Jonbennet Ramsey

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

It's not possible to detail that in a short forum post. And I suspect whatever I say about their abnormal affect will be oversimplified and taken out of context. So I'll just have to say, get a degree in nursing or psychology and spend the next 30 years gaining experience with child abuse and grief and you'll probably be able to assess normal and abnormal grief yourself.

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

Of course cultural expressions of grief are normal. This is an example of you (and others) oversimplifying affect assessments and then denying anyone can assess normal and abnormal grieving.

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

I'm not talking about dirt like the stuff you grow plants in. I'm talking about kids touching a handrail or toys or anything else. Think of how many germs are on your hands. Now consider something as small as a germ. That's the amount of DNA we are talking about here.

As for evidence of dirty hands as I used the term, yes, the underwear was dirty, the house was messy, she didn't take a bath before bed. Of course there could have been an unrelated person's DNA coincidentally on her hands.

Depends on what "it" is....

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.

You aren't understanding what I've said.

There are many methods of lie detecting that have been shown to be bunk.
That doesn't mean there cannot be one method which actually does work.

Care to provide some sources for the real supportable hypothesis?

I did and I'll not post them for a 3rd time because you missed it.

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. ...

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.

Try re-reading the posts on this. Take a little more time thinking about the concept of baseline coincidental DNA findings.

Baseline: the amount you would find without any crime having occurred.
Coincidental: unrelated to the crime, there by some other means.

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.

I never said it did. I said the DNA was not conclusive proof of an intruder in the way people in the thread believe it is conclusive. Just as eyewitness accounts are not reliable, but for a very long time people were certain eyewitness accounts were reliable. Now we have overwhelming evidence they are not.

People need to be careful believing such small amounts of recovered DNA are proof of a person's presence. Until we know how often extra DNA shows up on kids hands and in their crotches from scratching, we cannot say how conclusive or inconclusive the DNA findings in this case were. The DNA is real. It comes from a real person. But it has not been established how often this occurs on kids' hands and clothes when no crime has occurred.

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

PCR techniques have been around a long time. Only recently have police begun looking for traces of DNA not related to a specimen or swab sample. Try re-reading the FBI paper I cited to see the difference. In one case you swab a suspicious spot that looks like blood or semen or sweat or spit or skin oils or a hair follicle. In the case I am referring to you just look for DNA on surfaces that no body fluid specimen can be seen on and that represents a new forensics technique..

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

That's only how you treat the evidence, it isn't a principle that suggests the evidence is or is not actually part of the case.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

I started discussion of the stun gun because of claims that "it leave you unconscious". Obviously, I found evidence that there were at least some reports where yes, indeed it can knock a victim out.

Now, whether that actually happened with JonBenet or not, I do not know. Nor is it particularly relevant. There there is nothing contradicting the idea that the killer used the stun gun, and then hit/strangled, only applying the tape after she were injured.

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.

First of all, I find it rather ironic that you would complain about the size of my posts, given the fact that you yourself have written some rather lengthy ones. Perhaps my posts are long, but its because I actually discuss things in my own words, rather than just pointing someone to some web page and assuming they will find relevant information there.

Secondly, I also find it ironic that you would want us to "discuss relevant not yet addressed specifics". I would love to do that. The problem is, you never seem to want to do that. I point to issues like unknown animal hair, etc. and time and again you never answer the issue, only pointing us to a web page which doesn't even deal with the issue.

Lastly and most importantly, its not just my posts that you are ignoring... you have done the exact same thing to other posters in the thread, making posts which totally ignore what others have written.

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...

Here's what I find ironic about that... you initially claimed that stun guns don't render victims unconscious at all, now you're saying it just wouldn't be long enough?

Of course, like I said, its not particularly relevant... even if the stun gun didn't knock her out, there's nothing that says the killer couldn't have put the tape on after hitting or strangling her.

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.

Faulty logic here...

You do realize that different killers will have different motives/signatures/MOs, don't you? Consider the Zodiac killer.... he did not have to write letters to the police to taunt them. In fact, doing so would add to the risk of being discovered. But for whatever reason he felt compelled to do so.

