Overkill - Overkill in a homicide refers to the use of excessive force or brutality beyond what is necessary to cause death.

[GRT]

from my comment at #21 :
.....This article in Psychology Today Asperger's Disorder vs. Psychopathy suggests that people with AS tend not to be destructively or calculatedly violent. However, this article Psychiatric comorbidities in asperger syndrome and high functioning autism: diagnostic challenges - Annals of General Psychiatry and this one Comorbid Autism Spectrum Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder in Forensic Settings from The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law both confirm that there is such a thing as Autistic Psychopathy; i.e., that AS and psychopathy can be comorbid (but aren't necessarily). In simple terms, the difficulty lies in sorting out whether the lack of empathy in an offender is one symptom among many others (as in AS) or a defining characteristic (as in psychopathy). It's a puzzle and a hot topic. With respect to BR, research shows the two disorders are likelier to overlap if there has been parental neglect and/or childhood trauma.



Plus, the DSM-5 doesn't list violence as a tendency of Asperger sufferers.

GRT, the references to professional articles were included to acknowledge violence in AS and document the diagnostic difficulties of possible overlap between ASD and psychopathy (as well as to provide more information for anyone interested). Both include consideration of the symptoms of AS. The DSM is a marvelous resource that does not always spell out what might be encompassed by a term like "impaired social functioning." By contrast, the ICD entry does include Autistic Psychopathy. Both describe disorders. Clinical practice and clinical studies are where one sees actual people with a disorder in all its variations and gets the feel of it. In other words, the map is not the terrain.

While it's true that no one has gone on record with a diagnosis of AS for BR, it's more than armchair psychiatry when the person looking at the behaviors has studied Abnormal Psychology, Diagnosis and Assessment, and has presented case studies at the graduate level.

What you say about people recovering from the loss of a murdered loved one makes sense and is touching. However, BR wasn't being unfairly maligned when he was interviewed by the child psychologist.

That's a whole lot of speculation.

If BR has not received a diagnosis of AS, it just takes everyone down a rabbit hole to proceed as if he has. I appreciate links to peer-reviewed papers, but since there is no consensus, it's still a rabbit hole.

From the cited expert in your PT link:

“While with some cases, I've seen minor aggression, usually involved with a temper tantrum, I have never known an individual with ASD who was truly violent. At least not in a way that was as horrific as what Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook Elementary. Most of the time, the aggression I witnessed was related to avoidance of a task or attention seeking behavior. Usually it involved hitting, and most of the hitting was superficial.

“I'm sure there is a possibility that another individual with ASD could perform such a heinous crime as Lanza, but in my experience, the risk is relatively low."

What she's saying--and she goes into greater detail in the article -- is that it's rare to have someone diagnosed with AS that behaves in a truly violent manner.

Given that BR does not have Aspergers, all of that is still irrelevant.

 

[Meara]

I volunteered on an ambulance--yes, I've seen more than one dead child. But that's irrelevant.

And, no, obviously, not all the LE involved in the JBR case were egotistical; several publicly didn't follow the Ramsey persecution after evidence clearing the family came out. Smit was only one of many.

While we still don't know who killed JBR, we do know her family members have been exonerated via DNA. And the amount of DNA doesn't really matter--just the fact that it exists and belongs to someone other than the family is all that matters.

What surprises me is how many people are still deadset on accusing the family--going so far as to concoct wild theories about whether BR has Aspergers and then creating fantastical symptoms that don't mesh with what medical science holds to be true--all to suggest a 9-year-old child committed the crime.

It's just beyond the pale. It's a massive shark leap. MOO

I have one question I'd like a sincere answer to. Why is it important to pin the crime on a family member? I'd really like to know that because I don't see a lot of common sense going into these theories, so something must be driving them.

You may disagree with the medical evidence provided in the professional articles, but you don't get to say it doesn't exist.

Would I be correct in guessing that you have not yet read either of the research articles that were linked? Only two were linked, for brevity. There are many more. Do you need more?

Nothing has been concocted. We are all theorizing here. The theories that consider possible AS are well founded, based on available documentation and behavioral evidence.

The symptoms are not fantastical. Autistic Psychopathy is an internationally recognized diagnostic entity. The symptoms are completely consistent with what medical science holds true. The stumbling block, I think, is that they are not consistent with what you mistakenly think medical science holds true.

The crazed pageant mom theory is a massive shark leap with zero probability and no supporting evidence whatsoever. Unfortunately, it works against your credibility as an arbiter of common sense.

 

[GRT]

You may disagree with the medical evidence provided in the professional articles, but you don't get to say it doesn't exist.

Would I be correct in guessing that you have not yet read either of the research articles that were linked? Only two were linked, for brevity. There are many more. Do you need more?

Nothing has been concocted. We are all theorizing here. The theories that consider possible AS are well founded, based on available documentation and behavioral evidence.

The symptoms are not fantastical. Autistic Psychopathy is an internationally recognized diagnostic entity. The symptoms are completely consistent with what medical science holds true. The stumbling block, I think, is that they are not consistent with what you mistakenly think medical science holds true.

The crazed pageant mom theory is a massive shark leap with zero probability and no supporting evidence whatsoever. Unfortunately, it works against your credibility as an arbiter of common sense.

I read both articles, and I didn't say it "didn't exist," I quoted the expert from your PT link who said it was rare.

What doesn't exist is a diagnosis for BR, which makes this entire accusatory theory both libelous and way off in left field.

The term "Autistic Psychopathy" was Hans Asperger's term, but he defined psychopathy as a personality style that didn't involve the negative connotations associated with the term in modern psychology.

While peer-reviewed papers are an important part of the scientific process, they are not conclusions in and of themselves.

The classification of "Aspergers" doesn't appear in the DSM-5. It was removed and lumped under ASD. Additionally, the term, "autistic psychopathy" doesn't appear anywhere in the DSM-5. It's not the "internationally recognized" diagnosis you seem to think it is.

I get the feeling that you don't quite understand what you're reading.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Kids need watchful eyes.

I agree! Some parents may be more sanguine, but with my own children (or any I was looking after) I always wanted them in sight or within earshot.

