|
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)
- Actually, let me explain that a little better. Among the investigators directly involved in the case, opinions break down as follows:
- 1. Most believe the Ramseys have been conclusively eliminated as suspects.
- 2. A minority have not fully eliminated them as potentially involved, as any suspect charged in the case would be probed for any possible connection to the family.
- 3. None claim that the Ramseys are the sole perpetrators.
- But among the uninformed, the conspiracy theories of a mass coverup of Ramsey guilt is still rather prevalent, at least if various social media is an accurate indicator.
- I believe the article should reflect the belief of the investigators involved, which is how I tried to frame it, albeit not as a finished product.
- The article as it was before I found it had major WP:RSUW problems.
- If you see how it looked six months or a year ago, before I touched it, the article represented the investigation as conclusively clearing the Ramseys, period. That may not be 100% accurate, but it's pretty close, and certainly a far better representation of the facts than the way I found it 24 hours ago.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vcuttolo, I am only interested in going by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Whatever expertise you believe you have on this matter is irrelevant. Also see WP:Expert. Having looked at your talk page, I am aware of your interest in conspiracy theories and that there have been issues with your editing in this regard. So I am cautious of what you state on these matters. I reverted you on this, because, like I stated, it had poor sourcing and WP:Tone issues. The wehaveyourdaughter.net source is not a WP:Reliable source. You added, "Unlike the Boulder detectives involved in the case, none of whom had investigated a homicide before, Smit had solved more than 200 homicides." This is an unnecessary tangent. You added, "To the contrary, Burke was publicly declared to not be a suspect by every entity involved in the investigation, including the FBI, the DA's office, the Boulder Police Chief, the Special Prosecutor, and others." This is unnecessary and comes across as pointy. I mean, "every entity involved in the investigation" sounds unencyclopedic and pointy. The article is already clear that Burke was never a suspect. You also went out of your way to make the intruder theory look more legitimate than it is. It is a theory, just like the "a family member killed her" assertion is a theory. So I don't see an issue with it being called an alternative theory. It's also a fact that authorities treated it as a second possibility for most of the case.
- Regardless of the DNA evidence, which is also weak, there is still little evidence for the intruder theory. For example, there is still no sign that forced entry occurred. How did the intruder get inside? You don't have to answer that. I know of all of the theories. To be clearer on evidence, there is no evidence for either theory conclusively pointing to one of the theories being correct. Suspicion of the Ramseys remains in reliable sources because of things that make no sense, like the odd Ransom note. That note, as you know, even demanded $118,000 for the child's safe return; this was the exact value of a bonus John Ramsey had received. Even with HLN's recent How It Really Happened program on the Ramseys, the "a family member killed her" theory was thoroughly explored and was not treated as fringe. That CNN source I just linked to reports retired FBI Special Agent Ron Walker telling HLN the following, "I've seen and worked a number of kidnappings for the FBI and most of the notes are very short, they're very terse, very succinct and they give very specific instructions, almost like bullet points. I have never seen a ransom kidnapping that asks for such a specific amount of money: $118,000." People like Walker are not uninformed. Regardless of what the authorities believe today, they focused on the Ramseys for most of the case and this produced numerous reliable sources that have also focused on the Ramseys. That is why the article gives the weight it does to suspicion of the Ramseys. Suspicion of the Ramseys is not some fringe view. What WP:Reliable sources do you have stating that "most believe the Ramseys have been conclusively eliminated as suspects"? I'm just not seeing that. You stated, "If [I] see how [the article] looked six months or a year ago, before [you] touched it, the article represented the investigation as conclusively clearing the Ramseys, period." I've been with this article for years. Which version of the article are you referring to? You can link to that version via the edit history if it exists, but I don't think it does. All we've ever stated is, like we currently do in the lead, "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."
- I reverted you here because, again, wehaveyourdaughter.net is not a reliable source going by Wikipedia's guideline on sourcing. And that book source is undue weight. Sources do not usually talk about a Hispanic male. As for "initialism"? See where initialism redirects to. I'm not concerned about acronym vs. initialism, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 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)
- Your charge that I am invested in conspiracy theories is not only false, it is defamatory, and a violation of WP's rules regarding personal attacks against other editors. Repeating someone else's false attack doesn't change that fact.
- Now, onto this case. It would seem thay your edits are in good faith, but you are simply not knowledgeable enough to trying to sort this oit in a couple of days. Your comments here and in the reasons for your edits reveal many mistakes.
- It is not in question that Lou Smit was very highly regarded, nor does anyone deny the Boulder PD of the late 1990s lacked basic background in homicide investigations. The reason that Lou Smit was brought in (chosen from 80 proposed names) to investigate the case was because the Boulder PD had run into a wall, and a professional was needed to get the case back on track. None of the original police detectives assigned to the case had ever solved a homicide; Smit had solved more than 200.
- Citing Steve Thomas as a RS while dismissing Paula Woodward is almost incomprehensible. Let me explain.
- In the first 19 years after the murder, there were many books written on the case, but only one that was written down the middle, with excellent sources in every camp: "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", by Lawrence Schiller (1999). It is widely considered the "bible" of JonBenét books, full of inside informatiom drawn from inside accounts among the police, DA's office, numerous Ramsey confidants, and many other people involved in the case, even peripherially. Don't take my word for it; look around online. It is the only book respected by all sides.
- Then, in 2016, the only other book on the cas with inside information from all sides was released: Paula Woodward's "We Have Your Daughter", an award-winning book, written by someone who had earned two Emmy Awards.
- Woodward's book has a very impressive blurb on it: None other than Lawrence Schiller says, "Now, twenty years later, there is no other book...it is the definitive book".
- That counts for a lot.
- On the flip side, there is Thomas's book, which brings one perspective: His own. It is chock full of errors. Here is a quote from Bill James's "Popular Crime" (Scribner, 2011) about Thomas's book: The book...exposes the investigation as a naked emperor. Detective Thomas makes argument after argument about the Ramseys' guilt - all palpably false, and most of them ludicrous." (p. 411) James then goes on to list some of the many facts of the case that Thomas gets completely wrong, including the time of death as determined by the autopsy, the time of the Ramseys' scheduled flight that morning, the details of the 911 call, etc.
- You said earlier that you wanted to read the Federal Court's ruling in Wolf vs. Ramsey, the one that said that "abundant evidence" supported the Ramsey's claims of innocence. Please read it: The Court pretty clearly is unimpressed with Thomas's book.
- There is simply no way that Thomas's book can be cited, at least without some major caveats about its reliability.
- Woodward's book engendered opposition because she clearly agrees thay this was done by an outsider. That doesn't change the fact that it is one of only two books with excellent sources on all sides of the case, which also won awards, and was written by someone who spent three decades as a journalist and won Emmys.
- Another highly questionable source is Ann Louise Bardach's Vanity Fair article, which provided only one side of the case, that of the first Boulder police detectives. Read Lawrence Schiller's backstory in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town"; that story is very shaky.
- At least it was published by Vanity Fair, and not self-published, which is more than we can say for James Kolar's 2012 tome "Foreign Faction". Kolar briefly served in the Boulder DA's office, and came up with the fantastic theory that Burke had killed JonBenét. Understand that no less than TEN different entities involved in the case publicly said that Burke was not a suspect, including the Special Prosecutor, multiple DAs, multiple Police Chiefs, and the FBI.
