Jonbennet Ramsey

[Segnosaur]

Ummm... it appears that that 'rebuttle' was written in part by O'Sullivan herself. Not exactly indicative of "scientific consensus" over the issue.

Perhaps you are unaware of what peer review means. Authors are always allowed to reply to critics. That's how it works in peer reviewed scientific publications.

Of course I know what peer review is.

Just like the article referenced by Kestrel in the very first page of this thread (which pointed out that "human lie detectors don't exist" appeared in a peer reviewed journal.

The issue isn't whether authors can defend themselves in peer reviewed journals... the issue is that such 'defense' does not indicate wider acceptance of their theories.


Still waiting to hear of your description of what you think happened. (Yeah, I know you've made statements about how there's not enough evidence to tell for sure, but hey, I'm willing to allow some creativity if it fits whatever evidence exists.)

 

[Segnosaur]

And your "evidence" is "established"?

I'm seeing a classic case of CT mode here:

* Dismissing the conclusions of those who know the case best (DA, FBI, civil court judge) in favor of speculation from others
* Waving off some evidence on the grounds that it's not conclusive while endlessly flogging other evidence that's even less conclusive
* Constructing a narrative based on partial evidence (e.g. selective fibers, subjective analysis of supposed micro-emotions in taped interviews, unsupported claims in TV news shows) while failing to consider the totality of what is known
* Casting suspicion on anything that's not "normal" despite the fact that the case is, by all accounts, highly unusual to begin with

Hey, and don't forget, her inability to actually put forward a plausible scenario for the crime from start to finish. All we get are a miss-mash of ideas, many of which don't fit together, and some which are downright contradictory ("Oh, it was a fit of rage", "Oh there could have been long-term abuse").

You know, I can understand that we may never know all the details about what happened that night. For example, we may never know the reason why an intruder chose the ransom amount he did, or why JonBenet had eaten pineapple before her death. But we can at least put forward a plausible scenario which explains the evidence that was found. (I did so earlier in the thread, when I described how/when the killer broke in, wrote the note, abducted/killed JonBenet, and escaped.) We haven't seen Skeptic Ginger attempt to do so with her "Ramseys did it" claim.

 

[Rolfe]

This just appeared in the Stundie nominations thread.

From a youtube video of her meeting with "splitting the sky"

then watch her meeting with 'Splitting the Sky' as Mike Desantos kindly linked - go to part three where Splitting the Sky is unequivocal in describing 9/11 as an inside job - and look at her body language as she sits behind in his support

See she doesn't need to openly support a position her body language does it for her!

[URL="http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=318545&page=11"]http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=318545&page=11[/URL]

Funny, the other posters there also seem to think that body language is a less-than-perfect way of telling what people really think.

Rolfe.

 

[Wildy]

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.

Until we can say how often coincidental DNA is found in various situations, touch DNA is no more reliable than eyewitness testimony.

I find these statements contradictory.

Why aren't you asking for a baseline for trace evidence? You've asked for a baseline for coincidental DNA but you're accepting the fibres?

How do you know that the fibres aren't coincidental?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How do you know that the fibres aren't coincidental?

Because they look guilty.

 

[Wildy]

Because they look guilty.

Maybe they were acting "strange" in interviews?

 

[Moss]

I am not exactly sure if ridicule is a good way to convince someone that they may be wrong.

 

[Cainkane1]

I am not exactly sure if ridicule is a good way to convince someone that they may be wrong.

I agree. sarcasm is uncalled for.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am not exactly sure if ridicule is a good way to convince someone that they may be wrong.

For some people, no matter how many times you show them they are wrong, they either don't get it or refuse to admit it.

Those are the people you ridicule.

 

[Uncayimmy]

For some people, no matter how many times you show them they are wrong, they either don't get it or refuse to admit it.

Those are the people you ridicule.

Hmm...Are you serious? I can't tell. Could you please post a video on YouTube with you saying the same thing?

 

[Wildy]

Hmm...Are you serious? I can't tell. Could you please post a video on YouTube with you saying the same thing?

If he doesn't will you assume that he's not serious?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hmm...Are you serious? I can't tell. Could you please post a video on YouTube with you saying the same thing?

I cannot be photographed.

 

[Wildy]

I find these statements contradictory.

Why aren't you asking for a baseline for trace evidence? You've asked for a baseline for coincidental DNA but you're accepting the fibres?

How do you know that the fibres aren't coincidental?

I don't think this will be getting an answer...

 

[Segnosaur]

I cannot be photographed.

