Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Segnosaur]

The parents lawyering up separately is the opposite - two sets of lawyers allow for more delays and more opportunities to stymie investigators.

What are the possible reasons for having different law firms represent JR and PR? Most people whose child has been killed or kidnapped only hire one lawyer (then again, most of those people aren't as wealthy as the Ramseys were).

How about the most simple reason.. by having separate lawyers, you reduce the chance of your legal counsel (as good as they may be) overlooking some key piece of evidence or legal loophole.

 

[BStrong]

How about the most simple reason.. by having separate lawyers, you reduce the chance of your legal counsel (as good as they may be) overlooking some key piece of evidence or legal loophole.

I'm skeptical about why the parents of a murdered child might need a legal loophole, but maybe you didn't mean to use the phrase as I understand it.

 

[Segnosaur]

2. Mr. Ramsey is obviously not a stupid man, he is a successful businessman. I don't think there would be too many people, particularly movie buffs, that don't know that you should never interfere with a crime scene. Don't touch anything. Yet he not only removes the tape from JonBenet's mouth, and loosens the ligatures, he moves the body!

...Mr Ramsey's actions were in any way "the complete opposite" of what anyone else would do. I would love to see your cite that the first action of a parents when discovering their child's body in a dark basement is to preserve the crime scene: and doing anything else is suspicious.

Why do I get the feeling that if John Ramsey did avoid interfering with the crime scene, if he told the guy he was with "Don't go in there, don't touch anything", that all of the "inside jobbers" would be suggesting that John's actions suggested that he staged the whole thing. "He must have killed her... how'd he know not to approach the body?"

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Why do I get the feeling that if John Ramsey did avoid interfering with the crime scene, if he told the guy he was with "Don't go in there, don't touch anything", that all of the "inside jobbers" would be suggesting that John's actions suggested that he staged the whole thing. "He must have killed her... how'd he know not to approach the body?"

Yes, his moves are/were scrutinized. Both words and actions are analyzed anytime you are found near a dead body (I would assume.) It's not that words uttered or movements made convict someone, but they do help complete a picture. If the Ramseys had awakened to a bashed in back door, no ransom note and JonBenet found strangled in the basement, there wouldn't ever have been near the scrutiny they've experienced. The fact is, the entire scene was extremely strange and most of the evidence fits an RDI scenario much better than an IDI scenario.

 

[Segnosaur]

How about the most simple reason.. by having separate lawyers, you reduce the chance of your legal counsel (as good as they may be) overlooking some key piece of evidence or legal loophole.

I'm skeptical about why the parents of a murdered child might need a legal loophole, but maybe you didn't mean to use the phrase as I understand it.

I'm using the term 'loophole' in a very broad sense... any part of the legal proceedings that would be used to their own benefit.

As for why they need it... someone here posted multiple cases where people were wrongly imprisoned and later exonerated. If you were an innocent John or Patsy Ramsey, and you found the police were targeting you as the suspects with the hopes of pinning the crime on you, wouldn't you take any and all appropriate measures to keep that from happening? After all, all that a prosecutor would need would be to get lucky with a favorable jury and/or biased judge.

 

[BStrong]

I'm using the term 'loophole' in a very broad sense... any part of the legal proceedings that would be used to their own benefit.

As for why they need it... someone here posted multiple cases where people were wrongly imprisoned and later exonerated. If you were an innocent John or Patsy Ramsey, and you found the police were targeting you as the suspects with the hopes of pinning the crime on you, wouldn't you take any and all appropriate measures to keep that from happening? After all, all that a prosecutor would need would be to get lucky with a favorable jury and/or biased judge.

Too many ifs.

There have been instances where LEA's and district attorneys have arrested, tried and convicted individuals wrongfully, and in cases far less serious than the child murder scenario under discussion, but was a family member of mine abducted/murdered/victimized and I was approached by LE to provide information, DNA samples or whatever I would do so without hesitation.

Now if I was simply walking down the street minding my own business and was grabbed off the street by LE w/o warning or explanation and grilled, that would be an entirely different question and in a case like that the only thing I would state past ID'ing myself would be "I make no statement without my attorney present." and I'd stick to it.