A better example is the Lindberg kidnapping. In that case, a ransom note was also left. In that case it was discovered that the child was dead long before any 'ransom payment' was made.

Its been explained to you multiple times and by multiple people... It is quite possible that the murder was a case of a kidnapping gone wrong, that the note was written and dropped on the stairs before JonBenet had died.

The bat was ruled out as the murder weapon because it didn't match the head wound.

That's fine... that's why I said she was "possibly" it with it. Yes, its true... nobody is sure what the murder weapon is. However, it did have fibers that were matched to the basement; why exactly do you think you'd find fibers consistent with the basement on a bat that was found outside?

Why take part of the paintbrush and not the rope?

This has been explained to you (by another poster, so you can't blame it on me and my lengthy posting style)... Quite possible that part of the paintbrush was taken as a momento by the killer. (That is quite a common occurrence.) Makes a lot more sense than the parents saying "We've killed her, we'll leave most of the paintbrush behind, but only dispose of one little piece". If it was staged, why not dispose of the whole thing?

Fibers on the tape matched Patsy's clothes, why are you ignoring that?

Because Patsy lived in the same house, had significant contact with JonBenet the previous day, and was in close proximity to the body after the body was found.

I find it ironic that you would attempt to justify multiple unknown fibers and hairs by saying "They could be from years ago", but you somehow think that its suspicious that a person who shares the same house, and for whom you'd expect would have contact with the victim would have left a few traces behind.

Heck, it wouldn't have surprised me even if they found Patsy's DNA on the victim's clothes, since she'd be the one doing the laundry.

And you continue to ignore the fact parents are much more likely to kill their children than strangers are.

Yes, parents kill their children. Yes, children are more at risk from people that they know than strangers. But the fact is, murders and abduction of children by strangers DO happen. There are roughly 100 child abductions by non-parents per year, and around 40% of those result in deaths. And roughly half end up getting sexually assaulted.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

Yes, in any child murder case you should look at the parent first, but when you start to find things like unexplained shoe prints, unknown hair and fibers, materials used in the crime that aren't found anywhere else in the house, and evidence suggesting a break in, it might be time for the police to start considering the less common, but still existing possibility, of stranger involvement.

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.

Ummmm.... so? From what I remember, there was very little blood from the head wound, so you wouldn't really have anything to 'clean up'. As for the murder weapon... if it was something the killer brought with him, he could easily take it when he left. Makes more sense than the parents running around trying to dispose of a murder weapon.

The flashlight which did fit the head wound had no fingerprints on it.

Ummm... so? You don't think that most criminals might be smart enough to, you know, wear gloves when perpetrating their crime? To take at least some effort not to leave fingerprints behind? Or is it only the Ramseys who were the criminal masterminds?

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...

Ummmm... no, it suggests a criminal who has had at least a little fore-thought to try to conceal their identity.

The evidence is consistent with a family member having killed this child. A head bash in a fit of anger....

And just what do you think she was 'angry' about? JonBenet's bet wetting (which, by the way, from everyone interviewed, was a situation she dealt with in the past with no hint of anger)? The fact that JonBenet wanted to quit doing pagents (which, again, isn't supported by what others have said.)

And if the weapon of choice was the flashlight, why exactly would Patsy actually have it in her hand at the time? No record of a power failure. And a flashlight usually isn't the most common item you'd have handy. (Certainly not something I'd consider searching for if I were angry.) So, you have this mother who was so enraged that she wanted to kill her child, yet had the clarity of mind to search around and find a very unlikely murder weapon. And you actually think that makes sense?

...is more likely than chronic sexual abuse

Then, um, why have you spent so much time in other posts explaining how "sexual abuse can remain hidden for years"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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've watched a couple "Toddlers and Tiaras" TV programs. What stood out for me immediately was only the family and friends are in the audience. Yet there are huge prizes. So I wondered who it was that would be paying these prizes? My assumption, and I don't know for sure, is that the whole thing is a money making enterprise with the entry fees paying for the prizes and a profit for the organizers. It's a gimmick. Like buying lottery tickets, parents get addicted thinking their kid could win a big prize. But the majority of parents spend more than the kids win.

