Jonbennet Ramsey

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Then why bother discussing the stun gun in relation the the mouth tape at all? It appears you see the problem.

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

Your posts are page long rants with a lot of redundancy. I don't have time to read them carefully. I wish you'd stop ranting and discuss relevant not yet addressed specifics. But you continue with long rants.

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

But not for long enough to be relevant to the tape which is what the initial discussion of the stun gun was.

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

Ted Bundy did this in the sorority house murders in Florida. His plan from the start was murder. Murder is not consistent with the ransom note. Murder is not consistent with cleaning up the murder scene while leaving the body evidence. Sexual assault is not consistent with the autopsy finding of either chronic abuse or no abuse.

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

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

Most likely set of events:

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

The bat was ruled out as the murder weapon because it didn't match the head wound.
Why take part of the paintbrush and not the rope?
Fibers on the tape matched Patsy's clothes, why are you ignoring that?

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

And you continue to ignore the fact parents are much more likely to kill their children than strangers are. And abuse is often concealed from everyone until a serious or fatal injury occurs.

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

Because the police could not determine where the head blow occurred or what was used to make it. The flashlight which did fit the head wound had no fingerprints on it. Is there a flashlight in your house that has been wiped clean of fingerprints?

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

Which suggests staging, where lots of mistakes are made like writing an unnecessary ransom note.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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



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



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

In fact, this makes more sense than if the Ramseys did it. If the Ramseys plan was to ensure the body would be found, as you suggest, why would they leave a fake note? To what end? As you write above... placing a ransom note and then leaving a body makes no sense.



Why does it "make no sense for an intruder"? If the guy was brash enough to kidnap a child from her bed, what makes you think he'd be afraid to spend a bit more time in the house? Especially a house as large as the Ramseys' with plenty of places to hide and/or escape.



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

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

This has all been answered, not just the one thing you noted.

For everything one can interpret to be evidence of [X], there is something else which is evidence of [Y].

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

This is a rather childish charge.

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

The amount of DNA which was evidence of an unknown male was so small one cannot rule out it being just a contaminant.

This is an important issue, even if we never agree on the rest. In fact it is the second important issue in this fruitless exercise. The first was the fact there is an evidence based hypothesis interpreting the detection of deceit in an interview. One must be careful dismissing this evidence just because multiple other false claims about detecting lies preceded it.

The second issue here is interpreting DNA evidence. Just as we've learned as skeptics that DNA trumps eyewitness accounts over and over again one must consider the fact that DNA contaminants are more common when you rely on very small amounts of material. That's why I posted the FBI study showing as we become more and more adept at detecting trace amounts of DNA, we need to establish baselines for how often such contaminants are going to be detected.

As weird as it sounds, what we need is a study of the fingernails and underwear of dozens or even hundreds of little kids to see how often stranger DNA can be found. Without that baseline, tiny traces of DNA without a suspect with other evidence to tie the suspect to the crime, it could turn out trace DNA leads to as many false convictions as eyewitness accounts have led to false convictions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

My expertise is in diagnosing child and domestic abuse, detecting deception is a hobby.

And I didn't diagnose child abuse in this case. But it seems the finer points of my discussion have been lost in the confirmation bias I must just be making assumptions based on the parents looking guilty here.


The evidence is consistent with a family member having killed this child. A head bash in a fit of anger is more likely than chronic sexual abuse and death during some bizarre sexual abuse. That is different from diagnosing child abuse, though I can understand why the nuanced difference is lost on people here.

 

[Wildy]

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

We were talking about their behaviour in the interviews. To me you're implying that they are guilty of something, but you don't know what they are guilty of.

This is a rather childish charge.

Really? Care to elaborate?

The amount of DNA which was evidence of an unknown male was so small one cannot rule out it being just a contaminant.

If this article is correct the touch DNA analysis found the same DNA on two different pieces of clothing (her longjohns and underwear). That would have to be some freaky coincidence to find that DNA on two different pieces of clothing.