Although the house is big, case followers who've actually been there report that it is smaller in real life than it appears in photos and videos. Also, it's old - the original structure dates from 1927 - and has two stairwells, so it creaks a lot when people are moving around, and sounds do carry. If PR were on the first floor, she would have been able to hear the children on the second floor as long as they didn't go behind closed doors.

The basement is something else altogether, being insulated from the upper floors by a door and eccentric architecture, as well as the stairs. I wouldn't have let children play down there unsupervised for any length of time or without checking on them. I'm not sure BR was relegated there, though. Reportedly, JBR could be a nuisance to him, interrupting when he had friends over, and annoying him when he played alone upstairs. She is said to have hated the basement, so it may have been BR's sanctuary, a place where he could play without her intrusions. If he is on the autism spectrum, mitigating intrusions and interruptions would have been especially desirable. I'm not arguing hard for this, just putting together some observations gathered over the years.

I was being facetious when I said he was relegated to the basement because it did seem awful secluded and distanced from everyone. He very well may liked not being bothered by a little sister but perhaps taking charge of the problem would have been better instead especially if JB was getting so much of her moms attention. You make great points about being on the spectrum and seeking a quiet space and I've stated elsewhere, perhaps BR didn't want or need as much attention as we think for the same reason.
Once I got deep into this case, I find myself very empathetic to BR. He really got the short end of the stick all the way around. If he was responsible, Prior to the death I feel he probably needed more help than he received . He had imperfect parents, who for whatever reason, made choices that must make a sad beginning never ending. I wish he could unburden himself. I think to put an end to all the speculation

I had to track down the quotes you used because they were not in the link you cited. But the one from Garnett proves my point.

DA Garnett is being fair in his statement when he says, “If we ever change our opinion about that with regard to the Ramseys or anyone else, we will file charges and say what we have to say about the case in open court.”

That's pretty clear--the current DA's "opinion" coincides with Lacy's opinion. The only thing Garnett opposed was the fact that Lacy issued a formal exoneration. She could have said they are no longer persons of interest, and it would have had the same meaning.

As Garnett says -- the Ramsey's are covered by the assumption of innocence. Garnett does not dispute that the Ramseys are not persons of interest, he just disagreed with issuing the formal exoneration.

I'm not sure what you meant about "...her bum hanging out her underwear..." That seems quite crude.

But, read those quotes carefully because none of them insinuate that anyone in the Ramsey family is guilty of killing JBR. They only disagree with the way Lacy went about telling the public that the Ramseys were exonerated.

Words matter.

So does reading comprehension. My post was regarding the your use of the word exoneration. You use it to imply they were proven innocent because Mary Lacys inappropriate use of the word. It was worthless theatrics and should JR ever be found responsible, he can be tried and convicted if found guilty.
That is the opposite of exonerated.
I'm sorry you dont understand my phrase regarding ML. It is an idiom.
I will no longer respond to your posts, as they just seem to go on the attack of others theories and seem hostile.
I am not interested in splitting hairs with you. It gets very redundant.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I had to track down the quotes you used because they were not in the link you cited. But the one from Garnett proves my point.

DA Garnett is being fair in his statement when he says, “If we ever change our opinion about that with regard to the Ramseys or anyone else, we will file charges and say what we have to say about the case in open court.”

That's pretty clear--the current DA's "opinion" coincides with Lacy's opinion. The only thing Garnett opposed was the fact that Lacy issued a formal exoneration. She could have said they are no longer persons of interest, and it would have had the same meaning.

As Garnett says -- the Ramsey's are covered by the assumption of innocence. Garnett does not dispute that the Ramseys are not persons of interest, he just disagreed with issuing the formal exoneration.

I'm not sure what you meant about "...her bum hanging out her underwear..." That seems quite crude.

But, read those quotes carefully because none of them insinuate that anyone in the Ramsey family is guilty of killing JBR. They only disagree with the way Lacy went about telling the public that the Ramseys were exonerated.

Words matter.

I'm going to have to take issue with the fact that you essentially cherry picked a quote that you then present out of context to what DA Garnett said in entirety. It is not clear at all that Garnett's opinion coincides with Lacy's.

“As I’ve said from the very beginning, the definitive issue with the JonBenét case is, what does the evidence show? I disagreed with exoneration [of her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey] because I did not think it was the appropriate role of the [then-] district attorney to issue an exoneration in a case like that,” said Garnett. Crimefeed, Dec. 24, 2018.

Stan Garnett, said her (Mary Lacy) “exoneration letter was ill-advised and was of no legal consequence.” Washington Times

With regard to the DNA,
For example, they determined that male DNA located in JonBenét's panties and in two spots on her long johns contained genetic material from at least two people in addition to the 6-year-old. As a result, they suggested that the "profile" entered into the FBI's CODIS database in 2003 — dubbed Unknown Male 1 by investigators in the case — may not be the profile of an individual at all, but a conglomeration of genetic material from multiple people.
At the same time, the experts disputed Lacy's conclusions that the genetic material in the long johns "matched" the DNA in the panties, that there was no innocent explanation for its presence on the girl's clothing, and that it therefore had to belong to the killer.
And 9Wants To Know and the Camera found that Lacy was told of the results' ambiguities before she issued her controversial letter on July 9, 2008, clearing JonBenét's parents. Local Denver Channel 9, 9 Wants to Know, Dec. 14 2016

Stan Garnett has also indicated that he does not think this is a DNA case.

As to then DA Alex Hunter's decision not to sign the indictments and prosecute, ""I don't know if I would have made the same decision, but I know how difficult these decisions are," Garnett said. USA Today, October 27, 2013

DA Garnett has made a lot of changes since taking office. Some of the issues of the past that he pointed out were that a good DA should be ensuring that the working relationship between the DA's office and the police needs to be cooperative and on good terms. This was very pointedly lacking under DA Hunter who in particular with the Ramsey case undermined the police and ensured a contentious relationship with no trust. He and his office were the leakers, not Boulder PD, and he actively assisted with tabloid media planting unfavorable stories about members of the force and their work on this case. DA Garnett has also said that in his opinion, it is the police who should be investigating, and that the role of the DA's office is to prosecute. Hunter made sure that the lines were very blurred during the Ramsey case, almost ensuring that no prosecution would ever be brought due to his interference in the case and the many issues that caused.

