Jonbennet Ramsey

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yeah, except of course when those assuming Patsy did it starts to make claims about how the ransom note was written in order to "stick it" to her husband. So, they are supportive of each other yet Patsy hates John.

Well, if you remember the old Rock Hudson/Doris Day screwball comedies, she always "hated" him throughout the film, but deep down she really loved him.

I like to think of this whole Jon Benet Ramsey case as one big screwball comedy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why is any of this important, anyway? I mean, if anyone had any real and convincing evidence to charge the Ramseys (now just the dad) with the death of their daughter, then why has no one been convicted of the crime?

The simplest answer is that there is no real and convincing evidence to support a case against anyone, what little evidence there is points to an unknown person or persons. That's all there is to it.

Too bad, though ... if the daughter's murderer is now some unclaimed or undiscovered corpse, then it is extremely likely that no one will ever know who he, she, or they were.

This is just it, DA's don't go around exonerating suspects in cases unles there is compelling evidence to do so, there have even been many cases were when a new suspect has been found that the DA goes into a "They did it together" mode rather than admitting that they got it wrong. If the evidence waqs even half as damning as SG claims, then the DA's office would still have the Ramseys as their #1 suspects.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Only if you ignore the O'Sullivan research, which you seem to be doing. If one assumes EyesForLies was indeed identified out of 13,000 people as belonging to a group of people skilled at detecting deceit, then you'd be dismissing a skilled person because you found one aspect of an analysis you might be able to argue another conclusion for. Yet you don't claim any expertise, you were unlikely familiar with the technique until this thread, and EyesForLies' observations are consistent with the technique. You are in essence dismissing something you have no expertise in because you find it incredulous someone else could possibly have such expertise.

For the umpteenth time, I am dismissing her analysis of the significance of the "deceit" she detected. You keep bringing up this false dichotomy that I have to accept her entire analysis, or I am questioning all of her skills and expertise.

This is pretty simple: She claimed that John Ramsey was concealing joy (almost "giddiness"), and that that is odd because they should be angry. I already said: I'll grant that she is 100% correct in her interpretation that John Ramsey was concealing happiness. The second part of her analysis has nothing to do with her skill in detecting deceit. Either the normal reaction for a person who is falsely accused and then given a chance to exonerate themselves, is "anger," or it's not. She claims it is, but she provides no scientific, expertise, or citations to show that it is.

I recommend you look at Ekman's public demonstrations of the technique. You won't find him drawing vague conclusions about his observations. You will find him repeating his caution to people new to the research. I recommend you read some of the study methodologies. You will find some with more specific outcome measures than, "something was detected but we can't interpret it".

Nobody has said you can't interpret it. I disputed a specific interpretation of it, and that there is a higher likelihood of misinterpretation with a more complex situation. One can use the skill and then interpret something incorrectly. One can look at a fact and draw a wrong conclusion from it.

I can understand you stating you remain skeptical despite the reproducibility of the observations. I cannot understand your claim the reproducibility in interview after interview is evidence of misinterpretation.

I didn't say it is evidence of misinterpretation. I said if I believe she is misinterpreting something once, making the same misinterpretation over and over again doesn't make it any more accurate -- in fact, it makes me more skeptical of her, because she is consistently misinterpreting the same thing.

I repeat my position, there are behaviors indicative of an abusive family dynamic. These behaviors are known, they have been confirmed through years of research, they are taught to nurses and other medical providers and to some police. Learning to assess and diagnose abnormal family dynamics consistent with abusive components is not mysterious, it isn't rocket science, it is possible.

Again, I have never said it is not possible. I have said that when you throw in a lot of other factors (such as the Ramseys being accused of a crime, losing a daughter, and having the murderer still at large) adds multiple factors that could influence how they behave and multiple possible explanations for why they may be deceptive.

It's not a matter of claiming you have no way of knowing what my education and decades of experience mean. That is understandable. But you and the others in the thread are claiming no one could possibly have the knowledge or experience to diagnose an abusive family dynamic.