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.

Whether you conclude there was an intruder or not, at least consider there was not 'tissue' under her fingernails. There was DNA in such a small quantity it could have come from a doorknob, a toy, coins, or some other thing she merely touched.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

My niece (age 6) was in a pageant last year. She wore a cute "little girl" type dress at one time, and shorts and a top the rest of the time. No makeup was allowed.

Contrast that with Jon Benet Ramsey (and others), at the same age, being dressed like a cheap prostitute, with skimpy clothes and tons of makeup.

Therein lies the difference. Not that it had anything to do with her death, but IMHO, it's a very unhealthy environment.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The cartwheel was symbolic of the Italian public interpreting behavior of a different culture as a sign of guilt in their culture.

Then there's that whole straw man here that people just can't let go of.

Yes, you claimed that turning a cartwheel in a police station while being questioned about a murder seemed odd in the Italian culture. I challenged you to list a single town/city/county/state in the US where such behavior would be considered normal.

For some reason, you never were able to do that. We're left to wonder why.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Touch DNA for anyone interested.

 

[Moss]

My irony detector is way too busy laughing to explode.

 

[Cainkane1]

My irony detector is way too busy laughing to explode.

At what?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

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

Urr... okay. I'm not sure what "the one thing" I noted is....

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

This is vastly different from your earlier claim that the Ramseys as the killers is the only likely scenario.

I agree that the evidence isn't conclusive in either direction. I tend to think it leans toward an intruder, but it's not open and shut. And depending on what evidence you include or exclude (for example, the DNA), it can change things quite a bit.

Hence why I find it curious that you made such a bold, conclusive statement earlier.

If you are claiming that your interpretation of the evidence points more to the Ramseys, well okay... I disagree, but I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion. If you're claiming that the only likely conclusion is that the Ramseys did it, that's different... I have no clue how you could look at the totality of the evidence and think it strong enough to support that.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmm, I recall SG taking issue with my criticism of her position, which was that her certainty was unwarranted. She was quite clear on the subject. She was certain, and if I didn't like that, too bad because she was an expert.

I've got no problem with someone expressing an opinion or riding a theory. This seemed to be well beyond that.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mmm, I recall SG taking issue with my criticism of her position, which was that her certainty was unwarranted. She was quite clear on the subject. She was certain, and if I didn't like that, too bad because she was an expert.

I've got no problem with someone expressing an opinion or riding a theory. This seemed to be well beyond that.

Rolfe.

So your issue then is not with my position, just my confidence in it?


Do you have an issue with the confidence people in the thread have the Ramsey's didn't do it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Urr... okay. I'm not sure what "the one thing" I noted is....

...This is vastly different from your earlier claim that the Ramseys as the killers is the only likely scenario.

There continues to be an issue here understanding what I'm saying. When people post things like, what about [X] or what about [Y], what I've been answering is, individually, each piece of evidence provides no smoking gun for or against an intruder or the Ramseys. Why waste time throwing the individual pieces of evidence back and forth at eachother?

One person is essentially saying, "Oh yeah, well what about [X]?"
The answer is, "Oh yeah, what about [Y]?"

What is the benefit of us arguing each and every one of these issues? It's a waste of time when there are lists of the pros and cons, the intruder evidence, the Ramseys did it evidence, the rebuttals of each position on the web page I linked to. If anyone wants to read a rebuttal to what they believe is the convincing piece of evidence, they can just see what has already been written.

By the same token, I've tried to refrain (though not completely successfully) from doing the same thing myself. It goes nowhere. I can ask the same things. Why was Patsy wearing the same clothes in the morning she wore the night before? A crime scene photo of the parent's bed shows only one side slept in. And these just happened to be the clothes which fibers matched fibers on the tape and on the blanket JBR was wrapped in.

