This is a riot, from my POV. Your argument: if an HCCC is involved, then he must be a very stupid kidnapper, who left evidence while forgetting the victim. You assume there are no ulterior motives, while emphasizing the absurdity of the idea. This is a heady POV, IMO, which is not too unusual. I never said or implied the perp was a kidnapper. You did.Lacy Wood said:3. Use of ransom note? Your supposed "HCCC" writes a lengthy note for ransom which he leaves as evidence, but then forgets to take the victim? OK, maybe so, but who as killers would have a greater need to suggest an alternative scenario, family or intruder? Stated another way, would someone who can quietly slip away in the night be as likely to try to put a spin on events as someone who has to stay in the house and explain things? Sorry, no presumption for a HCCC kidnapper who leaves the victim and evidence he could take with him.
Laugh away, because it's all from your words. Remember? YOU argued that a hard core career criminal (HCCC) is involved, not I. I disagreed with the points YOU claimed prove it. I would not presume to say there could be no intruder because it's a real possibility. It's also up to you, not me, to justify your position, so the forgetful or otherwise motivated note writing intruder is on your side of the equation. Saying he might have an ulterior motive is true. I ruled out no assumptions. But that is different from "more likely." My point was that a hypothetical intruder could not be presumed more likely to write a note than a guilty family member, noting there would be a greater imperative to "explain" for someone found with the body. There is a certainty of need to explain for family and conjecture for someone else.Holdontoyourhat said:This is a riot, from my POV. Your argument here is that if an HCCC is involved, that he must be a very stupid kidnapper who left evidence while forgetting the victim. You assume there are no ulterior motives, while emphasizing the absurdity of the idea. This is a heady POV, IMO, which is not too unusual. I never said or implied the perp was a kidnapper. You did.
If you read the serial killer link above, you'll find that applying standards for reasoning ("one would think," or "would a serial killer do this") may not be valid.little1 said:WHy would a hardcore criminal leave something like a garrote behind---BTW isn't the rope used technically not even a garrote? Would a hardcore criminal not take that with him? COnsidering the time he/she spent in that house, one would think ALL evidence pointing towards his existence would be removed.
little1 said:WHy would a hardcore criminal leave something like a garrote behind---BTW isn't the rope used technically not even a garrote? Would a hardcore criminal not take that with him?
Holdontoyourhat said:If you read the serial killer link above, you'll find that applying standards for reasoning ("one would think," or "would a serial killer do this") may not be valid.
While I appreciate your honesty, I totally missed your point. There is no evidence to suggest anyone tried to frame the family. On the contrary, the RN author claimed a foreign faction is involved.little1 said:if this were a serial killer there would have been some sort of crime almost exactly like this one. There are certain aspects of serial murder that cannot change, signature cannot change. MO can change and often does change. There would be a crime soemwher involving small children, AE asphyx., molestation--but no penetration, etc. The perp may not use the kidnapping "ruse" again if he/she was unsuccessful, but very well may use it if he was successful.
Also, to be quite honest with you, serial killers are not like they seem in the movies. You seem to think that they are. Please find an instance where a serial killer actually tried to frame a victims family for the crime--with so much staging!**BTW, any Hard core criminal would know that by staging you are leaving much more at the crime scene than you think you are. Many serial killers nowadays know this, many of them are avid "cop groupies" and read detective magazines, etc.
Clearly, an intruder or intruders, having to move through the area at night, would not want to take evidence with them, either on their person or in their car. IMO, its pretty obvious that intruders would prefer to leave whatever evidence there is at the scene.BlueCrab said:little1,
You are 100% right. That thing wrapped around JonBenet's neck wasn't even a garrote -- it was a sexual tool designed to be used in breath control games. An intruder would not have left it behind as evidence. And the fake ransom note itself proves there was no intruder. Why would an intruder write a fake ransom note trying to point suspicion away from family members? He wouldn't. And why would the Ramseys be lying and covering up to protect the identity of an intruder? They wouldn't. There was no intruder.
So you think that it is safer to leave behind evidence at a crime scene in today's scientifically advanced world, as opposed to taking something as small as a paintbrush handle with a rope attached to throw it in the garbage elsewhere?Holdontoyourhat said:Clearly, an intruder or intruders, having to move through the area at night, would not want to take evidence with them, either on their person or in their car. IMO, its pretty obvious that intruders would prefer to leave whatever evidence there is at the scene.
I'm not sure if anything's "safer" in this crime. However, it is also possible a SK didn't take anything along that was no longer needed.Voice of Reason said:So you think that it is safer to leave behind evidence at a crime scene in today's scientifically advanced world, as opposed to taking something as small as a paintbrush handle with a rope attached to throw it in the garbage elsewhere?
Holdontoyourhat said:I'm not sure if anything's "safer" in this crime. However, it is also possible a SK didn't take anything along that was no longer needed.
tipper said:I think he thougt he was being clever by using items from the house that couldn't be traced back to him. The tape and rope are less likely to just be hanging around so they were brought in.
I'm talking more about matching paper or ink to a pen to something he bought or has in his house. I think this guy is in a James Bond era not CSIlittle1 said:Items from the house could be traced back to him via DNA, fingerprint, blood, saliva, etc.
tipper said:I'm talking more about matching paper or ink to a pen to something he bought or has in his house. I think this guy is in a James Bond era not CSI
Yet another invocation of a nonexistent rule. Who says SK's must operate within this country exclusively?little1 said:nope. Many serial killers take the evidence that can incriminate them and get rid of it. Example, Gary Ridgway, Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, etc. etc. etc.
Really only an unorganized type would leave such things behind and take other things. This crime had too much planning (if it was an intruder) involved for the person to leave behind certain evidence. This killer was careful (if it was an intruder) to not leave much evidence of himself behind (really no evidence) to just leave a couple of things.
Also, if this were a serial killer once again I stress that there would have been another crime similar to this one somewhere else in the country. Anywhere. A serial killer is deemed so because they kill with a cooling off phase between kills. Technically you are not labeled a SK unless you have killed 3 victims. (With the cooling off period) Where are these crimes? Where? Where are thes other vics?
