Jonbennet Ramsey

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've yet to see a court case decided on the basis of "they looked guilty". Body language assessment is terribly over-rated.

If this is supposed to be a claim of what I've said, it isn't what I've said.

Once again, take the person's arguments and change them into straw and voila! You win the debate.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A lot of waffle.

I wasn't talking about your claim to be a walking lie detector, I was talking about your claims about the evidence, you know, where you claimed that the father waited until he couldn't wait any more and went off to "find" the body, except that in reality he was told to go and look for anything out of place by the police. And you remember when you claimed that the murder weapon was the from the Ramsey's house, yet in reality the duct tape and cord matched nothing in the house? You seem to be totally ignoring all of the physical evidence that points away from the Ramsey's and focusing totally on your on gut. Very poor investigation that, worthy of a 9/11 CT.

 

[Cainkane1]

I saw a special on TV about a possible suspect in this case. He was a known psycho who like to strangle kittens and such. He was in the area at the time and he had been overheard saying he wanted to bash someones head in. HHe was part of some petty organised crime gang and one day he was found dead. He had been shot to death and an attempt was made to make it look like a suicide. Police have no hard evidence against him but a theory is out there that suggests that when this gang found out he had killed Jonbennet they had killed him to keep his mouth shut. He had worn boots and they were similar to boot prints found outside a window where police thought someone had broken the Ramseys house. Anyone else remember anything about this?

 

[Moss]

Concerning "guilty looks" (whatever those may be): Do microfacial expressions help us to distinguish between the feelings of guilt of parents being unable to protect their child and parents having killed their child?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wasn't talking about your claim to be a walking lie detector, I was talking about your claims about the evidence, you know, where you claimed that the father waited until he couldn't wait any more and went off to "find" the body, except that in reality he was told to go and look for anything out of place by the police. And you remember when you claimed that the murder weapon was the from the Ramsey's house, yet in reality the duct tape and cord matched nothing in the house? You seem to be totally ignoring all of the physical evidence that points away from the Ramsey's and focusing totally on your on gut. Very poor investigation that, worthy of a 9/11 CT.

If you are going to misquote people it's proper etiquette to put brackets [] around the false quote.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If you are going to misquote people it's proper etiquette to put brackets [] around the false quote.

Oh so it was the other you that said:

the fact John Ramsey retrieved the body when the police didn't search the house as he probably expected them to do were important. The murder weapon made no sense unless one of the Ramey's did it. The objects used all came from within the house.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Concerning "guilty looks" (whatever those may be): Do microfacial expressions help us to distinguish between the feelings of guilt of parents being unable to protect their child and parents having killed their child?

First off, it's not "guilty looks". That's a complete distortion of the actual technique. And the interviews were only one piece of the total assessment.

What happens when you are deceitful, depending on the circumstances of the lie, you have very brief involuntary expressions which match your true feeling but don't match the expression one expects given what you are saying. What Frank and Ekland hypothesized then went on to demonstrate is that facial expression of emotion is universal with some cultural modification, but not of the basics. When a primate is happy, he/she/it universally makes the same recognizable facial expression of a smile. While some cultures may discourage or encourage smiling so there are differences overall in the expressions, everyone around the world recognizes a smile. By the same token, that smile is reflexive, not under total conscious voluntary control.

George Bush, for example, was a very bad and frequent liar. That smirk he's known for was common when he was giving answers now shown to be false. Of course when I point this out it annoys many members of this forum who are convinced there is no real science here and all we are seeing is confirmation bias. What could be more suggestive of confirmation bias than Ginger's opinion of Bush's dishonesty?

The assumption all lie detecting is bunk, however, is based on the actual confirmation bias, ironically. Ekland has supported his hypothesis and it has nothing to do with looking guilty, with lie detector tests, with professional skill supposedly leading people to get better at detecting deceit. All of those hypotheses and claims have indeed been debunked, but not Frank and Ekland's work. There is a biological basis underlying the hypothesis and demonstrated validity to the hypothesis.