And once again: no, I have never claimed that. It's a red herring and irrelevant.

Whatever caused the final event likely involved behavior they both knew about regardless if they were both involved in the death. Both of these parents behaved abnormally without one demonstrating fear of the other. So I don't think one sees the classic domineering abusive father. Exactly which scenario of several possibilities occurred, I don't see enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

So okay, there's your expert opinion: they were both involved somehow but it wasn't a typical abusive father scenario. And as far as I can tell, you arrived at it because you consistently saw them devoid of emotion toward their daughter and each other. And in a normal, non-abusive situation, you'd expect emotion. Is that a fair summary?

So again, because you see it as difficult, everyone must be equally incapable.

Again, no that's not what I said. I presume you're better at interpreting micro-expressions than you are at interpreting words.

I work with police in my practice. One thing I've learned is police work is not nearly as scientific or evidence based as one would hope. A lot of police have no more than high school or technical college degrees and work their way up to detective on the job. Now, there are some police and detectives that do have a wealth of experience and skill. But it is inconsistent. So I haven't put much credence in any single individual person within the Boulder Corrections system including the judges.

John Douglas was a 20+ year FBI veteran, and helped found their behavioral sciences unit. So he's pretty well-versed.

Even someone with skills in psychology could have easily been mislead about this touch DNA, and I think just as these guys were convinced until recently that eyewitnesses were almost infallible, I don't think they get it yet about the problems with touch DNA.

The touch DNA only recently came out, so most opinions on the case came out long before that. Plus, the touch DNA was only confirming that the DNA found in the bloodspot in her panties (which was not touch DNA) was also where one would expect it to be if the same person had pulled down her tights. But this can easily go both ways: people with skills in detecting deceit could easily be mislead by the intense negative media coverage.

 

[Fnord]

This is just it, DA's don't go around exonerating suspects in cases unles there is compelling evidence to do so, there have even been many cases were when a new suspect has been found that the DA goes into a "They did it together" mode rather than admitting that they got it wrong. If the evidence waqs even half as damning as SG claims, then the DA's office would still have the Ramseys as their #1 suspects.

.
Then I wonder why any ordinary citizen who lacks proof of guilt would assert any claim of guilt on the part of the Ramseys. I mean, is it simply that they so strongly "feel" that the parents must be guilty that all "evidence", no matter how obscure or poorly contrived, simply must point to the Ramseys and no one else? Do such people want it so badly that the parents should be proven guilty that they will see evidence of guilt in every word, every expression, and in every gesture of the parents?

Is this Ramsey case turning into another situation wherein the mere fact that no proof of the Ramsey's guilt exists is taken as de facto evidence of not only their guilt, but of their complicity in a conspiracy to hide or eliminate any and all incriminating evidence?

Shades of 9/11...

 

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that not even every researcher in the field accepts O'Sullivan's research. Some published authors have characterized her results as a "statistical fluke".

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u3051220n573124w/

Got anything else? It would appear this is disputed:

Reply scoring and reporting: A response to bond (2008)

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

And I repeat my position... whatever "skill" you have in diagnosing abuse is probably not relevant here because A: You do not have access to all of the individuals (including the victim), and B: the people you have seen have not been through the same turmoil as the Ramseys. These are likely far outside the scope of what you yourself have had to deal with.

If I could assess situations I had seen previously, that suggests no health care provider could make an assessment or diagnosis they had not previously encountered. That's just not a valid argument.

Ummm... I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the first sentence of your statement. (Seems to make no logical sense.) Did you perhaps mean "if you couldn't assess situations...?

And it is a valid argument... you just don't like the results. I do not expect a heart doctor to be an expert in brain surgery (even if they are an exceptionally good heart doctor). I do not expect my car mechanic to be an expert in repairing air planes (even if he's a very good auto mechanic). So why should we believe your expertise in detecting one abuse is useful in determining guilt in the Ramseys?

