Talk:Killing of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Details

[1]

However, in 1998, the District Attorney (DA) said that due to a new DNA analysis, none of the immediate family members were under suspicion for the crime.

That definitely did not happen in 1998, when the Ramseys clearly were under suspicion. The paragraph below gives the correct order of events:

In 2002, the DA's successor took over investigation of the case from the police and primarily pursued the theory that an intruder had committed the killing. In 2003, trace DNA that was taken from the victim's clothes was found to belong to an unknown male; each of the family's DNA had been excluded from this match. The DA sent the Ramseys a letter of apology in 2008, declaring the family "completely cleared" by the DNA results.

Belteshazzar (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this? My mind was associating it with the following in the Investigation section: "Lou Smit was a detective who came out of retirement in early 1997 to assist the Boulder County District Attorney's office with the case. In May 1998, he presented his findings to the Boulder police with other staff members of the DA's Office, concluding that the evidence pointed away from the Ramseys."

Due to a medical issue, I've lately been off at times when it comes to comprehension. But, yeah, the piece you sought to remove, as seen by the source used for it, seems to be about the 2002/2003 matter. I went ahead removed it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I see now that the detail about Burke was in the intro even before this erroneous statement was inserted in front of it. Is it necessary to note in the intro that Burke was not considered a suspect? If so, should the intro also note that John Andrew and Melinda Ramsey were ruled out early due to strong alibis? Actually, that point doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the current article. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a "Burke murdered his sister" theory, which resulted in a defamation case, and this is part of the lower article, I think that it's best to keep the Burke mention in the lead. This article was even moved because of the theory. I'm one of the editors who disagreed with that move, but it is what it is at this point. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Unbeknownst to him, JonBenét's body was on the other side of the door." It's not a sure fact that the body was in that room at that time. Even if a source says it was, the source doesn't know for sure. That's why I tried to change it to "JonBenét's body was later found behind this door." Belteshazzar (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Best to stick to what the WP:Reliable sources state. Unless reliable sources (and I don't mean conspiracy theory stuff) give a reason to doubt that the body was there, I see no need for us to take issue with the text relaying that it was. That stated, I'm not keen on the "Unbeknownst to him" wording, as though it's from some novel or an episode of Forensic Files. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Some do believe that the body may have been moved after this point, but my wording didn't insinuate such a thing. The simple fact is that the body was found in that room hours later, and unfortunately the area wasn't sealed off in the interim. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"obstructing an investigation of murder"

Some elaboration needed. Why was there a charge called obstruction of investigation of murder?

EasyBeginning (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Obtuse words need clarification

The article states:

Lou Smit .... In May 1998, he presented his findings to the Boulder police with other staff members of the DA's Office, concluding that the evidence pointed away from the Ramseys. They[who??? were unable to successfully challenge the police department's belief that the Ramseys were guilty.

Due to the modern PC use of "they" for he or she (a singular person), the antecedent of "they" in unclear. Does the article mean that Smit was unable? Or does it mean that the other staff members were unable? Or does it mean that Smit, the Boulder police & the DA's staff were unable? What is meant by "successfully"? Should this be changed to say that Smit and the DA's office were unable to convince the Boulder police? I think that "unable to successfully challenge" would be hard to prove. Is success getting the public to believe something? Does success depend on getting the police to believe something? Should the words "not able to successfully challenge" be changed to something easier to prove? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC))

"Intruder theory" lead paragraph

The current first paragraph of the "Intruder theory" section seems rather incoherent:

The second theory is the intruder theory. The Ramseys developed a relationship with District Attorney Mary Lacy and her office, which was criticized by authorities such as the city's mayor, Leslie L Durgin. Although the police may have still suspected the Ramseys, they and the prosecutors followed leads for intruders partly due to the unidentified boot mark left in the basement room where JonBenét's body was found. The police routinely ignored leads to any suspects outside of the family.

The second sentence doesn't seem to flow from the first. The last two sentences appear to contradict each other, even though both are sourced. Overall, this doesn't seem like a good introduction to the intruder theory. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not grasp the issue you have with the paragraph in question. It's contradictory how? And even if contradictory, WP:Verifiability is clear that "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." So what are you suggesting? If you have an idea about rearranging the text in the section, let's hear it. I will not be for removing material that should be there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

One sentence says that police followed intruder leads, and the next says they ignored them. I don't know exactly how things should be arranged, but this paragraph is not a good introduction to the intruder theory. The Ramseys' relationship with a DA, especially one who only came on the scene years later, is not a good place to start. If that sentence is kept, it should at least be moved out of this paragraph. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

One piece states "they and the prosecutors", and the other piece states "police." It can be true that the "[the police] and the prosecutors followed leads for intruders partly due to the unidentified boot mark left in the basement room where JonBenét's body was found" and that "the police routinely ignored leads to any suspects outside of the family." In fact, it is true. The police did routinely focus on the family. When they did look beyond the family, it was because of intruder leads. It's not like "routinely" means "always."