I learned about this technique years ago. And once you start looking for those micro flashes of emotion, not only can you get better and better at seeing them, you can follow up on your observations and see if they were valid or not.

Getting back to the Ramseys, there is a lot more here than just their bizarre behavior in the interviews. No single piece of evidence closes the case. But the totality of it does. Such evidence is not necessarily what one can use in a court of law which requires a certain standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Compare that standard to the OJ case where he was convicted in civil court even while not being convicted in criminal court. Despite the extraneous circumstances in that case, it illustrated the fact there are different standards for conviction and doubt.

I have my opinion. It doesn't include the opinion there was enough evidence to convict the parents in court. My opinion is apparently too certain for Rolfe's liking. I don't assess the accuracy of my opinions based on how many other people agree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh so it was the other you that said:

You posted this violation of the forum rules, changing what I said:

A lot of waffle.

If you are going to change a quote it is proper etiquette to identify what you altered with brackets, [].

I don't care if you want to post your opinion of what I posted. I do care that you made it look like I called someone else's post a lot of waffle.



As for whether J Ramsey went on his own to find the body or went after the police told him to look around doesn't change the overall picture. It still fits with a staged crime scene where J Ramsey knew right where to look.

Time Unstated "In the early afternoon, after the forensics team and other officers had packed up and left, Detective Arndt stayed behind to wait with the Ramseys." (Glick et al. 1998).

Before 1:00 PM Arndt Tells John Ramsey to Search House. "The mood in the house was quiet and tense. John Ramsey milled anxiously around the living room; Patsy sat virtually motionless in a chair. Arndt noted in her police report that she wanted to give John Ramsey something to do "to keep his mind occupied." She pulled Ramsey and friend Fleet White aside and told them to conduct a "top to bottom" search of the house to see if anything seemed amiss." (Glick et al. 1998).


~1:00 PM John Ramsey & Fleet White Search Basement. "At approximately 1300 hours Detective Arndt asked John Ramsey, and his friends Fleet White and John Fernie, to check the interior of the residence for any sign of JonBenét, or anything that may have been left or taken that belonged to JonBenét...John Ramsey immediately went to the basement of the house, followed by Fleet White and John Fernie (Byfield 1997:2). Other accounts make no mention of Fernie. "Later that afternoon, Mr. Ramsey and Mr. White together returned to the basement at the suggestion of the Boulder Police. (SMF P 32; PSMF P 32; White Dep. at 212-217; J. Ramsey Dep. at 17-20.)

 

[PhantomWolf]

I do care that you made it look like I called someone else's post a lot of waffle.

I am sure that anyone with more than 3 braincells to rub together would figure it out fast enough.

As for whether J Ramsey went on his own to find the body or went after the police told him to look around doesn't change the overall picture. It still fits with a staged crime scene where J Ramsey knew right where to look.

Hmmm, the police tell him to do a search of the entire house, from top to bottom. Since they'd already searched the top part once, where would you start?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

As for whether J Ramsey went on his own to find the body or went after the police told him to look around doesn't change the overall picture. It still fits with a staged crime scene where J Ramsey knew right where to look.

It makes it a whole heck of a lot less suspicious, and directly contradicts your contention that he got "impatient" and so went and found the body himself. It's not like he had any reason to think the police would tell him to do a thorough search of the house at some point.

But as far as I can tell, by your logic, in any scenario whatsoever where John Ramsey is the one who discovers the body, it is a strike against him.

I'm not sure how his finding the body would be consistent with a "staged crime scene." So John Ramsey elaborately stages a crime scene, including sexually assaulting his daughter (or her corpse), binding her, duct taping her mouth, etc.... and then rushes to the basement to unstage it? For what purpose? How would ensuring he was the one to find the body work to his advantage at all? And why would he be "impatient" for police to find the body to begin with? It's not like it was going anywhere. In fact, he "unstaged" a key piece of evidence that would have worked in his favor: he moved a suitcase that both men said was below the window that an intruder could have used to step on/off. If you're going to stage a crime scene and make it look like an intruder came in, why would you then move a potential key piece of the scene? That scenario is what makes little sense.

