If the man has a criminal history, document it. If there was a restraining order out on him, try to get a copy. If a photo can be sent along, possibly shown to the Ramseys, I encourage the poster to do that.

Some posters have done just that, have sent their leads in and have gotten feedback (rarely, but it has happened.) It does happen.

I lost interest in astrology several years ago when an astrologist on television said that a Capricorn ought never to marry an Aries. That was when I was very fond of a Capricorn at the time.

I can see that the tides and tree blossoms etc. are scientifically proved affected by the moon and sun, and probably by other planets. There are probably biorhythms in humans that are affected. I would have thought this is still a controversial subject among doctors.

I wouldn't scoff at Mikie's theory of Satan worship or ancient Celtic clues. There was a gentleman called Crowley in the UK in the 1920s who was notorious for this Satan worship business. He became quite fasionable in the 1960s with some British pop stars.

There was a good British film in the 1970s where a policeman went to a remote Scottish island to investigate Satanic murders of children and ended up getting murdered himself. Britt Eckland takes her clothes off in the film.

Somewhere in Jameson's archives there are some strange postings by Pimpernel about Satan worship and the JonBenet murder. I think Pimpernel rubbed some other posters up the wrong way and ended up getting banned.

I was interested to read Mikie mentioning Trona, California. Nancy Krebs used to live in Trona. I think a lot of Nancy's Boykin relatives still live there.

I would be interested to know if Fleet or Priscilla White have ever shown an interest in pagan worship. Personally, I think something like child sacrifice at Christmas is something that could well be very relevant to the JonBenet murder.

As for Trona, I don't recall mentioning it lately. Maybe years ago?

As for astrology and crimesolving, I go further than sunsigns, exploring the transit and natal aspect definitions to compare to personal characteristics and crime characteristics of suspects and victims, and I have found very strong correlations. As far as I can tell, people rule out astrology because they don't know what it is, and because they have been told it conflicts with their religion. Fact is, astrology was used to find Christ, and possibly Buddha and Mohammed. Churches compete for believers, and thus must restrict people's vision.

Sorry. I quickly scrolled down the messages. I had it in my mind that you mentioned Trona. On checking, I can't see any mention of Trona by you.

This was discussed in the Steve Thomas deposition. It's not a theory Steve Thomas puts forward. Steve Thomas knows he can't back it up with hard information.

Another poster mentions that there is no evidence of an intruder. How about an open butler door?

Another poster describes Fleet White as "my hero". I suppose she is the sort of person who writes fan mail to murderers in prison.

There is an interesting article on the JusticeJunction website about this. I don't know the name of the author :

"Another urban legend is that there were no footprints in the snow leading to the house. The reality is, at that time, the yard was not covered with fresh snow, and it was patchy and frosty. The “No footprints in the snow “story was made legitimate because the BPD released the statement that there were no footprints in the snow. It got picked up the world round and pointed to the Ramsey’s. There was no fresh coat of thick, powder snow on the ground that in a pristine crime scene might have shown distinct footprints. It would have been easy to walk through the yard and avoid the few cracked and icy patches of two-day old snow on the ground, pulling up the grate and slipping inside. In addition to the fact that there have been seen by law enforcement photos of the back door that have hand written notes, ”Note back door left open”. Evidence photos that I’m sure many people would love to see. Back door left open? I’ve never seen a more obvious sign of intruder than a police photo with that hand written comment. I tried to go back to the website I saw the photo on and it has been taken down. Someone is still trying to cover up the truth."

11 Q. How about Officer Reichenbach, how

12 do you pronounce his name?

13 A. Reichenbach.

14 Q. Do you ever recall hearing about

15 what he said when he met with Dr. Henry Lee

16 in terms of whether there was snow on the

17 sidewalk of the house when he arrived that

18 morning?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What did he say?

21 A. He said, and he also said this to

22 me, that although there was due to what I

23 think was an 11 degree temperature outside,

24 there was a fresh frost and maybe a light

25 dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas,

241

1 but on the sidewalks and walkways around the

2 house, as he put in his report, as I may

3 have put in one of my reports, as we

4 presented to the VIP conference, that you

5 could not tell whether or not somebody may

6 have walked on those walkways in question.

7 Q. Or the wood chips?

8 A. I don't recall specifically him

9 talking about the wood chips.

I would regard an open back door as a a sign of no forcible entry. Even a sign of forced entry. The Boulder police reported there was no sign of forced entry. I don't think the Boulder police were investigating hard enough.

