A Newbie With An Idea

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

I am new to the forums but I have been studying the JBR case extensively. I have come to the conclusion, with no offense intended, that the whole matter is a chaotic mess.

I have been working on an idea that emcompasses some Organizational Management Techniques in an attempt to put some order to this case and the discussions that have evolved from it.

The process is lengthy and complex but I am in need of assistance and constructive criticism to see if we can work out some of the problems.

Is anybody interested?

[andU]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Hello Forum Members:

I am new to the forums but I have been studying the JBR case extensively. I have come to the conclusion, with no offense intended, that the whole matter is a chaotic mess.

I have been working on an idea that emcompasses some Organizational Management Techniques in an attempt to put some order to this case and the discussions that have evolved from it.

The process is lengthy and complex but I am in need of assistance and constructive criticism to see if we can work out some of the problems.

Is anybody interested?

I apologize for being skeptic, but to what purpose are you doing this? What kind of input do you need? Are you going with a particular theory?

[LindaA]

You are right it is a mess and some organization does need to be done. I have often thought about trying to do some kind of a chart, but I just don't have the time. I"d be interested in seeing what you come up with, though.

[Knot4u2no]

Perhaps this link will provide you with the information you need:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/

Russell

[nuisanceposter]

I'll be happy to help you in any way I can. Please let me know what you may need.

[KingCoyote]

Thank all of you for your responses.

Andu - It is good to be skeptical. I do not have a theory, I have a plan of organization.

LindaA - I have come up with a chart. I hope you like it.

Knot4u2no - Thank you for the reference to the PBWiki. I have already studied it extensively.

NuisancePoster - Thank you for your offer. I find your posts to be excellent.

I will start preparing a post with the basics of my plan.

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Thank all of you for your responses.

Andu - It is good to be skeptical. I do not have a theory, I have a plan of organization.

LindaA - I have come up with a chart. I hope you like it.

Knot4u2no - Thank you for the reference to the PBWiki. I have already studied it extensively.

NuisancePoster - Thank you for your offer. I find your posts to be excellent.

I will start preparing a post with the basics of my plan.

Hey King, I'm not sure what you've got in mind, but count me in.

Organization is exactly what this discussion needs. I think there are a lot of people here with a tremendous amount of information, intelligence, logic and great ideas, but for some reason the discussions often seem to devolve into a pissing match and nothing gets resolved.

Case in point: John Andrew Ramsey. I thought it was universally accepted that he had been cleared...was in another state when the crime occurred. Yet just recently on another thread, he was suspected. Same with John Mark Karr (why is everyone in this case named John??). I thought it was also proven that he was out of state at the time and therefore eliminated as a suspect, but he too is reintoduced time and again. IMO it helps nothing to keep rehashing these same cleared suspects.

So whatever your plan is to organize the discussion, bring it on!

[SnarkyCow]

I'm curious and interested as well. Welcome KingCoyote ~ from one Newbie to another!

[KingCoyote]

Thanks elvislives and SnarkeyCow.... I will be working on the introduction to the plan and should have it posted later today.

[KingCoyote]

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

[LindaA]

Originally posted by elvislives: <snip>
Case in point: John Andrew Ramsey. I thought it was universally accepted that he had been cleared...was in another state when the crime occurred. Yet just recently on another thread, he was suspected. Same with John Mark Karr (why is everyone in this case named John??). I thought it was also proven that he was out of state at the time and therefore eliminated as a suspect, but he too is reintoduced time and again. IMO it helps nothing to keep rehashing these same cleared suspects.

So whatever your plan is to organize the discussion, bring it on![/quote]

I also thought JAR had been cleared via alibi. However, am I mistaken in thinking his DNA was actually found at the crime scene in his semen on the blanket found in the suitcase, which had come from his bed? (Which would make it pretty normal for it to have his semen

As for JMK, my understanding is that while they could not prove he ws in Boulder on 12-25/26-96, they could never prove he was with his fammily as his wife claimed. News sources all read that he had been cleared by the DNA evidence. However, recently there has been some discussion in the news that he is not in the clear and is being watched and investigated further for the JBR murder. I don't know what to make of that. It seems to me that from what you read in the news LE must have more faith in the DNA evidence than the RDIs on this board have.