- Kolar presented his theory to several members of the DA's office, all of whom found his theory without basis. He then chose to publish it as a book, but the many publishers he approached weren't interested, so he self-published instead. That's very weak. Again, not RS, certainly without some major context.
- Four years later, business associates of Kolar' turned his book into a "documentary", which led to $900m in defamation lawsuits. Yet the article cites both Kolar's book and the CBS show which is the movie version of his book as reliable sources? Houston, we have a problem.
- You wrote that for most of the time the assumption among law enforcement has been that the Ramseys were involved, but you are mistaken. The Boulder Police of the late 1990s believed that, although not all were on the same page as to their theories of what happened. Most of the Boulder DA's office was highly skeptical of the sloppy police work.
Since the early 2000s, the assumption of the Boulder authorities has been that this was committed by an intruder, and the Ramseys are innocent.
- "48 Hours reports that investigators are no longer focusing on the Ramsey family." - CBS, 2004
- "The Lou Smit interpretation of the case is now the mainstream view among those who are still involved in the effort to bring JonBenét's killer to justice." - Bill James, "Popular Crime", p.419 (2011)
- The A&E documentaries on the case of 2016 and 2019 make clar as well that the mainstream view of the case is that this was committed by a outsider.
- Bob Grant, former Adams County, Colorado DA, has spentany years working for the Boulder DA's office on this case. I don't have quotes in front of me, but he has made very clear that any resolution of the case must include a valid explanation of how someone's DNA ended up all over JonBenét's clothing
- Arapahoe County Medical examiner Michael Dobersen is one of the highest respected in the world at what he does. He defends the Ramseys.
- Former FBI criminal profiler laughed at the theory that an Asian worker' DNA somehow spread from one article of JonBenét's clothing to the next, comparing to a thekry that aliens left their DNA behind. She cleared the Ramseys.
- Steve Ainsworth, Trip Demuth, and Pete Hofstrom all worked in the DA's office for many years, starting from the beginning of this case. All of them clearly believe in the innocence of the Ramseys.
- Elizabeth Vargas worked many years at ABC, and is currently the Lead investigative Anchor for A&E. She said that the Ramseys have been shown to be innocent, period.
- Dan Abrams, Chief Legal Affairs Anchor for ABC, said that while the early, false leaks from the Boulder Police had him thinking the family was involved, he now believes they are innocent.
- John Douglas, the former Head Criminal Profiler of the FBI, said that the Ramseys are innocent, and even joined their team.
- Retired FBI agent Robert Clark stated matter-of-factly that of course the Ramseys have been cleared.
- Charlie Brennan, longtime Colorado legal affairs writer, has been covering this case since the very beginning. It was his FOIA lawsuit that in 2013 revealed the decision of the grand jury 14 years prior. Brennan has gone on the record to say he believes the Ramseys are innocent.
- Of course Lou Smit, the legendary homicide detective, was so convinced of the Ramseys innocence that he devoted the rest of his life to trying to clear their names.
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.
- The other main source used against the Ramseys is the CBS show of 2016, which falsely claimed to be a full reinvestigation of the case, but actually was the movie version of Kolar's self-published book, and contained not one word which was not already covered by Kolar.
- It is important to note that the various folks who still blame the Ramseys are largely in contradiction with each other: Arndt blames John, Thomas blames Patsy, and Kolar blames Burke. The theories are incompatible.
- ALL of those theories rely heavily on the belief that Patsy wrote the note, which the Federal Court pretty much dispensed of.
- Let me point out that I have probably forgotten many other points about the case. I have an abiding interest in true crime in general. This is a high profile case, but it's hardly the only one.
- It is very clear that you lack a background in true crime, however. In making a number of mistaken claims, a number of which I did not get to address here (this has been plenty long as it is), you revealed a lack of depth in true crimw in general, and kniwledge of this case specifically. You actually raised multiple points in accusing the Ramseys that actually work strongly in their defense.
- I will ask that you recuse yourself from this situation. I am only trying to get this article back onto the safe ground it was a year ago or so (as a quick check if the history will show). If you really want to, feel free to send in someone else with a strong background in true crime, and perhaps with a solid knowledge of this case as well. I'm sure I would be able to discuss this with him and be able to get thia article back to where it should be.
Thank you.
Vcuttolo (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies for the numerous typos. I am working on a phone, not a laptop, which makes it quite challenging to edit before publishing.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted you on all of this, and I'm not going to argue on it or all of what you stated above. The intruder theory is a theory (just like the "Family member theory" is a theory), and it has been called an alternative theory. Smit's theory regarding the broken basement window has been criticized exactly for the reasons I added to the article. Numerous reliable sources point out the cobweb matter and similar. So should we. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. We do not go by what you or I feel is inaccurate or who is biased. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Reliable sources that challenge the cobweb aspect or similar can be considered, but the cobweb matter should be reported. Like WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Also, court documents are WP:Primary sources. Wikipedia prefers WP:Secondary sources. You should also read WP:Self-published. You stated, "and a cobweb which is almost entirely away from the window well." What reliable sources state or believe is that an adult male could not have slipped through that window without disturbing the cobweb. I fail to see how Bob Grant's comment is important. Various reliable sources, including forensic psychiatrists and forensic pathologists, have talked about how trace DNA easily finds its way on clothes and how it's not enough to prove the intruder theory or exonerate anyone in this case. But I'm not strongly opposed to re-adding that Bob Grant comment.
- I do not need to recuse myself. You stated, "It is very clear that [I] lack a background in true crime, however." That is not what matters. Do you have a background in true crime? All that you have stated on your "expertise" is the following: "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." To repeat, what matters is following the literature with due weight. I am thoroughly familiar with the literature enough to follow it with due weight. And I don't have the same investment in conspiracy theories that you do. That I have stated that you have an investment in conspiracy theories is not a personal attack. It is a matter of what I have observed via your talk page. Considering that and how you tried to paint the consensus on the Ramseys (with no reliable source stating so) as being a consensus that they are innocent, and how you seemingly tried to make it seem like the "Family member theory" is fringe (although you recently went on about how "various folks who still blame the Ramseys are largely in contradiction with each other: Arndt blames John, Thomas blames Patsy, and Kolar blames Burke"), I think I'm more impartial on this topic than you are.
- You stated, "I am only trying to get this article back onto the safe ground it was a year ago or so (as a quick check if the history will show)." To repeat, I've been with this article for years. Which version of the article are you referring to? You can link to that version via the edit history if it exists, but I don't think it does. All we've ever stated is, like we currently do in the lead, "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." The difference now regarding the lead is that it also states, "Others, including former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, disagreed with exonerating the Ramseys, criticizing exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to be connected." It should have stated that before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding this, I wasn't saying that I needed to read Wolf vs. Ramsey. I've read it before, but I don't have the whole thing memorized. I was saying that "I need to read this source to see if this text is reported accurately and that there is no WP:Editorializing and if it needs to be in quotation marks." And to be even clearer regarding the court, what it stated doesn't trump all other opinions/viewpoints on the matter. I don't think I need to cite WP:Due weight to you again. With this edit, I removed "alternative," although "alternative" has been used by valid sources to describe the intruder theory and "alternative" doesn't mean fringe (not automatically). It just means a different theory. I moved the Michael Baden quote since it could have been taken as going head-to-head with the court commentary (as it was interpreted to be doing just that by you).