Plus, your statement that John Ramsey knew "right where to look" is wrong. They did a room by room search of the basement. They checked crawl spaces, under the dining room, etc. Consistent with a room by room search, they came across the body in one of the rooms they looked. It wasn't the first room they went through, and there is nothing to suggest John Ramsey had any idea "right where to look."

That, and as PhantomWolf pointed out, not all the items came from the house, as you claimed.

 

[lector]

say what?

Essentially it is not the defendant that's on trial in a Trail By Jury. Instead, what is on trial is the prosecutor's case. So, in America...

"Guilty" = The case, as presented by the prosecution, seems sufficiently sound enough to warrant sentencing the defendant -- and to a possible execution -- even though he or she may actually be "innocent-as-a-newborn-baby".

"Not Guilty" = The case, as presented by the prosecution, is not impressive enough to overcome the jury's prejudices and sympathies, and the defendant must be set free even though he or she may actually be "guilty-as-Hell".

Whoa. Where did you come up with that notion of what leads to a "not guilty" verdict? What do prejudices & sympathies have to do with judging evidence?

Or were you just thinking of the OJ case there?

 

[Fnord]

Concerning "guilty looks" (whatever those may be): Do microfacial expressions help us to distinguish between the feelings of guilt of parents being unable to protect their child and parents having killed their child?

You mean like those twitchy eyelid things I get after my third cup of espresso? Or perhaps when the drugs wear off and I begin to actually feel the pain again from that botched wisdom tooth extraction?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am sure that anyone with more than 3 braincells to rub together would figure it out fast enough.

Regardless of what you are sure of, there is a reason the forum has rules against changing quotes. It's not up to you.

Hmmm, the police tell him to do a search of the entire house, from top to bottom. Since they'd already searched the top part once, where would you start?

Did you miss the whole morning's events that day? J Ramsey had been in the basement several times as were some of the police and Ramsey's friend.

There is also one statement by one of the police that the wine cellar door was latched from the outside, so he didn't look inside. The Ramsey's friend also looked in the basement. He said the wine cellar door was open but he couldn't find the light switch so didn't see the body.

After 6:00 AM Officer French Searched Basement. However, according to Schiller, after arriving at 6:59 AM, French "immediately" searched the house looking for a point of entry; ...
...Thomas's account is far different in terms of timing: "with detectives finally on the scene [they arrived at 8:10 according to Thomas] to handle witnesses, French checked the garage and lower levels of the house, looking for places through which the kidnapper might have carried off the child. He found none. The house was messy, but he saw no sign of a struggle" (Thomas 2000:22-23). ...

After 6:00 AM Officer French Fails to Search Wine Cellar Room. Glick et al. (1998) states that in French's search of the basement (time unstated), "he came to a door secured with a wooden latch. ... JBR's body was later found behind this same door, so why did French not open the door? "In the police report French filed about the events that morning, he says he didn't open the door to the basement room because he was looking for exits the kidnapper might have used. He noticed the latch was on the wrong side for a door leading out of the house. So he kept moving" (Glick et al. 1998)....

Thomas provides a very similar account: "In the basement he also came to the white door at the far end of the that was closed and secured at the top by the wooden block on a screw. French was looking for exit points from the house and the door obviously was not one. No one could have gone through that door, closed it behind them, and locked it on the opposite side by turning the wooden latch, so he did not open it." (Thomas 2000:22-23)....

~6:06 AM Fleet White Searched Basement. Fleet White went downstairs to basement to look for JBR (Schiller 1999a: 44). This time is supported by Carnes (2003:14): "The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival. (SMF P 23; PSMF P 23.) Mr. White testified that when he began his search, the lights were already on in the basement and the door in the hallway leading to the basement "wine cellar" room was opened. (SMF P 25; PSMF P 25; White Dep. at 147, 151-52.)" (Carnes 2003:14).

