Was Burke involved?

[BOESP]

It suggests nothing because I actually believe she did give an exemplar very early on. Not to mention the fact that they allowed the BPD to seize any written materials from their home. Cina Wong and I quote "does not meet the standards of a forensic document examiner as accepted by the profession". That's a statement by Gideon Epstein who was ruled in by the courts as an expert AND believed PR wrote the note. Wong is self appointed expert who has no professional qualifications and her findings should be marginalized. I state this just to let you know the facts.
As far as the FBI goes well John Douglas led the FBI's behavioral science unit and actually spent time with the Ramsey's on more than one occasion. His conclusions were that they had nothing to do with the crime. I invite you to read his take on it in a book entitled The cases that haunt us. He makes some excellent points in there.
I'm hardly a novice to this case. I've read Thomas' book, the Ramsey's book, Schiller's book and I've ordered Kolar's book which I'm looking forward to reading.

The FBI's behavioral science unit and their questioned documents unit are two different sectors, totally disparate.

Thanks for the suggestion but I've read "Cases That Haunt Us." He didn't seem to practice what he preaches.

As an aside, my reading suggestions were for ScarlettScarpetta. Glad to hear you are so knowledgeable about this case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Slam dunk? No one said it was. It is one piece of data (information) that is viable and points toward Patsy Ramsey. Apparently you are looking for evidence to prove what you already believe to the exclusion of anything that disagrees with your preconceived notion but that's your prerogative.

No. Really I am not.. I understand how evidence is pieced together to make a case, My problem is that I find problems with each piece so that adds to less likely to me.

I don't ever want to believe a parent or sibling would do this but I am willing to be open to it. I am not stuck in the mud in my beliefs when it comes to this case. I am open to see the other side. I am always open to be lead to the other side.

I just have things that just don't make sense for me about this crime.

And I can find nothing that points me to Burke.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

The FBI's behavioral science unit and their questioned documents unit are two different sectors, totally disparate.

Thanks for the suggestion but I've read "Cases That Haunt Us." He didn't seem to practice what he preaches.

As an aside, my reading suggestions were for ScarlettScarpetta. Glad to hear you are so knowledgeable about this case.

Not sure what you mean by he doesn't practice what he preaches. As far as I know the FBI did not do a comparison of the RN and exemplars. They simply worked up a profile based on the RN itself. Of far more importance is the findings of initial forensic doc examiners used by the BPD. Five of whom are members of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, the only recognized licensing agency. These 6 individuals ruled out JR as the author of the note and virtually eliminated PR as well. A couple didn't rule her out entirely but she was far down on the scale. These people had the actual RN to work with. There were other examiners brought in later by Darnay Hoffman to look at PR again. These people had varying qualifications, some not at all, that thought PR wrote the note. They didn't have the actual RN to work with. Their findings should be given much less weight IMO.

 

[BOESP]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121568"]The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]



The above is a good discussion of the ransom note analysis.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



The above is a good discussion of the ransom note analysis.

Thanks, I've seen most of the arguments for PR writing the note. I'll stick with the findings of the pros. There are other reasons as to why I don't think she wrote the note. I'm of the mind that whoever wrote it, wrote it before the murder. The note is too well thought out what with the movie references and simply too long. I don't see any of the Ramseys being able to compose this after just killing their daughter. Also, half the time PR was on TV she was clearly heavily medicated. I doubt she would risk going on live TV in that state if she was guilty. God only know what she might blab. I could go on and on. I'm not 100% sure it was an intruder just like James Kolar said he isn't a 100% sure it wasn't. Nobody could be absolutely sure of anything in this case. I've just yet to see any compelling evidence to believe it was a Ramsey, etc.

 

[questfortrue]

Only for an alternate viewpoint (eliminating Cina Wong, as she did not meet the court forensic standards you quoted), all five of the rest of these examiners believed PR to be the author. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404&page=3
But because I don’t have access to the BPD initial doc examiners you referred, and considering that you may have the BPD documentation, that would be vital information to provide. Respectfully, please source your information about the BPD’s forensic examiners, the RN and PR.

 

[BOESP]

Thanks, I've seen most of the arguments for PR writing the note. I'll stick with the findings of the pros. There are other reasons as to why I don't think she wrote the note. I'm of the mind that whoever wrote it, wrote it before the murder. The note is too well thought out what with the movie references and simply too long. I don't see any of the Ramseys being able to compose this after just killing their daughter. Also, half the time PR was on TV she was clearly heavily medicated. I doubt she would risk going on live TV in that state if she was guilty. God only know what she might blab. I could go on and on. I'm not 100% sure it was an intruder just like James Kolar said he isn't a 100% sure it wasn't. Nobody could be absolutely sure of anything in this case. I've just yet to see any compelling evidence to believe it was a Ramsey, etc.