Of course the DA is not going to insinuate the Ramsey's guilt, or anyone else's for that matter. I would argue however, that your statement saying "they only disagree with the way Lacy went about telling the public that the Ramseys were exonerated", is not at all correct. It wasn't the method of pronouncement they disagreed with, it was the exoneration itself in its entirety as evidenced with Stan Garnett's statement(s). He neither insinuates guilt or innocence, that's the point. They should never have been exonerated because the DNA evidence, which was the sole reason cited does not prove their innocence.

Yes, words do matter.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I'm going to have to take issue with the fact that you essentially cherry picked a quote that you then present out of context to what DA Garnett said in entirety. It is not clear at all that Garnett's opinion coincides with Lacy's.

“As I’ve said from the very beginning, the definitive issue with the JonBenét case is, what does the evidence show? I disagreed with exoneration [of her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey] because I did not think it was the appropriate role of the [then-] district attorney to issue an exoneration in a case like that,” said Garnett. Crimefeed, Dec. 24, 2018.

Stan Garnett, said her (Mary Lacy) “exoneration letter was ill-advised and was of no legal consequence.” Washington Times

With regard to the DNA,
For example, they determined that male DNA located in JonBenét's panties and in two spots on her long johns contained genetic material from at least two people in addition to the 6-year-old. As a result, they suggested that the "profile" entered into the FBI's CODIS database in 2003 — dubbed Unknown Male 1 by investigators in the case — may not be the profile of an individual at all, but a conglomeration of genetic material from multiple people.
At the same time, the experts disputed Lacy's conclusions that the genetic material in the long johns "matched" the DNA in the panties, that there was no innocent explanation for its presence on the girl's clothing, and that it therefore had to belong to the killer.
And 9Wants To Know and the Camera found that Lacy was told of the results' ambiguities before she issued her controversial letter on July 9, 2008, clearing JonBenét's parents. Local Denver Channel 9, 9 Wants to Know, Dec. 14 2016

Stan Garnett has also indicated that he does not think this is a DNA case.

As to then DA Alex Hunter's decision not to sign the indictments and prosecute, ""I don't know if I would have made the same decision, but I know how difficult these decisions are," Garnett said. USA Today, October 27, 2013

DA Garnett has made a lot of changes since taking office. Some of the issues of the past that he pointed out were that a good DA should be ensuring that the working relationship between the DA's office and the police needs to be cooperative and on good terms. This was very pointedly lacking under DA Hunter who in particular with the Ramsey case undermined the police and ensured a contentious relationship with no trust. He and his office were the leakers, not Boulder PD, and he actively assisted with tabloid media planting unfavorable stories about members of the force and their work on this case. DA Garnett has also said that in his opinion, it is the police who should be investigating, and that the role of the DA's office is to prosecute. Hunter made sure that the lines were very blurred during the Ramsey case, almost ensuring that no prosecution would ever be brought due to his interference in the case and the many issues that caused.

Of course the DA is not going to insinuate the Ramsey's guilt, or anyone else's for that matter. I would argue however, that your statement saying "they only disagree with the way Lacy went about telling the public that the Ramseys were exonerated", is not at all correct. It wasn't the method of pronouncement they disagreed with, it was the exoneration itself in its entirety as evidenced with Stan Garnett's statement(s). He neither insinuates guilt or innocence, that's the point. They should never have been exonerated because the DNA evidence, which was the sole reason cited does not prove their innocence.

Yes, words do matter.

Thank you Clouded Truth for taking the time and being so thorough in your posts. You state the facts very methodically and accurately and in away most everyone can get a very clear picture of past events and how they affected this case. It a talent my ADHD doesn't schedule for!

 

[CloudedTruth]

That's a whole lot of speculation.

If BR has not received a diagnosis of AS, it just takes everyone down a rabbit hole to proceed as if he has. I appreciate links to peer-reviewed papers, but since there is no consensus, it's still a rabbit hole.

From the cited expert in your PT link:

“While with some cases, I've seen minor aggression, usually involved with a temper tantrum, I have never known an individual with ASD who was truly violent. At least not in a way that was as horrific as what Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook Elementary. Most of the time, the aggression I witnessed was related to avoidance of a task or attention seeking behavior. Usually it involved hitting, and most of the hitting was superficial.

“I'm sure there is a possibility that another individual with ASD could perform such a heinous crime as Lanza, but in my experience, the risk is relatively low."

What she's saying--and she goes into greater detail in the article -- is that it's rare to have someone diagnosed with AS that behaves in a truly violent manner.

Given that BR does not have Aspergers, all of that is still irrelevant.

As per your own statement about IF BR has not received a diagnosis of AS........we do not know if he has or has not. Therefore one cannot say with any level of accuracy, "given that BR does not have Asbergers......" It is an unknown which likely will remain an unknown.

And again, you seem to be equating the possibility of lashing out in a flash of anger with a truly violent crime, as is referenced with Adam Lanza. This does not seem to allow for the possibility that there was a flash of anger, which sadly resulted in a horrific accident. Adam Lanza was 20 years old when he fatally shot his own mother, then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he proceeded to shoot 26 people. He then took his own life. Lanza had 3 distinct diagnosed issues, sensory-integration disorder, Asperger Syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. When he turned 16, some of his issues noticeably worsened. It was thought that they were exacerbated by the hormonal shifts of adolescence. His anxiety was such that he rarely attended school and he was not known to have any close friends while he was in school. in 8th grade he was placed in "homebound" status, which is for children who are too disabled, even with support and accommodation to attend school.

I personally think the comparison is not at all an appropriate one to make. The circumstances are completely different.

 

[GRT]

As per your own statement about IF BR has not received a diagnosis of AS........we do not know if he has or has not. Therefore one cannot say with any level of accuracy, "given that BR does not have Asbergers......" It is an unknown which likely will remain an unknown.

And again, you seem to be equating the possibility of lashing out in a flash of anger with a truly violent crime, as is referenced with Adam Lanza. This does not seem to allow for the possibility that there was a flash of anger, which sadly resulted in a horrific accident. Adam Lanza was 20 years old when he fatally shot his own mother, then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he proceeded to shoot 26 people. He then took his own life. Lanza had 3 distinct diagnosed issues, sensory-integration disorder, Asperger Syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. When he turned 16, some of his issues noticeably worsened. It was thought that they were exacerbated by the hormonal shifts of adolescence. His anxiety was such that he rarely attended school and he was not known to have any close friends while he was in school. in 8th grade he was placed in "homebound" status, which is for children who are too disabled, even with support and accommodation to attend school.