And I totally agree with you on the pissing contests!

[bullmoose]

I look foward to your input on this board and await with interest what you plan to post; as LindaA says, 'bring it on'!

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

I like this idea. Count me in.

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

Absolutely!!! And I am local if you need me to research anything from the local level. I don't smoke a pipe but I'll fake it and wear a trench coat if that helps to qualify me.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

2 Questions:
How does your plan differ from the pbwiki?

Is there a reason you chose that spelling for "Dilecti"?

[KingCoyote]

Thanks for the interest elvislives, ColoradoKares and Louisadelmar;

Louisadelmar:

PBWiki is in an Encyclopedia format. I am establishing a Database format. The end result should be a list of evidence that members agree upon with a source for each piece of evidence or DATA as I will be calling it. Each person should then use or dismiss all pieces of evidence in any theory they present. I think it may start coming together at a later point.

Did I misspell Dilecti in the first post....sorry about that...I think I am getting too close to my work and starting to miss obvious errors...I never took Latin.

I should be posting the first part of the Outline tomorrow with some suggested guidelines on how to approach this idea.

Thanks again,

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

I think I just misspelled it again...mistakes are habit forming...Delicti...Is that right???

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Thanks for the interest elvislives, ColoradoKares and Louisadelmar;

Louisadelmar:

PBWiki is in an Encyclopedia format. I am establishing a Database format. The end result should be a list of evidence that members agree upon with a source for each piece of evidence or DATA as I will be calling it. Each person should then use or dismiss all pieces of evidence in any theory they present. I think it may start coming together at a later point.

Did I misspell Dilecti in the first post....sorry about that...I think I am getting too close to my work and starting to miss obvious errors...I never took Latin.

I should be posting the first part of the Outline tomorrow with some suggested guidelines on how to approach this idea.

Thanks again,

KingCoyote

corpus delecti. I don't usually question spelling since I'm as bad as anyone typos and spelling problems. I just wondered if there was a pun or something that had gone over my head. That's all :-)

Your database sounds interesting. Finding evidence that has genuine, original, or generally agreed upon as valid sources will be a trick though. There's not much that's agreed upon other than she's dead, red fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket were found in the vicinity, and she was sexually assaulted that night.

I look forward to reading your Outline and would be happy to help if I can.

[KingCoyote]

Louis: I'm not real good at puns...and I totally agree that getting people to agree on much of anything in this case may be major trick.Oh...BTW,I just found a dusty old pocket dictionary that had the correct spelling of Corpus Delicti

Later

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

I am ready to start posting the Outline of the Plan of Organization. I will post the first section in three separate posts. The first post will be the outline itself. The second will be Explanatory Notes (which will be the longest post). The third post will be an Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Please be patient.

The Outline

In The Matter of The Death of JonBenet Ramsey
Plan of Organization - Outline

I. Establish Database
A. Collect Data (AKA: Evidence)
B. Source the Data
C. Eliminate Unnecessary Data
1. Non-Verifiable Data
2. Irrelevant Data
D. Limit "Expert" Data
E. Manage the Data
F. Add Additional Data as necessary
G. Provide Index of Abbreviations/Acronyms

Again, let me say that nothing I post is "cast in stone." If the group feels we
need a change, we can do that.

Next Post: Explanatory Notes for (I) of Outline.

Later

[KingCoyote]

Well, it didn't quite post in the format I typed. I will have to check the toolbar for other options.

Sorry, but Newbies like me are sometimes ignorant.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

<snip>
The end result should be a list of evidence that members agree upon with a source for each piece of evidence or DATA as I will be calling it. Each person should then use or dismiss all pieces of evidence in any theory they present. I think it may start coming together at a later point.

<snip>

It will be absolutely wonderful if your project succeeds! Accomplishing just what is outline in your above quote will border on miraculous. Wishing everyone the best in this endeavor.

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

Here are the Explanatory Notes for the first section of the Outline:

1. First let me clearly state that I have no authority to "rule" on any issue regarding the Outline. This outline is not being presented to be my outline but, rather, an outline to facilitate the theory development process. I am sure someone will have to "make a decision" at some point(s) within the discussions and I suppose that will have to be me since I created this monster. I can only console you with the fact that I haven't gotten everything I wanted in this life either.

