal hair you speak of was a single beaver hair. The house was messy. People have beaver fur coats. The hair could have come from a visitor's coat a year earlier. The imaginary version here is that one has a pristine house except the murderer's trace evidence. That imaginary version comes from too much TV. In the real world crime scenes are filled with trace evidence and foot prints and palm prints.

Did you read the article I posted from the FBI web site showing brand new stockings had unknown person's DNA on them?

...The hosiery was removed from the original packaging and worn for an afternoon prior to testing. During this time, the only individual to come in contact with this item was the donor. These results suggest that the extraneous DNA profile may have originated at the manufacturing site or was transferred from the wearer's environment (Locard 1930). ... Additional DNA contributors were found in some samples, and their source remains unknown.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

On CSI, maybe. But in the real world you have to be careful attributing significance to the most minute traces of DNA. If you have enough DNA you can say the person wore the clothing or spit, or left DNA in the body oils of a palm print. But when you collect DNA in very tiny amounts as lab techniques now allow the police to do, you can't say that it is, in and of itself, significant.

See the last paragraph in my last post.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The logic behind all the elements of the crime scene together weigh against an intruder.

So in other words you have no evidence that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. Your case wouldn't get past stage one, presymption of innocence. Everything you have posted in this thread requires a pre-determined belief that they are guilty and therefore the evidence MUST be fabricated, there is nothing that shows guilt.

And come on, can you really do no better than reposting a webpage that I systemically debunked just 24 posts previously? You have posted nothing beyond pure speculation and would be laughed out of every court in the land,even the kangaroo ones.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The Ramsey's had all night to stage the crime scene. Contrary to the TV version of murder, all you need to do is find a random trash can to get rid of stuff. The police wouldn't be able to search every trash can within a few miles for missing items, let alone disposal locations a short drive away. So getting rid of shoes, the murder weapon or the practice ransom note is hardly a big deal. Leaving some stuff while getting rid of other stuff suggests staging, not a planned murder or kidnapping.

And contary to your belief, Police often go to extreme lengths to locate evidence.

http://tvnz.co.nz/content/623288

The following day Barlow drove to the Happy Valley tip to dump rubbish. Police found the receipt in his glovebox and sifting through the rubbish they found Barlow's CZ pistol, ammunition and a cut-up silencer.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Ummmm.... Please go back and look at post 212, where I actually addressed that same issue.

You know, I find it extremely ironic about how you would complain about people not reading your posts, when you have done that exact same thing.

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

That is certainly a possibility. Or its also possible that the stun gun did render her unconscious.

This is just more evidence against an intruder.

Actually, not it isn't. An intruder could just as easily hit her on the head as anyone in the family. (Heck, I'd say there's even more chance, since the victim would likely be struggling against a stranger.)

If you use a stun gun, why crack her skull open? If you crack her skull open why use a stun gun?

Ummm... because the stun gun either A: didn't render her unconcious, or B: did knock her out but only temporarly, and when she recovered she would have struggled against a stranger (even if she were tied up)?

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

Yes, those same police who, when they were presented with a possible kidnapping (before the body was discovered), were so incompetent that they let people wander through the house possibly destroying evidence.

Hey, quite possible that the marks were from something else, but if so, what? Don't recall anyone ever claiming those marks existed prior to her murder. Something caused them. (Maybe she was going through very early puberty and they were actually pimples.)

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.

First of all, where exactly is it written that only one of the 2 (either the note or the murder) could have been done in the house? Is there any sort of law of physics that would prevent that from happening?

Secondly, the note was likely written long before the family returned home. They were out for several hours. The general theory of those who are opposed to the hand-waving of "it was staged" is that the killer entered the house when they were away (after all, with nobody in the house there is less chance of an occupant stumbling on you breaking in). During the wait for the family to return, the killer would have had ample opportunity to compose a note. (After all, what else is he going to do, watch TV?) There was no need to spend extra time in the house after the abduction to compose the note.