From The Amended Fox Suit of last year ;

• "The “butler’s” door found open the morning of the murder,
near which was found an unsourced baseball bat that had
fibers on it consistent with those found in the basement
where JonBenét’s body was found; and
• Complete absence of evidence of motive or history
indicating that John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey were capable
of murdering JonBenét or staging an elaborate cover up of
the crime."

When did this take place (a little over three years ago is too vague)? What budget WERE you looking at?

"I have also had some success in the past with other investigations, private ones with friends, relatives and some companies I worked for. Nothing major, nothing more than thefts, but I was good at it."

Just WHAT is it you were good at, Lighthouse? You certainly haven't told us here. What part DID you play in other investigations?

"I had read something in the paper about the Ramsey case and knew that I could prove they were innocent."

WHEN did you read something in the paper? How did you KNOW you could prove them innocent?

"I was apalled (sic) that the Boulder police had still considered them suspects when they were the ones who proved they were innocent."

Are you saying the BPD was responsible for proving the Ramseys innocent?

"I thought I could help the Ramseys get cleared and have a film to boot."

Are you saying that by making this film you would be responsible for assisting in getting the Ramseys cleared?

"I wrote out the script with a plausible theory, a smash ending with what you expect in a detective story ending. A suspenseful closer. However, I couldn't go through with it. You see, in the story I failed to address one thing: the initials."

Just when was it that you wrote out this script? What was it you couldn't go through with? What do you mean you failed to address the initials?

"It bothered me so much that I decided to work on them. I figured what they stood for, proved it with the ransom note, followed the trail and here I am. I've rewritten the script and am waiting to be vindicated."

I have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say above. When you say,,,"I figured what THEY stood for",,,who is they and WHAT did you prove with the ransom note? What trail did you follow? What do you mean by "waiting to be vindicated"?

Lighthouse,,,I'll go over the rest of your post later,,,perhaps you could start by addressing this portion.

About two weeks before Halloween of 2001 is when I started looking for a case to write about. There was no set budget, but I was using their film (the filmmakers that wanted me to write for them, they had seen another script I wrote and liked my style, had a few films to their credit), which they sold and made money on, as a reference. I was close as it ended at $242,000.00, however, it will always be more as marketing may be crucial.

It took about approximately two weeks to write and I finished it on Halloween.

Now, the important thing is that I had read some materials on this case. The important item was that the police department had suggested two ideas for what the initials could stand for. Remember, there were suggestions that the Ramseys wrote or knew who wrote the ransom note.

The police suggested Subic Bay Training Center and Saginaw Bay Training center (or something close to that).

Now here is where it gets interesting. Real detectives set traps for their suspects. Here is a classic, the phony ransom note.

You would agree that the purpose of a phony ransom note is to mislead the police. Obviously, if there is no kidnapping and a note is left, it's to fool the authorities.

Now, here's the problem. When the police take the bait, when they GO for the initials, why didn't the Ramseys encourage them. Here they're selling a phony ransom note and the police are buying. If it was me, I would have said, "Hey, officer, you got something there! Boy (patting him on the back) am I glad you're on this case."

They went for it and yet the Ramseys shot it down, not once but twice! Why create a phony ransom note and not use it? TWICE!

Everytime I told a law enforcement official this point, they stare out into space, drop their jaw, as if they never thought about it. That's scary. When I pressed the Boulder police, they had no response. They would try to stutter something but I would then let them off the hook and go on about the other points. I at least got the satisfaction that they were shown something they couldn't ezplain. Seeing the realization in their eyes is extremely satisfying. Yet, they kept passing the buck. Incredible. No response to it.

When I read about it, I knew right away they didn't utilize the phony ransom note because they didn't write one. It was also pretty obvious from some of the contradictory time logistics in the note that it wasn't the Ramseys.

The funny thing was that it was the Boulder Police who helped me on this point.

I could bring out this point more clearly in the film and I thought it would not only help the Ramseys, but the Boulder Police would then concentrate in another direction. At this point, six years after JonBenet's death, they were still the number one suspects.

When I finished the script (My theory at the time for the script, though not a serious one, was making the same guy who abducted McReynolds daughter and friend, what, nine years previous?, as the killer)I realized that I didn't address the biggest clue in the case. That would make the story pretty weak, don't you think?

So I decided that I would crack the initials. I did. At first, I consider the solution to the initials a longshot, but you must pursue all avenues. Then, going back to the ransom note, I realized that I was right. The idiot gave himself away. I knew what this guy does, so then I continued the trail. You see, when you know what animal you're looking for, you can follow the trail he left behind.

