The FBI also suggested the parents were involved. Since the FBI knows what's up, being the FBI, we can conclude that the case is solved. "Look at the parents"
Contrary to what TV and Movies depict, the FBI rarely investigates homicides. They deal more with espionage, counter-terrorism, white collar, and fraud.
An experienced homicide detective in a large city will have more experience on dealing with murder cases than most FBI agents....and probable even most profilers.
Please read the 9-11 Commission Report
Hi, AK,
The use of the word assume or presume in your post is the key here. Some here have pointed out a common tendency to interpret clues or behavior to support ones previously-arrived-at conclusions about the case. Based on individual experiences with psychology, sad exposure to narcissistic parents, or other experiences which help define views, perhaps we all arrive at suppositions not solely on the basis of reason.
Heres a take from Lars-Erik Björklund, a neuroscientist, on something called tacit knowledge or disparagingly termed intuition.
A few years ago neuroscientists discovered that the human brain has dual systems for receiving and analyzing sensory impressions, one conscious and one unconscious. In the unconscious, that is the non-declarative system, our sensory impressions are compared with previously stored images. We all have an inner picture book of stored experiences based on what has happened to us previously in life. We also remember the outcome -¬ did it end well or badly? With the aid of these stored sensory impressions, we unconsciously assess the situation at hand and can predict the outcome. This capacity is especially helpful in complex and information-rich situations with a great deal of noise.
If one presumes a single outside perp, then the experiment from Simons and Chabris and the gorilla wont carry any significance. OTOH, if one interprets that 2 or 3 Rs were involved in the cause and/or concealment of JBs death, then the video message about attention becomes very interesting. (E.g., John Douglas focusing only on JR arrives at the conclusion he wasnt involved. Douglas then does not separately interview or consider Ms. West Virginia or her young son. Douglas conclusion is the Rs werent involved.)
Since I hadnt seen the Simons and Chabris video before, I had to try it. While I did witness the correct number of passes, I totally missed the man in the hairy suit. Its one of the reasons I continue to visit the forum, I keep thinking maybe I didnt see the guy in the hairy suit (something obvious), and it would point me to more understanding.
In a next post Ill provide something additional which will, for sure, be interpreted according to ones perspective. moo
Im sorry. 911? No. That is not part of this case. That has nothing to do with this.
Lets keep on track here.
I don't understand why John Douglas is the end all be all of the FBI.
The two links I posted above have the opinions of two others that are also FBI.
They don't agree with Douglas.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In his interview with "Dateline NBC" this week, Douglas has said that "his heart" tells him that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, weren't involved in her murder. And he relies heavily on his 4 1/2 hour interview with the couple to reach his conclusion, he said.
McCrary found some notable flaws in Douglas' profiling work for the Ramseys.
NBC referred, without contradiction from Douglas, to the profiler's "interview with the parents for 4 1/2 hours." McCrary said the parents should have been interviewed separately, not jointly, for the profiling work to be valid.
"That's always the correct way to do this. It's fundamental," McCrary said. "You separate the people, you interview them independently, you lock them into statements and then you compare." To do otherwise virtually invalidates the effort, he said.
Top-notch criminal profilers, he said, "always put more weight on behavior than on words. The behavior of the offender is much more telling than what he says later," McCrary said. And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.
For instance, McCrary said evidence at the scene strongly disputes any theory that the killer may have been a disgruntled employee of Ramsey.
"This crime was not about getting back at the father," said McCrary, who couldn't recall a case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent."
If revenge on the father had been a motive, McCrary said, "the killer would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the basement." The profiler said the body would have been placed in a manner "to shock and offend" John Ramsey if anger or hate or revenge had been the motive.
Additionally, he said that by assaulting JonBenet, killing her, taking her from an upper-floor bedroom to a far corner of the basement and writing a lengthy ransom note - all negated a revenge killing.
"If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night," McCrary said, "they would have killed the little girl and gotten out as fast as possible." It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather than in someone's words, according to McCrary.
And McCrary comes with unusually good credentials.
Douglas himself considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and investigative analysts in the world."
DeDee, I don't think AK intended to be impolite at all. There may be accurate information contained in the Bonita Papers, but there are inaccuracies as well. Alone, this source simply doesn't meet the reliability standard.Please. Let us remain polite or at least respectful to one another. What information in the Bonita Papers is rumor and not based on fact?
DeDee, I don't think AK intended to be impolite at all. There may be accurate information contained in the Bonita Papers, but there are inaccuracies as well. Alone, this source simply doesn't meet the reliability standard.
quick question, regarding JB's paediatrician's medical records were they ever subpoenaed by the BPD? has anybody seen any entries re:JB's toileting and constant vaginal infections?
comfortably sitting in my armchair
lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit
"While the couple acted strangely and there were inconsistencies in their story, FBI criminal profiler Robert Ressler said the evidence pointed to an intruder.Ressler has assisted with hundreds of investigations, including those of multiple murderers Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. Now a private consultant in forensic behavioral science and based in Virginia, Ressler said the evidence, including the autopsy, suggests JonBenet was killed accidentally and ``an elaborate cover-up was done to divert police away from the crime.''
That's from the second link I posted above.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remember it had to be the DA who issued the subpoenas, not the BPD. The DA refused. He also refused to get a warrant for the school records, specifically the school nurse, who JB frequently visited on Mondays.
As far as I know, LE has not had access to either set of records. The Rs asked for (and the DA allowed) what their lawyers called "an island of privacy" as to the children's medical records.
The pediatrician also said that he would burn the records rather than turn them over to police. If this doesn't SCREAM "something to hide" I don't know what does. The pediatrician was a personal friend of the Rs, and belonged to the same Country Club. He was said to be very admiring of them and in awe of their wealth and clout. Had there been anything in those records indicating sexual molestation of JB by her brother, he would have been required to report it to police, so if the records had been turned over and police had seen that, the doctor would be liable - could have been prosecuted or even lost his license. So there was a LOT to hide.
"While the couple acted strangely and there were inconsistencies in their story, FBI criminal profiler Robert Ressler said the evidence pointed to an intruder.
Ressler said JonBenet knew her killer, who possibly came from a small circle of family friends."
http://nypost.com/2001/12/23/jonbenet-case-heats-up-new-da-pushes-to-solve-mystery-after-five-years/
Hmmm Crush??
What an odd comment.
Because I happen to have faith in the most outstanding law keeping body we have in America?
They are a big part and they have more experience collectively than any other one in the country. So yes, their opinion is more than just opinion.
Remember it had to be the DA who issued the subpoenas, not the BPD. The DA refused. He also refused to get a warrant for the school records, specifically the school nurse, who JB frequently visited on Mondays.
As far as I know, LE has not had access to either set of records. The Rs asked for (and the DA allowed) what their lawyers called "an island of privacy" as to the children's medical records.
The pediatrician also said that he would burn the records rather than turn them over to police. If this doesn't SCREAM "something to hide" I don't know what does. The pediatrician was a personal friend of the Rs, and belonged to the same Country Club. He was said to be very admiring of them and in awe of their wealth and clout. Had there been anything in those records indicating sexual molestation of JB by her brother, he would have been required to report it to police, so if the records had been turned over and police had seen that, the doctor would be liable - could have been prosecuted or even lost his license. So there was a LOT to hide.
BBMRemember it had to be the DA who issued the subpoenas, not the BPD. The DA refused. He also refused to get a warrant for the school records, specifically the school nurse, who JB frequently visited on Mondays.