These just result in fruitless discussions. You can look at the arguments for and against Patsy's clothing fibers being all over the body evidence.

I agree that the evidence isn't conclusive in either direction. I tend to think it leans toward an intruder, but it's not open and shut. And depending on what evidence you include or exclude (for example, the DNA), it can change things quite a bit.

Which is why it's so important to put that DNA evidence in perspective. It's easy to assume such small amounts of DNA are significant. Everyone hears, "DNA", and they think scientific incontrovertible evidence. The Boulder prosecutor wrote that letter. Must be more incontrovertible fact.

But prosecutors are not scientists and you can find records of dozens of prosecutors swearing by eyewitness testimony. I can see a whole new round of false convictions if people are not concerned with testing for the baseline rate of finding foreign human DNA in these tiny amounts at crime scenes.

Hence why I find it curious that you made such a bold, conclusive statement earlier.

If you are claiming that your interpretation of the evidence points more to the Ramseys, well okay... I disagree, but I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion. If you're claiming that the only likely conclusion is that the Ramseys did it, that's different... I have no clue how you could look at the totality of the evidence and think it strong enough to support that.

We are, as you say, considering different elements of the entire evidence. The interviews have been dismissed completely as evidence based on the fact lie detecting is full of woo. Yet there is a legitimate means of recognizing abnormal statements in interviews.

Experience with abusing families has been ignored, and ridiculed as not possibly offering any evidence here. Yet people really do have experience with abusive parents and observing the indicators of such abuse.

Because I've added that evidence to my assessment, it's discounted or I'm charged with only using that evidence. Much as everyone will have a cow if I say it, I liken it to someone discounting a particular science because they themselves are completely unfamiliar with that science.

I would bet a lot of people base their conclusion about the case on the DNA evidence. Sounds so scientific. Assessing family dynamics, the likelihood of abuse vs an intruder, the oddities of the ransom letter, and the multiple parent interviews is discounted as not so scientific. But there is a body of evidence about child abuse, about assessing behavior, and about detecting discrepancies in an interview. It's not woo science, while the "touch" DNA at this point has not been well vetted in forensics and will not be the scientific incontrovertible evidence until we establish a better baseline for it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Mmm, I recall SG taking issue with my criticism of her position, which was that her certainty was unwarranted. She was quite clear on the subject. She was certain, and if I didn't like that, too bad because she was an expert.

I've got no problem with someone expressing an opinion or riding a theory. This seemed to be well beyond that.

Rolfe.

She seems to be an expert at cartwheels and Italian culture too.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

What is the benefit of us arguing each and every one of these issues? It's a waste of time when there are lists of the pros and cons, the intruder evidence, the Ramseys did it evidence, the rebuttals of each position on the web page I linked to. If anyone wants to read a rebuttal to what they believe is the convincing piece of evidence, they can just see what has already been written.

It's an intellectual exercise, just like any discussion on the board. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of issues discussed here have web sites and books and news articles written analyzing them. If you don't want to discuss individual pieces of evidence, that's your choice, but I'm not sure why you would post in the thread, then. The websites are fine references and all, but presumably people post links for discussion. I'm not sure why anyone would post a website and then expect nobody to discuss it.

I would bet a lot of people base their conclusion about the case on the DNA evidence. Sounds so scientific. Assessing family dynamics, the likelihood of abuse vs an intruder, the oddities of the ransom letter, and the multiple parent interviews is discounted as not so scientific. But there is a body of evidence about child abuse, about assessing behavior, and about detecting discrepancies in an interview. It's not woo science, while the "touch" DNA at this point has not been well vetted in forensics and will not be the scientific incontrovertible evidence until we establish a better baseline for it.

I spent several years working in military intelligence (including in a couple of military police units), and worked directly with interrogators trained in many of the same techniques. I wouldn't dismiss it as "woo," but analysis to the point of detecting specific deception and the reason for it, is far from an exact science either, and certainly not incontrovertible, much as you note that the touch DNA isn't. (Eyesforlies did an analysis of their 48 hours interview, for example, and I take issue with a number of points in her analysis).