- Going back to the Bob Grant comment, though, I really don't see what it adds to the Investigation section. What I added there regarding exonerating the Ramseys is there because it's specifically about Lacy exonerating them. Criticism regarding exonerating the Ramsey's should have already been there. The Bob Grant comment you added appears to be trying to balance the matter by giving the opinion that the DNA evidence is significant. Same goes for you adding, "Former FBI profiler Candice Delong believes that the DNA, having shown up identically in several different places on multiple surfaces, belongs to the killer." Neither pieces fit in that section and instead come across as tangents, seeing as the section summarizes the investigation and response to Lacy exonerating the Ramseys. The content you added fits better in the "Blood samples" section, which is where I added it as a compromise.
- Regarding this, what is inaccurate regarding "the Ramseys left Boulder and their summer home in Charlevoix, Michigan and moved back to Atlanta" material? Furthermore, you left the piece unsourced. See WP:Dead link. But the source is not dead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- And regarding Paula Woodward, I did not reject her book. I rejected wehaveyourdaughter.net/new-evidence. It matters not that the website is based on her book/cites Woodward. The wehaveyourdaughter.net source does not pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. You stated, "Woodward's book engendered opposition because she clearly agrees tha[t] this was done by an outsider. That doesn't change the fact that it is one of only two books with excellent sources on all sides of the case, which also won awards, and was written by someone who spent three decades as a journalist and won Emmys." Disregarding your "with excellent sources on all sides of the case" opinion, it doesn't change the fact that it has faced opposition and that we are dealing with two theories here. There are no reliable sources that state that the intruder theory is more accepted than the family member theory. There are no reliable sources that state that it's the consensus theory. I have only cited Kolar on his statements about the DNA mentioned in this "PEOPLE True Crimes: Cases That Shocked America", from Time Inc. Books, source. Nowhere have I presented anything Kolar has stated as fact. See WP:In-text attribution. Any other cites to Kolar were not by me. The 2011 "JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" source, from St. Martin's Press, that I added has two authors -- Steve Thomas and Donald A. Davis -- and passes the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Like the source notes, Thomas is a former lead Boulder Police detective. Donald Davis is an award-winning news correspondent for thirty years. If anything they stated about the steel grate that covered the window and the foliage around the grate needs to be challenged, it should be supported by a reliable source that passes the WP:Reliable sources guideline. But, again, regarding the "cobweb in the broken basement window" matter, numerous reliable sources have pointed to this as a flaw in Smit's theory. The "PEOPLE True Crimes" source, for example, notes that Smit "found himself at odds with the Boulder police, who pointed to dust and an undisturbed spiderweb around the window as evidence that no one had broken in." You wanted to remove this important piece. Regarding this, I never questioned that Smit was "a retired, highly-successful homicide detective." I questioned you adding "highly-successful homicide detective" in Wikipedia's voice, even though within a note.
- The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey material is obviously in the article per WP:Due weight and WP:Summary style, but I agree that we should not be citing things from it as fact, except for things that are known to be fact. As seen with Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 2#Two theories back in 2016, I was clear about not giving undue weight to that documentary and engaging in WP:Recentism. I clearly called the theory that Burke killed his sister fringe. The theory that one of the parents (especially Patsy) killed her is not fringe, however. As seen at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 2#Requested move 20 September 2016, I was also against this article being moved away from the "Murder of JonBenét Ramsey" title all because, or mainly because, of The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey documentary, but the article was moved anyway. Also see Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey/Archive 4#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?. All of this is why I wonder why you talk about this article having leaned more so toward exonerating the Ramseys. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Vcuttolo: Demanding that other editors stop editing because you assert that they're not up to your standard of expertise in "true crime," whatever that is (the Wikipedia definition is accounts, often sensationalized, of criminal events) - short of Truman Capote, you don't get to pick and choose who edits articles like this. Your demand isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding this, it is obviously due to mention that former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner and others disagreed with exonerating the Ramseys. The source, which is a "True Crimes" source published by Time Inc. Books, passes WP:Reliable. Your rationale for removing the material does not hold up. In the case of the New York Post, the material is an interview with that publication. It does not need to be "terribly reliable" to report on what Coombes stated in the interview. The source certainly is not banned on Wikipedia. And it was already in the article; I simply used material from it. And, no, we do not need to "balance" out criticism of exonerating the Ramseys with support for exonerating the Ramseys. You and I understand WP:Balance, including false balance, differently. The most that is stated regarding support for exonerating the Ramseys is that the DNA evidence points elsewhere (away from the Ramseys). Yeah, it's already clear in the article that some people feel that the DNA evidence points elsewhere. But the belief that it points elsewhere has been criticized. What criticism is there regarding the criticism of the exoneration? Who has criticized what Beckner stated? Regarding this, the miniseries is called a documentary by reliable sources. As I've stated to you before, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state with due weight. When the word television show is used, it's not typically used to refer to a program like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 30 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)
- First point: I am sick and tired of being falsely accused of favoring conspiracy theories. That is 100% false, and it is about damn time that you stopped making that slanderous claim.
- It is true that I don't buy the official story about Vincent Foster's death. It is also true that back when Foster's death was a story, the MAJORITY of respondents to surveys did not believe the official story.
- Most people don't believe the Warren Commission's report. (I believe that Oswald shot JFK.) Most people don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. (I do.) If someone disagrees with the official ruling in either of those two cases, would you dismiss everything he says? I follow the evidence, period. The evidence leads me to believe that Oswald shot JFK, that Epstein likely committed suicide, and that basically every conspiracy theory ever invented is utter nonsense. I have debated this stuff elsewhere on the internet with conpsiracy theorists, but not for very long, because those people try my patience. When it comes to Ramsey, every one of us initially assumed it was a family member, because that was all we were told the first couple of years. But the evidence has emerged, and it clearly favors an intruder.
- Using the People magazine special as a basis for knowledge of this case is a very bad idea. I notice that you (first person above, forgot your handle) seemed to have gotten all your information from there, and went on to add several paragraphs from that dubious source.
- With weekly and even monthly magazine newsstand sales nosediving, publications have heavily moved toward "specials" that can remain on the shelves for months. (You've probably seen them as you head toward checkout.) They are entirely unreliable. Here is a link I strongly recommend, although it is to a NRS: The 3 minute video included, though, is of Newsweek Chief Editor (something like that) Matt Cooper, and it says a lot.
- https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2016/12/03/newsweek-slavishly-devoted-madam-president-issue-was-outsourced-and
- The People "True Crime Special" is useless. I once purchased a copy of one of those types of magazines, and actually called People the next day to request a refund. Although I no longer recall what I read at that time, a quick glance was enough to see that it was a poorly written internet rehash.
- The interview in the above link made it all make sense. The name "People" is used to sell a very unreliably written rag, sourced out to some company somewhere. The lack of any bylines should alone make it NRS. Although WP's rules did not cover such situations specifically, I assume that would be because it never crossed anyone's mind that a byline-less article would be considered reliable.
- May I note that the same byline-less article used repeatedly throughout the Wikipedia article calls Boulder Police Chief Greg Testa "Greg Tesla". What does that tell you?
- The $118,000 demand in the ransom note is certainly of note, and was immediately questioned. John Ramsey volunteered to the police that morning that the number was a virtual match for his Christmas bonus from the previous February. That obviously pointed to someone from his company, or from the payroll company, and pointed away from John Ramsey. Would he really include a reference to himself in the note, then point it out immediately to the police?
