Jonbennet Ramsey

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem with this stuff about "reading" people and "abnormal" behavior is not its limitations but its usage. It's not evidence. At its very best it can be used as a guide to look at someone more closely in the hopes of finding evidence to follow. Thing is, the Ramseys were already under intense scrutiny, so who cares?

When it comes to detecting "deception" there some to be some leaps of faith. Concealing an emotion is not the same as lying. But let's pretend that there is an indication of lying. What kind of lie? At trials we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There's a reason they phrase it that way.

Suppose I am asked what I did last night between 9:00 PM and 10:00 PM. I respond that I went to the movies by myself. I'm being deceptive, and Ginger, with her decades of experience, scopes me out. Fine. What kind of lie?

Did I tell The Truth? I didn't go to the movies. I went to a strip club.

Did I tell the Whole Truth? I went to the movies, but I sneaked out of the theater twice to catch a smoke.

Did I tell Nothing But the Truth? I went to the movies, but not by myself. I had a date.

And that's just within the narrow confines of the witness stand. In the "real world" I know that my best friend sent me a text message during the movie saying he just robbed a liquor store. Personally, I'd feel "deceitful" withholding that information even though technically I was being truthful.

So even if you "know" with 100% reliability that I "lied" about going to the movies by myself, are you really any closer to the truth? Detecting a lie does not mean revealing the truth. Of course, if you can play 20 questions, you might get close.

A lot of speculating here. Have you read much about the science involved?

 

[Uncayimmy]

A lot of speculating here. Have you read much about the science involved?

Evasion noted. The question is simple: Assuming a 100% reliable detection of deceit, how did you use that to determine the The Truth in watching these interviews?

 

[Wildy]

Don't expect any more answers until you post something without uncivil comments in it.

I think I shall let the mods decide if my comments are uncivil.

 

[banquetbear]

Green is just a columnist. So I'm not sure what it is you want to see. I think what you want to see are the crime scene photos showing the Ramsey bed:

There's one on this page, right hand side 4th picture down. There's another one somewhere showing the bed itself with only one side disturbed and the other side with the spread fairly straight and pulled up. I'll see if I can find it later.

By posting the Wiki source, I'm not vouching for the validity of everything posted there. Most of the reasons I've cited it is because it summarizes the hypotheses and the pros and cons re each piece of evidence. There's no reason to rebut everyone's claim that [X] proves their conclusion because the rebuttal to every [X] proves it can be found with little effort. I don't see the benefit of cutting and pasting rebuttals when I can just link to the batch of them all in one place.

But about the fiber evidence and Bruce Levin, try this one: 48 hours transcript from 2002Of course hugging the body, (if it occurred because the police should have stopped that as soon as John came upstairs but maybe they didn't), doesn't explain the fibers on the tape which John pulled off immediately, or in with the paint brushes which were still downstairs.

...if you don't want to vouch for the validity of your cite, you shouldn't use it. From what I can gather based on your 48 hour citation: your wiki cite has either stitched together several quotes together of Mr Levin, or they have made them up entirely.

Again with Green: I want to see the primary source because I'm not entirely sure this is an actual quote, or even what context it is in. Lets look at the quote again:

"some investigators say that Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same clothes on the morning of the murder as she wore the previous night, and that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn’t been slept in." Perhaps you can find some better sources of information.



Surely, if this was true, you could supply quotes from the actual investigators? Can't you find the actual column he wrote when he mentioned this?

With all due respect Skeptic Ginger the wiki cite is uncited junk and you do yourself a disservice using it to support your position.

So without relying on out-of-context-made-up-quotes from prosecutors, can you cite what the actual fiber evidence was? And without relying on probably-made-up quotes from newspaper columnists based on quotes from anonymous investigators what evidence do you have that the bed was not slept in?

 

[Segnosaur]

Of course hugging the body, (if it occurred because the police should have stopped that as soon as John came upstairs but maybe they didn't), doesn't explain the fibers on the tape which John pulled off immediately, or in with the paint brushes which were still downstairs.

First of all, it may not have been just after the body was found that the fibers were transferred. Being her mom, it might be expected that she might have hugged her daughter before bed (transferring fibers to her night clothes, etc.) or spent time in her room (causing transfer of fibers to things like the blanket.) Furthermore, when the killer handled the body and blanket, those fibers would have gone with him (to get transferred to the brushes, etc.)

Basically, you expect to find evidence of the Mother's clothing, because the mother lives there and interacts with her family on a regular basis.