How many times do you have to diagnose child abuse just by talking to the parents? And how many of those parents have been repeatedly accused of a serious crime?

And remember, there is also the following flaw that you have never addressed:
- You once claimed that "every person you've encountered admits guilt when confronted by evidence". Yet the Ramseys never admitted anything. So, what is it... is your experience somehow misinformed?

You are misquoting me. You should be more careful. I said many, I may have even said most. I never said every.

You're right, you did say "usually". (Its back in post 192). But the point is... Something that you claim is expected in most cases (people admitting guilt when confronted by evidence) did not happen here.

Yet John Douglas, who has had a long career with the FBI investigating serial killers, has a degree in psychology, has had his work recognized by the University of Virginia, and who has probably worked on hundreds of cases has pointed out that people handle the murder of a loved one in different ways.

That doesn't say people handle murder of a loved one in every conceivable way possible.

No, what it says is someone who has studied psychology and who has worked on hundreds of murder cases has recognized that the way that the Ramseys were acting was perfectly normal.

The things I do think are worthwhile trying to convince people of here are (the list has grown):

* There are recognizable cues which consistently identify abuse within a family.

Yes, I'm sure there are. How many of those cues involve examination of the victim (which of course is not possible.)

* Grieving may encompass a broad range of behaviors, but it is not an infinitely broad range.

Ummm... So? Its not like the Ramseys decided to move to antartica. So, they didn't cry on cue, or yell "my poor baby!" every 10 seconds or whatever... There behavior is not that bizarre.

* Critical thinking includes recognizing that because one doesn't have certain knowledge, that is not evidence the knowledge doesn't exist.

Critical thinking also teaches us not to be wary of false authority, such as a well-meaning but misguided nurse who mistakenly believes that her experiences involving abused children magically give her the ability to detect abuse in situations where she A: never actually saw or talked with the victim, and B: where the parents had been subject to prolonged accusations.

* Critical thinking includes caution assuming the significance of a valid scientific technique until the significance is also demonstrated.

Does that include caution in assuming the significance of so-called lie detection techniques (such as that pushed by O'Sullivan)?

* There is an evidence supported method of detecting deceit in some interviews.

Well, I guess that answers that question.

So, to summarize...
touch DNA=disputed science you can't trust
lie detection=disputed science you can trust

I'll just add that to the list of hypocritical things you've said or believed, such as: any fibers on JonBonet's body indicating strangers could have been from a year back whereas any fibers from the mom indicate she was the murderer.

* Critical thinking includes taking care not to dismiss a new claim on the basis all past claims have been discredited.

It also means you should be applying Occam's Razor

I've asked this before, but you seem to have avoided the question. (Much like a 9/11 truther). So once again... What exactly do you think happened on that night? Who was the actual killer? Why? (After all, I was decent enough to write a complete account, indicating how the killer would have operated, and described how it contributed to the evidence. Time for you to do the same.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Shades of 9/11...

I stated that in several of my posts in this thread, but in the end came to the conclusion that it was better to deal with it like I do 9/11 CTs, and that is put them on ignore.

 

[banquetbear]

I never said any such thing, and, I posted relevant additional sources. Perhaps you might re-read my post.

...ummm, you did say that you didn't want to vouch for the validity of your cite. I'll quote it for you.

I'm not vouching for the validity of everything posted there.

And as for your additional sources? All they do is prove that the wiki site you have posted throughtout the thread is full of lies but do nothing to advance your theory.

The Wiki site is A WIKI SITE. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what that means. It means it is a collection of information individuals added.

Umm, yeah. Isn't it obvious I know that? Why do you think I asked you for the primary source? The theories that you support were backed up by quotations that I have been unable to verify: so I asked you if you could. So far you have been unable to. Why are you supporting theories with no evidence? Why are you using a site that anyone can edit to back up your theories?