For whatever it's worth, and on the 'net it's probably not much, but in my first hand experience individuals that are interviewed in the context of most investigations that are provably on the level w/ the interviewer are not going to end up in some Kafkaesque legal hell - yeah, Isidore Zimmerman was railroaded and he isn't the only example, but they're the exception, not the rule.

 

[Hard Cheese]

...I'm not interested in arguing over a cite until you provide some evidence that:

I'm not arguing, I just asked your opinion on how the cite *you* posted is relevant to this case. I answered your question and gave you my opinion, I'm surprised you won't back up your own cite.

...Mr Ramsey's actions were in any way "the complete opposite" of what anyone else would do. I would love to see your cite that the first action of a parents when discovering their child's body in a dark basement is to preserve the crime scene: and doing anything else is suspicious.

That's not what I said. I said that interfering with a crime scene is suspicious, because it's common knowledege that you shouldn't interfere with a crime scene.
Here's what I wrote, if you aren't sure:

I don't think there would be too many people, particularly movie buffs, that don't know that you should never interfere with a crime scene. Don't touch anything. Yet he not only removes the tape from JonBenet's mouth, and loosens the ligatures, he moves the body! If you have had a family member murdered, you want to find the perpetrator (Patsy said this directly on national TV), so you should be being careful not to disturb any clues - it's in your own best interest. Yet JR does the complete opposite, contaminating the crime scene as much as possible. A cynic might say that he made sure he touched the duct tape and the ligatures in case he had left fingerprints on them earlier.

I'd have thought the highlighted item doubly difficult to forget if there are police officers wandering around your house at the time.

I'll be waiting.

So am I - 10% 80% 10%, which response does JR fall into? Rational? bewildered, confused and largely inactive? or hysterical?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with nearly every word in Rolling Stone's critique of the show -- theatrical behaviour of the presenter-investigators, persistent patterns of confirmation bias, creative interpretation of noise on the phone call recording, peddling of statement analysis and profiling pseudo-science, and general irresponsibility. But I still think the show's overall theory very likely correct.

That DNA was trace DNA, the coming attractions to the show made me not watch it because I thought they were going to say it proved another person was there.

We went round and round on this earlier, trace DNA has to be interpreted with caution because it could have been from someone involved in packaging the product prior to sale. I'm glad to see Dr Lee agrees with me and in this case Rolling Stone is wrong.

When you die your bladder and bowels relax. The underwear was too big. I think it's plausible that Patsy didn't want to leave her deceased daughter in an incontinent mess so she cleaned her up and put those too big panties on her.


I agree with the rest of your post and the RS analysis, typical docudrama stuff.

 

[whoanellie]

What are the possible reasons for having different law firms represent JR and PR? Most people whose child has been killed or kidnapped only hire one lawyer (then again, most of those people aren't as wealthy as the Ramseys were).

The only reason for hiring separate lawyers is that one lawyer representing two clients in a criminal case creates a conflict of interest. The Ramseys would have been advised to hire separate lawyers.

 

[banquetbear]

I'm not arguing, I just asked your opinion on how the cite *you* posted is relevant to this case. I answered your question and gave you my opinion, I'm surprised you won't back up your own cite.

...I've actually already answered your question. And I don't need to "back up my cite." The cite "backs up me." You have accepted the cite for the purposes of debate.

That's not what I said. I said that interfering with a crime scene is suspicious, because it's common knowledege that you shouldn't interfere with a crime scene.
Here's what I wrote, if you aren't sure:

What a load of tosh. I read what you said. And that's exactly what you said. It is literally what you said. What part of what I wrote are you quibbling about?

Of course you shouldn't interfere with a crime scene. And a person thinking rationally wouldn't interfere with a crime scene. But Mr Ramsey wasn't at a "crime scene." He was looking at the body of his *********** daughter, lying in the dirt, in the dark . Get your head around that for a minute. What the **** would you do in the same situation?

Oh thats right, you've already told us. If it was your daughter lying dead in front of you you would put up the crime scene tape, tell everyone to "BACK OFF! WE MUST PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THIS CRIME SCENE!" and then heroically stop anyone touching the body until the crime-scene investigators got there. (And that, of course, wouldn't be suspicious at all.)