Most likely set of events:

- Killer breaks in through basement window, possibly spends time exploring the house (There was a bag containing rope found in a guest room that was unexplained. That would be consistent with an intruder exploring the place.). This explains the debris found in the basement, as well as the unexplained shoe print.
- Killer writes the note, possibly because they actually were planning a kidnapping (or because they wanted to hide their true crime)
- The killer may have collected some items of JonBenet's and put them in the suitcase. (I believe the parents claimed that the suitcase contained books and other items that they never placed in there. This would be consistent with an intruder planning a kidnapping who wanted to pack some things the child would need.)
- Killer waits in house for family to return
- Family returns and goes to bed
- Killer sneaks upstairs and subdues JonBenet, either via a stungun, through sheer force, or by hitting her (possibly with the baseball bat found outside). He may have tied her up and used the tape that he brought at that point which explains unidentified animal hair found on the tape
- Killer takes JonBenet downstairs, leaving the ransom note on the stairs on the way
- Once in the basement, either: JonBenet starts to struggle (if she had been awake) causing him to administer the head wound. Or, if he had hit her earlier, he may have realized that the wound was serious and kidnapping was no longer an option
- Killer finishes his abuse explaining the unknown hair found near the body, and possibly DNA transferred to her clothing
- Killer fashions the garote using items at hand to strangle her
- Killer escapes out the basement window, leaving scuff marks on the wall, and takes the remainder of the tape and rope and part of the paintbrush with him explaining why the tape and rope did not match anything in the house
- Killer leaves his baseball bat behind in the yard, which contains fibers consistent with the basement of the house (the last room he would have been in)

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...

Umm... just out of curiosity, just how many garrotes have you fashioned? Do you think they take several hours to make?

Why do you need a paint brush and a cord to strangle a small child? Why not just the cord?

As I have pointed out before (and which you seem to have ignored)... killers have their fetishes or signatures. For whatever reason, strangling using a garrote may have been part of a fantasy. Or maybe using a garrote gave him more control over the strangulation.

As I asked before, why did jack the ripper try to dissect his victims instead of just stabbing them and moving on? Because killers have their sick little mental fantasies that they want to experience.

If you are going to do something that elaborate, why do it in the basement?

Again, this has been explained to you... The house was large and the family would have been unable to hear in the basement. And dragging the kid outside would have A: resulted in a risk of being seen by neighbors, and B: might have resulted in the transfer of even more evidence

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

One of the other posters asked you this before... where exactly are you getting the idea that the killer "cleaned up" the murder scene? You seem to be the only one making the claim that any sort of clean up was done.

Of course, its also been pointed out to you that if the scene actually were cleaned up, it would likely be an attempt to destroy as much evidence as possible.

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.

Why exactly do you think all glass would have fallen on the floor on the initial break in? Most windows have this thing called a windowsill.

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

crappy list deleted...

Just out of curiosity, why did you waste time posting this? The list has already been debunked by at least 2 posters here. Just a reminder why that particular list is bunk...

- It doesn't address the shoe print. It doesn't address the unknown animal hairs. It doesn't address the unknown hair. It doesn't address the unknown palm print. All of those are rather significant pieces of evidence pointing to an intruder.
- Most of those items do not provide any evidence. They simply say its "consistent with staging". That in itself is not proof that it was staged.
- One of the only real pieces of evidence is the spider web, which has already been debunked (spiders can re-weave webs in very little time). Even YOU have expressed some skepticism that the web was significant.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

If you accidentally killed the child, why waste time with the note?

Why do you assume that he wrote the note after he killed the child? He could have written it before. He could have also left it as a taunt.

If you planned to kidnap the child, why waste time with the garrote?

Sexual/bondage fantasy? Or he thought she was dying and did it to finish the job. Or he simply killed her deliberately and that was part of it.

Planning a ransom note then leaving the body makes no sense.

It makes quite a bit of sense if he wrote the note and then killed JonBenet. I doubt he would run back upstairs and collect the note.