Is there something about hypotheses, pros, cons and rebuttals you think should need citations? They are opinions.

No, opinions are opinions. If you are going to hold the position that parents have murdered their child, and proceed to put forward a hypotheses on how they did it: do you not think you should at least provide some evidence that backs up your belief?

You are welcome to present evidence to the contrary. I didn't present anything as irrefutable proof Patsy Ramsey stayed up all night. It merely adds to the evidence. She does not deny having the same clothes on as she wore the night before. And if she merely dressed in a big hurry, she doesn't deny having her usual make up on that morning either.

I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary: I haven't made any allegations towards Patsy. If you want to allege that Patsy was up all night and didn't sleep in her bed then make that assertion, stand by it and prove it. However don't waste our time by throwing out theories with nothing but false quotes and anonymous investigators to back them up that you admit isn't irrefutable proof

I also have not once said there is any single piece of evidence that proves or exonerates the Ramseys. I bring up the evidence incriminating Patsy because it is just as significant as the evidence of an intruder.

Do you conceed that the quotes that you linked to earlier from Green and Levin are most likely lies?

Did you not bother looking at the link to the 2002 48 Hours transcript?

Yeah I did. The 48 Hours transcript refuted your wiki cite and proved they were (unless shown otherwise) providing false quotes to support their evidence. It completely changed the context of the quote from Levin. It contains allegations from Levin to Patsy that fibers were found on the body and a refutation from Patsy saying that any fibers on the body would have come from her when she knelt down and hugged her. The transcript shows Levin's "belief" over the fiber evidence, but thats about it.

So what is the fiber evidence?

 

[Piggy]

So what is the fiber evidence?

It's confusing is what it is.

There were many types of fibers found on the body as well as on the items on the body, in a contaminated crime scene -- body carried upstairs, both parents contacting the body, other people on the scene.

Some of these fibers match items in the house, some do not.

That's about as far as it goes.

Investigators handling the case don't seem to believe that anything conclusive can be deduced from fiber evidence at this point.

ETA: A couple of overviews -- fiber evidence, forensic evidence.

 

[Piggy]

It's confusing is what it is.

There were many types of fibers found on the body as well as on the items on the body, in a contaminated crime scene -- body carried upstairs, both parents contacting the body, other people on the scene.

Some of these fibers match items in the house, some do not.

That's about as far as it goes.

Investigators handling the case don't seem to believe that anything conclusive can be deduced from fiber evidence at this point.

ETA: A couple of overviews -- fiber evidence, forensic evidence.

ETA: Worth noting that a judge in the civil case deemed not simply that there was an insufficiency of evidence, but that there was no credible evidence against the parents.

 

[Einzig]

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/f...Sdyrel=in&GSst=12&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=2745&

Heres her findagrave website. I wonder if the man who did her in ever sees this?

With the risk of being harsh:
Sorry, but is a "confirmed pretty" girl being murdered so much more shocking than any other child being murdered, which happens every day? Why did you post this, was it to show the existence of the findagrave site or did you know her personally?

Sorry if this had already been explained along the thread.

I see that these beauty pageants teach pretentiousness and see no good in teaching this kind of competitiveness. Why do people feel the need to represent their little girls as the most attractive and color their kid's lips red originally representing an aroused woman anyway?

 

[Fnord]

I stated that in several of my posts in this thread, but in the end came to the conclusion that it was better to deal with it like I do 9/11 CTs, and that is put them on ignore.

Good point. Action taken. Thank you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is just it, DA's don't go around exonerating suspects in cases unles there is compelling evidence to do so, ....

While true DA's don't often send letters of exoneration, on the whole they don't have the best track record for understanding the forensics science they rely on.

Prosecutors were slow to accept DNA evidence over eyewitness testimony. Prosecutors still to this day give more credence to eyewitness testimony than the science supports. Prosecutors have fought against the Innocence Project tooth and nail when irrefutable DNA evidence proves alternative perpetrators.