Secondly, What exactly do you think John did with the tape when he pulled it off? Think he immediately had it stuck in a sealed clean container to preserve it? No, chances are it was discarded (allowing it to pick up other fibers such as the ones from Patsy's shirt, assuming it didn't already have fibers transferred via JonBenet's body).

Lastly, as I pointed out before: I find it extremely ironic that you discount things like the unknown animal hairs suggesting an outside stranger because "they might have been from a year ago" yet you seem to assume fibers from a shirt from someone who lives in the house and would have had significant contact with the victim while wearing that same shirt somehow indicates guilt.

 

[Cainkane1]

This case needs to be solved. That girls murder was heineous. I wonder if every child sex offenders DNA was put through a computer if the police would be able to make a match. I mean the kid put up a pretty good fight for a tiny little girl. I thought I read somewhere that she had skin under her fingernails.

There is no way the perp didn't commit a similar crime again. That is unless members of her own family did it like Skeptic says. maybe her father will make a death bed confession. I don't know if he did it or not but I believe he knows more than he's telling.

Early on there was speculation that he was part of a child swapping ring. Has this been disproven?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evasion noted.

Evasion of what? Replying to your opinion?

Your opinion was duly noted. You made it up from your lifetime of experience which it appears did not include any review of the science.

I didn't want to make a big deal of it, but since you have brought it up, look how often people spout off their unqualified opinions of which they are convinced they have some expertise. This is an example of the same.

We all do it. I'm not claiming I never give in to the temptation to do so. Sometimes our cumulative experiences actually do provide us with a qualified opinion. But much of the time people are completely unaware of just how unqualified their opinion is on the many things they decide to comment about.

So with that said, feel free to tell us why we should accept your authority here on this unqualified opinion. Or tell us what you base this opinion on that makes it qualified.

The question is simple: Assuming a 100% reliable detection of deceit, how did you use that to determine the The Truth in watching these interviews?

I have done so throughout the thread. You only need to look back to the links I reposted in a reply to Piggy above. I don't think I need to repeat the discussion for everyone who hasn't been reading along.

 

[Kestrel]

This case needs to be solved. That girls murder was heineous. I wonder if every child sex offenders DNA was put through a computer if the police would be able to make a match. I mean the kid put up a pretty good fight for a tiny little girl. I thought I read somewhere that she had skin under her fingernails.

There is no way the perp didn't commit a similar crime again. That is unless members of her own family did it like Skeptic says. maybe her father will make a death bed confession. I don't know if he did it or not but I believe he knows more than he's telling.

Early on there was speculation that he was part of a child swapping ring. Has this been disproven?

Considering there was absolutely no evidence to support this idea in the first place why is there any need to disprove it?

 

[Segnosaur]

Only if you ignore the O'Sullivan research, which you seem to be doing.

Keep in mind that not even every researcher in the field accepts O'Sullivan's research. Some published authors have characterized her results as a "statistical fluke".

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u3051220n573124w/

I repeat my position, there are behaviors indicative of an abusive family dynamic.

And I repeat my position... whatever "skill" you have in diagnosing abuse is probably not relevant here because A: You do not have access to all of the individuals (including the victim), and B: the people you have seen have not been through the same turmoil as the Ramseys. These are likely far outside the scope of what you yourself have had to deal with.

And remember, there is also the following flaw that you have never addressed:

- You once claimed that "every person you've encountered admits guilt when confronted by evidence". Yet the Ramseys never admitted anything. So, what is it... is your experience somehow misinformed?

I work with police in my practice. One thing I've learned is police work is not nearly as scientific or evidence based as one would hope. A lot of police have no more than high school or technical college degrees and work their way up to detective on the job. Now, there are some police and detectives that do have a wealth of experience and skill. But it is inconsistent.

Yet John Douglas, who has had a long career with the FBI investigating serial killers, has a degree in psychology, has had his work recognized by the University of Virginia, and who has probably worked on hundreds of cases has pointed out that people handle the murder of a loved one in different ways.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...if you don't want to vouch for the validity of your cite, you shouldn't use it.

I never said any such thing, and, I posted relevant additional sources. Perhaps you might re-read my post.

From what I can gather based on your 48 hour citation: your wiki cite has either stitched together several quotes together of Mr Levin, or they have made them up entirely.

The Wiki site is A WIKI SITE. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what that means. It means it is a collection of information individuals added.

Is there something about hypotheses, pros, cons and rebuttals you think should need citations? They are opinions.