In fact, this makes more sense than if the Ramseys did it. If the Ramseys plan was to ensure the body would be found, as you suggest, why would they leave a fake note? To what end? As you write above... placing a ransom note and then leaving a 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 does it "make no sense for an intruder"? If the guy was brash enough to kidnap a child from her bed, what makes you think he'd be afraid to spend a bit more time in the house? Especially a house as large as the Ramseys' with plenty of places to hide and/or escape.

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?

This has already been answered. Close to his ingress/egress route. As to why he needs a paint brush... nobody said he needed it. It may have been part of his fantasy.

But again... the same question could be asked about "staging." Why would they stage an elaborate garrote? Why not just strangle her with the rope?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Now I recall. He looked innocent, so it doesn't surprise me that the charges were dropped.

 

[Wildy]

On CSI, maybe.

I don't watch CSI so I wouldn't know.

But in the real world you have to be careful attributing significance to the most minute traces of DNA. If you have enough DNA you can say the person wore the clothing or spit, or left DNA in the body oils of a palm print. But when you collect DNA in very tiny amounts as lab techniques now allow the police to do, you can't say that it is, in and of itself, significant.

Are you saying that because it's possible evidence that disproves your opinion of who did it? (Who do you think did it?)

From what I understand they found the DNA mixed in with blood, and that the DNA found on her underwear matched DNA found in her fingernails. If that is indeed the case (since I'm finding contradicting reports on the subject) then that would suggest that the DNA found is more significant then you are letting on.

 

[Segnosaur]

Now I recall. He looked innocent, so it doesn't surprise me that the charges were dropped.

But how can you tell? Are you a trained health care professional who is an expert at at detecting deception?

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

All of this stuff is addressed in the links I've posted.

First of all, no its not. Or if it is, its extremely well hidden.

Secondly, simply pointing to a reference is not the proper way to conduct an on-line debate. I'm not debating the authors of those web pages, I'm debating you. If you think the issue is important enough to continue posting in a thread such as this, then you yourself should be willing to state your case in your own words, or at least quote relevant passages in any references you make. Otherwise, I have no idea whether you agree with all of the referred to article (I've already seen evidence that you don't).

If the palm print or the foot print were proof of an intruder and not staging or random marks from past people in the house, the police would have ruled out the Ramseys based on that evidence.

First of all, as I have pointed out before, the police were incompetent. The fact that they let people wander around the house, potentially contaminating a crime scene before the body was found should be evidence enough of that.

Secondly, do you have any references as to why they would have discounted those items? Without that, you are merely engaging in idol speculation based on a conclusion you've already (erroneously) made.

You seem to believe that because you are convinced of [X] everyone who disagrees isn't listening to you or is ignoring the evidence.

Well, given the fact that you've repeated claims/content in this thread when that content had previously been debunked is a pretty good indication that you're not really listening.

I've spent enough time addressing your posts. Most of what you have posted here is a repeat of what you already said and I already answered.

Once again, no you haven't answered the questioned raised. Simply pointing to some web page someone else has wrote and saying "its in there" is not answering the question especially when those answers are not actually in that web page.

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

But the window well in question with the 'cobwebs' was examined by the police shortly after 6 am. The body wasn't relevant at that time. They were looking for evidence of an entry and exit by an intruder.

Well, I could question whether any photos or observations of the window were made shortly after the cops arrived or only after the body was discovered. However, I think this is a pretty dead line of questioning, considering you yourself admitted in a previous post that it might have been possible to access the window while leaving the web intact.

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

And I pointed out the issue was JBR being unconscious for a long period of time, not a brief period. Her mouth didn't move after the tape was applied, but she wasn't dead for a while after it was applied.

Uhhh... so? I wasn't suggesting the victim was conscious for any significant length of time. Even if they were rendered unconscious by the blow to the head, that does not eliminate the intruder theory since any outside intruder could just as easily have hit JonBenet. (I pointed out that stunguns can knock people out as another possibility.

The Ramsey's had all night to stage the crime scene.

So, let me get this straight... despite never being arrested for a serious crime, they became criminal masterminds that night, being smart enough to plant animal and human hair, apply scuff marks to the walls, plant 'unknown' shoe prints. Yet in all their criminal brilliance, they didn't even think to either write a better note, or to dispose of the pen and unused paper.