2. Establishing a Database is dull, boring, tedious and to put it bluntly, grunt work. But it will serve certain purposes. It will provide a uniform source of evidence which "theorists" must account for. The proponent of the theory must either utilize the Data or dismiss the Data with Rationale, a subject we will come to much later. It will also create a quick reference for "Newbies" who haven't had the time to research all of the sources some veteran posters have already labored through.

3. Two things helped me develop this process with objective determination. Those two things are the incontrovertible conclusions about this matter at which I have arrived. They are:

a. JonBenet Ramsey is dead
b. I do not know who caused her death

When I began to weaken in my determination I remembered that an adorable six year old child was brutally killed. That fact should never be forgotten and I reminded myself of a. above.

When I began to lean toward IDI or RDI and found it possible to slant the Database by leaving out innocuous information or "pile on" information for one side or the other, I simply reminded myself of b. above.

4. The Sources I have used to Source what Data I have collected are:

a. Court Documents such as Depositions and Order(s) in civil cases such as the Order for Summary Judgment (Carnes) in the Wolf v. Ramsey Civil Case with attendant Statements of Material Fact (SMF) etc.

b. Law Enforcement Interviews

c. Search Warrants

d. The Autopsy Report and Published Photos

e. Pubished Photos of Ransom Note and Crime Scene

f. Paperback Books: Perfect Murder, Perfect Town , Schiller

Death of Innocence, Ramseys

Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Thomas

Some of my sourcing is obviously incomplete. I need page numbers, links, etc. Some of the sourcing could be more authoritative. A statement by an author from a paperback would not be as good as a statement by the party from a Law Enforcement Interview.

5. Elimination of Data

a. Non-verifiable Data: We surely don't want to include Data that really doesn't exist. There must be a source for everything. I don't like the category of "General Knowledge" as a source but I have fallen back on it a few times. We don't want to fall into the trap of "Urban Legends." Simply because the story has been told many, many times doesn't make it true.

b. Relevancy of Data:This is going to be tough. The easiest way to classify Data as Irrelevant is for a unanimous decision that the Data is truly an "artifact" and has nothing to do with the crime. (Get a Grip KingCoyote)
If we can't do that we must fall back on what I believe to be a legal standard for relevancy. (Not that I have more than enough knowledge about the law to be anything but extremely dangerous but we do need some guidelines, if for nothing else, just for this exercise.) The way I understand relevancy is that there is a balancing between probative value and prejudicial value of the Data/Evidence. I will just wade through this one as the need arises. Bear with me. Your comments and patience will be appreciated.

6. Limiting "Expert" Data: We want to refrain, if at all possible, from inlcuding Data that is solely the conclusion of one expert when there is no "counter" expert available. Where the Data comes in because of two competing experts we will include the Data and delay the discussion of its "weight" until the Section on Theory Development and Defense comes up.

The purpose of the Database portion is to look at the forest and simply count the trees, categorize the trees and list them in some order. We want to analyze the forest from a standpoint of trees not analyze each individiual tree, root, leaf etc. We can come back at another time to our analysis of the "minutae." Does that make sense to anyone besides me? [Rhetorical, self effacing question:think about it]

{Maybe I should say we are counting the alligators in the swamp to see if we really want to find ourselves up to our neck in alligators when all we wanted to do was drain the swamp} OK OK...I will stop with the cliches and comparisons

7. Manage the Data: Here comes a circular portion of the Outline. If you begin to manage the Data in a Chronological fashion first, as I have, then you must define your largest Stages of the Corpus Delicti (CD). I chose to define my Stages as Pre CD, CD, and Post CD. Then I realized that I needed to Establish a TimeFrame for the CD to know what comes before it and what comes after it from a Chronolgogical standpoint.

For purposes of allocating Data to a Stage of the CD I have chosen the following flexible TimeFrame to accomodate both RDI and IDI.

Begin TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder entry nor later than Ramseys arrival home from White party

End TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder exit nor later than Ramseys leaving home after discovery of body.

We will go into these more deeply at a later stage and the general TimeFrame may change. Stay with me, now.

I found it easier to establish the Data of the CD first, then the PreCD and the PostCD second. We will come back to these Stages later.