Again with Green: I want to see the primary source because I'm not entirely sure this is an actual quote, or even what context it is in. Lets look at the quote again:

"some investigators say that Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same clothes on the morning of the murder as she wore the previous night, and that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn’t been slept in." Perhaps you can find some better sources of information.

Surely, if this was true, you could supply quotes from the actual investigators? Can't you find the actual column he wrote when he mentioned this?

You are welcome to present evidence to the contrary. I didn't present anything as irrefutable proof Patsy Ramsey stayed up all night. It merely adds to the evidence. She does not deny having the same clothes on as she wore the night before. And if she merely dressed in a big hurry, she doesn't deny having her usual make up on that morning either.

I also have not once said there is any single piece of evidence that proves or exonerates the Ramseys. I bring up the evidence incriminating Patsy because it is just as significant as the evidence of an intruder.

...So without relying on out-of-context-made-up-quotes from prosecutors, can you cite what the actual fiber evidence was? And without relying on probably-made-up quotes from newspaper columnists based on quotes from anonymous investigators what evidence do you have that the bed was not slept in?

Did you not bother looking at the link to the 2002 48 Hours transcript?

 

[Segnosaur]

Early on there was speculation that he was part of a child swapping ring. Has this been disproven?

I don't think its been so much disproven as the idea that a child swapping ring is so bizarre that it makes absolutely no sense. (Much in the way that we can't prove that some crop circles are made by UFOs, but the evidence does not point in that direction.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First of all, it may not have been just after the body was found that the fibers were transferred. Being her mom, it might be expected that she might have hugged her daughter before bed (transferring fibers to her night clothes, etc.) or spent time in her room (causing transfer of fibers to things like the blanket.) Furthermore, when the killer handled the body and blanket, those fibers would have gone with him (to get transferred to the brushes, etc.)

Basically, you expect to find evidence of the Mother's clothing, because the mother lives there and interacts with her family on a regular basis.

Secondly, What exactly do you think John did with the tape when he pulled it off? Think he immediately had it stuck in a sealed clean container to preserve it? No, chances are it was discarded (allowing it to pick up other fibers such as the ones from Patsy's shirt, assuming it didn't already have fibers transferred via JonBenet's body).

Lastly, as I pointed out before: I find it extremely ironic that you discount things like the unknown animal hairs suggesting an outside stranger because "they might have been from a year ago" yet you seem to assume fibers from a shirt from someone who lives in the house and would have had significant contact with the victim while wearing that same shirt somehow indicates guilt.

The location of the fibers appears to be specifically linked to key places and not just linked in general to random places throughout the house.


There was a single hair noted in a single place. Workers had recently been in the basement. Patsy's clothing fibers were in very specific places she said she had not been.


But once again, I'm not trying to argue any single smoking gun. I guess I have to remind people of this in every post. I posted the evidence of fibers from Patsy because people have been posting lots of intruder hypothesis evidence and I thought it should be pointed out there was other evidence that suggested Patsy and not an intruder.

The physical evidence on its own is equivocal. It does not prove an intruder. It does not convict the Ramseys. It's the evidence plus the parent's behavior plus the interviews all together.

 

[Segnosaur]

I didn't present anything as irrefutable proof Patsy Ramsey stayed up all night. It merely adds to the evidence.

So....Patsy killed JonBenet then stayed up all night committing the crime and then staging things while her husband slept? And her husband, when he learned about things, went along with it, and they were supportive enough of each other that he didn't say anything?

So, what is your theory of the crime? Which of the parents killed her? When? Why? Or are you just "asking questions" (the battle cry of the 9/11 faithful)?

 

[Segnosaur]

The location of the fibers appears to be specifically linked to key places and not just linked in general to random places throughout the house.

Umm... do you have any proof that there was some sort of widespread search of the house and fibers from her shirt were only found on JonBenet?

There was a single hair noted in a single place. Workers had recently been in the basement.

You referring to the unknown pubic hair?

First of all, that hair was found on the blanket itself.... or are you suggesting the workers used it to take a nap during their lunch breaks?

Secondly, how many construction workers actually do their work naked? (well, except for in cheesy porn movies.)

Patsy's clothing fibers were in very specific places she said she had not been.

Which again, could be explained by the fact that those fibers would have been on her daughter from the night before, and would have likely traveled with the victim and her killer.

But once again, I'm not trying to argue any single smoking gun.

