This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Firstly the lede is too long. Second it contains contentious statements unsupported by the article about the police initially concentrating on the parents. An apparently authoritative account of the investigation (Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder ... By Lawrence Schiller) says quite clearly that several people who worked with the father and the housekeeper and her family were questioned immediately. and had samples taken before the Ramsays were even interviewed. Inn Schiller's book it clearly says the various detectives had her father as the first suspect and then both parents were suspected of involvement. I don't think any one of stranding in the investif=gation had the nine-year-old brother as a suspect. They were allowed to talk to him early on. Thirdly, and has must have been known for a while because it is in the aforementioned book, the DNA in the DA's statement is thought to be a mixed trace from three people and not from not a single unidentified man. [1]. Overagainst ( talk) 20:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:Lead, I reverted these deletions by Overagainst. As made clear before, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Overagainst made WP:BLP claims. It is up to Overagainst to actually prove that we are violating the BLP policy by summarizing the article, including the suspects. Overagainst should take the matter to WP:BLP noticeboard if he is actually concerned about BLP violations. And like I stated above, we should not be giving WP:Undue weight to WP:Fringe theories. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
is not a qualified handwritng expert. whoever included this is misleading the public. this issue was raised in the Carnes decision.
She did not study the originals, she is a member of NADE, and thus unqualified.
Handwriting expert Cina Wong made a three-week analysis of the ransom note. She believed that the note was written by the child's mother Patsy, because the author of the note used four different variations of the letter 'A', and that JonBenét's mother used the same four types of 'A'.[31][32]
needs to be removed immediately
there were 6 who studied the originals and cina wong was not 1 of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:2110:a700:61a7:e87f:98c1:3536 ( talk • contribs)
removed
Handwriting expert Cina Wong made a three-week analysis of the ransom note. She believed that the note was written by the child's mother Patsy, because the author of the note used four different variations of the letter 'A', and that JonBenét's mother used the same four types of 'A'. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensabah6 ( talk • contribs)
References
Cina Wong claims falls under Questionable sources Shortcuts
WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:2110:A700:A549:5A54:A97:CCB7 ( talk) 03:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It would seem that someone has confessed to killing JonBenet [2] -- 72.25.20.233 ( talk) 15:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently the Life section opens with the sentence:-
>>JonBenét was born in 1990 in Atlanta, Georgia, the youngest of two children of Patsy and John Ramsey.
This is not grammatically correct. There were only two children so it should be edited to read:
>>JonBenét was born in 1990 in Atlanta, Georgia, the younger of two children of Patsy and John Ramsey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.31.229 ( talk • contribs)
Extraordinarily long and unproductive thread that's going absolutely nowhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The initial below text from Vcuttolo was taken from my talk page: I have read thousands of pages on the Jonbenèt case, watched numerous videos, and have become something of an expert on the case over the years. When I visited the "Death of Jonbenét" article some time ago, it placed the investigation into proper context: The Ramseys have been repeatedly cleared by authorities, and the current investigation is focused on finding the outsider who broke in and committed this murder. I visited the article yesterday, and was surprised and disappointed to find that the entire tone had shifted drastically, to where the conspiracy theories had now been presented as if they were mainstream, and the belief of the authorities that this was committed by an outside intruder treated as an "alternative" scenario. The facts simply contradict that narrative. The article as I found it yesterday had "undue weight" problems, to put it mildly. Having spent a few hours trying to balance it out, I am sorry to see that my edits were undone wholesale. That's a lot of work on my part being discarded without consultation. Why didn't that happen when the article was distorted in the first place? I believe I left the article far better than I found it, albeit still needing work. I hope we can discuss this matter. Wikipedia should not be promoting conspiracy theories as mainstream. Vcuttolo ( talk) 05:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, looking at the most recent literature on the topic, within the last few years, I see no consensus on exonerating the Ramseys. What I do see is suspicion remaining because of things like the aforementioned note and windows, which is information I added to the article. What I do see is criticism, including from former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, aimed at the notion that the Ramseys should be cleared based on a small piece of evidence that has not been proven to be connected to the crime, which I added to the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The fact remains that there is less, or rather no, evidence for the intruder theory. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Since the early 2000s, the assumption of the Boulder authorities has been that this was committed by an intruder, and the Ramseys are innocent.