- While Mark Beckner has made comments suggesting agreement with Kolar, he contradicted those comments before and after. It lacks context to only quote his Kolar-friendly comments, which were made after he was no longer police chief.
- As noted above, saying that the ransom note was not written by a stranger does NOT imply this was done by a family member, but the way it was positiomed in the article surely left that impression. In fact, it is considered quite likely that the person (or one of them) who committed this was someone who knew John Ramsey, at least in passing, including knowing about his prior bonus. (At the same time, several other possible explanations for the unusual amount have been raised.)
- It is true that I have a longstanding issue in the true crime genre, and have read and watched an inordinate amount of such, JonBenét included. It is certainly frustrating for me to see this article be twisted toward a slant which violates the evidence, at least as seen by those who were and are most qualified to judge the case. Lou Smit didn't solve 200+ murders by missing the obvious: The video, accessible online, shows a cobweb that is barely attached to the window well. (The CBS mockup entirely misrepresented that with a large cobweb smack in the window well.) The grate had obviously been recently moved, as noted by many books, articles, videos, and yes - the picture, easily found online.
- No Boulder police officer putting the onus on Patsy every solved a homicide in their careers. On the other side? Lou Smit, and numerous members of the DA's office, and other retired Colorado DAs brought into the case, and the Federal Court ruling.
- This WP article contains little of the heavy evidence in the Ramseys' favor, including (one example) the missing rope, tape, piece of paintbrush handle, and more, none of which was ever found in the house despite an exhaustive search. That means that the Ramseys didn't do the crime, unless you believe that they chose to move a few pieces of evidence while leaving behind all the rest. That is illogical by any standard.
- I will remind you that I listed numerous sources that have the Boulder authorities focusing on finding the intruder for close to the last two decades. What does that tell you?
- Vcuttolo (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not debating you on this any further. It is clear to me that you are stuck on the intruder theory and having this article portray the Ramseys as innocent, and that you are going by your own rules rather than Wikipedia's. Your latest above post couldn't be any clearer on that. I'm not interested in your theory or support of whatever theory, such as "it is considered quite likely that the person (or one of them) who committed this was someone who knew John Ramsey, at least in passing, including knowing about his prior bonus. (At the same time, several other possible explanations for the unusual amount have been raised." The People source is mainly used for commentary from others. It is not making anything up. All of what is stated in it is supported by other sources, as looking at sources in the article and/or Googling the matters show. Those people, such as former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, stated those things. That source is not needed for the cobweb aspect. Like I stated, various reliable sources have touched on the cobweb aspect. I didn't get all of my information from that People source. Like I stated, I am very familiar with this case, and I have been with this article for years (as the article and talk page histories show). That People source does, however, have material in it that I find important or useful, including Beckner's commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- A few more things: You stated, "The $118,000 demand in the ransom note is certainly of note, and was immediately questioned. John Ramsey volunteered to the police that morning that the number was a virtual match for his Christmas bonus from the previous February. That obviously pointed to someone from his company, or from the payroll company, and pointed away from John Ramsey. Would he really include a reference to himself in the note, then point it out immediately to the police?" No one believes that John wrote the note. His handwriting wasn't at all similar to the person who wrote the note. Patsy was the one who was asked to look at her handwriting and compare it to the person who wrote the note, and repeatedly stated or implied that she didn't recognize her own handwriting. The video is there on YouTube, as you know. You also very well know that even those who believe Patsy wrote it have suggested that John wasn't involved in writing it. Why would John point out the bonus? For those who believe he helped cover up JonBenét's killing, the possibility of thinking that the police would view it as someone close to the Ramseys having sought the money and the possibility that John knew that the police would find out about the bonus have been brought up. What everyone agrees on is that it is highly suspicious that the note mentions that bonus and that anyone would take so long to write a ransom note (the fact that it is unusually long and that someone would practice writing it in the home), and that the note would be written or left behind if sexual assault and/or murder in the Ramsey home was the intention. And you speak of the court ruling, but, like our Wikipedia article states, a grand jury returned a true bill to charge the Ramseys with placing JonBenét at risk in a way that led to her death and with obstructing an investigation of murder, based on the probable cause standard applied in such grand jury proceedings. As for the Boulder police taking the case back from the DA and reopening the investigation in 2009, the case having been reopened does not mean that the investigators are not still looking at evidence in relation to the Ramseys as suspects. They were certainly seemingly solely looking for an intruder when Lacy was on the case, but different people involved were concerned about Lacy's close relationship with the Ramseys and that she wouldn't consider anything but the intruder theory. Unless Boulder police come out and state that they are no looking at evidence in relation to the Ramseys as suspects, we shouldn't assume they are. But, really, what else can be looked at regarding the Ramseys? The only thing left to look at is the trace DNA evidence, which is why investigators have looked at it. Still, to quote a Boulder police spokesperson, "Over the history of this case, there have been a variety of people we have looked at for potential connections. [...] we're currently not comfortable ruling anybody out as a suspect, or ruling anybody in as a suspect in the Ramsey case." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't our job to figure out who did it and evaluate evidence. Since RS, together, do not know who did it, Wikipedia cannot rule on who did it, or argue for a particular POV. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:23, 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)
- You stated, "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." Despite this, your actions show otherwise and you state that I'm "unfamiliar with the facts of this case." The assertion that I'm unfamiliar with the facts of this case is false. I just don't agree with your rationales and edits based on your personal opinions. Even with this edit, you stated, "Forensic psychiatrists are not experts on DNA. He was not involved in the case. And the source is NRS." Who says that Steven E. Pitt is speaking only on the DNA? Furthermore, opinions on the "Family member theory" and "Intruder theory" are allowed in those sections. It need not just be experts handling DNA or those involved, who were involved, with the case. And as already mentioned to you before, that source passes WP:Reliable. Wikipedia doesn't go by your opinion on what is or isn't a reliable source. Your "a theory long discredited among Boulder authorities" statement cannot be supported by any WP:Reliable source. I've looked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I gave you sources going back to 2004 that say that Boulder authorities are focusing on finding the intruder. In fact, as one can easily find online, it goes back a couple of years earlier, starting with Mary Lacy's tenure as DA. Your earlier comments on the case revealed a general lack of knoeledge of the basics here. Or perhaps you once knew, and then forgot. But your claims were not accurate, as pointed out. In other news, I explained at length why magazine specials without bylines are unreliable. Please use reliable sources.
- The Steven Pitt quote was about the physical evidence, which is not his area of expertise - and also taken from a NRS.
- I read large volumes of information before reaching conclusions on famous cases. The original WP Vincent Foster article was titled "Death of Vince Foster", later changed to "Suicide of Vince Foster". The evidence does not support such a change. Again, and despite your false charges against me, I never advocated a one-sided piece, not for Foster and not for JonBenèt. I do think they should be balanced with appropriate weight, slightly leaning towards suicide there, and somewhat leaning towards intruder here. I don't make substance changes on articles about which I know little, and would appreciate if all editors stuck to the same idea. Edit what you know, unless you are addressing style and grammar, which represents the overwhelming number of my overall edits.