The DA in this case wrote that letter after the touch DNA evidence was analyzed years after the case. And just as people in this thread keep ignoring the fact this evidence is not yet established, it appears to me the DA has made the same mistake.

Until we can say how often coincidental DNA is found in various situations, touch DNA is no more reliable than eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony, relied on for years, has led to false convictions of thousands of innocent people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the umpteenth time, I am dismissing her analysis of the significance of the "deceit" she detected. You keep bringing up this false dichotomy that I have to accept her entire analysis, or I am questioning all of her skills and expertise.

I missed it if you've said anything other than you were dismissing everything from EyesForLies. What have you said you agreed with regarding her analysis of the J Ramsey interview?

This is pretty simple: She claimed that John Ramsey was concealing joy (almost "giddiness"), and that that is odd because they should be angry. I already said: I'll grant that she is 100% correct in her interpretation that John Ramsey was concealing happiness. The second part of her analysis has nothing to do with her skill in detecting deceit. Either the normal reaction for a person who is falsely accused and then given a chance to exonerate themselves, is "anger," or it's not. She claims it is, but she provides no scientific, expertise, or citations to show that it is.

I guess this has to go back to looking at multiple interviews in different settings of both parents. To me this was more of the same with J Ramsey, not some unique thing where he might have been reacting the the John Karr stuff. So we are back to your opinion the micro-emotions were observable but you don't believe anyone can draw any conclusions about the significance of it.

Nobody has said you can't interpret it. I disputed a specific interpretation of it, and that there is a higher likelihood of misinterpretation with a more complex situation. One can use the skill and then interpret something incorrectly. One can look at a fact and draw a wrong conclusion from it.

And, other people can have a very high degree of accuracy making similar assessments.

I didn't say it is evidence of misinterpretation. I said if I believe she is misinterpreting something once, making the same misinterpretation over and over again doesn't make it any more accurate -- in fact, it makes me more skeptical of her, because she is consistently misinterpreting the same thing.

You are dismissing the reproducibility of the observations both Ramseys displayed bizarre emotions during multiple interviews in different settings. It's not like EyesForLies is the only person who noticed the Ramsey's interviews and behavior. And certainly every interview was not after John Karr made his false confession.

Again, I have never said it is not possible. I have said that when you throw in a lot of other factors (such as the Ramseys being accused of a crime, losing a daughter, and having the murderer still at large) adds multiple factors that could influence how they behave and multiple possible explanations for why they may be deceptive.

Doesn't change the fact there is a range of normal behavior even given the complex circumstances.

And once again: no, I have never claimed that. It's a red herring and irrelevant.

It's hard to tell where people are individually here, but as for being a red herring, no it isn't. It's been claimed repeatedly no one could possibly observe these parents and determine their actions were not consistent with grieving parents, even those falsely accused and harassed by the press.

So okay, there's your expert opinion: they were both involved somehow but it wasn't a typical abusive father scenario. And as far as I can tell, you arrived at it because you consistently saw them devoid of emotion toward their daughter and each other. And in a normal, non-abusive situation, you'd expect emotion. Is that a fair summary?

It's part of my assessment. Their behavior was out of the range of normal, their interviews displayed deceit over and over and was apparent with them both, and there were enough odd things about the crime scene to cast suspicion it was staged.

Again, no that's not what I said. I presume you're better at interpreting micro-expressions than you are at interpreting words.

Definitely. The assumption is people read the meaning of words we intend, yet words have multiple interpretations. With the micro-emotions, these are reflexive based on genetic determinants such as smiling or showing fear with one's facial muscle reflexes. People world wide recognize a smile. That is not true with the meaning of our words.

So many people in this thread are making the claim no one can assess abnormal family dynamic, no one can assess the normal range of grieving behavior and so on. I certainly haven't heard you make it clear you are not in agreement with this position. In fact, you are arguing the situation is too complex to be able to interpret. Now you say that isn't what you meant. I don't see anywhere that you were very clear on this matter.