This is an important issue, even if we never agree on the rest. In fact it is the second important issue in this fruitless exercise. The first was the fact there is an evidence based hypothesis interpreting the detection of deceit in an interview. One must be careful dismissing this evidence just because multiple other false claims about detecting lies preceded it.

In other words "just because it was wrong before doesn't mean that it's wrong now"?

The second issue here is interpreting DNA evidence. Just as we've learned as skeptics that DNA trumps eyewitness accounts over and over again one must consider the fact that DNA contaminants are more common when you rely on very small amounts of material. That's why I posted the FBI study showing as we become more and more adept at detecting trace amounts of DNA, we need to establish baselines for how often such contaminants are going to be detected.

There is no way of determining what DNA is a contaminant until it's processed. That makes it difficult to establish a baseline. Until you know that the DNA is actually a contaminant of some sort it would be quite reasonable to assume that the DNA belongs to a suspect.

As weird as it sounds, what we need is a study of the fingernails and underwear of dozens or even hundreds of little kids to see how often stranger DNA can be found. Without that baseline, tiny traces of DNA without a suspect with other evidence to tie the suspect to the crime, it could turn out trace DNA leads to as many false convictions as eyewitness accounts have led to false convictions.

So beyond "someone touching the clothing in the factory" what mechanisms are there for a stranger's DNA to be found on a child's underwear?

By the way, how much DNA would you consider to be a "trace"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We were talking about their behaviour in the interviews. To me you're implying that they are guilty of something, but you don't know what they are guilty of.

That would be a misunderstanding of what I've said.

Consider just that the interviews suggested something was unusual. That doesn't rule anything in or out as to what was unusual. The other thing to consider is the idea people grieve in any number of ways. That is true. But there is still a range of grieving behaviors. It is not infinite. And there is a time when you can conclude grieving in an unusual way does not explain what is different in the Ramsey interviews.

You still just have an unusual interview until you look at everything else. Then what you have is the unusual interviews are consistent with the 'Ramseys did it' scenario.

If this article is correct the touch DNA analysis found the same DNA on two different pieces of clothing (her longjohns and underwear). That would have to be some freaky coincidence to find that DNA on two different pieces of clothing.

Not if the original contamination was just some dirt on JBR's hands and she touched the inside of her clothes.

In other words "just because it was wrong before doesn't mean that it's wrong now"?

Not at all. 'It' is two completely different things.

Say a real ET UFO does arrive one day. Is the fact all the past UFOs were bunk mean a real one is impossible?

Lie detector tests are mythically believed to be accurate. Those of us who have looked into the actual data know supporting data is not to be found. People have developed means of detecting lies from verbal cues and claimed looking down or glancing to the right or any number of nonverbal gestures signify truth or lies. These claims have been repeatedly debunked.

But real researchers identified real behaviors and a biologically sound hypothesis that does indeed detect deception. However, a lot of skeptics are unaware there is a real supportable hypothesis here because they are well aware of the unsupportable claims.

There is no way of determining what DNA is a contaminant until it's processed. That makes it difficult to establish a baseline. Until you know that the DNA is actually a contaminant of some sort it would be quite reasonable to assume that the DNA belongs to a suspect.

You are totally missing the issue here. The DNA is real. It is detected in proper processing. Lab workers and police DNA contaminants are properly ruled out.

If the sample was from a splotch of spit, or oils from a print, or blood, or semen, or skin, that is evidence someone was there. DNA under those conditions has been recoverable for decades. But more recently police forensics labs have begun using PCR testing of DNA. Using PCR all you need is a single molecule. You don't need a splotch of anything. The single molecule is copied in the lab and a single molecule is reproduced until one has enough to identify the code.

When spit or semen or skin is tested, we know what it means. What we don't know is when the tiniest of traces of DNA are tested does it mean someone was there, or is it common in half or 3/4 of all the specimens you collect and test for such small amounts? The FBI study found stranger DNA was present in a brand new pair of stockings sealed in plastic from the store. The test subject opened the stockings, put them on and then took them off and the FBI tested them for trace DNA. The FBI found the test subject's DNA but they also found a stranger's DNA with the source being unknown.