- Thank you
- Vcuttolo (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Like the lead states, "In February 2009, the Boulder police took the case back from the DA and reopened the investigation." As also made clear by the article, things were different with Lacy. She considered nothing but the intruder theory, which some involved with the case found odd. Those outside of the case certainly found it odd. Unless you have a reliable source stating that investigators are solely focusing on the intruder theory today, I don't see any need to think so when it comes to editing this article. Wikipedia is not about editors' personal assumptions. And for someone going on about ad hominem attacks, you sure love to go on about how I'm supposedly too inexperienced with the case to be editing this article. And this is even after what Acroterion stated to you above. You keep acting like you are some expert. But you stated, "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." You are a self-ascribed expert. And you have shown via editing and statements above that you are too heavily invested in the intruder theory to contribute to this topic neutrally. I suggest you take a look at WP:BLPCOI, which states, "[E]ditors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." You can call a source unreliable as much as you want to, but Wikipedia has a guideline that we go by. And I don't see why I need to keep stating that the People source published by Time Inc. Books passes WP:Reliable and that it's mainly used for commentary/views. Yes, it is used for the cobweb aspect, but that the Boulder police and others challenged Smit's theory based on that cobweb is a fact reported on by various reliable sources. So the People source being used for that aspect -- that fact -- is fine. If the People source is used for anything that it is obviously wrong about, per what the preponderance of reliable sources state, that can be fixed. You stated that "The Steven Pitt quote was about the physical evidence, which is not his area of expertise." Again, opinions on the "Family member theory" and "Intruder theory" are allowed in those sections. There are experts outside of the case who believe that the physical evidence does not make sense/add up. And that section (the "Intruder theory" section) includes a comment from Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, without specifying who he is or what his credentials are. But I'm not strongly tied to the Steven E. Pitt statement; I can easily replace it with commentary from someone else. For now, I will remove it. Do keep in mind, though, that editors are not going to agree with you removing things based on your personal opinion or because you don't like the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Despite your assertions, I did NOT remove anything based upon opinion or not liking something. At all times I left in plenty that advocated the "RDI" (Ramsey did it) theory. A subcontracted publication with no bylines, which gets the police chief's name wrong? Not a reliable source. (Did you read/watch the short Matt Cooper piece?) You said that you have reliable sources to replace the NRS for the quotes you added: Then use those RSs!...I said that STARTING with Mary Lacy's tenure, which ended a DECADE ago, Boulder authorities have continued to focus their search on an intruder, LONG PAST HER TENURE, as reported on CBS (2004), in "Popular Crime" (2011) (already AFTER Mary Lacy), and A&E (2016 and 2019).
- You also asserted as FACT that Mary Lacy was too heavily invested in the intruder theory. That is an opinion of some of her detractors, not fact. Many more have said that Steve Thomas was too heavily invested in the RDI theory. Yet I notice you did not bother to add quotes to that effect...Your earlier description of the case does in fact demonstrate a weak knowledge of the basics of the case. You made mistakes, period.
- I commented on it. As to acroterion, no one is forcing you out. I asked you to limit yourself to topics with which you are familiar, but I can't force you to do so. Lastly, while several times you certainly have demonstrated an attempt at fairness, you also twice reverted me in a way that suggested revert first, think later. An initialism is not an acronym, and that has zero bearing on the case itself. I corrected a very minor mistake. You (initially) reverted me. Same goes for the move to Atlanta, which clearly implied a move away from Charlevoix, the summer home they still retained. Again, no impact on the case whatsoever, yet you reverted me. That made you look like someone spoiling for a fight - at least those two times, anyway.
- I can not stress this enough: I never removed all RDI claims, not even close. Any version of this article after I was done with my edits left large amounts of RDI claims. I was trying to balance out the article after some editor, heavily invested in RDI, weighted the article in the wrong direction. And if I, who am decidedly not a digital native, can figure out how to send you from my phone an earlier version of this article from before that time, I will be happy to do so. (Maybe it's not too hard. I'll have to try when I have time.)
- Thank you.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- And I left one paragraph above way out of position. Whoops.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- No one said you "removed all RDI claims." You did remove material because you don't like it. Removing the fact that Smit's theory has been criticized because of the cobweb aspect and similar? That was because you don't like the material. Removing the fact that people, including former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, disagreed with exonerating the Ramseys based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to be connected? That was because you don't like the material. These removals certainly are not supported by the WP:Reliable sources guideline, as I've already made clear. Changing "documentary" to "show" when the series is called a documentary by various reliable sources and is not simply some television show? That was because you don't like the material.
- I'm not going over the WP:Reliable sources guideline with you again. I do not care what your opinion on reliable sources are.
- I'm not going over the following with you again: Unless Boulder police come out and state that they are no looking at evidence in relation to the Ramseys as suspects, we shouldn't assume they are. But, really, what else can be looked at regarding the Ramseys? The only thing left to look at is the trace DNA evidence, which is why investigators have looked at it. Still, to quote a Boulder police spokesperson, "Over the history of this case, there have been a variety of people we have looked at for potential connections. [...] we're currently not comfortable ruling anybody out as a suspect, or ruling anybody in as a suspect in the Ramsey case."
- As for Mary Lacy being heavily invested in the intruder theory, it is presented as something people observed. The article does not state "she was heavily invested in the intruder theory" in Wikipedia's voice. And as for Steve Thomas? He was not the Boulder County District Attorney. Lacy was. The "Thomas S, Davis DA (2011). JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" source is used in the article for one aspect -- the cobweb and window aspect. So, no, I did "bother to add quotes" about how, supposedly, "many more have said that Steve Thomas was too heavily invested in the RDI theory." Except or the "Defamation lawsuits" section, he's not talked about in the article. But, yes, it's easy enough to note in that section that he was "heavily invested in the RDI theory" if that's not already clear to people by the fact that the Ramseys filed a defamation suit against him, Don Davis, and St. Martin's Press, and this was settled out of court in 2002. Unless other sources don't also talk about the steel grate in that way, I haven't used that source for anything truly dubious. You very well know that Smit's theory has been criticized because of the cobweb/window aspect; this was even mentioned in HLN's "How It Really Happened" program on the Ramseys.
- As for your comments about my supposed inexperience with the topic and trying to force me out, you stated, "I will ask that you recuse yourself from this situation. I am only trying to get this article back onto the safe ground it was a year ago or so (as a quick check if the history will show). If you really want to, feel free to send in someone else with a strong background in true crime, and perhaps with a solid knowledge of this case as well. I'm sure I would be able to discuss this with him and be able to get thia article back to where it should be." This was completely inappropriate, and that includes your use of "him" as though the "expert" would be a man. You then went on about how people should write about what they know, again implying that I'm not suitable to contribute to this topic, and acting like you are some expert. Even if you were an actual expert, I already pointed you to what WP:Expert states. What it states is how Wikipedia works. And even in your latest post, you stated, "Your earlier description of the case does in fact demonstrate a weak knowledge of the basics of the case." If you keep talking this way, and it's accompanied by more of your "I don't like it" and "false balance" editing, it will be part of whatever noticeboard I report you at.
- You stated that I "also twice reverted [you] in a way that suggested revert first, think later. An initialism is not an acronym, and that has zero bearing on the case itself." Nope. And I already told you, "See where initialism redirects to." See what that section stated. I stated, "I'm not concerned about acronym vs. initialism, though." Furthermore, when I reverted you, I certainly was not focused on the initialism aspect. That it got reverted as well was just part of the revert.