That type of analysis, even put in context of the rest of the evidence, isn't nearly enough to make the scenario of the Ramseys as the killer as the only likely scenario. I don't even think it's enough to make it the most likely scenario.

 

[Wildy]

It's not possible to detail that in a short forum post. And I suspect whatever I say about their abnormal affect will be oversimplified and taken out of context. So I'll just have to say, get a degree in nursing or psychology and spend the next 30 years gaining experience with child abuse and grief and you'll probably be able to assess normal and abnormal grief yourself.

Wow. Not even a link. And apparently I'm supposed to throw away my decisions about what I want to do with my life just so I can discuss something in this thread. Good thing I'm immortal, I'll go tell the Uni on Monday that I want to change to either a nursing or psychology degree.

I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't just blindly accept what you're telling me.

Of course cultural expressions of grief are normal. This is an example of you (and others) oversimplifying affect assessments and then denying anyone can assess normal and abnormal grieving.

Actually it was quite the opposite. If you remember I asked you what the "range of grieving behaviours" were. You implied that there was a quantifiable range and now you're accusing me of "oversimplifying" because I ask where a specific example of grieving fits on that range.

I'm not talking about dirt like the stuff you grow plants in. I'm talking about kids touching a handrail or toys or anything else. Think of how many germs are on your hands. Now consider something as small as a germ. That's the amount of DNA we are talking about here.

I can quite easily picture what you are talking about.

As for evidence of dirty hands as I used the term, yes, the underwear was dirty, the house was messy, she didn't take a bath before bed. Of course there could have been an unrelated person's DNA coincidentally on her hands.

And? I haven't found any data on DNA transfer beyond secondary transfer. If that's the case you are suggesting DNA transfer at levels at least on the tertiary or quaternary levels and beyond. Even your FBI link didn't seem to find any DNA beyond secondary transfer.

You aren't understanding what I've said.

Then I would say that has to do with your choice of example.

There are many methods of lie detecting that have been shown to be bunk.
That doesn't mean there cannot be one method which actually does work.

And? I don't know the exact method you are using. All I have to go by is your claim that you can tell what people mean by their body language, and those articles linked really early on in the thread that said that such analyses don't work very well.

I did and I'll not post them for a 3rd time because you missed it.

Ok. A post number would have been nice though.

Try re-reading the posts on this. Take a little more time thinking about the concept of baseline coincidental DNA findings.

Baseline: the amount you would find without any crime having occurred.
Coincidental: unrelated to the crime, there by some other means.

How many parameters should be used to establish this baseline? How would you be able to discriminate between coincidental DNA and DNA that actually belongs to the perpetrator?

I never said it did. I said the DNA was not conclusive proof of an intruder in the way people in the thread believe it is conclusive. Just as eyewitness accounts are not reliable, but for a very long time people were certain eyewitness accounts were reliable. Now we have overwhelming evidence they are not.

I don't think anyone has said that it's conclusive proof of an intruder. However taken with the other evidence it does make the possibility of an intruder more likely.

People need to be careful believing such small amounts of recovered DNA are proof of a person's presence. Until we know how often extra DNA shows up on kids hands and in their crotches from scratching, we cannot say how conclusive or inconclusive the DNA findings in this case were. The DNA is real. It comes from a real person. But it has not been established how often this occurs on kids' hands and clothes when no crime has occurred.

So does that mean you know how much DNA was recovered? Because I haven't found any values on that matter.

Besides the question that should be asked is not "how often extra DNA shows up on kids hands and in their crotches from scratching" but is actually "how many transfers will give enough DNA for analysis".

PCR techniques have been around a long time. Only recently have police begun looking for traces of DNA not related to a specimen or swab sample. Try re-reading the FBI paper I cited to see the difference. In one case you swab a suspicious spot that looks like blood or semen or sweat or spit or skin oils or a hair follicle. In the case I am referring to you just look for DNA on surfaces that no body fluid specimen can be seen on and that represents a new forensics technique..

I know.