...After 6:06 AM Fleet White Searched Wine Cellar Room. "Mr. White also opened the door to the wine cellar room, but he could not see anything inside because it was dark and he could not find the light switch. (SMF P 29; PSMF P 29; White Dep. at 159-61.)" (Carnes 2003:14).

It's clear from notes such as White saw the door open and White opened the door that these police accounts often confuse details. Which is consistent with any eye witness accounts where you get slightly different memories of events.


So with that in mind, one can interpret the following "facts" in a number of different ways:

Between 7:00-8:00 AM John Ramsey Searched Basement. "at around ten a.m., Mr. Ramsey also searched the basement area alone. He testified he found the broken window partially open. (SMF P 30; PSMF P 30; J. Ramsey Dep. at 30.) Under the broken window, Mr. Ramsey also saw the same suitcase seen earlier by Mr. White. Mr. Ramsey testified that the suitcase belonged to his family, but was normally stored in a different place. (SMF P 31; 16 PSMF P 31; J. Ramsey Dep. at 17.) *1331 Mr. Ramsey then returned upstairs. Plaintiff Chris Wolf theorizes that Mr. Ramsey actually found JonBenét's body at this time. (PSDMF P 57.)" (Carnes 2003:14]. Internet poster Bluecrab claims he did more than just check the window. It appears that Carnes may have this time wrong. In his 1998 testimony, John Ramsey provides several different times for when he searched the basement on his own. He first states "It would have been that time period: seven to nine." (p. 155, lines 19-20) and later reiterates "it was probably some time between seven and nine" (p. 157, lines 12-13). When asked whether it was before or after Whites and Fernies arrived, John stated: "I think it was after, because they came fairly early" (p. 174, lines 1-2). He then reiterated: "The best I can do is, it was, I believe, after the police came. Because they had gone through the house before I figured out what I'm going to do. It was before ten o'clock. They had already done some preparation before that. So it would have been before. Probably before nine. So then somewhere between seven and nine." (p. 174, lines 5-11). But when reminded that the RN said a phone call would come between 8 and 10 AM, NOT 10-12 AM, as John had supposed, John made clear that he had visited the basement prior to that time since "When we were ready for the phone call and I was prepped about what I was going to say and I was getting the family ready. And so between that period of time we were just waiting for the phone call and I was near the phone. And I was either in the study or on the first floor. I just waiting for it." (p. 174, lines 22-25; p. 175, lines 1-3). In response to a query from Mike Kane, John Ramsey confirmed that his trip to the basement "would have been before that time period." (p. 175, lines 6-7). However, Internet poster Amber believes John must have visited the basement before either Fleet White or Officer French since he found a chair in front of the train room door and there's no good reason to believe White or French would have re-blocked the door with the chair after they entered the train room (which both did according to their own accounts). If so, John's trip would have been before 6:00 AM.

There are so many red flags in this story besides the Ramsey interviews and behavior. What kidnapper would plan to stay that long in the house? What rapist/murderer would plan to or stay that long in the house? If this was not someone in the household, think how much time it would take to find the garrote, the paper and pen, write the note several times. Did this guy bring the tape but not the ransom note? He brought the tape but used items in the house, not just to strangle the child, but to actually fashion a garrote?

The following argument is the only one that makes sense about the staging of evidence:

Internet poster DocG has suggested: "No intruder theory has ever been able to account for the note. There is simply no reason for any sort of intruder to have written it. And if someone had a plan that went astray, he would certainly NOT have left a pointless note in his own hand that could incriminate him. The note was not simply dropped on the floor as someone left in a panic, it was very deliberately displayed, page by page, on the spiral staircase. IMO the note was part of a plan involving the staging of a kidnapping, a plan that went wrong, forcing the writer to improvise. This person is still dancing on the same high wire: the talented Mr. Ramsey."