So beyond "someone touching the clothing in the factory" what mechanisms are there for a stranger's DNA to be found on a child's underwear?

Dirty hands.

By the way, how much DNA would you consider to be a "trace"?

In this case I'm referring to amounts too small to be tested for DNA with older methods of recovering the substance and testing it.

It's like culturing microorganisms. If I am looking for an infection, I might not see any bacteria on a slide, or there might be bacteria, but not enough to identify. So we grow the bacteria for 2 days or more and then we see if there is any and we see if we have enough to make an identification.

This new means of using PCR testing has allowed microbiologists to learn that there are a gazillion organisms we had no idea existed because the organisms didn't grow with standard lab culture procedures. But with PCR, we can just look for their genetic fingerprints without having to successfully grow them in a lab.

Getting back to the forensics, we need to establish the frequency one finds such small amounts of human DNA in different locations. Without a baseline, (the FBI study I linked to was just such an attempt to look at baseline contamination with these minute amounts of DNA), then you won't know if you detect DNA whether it is a normal finding or a finding of criminal significance.

And I don't expect police to immediately understand this problem. Forensic scientists would recognize it, but police are not scientists.

 

[Cainkane1]

Skeptic Ginger I know why this case has struck such a nerve with you. You're a victim of abuse yourself. I want you to know that I understand how you feel at least in part because I tried to help my first cousin after her father molested her.

I think childrens "beauty pageants" should be illegal.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think childrens "beauty pageants" should be illegal.

Why? Is there some evidence that they are harmful?

 

[Wildy]

Consider just that the interviews suggested something was unusual. That doesn't rule anything in or out as to what was unusual. The other thing to consider is the idea people grieve in any number of ways. That is true. But there is still a range of grieving behaviors. It is not infinite. And there is a time when you can conclude grieving in an unusual way does not explain what is different in the Ramsey interviews.

You still just have an unusual interview until you look at everything else. Then what you have is the unusual interviews are consistent with the 'Ramseys did it' scenario.

Sorry, I don't really understand your point? What exactly did they do that can not be explained by "grieving in an unusual way"?

What exactly is "range of grieving behaviours"? Would you consider say, the actions of people at a jazz funeral to be outside this range?

Not if the original contamination was just some dirt on JBR's hands and she touched the inside of her clothes.

But is this the case? Were traces of dirt found under her fingernails or on the clothes?

Not at all. 'It' is two completely different things.

Depends on what "it" is.

Say a real ET UFO does arrive one day. Is the fact all the past UFOs were bunk mean a real one is impossible?

No. As you know anything can be a UFO until you find out what it is, then it ceases to be a UFO. The "U" is there for a reason. I don't really understand why you would mention this with regards to the detection of deceit.

Lie detector tests are mythically believed to be accurate. Those of us who have looked into the actual data know supporting data is not to be found. People have developed means of detecting lies from verbal cues and claimed looking down or glancing to the right or any number of nonverbal gestures signify truth or lies. These claims have been repeatedly debunked.

But real researchers identified real behaviors and a biologically sound hypothesis that does indeed detect deception. However, a lot of skeptics are unaware there is a real supportable hypothesis here because they are well aware of the unsupportable claims.

Care to provide some sources for the real supportable hypothesis?

You are totally missing the issue here. The DNA is real. It is detected in proper processing. Lab workers and police DNA contaminants are properly ruled out.

No, I don't think I have (I also never said the DNA was imaginary, but that's beside the point). You suggested that we need to establish "baselines" for contaminants, but you don't know if the DNA is contaminated until you analyse it.

If the sample was from a splotch of spit, or oils from a print, or blood, or semen, or skin, that is evidence someone was there. DNA under those conditions has been recoverable for decades. But more recently police forensics labs have begun using PCR testing of DNA. Using PCR all you need is a single molecule. You don't need a splotch of anything. The single molecule is copied in the lab and a single molecule is reproduced until one has enough to identify the code.

Forensic labs use PCR quite a bit. Simply because it's essentially a reliable photo-copier of DNA. It doesn't really matter how much DNA you have on hand because it makes an evidence destroying piece of analysis less destructive. That's kind of the point of it.