You can propose wording and/or rearranging here based on what the sources state. For example, where the piece about the Ramseys' relationship with that DA fits best. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This would all seem to belong in the Investigation section rather than the Intruder theory section. The boot mark is the only thing here that clearly merits mention in this section. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The "Family member theory" section begins with the following: "There are two types of theories about the death of JonBenét. One is the family member theory. Boulder police initially concentrated almost exclusively upon the parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. According to Gregg McCrary, a retired profiler with the FBI, 'statistically, it is a 12-to-1 probability that it's a family member or a care giver' who is involved in the homicide of a child. The police saw no evidence of a forced entry, but they did see evidence of staging of the scene, such as the ransom note. They did not find the Ramseys cooperative in helping them solve the death of their daughter. The Ramseys had said that their reluctance was due to their fear that there would not be a full investigation for intruders and that they would be hastily selected as the key suspects in the case, according to the Daily Camera."

So it's important to note why either theory was pursued in the sections about those theories and how seriously people took the theories.

I think that the "Intruder theory" section should begin with the following: "The police and the prosecutors followed leads for intruders partly due to the unidentified boot mark left in the basement room where JonBenét's body was found." The "police routinely ignored leads to any suspects outside of the family." piece can be removed since the "Family member theory" section addresses that. And I think that the "Ramseys developed a relationship with District Attorney Mary Lacy and her office, which was criticized by authorities such as the city's mayor, Leslie L Durgin." piece should be moved down to the final paragraph, which addressed the same topic by relaying, "The District Attorney's office investigating pedophiles indicated to former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman that the District Attorney's office followed the intruder theory. Silverman said, 'Once you have conceded the possibility of an intruder, I don't see how any Ramsey could ever be successfully prosecuted.' " Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Height

I would think putting imperial first is correct. The template could be on of these:

• {{convert|3|ft|11|in|cm}} → 3 feet 11 inches (119 cm)
• {{convert|120|cm|ftin|order=flip}} → 3 feet 11 inches (120 cm)
• {{convert|47|in|ftin cm|order=out}} → 3 feet 11 inches (120 cm)

Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Strike that! Using convert in {{Infobox person}} does not achieve anything. The infobox takes whatever is in the height field (the output from convert) and then applies a conversion that is built-in to the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible source:

I don't know whether this is useful but here is a source that another editor dug up:

• [ https://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html ]

For those unfamiliar with Reddit, the "I AM A..." posts are generally considered to be reliable for direct quotes and other WP:PRIMARY uses because the person has to prove their identity (in this case, here: [ https://imgur.com/VUQkIjw ]).

Interestingly, former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner deleted his responses on Reddit[2]. The above is an archived copy published by the Denver Post. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

My point was that Beckner walked back his comments regarding the DNA. This is mentioned near the end of the Investigation section, but not in the intro. It seems like the intro should either mention his subsequent comments or not cite him at all regarding the DNA.

I also noticed that the New York Post is currently cited at that point, and at four other places. Wouldn't the New York Post be unacceptable as a source here? Belteshazzar (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

[3] Given the BLP ramifications especially, it seems wrong for the intro to mention one comment and not the other. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

How exactly did he walk it back? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the article body: He also stated that the unknown DNA from JonBenet's clothing "has got to be the focus of the investigation" at this point in time and that, until one can prove otherwise, "the suspect is the donator [sic] of that unknown DNA." Although that doesn't actually contradict his earlier statement, it puts it in perspective. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no contradiction. Disagreeing with exonerating and saying it's not proven to be connected is compatible with saying it should be investigated. Both comments were made in the same year and seemingly in the same Reddit AMA. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the later statement was made after the AMA. My point is that it is problematic, especially given BLP considerations, for the intro to highlight only the first statement. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Daily Beast reliable?

The article contains an arguably transphobic passage that accuses one of the suspects of wanting to undergo gender reassignment surgery in order to prey on little girls, and the source that is cited is the Daily Beast, which is a right-wing news site that is notorious for spreading misinformation and conspiracies. Including those of a transphobic nature. 2607:FEA8:E280:38C0:353D:5F6A:D411:D1C (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Daily Beast is considered reliable:

• "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This section should probably be reworded