- You stated, "Same goes for the move to Atlanta, which clearly implied a move away from Charlevoix, the summer home they still retained. Again, no impact on the case whatsoever, yet you reverted me." I asked you: "What is inaccurate regarding 'the Ramseys left Boulder and their summer home in Charlevoix, Michigan and moved back to Atlanta' material?" I told you, "Furthermore, you left the piece unsourced. See WP:Dead link. But the source is not dead." The source clearly states, "JULY 9, 1997: The Ramseys buy a new home in Atlanta, where they move after a summer at their vacation retreat in Charlevoix, Mich." You tried cutting the material again, and were reverted in this way by Crossroads1, who stated, "It is definitely closer to 6 months. Why put 7? Made it even closer to source." I am not the only one who has reverted you at this article or who has stated that you made "I don't like it" removals.
- You stated that you were "trying to balance out the article after some editor, heavily invested in RDI, weighted the article in the wrong direction." I've told you before that the article has been like this for sometime. I've seen the changes. I don't know what "weighted the article" aspect you are talking about. I certainly did not "weight the article in the wrong direction" by including criticism of exonerating the Ramseys, criticism of the trace DNA evidence, and criticism of Smit's theory. All of that should be in the article. After all of the 2016 drama due to The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey documentary, editing at this article significantly slowed down. And the article has largely stayed the same way it was after the 2016 editing. In the case of this article, since neither theory has been proven as true and neither is called fringe, we are not supposed to judge what is "weighted in the wrong direction" in this case, not unless the article gives far more weight to one theory than the other, or to one aspect than the other when it should not. And like Crossroads1 stated, "The article as it is presently seems to give due weight to each of the two different theories."
- I do not see that there is anything left for me to discuss with you. I would rather not keep coming back to debate what you think about my competency on this topic or your personal opinions on other things. Wikipedia is not a forum. I fixed your latest post so that it is properly indented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 1 September 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)
- To repeat: "I do not see that there is anything left for me to discuss with you. I would rather not keep coming back to debate what you think about my competency on this topic or your personal opinions on other things. Wikipedia is not a forum." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Then stop pushing your viewpoint here. You added a long paragraph at the end of the "Evidence" section, quoting three different people who support RDI. There is a major balance issue there, which needs to be addressed one way or the other. Your additions come from questionable sources, mine from solid ones. There is no reason to end the "Evidence" section with three opinions on side of the issue, and nothing counteracting it, unless you want to push your viewpoint. Once again I'm trying to balance the article, and you're pushing your POV, in contravention of WP:POV.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- This removal I reverted you on is a no. I've already been over the matter above. I am not going to repeat myself again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 2 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)
- With things you have stated above and seeing your editing, it's clear to me that you do not understand our policies or guidelines. You very clearly need to read WP:NPOV. This is WP:Synthesis on your part. It's a WP:Synthesis violation because others are not disagreeing with criticism on exonerating the Ramseys. The exoneration paragraph is specifically about exonerating the Ramseys and why those people disagree with it. That the first two aspects of the paragraph focus on the DNA evidence does not mean that you should repeat material found in the "Blood samples" section for some artificial balance. I already told you, with my "04:29, 30 August 2019" post, above that "no, we do not need to 'balance' out criticism of exonerating the Ramseys with support for exonerating the Ramseys. You and I understand WP:Balance, including false balance, differently. The most that is stated regarding support for exonerating the Ramseys is that the DNA evidence points elsewhere (away from the Ramseys). Yeah, it's already clear in the article that some people feel that the DNA evidence points elsewhere. But the belief that it points elsewhere has been criticized. What criticism is there regarding the criticism of the exoneration? Who has criticized what Beckner stated?" And, great, I just repeated myself anyway. That piece you added will be removed. And the only one who will be sanctioned regarding this article is you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see that Crossroads1 reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 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)
- I don't know where you got the "synthesis" claim from, or if you bothered to read the source, which said exactly what I wrote that Candice DeLong said. (Note to Flyer22 Reborn: Candice DeLong is a woman, and an expert. Go figure.) I changed six months to seven because I looked at December to July, which, granted, made no sense. Suffice it to say I should have paid better attention. Charlevoix remained their vacation home for years past the move to Atlanta, so saying they moved from Charlevoix to Atlanta is thoroughly misleading, yet entirely irrelevant. I will try to add reliable sources that balance out this God-forsaken article, to where the IDI theories are at least matching RDI. Right now, it still leans towards Flyer22 Reborn's mistaken belief that the evidence leads against Patsy. If anyone cares, the facts are out there. Let's see how often I continue to get reverted by someone or another for daring to try to balance out this article. I imagine someone will find an excuse to twist things. Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia.
Vcuttolo (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- In the immortal words of Britney Spears, oops, I did it again. If anyone wants to properly indent my signoff just above, I'd appreciate it. One of these years perhaps I'll manage to publish a comment here without screwing something up.
- Okay, maybe not.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- We got the synthesis "claim" per what I stated in my above "01:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)" post. You clearly don't understand WP:Synthesis since you don't understand what I stated about it in that post. And do stop attributing your beliefs about my beliefs onto me. I'm not the one who has gone on and on about what theory I believe is correct/which theory I believe the article should be weighted more toward. You have. As for "[you] will try to add reliable sources that balance out this God-forsaken article" and "Let's see how often [you] continue to get reverted by someone or another for daring to try to balance out this article," I see that you still plan to be disruptive at this article. Very well then. You will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard, very likely the WP:Edit warring noticeboard first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 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)
- I "wrote half the damn article [myself], in an attempt to buttress [my] belief that Patsy did this"? Nope. The stats do not back you up on that. Neither do my individual edits. My edits to this article fall into the minor and small camp. I've made a lot more edits to the article because of my interaction with you. Just look at how many more edits I made this year vs. the other years because of my interaction with you. And you know what the stats say about your editing? Well, take a look. That you've made 54 edits already. Look at where you are on the list. But we know you didn't write a lot of the article either. I want propaganda? After how you've gone on at this talk page with your talk of the intruder theory? Nope. As for the rest? I'm not trying to hear any of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- In an attempt to counteract the balance I added, you inserted a long paragraph at the end of the "Evidence" section, designed to convince everyone that the DNA evidence in this case doesn't count. And you make sure to revert anything I attach near your lengthy paragraph to show that numerous experts believe this is a DNA case. If you care to have a balanced article, you would do something about that lengthy, misleading paragraph besides for inserting it and protecting it at all costs. And I could have left this page a long time ago if you weren't using it as a soapbox to promote your views of the case. I thought I'd be out of here a long time ago.
Vcuttolo (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I just checked out the link you provided to my (then) 54 edits. Fascinating - I never knew such a thing existed. I actually understood some of it, too. As you note, the number of edits is hardly significant in terms of importance of said edits. When I bump into a Wikipedia article, I frequently tend to start editing the whole article for grammar and readability. 14 in a row for Roger Maris. 8 consecutive for The Providence Journal. 12 of this, 13 of that. (I just checked.) I can't even remember what some of those pages are about.