You wouldn't do what most people would (unconsciously) do (and what my cite suggests people in times of trauma do) and "try to suppress realities of what has happened."

"If I take the tape JonBenet's mouth, and loosens the ligatures, maybe she will start breathing again. Maybe she is breathing and I can't see it, I'll take her into the light."

We don't have a clue as to what went through Mr Ramsey's head that night. But how he did act doesn't seem unusual to me at all.

I'd have thought the highlighted item doubly difficult to forget if there are police officers wandering around your house at the time.

I can guarantee you that if a person I loved with all my heart was lying dead in front of me in a dark and dingy basement the fact that there were "police officers wandering around the house" would be the last thing on my mind.

So am I - 10% 80% 10%, which response does JR fall into? Rational? bewildered, confused and largely inactive? or hysterical?

I've answered your question. Several times. Go read what I've written and if you can't parse my answer then that isn't my fault. I've already stated that Mr Ramsey acted the way that most people would have acted. So where do you think that lands him? I'm not going to debate that cite. Because unlike you I've actually provided one.

Now go and provide your cite. Oh: I see you have provided a cite. Movies! Yes, of course, that is how people gain "common knowledge!" Through the movies!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Not in my experience.

How long ago was your experience?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You are assuming that the stun gun was used when JonBenet was in the house. You assume nothing in a murder investigation.

Are suggesting that JBR was taken out of the house? Or that the stun gun was not used during the fatal crime?

 

[Hard Cheese]

...I've actually already answered your question. And I don't need to "back up my cite." The cite "backs up me." You have accepted the cite for the purposes of debate.

I accepted it solely for the purpose of posing a question to you, because I wanted to know how you justified that cite. A one sided debate, it seems, because you won't even answer a simple question.

.
Of course you shouldn't interfere with a crime scene. And a person thinking rationally wouldn't interfere with a crime scene. But Mr Ramsey wasn't at a "crime scene."

His wife had called 911, they'd found a ransom note on their stairs, there were police all over his house, and he finds a dead body in his basement. Not a crime scene at all, no.

He was looking at the body of his *********** daughter, lying in the dirt, in the dark . Get your head around that for a minute. What the **** would you do in the same situation?

Calm down, would you? I bet you'd be in the hysterical 10%.

The first thing I'd check is if she was alive...even if there was the remotest possibility of that, I wouldn't be standing around like an idiot just assuming she was dead. If she was dead, I'd yell out for one of the cops milling around outside the door, or to the cop who was in charge and asked me to search the house. Who would presumably tell me not to touch anything or go carrying her body off to another room.

Oh thats right, you've already told us. If it was your daughter lying dead in front of you you would put up the crime scene tape, tell everyone to "BACK OFF! WE MUST PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THIS CRIME SCENE!" and then heroically stop anyone touching the body until the crime-scene investigators got there. (And that, of course, wouldn't be suspicious at all.)

No, that's what you invented in a poor attempt to be humorous.

"If I take the tape JonBenet's mouth, and loosens the ligatures, maybe she will start breathing again. Maybe she is breathing and I can't see it, I'll take her into the light."

Well, that part did give me a good laugh. Take her into the light to see if she is still breathing, so I'll move the body. Why didn't he just turn on the light in the basement?

Because unlike you I've actually provided one.

One that isn't even applicable to this situation.

Now go and provide your cite. Oh: I see you have provided a cite. Movies! Yes, of course, that is how people gain "common knowledge!" Through the movies!

Since most people are not involved with it on a daily basis, where else do they learn about police procedures, and what happens in a kidnapping or murder investigation? Books, movies, TV shows, documentaries. Some might get it from (possibly, but not necessarily) more accurate sources, text books, training materials, procedure manuals. Do you want me to provide you with a reference to a police procedural manual that says you should not interfere with a crime scene? I can if you like. I've never seen it written down, but I have heard it said in a lot of movies.

 

[banquetbear]

I accepted it for the purposes of posing the question to you, because I wanted to know how you justified that cite. A one sided debate, it seems, because you won't even answer a simple question.