You will also see that I began to arrange the Data by Location within the house. There are only four floors to the house so I started at the top in the bedrooms and kind of worked my way down to the basement. I also found that some bits of Data began to form Topics of Data and some bits of Data were too broad and neeed sub topics. Those will start to show up.

8. Add Additional Data as Necessary: This is a two edged sword in a couple of ways. Data can be of benefit to one side, while of detriment to the other side; or it can be of benefit to both sides; or it can be of detriment to both sides; or it can be both benefit and detriment to both sides. As a personal caution, be careful about introducing Data that comes back to haunt you. On a more objective note no Data will be dismissed simply because it is damaging to one side nor will it be admitted simply because it is beneficial to one side. How I am going to make that decision, I don't know yet. Just bear with me. This is a learning process for me too.

Also remember one of the ultimate goals of this project and that is to establish a Database of Evidence that all parties must account for in his/her respective theories. "Account for" means you must use it to support your theory or dismiss it with Rationale, a term which will be better defined later. The more Data you enter, the more you have to account for.

9. Develop an Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms : Next Post

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

Thank you SweetCharlotte...I hope you will participate

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

You might email Miss Marple about what you are planning. I understand the difference between what you are trying to do and his pbwiki but he might have some suggestions that could be helpful. Also I believe things like the Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms are already out there. I have to go somewhere this morning but will look for it later today.

Have you read this from WS?
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35649

[KingCoyote]

Louis;

I am glad to hear you suggest contacting others around the Internet. I, too, have thought of that idea and your suggestion reinforces my line of thought. (Brillliant minds do think alike. LOL) In fact, I have thought about contacting several individuals from other forums and inviting them to participate by joining CrimeLibrary. I have also thought about suggesting that other forums set up a thread within their forum and, maybe, select one individual to post their collective thread's thoughts on any given issue. I would then try to "lurk" to present others' points of view. (That is a little presumptuous, though.)

As to the Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms, I have created some that may be unique to my Database and Outline. It won't take long to post them but please do give me the reference to the Index of which you are aware. It never hurts to compare.

Yes, I have seen the Post on Websleuths that you provided a link for. I found it informative and enjoyable and it just might come in handy.

Thanks

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

In The Matter of the Death of JonBenet Ramsey
Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms

JBR = JonBenet Ramsey
JR = John Ramsey
PR = Patsy Ramsey
BR = Burke Ramsey
JAR = John Andrew Ramsey
MR = Melinda Ramsey

Smit/LS = Lou Smit
FW = Fleet White, Jr.
LHP = Linda Hoffman Pugh
JMK = John Mark Karr

PMPT = Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
DOI = Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
ST = JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
(All references are to the Paperback editions)

Floor Plan = Appendix A - Perfect Town, Perfect Murder

PBWiki = http://JonBenetRamseyCase.pbwiki.com
ACR = www.Acandyrose.com

Carnes = Judge Julie Carnes, Summary Judgment Order - Wolf vs. Ramsey
SMF = Statement of Material Fact
PDSMF = Plaintiff's Disputed Statement of Material Fact

IV = Interview with Law Enforcement
LE = Law Enforcement
BPD = Boulder Police Department
DA = District Attorneys' Office

SW = Search Warrant
Depo = Deposition (cite case)
RN = Ransom Note

Stmt. = Statement (subject to scrutiny for additional source)
? = Data in need of source
XXXXXXX = Data that must speculated upon in Theory

Please feel free to comment on the Outline, the Explanatory Notes or the Index

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

In The Matter of the Death of JonBenet Ramsey
Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms

JBR = JonBenet Ramsey
JR = John Ramsey
PR = Patsy Ramsey
BR = Burke Ramsey
JAR = John Andrew Ramsey
MR = Melinda Ramsey

Smit/LS = Lou Smit
FW = Fleet White, Jr.
LHP = Linda Hoffman Pugh
JMK = John Mark Karr

PMPT = Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
DOI = Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
ST = JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
(All references are to the Paperback editions)

Floor Plan = Appendix A - Perfect Town, Perfect Murder

PBWiki = http://JonBenetRamseyCase.pbwiki.com
ACR = www.Acandyrose.com

Carnes = Judge Julie Carnes, Summary Judgment Order - Wolf vs. Ramsey
SMF = Statement of Material Fact
PDSMF = Plaintiff's Disputed Statement of Material Fact

IV = Interview with Law Enforcement
LE = Law Enforcement
BPD = Boulder Police Department
DA = District Attorneys' Office

SW = Search Warrant
Depo = Deposition (cite case)
RN = Ransom Note

Stmt. = Statement (subject to scrutiny for additional source)
? = Data in need of source
XXXXXXX = Data that must speculated upon in Theory

Please feel free to comment on the Outline, the Explanatory Notes or the Index

KingCoyote

Here are some. The list I found had too many editorial comments so I stripped it down.