- I continue to try to BALANCE out this article. Ending the "Investigation" section (which I mistakenly called the "Evidence" section above) with a long paragraph, containing three quotes which dismiss the importance of the DNA in this case is NOT balance. Far too many people insist this is a DNA case, and thw DNA has been used to rule out numerous non-Ramsey suspects. In an attempt to satisfy your demands, I took notes on various relevant information to be parcelled out in the appropriate areas to BALANCE out the article. Most of this article is fine as it is, but some of it is not. For example, I intend to get quotes about the signs of intrusion, specifically the replaced grate. But not now. If I look at this article for another minute now, I will lose my mind. Once again, I hope you don't just revert willy nilly, and find excuses afterward. Try to build a fair and balanced and well-written Wikipedia.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- You stated, "In an attempt to counteract the balance [you] added, [I] inserted a long paragraph at the end of the [Investigation] section, designed to convince everyone that the DNA evidence in this case doesn't count." No. You didn't add "balance" when you popped up at this article and I reverted. I added that piece because it occurred to me that criticism of exonerating the Ramseys based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to be connected to the case was not in the article when it should be. I already told you, "The exoneration paragraph is specifically about exonerating the Ramseys and why those people disagree with it. That the first two aspects of the paragraph focus on the DNA evidence does not mean that you should repeat material found in the 'Blood samples' section for some artificial balance." You simply did/do not like that the first two aspects of the paragraph are criticizing the DNA evidence with regard to the Ramseys. There is nothing misleading about that paragraph; it's people, including former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, disagreeing with exonerating the Ramseys. Without that piece and the piece from forensic pathologist Michael Baden that I added to the "Blood samples" section, readers were led to believe that the DNA evidence clears the Ramseys. According to various others, it does not. Like Baden said, "Trace amounts of DNA can get on places and clothing from all different, nonsuspicious means. There is no forensic evidence to show that this is a stranger murder." He's correct.
- As for a "fair and balanced and well-written Wikipedia," I've already been over the fact that I do not think you understand WP:BALANCE. It states, for example, "[W]hen reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Notice that it says "are relatively equal in prominence." Not everything needs tit for tat. Doing so is WP:False balance. So, for example, when what JonBenét last ate and within what time frame is well-established, one should not add "In a report prepared by prosecutors, Dr. Michael Graham is quoted as saying that the food in question could have been eaten the day before, as food would be in her small intestine between 3 and 24 hours after ingestion." like you did. There is no valid reason to have that piece, as though it validly challenges the autopsy report. That is false balance.
- Regarding this and this edit you made, some of it would be okay to retain if it weren't sourced to those videos. See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites. The videos you linked to are not from official channels for that content. They are just some uploader's content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Section break
Testing 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)
- You were recently warned by Acroterion on your talk page about your attacks. And here you are again, with your latest posts, engaging in the same behavior. How do you think I want to keep talking to you when you are talking like that? For now, it's best that we both stop talking about perceived POV-pushing. When Crossroads1 and I spoke of you leaning toward the intruder theory, it is not like you haven't been clear on this talk page about your support of that theory, and that you wanted this article to point more so away from the Ramseys. If you plan on denying any of this, I suggest you revisit your earlier comments on this talk page, starting from the beginning.
- You stated that I "just identified the problem" because my "POV, which [I] have repeatedly pushed into this article, is that he's correct, but that is a dubious assertion to say the least." No. Baden quite clearly says, "Trace amounts of DNA can get on places and clothing from all different, nonsuspicious means." What he stated is a fact, which is and would be supported by various other experts and similar. That he stated that "there is no forensic evidence to show that this is a stranger murder" aligns with the fact that, as also noted by former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, the trace DNA evidence has not yet been proven to be connected to the crime. It has not proven that JonBenét was murdered by an outsider. That is why the intruder theory is still a theory. That you consider this POV-pushing on my part is without merit. To repeat, without the criticism/skepticism about the trace DNA evidence, readers were led to believe that the DNA evidence clears the Ramseys. My additions on the trace DNA evidence matter were valid/necessary. And support of the DNA evidence, which you added, is in the "Blood samples" section. All I did was move it out of the "Investigation" section for reasons I've already been over. You stated that I "don't see what is wrong with ending a section with three consecutive quotes dismissing the relevance of the DNA." Again, you've attributed the paragraph to being about dismissing the DNA evidence. The paragraph is about criticism of exonerating the Ramseys based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proved to even be connected to the crime. It's about clearing somebody just on the premise of touch DNA, "especially when you have a situation where the crime scene wasn't secure at the beginning." That is what that paragraph is about. How many times must I state that? It's not saying that the touch DNA has no place in the investigation, but it is criticizing clearing the Ramseys based on it. And that last sentence doesn't focus on the DNA at all; it simply states that "Lacy's public exoneration of the Ramseys was a big slap in the face to Chief Beckner and the core group of detectives who had been working on the case for years."
- You stated, "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." You are not an expert. I do not want to read anymore of your opinions or speculation on the case.
- You stated, " 'Relatively equal in prominence'? Certainly not. Most of the experts believe that the DNA is exculpatory of the Ramseys." Again, that is your opinion. There is no reliable source that reports the same. You stated that I "weighted it in the opposite direction." No. I provided valid/necessary criticism of the trace DNA. I just went over this in my second paragraph of this post. And, to add on to that, this 2016 Daily Camera "DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys" source used in the "Blood samples" section, states, "Forensic experts who examined the results of DNA tests obtained exclusively by the two news organizations disputed former District Attorney Mary Lacy's conclusion that a DNA profile found in one place on JonBenet's underpants and two locations on her long johns was necessarily the killer's — which Lacy had asserted in clearing JonBenet's family of suspicion. In fact, those experts said the evidence showed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenet — something Lacy's office was told, according to documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWS, but that she made no mention of in clearing the Ramseys." This jives with A. James Kolar's statement on the DNA evidence, but he goes further by stating that there were six separate DNA samples belonging to unknown individuals that were found by testing. Yes, per above, I'm aware of how you feel about Kolar. And my "relatively equal in prominence" commentary was made directly with regard to you adding that piece trying to challenge the autopsy report.
- You stated, "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." That entire paragraph is relevant because various reliable sources talk about all of it. And I don't simply mean in relation to The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey documentary. All of that was discussed in reliable sources before that documentary came out. The material is WP:Due. It is quite obviously WP:Due. Yes, the Ramseys have always said that Burke slept through the entire night until he was awakened several hours after the police arrived, which the Wikipedia article notes. But the autopsy reports that "vegetable or fruit material which may represent pineapple" and that JonBenét had eaten it a few hours before her death. "Photographs of the home taken on the day when JonBenét's body was found show a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table with a spoon in it. However, neither John nor Patsy said they remembered putting the bowl on the table or feeding pineapple to JonBenét. Police reported that they found JonBenét's nine-year-old brother Burke Ramsey's fingerprints on the bowl." All of it is WP:Due. We are not here to exclude evidence that has been reported in numerous reliable sources because it contradicts what the Ramseys stated. We are not here to try to balance out this aspect that cannot be balanced out. The Dr. Michael Graham piece you added has not been reported in various reliable sources. It's just his speculation and is not at all WP:Due.