...that question I've already answered?

His wife had called 911, they'd found a ransom note on their stairs, there were police all over his house, and he finds a dead body in his basement. Not a crime scene at all, no.

If it was a "crime scene" then why are they letting the father walk into it?

It might be a crime scene to the police. But to a dad who is looking at his dead daughter lying on the cold floor it isn't a crime scene: its his daughter.

Calm down, would you? I bet you'd be in the hysterical 10%.

You think using a couple of bad words to describe finding your dead daughter in the basement is being "hysterical?"

Its no wonder you can't conceive that someone might have a different reaction to you.

I used those bad words for a reason. Death is an emotional thing for most of us. And we all react in different ways. Lets pretend that I am hysterical. Does that mean I am also a murderer? Because I said the word **** twice in a messageboard thread?

The first thing I'd check is if she was alive...even if there was the remotest possibility of that, I wouldn't be standing around like an idiot just assuming she was dead.

If she was dead, I'd yell out for one of the cops milling around outside the door, or to the cop who was in charge and asked me to search the house. Who would presumably tell me not to touch anything or go carrying her body off to another room.

No: this is simply what you "claim" you would do. What you would actually do is maybe something entirely different. Which is the entire point. None of us know how we would react under these circumstances. I know how I think I'd react. I know how I've reacted in emergencies before and I would hope I would react the same way in the future. But all you are telling us is the "idealised" version of how things would play out. But you just don't know what would happen if dog-forbid this were to ever happen to you.

Taking the tape JonBenet's mouth, loosening the ligatures, and moving her into the light are all things I would do to see if she was alive. He is behaving exactly as you would have behaved.

No, that's what you invented in a poor attempt to be humorous.

It wasn't an attempt to be humourous. Because lets be honest here: out of all the possible reactions to seeing your daughter lying dead on a cold slab of concrete, worrying about the integrity of the crime scene would probably be the very last thing on your mind. But even if it was: I wouldn't hold it against you. I certainly wouldn't be convinced you were a murderer because if this. Because in times of extreme duress people do all sorts of different things.

You get your education from movies. So here is a situation I'm sure you've seen before. The police and the parents are looking for someone who has been abducted. The police find the dead body. The mum and dad scream "NOOOOOOOO" and then try and push past the police so they can hold their loved one, but the police push back. Now: imagine just for a minute what would happen if the police weren't there to push them back. They would probably react in exactly the same way as Mr Ramsey did here.

Well, that part did give me a good laugh. Take her into the light to see if she is still breathing, so I'll move the body. Why didn't he just turn on the light in the basement?

Because that would mean leaving his daughter. Alone. Dead. In the middle of the basement.

What part of "stop trying to apply logic to a chaotic emotional situation" are you failing to understand?

One that isn't even applicable to this situation.

Yeah, sure. A scientific study fails in comparison to Lethal Weapon 3!

You haven't explained why what I cited isn't applicable here. Why do you think it isn't?

Since most people are not involved with it on a daily bases, where else do they learn about police procedures, and what happens in a kidnapping or murder investigation? Books, movies, TV shows, documentaries.

Well, no they mostly don't learn anything from doing any of that. Because if they did then they would think that murder cases take only 43 minutes: from the murder to the arrest to court case to jail. They would think DNA results come back in five minutes. They would expect that at the very least 50% of rape kits would be sent for analysis. Because these are the lessons we get from TV and the movies.

Some might get it from (possibly, but not necessarily) more accurate sources, text books, training materials, procedure manuals. Do you want me to provide you with a reference to a police procedural manual that says you should not interfere with a crime scene?

What would be the point of that? I'm not the freaking police. Police procedural manuals are written for the police. They are rules for the police to follow. They are rules for the police to enforce. But I'm not the police. And if someones daughter were lying alone in the middle of a cold, empty basement it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the father attempted to rescue her, to comfort her, because that is what fathers do. And there isn't a manual for that.

I can if you like. I've never seen it written down, but I have heard it said in a lot of movies.

Oh by all means, please do cite this thing you don't even know if it exists that bears no relation to this topic at all! Because that makes so much sense!