I personally think the comparison is not at all an appropriate one to make. The circumstances are completely different.

Of course, we cannot logically prove a negative so we can't prove BR is absolutely, without a doubt, not on the spectrum. Again, the term "Asperberger's" isn't really used anymore. But, given that he's had psychiatric treatment and hasn't been diagnosed, it's logical to assume he's not.

I didn't introduce the Adam Lanza comparison into the equation -- that came from your link -- it just happened to be included in the expert's explanation about how rare it is for those on the spectrum to resort to violence.

You put the link out there, and now you're backpedaling because it didn't say what you thought it said.

And yes, Lanza was much more violent--in fact, his sort of violence better fits the title of this thread than the murder of JBR.

But to play devil's advocate, let's say there was a "terrible accident." That doesn't explain the garrot or the unknown male DNA on the crotch and waistband of her sleeping apparel. Have you seen the delicate slim fingers on the adult Ramsey's? Those fingers have never learned to tie those advanced knots. And, of course, BR could not have done that.

Plus, there was never a motive.

There's a reason why successive DAs did not bring charges against the Ramseys. There's simply no evidence of foul play on their part.

I think there's a lot of anger toward them based on how they paraded their tiny daughter in pageants, but that doesn't mean they're guilty of killing her or covering up her murder.

As far as people go -- I don't like the Ramseys or how they paraded their child around. I think it was probably the fact she was in pageants that attracted the murderer. But, going from there to thinking the family did it is quite an illogical leap.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Of course, we cannot logically prove a negative so we can't prove BR is absolutely, without a doubt, not on the spectrum. Again, the term "Asperberger's" isn't really used anymore. But, given that he's had psychiatric treatment and hasn't been diagnosed, it's logical to assume he's not.

I didn't introduce the Adam Lanza comparison into the equation -- that came from your link -- it just happened to be included in the expert's explanation about how rare it is for those on the spectrum to resort to violence.

You put the link out there, and now you're backpedaling because it didn't say what you thought it said.

And yes, Lanza was much more violent--in fact, his sort of violence better fits the title of this thread than the murder of JBR.

But to play devil's advocate, let's say there was a "terrible accident." That doesn't explain the garrot or the unknown male DNA on the crotch and waistband of her sleeping apparel. Have you seen the delicate slim fingers on the adult Ramsey's? Those fingers have never learned to tie those advanced knots. And, of course, BR could not have done that.

Plus, there was never a motive.

There's a reason why successive DAs did not bring charges against the Ramseys. There's simply no evidence of foul play on their part.

I think there's a lot of anger toward them based on how they paraded their tiny daughter in pageants, but that doesn't mean they're guilty of killing her or covering up her murder.

As far as people go -- I don't like the Ramseys or how they paraded their child around. I think it was probably the fact she was in pageants that attracted the murderer. But, going from there to thinking the family did it is quite an illogical leap.

I think you’re confused. I didn’t post a link on Asbergers or Adam Lanza. Please reread what you are attributing to me.

But I will address some other points.

BR’s medical records are sealed. We do not know if he has or has not been diagnosed with anything.

JR was in the Navy and was also a yachtsman. He very well could have tied the knots.

The garroting, etc. could very well have been done to cover that JBR was being sexually abused. The DNA can be explained as being transfer, there is nothing to prove it came from a criminal, and since there is barely any evidence of an intruder it’s highly likely that the DNA is innocently there. It is explained in my other post above that "the unknown male" is likely a "conglomeration of genetic material from multiple people". Which also is very likely why there has never been a match in all the years that it has been in the CODIS database.

A motive does not come into play if it were an accident.

As has been stated before, DA’s have admitted they are concerned that the evidence they do have against the R’s (emphasis on do have) is insufficient to get a conviction. PR is no longer living. A trial costs taxpayer $$$$.

It is your opinion that it’s an illogical leap to even consider the family was involved. Many others, including LE, a host of experts etc. who are familiar with the evidence have a different opinion. There is a distinct lack of evidence that anyone other than the family was involved.

 

[Meara]

I read both articles, and I didn't say it "didn't exist," I quoted the expert from your PT link who said it was rare.

What doesn't exist is a diagnosis for BR, which makes this entire accusatory theory both libelous and way off in left field.

The term "Autistic Psychopathy" was Hans Asperger's term, but he defined psychopathy as a personality style that didn't involve the negative connotations associated with the term in modern psychology.

While peer-reviewed papers are an important part of the scientific process, they are not conclusions in and of themselves.

The classification of "Aspergers" doesn't appear in the DSM-5. It was removed and lumped under ASD. Additionally, the term, "autistic psychopathy" doesn't appear anywhere in the DSM-5. It's not the "internationally recognized" diagnosis you seem to think it is.

I get the feeling that you don't quite understand what you're reading.

I didn't say it "didn't exist,"
Perhaps I misunderstood you when you wrote, "going so far as to concoct wild theories about whether BR has Aspergers and then creating fantastical symptoms that don't mesh with what medical science holds to be true-"


What doesn't exist is a diagnosis for BR, which makes this entire accusatory theory both libelous and way off in left field.
This is an open discussion forum. If a hypothesis that includes AS upsets you, then maybe it would be better to scroll past comments about it. There are members who make no diagnosis claims about BR at all and still think he killed JBR, so there are other threads where you can argue against BDI. There's even an IDI Only thread if you ever get tired of arguing.


While peer-reviewed papers are an important part of the scientific process, they are not conclusions in and of themselves.
Really. Thank heavens I didn't count on them for that. Recalling the original context for the article links is useful. GT and I both wondered whether AS and psychopathy ever occurred together, and I was responding to him.