Typically the use STR analysis to come up with a profile.

When spit or semen or skin is tested, we know what it means. What we don't know is when the tiniest of traces of DNA are tested does it mean someone was there, or is it common in half or 3/4 of all the specimens you collect and test for such small amounts? The FBI study found stranger DNA was present in a brand new pair of stockings sealed in plastic from the store. The test subject opened the stockings, put them on and then took them off and the FBI tested them for trace DNA. The FBI found the test subject's DNA but they also found a stranger's DNA with the source being unknown.

And? This doesn't mean that all DNA analysis is wrong, nor does it mean that tiny amounts of DNA must belong to a source that is not a suspect.

In this case I'm referring to amounts too small to be tested for DNA with older methods of recovering the substance and testing it.

So in other words you mean all techniques developed and refined since 1996?

Getting back to the forensics, we need to establish the frequency one finds such small amounts of human DNA in different locations. Without a baseline, (the FBI study I linked to was just such an attempt to look at baseline contamination with these minute amounts of DNA), then you won't know if you detect DNA whether it is a normal finding or a finding of criminal significance.

And I don't expect police to immediately understand this problem. Forensic scientists would recognize it, but police are not scientists.

Except that everything suspicious (like this DNA) in a crime is of criminal significance until shown otherwise.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm going to say this before this string fizzles. Jonbennet wouldnn't have been murdered if she hadn't been put on display in front of the wrong person. I would have loved to have had her for my daughter or Granddaughter. She was a adorable lovely little girl and she deserved a helluva lot better than she got. To hell with whoever did this to her.

I see your point, but these were organised pageants involving hundreds if not thousands of children. Is there any evidence at all that children who compete in such events have a higher than average chance of being molested or murdered?

The pageants seem strange to me, but I'm not convinced they're harmful. Little girls like dressing up and showing off. The ones that don't aren't going to compete. The children and their mothers are having fun. Is there any evidence it damages the child's development? None that I know of. It may be advantageous to confidence and even cognition development. No doubt there are pushy parents, but just how does that make it different from Little League baseball or football?

It's easy to say, with hindsight, why didn't they keep that lovely child safe by keeping her away from curious eyes? But before the event, who would have predicted it? I'd need a lot more evidence of systematic harm before I banned an enjoyable activity on the basis of one incident.

Rolfe.

 

[Cainkane1]

I see your point, but these were organised pageants involving hundreds if not thousands of children. Is there any evidence at all that children who compete in such events have a higher than average chance of being molested or murdered?

The pageants seem strange to me, but I'm not convinced they're harmful. Little girls like dressing up and showing off. The ones that don't aren't going to compete. The children and their mothers are having fun. Is there any evidence it damages the child's development? None that I know of. It may be advantageous to confidence and even cognition development. No doubt there are pushy parents, but just how does that make it different from Little League baseball or football?

It's easy to say, with hindsight, why didn't they keep that lovely child safe by keeping her away from curious eyes? But before the event, who would have predicted it? I'd need a lot more evidence of systematic harm before I banned an enjoyable activity on the basis of one incident.

Rolfe.

I've heard that some little girls have anxiety attacks and that it isn't uncommon for a little girl to suddenly be standing in a puddle of her own urine. I've never been to a childrens beauty pageant but I have seen a few stills of these tiny girls dancing in skimpy costumes. I was watching TV and a psychiatrist once described these girls as a "pedophiles delight". I wouldn't put a child of mine in a situation like that. You can do what you want.

 

[Cainkane1]

Why? Is there some evidence that they are harmful?

See my answer to Rolfe.

 

[Cainkane1]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080927014053AANenJQ

Heres a discussion about childrens beauty pagents.

 

[Rolfe]

Uh, that doesn't seem to be a discussion, it's just one person's opinion. A serious examination of their good and bad points, with actual evidence, would be good.

Rolfe.

 

[Cainkane1]

Uh, that doesn't seem to be a discussion, it's just one person's opinion. A serious examination of their good and bad points, with actual evidence, would be good.