When people stage crime scenes they are often tripped up in the details. And the illogical details in this case are numerous. As for the abuse, Patsy Ramsey is much more likely candidate than John but there is not enough evidence to determine John's involvement or not in the death. The evidence suggests he was involved in the staging.

There was evidence the child had urine and stool accidents at least occasionally if not often. While not significant alone, combined with the rest of the evidence that an insider committed the crime, Patsy is the most likely suspect and intolerance of her daughter's imperfect toileting is a common finding in abuse cases. It is the most likely motive. That an outsider committed the crime is the least likely explanation. Another factor in abuser stress triggers, holidays and the travel plans would have increased Patsy's stress level. I don't recall if there was any drinking that evening. Parents lose control. It's not uncommon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mean like those twitchy eyelid things I get after my third cup of espresso? Or perhaps when the drugs wear off and I begin to actually feel the pain again from that botched wisdom tooth extraction?

All the posts clearly stating detecting deceit has nothing to do with twitching eyes, guilty looks, looking down, changing heart or respiratory rates and yet the posts continue which ignore the evidence based deceit cues of biologically determined facial emotional reflexes.

I ask, who is acting on confirmation bias and who is considering the actual evidence here?

 

[Rolfe]

I learned about this technique years ago. And once you start looking for those micro flashes of emotion, not only can you get better and better at seeing them, you can follow up on your observations and see if they were valid or not.

Am I the only one getting flashbacks to the Cleveland child abuse allegations with this one?

Rolfe.

 

[luchog]

Am I the only one getting flashbacks to the Cleveland child abuse allegations with this one?

Probably. The only cases that jumped to my mind were McMartin preschool and Wenatchee daycare.

 

[Moss]

The point I tried to raise and that Ekman clearly states in the article linked is that you may see a facial expression of an emotion, the expression does not tell you what caused it.

Suppose, Ekman posits, "my wife has been found murdered in our hotel. I would be the prime suspect, because most wives are murdered by their husbands. How would I react when the police questioned me? My demeanour might well be consistent with a concealed emotion. That could be because I was guilty. But it could equally be because I was extremely angry at being a suspect, yet frightened of showing anger because I knew it might make the police think I was guilty. A microexpression is just a tiny little breach; you have to widen it, deepen it, explore further."

 

[Helen]

Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are experienced enough and sharp eyed enough to pick up on tell tale signs of lying. But in these circumstances, couldn't these signs mean almost anything?

But these are people who are going through what I think most parents would agree is the worst that can happen; the death of a child. Their child has moreover died a violent death, and surely they realise that they will be suspects. I cannot, and do not want to, imagine what they must have been going through. And they were doing it in public. Couldn't there be a thousand things you would like to hide from all the rest of the world in such a situation? if they are lying, and if you really are good enough to be certain about that from public images of them, couldn't it be about something not relevant to the murder, or perhaps even completely unrelated?

I know I wouldn't like to be judged based on what I do, say or otherwise express in a situation like that.

 

[timhau]

Am I the only one getting flashbacks to the Cleveland child abuse allegations with this one?

No, you're not.

Anyone who thinks they're almost infallible at catching liars are either a terrific asset to an investigation or a huge danger to all the innocent people nearby.

 

[Rolfe]

One of the features of that case was that Marietta Higgs had read about the technique of "reflex anal dilatation" to diagnose sexual abuse of children. She experimented a little with it, in particular finding a negative result when she tried it on her own children. She then decided a positive result was highly reliable as an indication that the child had been subjected to anal abuse, and started doing the test on many of the children coming to her clinic. Over 100 children were removed from their parents as a result of this. The problem was that there are other reasons for that test giving a positive result, and many of the parents she accused of child abuse were innocent.

God preserve us from "health professionals" who are utterly confident about a test they've read about and then confirmed their biases.

Rolfe.