The classification of "Aspergers" doesn't appear in the DSM-5. It was removed and lumped under ASD. Additionally, the term, "autistic psychopathy" doesn't appear anywhere in the DSM-5. It's not the "internationally recognized" diagnosis you seem to think it is.
I'm aware that the DSM-5 reclassified AS. Some members interested in this part of the discussion may not know of this change, or much about the DSM, either, so I skipped the explanation and kept the term people are familiar with. Since the DSM-5 doesn't include the term "autistic psychopathy,' the question must then be asked why the term is used in peer reviewed American journal articles. Very likely it's because the DSM is not the only taxonomy of disorders. Autistic psychopathy is a diagnostic entity in the ICD, which is used internationally and cited more frequently than the DSM.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I think you're spot on. They were very concerned with appearances - the impression they made on others, what others thought of them (provided those "others" had sufficient standing). But I'd take it a step further: They were primarily, and deeply, invested in how they saw themselves.

People who had known and worked with them in Atlanta told investigators about the ways the Rams had changed as their business grew and the money rolled in; and what they described was IMO not simply a change in circumstances but a change in identity. Before, they were smart, ambitious, hardworking, and sometimes had to bend the rules (because they had the right because they were smart, ambitious, and hardworking). Recall, for example, how a non-pregnant PR threatened her parents that, if they didn't give her the help she asked for, they'd never see the grandchild she was carrying. But now they began to see themselves as specially favored. And, as usually happens when people fall into that trap, they had the illusion of being blameless. Prosperity was a reward. It meant they were good and nice. Whatever they were doing, it must be okay. Anything that didn't go well or implied otherwise (incontinent children in therapy, the chaotic house, e.g.) was ignored, minimized, or given to someone else to deal with since since they saw themselves as having no moral responsibility in it. PR said as much to Pam Griffin on December 27th: "Couldn't you fix this for me?.....We didn't mean for this to happen." - as though JBR's murder could be fixed and intentions made everything okay. Imagining their devastation that day and the shock to their psyches, I'm always tempted to feel sorry for them until I remember that indulging in this fantasy of "all good here" is what got JBR killed.

I think this is very spot on and insightful, how they viewed themselves was an important aspect to some of the very public things they did that backfired on them. Their self awareness was decidedly skewed to the point where they were fairly clueless as to how anyone outside their inner circle might perceive them.

Cases in point the disastrous press conference they gave on May 1 at the Boulder Marriott, which ended up being labeled a "Ramsey informercial" where a carefully curated group of reporters were gathered who agreed not to ask any questions. The decision to give the televised interview on CNN prior to agreeing to be interviewed by Boulder PD, where they swore they would do anything and everything to cooperate with police the moment they returned to Boulder, and then of course did the exact opposite. Their media consultant arranging the photo and video ops as they exited the church in Boulder after JBR's memorial service, as well as the specially personalized handout that was given to parishioners offering prayers, that many parishioners were appalled by. Who does that?? They were willing participants in the media circus that surrounded them, and yet were completely oblivious to how their participation and curating made them look. Most grieving parents would want nothing to do with media attention, preferring to grieve privately with close family and friends. They literally courted the attention, which left a very bad taste in most peoples' mouths.

PR's comments to Pam I can only describe as bizarre. I could not imagine anyone other than PR making them. And of course the exact meaning behind those words can be debated until the cows come home, so I'll just leave it at appearing to be completely in PR's very dysfunctional wheelhouse.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I didn't say it "didn't exist,"
Perhaps I misunderstood you when you wrote, "going so far as to concoct wild theories about whether BR has Aspergers and then creating fantastical symptoms that don't mesh with what medical science holds to be true-"


What doesn't exist is a diagnosis for BR, which makes this entire accusatory theory both libelous and way off in left field.
This is an open discussion forum. If a hypothesis that includes AS upsets you, then maybe it would be better to scroll past comments about it. There are members who make no diagnosis claims about BR at all and still think he killed JBR, so there are other threads where you can argue against BDI. There's even an IDI Only thread if you ever get tired of arguing.


While peer-reviewed papers are an important part of the scientific process, they are not conclusions in and of themselves.
Really. Thank heavens I didn't count on them for that. Recalling the original context for the article links is useful. GT and I both wondered whether AS and psychopathy ever occurred together, and I was responding to him.


The classification of "Aspergers" doesn't appear in the DSM-5. It was removed and lumped under ASD. Additionally, the term, "autistic psychopathy" doesn't appear anywhere in the DSM-5. It's not the "internationally recognized" diagnosis you seem to think it is.
I'm aware that the DSM-5 reclassified AS. Some members interested in this part of the discussion may not know of this change, or much about the DSM, either, so I skipped the explanation and kept the term people are familiar with. Since the DSM-5 doesn't include the term "autistic psychopathy,' the question must then be asked why the term is used in peer reviewed American journal articles. Very likely it's because the DSM is not the only taxonomy of disorders. Autistic psychopathy is a diagnostic entity in the ICD, which is used internationally and cited more frequently than the DSM.

In the clinical world, Aspergers is still used also. The reclassification divided many practicioners. Yes, it's a form of autism. Many of the services available to people with ASD were not available to people with Aspergers. So that was a good thing.
Given that autism is a spectrum and the saying is " no 2 autistics are alike, there are very common symptoms in Aspergers that sets it apart from their non- verbal counterparts. In children, they usually have a restricted interest and of course the social awkwardness, and deficits in communication but not language as they are 2 different things.
And just to add a little food for thought, ADHD is often confused for autism. People identify ADHD as hyperactivity or inattention but let's look at some symptoms of ADHD.: one sided conversations, meltdowns, anxiety, hypersensitive sensory response, restricted interests because it's easier to focus on things you enjoy!
Go back and watch the 2 child BR interviews and use your gut as to what you think, or if any diagnoses apply. In my view, he is cautious and seems to read the room pretty well. What stood out was when he talked about the press at school. He sure got animated! Pretty exciting stuff or good gosh damn, I'm finally in the spotlight! ( not very Aspergerish..lol)Now. As said before, what really throws me for a loop is the Dr. Phill interview with BR. That was sure an ill advised decision. It was uncomfortable to watch and screamed asd but it didn't resemble child BR at all...

 

[GRT]

I think you’re confused. I didn’t post a link on Asbergers or Adam Lanza. Please reread what you are attributing to me.

But I will address some other points.

BR’s medical records are sealed. We do not know if he has or has not been diagnosed with anything.