2BWS. www.jameson245.org
BDA - Boulder District Attorney
BDI - Burke Did It
BORG - Bent on Ramsey Guilt/Believers of Ramsey Guilt
BR - Burke Ramsey
DOI - Death of Innocence.
FFJ – www.forumsforjustice.org
IDI - Intruder Did it.
IMO/IMHO - In my Opinion/In My Humble Opinion
JARDI - John Andrew Ramsey Did It.
JBR - JonBenet Ramsey
JDI - John did it.
JR - John Ramsey
LS - Lou Smit.
LW - Lin Wood - Ramsey's civil attorney..
Mary Keenan=Mary Lacey - Current Boulder DA
PDI - Patsy did it.
RST - Ramsey Spin Team/Ramsey Support Team
ST - Steve Thomas
WS – www.websleuths.com

Hey KC,
I applaud your scientific and logical approach to this case. Perhaps you should consider running for DA of Boulder.

[KingCoyote]

Thanks elvis....

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by elvislives

Hey KC,
I applaud your scientific and logical approach to this case. Perhaps you should consider running for DA of Boulder.

Do you promise and swear to act in accordance with where the evidence leads and do your job if so. I might be able to help get you on the ticket. The position might be opening up. :lol:

[KingCoyote]

ColoradoKares:

Let me update my resume! (LOL)

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

I am ready to begin posting Data (aka: evidence) to build our Database.

A few procedural points are in order;

1. Please feel free to invite any posters from other forums if you feel they would be interested or of particular benefit to this project.

2. I will post all of the entries in my proposed Database so you may see the flow of the entire Database.

3. Each Posting of Data will have a title for descriptive and tracking purposes. The first posting will start with about 15 Entries and we will adjust to more or less as is possible from the discussion. I may direct you to certain Data that I need special comment on within each posting.

4. There are four areas of possible comment on each Entry. I suggest that you only comment on the entries you take exception to or feel that comment is necessary. If you agree with it, go to the next entry. That will speed things up.

a. Does the Data (aka: Evidence) exist?

b. If it does exist, what is the source of the data or is the source listed agreeable to you? (If no source can be obtained the Data will be eliminated from the list.)

c. Is the Data relevant to the crime? (If not, it will be eliminated.)

d. Do you have additional Data, related to this field of Data, which you feel should be discussed? (If so, we will repeat steps a., b., and c. with your Data.) I may request that you "hold that thought" until a later time as the Data may appear then.

This set of Data has to do with initial timelines and clothing present within that Timeline.

Please refer to previous posts of Explanatory Notes and Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms when necessary.

NEXT POST: DATA

KingCoyote

[nuisanceposter]

What if there's dissent between members as to whether the evidence exists or not (specific example: fiber evidence placing Patsy and John in the crime scene on JonBenet's body)? It was brought up in an interview, but as none of us have ever seen the report from CBI pertaining to the fiber evidence, some of us doubt the fiber evidence truly exists in the first place.

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

Here is my first attempt at posting Data to build a Database.

NOTE: The numbering system corresponds to my current Database. Formatting such as indentation and parenthetical reference which may indicate category/subcategory style of Database development has been deleted to expedite the posting.

NOTE:Order of Data posted is not meant to indicate any opinion or theory on the part KingCoyote which supports any RDI/IDI theory as to hypothesized Timeline or Participants. The Database has flexibility to remove any topic from one point in the Timeline to any other point in the TimeLine to accommodate any theory.


