The actual amount was $118,117.50. Cite
Relevant portion:
So apparently it was not that year’s Christmas bonus, but the previous year’s. So anyone seeing any pay stub from the previous year would have seen that (rough) figure. Plus the note was written on a pad taken off of an office desk in the house. It is not ludicrous to presume that a check stub from the previous year might be located somewhere near the desk.
Also relevant:
from here
I’ve definitely heard other people bring this up before. I don’t know how relevant it is, but you’re not the first to note the similarity.
I don’t know how relevant the whole pedophile angle is either, though. Didn’t some police speculate that she may have been molested after death–i.e., the killer trying to make it look like it was a sex crime? All this talk of pedophile rings just seems like so much rampant speculation.
Once again:
To be clear, the note implicates the Ramseys as well as anyone else with 1. access to the stationary and 2. knowledge of Jon’s bonus. That means that the circumstantial evidence can be explained away. It does not mean that it is not circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys. If folks would try to understand this from the perspecive of assembling evidence implicating many people (some of whom are innocent) and corroborating evidence to devlop a theory focussing on one person or a group of opeople insetad of looking at this as evidence equals proof equals guilt, we’d all be a lot better off.
Prior, confirmable history of sexual abuse, physical evidence of involvement with her death (eg, something like matchable bite print, hand prints matching bruises, non-innocent DNA on the body, et.) lack of evidence for an intruder, lack of foreign DNA, prior statements made by the parents which could indicate a willingness or poetntial to commit this kind of crime. All would be circumstancial, but not dispositive.
Jeffrey Dahmer was bat-shit insane by most peoples standards, but he still managed to convince a police officer that the man who had just escaped from his house was just a little overwrought and was not going to be eaten.
leaves open any number of theories not invovling JonBenet’s parents, including the intruder theory. How can you say the note is not circumstanital evidence based soley on the fact that it does no support a theory of the Ramseys as killers to the exclusion of all others when the same can be said of “lack of foregin DNA”?
Not only are you wrong about whether the note is circumstantial evidence of the Ramsey’s involvement (something that can be attributed to, apparently willful, ignorance), you’re not even internally consistent.
What does this have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with anything?
Jinx! Buy me a Coke.
What does this have to do with… damn-it. Too slow.
whole bean, I understand the argument you are making. Perhaps I was a little too hyperbolic in saying that there was “not a shred of evidence”. I suppose I should have more clearly stated this as “not a shred of evidence that points only to the family.” Does this work better?
Of course there is circumstantial evidence that points to the family. We are arguing that this evidence doesn’t help construct a case.
Evidence of things from inside the house is simply not exclusionary enough to help. Using a stationary pad from inside the house neither points only to the family nor to anyone outside of the house. The fact fibers from clothing belonging to Patsy was found on duct tape is also not entirely surprising. I would be surprised if fibers from my clothes weren’t all over my house and that something like duct tape might pick one up. Surely the fact that no duct tape was found in the house is way more sigificant, right? It had to be brought in.
The most problematic part is the bonus amount and, per my cite above, this is not a freakin state secret. It was printed on every check stub from the previous year. Anyone who had ever seen a single check stub either by searching through the same desk the note was written on OR by trash diving or any way else could have seen this number. Yes, it is circumstantial evidence against the family but it simply does not narrow down the suspects to ONLY the family.
I understand that nothing is proven in the scientific sense. I understand that elaborate scenarios involving the family can be drawn up ad nauseum. I am simply stating that the overwhelming amount of physical evidences points to an intruder at the exclusion of the family (duct tape, cord, and paint brush handle all from outside the house). The evidence implicating the family (note written on a note pad they own, living in the house that the crime occurred in) doesn’t point to them at the exclusion of others.
I think I can agree with everything you’ve written. Now, if you could just convince Diogenes, my work here would be done.
It means that some people are very good at hiding their true self and even in moments of high risk, they can still appear ‘perfectly normal’.
Oddly enough, the Ramseys are being taken to task for many for not appearing to act as normal grieving parents (smiling at the funeral, etc.). I’m not really sure how that’s relevant.
Diogenes your certainty is unsettling. Regarding the DNA evidence:
We simply don’t know that the DNA was from the killer. End of Story.
So a random person attacked her and molested her before she died but may not have killed her?
Where is that quote taken from? It reads like an editorial, possibly?
Cracks in the armour, maybe?
But it could just be the normal strain of parents losing their child. People here have posted about laughing at funerals or seeing their child dying–there’s no normal way to behave when something like this happens. It’s really not relevant either way.
I agree. Cite please, KidCharlemagne
Of course there’s no 100% scientific proof that the DNA is from the killer. It is, however, unknown male DNA found on a separate piece of clothing that matches DNA found in a blood sample. There is no reasonable explanation that fits with all of the other evidence in the case that explains how this type of DNA ends up on two pieces of clothing.
Plus a cite that involves an appeal to authority based on what that authority would “most likely would agree” is ludicrous. It is an artifact of what exactly? Contamination seems much much less likely when the same DNA sample is found on two separate pieces of clothing.
This sounds like something of a hit piece from the first sentence referring to clearing the family as “a fatal error”