Also, the FBI paper is, and I see you've already linked to an article about it, an exercise in touch DNA analysis.

That's only how you treat the evidence, it isn't a principle that suggests the evidence is or is not actually part of the case.

Which is why you investigate. You know, the part of the case where you try and figure out who and where the DNA came from, and why it's there.

What I'm getting from your posts is that you want there to be some magical statistics that can show whether a given sample is coincidental or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's an intellectual exercise, just like any discussion on the board. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of issues discussed here have web sites and books and news articles written analyzing them. If you don't want to discuss individual pieces of evidence, that's your choice, but I'm not sure why you would post in the thread, then. The websites are fine references and all, but presumably people post links for discussion. I'm not sure why anyone would post a website and then expect nobody to discuss it.

If I had the time or interest, fine. But it remains an act of repeating what has already been exercised ad nauseum so to speak. The arguments pro and con in this case are itemized and outlined in the link I posted. You only need to go to the section you claim is relevant evidence to see the rebuttal. There's no need to cut and paste the same stuff. There are no paragraphs to read through, it's all in outline format.

I spent several years working in military intelligence (including in a couple of military police units), and worked directly with interrogators trained in many of the same techniques. I wouldn't dismiss it as "woo," but analysis to the point of detecting specific deception and the reason for it, is far from an exact science either, and certainly not incontrovertible, much as you note that the touch DNA isn't. (Eyesforlies did an analysis of their 48 hours interview, for example, and I take issue with a number of points in her analysis).

That type of analysis, even put in context of the rest of the evidence, isn't nearly enough to make the scenario of the Ramseys as the killer as the only likely scenario. I don't even think it's enough to make it the most likely scenario.

If one only used the Ramsey interviews, but I did not only use the interviews.

As for Eyesforlies, I've not seen the web site until now but it appears to be a popular take of the actual science.

Here's the link to the 48 Hours interview analysis you refer to.

In Tracey's British documentary of the case, Tracey asks the Ramseys..."Did you have anything to do with the death of JonBenet?" Watch John Ramsey's face. He shakes his head up and down in a yes motion. Then he sighs.

Don't you find that perplexing??

Then his conscious mind appears to kick in, and he shakes his head in a side to side "no" motion before he speaks...

Shaking one's head yes, while saying no and vice versa has been correlated with lying as one of the micro-emotional displays.

Conde Rice used to shake her head in every direction when she was affirming or denying facts. Drove me crazy and was impossible to read. Most people are more revealing with natural head nods.

During the same question from number 4 above, Patsy Ramsey says no, shakes her head no -- consistently unlike John, yet then she smiles really oddly. The timing and behavior of her smile doesn't fit. It isn't consistent.

If you were WRONGLY accused of killing your daughter, could you EVER smile when you talked about it? Ever? I think not. If you were trying to "play cool" and hide something, you might.

You watch the interviews and most people recognize the behavior of these two people is odd. You can over compensate and say, well people grieve in all sorts of ways, who am I to pretend to know what this behavior means? You can discount the observations this blog writer is paying attention to.

But there is evidence this kind of behavior is not simply some unique way of grieving.


I suggest reading through the analysis with a mind to Frank and Ekman's work, rather than with a mind to 'every means of evaluating behavior and facial expressions is woo'.


So which specific things in the analysis do you take issue with? It does appear that The Wizards Project was a legit scientific investigation. I'm not familiar with it but it appears to reinforce Frank and Ekman's work.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow. Not even a link. ...

So you don't believe there could actually be a science or a skill that can't be boiled down into 25 words or less?

I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't just blindly accept what you're telling me.

I do believe I've said more than once I don't expect to convince anyone of my position in this thread.

Actually it was quite the opposite. If you remember I asked you what the "range of grieving behaviours" were. You implied that there was a quantifiable range and now you're accusing me of "oversimplifying" because I ask where a specific example of grieving fits on that range.

Yep. That would indeed be the case. The range of behaviors also cannot be boiled down into 25 words or less. At least I don't have that skill.