DATA.............................................. ..................................SOURCE

24. TimeLine - Intruder Entry............................................. ....XXXXX
25. Means of Intruder Entry............................................. ......XXXXX
26. TimeLine - Ramsey Arrival Home 12/25 9-9:15PM..................JR97IV
27. JBR - Ascension to Bed............................................... .....XXXXX
28. JR Stmt. - Carried JBR to Bed............................................JR/PR97IV
29. PR Stmt. - Redressed JBR - Blk pants to longjohns................PR97IV
30. BR Stmt. - JBR walked up Spiral Stairs to bed......................ST335
31. TimeLine - PR retires to bed/asleep 930-10PM.....................PR97IV
32. TimeLine - JR retires to bed/asleep 1030-1040PM.................JR97IV
33. JR Stmt. - Took Melatonin to sleep better...........................JR97IV
34. Clothing - PR - Red/Black/Grey Jacket worn on 12/25............PR97IV
35. Clothing - JR - Black Israeli Wool Shirt worn on 12/25...........GenKldge
36. Clothing - JR - Blue Bathrobe in Liv. Rm on 12/26.................???????
37. Jewelry - PR - Wore rings to bed 12/25..............................PR97IV

Comment: The 1997 interview of PR and JR with LE as reported via link in Acandyrose website did not contain page numbers.

Comment: Athough it is believed to be General Knowledge that JR wore a black Israeli wool shirt on 12/25 I could not find any source where JR has actually stated that he did. Can you help?

Comment: The Blue Bathrobe evidence is lurking somewhere in the back of my mind. I am not sure where I got that.

Lets see if this type of posting works. If it doesn't, its back to the drawing board.

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

NuisancePoster:

You bring up one of the very cogent points of the process.

My thoughts on your question are as follows:

As to the existence of evidence, the preference and presumption will be to include the evidence unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to deny the existence. In the event there are conflicting statements as to the existence of the evidence, the evidence will be included and the theorist must utilize or dismiss the evidence based upon the weight of the credibility of the conflicting sources.

In your specific instance one may argue that attorneys who assert evidence in an interview would be more credible than police officers since attorneys are bound by a code of ethics not to engage in dishonesty where police officers can use trickery to get suspects to confess.

Others may argue that attorneys have little credibility by virtue of their mere occupation and that they believe the conflicting source that the evidence does not "for a fact" exist, which by the way was an attorney.

My above comments are no way intended to assert any theory as to this crime. They are merely examples to answer your question and elaborate for understanding of the process I have introduced.

KingCoyote

[Athena]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Hello Forum Members:

Here are the Explanatory Notes for the first section of the Outline:

1. First let me clearly state that I have no authority to "rule" on any issue regarding the Outline. This outline is not being presented to be my outline but, rather, an outline to facilitate the theory development process. I am sure someone will have to "make a decision" at some point(s) within the discussions and I suppose that will have to be me since I created this monster. I can only console you with the fact that I haven't gotten everything I wanted in this life either.

2. Establishing a Database is dull, boring, tedious and to put it bluntly, grunt work. But it will serve certain purposes. It will provide a uniform source of evidence which "theorists" must account for. The proponent of the theory must either utilize the Data or dismiss the Data with Rationale, a subject we will come to much later. It will also create a quick reference for "Newbies" who haven't had the time to research all of the sources some veteran posters have already labored through.

3. Two things helped me develop this process with objective determination. Those two things are the incontrovertible conclusions about this matter at which I have arrived. They are:

a. JonBenet Ramsey is dead
b. I do not know who caused her death

When I began to weaken in my determination I remembered that an adorable six year old child was brutally killed. That fact should never be forgotten and I reminded myself of a. above.

When I began to lean toward IDI or RDI and found it possible to slant the Database by leaving out innocuous information or "pile on" information for one side or the other, I simply reminded myself of b. above.

4. The Sources I have used to Source what Data I have collected are:

a. Court Documents such as Depositions and Order(s) in civil cases such as the Order for Summary Judgment (Carnes) in the Wolf v. Ramsey Civil Case with attendant Statements of Material Fact (SMF) etc.

b. Law Enforcement Interviews

c. Search Warrants

d. The Autopsy Report and Published Photos

e. Pubished Photos of Ransom Note and Crime Scene

f. Paperback Books: Perfect Murder, Perfect Town , Schiller

Death of Innocence, Ramseys

Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Thomas

Some of my sourcing is obviously incomplete. I need page numbers, links, etc. Some of the sourcing could be more authoritative. A statement by an author from a paperback would not be as good as a statement by the party from a Law Enforcement Interview.