Of course not. If you could, they could analyze you for micro-emotions to tell if you're lying.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course not. If you could, they could analyze you for micro-emotions to tell if you're lying.

That's what I'm afraid of. Because apparently her success rate is 100%.

 

[Wildy]

What exactly have we learned from this thread?

 

[Uncayimmy]

What exactly have we learned from this thread?

I learned that when somebody claims expertise that it's a good idea to examine their credentials because it's not automatically an appeal to authority. Their opinions should be weighed accordingly. I often find myself giving more credence to the opinions of people who can demonstrate expertise in an area. Sure, they might be wrong, and I recognize that possibility. An appeal to authority assumes the expert cannot be wrong.

Skeptic Ginger has claimed expertise in this thread, so decided to investigate that claim by looking at other posts she has made.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5710528#post5710528
My expertise is in diagnosing child and domestic abuse, detecting deception is a hobby.

Elsewhere I have found other claims of expertise:

She has expertise in infectious disease.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5203905#post5203905

Medical education and research gives her expertise in understanding why people sue, which is how she knew that the school system screwed up communicating with parents and that led the parents to sue (even though she didn't know what was said).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5441205#post5441205

And there's this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5710649#post5710649
My expertise is in microorganisms that cause disease. Because that involves a heavy dose of genetic science I can say with confidence, your pondering shows little expertise on how the mechanisms of evolution work.

That one was interesting because in another thread where a member who is a vet told us that a picture of an aborted sheep was not the least bit unusual looking in her experience and just sensationalism in the tabloids, Skeptic Ginger wrote:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164722
OK, looks pretty weird to me. I'd love to see a DNA analysis. I'd be more than convinced it was paradelia if there was DNA that suggested so.

OTOH, human to sheep sex is not exactly unheard of and neither are unviable offspring of mixed species unions.

Just saying... what does the evidence actually support?

I'm surprised her "heavy dose of genetic science" didn't include the fact that sheep have 54 chromosomes and humans have 46 or that hybrids don't typically come out with the "face" of one animal while everything else looks like the other animal.

So, based on these various and dubious claims of expertise, I have decided to disregard Skeptic Ginger's claims of expertise made in this thread. And based on the seemingly logical and sensible counterarguments to her claims of detecting deceit, I pretty much disregard most of what the Ramseys have said and would prefer to look at the physical evidence. Because the police are allowed to lie about evidence during an interrogation, it's hard to know what physical evidence there really is. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear the Boulder police botched the investigation from the start, so I doubt we'll ever know with any degree of certainty what happened.

 

[Wildy]

One of the things that I learned was that apparently you need to determine the probability of DNA evidence being coincidental, but fibres don't.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What exactly have we learned from this thread?

That it's quite normal to turn cartwheels in a police station. As long as you don't look guilty doing it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I learned that when somebody claims expertise that it's a good idea to examine their credentials because it's not automatically an appeal to authority. Their opinions should be weighed accordingly. I often find myself giving more credence to the opinions of people who can demonstrate expertise in an area. Sure, they might be wrong, and I recognize that possibility. An appeal to authority assumes the expert cannot be wrong.

Skeptic Ginger has claimed expertise in this thread, so decided to investigate that claim by looking at other posts she has made.



Elsewhere I have found other claims of expertise:

She has expertise in infectious disease.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5203905#post5203905

Medical education and research gives her expertise in understanding why people sue, which is how she knew that the school system screwed up communicating with parents and that led the parents to sue (even though she didn't know what was said).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5441205#post5441205

And there's this one:


That one was interesting because in another thread where a member who is a vet told us that a picture of an aborted sheep was not the least bit unusual looking in her experience and just sensationalism in the tabloids, Skeptic Ginger wrote:



I'm surprised her "heavy dose of genetic science" didn't include the fact that sheep have 54 chromosomes and humans have 46 or that hybrids don't typically come out with the "face" of one animal while everything else looks like the other animal.

So, based on these various and dubious claims of expertise, I have decided to disregard Skeptic Ginger's claims of expertise made in this thread. And based on the seemingly logical and sensible counterarguments to her claims of detecting deceit, I pretty much disregard most of what the Ramseys have said and would prefer to look at the physical evidence. Because the police are allowed to lie about evidence during an interrogation, it's hard to know what physical evidence there really is. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear the Boulder police botched the investigation from the start, so I doubt we'll ever know with any degree of certainty what happened.

This is called "hitting the nail on the head".

People can claim all sorts of expertise, but if they don't demonstrate it, then their claims are meaningless.