As to vindication, I already told everybody about my information, and I mean everybody. Even my Barber knows. It's funny, though. When I give my info, they are surprised at all the documentation and they all say the same thing: These people should be looked at! (No kidding!) and yet, they never checked it out. The case keeps moving from place to place and now it looks like it's stalled, again.

I've helped in cases by catching the criminal. For example, there were computer thefts at a place I worked at, I figured out who and when he was going to strike again. We caught him. Jewel theft in apartment building I was living in. Figured out who it was and he was caught. My most gratifying success, somewhat, was the return of a kidnapped girl to her family. Would've gotten it done sooner, but the police planted evidence in the case which skewed things and it's not over yet. This, however, proved to me that I can do this. That's what I mean.

So, I hope, if you're still awake, it clears at least a few items.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

Don races to capture a serial rapist who has begun to murder his victims. Charlie is recruited by Don to help track the killer. He creates a mathematical equation to identify the killer’s point of origin by working back from the crime scene locations.

Of the show:

Rob Morrow stars as FBI agent Don Eppes, who recruits his mathematical genius brother, Charlie (David Krumholtz), to help the Bureau solve a wide range of challenging crimes in Los Angeles. From two very different perspectives, the brothers take on the most confounding criminal cases, aided by Don's partner, Terry Lake (Sabrina Lloyd), and new FBI recruit David Sinclair (Alimi Ballard). Although their father, Alan (Judd Hirsch), is pleased to see his sons working together, he fears their competitive nature will lead to trouble. Charlie's colleague, physicist Dr. Larry Fleinhardt (Peter MacNicol), urges Charlie to focus more on his university studies than on FBI business. Inspired by actual events, NUMB3RS depicts how the confluence of police work and mathematics provides unexpected revelations and answers to the most perplexing criminal questions.

Thanks for posting that. That is encouraging. I would predict, however, that it will be many years to never that this expertise will reach local DA's offices and police departments.

This may shock you, but a lot of engineers know almost nothing about statistics other than what you can learn in a good high school math class (normal distribution or bell curve, average, and standard deviation). Many don't really understand statistical reasoning, in my experience, which leads them to make bad decisions and waste resources. I've also found that many technical people cannot solve simple problems in probability (by "simple," I mean beyond introductory, but still not that complex). They don't necessarily do any better than the average person. Some research studies have demonstrated this.

I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope that "homicide detectives" such as the infamous Steve Thomas would ever develop skills in statistical reasoning. It involves making connections between the real world and mathematical abstractions, absent any previous exact or nearly exact examples. Many folks can work in one world or the other; some can work between the two with nearly exact examples; not that many can do what I describe.

Just curious. Does anyone know what ST's degree is in? I understand he graduated from the Univesity of Boulder.

ST's degree is supposedly a B.S. in sociology with an emphasis in criminology, obtained from the University of Colorado at Boulder. (Edited to add: I have actually never seen any verification of this such as a transcript. For some reason, whether or not he actually did finish seems vague in descriptions of his studies. These reportings say things like "After completing his studies, ..." --- not exact quote.)

One would think that such a degree would involve a statistics class along the course of study, but much like with engineers I've worked with, it seems as though classes appropriate for undergrad degrees either have no effect or (as some research shows) appear to have an effect of *reducing* ability to reason statistically. (Weird, huh?) It would be interesting to know exactly what course, if any, ST took and what his grade was.

LOL. It seems to me that ST has some serious deficiency in problem-solving in general, that is, long before getting to statistical reasoning.

A good example is when he changed his statement from something like "Out of 70 people examined, only Patsy could not be eliminated" to "Out of 70 people examined who were in the house that night, only Patsy could not be eliminated." This is circular reasoning, but he apparently could not see that.

He also claims that the problem with his having shot two people while at BPD after a ten-year stretch of no one being shot wasn't that he was the problem, but that BPD didn't shoot enough people. He didn't put it like that, of course, but that was the basis of his argument.

On LKL, he pointed out that John couldn't explain why his daughter was found dead in the basement. He was using this to bolster his claim that Patsy did it. In other words, until you prove me wrong, I'm correct.

ST would be a candidate for "thinking gone awry" if it could be demonstrated that he was really thinking. He seems to let emotions interfere with thinking.

Rainsong

Do you have a timeline for it to be launched?