 

[Hard Cheese]

No: this is simply what you "claim" you would do. What you would actually do is maybe something entirely different. Which is the entire point. None of us know how we would react under these circumstances. I know how I think I'd react. I know how I've reacted in emergencies before and I would hope I would react the same way in the future. But all you are telling us is the "idealised" version of how things would play out. But you just don't know what would happen if dog-forbid this were to ever happen to you.

Possibly. But I've been in enough tight spots and I know I don't go into a catatonic state or get hysterical in those situations.

Taking the tape JonBenet's mouth, loosening the ligatures, and moving her into the light are all things I would do to see if she was alive. He is behaving exactly as you would have behaved.

I would do none of that, that's not what I said at all.

If you consider JR's actions behaving irrationally (or not thinking logically) in the situation - do you not ask yourself why each one of his irrational actions is also an evidence-contaminating action? I think you're handwaving that away, that because he is in an emotionally distraught state that any behaviour is acceptable and shouldn't be scrutinised. Why do you dismiss the possibility that he is acting perfectly rationally (for someone who is complicit in a crime) and is fully aware of what he is doing? Isn't that an equally valid conclusion to reach?

You haven't explained why what I cited isn't applicable here. Why do you think it isn't?

It addresses the reactions of people in disaster situations, such as plane fires, or the specific case he studied, of a sinking passenger ferry. The behavioural drivers in those situations are different to those JR experienced

- You are in a situation where your own life is in danger (not true for JR)
- You are under time pressure to make decisions (not true for JR), where those decisions may affect your survival (he had no decisions to make)
- You are likely in a foreign environment (JR was in his own home)
- You will be experiencing unpredictable external physical events that are outside your control, with which you have no prior experience and no training (JR was safe at home)
- You may be delegating control of your survival to other people, for instance a pilot or emergency service personnel (not true of JR)

The only common link is that they are both situations where the subject is under great emotional stress. Transplanting the results of a study of one situation and assuming they apply to all situations where the subject is under great emotional stress is foolish. But even if the outcomes were similar - and this is why I asked the question - wouldn't you then expect JR's behaviour then to fall into one of the three categories described? According to you, he's not acting rationally. He doesn't experience behavioural inaction. And he doesn't seem to be hysterical either. How do you explain that? Perhaps it's because you're comparing oranges with apples.

 

[Henri McPhee]

When you die your bladder and bowels relax. The underwear was too big. I think it's plausible that Patsy didn't want to leave her deceased daughter in an incontinent mess so she cleaned her up and put those too big panties on her.

I agree with the rest of your post and the RS analysis, typical docudrama stuff.

My own theory is that Fleet and Prisicilla White, or Chris Wolf, replaced JonBenet's original panties and then took the original panties out of the Ramsey house because those original panties were of forensic significance. When the murderers did replace those original panties they did not fully appreciate that the new panties were over sized. This subsequently caused much confusion.

This is what I posted about the matter in 2010:

My memory is going a bit about all the details. As far as I can remember Patsy purchased the packet of over sized panties in New York months before the murder. Patsy intended to give the over sized panties to a niece in Georgia at Christmas but JonBenet took a fancy to them. Patsy then put them in JonBenet's panty drawer which, I think, was in the bathroom attached to JonBenet's bedroom.

There is obvious controversy about which panties JonBenet was wearing that Christmas Day. Nobody knows for certain. She was found dead in the large panties.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 4. Do not post large amounts of material from other sites, and always enclose quoted material in quotes and provide a link to the original. http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TOOC8RPCCGPD4776J

 

[Henri McPhee]

That DNA was trace DNA, the coming attractions to the show made me not watch it because I thought they were going to say it proved another person was there.

We went round and round on this earlier, trace DNA has to be interpreted with caution because it could have been from someone involved in packaging the product prior to sale. I'm glad to see Dr Lee agrees with me and in this case Rolling Stone is wrong.

Dr Lee is not a specialist DNA expert. Under the federal rules of evidence you can only give your opinion in court if you are a real expert.