“The court bemoaned the existence of self-proclaimed experts – without credentials – trying to wrangle their way into the case by accusing Patsy without scientific basis.” The wording is strange and it doesn’t belong here as it seems relatively biased. Saladcreameliminator (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 18:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Death of JonBenét Ramsey → Killing of JonBenét Ramsey – Per WP:DEATHS, the form "Death of..." is should be used for titles of articles detailing accidents or natural cuases— Which is not the case here. violent deaths should indicate it within their headers as 'Killing of.. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Inf-in MD (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support – the case was ruled a homicide therefore it is a killing. cookie monster 755 17:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose At least when this event was notable, the manner of death wasn't known. Certainly it was known that it was a homicide and not a suicide, but the threshold for "manner of death known" should be higher than knowing that one fact. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Her manner of death was determined by her autopsy, performed at 08:15 on December 27, 1996, less than 24 hours after her body was found. The manner of death was known for nearly the entire time of the event's contemporary notability. --Equivamp - talk 01:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:DEATHS. 162 etc. (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support This was a homicide, not an accident. Dimadick (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Very clearly a homicide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There doesn't seem to have been any serious question as to whether or not it was a killing while it was notable. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The poor girl never get to have, or still nowadays, the identity of her killer. She was murdered and at least her article deserves to be clarified, in memoriam. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose killing, Support murder This is a clear indication that JonBenet was murdered. I believe that penetrator was convicted. 182.1.60.144 (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Neither the perpetrator nor the "penetrator" of her killing has been convicted or identified. --Equivamp - talk 05:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genetic Genealogy

Should the investigation section say that genetic genealogy is being considered for the case? Here is a link. https://whnt.com/news/could-new-dna-tech-crack-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shktriib1 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro section, place and death date

The intro of this article should start with what is about - The killing of JonBenét Ramsey was a murder case of a six-year-old American girl that happened inside of her family's home in Boulder, Colorado, not; JonBenét Patricia Ramsey (August 6, 1990 – December 25 or 26, 1996) was an American child beauty queen who was killed at the age of six in her family's home in Boulder, Colorado. This article talks completely about the killing of this child and not her biography, yes it has just a small section of who was her, but only that, the full article is about her killing and so the main should start just like this. Same as with the article of Mexican suspicious death victim - Paulette Gebara Farah, who died almost in the same circumstances as JonBenét. Even the title of the infobox should be matching with the article name Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, not JonBenét Ramsey.

In addition, regarding her place of death, same as with the case of Paulette in Mexico, we should took off the place of death mentioned since we have not the assurance that JonBenét was rightly killed on her home, she could probably have been taken somewhere else, a different place, and later her body was brought back to her house. Since almost everything regarding her passing is just a mistery, we should just keep the death date which should have the "Circa" template since is just an approximation to the date she could probably have died, but not the exact known death date, the same as with Paulette Gebara. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I vote against your edits. The sentence that you dislike does say what the article is about, and it contains important information that you have removed. And the writing is better.

There is no rule against putting information about the victim first.

The infobox is for a person, not a crime.

As far as I know, you are the only person who thinks the crime might have happened somewhere else.
63.226.236.153 (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Importnat like what? That very little information is already being said on the part of the aryicle that talks about her, there is nothing important being taken off, and yes it says what the article is about, the killing of a young little girl. No rule, yet the article is not a biography. So what? the article needs to match with the infobox, in any case we should also change the infobox. We cannot assume that the crime happened in that place, who knows? at the very end someone else could have killed her, and then put her back in the house, in that state, she could also have been kidnapped or taken somewhere else. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You would be taken more seriously without absurd grammar and punctuation mistakes. 2600:8800:5100:A20:9855:2BBD:9BBB:39E4 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay my bad, I have made some little grammatical mistakes, but out of that, the main thing is how the article should be described, the whole information is about the case, with just an small portion of her bio. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologizing one more time for it. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

So the changes can be made or not ? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no support here for the edits that were reverted on March 6-9, so I will remove the "Disputed section" template. 63.226.201.102 (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Note 'g' Denver Post comment

The comment says The Denver Post (a sister paper of the Daily Camera).... I've lived in the Denver-Boulder area my whole live, and I have never anywhere else heard the Denver Post referred to as a "sister paper" of the Daily Camera. They're owned by different companies. Denver and Boulder are different cities. I suppose this is a minor point, but it does imply a relation between these papers that I don't believe exists. - Scarpy (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Both papers' Wiki articles say that they were owned by MediaNews Group in 2013. - 63.226.230.9 (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's a thing that's real: sister paper. It was true in 2013. But it's misleading overall. If someone is trying to make the point, it would be better to say "both papers were owned by MediaNews Group in 2013." And I'm not even sure why it would be relevant? For the vast majority of their histories, they have not been owned by the same company. - Scarpy (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add, part of the reason why it seems strange to me is that it gives the impression of circulation similarity between the newspapers. I like the Daily Camera, but it's very Boulder-focused and is much more niche. The Denver Post is much larger. Comparing recent numbers 26,914 vs 413,730 for dailies. Getting published in the Denver Post is a much bigger deal, the audience is much larger. The way it's written, sounds like it's implying some kind of equivalence. - Scarpy (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)