Leaving some stuff while getting rid of other stuff suggests staging...

Ummm.... Why? Do you think that all criminals are super-geniuses who always remember to destroy all evidence of their crimes?

I think the animal hair you speak of was a single beaver hair.

Actually there was more than 1 hair. There was a beaver hair on the tape itself, but there were other (unidentified) animal hairs on her hands. In fact the reference you gave actually pointed that out. Kind of ironic that you would complain about people not reading the references you provide, when you don't seem to be too familiar with the content yourself.

The house was messy. People have beaver fur coats. The hair could have come from a visitor's coat a year earlier.

Except JonBenet was subdued (and possibly not awake) at the time. She wasn't mobile at the time... not exactly a situation where she'd be liable to pick up fibers (especially considering she went pretty much from upstairs to the basement, where I doubt many people would be wearing beaver coats.

Same goes with the pubic hair. Yeah, lots of people have. Heck, there was even a song about it. Just seems strange that that hair that didn't match anyone in the house was found near her body.

The imaginary version here is that one has a pristine house except the murderer's trace evidence.

No such assumption is necessary. While your average house has a certain amount of mess, you can make certain educated guesses. Finding fibers/hairs in one spot only (on/near the body) as opposed to other spots in the house should be an indication that that material isn't from in the house.

Did you read the article I posted from the FBI web site showing brand new stockings had unknown person's DNA on them?

No I didn't. The reason? Because I was already aware of the claims made by the hand-waving "stagers" that the DNA in her underwear was from outside contamination, and recognize that that in itself may not be convincing.

(Although people who feel more strongly about the DNA evidence might point out that DNA was found on several items of clothes, not just the underwear.)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But how can you tell? Are you a trained health care professional who is an expert at at detecting deception?

Yes. You unwashed masses wouldn't understand.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes. You unwashed masses wouldn't understand.

That's not true! I wash my hands every week, whether they need it or not!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So in other words you have no evidence that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. Your case wouldn't get past stage one, presymption of innocence. Everything you have posted in this thread requires a pre-determined belief that they are guilty and therefore the evidence MUST be fabricated, there is nothing that shows guilt.

And come on, can you really do no better than reposting a webpage that I systemically debunked just 24 posts previously? You have posted nothing beyond pure speculation and would be laughed out of every court in the land,even the kangaroo ones.

This is just your opinion. You believe you've supported your conclusions. You ignore the arguments I've used to support mine.

You can declare all you want that you have it right. That doesn't negate the arguments against an intruder, it just means you have looked at that evidence and conclude it isn't convincing. I've looked at it and I find the intruder hypothesis unconvincing.

We are both assigning more and less significance to various pieces of evidence. For example, the fact a source for the tape wasn't found can be explained by an intruder taking it away or the Ramseys successfully disposing of a number of items from the house before calling police. So which of those two explanations for no source of the tape pure speculation? Which of those explanations for the missing tape source relies on a pre-determined belief of intruder vs Ramseys to decide which is more likely?

This is true for every individual piece of evidence. When I put the entirety of the evidence together, the inconsistencies in the evidence, if an intruder hypothesis were correct, to me are evidence of a staged crime scene. The Ramsey's behavior in the multiple public interviews also supports a staged crime scene.

How do you know you aren't over compensating regarding the Ramseys' behavior? In an effort to not consider their behavior in the interviews as evidence of guilt, you might be giving greater credence to the intruder hypotheses, ignoring the inconsistencies with an intruder hypothesis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And contary to your belief, Police often go to extreme lengths to locate evidence.

http://tvnz.co.nz/content/623288

Did the Boulder police search nearby trash cans? Did they even search the Ramseys' car in the first 24 hours? How thoroughly did they even search the house in that first 24 hours? Did they even search the Ramsey's trash? How could they search locations within a short drive from the home if the Ramseys drove somewhere to dispose of the items?

The police admit to not doing the most stellar job on this case.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is just your opinion.

No it's a conclusion based on the facts.

You believe you've supported your conclusions.

With facts, something you are decidedly missing.