The other side? The main books cited against the Ramseys are Thomas's, which has been picked apart, as mentioned, and Kolar's, which was self-published after his own office and numerous publishers found his theory ridiculous.
Thank you. Vcuttolo ( talk) 12:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have finally brought myself up to speed on the debate here. Vcuttolo, I too perceive in you a knack for conspiracy theories. This is a problem. It leads to preference for WP:UNDUE weight. The article as it is presently seems to give due weight to each of the two different theories. There are many RS here. And this removal was not actually justified, as Flyer22 Reborn has explained. I do detect that you favor the intruder theory and want to make this article reflect that POV. We here do not make a ruling on what is "true", we reflect what WP:RS say with due weight. -Crossroads- ( talk) 04:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn: Instead of throwing false, ad hominem attacks at me (in violation of WP's rules), let's stick with facts please? I want a fair article that represents both sides using proper weight. You are unfamiliar with the facts of this case, which is why you are pushing a theory long discredited among Boulder authorities. As to the People NRS, if you found the quotes in RS sources, please use those sources, assuming the information belongs in the article. Thank you. Vcuttolo ( talk) 20:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for fixiing the indentation. I have no interest in debating you here either, really. If you think you are not making basic errors here, you are mistaken. It was abundantly obvious that you were basing your opinion on the outsourced People magazine, and on HLN, the latter of which I have not seen. I am quite familiar with all mainstream views of the case, and some bizarre ones as well (one of which somehow got referenced in the WP article, but whatever). I never said that RDI had been ruled out by Lacy's successors. I said that the focus for nearly two decades has been on finding the intruder who left behind his DNA. CBS in 2004, James in 2011, and A&E in 2016 and 2019 made precisely that point. It is the Smit list (Google it) that they have been focused on for many years. Even the CBS slander made no claim that Boulder authorities were focused in their direction, just that they wanted it to be. By any definition of a documentary, the CBS show was not a documentary. Even you said that it promoted a conspiracy theory (or similar phraseology). The current article is misleading about the DNA, because it treats the claim that all the recovered DNA on JBR and her clothing is a useless mix. Woodward contradicts that, and it seems highly likely that she is correct, by virtue of numerous otherwise solid suspects being removed from the suspect list because they are not a match. It's not just the Ramseys: There are Michael Helgoth, Gary Oliva, photographer Randy Simons, and others. Clearly Boulder authorities believe there is useful DNA. The article also makes no mention that numerous other suspects had/have handwriting similar to that found on the ransom note, including Glenn Meyer and Chris Wolf, among others. Your sticking to the story that the window could not have been the point of entry is further indication of your rather limited knowledge of the case. I listed above numerous experts who agree with Smit. Are they all wrong? Was Smit wrong? He died before Kolar's book was released, or he could have responded to it. The idea that one of the most successful homicide detectives in recorded history would have missed a point so basic is laughable. Thomas gets dozens of points in his book wrong, yet we should accept this one as undisputed fact? Forget all that, actually. I have eyes, I assume you do as well, look at the pictures and video taken by police on December 26th. The vegetation is unmistakably disturbed. The cobweb is barely touching the window well. You want to include Thomas's claim? No problem. But writing that Smit was criticized for supposedly missing those points, without then balancing that off, lacks balance, badly so. I removed Beckner's quote from a NRS, and asked you to replace it with one from a RS, which you said you could do. Why would you prefer an NRS? As to your writing "supposedly" about the criticism of Thomas for having tunnel vision on the Ramseys - are you really disputing that he has been widely criticized for that? Seriously? The "him" vs. "her" thing makes you sound like you are trying way too hard to be argumentative. For one thing, you certainly know that male pronouns can be used to refer to general society, and has been for millennia. I - obviously! - did not mean to imply "no women need apply". There are certainly many women who know the case better than you do, and I would be thrilled if they could help out here. Secondly, Wikipedia itself has bemoaned that its editor base is overwhelmingly male (my memory is hazy, but I think it is something like 95%). Acting like I would be opposed to having a knowledgeable female editor help out is absurd, and you know that. For what seems like the 10,000th time, I never touched most of the RDI stuff in the article, nor advocated removing it. I believe the article should use reliable sources, and should reflect the fact that Boulder authorities have focused their investigation on methodically going through the Smit list for nearly two decades now. That's not my opinion, that's fact. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC) And I forgot to sign off. Seems my posts always have that kind of editing problem. Hate when that happens. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Then quit removing any balance I insert into the article. The last, lengthy paragraph you inserted into the "Evidence" section is pushing your POV, and severely unbalanced. You are violating WP's rules on pushing POV and edit warring, which opens you up to sanction. Vcuttolo ( talk) 00:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Vcuttolo, it's already been explained that the "Time Inc" source is acceptable; besides, it's just being used for quotes of individuals IIRC. This and this similar attempt are WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYNTHESIS. And this still has not been explained, as basic math says it rounds off much closer to six months than seven. Normally I wouldn't make a big deal out of these things, but because of what you have been saying, it seemed fair to point out. -Crossroads- ( talk) 01:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Vcuttolo ( talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm used to telling truth to power. Folks like yourself hate that. You wrote half the damn article yourself, in an attempt to buttress your belief that Patsy did this. I want balance, you want propaganda. You have now fully exposed your agenda, which never had anything to do with Wikipedia's beloved rules, and everything to do with spreading your POV. If you gavr Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC) If you gave a damn about the facts, you'd want to learn about what you're missing instead of trying to shut me up . Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Vcuttolo ( talk) 10:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Section breakTesting Vcuttolo ( talk) 05:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC) "'Trace of amounts of DNA can get on clothing from all different, nonsuspicious means. Therefore there is no forensic evidence to show that this is a stranger murder.' 'He's correct.'" (Emphasis added.) You just identified the problem. Your POV, which you have repeatedly pushed into this article, is that he's correct, but that is a dubious assertion to say the least. Stray DNA can come from anywhere, but stray DNA from the right and left side of the waistband - where someone pulled them off - and the same DNA on the panties, found in a separate test from a different lab?? You can debate whether or not that is definitive proof of an intruder, but it sure as heck is evidence of one. I'd love to see a context of the Baden quote. Was he aware when he said that that the DNA was found in the all the different places where it showed up? Because of your bias in the matter, you don't see what is wrong with ending a section with three consecutive quotes dismissing the relevance of the DNA. I never quibbled with quoting both sides of the argument. But you were weighting it heavily to your side, and away from the evidence. There are a large number of quotes from numerous experts backing up that the consistent DNA placement proves the existence of an intruder, and I input some of that, but of course I was reverted. One quote, from top DNA expert Lawrence Kibilinsky, also included the fact that DNA tests were done on all emergency personnel and all medical examiner's office techs; all were eliminated as a match. Other experts who agreed that the DNA was anywhere from important to conclusive include Dr. Richard Eikelenboom and several other experts, as well as a large percentage of the DA's office. "Relatively equal in prominence"? Certainly not. Most of the experts believe that the DNA is exculpatory of the Ramseys, yet you weighted it in the opposite direction. The "3 to 24 hours" quote was highly relevant in the context of the paragraph in which it appeared. The entire purpose of the paragraph is to lay out a case that the Ramseys may have lied about Burke, JonBenét, and pineapple. I can think of no other purpose that paragraph serves; please enlighten me. As such, explaining that the pineapple - if it was pineapple - may have been eaten hours earlier is obviously relevant. It never occurred to me that anyone would allege that the uploader of the A&E video may somehow have faked the whole thing. In that A&E has not made the video publicly available without a small fee, am I not permitted to use the video at all? (I could link to a video I purchase for $1.99 or whatever, but I can't imagine that works.) I would think that sounds unlikely. You're the expert on WP rules; please fill me in. Vcuttolo ( talk) 06:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads: I think basic courtesy and common sense would include clicking on a source before declaring it NRS. Furthermore, my #1 Wikipedia detractor historically is a self-identified member of a radical group which engages in terrorism against civilians, the only editor against whom I have ever asked protection from stalking. It is important to not judge people without having the facts in hand. Common courtesy goes a long way. Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn: I would like to quote four assertions of yours above, made in your own voice:
All of those four assertions are factually incorrect. As regards the first two, it appears you have confused "evidence" with "proof". Evidence can point in opposing directions at the same time, as some say it does here. For example, if someone threatens to kill person X, and person X is murdered the next day, the prior threat would be considered evidence. What if two people who have never crossed paths with each other threatened the murder victim? That's evidence against both, but will likely only lead to proof against one - or possibly neither. When evidence reaches the point of "proof", charges are filed, and the accused is (hopefully) found guilty. Is there evidence of an intruder in this case? Of course there is; plenty of it. The shoeprints. The DNA. The signs of forced entry. The stun gun. Don't take my word for it - trust the experts. Is there also evidence against the Ramseys? There certainly appeared to be initially, and some experts still say that there is. But proof? Not against the Ramseys, or they would have been tried. Numerous experts have gone on the record as saying there is proof of an intruder, but obviously we can't charge said intruder without knowing who he is. But of course there is evidence of an intruder. As you know, and unlike your claim above, the ransom note made no mention of John Ramsey's bonus of ten months prior, which was paid out in installments. The note contained the exceedingly unusual demand of $118,000, which almost exactly matched the number of the earlier bonus. As is well covered in Schiller's book, investigators found numerous possibilities of the relevance of that number aside from Ramsey's earlier bonus, which itself would be evidence against a long list of people. As to Lacy, sources say she considered all options initially, before moving against the intruder theory, based upon the evidence, and bolstered by the Federal Court ruling. You mentioned the change in the title of this article from "Murder of..." to "Death of...". For what it's worth, I have no problem with the new name. Not all homicides are murders. No one has been charged, and we still don't know precisely how her death came about. Thank you for informing me about the possibility of using a reliable video as a source without the need to link to it. Vcuttolo ( talk) 08:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. Seriously?? Obviously, the note demanded $118,000, and no one said otherwise. It did not make mention of Ramsey's bonus; while you said that it did. Furthermore, evidence and proof are not synonyms, which is something I shouldn't need to point out. Whatever. I explained this already. It would be nice if you would care enough to learn extremely basic rules of criminality, and basic facts of this case, instead of reaching faulty conclusions. I spelled it out just above; I don't think I can make it any clearer. Vcuttolo ( talk) 05:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You have repeatedly made claims regarding basic rules of criminality in general, and this case specifically, that are wrong, blatantly so. Your insistence on controlling this article to represent beliefs that are flatly contradicted by facts leads to an article that reflects poorly on Wikipedia. We should seek to produce an article that correctly represents the factual situation. Without understanding the difference between evidence and proof, and believing that the ransom note referenced John Ramsey's earlier bonus directly, and other such basic mistakes? That's not a good basis for claiming the high ground here. I'm looking to have an article that represents the entire, correct picture, as reported by reliable sources. I would hope that all editors would seek the same. Furthermore, please do not misrepresent either my opinions, nor those of other editors. Vcuttolo ( talk) 06:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
|
We can't keep having the article protected every month. Please make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit (I would recommend a Request for Comment) so that this matter can be settled once and for all. Irrespectively, please be concise. El_C 05:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be the last stable version [3]
User:El_C any objection to it being restored? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads are teaming up to try to get me banned, while again falsely accusing me. Flyer22 Reborn said that I am "again casting doubt on the coroner's report". That is false. She wrote the same earlier, a few months back, and she wrote that again now. I never, ever wrote one word that disagreed with the coroner's report. Flyer22 Reborn either didn't understand my edit, or doesn't know what is in the coroner's report. Shouldn't it matter that she is getting facts wrong repeatedly? The coroner's report said the substance "may" be pineapple. The follow-up lab test at University Colorado at Boulder revealed that it was in fact pineapple mixed with grapes and cherries. That is all I added, properly sourced from a book written by a multiple- Emmy and Edward R. Murrow Award winner, Paula Woodward.
Flyer22 Reborn did precisely the same when she reverted (three months back) an edit I made to include the Boulder DA's office memo to the Boulder Police Department regarding the length of time it takes food to digest. She reverted me, saying I was in opposition to the coroner's autopsy. But the coroner's autopsy makes no mention of the time it takes the food to digest. Otherwise, why would the Boulder DA's office raise the issue?