Rolfe.

Looks like several peoples opinions to me. I might search for a better site.

 

[bignickel]

The Ramseys guilty - all because of a cartwheel. Sorry, I mean, 'guilty looks'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger I know why this case has struck such a nerve with you. You're a victim of abuse yourself. I want you to know that I understand how you feel at least in part because I tried to help my first cousin after her father molested her.

I think childrens "beauty pageants" should be illegal.

Interesting guess, but wrong. I find the toddler beauty pageants bizarre, but totally unrelated to abuse or to this case. It's just a coincidence here. I see no reason they should be illegal.

My parents didn't believe in corporal punishment of any kind. And, no, I was never sexually abused. The worst that happened in my family was my Dad was the child of an alcoholic so he had a bit of trouble showing emotion. He eventually became an alcoholic himself, but that was years after all the kids were grown and gone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've heard that some little girls have anxiety attacks and that it isn't uncommon for a little girl to suddenly be standing in a puddle of her own urine. I've never been to a childrens beauty pageant but I have seen a few stills of these tiny girls dancing in skimpy costumes. I was watching TV and a psychiatrist once described these girls as a "pedophiles delight". I wouldn't put a child of mine in a situation like that. You can do what you want.

Having pee accidents is not necessarily abnormal in kids up to about kindergarten. Bed wetting is sometimes just a problem of physical immaturity up to a certain age (which I don't know without looking up). On the other hand, toileting accidents after about the age of 4, including bed wetting, can be a symptom of abuse.

It's interesting you see the pageant as a form of abuse, but don't see any evidence of abuse in the family. I don't see the pageants as a problem by themselves. I do think the pageants we see glimpses of on the news from time to time do put a bit too much emphasis on sexual aspects for my taste, but look at the whole Barbie doll phenomena. Our society puts that trip on little girls, the pageants are no more than an extension of our society.

As for the stress it causes, that's true no matter what parents push their kids into, if the desire to compete doesn't originate with the kids. But some kids on their own have a desire to compete, especially if they win again and again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Ramseys guilty - all because of a cartwheel. Sorry, I mean, 'guilty looks'.

The cartwheel was symbolic of the Italian public interpreting behavior of a different culture as a sign of guilt in their culture. If you take the time to look into Frank and Ekland's scientific papers, you'd see it should not be oversimplified as assessing people based on behavior or body language except micro-facial expressions. No other means of detecting deceit has been shown to have a basis in evidence. Ignoring Ekland's work because other methods have been shown to be bogus is like saying TENS units don't work for pain because acupuncture doesn't work.

Then there's that whole straw man here that people just can't let go of. The Ramsey interviews by themselves is not enough to draw a conclusion in this case. But once again, someone posts the lie that is what I've said.

 

[Cainkane1]

Having pee accidents is not necessarily abnormal in kids up to about kindergarten. Bed wetting is sometimes just a problem of physical immaturity up to a certain age (which I don't know without looking up). On the other hand, toileting accidents after about the age of 4, including bed wetting, can be a symptom of abuse.

It's interesting you see the pageant as a form of abuse, but don't see any evidence of abuse in the family. I don't see the pageants as a problem by themselves. I do think the pageants we see glimpses of on the news from time to time do put a bit too much emphasis on sexual aspects for my taste, but look at the whole Barbie doll phenomena. Our society puts that trip on little girls, the pageants are no more than an extension of our society.

As for the stress it causes, that's true no matter what parents push their kids into, if the desire to compete doesn't originate with the kids. But some kids on their own have a desire to compete, especially if they win again and again.

I don't know whether the parents committed the crime or not. I'm just curious to know who looks at these girls and why. Are the spectators and judges mostly or all female? Male? Are these pagents open to the public? I mean could you pay to come in and watch? It could have been her parents who did this but it also may have been someone who saw her dancing in a skimpy costume and decided to break into her home and do something horrible to her.

I will say this. Little JonBenet was a fighter. She went down fighting or there would have been no DNA under her fingernails. Maybe just maybe one day the perp will be arrested and punished hopefully going under the needle.