JR was in the Navy and was also a yachtsman. He very well could have tied the knots.

The garroting, etc. could very well have been done to cover that JBR was being sexually abused. The DNA can be explained as being transfer, there is nothing to prove it came from a criminal, and since there is barely any evidence of an intruder it’s highly likely that the DNA is innocently there. It is explained in my other post above that "the unknown male" is likely a "conglomeration of genetic material from multiple people". Which also is very likely why there has never been a match in all the years that it has been in the CODIS database.

A motive does not come into play if it were an accident.

As has been stated before, DA’s have admitted they are concerned that the evidence they do have against the R’s (emphasis on do have) is insufficient to get a conviction. PR is no longer living. A trial costs taxpayer $$$$.

It is your opinion that it’s an illogical leap to even consider the family was involved. Many others, including LE, a host of experts etc. who are familiar with the evidence have a different opinion. There is a distinct lack of evidence that anyone other than the family was involved.

My bad. You didn't post the link. It was Meara. I just quoted from her link.

Yes, obviously, the DAs never had sufficient evidence to bring charges--because it doesn't exist. And the evidence they do have (the DNA) suggests someone other than the Ramseys.

I think for anyone interested in this case, reading Lou and JonBenet by John Wesley Anderson is a good idea.

IMHO, some of the theories, including the accident/coverup theory, are just too big a stretch. Granted, my theory is also a stretch, but given the child was in beauty pageants and they are competitive and potentially abusive, I think that's where the answer lies.

When LE focused almost exclusively on the Ramseys--I feel they dropped the ball. Big time. And, I'm far from the only one who thinks that.

 

[GRT]

I'm aware that the DSM-5 reclassified AS. Some members interested in this part of the discussion may not know of this change, or much about the DSM, either, so I skipped the explanation and kept the term people are familiar with. Since the DSM-5 doesn't include the term "autistic psychopathy,' the question must then be asked why the term is used in peer reviewed American journal articles. Very likely it's because the DSM is not the only taxonomy of disorders. Autistic psychopathy is a diagnostic entity in the ICD, which is used internationally and cited more frequently than the DSM.

RSBM -

You're correct that the DSM-5 is not the only classification system for psychiatry, but it is the primary authoritative guide used by mental health professionals because it offers standardized diagnostic criteria.

Insurance companies also use the DSM-5 to determine coverage for psychiatric services and it's considered an authoritative source for legal proceedings.

There is also the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) which the WHO publishes, but "autistic psychopathy" does not appear in it either. The NIMH has a research-based framework known as RDoC (Research Domain Criteria), and I have no idea if the term appears there.

DSM-5 specifically excluded Asperger's because it's outdated and no longer widely accepted. However, that doesn't preclude researchers from using the term in an alternative framework. We'll likely continue to see it on a diminishing basis until it's eventually replaced on a broader scale by ASD.

There is *some* overlap in symptoms between ADHD and ASD, especially in very young children, but you won't find many professionals who will attempt to diagnose a patient just from watching interviews on talk shows.

Accurate diagnosis involves a thorough assessment, including developmental history, clinical interviews, and sometimes psychological testing.

I'm not suggesting BR doesn't have any mental health issues--anyone can have mental health issues. I'm just saying diagnosis is complex, and armchair psychiatry is insensitive and is not a substitute for professional assessment.

 

[Meara]

RSBM -

You're correct that the DSM-5 is not the only classification system for psychiatry, but it is the primary authoritative guide used by mental health professionals because it offers standardized diagnostic criteria.

Insurance companies also use the DSM-5 to determine coverage for psychiatric services and it's considered an authoritative source for legal proceedings.

There is also the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) which the WHO publishes, but "autistic psychopathy" does not appear in it either. The NIMH has a research-based framework known as RDoC (Research Domain Criteria), and I have no idea if the term appears there.

DSM-5 specifically excluded Asperger's because it's outdated and no longer widely accepted. However, that doesn't preclude researchers from using the term in an alternative framework. We'll likely continue to see it on a diminishing basis until it's eventually replaced on a broader scale by ASD.

There is *some* overlap in symptoms between ADHD and ASD, especially in very young children, but you won't find many professionals who will attempt to diagnose a patient just from watching interviews on talk shows.

Accurate diagnosis involves a thorough assessment, including developmental history, clinical interviews, and sometimes psychological testing.

I'm not suggesting BR doesn't have any mental health issues--anyone can have mental health issues. I'm just saying diagnosis is complex, and armchair psychiatry is insensitive and is not a substitute for professional assessment.

There seems to be some misunderstanding. This isn’t a lecture hall or the principal’s office. It’s a public discussion board where people explore, and express their opinions and theories about, various aspects of the Ramsey case. For better or worse, these include opinions and theories about the psychodynamics of the family members, and plenty here discuss them.

Recently, I said I’d done graduate work in abnormal psychology and diagnosis and assessment. The information was offered to explain that, although I’m not commenting here in a professional capacity, my opinions and theories about BR are grounded in advanced studies in Counseling Psych. For that very reason, I am familiar with DSM classifications and complexities in diagnosis and also recognize that my opinions and theories don’t reflect a full clinical assessment. Your comment, in substance and tone, is unnecessary and inappropriate. It should be obvious that I already have the information.

As far as I can tell, your comment is also inaccurate. Autistic psychopathy is included under Code F84.5 in the ICD10. The diagnosis is specified in multiple online ICD sources, as well. Some examples:
ICD-10-CM-2023: F84.5 Asperger's syndrome - icdcode.net
https://icd.codes/icd10cm/F845?__cf...DEknrMFSKwWMN0AuGkApk-1710528748-0.0.1.1-1535
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F80-F89/F84-/F84.5
https://icd10coded.com/cm/F84.5/
ICD-10 code F84.5 | Asperger's syndrome

Again, the ICD listing is not surprising. Autistic Psychopathy isn't in the DSM, yet the researchers use the term in the journal articles I linked earlier. It seemed unlikely they'd pulled it out of a hat.

 

[GRT]

There seems to be some misunderstanding. This isn’t a lecture hall or the principal’s office. It’s a public discussion board where people explore, and express their opinions and theories about, various aspects of the Ramsey case. For better or worse, these include opinions and theories about the psychodynamics of the family members, and plenty here discuss them.