Can we please try to get basic facts right, about both me and - more importantly - about the facts in the article in question? Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to sum up: AN/I report filed (by Flyer22 Reborn) and Vcuttolo has been, in turn, blocked indefinitely. As a result, article has been unprotected and the last stable version restored (both actions by me). El_C 18:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Voiceofreason374 insists on removing "child beauty queen" for apparent POV reasons. I fail to see why this shouldn't be in the lead as it's a large part of her notability aside from the obvious death and case. Praxidicae ( talk) 17:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Firstly the lede is too long. Second it contains contentious statements unsupported by the article about the police initially concentrating on the parents. An apparently authoritative account of the investigation (Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder ... By Lawrence Schiller) says quite clearly that several people who worked with the father and the housekeeper and her family were questioned immediately. and had samples taken before the Ramsays were even interviewed. Inn Schiller's book it clearly says the various detectives had her father as the first suspect and then both parents were suspected of involvement. I don't think any one of stranding in the investif=gation had the nine-year-old brother as a suspect. They were allowed to talk to him early on. Thirdly, and has must have been known for a while because it is in the aforementioned book, the DNA in the DA's statement is thought to be a mixed trace from three people and not from not a single unidentified man. [1]. Overagainst ( talk) 20:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:Lead, I reverted these deletions by Overagainst. As made clear before, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Overagainst made WP:BLP claims. It is up to Overagainst to actually prove that we are violating the BLP policy by summarizing the article, including the suspects. Overagainst should take the matter to WP:BLP noticeboard if he is actually concerned about BLP violations. And like I stated above, we should not be giving WP:Undue weight to WP:Fringe theories. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
is not a qualified handwritng expert. whoever included this is misleading the public. this issue was raised in the Carnes decision.
She did not study the originals, she is a member of NADE, and thus unqualified.
Handwriting expert Cina Wong made a three-week analysis of the ransom note. She believed that the note was written by the child's mother Patsy, because the author of the note used four different variations of the letter 'A', and that JonBenét's mother used the same four types of 'A'.[31][32]
needs to be removed immediately
there were 6 who studied the originals and cina wong was not 1 of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:2110:a700:61a7:e87f:98c1:3536 ( talk • contribs)
removed
Handwriting expert Cina Wong made a three-week analysis of the ransom note. She believed that the note was written by the child's mother Patsy, because the author of the note used four different variations of the letter 'A', and that JonBenét's mother used the same four types of 'A'. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensabah6 ( talk • contribs)
References
Cina Wong claims falls under Questionable sources Shortcuts
WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:2110:A700:A549:5A54:A97:CCB7 ( talk) 03:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It would seem that someone has confessed to killing JonBenet [2] -- 72.25.20.233 ( talk) 15:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently the Life section opens with the sentence:-
>>JonBenét was born in 1990 in Atlanta, Georgia, the youngest of two children of Patsy and John Ramsey.
This is not grammatically correct. There were only two children so it should be edited to read:
>>JonBenét was born in 1990 in Atlanta, Georgia, the younger of two children of Patsy and John Ramsey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.31.229 ( talk • contribs)
Extraordinarily long and unproductive thread that's going absolutely nowhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The initial below text from Vcuttolo was taken from my talk page: I have read thousands of pages on the Jonbenèt case, watched numerous videos, and have become something of an expert on the case over the years. When I visited the "Death of Jonbenét" article some time ago, it placed the investigation into proper context: The Ramseys have been repeatedly cleared by authorities, and the current investigation is focused on finding the outsider who broke in and committed this murder. I visited the article yesterday, and was surprised and disappointed to find that the entire tone had shifted drastically, to where the conspiracy theories had now been presented as if they were mainstream, and the belief of the authorities that this was committed by an outside intruder treated as an "alternative" scenario. The facts simply contradict that narrative. The article as I found it yesterday had "undue weight" problems, to put it mildly. Having spent a few hours trying to balance it out, I am sorry to see that my edits were undone wholesale. That's a lot of work on my part being discarded without consultation. Why didn't that happen when the article was distorted in the first place? I believe I left the article far better than I found it, albeit still needing work. I hope we can discuss this matter. Wikipedia should not be promoting conspiracy theories as mainstream. Vcuttolo ( talk) 05:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, looking at the most recent literature on the topic, within the last few years, I see no consensus on exonerating the Ramseys. What I do see is suspicion remaining because of things like the aforementioned note and windows, which is information I added to the article. What I do see is criticism, including from former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, aimed at the notion that the Ramseys should be cleared based on a small piece of evidence that has not been proven to be connected to the crime, which I added to the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The fact remains that there is less, or rather no, evidence for the intruder theory. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Since the early 2000s, the assumption of the Boulder authorities has been that this was committed by an intruder, and the Ramseys are innocent.
The other side? The main books cited against the Ramseys are Thomas's, which has been picked apart, as mentioned, and Kolar's, which was self-published after his own office and numerous publishers found his theory ridiculous.