- You stated, "It never occurred to [you] that anyone would allege that the uploader of the A&E video may somehow have faked the whole thing." No one stated or implied that the uploader of the A&E video may somehow have faked the whole thing. You can use the A&E video as long as you don't link to some external site where its upload is not authorized, or use it to add WP:Undue weight or give false balance to things, like the autopsy aspect. You should not overcite this documentary. It is just one documentary in comparison to the wealth of literature out there on this topic. You can cite the video without linking to any video; see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Film, television, or video recordings and Template:Cite episode. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Reborn has addressed your comment and I don't have much to add. With the video link, I did not notice that it was an A&E documentary (was unexpected and almost certainly is a copyright violation). I would like to point out, however, that there doesn't seem to be any standard by which that is usable as a source and the "Time Inc." source is not. In either case we are trusting groups of people to accurately report the viewpoints of various professionals. I strongly suggest you read carefully WP:NPOV in full, many of its related pages, and any other policies and guidelines you have been pointed to. I know from your talk page that you have been criticized for your approach by many editors and on a variety of topics. The problem is not "everyone else". Eventually WP:NOTGETTINGIT will apply. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:54, 4 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:
- "The fact remains that there is...no evidence for the intruder theory."
- "There is no forensic evidence to show that this is a stranger murder."
- "The [ransom] note mentions that [prior Christmas] bonus."
- "Lacy considered nothing but the intruder theory."
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)
- No confusion on my part. And "and unlike [my] claim above, the ransom note made no mention of John Ramsey's bonus of ten months prior"? What? Perhaps you need to re-read my "21:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)" comment after you asked why John would point out the bonus. Anyway, I've been clear that I'm not interested in debating your theories and speculations. I've also been clear on how Wikipedia works, and I'm not repeating myself again. If you are reverted, it will be for valid reasons, just like before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- And as for "not all homicides are murders", this was thoroughly discussed. As stated by one editor with their "18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)" post: "The move request wasn't about the 'specific phrase', it was about changing the specific word 'murder' to death or killing, as can be seen in the WP:RM nomination (the word 'murder' is not used in the title), and any of these words (murder, death, killing) used in conjunction with her name make it a descriptive title, and murder is not an editor's opinion because it is reliably sourced and the prevalent term used. And the arguments about the word murder being 'misleading here, as it may imply a specific legal meaning', don't hold water either, because we do have a specific legal determination, her death was ruled a homicide. See also: Felony murder rule (Colorado). And we also know that the prosecutor considered it murder, because when John Mark Karr confessed, he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and the grand jury considered it murder as well, indicting the Ramsey's as being accessories to first-degree murder, so those arguments based on the term 'murder' being 'misleading' are neither compelling or strong, when you have the prosecutor, the grand jury and hundreds of reliable sources using the word murder." Like I noted before, that move discussion was pretty much based on the idea that Burke had killed his sister. Some were all about the "Burke killed her" theory. Others, including the editor I just quoted, brought up Lacy clearing the Ramseys. The article was moved, but the WP:Common name policy certainly did not support it. Plus, as mentioned by the aforementioned editor, the detectives have usually treated the case as a murder; both the "family member" theory and "intruder theory" are focused on murder, regardless of the "Patsy killed her by accident" and "Burke killed her by accident" theories. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd glossed over your latest reply, but I have to respond to this now: "The signs of forced entry"? "The stun gun"? Eh? There was no sign of forced entry. Any statement that there was forced entry is speculation. And the stun gun theory is just a theory, and a disputed one at that." If you intend to add undue weight to this article on things like this, it will be reverted. And your evidence vs. proof quibble, including stating "numerous experts have gone on the record as saying there is proof of an intruder," is without merit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I can't force any other editor to pay attention to relevant, factual information. I quoted you above correctly, and I explained the situation as it actually is unlike how you wrote it, but you (the way you described it) apparently did not bother to read what I wrote. There is plenty of evidence of an intruder, as I explained, and which cannot really be denied. The note, which I correctly quoted you above as claiming contains a reference to a Christmas bonus, is easily found in this article, and it makes no reference to a Christmas bonus. If you read the NYT article about Steve Thomas's book, of all things, it clearly writes of conflicting evidence, as I explained it above.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/10/us/jonbenet-s-mother-was-killer-detective-says.html
- (That article was written before more of the evidence exonerating the Ramseys became known.)
- Steve Thomas's is one book on the case, and it contains many inaccuracies. Numerous books disagree with his claims. Why have you seemingly concluded that Thomas's book is the only one that counts?
- Vcuttolo (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I should have added that "evidence" vs. "proof" is not a "quibble", it is an extremely basic and crucial point in criminology.
- And in my (mostly reverted) edits, I cited some of the names of the long list of experts who say that an intruder has been proven.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sigh. More of the same. Still failing to get the point. I suppose I and others will need to keep reverting you then and report you as necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- And whatever you are talking about regarding the note, I am talking about the following piece in the article: "The note demanded $118,000 for the child's safe return—almost the exact value of a bonus her husband had received earlier that year." That is reported on by numerous reliable sources, and it will stay in the article. It will not be challenged by any fringe viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:05, 11 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)
- To reiterate, "I am talking about the following piece in the article: ' The note demanded $118,000 for the child's safe return—almost the exact value of a bonus her husband had received earlier that year. ' That is reported on by numerous reliable sources, and it will stay in the article. It will not be challenged by any fringe viewpoint." When I stated, "What everyone agrees on is that it is highly suspicious that the note mentions that bonus and that anyone would take so long to write a ransom note (the fact that it is unusually long and that someone would practice writing it in the home), and that the note would be written or left behind if sexual assault and/or murder in the Ramsey home was the intention.", you very well knew what I was talking about. Reliable sources routinely refer to the note mentioning or alluding to the bonus because "the note demanded $118,000 for the child's safe return—almost the exact value of a bonus her husband had received earlier that year." No one investigating the case has considered that a coincidence. And where are the Ramseys on record saying that it's a coincidence?
- You trying to condescend to me does not help, especially since your "evidence vs. proof" arguments are faulty. The condescension will only aid in you getting blocked again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- You are making constant mistakes about basic rules of criminology, and more constant mistakes about this case. The list continues to grow. You are simply wrong about nearly everything you've written here. I am simply supplying factual information, which can easily be found at any neutral source. Please don't take your frustration with the facts out on me.
- Vcuttolo (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- All of what you just stated with your "20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)" post is how I feel about your editing, with the exception of "basic rules of criminology" and your understanding of "neutral source." Read WP:BIASED. But regardless of what WP:BIASED states, we don't give undue weight to matters. In other words, for example, we do not falsely balance. Things I have stated about the case are obviously supported by a number of reliable sources. We go by reliable sources with due weight. We don't go by a vague appeal to "basic rules of criminology"/supposed expertise. Acroterion has tried to tell you this. Crossroads1 has tried to tell you this. And I've tried to tell you this. In fact, we have told you this. You are not listening. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 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)
- I've had more than enough of your repeated misguided beliefs about how this site works, inaccurate descriptions of my beliefs, comments or behavior all the while stating that I should not "misrepresent either [your] opinions, nor those of other editors," and your belittling. If Acroterion and/or Crossroads1 disagreed with my statement about them in my "23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)" post, they would have stated so. They were, after all, pinged. And have just now been pinged again by me. At this point, I am ready to report you at ANI. You have wasted enough of my time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Was going to comment, and Flyer beat me to it. She represented my view accurately; your claim of her misrepresenting the views of other editors is without basis. Also, you keep referring to "the facts", for example saying,
We should seek to produce an article that correctly represents the factual situation. Nope. We represent what reliable sources say - "reliable source" having a specific meaning - not "facts." We are not here to argue over facts and their intepretation. The reliable sources do that, and we report what they say. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
|