You ignore the arguments I've used to support mine.

No I don't, I keep pointing out that they are based on nothing but speculation, you are the one ignoring that.

You can declare all you want that you have it right. That doesn't negate the arguments against an intruder, it just means you have looked at that evidence and conclude it isn't convincing. I've looked at it and I find the intruder hypothesis unconvincing.

The only argument you have given against an intruder is "But my gut tells me they did it so they must have staged it." The Government "could" have staged 9/11 too, and a lot of people seem to believe they did, but that doesn't make them even close to rational about it.

We are both assigning more and less significance to various pieces of evidence. For example, the fact a source for the tape wasn't found can be explained by an intruder taking it away or the Ramseys successfully disposing of a number of items from the house before calling police. So which of those two explanations for no source of the tape pure speculation? Which of those explanations for the missing tape source relies on a pre-determined belief of intruder vs Ramseys to decide which is more likely?

No we aren't, firstly you are more often trying to explain away the evidence rather than fit it to your senario. Every time you claim something was staged, you are trying to claim that evidence isn't real because it doesn't fit your senario, exactly the same way the 9/11 crowd claim that wreakage on the front lawn of the Pentagon was planted. Secondly, you are making way more assumptions that we are, in your senario the Ramseys have to have bought the tape, the cords, the shoes, the probable stun-gun, the second baseball bat, managed to find animal hairs, and someone's pubic hair, then planted all these thing, then they would have had to figure out a way of faking a palm print, set up several areas of disturbance about the house, and finally disposed of all of the things that weren't found in the house. That's a lot of stretching.

An Intruder senario explains virtually everything. It explains the disturbance in the guest room, the rope left there, the tracking of debris through the basement, an so on, I'm not going to list the lot because it's all been posted before multiple times. Yes they could have ben all planted, but taking that road requires you to prove a lot of things you can't, for instance, prove that the Ramsey's ever owned the Duct Tape, Cords, and Shoes. If you can't, your case falls over right there and then. You simply have no actual evidence that they actually did it, just like the 9/11 CTs have no actual evidence that the US Govt did it, you base your entire claim on speculation and claims or the evidence being inconsistant.

As to them both being speculation, there is real physical evidence of there being a non-family member in the house, there is ZERO physical evidence of the Ramseys ever owning the duct tape, the cords, the second baseball bat, the rope, or other items found. Your speculation has no physical evidence for it, ours does.

This is true for every individual piece of evidence. When I put the entirety of the evidence together, the inconsistencies in the evidence, if an intruder hypothesis were correct, to me are evidence of a staged crime scene. The Ramsey's behavior in the multiple public interviews also supports a staged crime scene.

And people will tell you that Bushes actions on 9/11 and the "inconsistencies in the evidence" of that event prove that the US Govt did 9/11 too. All of your "inconsistencies in the evidence" are based on your own already determined beliefs, you can't actually provide any positive proof that they did it, you have only attacked the evidence that they didn't, and poorly at that.

How do you know you aren't over compensating regarding the Ramseys' behavior? In an effort to not consider their behavior in the interviews as evidence of guilt, you might be giving greater credence to the intruder hypotheses, ignoring the inconsistencies with an intruder hypothesis.

I'm not considering their behaviour at all, I'm looking at the PHYSICAL evidence. I don't consider their behaviour relevant to guilt or innocent. The simple fact of the matter is that there is NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE of physical evidence that points towards the Ramseys having done it. Every single piece of physical evidence either points away from them, or is at worst neutral, which is why you have to keep making stuff up and relying purely on your speculations.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Most likely set of events:

- Killer breaks in through basement window, possibly spends time exploring the house (There was a bag containing rope found in a guest room that was unexplained. That would be consistent with an intruder exploring the place.). This explains the debris found in the basement, as well as the unexplained shoe print.
- Killer writes the note, possibly because they actually were planning a kidnapping (or because they wanted to hide their true crime)
- The killer may have collected some items of JonBenet's and put them in the suitcase. (I believe the parents claimed that the suitcase contained books and other items that they never placed in there. This would be consistent with an intruder planning a kidnapping who wanted to pack some things the child would need.)
- Killer waits in house for family to return
- Family returns and goes to bed
- Killer sneaks upstairs and subdues JonBenet, either via a stungun, through sheer force, or by hitting her (possibly with the baseball bat found outside). He may have tied her up and used the tape that he brought at that point which explains unidentified animal hair found on the tape
- Killer takes JonBenet downstairs, leaving the ransom note on the stairs on the way
- Once in the basement, either: JonBenet starts to struggle (if she had been awake) causing him to administer the head wound. Or, if he had hit her earlier, he may have realized that the wound was serious and kidnapping was no longer an option
- Killer finishes his abuse explaining the unknown hair found near the body, and possibly DNA transferred to her clothing
- Killer fashions the garote using items at hand to strangle her
- Killer escapes out the basement window, leaving scuff marks on the wall, and takes the remainder of the tape and rope and part of the paintbrush with him explaining why the tape and rope did not match anything in the house
- Killer leaves his baseball bat behind in the yard, which contains fibers consistent with the basement of the house (the last room he would have been in).

I'd make two changes to that.

- Killer waits in guest room of house for family to return
- Family returns and goes to bed
- Killer sneaks across the hall into JonBenet's room and subdues JonBenet, either via a stungun, through sheer force, or by hitting her (possibly with the baseball bat found outside). He may have tied her up and used the tape that he brought at that point which explains unidentified animal hair found on the tape

 

[Segnosaur]

I'd make two changes to that.

- Killer waits in guest room of house for family to return
- Family returns and goes to bed
- Killer sneaks across the hall into JonBenet's room and subdues JonBenet

Yeah, quite possible that he did wait in the guest room. (I remember reading about how the guest room did have a view of the driveway). Of course its possible that the killer did wait in the guest room, went down to the basement when the family arrived, and then came back up later in the evening. (After all, had he been seen in the guest room he'd have no easy way to escape. At least in the basement he could escape out the window if someone should notice him.)

Just one of the little details we'll probably never know, but it doesn't really change the overall execution of the crime.

 

[Wildy]

How do you know you aren't over compensating regarding the Ramseys' behavior? In an effort to not consider their behavior in the interviews as evidence of guilt, you might be giving greater credence to the intruder hypotheses, ignoring the inconsistencies with an intruder hypothesis.

This sounds like you're putting more weight on their behaviour in the interviews over the physical evidence. I wonder if that's because you really want to believe that they did it?

And if their behaviour is characteristic of guilt you would have to show that it's because they murdered their child, and not guilt caused by hindsight, as in "if only I had done [something] she'd still be alive."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This sounds like you're putting more weight on their behaviour in the interviews over the physical evidence. I wonder if that's because you really want to believe that they did it?

It might sound like that to you, but that isn't true.

And if their behaviour is characteristic of guilt you would have to show that it's because they murdered their child, and not guilt caused by hindsight, as in "if only I had done [something] she'd still be alive."

You are leaving out what I've repeatedly said, the evidence as a whole is the key here. That includes the interviews, but not without the rest of the evidence.


I know people here are convinced they are looking at evidence and I am looking at the Ramseys looking guilty. It's where the real confirmation bias is in this thread, making false assumptions about what I've based my conclusion on.

It's tiring to keep pointing out this straw men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No it's a conclusion based on the facts.

So conclusions are not opinions?

With facts, something you are decidedly missing.

You just refuse to consider alternative conclusions based on the same facts.

No I don't, I keep pointing out that they are based on nothing but speculation, you are the one ignoring that.

You claim it is not speculating to say the intruder brought the tape but the Ramsey's getting rid of the roll is speculating?

Sorry Phantom, but you are speculating. What is bothersome here is you pretend you are not.

The only argument you have given against an intruder is "But my gut tells me they did it so they must have staged it." The Government "could" have staged 9/11 too, and a lot of people seem to believe they did, but that doesn't make them even close to rational about it.

You have ignored my arguments. I can't do anything about that. So I see no reason to continue trying.