Patsy Ramsey

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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"

They said that the first day and at that time had no hours in the case. really not the same thing as after the case, after finding the body and after all they know now.

They always look at parents. That is nothing new. I would love to know who that quote comes from too.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

What? They deal with Kidnappings, Murders, serial killers all the time. Please.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Please read the 9-11 Commission Report

Im sorry. 911? No. That is not part of this case. That has nothing to do with this.

Lets keep on track here.

 

[Tawny]

You yourself said that experts can't be relied upon if all they've seen is slides and photographs and reports of the autopsy.

Why is it different for the FBI? That's all they might have seen, had they investigated in depth.

ETA: This isn't me getting personal with you, FYI. I'm trying to understand the difference here.

 

[Linda7NJ]

On track

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/green8.htm


http://www.corpus-delicti.com/ressler_jbr.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

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 one’s 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. “

Here’s 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 won’t carry any significance. OTOH, if one interprets that 2 or 3 Rs were involved in the cause and/or concealment of JB’s death, then the video message about attention becomes very interesting. (E.g., John Douglas focusing only on JR arrives at the conclusion he wasn’t involved. Douglas then does not separately interview or consider Ms. West Virginia or her young son. Douglas’ conclusion is the Rs weren’t involved.)

Since I hadn’t 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. It’s one of the reasons I continue to visit the forum, I keep thinking maybe I didn’t see the guy in the hairy suit (something obvious), and it would point me to more understanding.

In a next post I’ll provide something additional which will, for sure, be interpreted according to one’s perspective. moo

:lol: my son who is 12 showed me that video several months ago. I was off by 2 when counting the passes, yet I immediately saw the big hairy guy...what does that mean? :lol:

 

[pukasonqo2]

Im sorry. 911? No. That is not part of this case. That has nothing to do with this.



Lets keep on track here.

i think the point in the post by 2percent is that the FBI missed the ball in 9/11 as did the CIA. we know 9/11 has nothing to do with JB but it comes to show that, like anything or anybody else, the FBI makes mistakes. 2 percent was responding to your post were you stated that you "have faith in the most outstanding law keeping body we have in America?"


lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[Linda7NJ]

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

 

[bettybaby00]

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

Some interesting comments, most noteably:

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.

I could swear someone recently strongly dismissed another LEOs statement stating the Rs did it b/c they used similar language?

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.

Also IIRC' Douglas also had admitted he had based his decision about the parents based solely on the info provided by the Rs defense team.

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.

I think it's safe to say that RDI believe this completely.

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."

Pretty much sums up how I feel.

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

 

[Theonly1]

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.

In fairness, I think almost everyone's "reliability standards" here seem to be skewed to their own theories. Just moo.

I at least tend to listen to other people before just dropping, "They are not credible (i.e. Thomas, kolar, arndt, et al.)."

When the FBI allegedly agrees with part of favored theory, then the find FBI credible. When FBI disagrees with pet theory, then FBI not credible.

Rinse. Wash. Repeat. It gets old. If we are not willing to really listen to each others' theories why are we here?

 

[Linda7NJ]

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

 

[DeeDee249]

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

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.

 

[Mama2JML]

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

"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/

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

Didn't JonBenet's pediatrician also prescribe medication for Patsy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

"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/

That quote was taken out of context. IMO

John Ramsey was a Navy Seal??

Why didn't I know that?

"Former FBI agent and expert criminal profiler, Robert Ressler believes that:

JonBenet knew her killer
the killer could have come from a small circle of friends around the Ramsey home in Boulder
the circle would include family, neighbors, and employees of the Ramseys."


http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/it_5.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

Knowing now that John Douglas based his opinion on his four and a half hour interview with the Ramsey couple and what "evidence" the Ramsey defense team told him. Does that change your mind even a little?
Especially when contrasted against the two other FBI that actually studied the evidence?

Surely, you would have to admit Douglas was at a severe professional disadvantage when he have his "opinion"



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pukasonqo2]

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.

thanks deedee249!
i simply had no idea about the doctor's attitude, he should have been in a lot of trouble with that attitude and the threat to burn his records; seems that he forgot that part of his oath"do not do harm" and that he was meant to report any suspicion of child abuse
another adult who failed JB


lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[RANCH]

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.

BBM

I thought that a police officer or a DA would request a subpoena from a Judge and it would be up to the Judge to grant the subpoena.

 

[noneareworthy]

I think that the Ramseys will always be suspect due to the fact that they went to elaborate extremes to hide information, kept themselves from the types of interrogations all of us would've been required to participate in, were questioned together with prepared questions (isn't the first rule of interrogation to separate the witnesses?), etc etc. had they come clean with whatever it was they were concealing, the case may have been solved years ago--either way (one of them did it or an intruder did it).