Recently, I said I’d done graduate work in abnormal psychology and diagnosis and assessment. The information was offered to explain that, although I’m not commenting here in a professional capacity, my opinions and theories about BR are grounded in advanced studies in Counseling Psych. For that very reason, I am familiar with DSM classifications and complexities in diagnosis and also recognize that my opinions and theories don’t reflect a full clinical assessment. Your comment, in substance and tone, is unnecessary and inappropriate. It should be obvious that I already have the information.

As far as I can tell, your comment is also inaccurate. Autistic psychopathy is included under Code F84.5 in the ICD10. The diagnosis is specified in multiple online ICD sources, as well. Some examples:
ICD-10-CM-2023: F84.5 Asperger's syndrome - icdcode.net
https://icd.codes/icd10cm/F845?__cf...DEknrMFSKwWMN0AuGkApk-1710528748-0.0.1.1-1535
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F80-F89/F84-/F84.5
https://icd10coded.com/cm/F84.5/
ICD-10 code F84.5 | Asperger's syndrome

Again, the ICD listing is not surprising. Autistic Psychopathy isn't in the DSM, yet the researchers use the term in the journal articles I linked earlier. It seemed unlikely they'd pulled it out of a hat.

I make it a practice never to reveal my education because if I can't make a logical argument based on my knowledge, I don't deserve my degree. Plus, anyone can be anything on the internet.

While it's true that the term 'autistic psychopathy' appears in the ICD-10 under code F84.5, the ICD-10 is not the most current classification system for mental disorders. The ICD-10 was published in 1992 and has been succeeded by the ICD-11, which was released in 2018. You seem to have been unaware of that. The ICD-11 does not include the term 'autistic psychopathy,' indicating that the concept is no longer considered valid or clinically useful.

Furthermore, the absence of 'autistic psychopathy' in the DSM-5, which is the current diagnostic manual used by mental health professionals in the United States, also supports the notion that the term is outdated. The DSM-5, published in 2013, provides the latest accepted criteria for diagnosing mental disorders, and its exclusion of 'autistic psychopathy' suggests that the concept does not align with the current understanding of autism spectrum disorders or psychopathy.

While 'autistic psychopathy' may have been a term used in the past, its absence from the current diagnostic criteria of both the ICD-11 and DSM-5 indicates that it is no longer considered a valid or clinically meaningful construct in the field of psychiatry.

 

[CloudedTruth]

acrossMy bad. You didn't post the link. It was Meara. I just quoted from her link.

Yes, obviously, the DAs never had sufficient evidence to bring charges--because it doesn't exist. And the evidence they do have (the DNA) suggests someone other than the Ramseys.

I think for anyone interested in this case, reading Lou and JonBenet by John Wesley Anderson is a good idea.

IMHO, some of the theories, including the accident/coverup theory, are just too big a stretch. Granted, my theory is also a stretch, but given the child was in beauty pageants and they are competitive and potentially abusive, I think that's where the answer lies.

When LE focused almost exclusively on the Ramseys--I feel they dropped the ball. Big time. And, I'm far from the only one who thinks that.

It's interesting as well as rather telling that you seem to ignore the posts that include facts, and just keep stating the same thing over and over and over again......the DNA "evidence" which isn't what you think it is and despite repeating it over and over again ad nauseam does not exonerate or clear the R's. I think reading up on the most recent testing and results is a good idea for anyone who is truly interested in this case.

Your crazed, jealous pageant mother theory I would put in the category of your own phrasing, "fantastical speculation". There is zero evidence to support this theory other than your conclusion of "potentially abusive". The R's famously made a very long list of people they determined should be put up as potential suspects which did not include other pageant mothers. No one ever mentioned or suggested this rivalry you have dreamed up out of thin air. As Meara has already suggested, throwing out such opinions with no supporting evidence to back them up undermines credibility. You have very readily accused others of engaging in speculation that leads to going down rabbit holes, and yet here you are doing the same.

The police compiled a database of over 21,000 tips and and conducted over 1,000 interviews across 17 states and two foreign countries. They collected samples from more than 200 individuals which included handwriting, DNA, fingerprints and shoe prints. But by all means, continue to parrot the PR that Team R put out accusing the PD of focusing almost exclusively on the R's. The facts are in direct contrast to the public face that the R's put on during the first few months of the investigation, which is a critical timeframe for a murder investigation. While they loudly and solidly declared in a television interview that the moment they got back to Boulder they would be fully and immediately cooperating with police, giving them anything and everything they needed to clear the R's and find the culprit, they returned to Boulder and did the exact opposite of their very public promise and proclamation. It speaks volumes that their very close circle of friends starts to question why they R's chose to act the way they did. The accusation that was made of hiding behind their lawyers was spot on. That's exactly what they did. They hid behind a wall of lawyering maneuvers and hired PR people who put out false and misleading information that some still choose to believe even though so much has been debunked.

I have yet to see this supposed voluminous evidence of an intruder presented here. This is a discussion board. I am willing to entertain ideas that are intelligently presented and backed by factual detail. I won't point out again the flaws with the DNA theory as they aren't even being acknowledged let alone considered. It's not at all productive or interesting to just keep arguing back and forth the same points over and over again without consideration of facts that have been presented.

 

[GRT]

It's interesting as well as rather telling that you seem to ignore the posts that include facts, and just keep stating the same thing over and over and over again......the DNA "evidence" which isn't what you think it is and despite repeating it over and over again ad nauseam does not exonerate or clear the R's. I think reading up on the most recent testing and results is a good idea for anyone who is truly interested in this case.

Your crazed, jealous pageant mother theory I would put in the category of your own phrasing, "fantastical speculation". There is zero evidence to support this theory other than your conclusion of "potentially abusive". The R's famously made a very long list of people they determined should be put up as potential suspects which did not include other pageant mothers. No one ever mentioned or suggested this rivalry you have dreamed up out of thin air. As Meara has already suggested, throwing out such opinions with no supporting evidence to back them up undermines credibility. You have very readily accused others of engaging in speculation that leads to going down rabbit holes, and yet here you are doing the same.