There is a bit of background to this on the internet from somebody called Jim Fisher:

William Kennedy Smith Case

Five years after his famous Crafts murder trial testimony, Dr. Lee took the stand on behalf of a defendant named William Kennedy Smith who was on trail for an alleged 1991 date rape that dominated the news because of the Kennedy family connection. According to the accused, following a night of drinking in Palm Beach, Florida with his accuser, the two had engaged in consensual sex on the lawn of the Kennedy family estate. Dr. Lee, to help prove that the defendant's partner had consented to sex, testified that he had found no grass stains on the woman's pantyhose, evidence one would expect to find had there been a struggle. To illustrate this point, Dr. Lee produced a grass-stained handkerchief he had rubbed against the grass in his own yard. The jury found William Kennedy Smith not guilty.

Dr. Lee's testimony in the Kennedy case drew criticism from John Hicks, the director of the FBI Laboratory, who called it "outrageous." Hicks characterized Dr. Lee's handkerchief experiment as unscientific, and labeled the conclusions drawn from it speculative. The crime lab director pointed out that the handkerchief was not made of the same fabric as the pantyhose, and the conditions that had created the handkerchief stains did not necessarily replicate the environment at the alleged crime site. Criticism of this type--that Dr. Lee's testimony is more theater than science--has followed him throughout his career.

Edited by Agatha: 

Trimmed for rule 4 and to add link to original

 

[banquetbear]

Possibly. But I've been in enough tight spots and I know I don't go into a catatonic state or get hysterical in those situations.

...and from all descriptions Mr Ramsey didn't get either hysterical or go into a catatonic state either. He may well have said **** a couple of times. But that isn't hysterical.

I would do none of that, that's not what I said at all.

How do you know? You weren't in the basement and you didn't see what Ramsey saw. How do you know what you would do?

If you consider JR's actions behaving irrationally (or not thinking logically) in the situation - do you not ask yourself why each one of his irrational actions is also an evidence-contaminating action?

Nope.

I think you're handwaving that away, that because he is in an emotionally distraught state that any behaviour is acceptable and shouldn't be scrutinised.

You are welcome to scrutinise all you want. In fact: you are scrutinising his behaviour. Would you care to lay your credentials on the table? Why should we lend any weight to your scrutinising skills?

I'm not handwaving anything away. You aren't actually demonstrating anything. Mr Ramsey's complete and utterly predictable and understandable reaction to seeing his daughter lying dead in the basement also may or may not have "contaminated the evidence." It could well be all a carefully staged plan to deceive the investigative team. Or maybe it wasn't.

Why do you dismiss the possibility that he is acting perfectly rationally (for someone who is complicit in a crime) and is fully aware of what he is doing? Isn't that an equally valid conclusion to reach?

When exactly did I dismiss that possibility? Where are you getting this from? The answer is I haven't dismissed that possibility. Stop making assumptions on what it is I think.

It addresses the reactions of people in disaster situations, such as plane fires, or the specific case he studied, of a sinking passenger ferry. The behavioural drivers in those situations are different to those JR experienced

You missed this bit at the end.

"Other Instances of Freezing

Sexual assault: Many victims of rape and sexual assault report some degree or paralysis

Shame: When a teacher, peer or boss embarrasses us or insults us, we often freeze.

Grief: The numbing feeling of grief and the clouding consciousness can be a form of freezing due to trauma."

There are many similar drivers, as you will demonstrate below.

- You are in a situation where your own life is in danger (not true for JR)

His life wasn't in danger. But his daughter's life was in danger.

- You are under time pressure to make decisions (not true for JR), where those decisions may affect your survival (he had no decisions to make)

She might not be dead. He might have been able to save her life. There was plenty of time pressure.

- You are likely in a foreign environment (JR was in his own home)

That wasn't mentioned in the article at all.

- You will be experiencing unpredictable external physical events that are outside your control, with which you have no prior experience and no training (JR was safe at home)

He had just found his daughter dead in the basement. I'm pretty sure that was the first time that had happened to him. Dads don't get training for that: and one hopes you don't have to have prior experiences.

- You may be delegating control of your survival to other people, for instance a pilot or emergency service personnel (not true of JR)

That isn't mentioned in the article either.

The only common link is that they are both situations where the subject is under great emotional stress.