I'll take your word for it now, you weren't saying an assessment of the Ramseys was/is impossible.

John Douglas was a 20+ year FBI veteran, and helped found their behavioral sciences unit. So he's pretty well-versed.

I'll look more closely at his comments when I have time.

The touch DNA only recently came out, so most opinions on the case came out long before that. Plus, the touch DNA was only confirming that the DNA found in the bloodspot in her panties (which was not touch DNA) was also where one would expect it to be if the same person had pulled down her tights. But this can easily go both ways: people with skills in detecting deceit could easily be mislead by the intense negative media coverage.

Let me get back to this because it will take some time to confirm the specifics of the DNA evidence.

 

[Uncayimmy]

With the risk of being harsh:
Sorry, but is a "confirmed pretty" girl being murdered so much more shocking than any other child being murdered, which happens every day? Why did you post this, was it to show the existence of the findagrave site or did you know her personally?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/ugly_girl_killed
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/missing_white_girl_drives

 

[lector]

Here is what the Wiki on the case says about the fibers and the related evidence Patsy never went to bed that night:

Fiber Evidence. Fibers matched to the red sweater Patsy was wearing that night were found in places key to the crime: the paintbrush caddy she kept her art supplies in, the blanket used to wrap JonBenet's body, on the sticky side of the duct tape placed over JonBenet's mouth, and tied into both knots of the ligature used to strangle JonBenet. Patsy denies she ever went near these places wearing that sweater. In the interviews with Boulder prosecutors in August, 2000, prosecutor Bruce Levin summed up the evidence: MR. LEVIN: "I think that is probably fair. Based on the state of the art scientific testing, we believe the fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, were found tied into the ligature found on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket that she is wrapped in, were found on the duct tape that is found on the mouth, and the question is, can she explain to us how those fibers appeared in those places that are associated with her daughter's death. And I understand you are not going to answer those."
Bed Not Slept In? According to veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post Chuck Green, "some investigators say that Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same clothes on the morning of the murder as she wore the previous night, and that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn’t been slept in."

This is all getting so bizarre.

First I'm thinking that Mr. Levin really has everything ass backwards. It is not Patsy Ramsey's job to explain why fibers of uncertain provenance were found in places associated; it is his job to establish that those fibers came from Patsy's fleece garment. She was quite right not to "answer those."

Then, further in the thread, I find that she did "answer those" & offer an explanation of why those fibers were found where they were found. She expected them to be there, just as Raffaele Sollecito expected Meredith Kercher's DNA to be present on his kitchen knife, and she offered an explanatory story just as Sollecito did.

Now I must perforce conclude that they are both lying murderers. There is simply no way around it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Am I the only one who remembers that police are allowed to lie in interrogations and offer fabricated evidence? Granted, there are some restrictions, but by and large they could be lying through their teeth about the evidence they have. I wonder if Ginger watched the police interrogators closely to see if they were lying?

According to the 48 Hours story where the quote about the fibers in the paint tray seems to come from, they say that the Ramsey's attorney asked to see the evidence, and the police refused to produce it. Is there any first-hand account of that evidence?

When evaluating the "evidence" in this case, it's tough going because you have to trace things back to the source. When the only source is what the police say in an interrogation, the accuracy is immediately called into question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

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

You have no case here, Seg.

I'll get to the rest later.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

While true DA's don't often send letters of exoneration, on the whole they don't have the best track record for understanding the forensics science they rely on.

Maybe they should consult Wikipedia.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wonder if Ginger watched the police interrogators closely to see if they were lying?

 

[Piggy]

The DA in this case wrote that letter after the touch DNA evidence was analyzed years after the case. And just as people in this thread keep ignoring the fact this evidence is not yet established, it appears to me the DA has made the same mistake.

And your "evidence" is "established"?

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

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