It doesn’t exclude the possibility that Carrot Top knew the killer either.
We have a presumption of innocence in this country. By the standards being expressed in this thread, it would be impossible for anyone to ever be acquitted of anything.
It just seems absurd. We’re supposed to believe not one but both of her parents were so twisted that they were okay with pimping her out to adult men? That they’d risk exposure for this? And just how much money would they be making from this–I doubt they’d consider a few hundred or even a few thousand worth it. That would be nothing to them–for them a bonus alone is in the six figures. And how many pedophiles are really ready and able to pay thousands of dollars, anyway?
ETA: If not for money, then what else?
I do think there was a third party there, because of the DNA evidence, but I’m not sure what to think of the handprint. Why would there be only one handprint? Did the person wear gloves and then take them off just before touching that one place? What about handprints or fingerprints on the note or near where the note was written? Maybe there’s additional information about other handprints or fingerprints that hasn’t been released to the public, though. I read that trutv summary and IIRC there was only one unexplained bootprint near the body, too.
The inferrence is distinct from the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence allows the inference (and in this case it does, just not to the exclusion of everything else). The (i)facts are (ii)circumstantial evidence of the (iii)inference. You’re statement that, “The inference that the note had any more probability of being written by the Ramseys than an intruder is a baseless one, hence, [the inference] is not evidence against them.” demonstrates perfectly the point of your misunderstanding.* The inferrence is not the evidence.
*and provides yet another example of your trademark hyperbole. It is not a baseless inferrence. I have given a basis for the inference. You might find it a weak basis. That does not mean it does not exist.
If the best you can do is keep making ridiculous comparisons or offering silly alternatives, perhaps you should be rethinking your position?
A presumption of innocence is fine, but if the family were never investigated for pedophile connections, they weren’t investigated thoroughly enough.
Political and/or business favours. Swapsy’s with other children. Nothing would surprise me.
Noboy is saying it had to be a “mysterious drifter.” It could well have been someone who knew the Ramseys.
This is a commonly made, and utterly fatuous argument. There’s no reason a person can’t find a remote part of a house if they’re looking for a remote part of the house. It is fallacious to say that no one could go searching around for a nice secluded spot and find one unless they knew where it was beforehand.
it’s also entirely possible that the chikd herself could have shown the killer where the room was. This is a huge swing and whiff right here.
It’s more likely that the killer originally intended a kidmnapping and wrote the note, then got carried away and accidentally killed the kid, panicked and fled, leaving the note.
It would actually make no logical sense at all for the Ramseys to write a fake ransom note, knowing th body was in the house and would be found.
Again, it doesn’t have to be a stranger, and someone with a personal grudge would not be at all unlikely to write a ranting, self-indulgent note.
What’s implausble about that? Especially when it’s a big house. It has already been poinbted out that Elizabeth Smart was taken out her house without waking anyone, and we know for an absolute fact that a person who was not the Ramseys left DNA under the kids fingernails, in her panties and in the waisband of her panties, and also left a sack hair on the blanket used to cover her body.
So what? I am not arguing that the Ramseys did it. I am arguing that the ransom note is circumstanital evidence that implicates the Ramseys. This is a disupte born out of Diogenes ignorance of a term of art.
No–I was agreeing with you.
What “pedophile connections” are you awre that the ramseys had that were not investigated?
if you think their backgrounds weren’t thoroughly investigated for of child molestation or personal associations with known sex offenders, you are mistaken.
Also a big house that people had been in before.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/book_9.html
They were apparently a fairly prominent Boulder family. There is a way someone could have known the layout without necessarily knowing them.
Except it doesn’t implicate the Ramseys in any way.
Drop the zeroes, add one, reverse it…
…you got 9/11, man!!!
If the Ramsey’s did know the author, how would you expect this fact to present itself, if they and the author weren’t saying?
That’s for you to prove, if you want to assert that the Ramseys knew the author.
Sure it does. I have stated it numerous times. Could we resolve this if we got a legal expert you trust to confirm that the following facts are circumstantial evidence* of the Ramsey’s invovlement in the crime?
- the ransom note was written on the Ramsey’s stationary
- the ransom note included infromation known to the Ramseys and few others was
*Not dispositive. Not necessarily even weighty.
What about this:
from here
Please read before you respond:
The point of this post is not to agrue the Ramsey’s guilt or innocence. It is to argue the definition of circumstantial evidence.
So, because a prominent local family didn’t hang around with known sex-offenders, that is a reason to drop that line of enquiry??
Irrelevant. Does not implicate the Ramseys, since any intruder could obviosuly find the note pad. Everything in the house belonged to Ramseys. Saying something in their home is “circumstancial evidence against them” because it’s in their house is specious byond words.
No it didn’t.
How does one go about looking for unknown sex offenders?
Are you acknowledging though that it could never be known if they were never to confess?