Except every bullet in your 'evidence gun' is filled with blanks. A hundred pieces of non-evidence to not a case make, and when we point that stuff out to you, you just shout "staging! Totality of evidence".

The physical evidence on its own is equivocal.

The only way that it can be 'equivocal' is if you assume some bizarre criminal intelligence, and shout 'staging' every time that something really makes no sense if the Ramsey's had done it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Keep in mind that not even every researcher in the field accepts O'Sullivan's research. Some published authors have characterized her results as a "statistical fluke".

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u3051220n573124w/

Got anything else? It would appear this is disputed:

Reply scoring and reporting: A response to bond (2008)

ABSTRACT
Bond (2008) objects to the attention given to two of our publications on lie detection accuracy because of what he suggests is incompetence in one case and suppression of data in the other. It is our opinion that his claims are based principally on a tortured re-interpretation of a manuscript we attempted to publish that he has kept in his possession for more than a decade and cites without our permission. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

And I repeat my position... whatever "skill" you have in diagnosing abuse is probably not relevant here because A: You do not have access to all of the individuals (including the victim), and B: the people you have seen have not been through the same turmoil as the Ramseys. These are likely far outside the scope of what you yourself have had to deal with.

If I could assess situations I had seen previously, that suggests no health care provider could make an assessment or diagnosis they had not previously encountered. That's just not a valid argument.

There's a lot of information the public has no access to. I think it would be much more likely to add to the assessment rather than change it. But you are welcome to your opinion.

And remember, there is also the following flaw that you have never addressed:

- You once claimed that "every person you've encountered admits guilt when confronted by evidence". Yet the Ramseys never admitted anything. So, what is it... is your experience somehow misinformed?

You are misquoting me. You should be more careful. I said many, I may have even said most. I never said every. I said of the cases I assessed as involving abuse, except for one I don't know the outcome of, the other cases did turn out to involve abuse.

Yet John Douglas, who has had a long career with the FBI investigating serial killers, has a degree in psychology, has had his work recognized by the University of Virginia, and who has probably worked on hundreds of cases has pointed out that people handle the murder of a loved one in different ways.

That doesn't say people handle murder of a loved one in every conceivable way possible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....[snipped same line of piecemeal arguments already addressed]

The only way that it can be 'equivocal' is if you assume some bizarre criminal intelligence, and shout 'staging' every time that something really makes no sense if the Ramsey's had done it.

You are welcome to your opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinion about who is guilty in this case.

The things I do think are worthwhile trying to convince people of here are (the list has grown):

• There are recognizable cues which consistently identify abuse within a family.
• Grieving may encompass a broad range of behaviors, but it is not an infinitely broad range.
• Critical thinking includes recognizing that because one doesn't have certain knowledge, that is not evidence the knowledge doesn't exist.
• Touch DNA evidence needs a baseline of what is commonly found before it should be relied on to convict or exonerate anyone.
• Critical thinking includes caution assuming the significance of a valid scientific technique until the significance is also demonstrated.
• There is an evidence supported method of detecting deceit in some interviews.
• Critical thinking includes taking care not to dismiss a new claim on the basis all past claims have been discredited.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Wiki site is A WIKI SITE. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what that means. It means it is a collection of information individuals added.

Yes. Individuals. Which means any individual can update it. Even those who don't know what they are talking about. Sort of like....well, sort of like someone in this thread.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So....Patsy killed JonBenet then stayed up all night committing the crime and then staging things while her husband slept? And her husband, when he learned about things, went along with it, and they were supportive enough of each other that he didn't say anything?

That sounds like true love to me.

 

[Segnosaur]

So....Patsy killed JonBenet then stayed up all night committing the crime and then staging things while her husband slept? And her husband, when he learned about things, went along with it, and they were supportive enough of each other that he didn't say anything?

That sounds like true love to me.

Yeah, except of course when those assuming Patsy did it starts to make claims about how the ransom note was written in order to "stick it" to her husband. So, they are supportive of each other yet Patsy hates John.

 

[Fnord]

Why is any of this important, anyway? I mean, if anyone had any real and convincing evidence to charge the Ramseys (now just the dad) with the death of their daughter, then why has no one been convicted of the crime?

The simplest answer is that there is no real and convincing evidence to support a case against anyone, what little evidence there is points to an unknown person or persons. That's all there is to it.

Too bad, though ... if the daughter's murderer is now some unclaimed or undiscovered corpse, then it is extremely likely that no one will ever know who he, she, or they were.