RealRR

"clearing up another BORG goof"
Posted by jameson on Oct-31-01 at 08:44 PM (EST)

I have no intention of writing a book - wouldn't know how to edit it down to 400 pages.

jameson
Charter Member
6667 posts Oct-07-02, 11:25 AM (EST)

"who's writing a book"

It was thought that I was writing a book all this time - - and I was not. I have the TimeLine which has become larger than a regular set of encyclopedias, but that is a reference book, certainly not to be published.

After great thought, I have decided that I will put together "a book" for my family. I don't expect it will ever be published - I don't need that in my life - but I want my kids and my grandkids to know the Ramsey story I know. The truth as I saw it.

I decided to do this project some weeks ago but didn't have a lot of time to devote to is as other things were more pressing. (I have been working as a consultant on a couple Ramsey projects - - and yes, I have been paid. Flaming can start now, but the fact is that someone was going to do the work and be paid - - they wanted to hire the best and I have bills to pay.)

Myself
Charter Member
131 posts Oct-07-02, 06:41 PM (EST)

1. "The book"
In response to message #0

I would love to read your book. Are you going to be selling it to us?
M

jameson
Charter Member
6667 posts Oct-07-02, 07:09 PM (EST)

2. "Myself"
In response to message #1

Probably not. I am taking the easy way out - it is FAR easier to write a book for the family alone and not be concerned about publishers and critics.

The intent is to keep the Ramsey discussion alive, clear up some of the misinformation that is out there and encourage further investigation. It will be my voice, but the focus will not be me

That is not what I am working on now.

Vanity press like Linda McLean's book, it must be, since as you have said before, no legitimate commercial press is interested in any Ramsey-focused book, so the only way to get one published is to pay for play.

I didn't know LMcClean had to pay to publish her book.

I am not paying anyone to have my voice heard - - if no one is interested in the project, so be it. But I don't think that will be the case..

So anyone working on a Ramsey project has to decide what they want to cover, what they must, sometimes regretfully, ignore.

That was the good thing about Mills and Tracey - and CBS 48 Hours..... they knew they could always do another project. They could hold back some things and KNOW they had a chance to use them later.

So here are two questions for you....

What would you cover?

What would you leave out?

>>What would you leave out?

I would cover only verifiable facts and leave out supposition.

Yes, that one.

Very simplistically:

0.5 that he is known and included in a particular description that you are familiar with which includes many knowns. This is a good bet, based on FBI homicide statistics of six-year-old female victims of ligature strangulation. I'm probably being pessimistic, but I did want to include the possibility of unnamed knowns. (You learned as well as I did to be conservative about these sorts of things!)

0.5 that this is the correct individual in that description but could have overlooked another. I only saw one that was anywhere close to "What kind of person might commit this type of crime?" after reading the description and very mechanically reviewing certain parts of the description (italicized text). This "what kind of person" turns out later to match certain characteristics of serial sexual murderers which distinguish them from the rest of us, something I knew nothing about at that time. This is probably a fair bet. (Edited to add: A critical point: I answered "What kind?" before review, not concurrent with review. It would be an error to have done this concurrently.)

Total at this point: 0.25 because these two groups are independent.

Considering another 0.5 probability of other error being made that didn't even occur to me (also independent), 0.125 or say 10%. (Here again, you learned as well as I did about margins of safety!)

You might quibble and say that I'm off by as much as 100% on a step. Well, so it's 5% instead of 10% (or it's 20% instead of 10%!). Still extremely good for one particular individual, even if it's 90% chance of being wrong overall.

This estimate probably seems too high to many people. But it's based on a very exclusive group of people intersected with another very exclusive group of people. I myself expected no one to be in this intersection, yet there is. This is quite surprising. (Edited to add: These two different groups are common to criminalists; they are in no way esoteric such as "phone phreaks.")

I should also mention that this analysis doesn't assume any particular theory of the crime. I did this at a time when I knew almost nothing about the crime other than the basic history. This has nothing to do with my other posts on "shock crime" and so on. As I learned more details about the crime, I could see how certain aspects could fit very well with this analysis, but usually in a very creepy sort of way. I try not to let this (creepy) consistency influence me so that I exclude other suspects, because of the high chance of error. I see too many people identify a suspect, then give into consistencies that they themselves identify, leading them to 100% certainty.

My reason for being cryptic is that there is a 90% chance of being wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm not trying to be dramatic. This may sound paradoxical, but I wouldn't be disappointed at all to be wrong. I'd prefer a world in which the bogeyman looks and acts openly like a bogeyman. It would be a lot easier to protect children if this were so.