The police compiled a database of over 21,000 tips and and conducted over 1,000 interviews across 17 states and two foreign countries. They collected samples from more than 200 individuals which included handwriting, DNA, fingerprints and shoe prints. But by all means, continue to parrot the PR that Team R put out accusing the PD of focusing almost exclusively on the R's. The facts are in direct contrast to the public face that the R's put on during the first few months of the investigation, which is a critical timeframe for a murder investigation. While they loudly and solidly declared in a television interview that the moment they got back to Boulder they would be fully and immediately cooperating with police, giving them anything and everything they needed to clear the R's and find the culprit, they returned to Boulder and did the exact opposite of their very public promise and proclamation. It speaks volumes that their very close circle of friends starts to question why they R's chose to act the way they did. The accusation that was made of hiding behind their lawyers was spot on. That's exactly what they did. They hid behind a wall of lawyering maneuvers and hired PR people who put out false and misleading information that some still choose to believe even though so much has been debunked.

I have yet to see this supposed voluminous evidence of an intruder presented here. This is a discussion board. I am willing to entertain ideas that are intelligently presented and backed by factual detail. I won't point out again the flaws with the DNA theory as they aren't even being acknowledged let alone considered. It's not at all productive or interesting to just keep arguing back and forth the same points over and over again without consideration of facts that have been presented.

I've been more than willing to admit my theory isn't backed by hard evidence. I've said that from the get-go. But, I haven't presented any "scenarios," such as not being able to step over a stair, as evidence of collusion of some sort.

And, I certainly haven't submitted an armchair psychiatric diagnosis using terminology and ideology that's outdated and no longer accepted.

Do you really want an echo chamber? The Ramseys have never been charged with a crime. And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, a big part of them no longer being persons of interest is based on the DNA results.

Does the DNA prove they weren't involved? No. But, when taken with the lack of other evidence, it's a good indication someone else very well could have been.

Whether or not Lacy should have done it -- she publicly exonerated the Ramseys. Subsequent DA's have not charged them, so there is still inadequate evidence.

I'm not kidding at all when I reiterate that reading the book I suggested will most likely change your mind. Rather than fall prey to sensationalism, the book explains why all the accusations are likely wrong. It really doesn't leave any room for the kind of off-the-wall speculation I've heard of late.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It's interesting as well as rather telling that you seem to ignore the posts that include facts, and just keep stating the same thing over and over and over again......the DNA "evidence" which isn't what you think it is and despite repeating it over and over again ad nauseam does not exonerate or clear the R's. I think reading up on the most recent testing and results is a good idea for anyone who is truly interested in this case.

Your crazed, jealous pageant mother theory I would put in the category of your own phrasing, "fantastical speculation". There is zero evidence to support this theory other than your conclusion of "potentially abusive". The R's famously made a very long list of people they determined should be put up as potential suspects which did not include other pageant mothers. No one ever mentioned or suggested this rivalry you have dreamed up out of thin air. As Meara has already suggested, throwing out such opinions with no supporting evidence to back them up undermines credibility. You have very readily accused others of engaging in speculation that leads to going down rabbit holes, and yet here you are doing the same.

The police compiled a database of over 21,000 tips and and conducted over 1,000 interviews across 17 states and two foreign countries. They collected samples from more than 200 individuals which included handwriting, DNA, fingerprints and shoe prints. But by all means, continue to parrot the PR that Team R put out accusing the PD of focusing almost exclusively on the R's. The facts are in direct contrast to the public face that the R's put on during the first few months of the investigation, which is a critical timeframe for a murder investigation. While they loudly and solidly declared in a television interview that the moment they got back to Boulder they would be fully and immediately cooperating with police, giving them anything and everything they needed to clear the R's and find the culprit, they returned to Boulder and did the exact opposite of their very public promise and proclamation. It speaks volumes that their very close circle of friends starts to question why they R's chose to act the way they did. The accusation that was made of hiding behind their lawyers was spot on. That's exactly what they did. They hid behind a wall of lawyering maneuvers and hired PR people who put out false and misleading information that some still choose to believe even though so much has been debunked.

I have yet to see this supposed voluminous evidence of an intruder presented here. This is a discussion board. I am willing to entertain ideas that are intelligently presented and backed by factual detail. I won't point out again the flaws with the DNA theory as they aren't even being acknowledged let alone considered. It's not at all productive or interesting to just keep arguing back and forth the same points over and over again without consideration of facts that have been presented.

This is why I no longer will respond to any posts that become argumentative right out the gate. You and I have differing theories but I want to hear factual information ( to which you are great at resourcing btw) that either supports my theory or dismantles it. Example, I have never really thought PR was responsible. I read somewhere that PR upbringing was very harsh and abusive. That may or may not be true but it gave thought to another reason where there could be a motive where I could not see one.
I personally get tired of the Ramsey's were persecuted because people didn't agree with the pageant pictures?
Do I agree with it emphatically no but there are plenty of baseball and soccer dads and moms out there who become unhinged at games. I do not look at each one as a potential murderer. Having the ability to view things from many angles never hurt scientists, inventors, or LE but eventually you travel down the road where the facts most support your theory.

We may all be wrong. We haven't given a hard look
at the Easter bunny.

 

[CloudedTruth]

This is why I no longer will respond to any posts that become argumentative right out the gate. You and I have differing theories but I want to hear factual information ( to which you are great at resourcing btw) that either supports my theory or dismantles it. Example, I have never really thought PR was responsible. I read somewhere that PR upbringing was very harsh and abusive. That may or may not be true but it gave thought to another reason where there could be a motive where I could not see one.
I personally get tired of the Ramsey's were persecuted because people didn't agree with the pageant pictures?
Do I agree with it emphatically no but there are plenty of baseball and soccer dads and moms out there who become unhinged at games. I do not look at each one as a potential murderer. Having the ability to view things from many angles never hurt scientists, inventors, or LE but eventually you travel down the road where the facts most support your theory.

We may all be wrong. We haven't given a hard look
at the Easter bunny.

Oh my gosh!! You’re right!! We haven’t looked hard at the Easter Bunny at all!! LOL.

Agree. Some interactions here are just a total waste of time. I too am interested in facts and well sourced ideas. Not an echo chamber, but opinions that make sense and make me want to dig further and explore where they might lead.