There are plenty of other common links. And you have very thoughtfully listed them. Thanks for doing that!

Transplanting the results of a study of one situation and assuming they apply to all situations where the subject is under great emotional stress is foolish.

So lets instead compare it to Lethal Weapon! Because that isn't foolish at all!

But even if the outcomes were similar - and this is why I asked the question - wouldn't you then expect JR's behaviour then to fall into one of the three categories described? According to you, he's not acting rationally. He doesn't experience behavioural inaction. And he doesn't seem to be hysterical either.

These are the actual stages the article talks about:

"Stages of Behavior In Emergencies
Understanding how people act in emergency situations is important preparation for those moments. Leach explains that there are different stages of behavior during emergency situations.

As Emergency Approaches (if not entirely unexpected, ex. Engine catches on fire, water coming in to boat, etc.)

People are aware of the impact, but ignore or deny facts
The risk perceived is lower than the actual risk
Apathetic behavior
Denial and uncertainty
As the Disaster Hits

Information processing is hampered and confused
Reflexive and mechanical behavior
Emotional systems out of control
After Impact

People try to suppress realities of what has happened
Strong and irrational emotions expressed"

How do you explain that? Perhaps it's because you're comparing oranges with apples.

I explain that because you are relying on a "few word summary" and I'm relying on the actual article.

But hey: at least I bought something to the table. All you bought was "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit."

 

[Consternatio]

Personal anecdata ahead, but just on the point about how JR reacted to finding his daughter's body:

If you've never been in a situation where you've found a loved one dead, then I'm afraid you have no idea how you'll actually react. I suspect that it won't be the way you'd like to think you'd react (wasn't in my case).

There is no consideration of the scene or how it might look or what anyone else thinks. In fact, in my personal experience, there isn't much rational thought going on at all; I can't tell you why I did the things I did, even now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

literature on fingernail DNA

I am still reviewing the more recent forensic DNA literature, with the hope of clarifying the difference between intimate partners versus people who are cohabitating. However, I thought I would share what I have found so far, much of which is covered in Peter Gill's 2014 book, "Misleading DNA Evidence" on pagers 43-46 and 68-80. The three paragraphs below are primarily drawn from his book, augmented by some additional reading of the papers he cited, and the authors and year of citations to the primary literature are indicated. Often one just observes self DNA, and if a second profile is observed, it is sometimes a partial profile. If only a few alleles are observed, the profile is not of sufficient completeness to report, but number of alleles needed may possibly be different, depending upon the jurisdiction. I have some other comments on fingernail DNA upthread. It would be helpful to have the laboratory reports from this case. Again I acknowledge the possibility of contamination during the autopsy, but my reading of the passage from Kolar's book that is quoted on reddit makes me discount the possibility that the clippers were the source of the DNA (I don't rule it out altogether).

Cerri and coworkers (2009) observed DNA mixtures 5% of the time. Cook and Dixon (2007) reported observing reportable mixtures 6% of the time, although 13% had some foreign DNA. Matte and coworkers (2012) found foreign DNA 19% of the time, and 7% were reportable. They observed that about 2/3 of these mixtures produced poor quality, low level DNA. Henderson and coworkers (2004) found foreign DNA 8% of the time, but they did not subdivide it into reportable and non-reportable mixtures.

In a study of couples by Malsom and coworkers (2009), 37% of the samples produced mixtures and 19% were reportable. Most of the foreign DNA was from the partner. The amount of DNA varied between 20:1 and 1:1, and they used autosomal and Y chromosomal testing.

Matte and coworkers (2012) studied suspected or known scratching from actual casework, and they found foreign DNA 33% of the time, versus having found it 19% of the time in the general populace. They also performed simulated scratching experiments, which produced 37% foreign DNA with 17% reportable. More vigorous scratching produced 30% reportable profiles (in other words the quality of the profiles increased). Finally, they also studied the persistence of DNA over a 7-day period. IIRC they found that normal activity over a six-hour period reduced the percentage of foreign DNA considerably.
EDT
From what I can gather from another excerpt from Kolar's book, there were not enough markers from the fingernails to enter into a database. Therefore the larger of the two numbers in the studies above would seem to be the better comparison.