5. Elimination of Data

a. Non-verifiable Data: We surely don't want to include Data that really doesn't exist. There must be a source for everything. I don't like the category of "General Knowledge" as a source but I have fallen back on it a few times. We don't want to fall into the trap of "Urban Legends." Simply because the story has been told many, many times doesn't make it true.

b. Relevancy of Data:This is going to be tough. The easiest way to classify Data as Irrelevant is for a unanimous decision that the Data is truly an "artifact" and has nothing to do with the crime. (Get a Grip KingCoyote)
If we can't do that we must fall back on what I believe to be a legal standard for relevancy. (Not that I have more than enough knowledge about the law to be anything but extremely dangerous but we do need some guidelines, if for nothing else, just for this exercise.) The way I understand relevancy is that there is a balancing between probative value and prejudicial value of the Data/Evidence. I will just wade through this one as the need arises. Bear with me. Your comments and patience will be appreciated.

6. Limiting "Expert" Data: We want to refrain, if at all possible, from inlcuding Data that is solely the conclusion of one expert when there is no "counter" expert available. Where the Data comes in because of two competing experts we will include the Data and delay the discussion of its "weight" until the Section on Theory Development and Defense comes up.

The purpose of the Database portion is to look at the forest and simply count the trees, categorize the trees and list them in some order. We want to analyze the forest from a standpoint of trees not analyze each individiual tree, root, leaf etc. We can come back at another time to our analysis of the "minutae." Does that make sense to anyone besides me? [Rhetorical, self effacing question:think about it]

{Maybe I should say we are counting the alligators in the swamp to see if we really want to find ourselves up to our neck in alligators when all we wanted to do was drain the swamp} OK OK...I will stop with the cliches and comparisons

7. Manage the Data: Here comes a circular portion of the Outline. If you begin to manage the Data in a Chronological fashion first, as I have, then you must define your largest Stages of the Corpus Delicti (CD). I chose to define my Stages as Pre CD, CD, and Post CD. Then I realized that I needed to Establish a TimeFrame for the CD to know what comes before it and what comes after it from a Chronolgogical standpoint.

For purposes of allocating Data to a Stage of the CD I have chosen the following flexible TimeFrame to accomodate both RDI and IDI.

Begin TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder entry nor later than Ramseys arrival home from White party

End TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder exit nor later than Ramseys leaving home after discovery of body.

We will go into these more deeply at a later stage and the general TimeFrame may change. Stay with me, now.

I found it easier to establish the Data of the CD first, then the PreCD and the PostCD second. We will come back to these Stages later.

You will also see that I began to arrange the Data by Location within the house. There are only four floors to the house so I started at the top in the bedrooms and kind of worked my way down to the basement. I also found that some bits of Data began to form Topics of Data and some bits of Data were too broad and neeed sub topics. Those will start to show up.

8. Add Additional Data as Necessary: This is a two edged sword in a couple of ways. Data can be of benefit to one side, while of detriment to the other side; or it can be of benefit to both sides; or it can be of detriment to both sides; or it can be both benefit and detriment to both sides. As a personal caution, be careful about introducing Data that comes back to haunt you. On a more objective note no Data will be dismissed simply because it is damaging to one side nor will it be admitted simply because it is beneficial to one side. How I am going to make that decision, I don't know yet. Just bear with me. This is a learning process for me too.

Also remember one of the ultimate goals of this project and that is to establish a Database of Evidence that all parties must account for in his/her respective theories. "Account for" means you must use it to support your theory or dismiss it with Rationale, a term which will be better defined later. The more Data you enter, the more you have to account for.

9. Develop an Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms : Next Post

KingCoyote

Peeking in from work. Great idea - am looking forward to your database and in participating.

[KingCoyote]

Athena:

Thanks...the first part of the Database was entered this morning. I am looking forward to your participation.

KingCoyote

[TuscanDreams]

Good luck in your endeavors. This case was a train wreck from the moment that Linda Ardnt wasn't allowed back up and the crime scene had people walking all over it.

[KingCoyote]

Tuscan Dreams:

Thanks, I agree fully, but I believe that order can come from chaos.

KingCoyote