If all the skills and knowledge one had as a professional with decades of experience could be written up on little notecards, who would need a college education and experience? We could just pass out the note cards.

I haven't found any data on DNA transfer beyond secondary transfer. If that's the case you are suggesting DNA transfer at levels at least on the tertiary or quaternary levels and beyond. Even your FBI link didn't seem to find any DNA beyond secondary transfer.

You're not convinced one can get a substance on one's hands and then spread it by touching something else?

How do you think germs are transferred to and from hands? It happens all the time and the amount of material we are talking about here is the same quantity.

...I don't know the exact method you are using. All I have to go by is your claim that you can tell what people mean by their body language, and those articles linked really early on in the thread that said that such analyses don't work very well.

You really aren't helping your case here. You don't appear to have made any effort whatsoever to read the links I posted.

Ok. A post number would have been nice though.

Reading the thread and not asking people to repeat stuff you missed would be nice. I'd have more patience with you but so far you haven't bothered with any of the links I posted.

How many parameters should be used to establish this baseline? How would you be able to discriminate between coincidental DNA and DNA that actually belongs to the perpetrator?

The first thing we need is the baseline itself. That is what the FBI paper touched on. Their focus, however, was just establishing one could determine who had worn clothing by the analysis method. They established the fact the major donor of the DNA (meaning the larger amount found) was likely to be the person who had worn the clothes. But in looking at the major DNA donors, the researchers didn't get into the problem that the minor DNA contributors would pose analyzing minute amounts of DNA from a crime scene. The paper, however, makes that obvious. Clothing new from a factory, sealed in plastic contained DNA from an unknown person who handled it before it went to the store.

If it turns out you have no corroborating evidence except the 'touch' DNA, then you can't say it means anything. Think about it. The more DNA profiles that are added to the data base, all one needs is some poor sop with no alibi who handed a kid an ice cream cone at the mall and you have the same problem as you have with false eyewitness convictions.

And in the Ramsey case, a dirty doorknob JBR put her hands on the night of the murder could be evidence falsely exonerating the parents.

I don't think anyone has said that it's conclusive proof of an intruder. However taken with the other evidence it does make the possibility of an intruder more likely.

Not if it turns out one can find the same kind of DNA evidence on 80% of all the kids hands and underwear one looks at.

So does that mean you know how much DNA was recovered? Because I haven't found any values on that matter.

Yes. The amount was so small it wasn't detected in the initial crime scene evaluation. It wasn't until 2006 when the new technique was used to find minute amounts of DNA that the unknown male DNA was found. There was some DNA in the initial analysis that was too degraded or too small in quantity to be identified.

Besides the question that should be asked is not "how often extra DNA shows up on kids hands and in their crotches from scratching" but is actually "how many transfers will give enough DNA for analysis".

I don't see a difference in this question and the problem of establishing the meaning of finding 'touch' DNA quantities on anything at a crime scene.

What I'm getting from your posts is that you want there to be some magical statistics that can show whether a given sample is coincidental or not.

Magical stats? How about just scientifically based significance?

 

[Jessica Blue]

This discussion reminds me very much of the Chamberlain [dingo] case where the parents were subjected to a kind of trial by media, as there was a strong tendency to judge them by appearances and reactions. At the time of her trial Lindy Chamberlain's *emotionless expression* was widely viewed as an indication of her guilt and it was severely damaging to her in terms of public perception.

I suppose this means if you are ever accused of a heinous crime it's important to wring your hands and look tragic at the appropriate times.

 

[lionking]

This discussion reminds me very much of the Chamberlain [dingo] case where the parents were subjected to a kind of trial by media, as there was a strong tendency to judge them by appearances and reactions. At the time of her trial Lindy Chamberlain's *emotionless expression* was widely viewed as an indication of her guilt and it was severely damaging to her in terms of public perception.

I suppose this means if you are ever accused of a heinous crime it's important to wring your hands and look tragic at the appropriate times.

Spot on. This was the worst case of trial by media and armchair experts I am aware of, with the Jonbennet case a close second.