Thank you. Vcuttolo ( talk) 12:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have finally brought myself up to speed on the debate here. Vcuttolo, I too perceive in you a knack for conspiracy theories. This is a problem. It leads to preference for WP:UNDUE weight. The article as it is presently seems to give due weight to each of the two different theories. There are many RS here. And this removal was not actually justified, as Flyer22 Reborn has explained. I do detect that you favor the intruder theory and want to make this article reflect that POV. We here do not make a ruling on what is "true", we reflect what WP:RS say with due weight. -Crossroads- ( talk) 04:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn: Instead of throwing false, ad hominem attacks at me (in violation of WP's rules), let's stick with facts please? I want a fair article that represents both sides using proper weight. You are unfamiliar with the facts of this case, which is why you are pushing a theory long discredited among Boulder authorities. As to the People NRS, if you found the quotes in RS sources, please use those sources, assuming the information belongs in the article. Thank you. Vcuttolo ( talk) 20:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for fixiing the indentation. I have no interest in debating you here either, really. If you think you are not making basic errors here, you are mistaken. It was abundantly obvious that you were basing your opinion on the outsourced People magazine, and on HLN, the latter of which I have not seen. I am quite familiar with all mainstream views of the case, and some bizarre ones as well (one of which somehow got referenced in the WP article, but whatever). I never said that RDI had been ruled out by Lacy's successors. I said that the focus for nearly two decades has been on finding the intruder who left behind his DNA. CBS in 2004, James in 2011, and A&E in 2016 and 2019 made precisely that point. It is the Smit list (Google it) that they have been focused on for many years. Even the CBS slander made no claim that Boulder authorities were focused in their direction, just that they wanted it to be. By any definition of a documentary, the CBS show was not a documentary. Even you said that it promoted a conspiracy theory (or similar phraseology). The current article is misleading about the DNA, because it treats the claim that all the recovered DNA on JBR and her clothing is a useless mix. Woodward contradicts that, and it seems highly likely that she is correct, by virtue of numerous otherwise solid suspects being removed from the suspect list because they are not a match. It's not just the Ramseys: There are Michael Helgoth, Gary Oliva, photographer Randy Simons, and others. Clearly Boulder authorities believe there is useful DNA. The article also makes no mention that numerous other suspects had/have handwriting similar to that found on the ransom note, including Glenn Meyer and Chris Wolf, among others. Your sticking to the story that the window could not have been the point of entry is further indication of your rather limited knowledge of the case. I listed above numerous experts who agree with Smit. Are they all wrong? Was Smit wrong? He died before Kolar's book was released, or he could have responded to it. The idea that one of the most successful homicide detectives in recorded history would have missed a point so basic is laughable. Thomas gets dozens of points in his book wrong, yet we should accept this one as undisputed fact? Forget all that, actually. I have eyes, I assume you do as well, look at the pictures and video taken by police on December 26th. The vegetation is unmistakably disturbed. The cobweb is barely touching the window well. You want to include Thomas's claim? No problem. But writing that Smit was criticized for supposedly missing those points, without then balancing that off, lacks balance, badly so. I removed Beckner's quote from a NRS, and asked you to replace it with one from a RS, which you said you could do. Why would you prefer an NRS? As to your writing "supposedly" about the criticism of Thomas for having tunnel vision on the Ramseys - are you really disputing that he has been widely criticized for that? Seriously? The "him" vs. "her" thing makes you sound like you are trying way too hard to be argumentative. For one thing, you certainly know that male pronouns can be used to refer to general society, and has been for millennia. I - obviously! - did not mean to imply "no women need apply". There are certainly many women who know the case better than you do, and I would be thrilled if they could help out here. Secondly, Wikipedia itself has bemoaned that its editor base is overwhelmingly male (my memory is hazy, but I think it is something like 95%). Acting like I would be opposed to having a knowledgeable female editor help out is absurd, and you know that. For what seems like the 10,000th time, I never touched most of the RDI stuff in the article, nor advocated removing it. I believe the article should use reliable sources, and should reflect the fact that Boulder authorities have focused their investigation on methodically going through the Smit list for nearly two decades now. That's not my opinion, that's fact. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC) And I forgot to sign off. Seems my posts always have that kind of editing problem. Hate when that happens. Vcuttolo ( talk) 22:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Then quit removing any balance I insert into the article. The last, lengthy paragraph you inserted into the "Evidence" section is pushing your POV, and severely unbalanced. You are violating WP's rules on pushing POV and edit warring, which opens you up to sanction. Vcuttolo ( talk) 00:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Vcuttolo, it's already been explained that the "Time Inc" source is acceptable; besides, it's just being used for quotes of individuals IIRC. This and this similar attempt are WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYNTHESIS. And this still has not been explained, as basic math says it rounds off much closer to six months than seven. Normally I wouldn't make a big deal out of these things, but because of what you have been saying, it seemed fair to point out. -Crossroads- ( talk) 01:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Vcuttolo ( talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm used to telling truth to power. Folks like yourself hate that. You wrote half the damn article yourself, in an attempt to buttress your belief that Patsy did this. I want balance, you want propaganda. You have now fully exposed your agenda, which never had anything to do with Wikipedia's beloved rules, and everything to do with spreading your POV. If you gavr Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC) If you gave a damn about the facts, you'd want to learn about what you're missing instead of trying to shut me up . Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Vcuttolo ( talk) 10:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Section breakTesting Vcuttolo ( talk) 05:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC) "'Trace of amounts of DNA can get on clothing from all different, nonsuspicious means. Therefore there is no forensic evidence to show that this is a stranger murder.' 'He's correct.'" (Emphasis added.) You just identified the problem. Your POV, which you have repeatedly pushed into this article, is that he's correct, but that is a dubious assertion to say the least. Stray DNA can come from anywhere, but stray DNA from the right and left side of the waistband - where someone pulled them off - and the same DNA on the panties, found in a separate test from a different lab?? You can debate whether or not that is definitive proof of an intruder, but it sure as heck is evidence of one. I'd love to see a context of the Baden quote. Was he aware when he said that that the DNA was found in the all the different places where it showed up? Because of your bias in the matter, you don't see what is wrong with ending a section with three consecutive quotes dismissing the relevance of the DNA. I never quibbled with quoting both sides of the argument. But you were weighting it heavily to your side, and away from the evidence. There are a large number of quotes from numerous experts backing up that the consistent DNA placement proves the existence of an intruder, and I input some of that, but of course I was reverted. One quote, from top DNA expert Lawrence Kibilinsky, also included the fact that DNA tests were done on all emergency personnel and all medical examiner's office techs; all were eliminated as a match. Other experts who agreed that the DNA was anywhere from important to conclusive include Dr. Richard Eikelenboom and several other experts, as well as a large percentage of the DA's office. "Relatively equal in prominence"? Certainly not. Most of the experts believe that the DNA is exculpatory of the Ramseys, yet you weighted it in the opposite direction. The "3 to 24 hours" quote was highly relevant in the context of the paragraph in which it appeared. The entire purpose of the paragraph is to lay out a case that the Ramseys may have lied about Burke, JonBenét, and pineapple. I can think of no other purpose that paragraph serves; please enlighten me. As such, explaining that the pineapple - if it was pineapple - may have been eaten hours earlier is obviously relevant. It never occurred to me that anyone would allege that the uploader of the A&E video may somehow have faked the whole thing. In that A&E has not made the video publicly available without a small fee, am I not permitted to use the video at all? (I could link to a video I purchase for $1.99 or whatever, but I can't imagine that works.) I would think that sounds unlikely. You're the expert on WP rules; please fill me in. Vcuttolo ( talk) 06:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads: I think basic courtesy and common sense would include clicking on a source before declaring it NRS. Furthermore, my #1 Wikipedia detractor historically is a self-identified member of a radical group which engages in terrorism against civilians, the only editor against whom I have ever asked protection from stalking. It is important to not judge people without having the facts in hand. Common courtesy goes a long way. Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn: I would like to quote four assertions of yours above, made in your own voice:
All of those four assertions are factually incorrect. As regards the first two, it appears you have confused "evidence" with "proof". Evidence can point in opposing directions at the same time, as some say it does here. For example, if someone threatens to kill person X, and person X is murdered the next day, the prior threat would be considered evidence. What if two people who have never crossed paths with each other threatened the murder victim? That's evidence against both, but will likely only lead to proof against one - or possibly neither. When evidence reaches the point of "proof", charges are filed, and the accused is (hopefully) found guilty. Is there evidence of an intruder in this case? Of course there is; plenty of it. The shoeprints. The DNA. The signs of forced entry. The stun gun. Don't take my word for it - trust the experts. Is there also evidence against the Ramseys? There certainly appeared to be initially, and some experts still say that there is. But proof? Not against the Ramseys, or they would have been tried. Numerous experts have gone on the record as saying there is proof of an intruder, but obviously we can't charge said intruder without knowing who he is. But of course there is evidence of an intruder. As you know, and unlike your claim above, the ransom note made no mention of John Ramsey's bonus of ten months prior, which was paid out in installments. The note contained the exceedingly unusual demand of $118,000, which almost exactly matched the number of the earlier bonus. As is well covered in Schiller's book, investigators found numerous possibilities of the relevance of that number aside from Ramsey's earlier bonus, which itself would be evidence against a long list of people. As to Lacy, sources say she considered all options initially, before moving against the intruder theory, based upon the evidence, and bolstered by the Federal Court ruling. You mentioned the change in the title of this article from "Murder of..." to "Death of...". For what it's worth, I have no problem with the new name. Not all homicides are murders. No one has been charged, and we still don't know precisely how her death came about. Thank you for informing me about the possibility of using a reliable video as a source without the need to link to it. Vcuttolo ( talk) 08:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. Seriously?? Obviously, the note demanded $118,000, and no one said otherwise. It did not make mention of Ramsey's bonus; while you said that it did. Furthermore, evidence and proof are not synonyms, which is something I shouldn't need to point out. Whatever. I explained this already. It would be nice if you would care enough to learn extremely basic rules of criminality, and basic facts of this case, instead of reaching faulty conclusions. I spelled it out just above; I don't think I can make it any clearer. Vcuttolo ( talk) 05:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You have repeatedly made claims regarding basic rules of criminality in general, and this case specifically, that are wrong, blatantly so. Your insistence on controlling this article to represent beliefs that are flatly contradicted by facts leads to an article that reflects poorly on Wikipedia. We should seek to produce an article that correctly represents the factual situation. Without understanding the difference between evidence and proof, and believing that the ransom note referenced John Ramsey's earlier bonus directly, and other such basic mistakes? That's not a good basis for claiming the high ground here. I'm looking to have an article that represents the entire, correct picture, as reported by reliable sources. I would hope that all editors would seek the same. Furthermore, please do not misrepresent either my opinions, nor those of other editors. Vcuttolo ( talk) 06:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
|
We can't keep having the article protected every month. Please make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit (I would recommend a Request for Comment) so that this matter can be settled once and for all. Irrespectively, please be concise. El_C 05:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be the last stable version [3]
User:El_C any objection to it being restored? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn and Crossroads are teaming up to try to get me banned, while again falsely accusing me. Flyer22 Reborn said that I am "again casting doubt on the coroner's report". That is false. She wrote the same earlier, a few months back, and she wrote that again now. I never, ever wrote one word that disagreed with the coroner's report. Flyer22 Reborn either didn't understand my edit, or doesn't know what is in the coroner's report. Shouldn't it matter that she is getting facts wrong repeatedly? The coroner's report said the substance "may" be pineapple. The follow-up lab test at University Colorado at Boulder revealed that it was in fact pineapple mixed with grapes and cherries. That is all I added, properly sourced from a book written by a multiple- Emmy and Edward R. Murrow Award winner, Paula Woodward.
Flyer22 Reborn did precisely the same when she reverted (three months back) an edit I made to include the Boulder DA's office memo to the Boulder Police Department regarding the length of time it takes food to digest. She reverted me, saying I was in opposition to the coroner's autopsy. But the coroner's autopsy makes no mention of the time it takes the food to digest. Otherwise, why would the Boulder DA's office raise the issue?
Can we please try to get basic facts right, about both me and - more importantly - about the facts in the article in question? Vcuttolo ( talk) 07:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to sum up: AN/I report filed (by Flyer22 Reborn) and Vcuttolo has been, in turn, blocked indefinitely. As a result, article has been unprotected and the last stable version restored (both actions by me). El_C 18:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Voiceofreason374 insists on removing "child beauty queen" for apparent POV reasons. I fail to see why this shouldn't be in the lead as it's a large part of her notability aside from the obvious death and case. Praxidicae ( talk) 17:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)