BBM. So you are ignoring the pros who don't agree with you. Fine with me.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

Only for an alternate viewpoint (eliminating Cina Wong, as she did not meet the court forensic standards you quoted), all five of the rest of these examiners believed PR to be the author. http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404&page=3
But because I don’t have access to the BPD initial doc examiners you referred, and considering that you may have the BPD documentation, that would be vital information to provide. Respectfully, please source your information about the BPD’s forensic examiners, the RN and PR.

Here, it's from the same website I provided earlier. there is a lot of good info there.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682496/Patsy Ramsey as RN Author

Note that the original 6 eliminated her or did not have enough to state conclusively that she did it. The others you are referring to are those that were brought in later with various "credentials". Epstein had the best but he didn't think many of these others were qualified. None of these that you are referring to had the actual RN to work with which I think is significant.

 

[BOESP]

Additional discussions on the handwriting analysis:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=115065"]Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Page 3 - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[otg]

It suggests nothing because I actually believe she did give an exemplar very early on. Not to mention the fact that they allowed the BPD to seize any written materials from their home. Cina Wong and I quote "does not meet the standards of a forensic document examiner as accepted by the profession". That's a statement by Gideon Epstein who was ruled in by the courts as an expert AND believed PR wrote the note.

Actually, it’s like this: Epstein and Wong are both very qualified at what they do. They each belong to a different organization which accredits their qualifications and competancy. There is probably a bit of rivalry between the two organizations. Wong is a “Board Certified Forensic Handwriting Expert and Document Examiner” -- that board being The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners which is accredited by The Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board. Epstein belongs to The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. According to its website, membership in the original informal organization was entirely by invitation; and in 1942, fifteen of its members formally organized it into the present day ASQDE -- but it is not accredited by the FSAB, and its membership is still by invitation only.

Wong is self appointed expert who has no professional qualifications and her findings should be marginalized. I state this just to let you know the facts.

Nothing could be further from the truth than every word of the above statement (I just thought I’d state this to let everyone know the actual facts -- not what a rival might have said in an attempt to discredit her.

As far as the FBI goes well John Douglas led the FBI's behavioral science unit and actually spent time with the Ramsey's on more than one occasion. His conclusions were that they had nothing to do with the crime. I invite you to read his take on it in a book entitled The cases that haunt us. He makes some excellent points in there.

Douglas admitted later that he had never spoken with Patsy, and that his opinion was based only on the information he was provided by JR’s lawyers and an interview with JR (only). At least a couple of his peers (one of whom turned down the job before Douglas accepted it) have spoken out against what he did in this case. They've said he violated the basics of his very own principles -- I've said he simply sold his soul to the devil.

 

[ItWasAnIntruder]

Actually, it’s like this: Epstein and Wong are both very qualified at what they do. They each belong to a different organization which accredits their qualifications and competancy. There is probably a bit of rivalry between the two organizations. Wong is a “Board Certified Forensic Handwriting Expert and Document Examiner” -- that board being The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners which is accredited by The Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board. Epstein belongs to The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. According to its website, membership in the original informal organization was entirely by invitation; and in 1942, fifteen of its members formally organized it into the present day ASQDE -- but it is not accredited by the FSAB, and its membership is still by invitation only.


Man you are dead wrong, here are the facts about Wong:

Wong Qualifications

Her report to Darnay Hoffman lists her as a Court Qualified Board Certified Document Examiner Her deposition in the Chris Wolf case, (posted at jonbenetindexguide.com and Starting Over-JonBenet), provides extensive details about her background.
No Professional Credentials. Furthermore, Judge Julie Carnes noted that "Wong has never taken a certification exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, been an apprentice to an ABFDE certified document examiner, or worked in a crime lab. (Wong Dep. at 87-112.) She does, however, claim nearly ten years of experience in the field. (Pl.'s Br. In Opp. To Defs.' Mot. In Limine 87 at 9.)"
Not a Member of ABFDE. "She, however, is not a member of the ABFDE, the sole recognized organization for accreditation of qualified forensic document examiners. Although she is the former vice president of the National Association of Document Examiners ("NADE"), (PSDMF P 2), defendants note that this organization does not meet ABFDE certification requirements, has no permanent office and has no membership requirements other than the payment of a fee. (Defs.' Mot. In Limine 68 at 6.) Wong, herself, admits that NADE does not require specialized training or experience for its certification. (Wong Dep. at 87-89.)
Gideon Epstein Testifies Wong Not Qualified. In his deposition in the Wolf v. Ramsey case, Epstein, a handwriting expert testifying against the Ramseys said of Cina Wong that "she does not meet the standards of a forensic document examiner as accepted by the profession" (p. 167:23-25). Epstein also rendered a scathing opinion of NADE in the same deposition (summarized here.
Alex Hunter Claims Wong Lacks Credibility. However, "in September 1998, Ms. Wong wrote District Attorney Hunter, Assistant District Attorney Michael Kane, and Judge Roxanne Bailin, asking to testify before the Grand Jury. (SMF P 347; PSMF P 347.) "By letter dated January 20, 1999, Mr. Hunter rejected the request, informing Ms. Wong that it was his opinion that she did not use scientifically reliable methods, her testimony would be inadmissible, and that she lacked credibility. (SMF P 348; PSMF P 348.)" (Carnes 2003:41).
Carnes Rules Wong Not Qualified. "Accordingly, the Court concludes Ms. Wong is not qualified to provide reliable handwriting analysis in this case." [Emphasis added] (Carnes 2003:57)

that link can be found here:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682496/Patsy Ramsey as RN Author




Nothing could be further from the truth than every word of the above statement (I just thought I’d state this to let everyone know the actual facts -- not what a rival might have said in an attempt to discredit her.




Douglas admitted later that he had never spoken with Patsy, and that his opinion was based only on the information he was provided by JR’s lawyers and an interview with JR (only). At least a couple of his peers (one of whom turned down the job before Douglas accepted it) have spoken out against what he did in this case. They've said he violated the basics of his very own principles -- I've said he simply sold his soul to the devil.

In his book he states very clearly that he spoke to JR alone and then PR with JR present. He also stated he visited with them in Atlanta and questioned them further at a later date. Now if he's lying in his book I'd like you to prove it and cite the source please. Unlike you I'm citing sources, where are you getting this claptrap?

 

[questfortrue]

Here, it's from the same website I provided earlier. there is a lot of good info there.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682496/Patsy Ramsey as RN Author

Note that the original 6 eliminated her or did not have enough to state conclusively that she did it. The others you are referring to are those that were brought in later with various "credentials". Epstein had the best but he didn't think many of these others were qualified. None of these that you are referring to had the actual RN to work with which I think is significant.

Thank you for providing the link for your source. It sounds like you’ve done a lot of research and have come by your conclusions honestly. The information on the website you sourced raised a couple of questions for me which I mention below. (Not to attempt to persuade you or challenge your opinion, or anything like that.) I’m writing up some of this information from this website as an attempt to provide some additional knowledge for other curious websleuthers about the civil suit testimony. ‘Course when people discuss Judge Carnes, it is always caveated that this judge never saw or heard the BPD’s other forensic evidence.

Let’s acknowledge that those who believe IDI, will look at this evidence one way and those (like me, who are RDI posters) will evaluate the evidence from this website differently. We’re just posters here who actually only have 10% of the real evidence.

The info on this website was from the case of R’s vs. Chris Wolf suit, a civil trial in Georgia .

One small correction to Itwasanintruder’s information is the mention of the number (6) six listed as providing evidence favorable to PR. Technically correct, but of these there were only 4 examiners who were “consulted” by the BPD/BDA and who were unable to identify PR in a court of law as the writer of the RN. The other two experts (of these 6) were hired by the defense, so their conclusion would be expected to rule in favor of the R’s. (It’s kind of the way it is with expert witnesses anyway. Each side has theirs. I’m aware that these examiners have high ethical standards, but paid experts for either defense or plaintiffs are selected to provide testimony favorable to the side they represent. )

So only two experts hired by BPD/BPD gave testimony unfavorable to PR. So that’s 4 on PR side and 2 against. The names of these 4 experts providing favorable- to- PR testimony were Dusak, Ubowski, Speklin and Alford.

Ironically one of these 4 was Chet Ubowski, of CBI who was not able to provide an ironclad statement in Carnes’ court to support a conclusion that PR wrote the note. Ubowski is said to have found 24 of 26 letters in the RN which matched exemplars from PR. Also, Ubowski was the only one to testify before the grand jury. And we already know what happened out of the grand jury. Ubowski further claimed that out of 100 people he analyzed for the BPD he found only one person whom he thought may have authored the document - PR. MHO, that diminishes the “gold star standard” of full endorsement (by Ubowski) that PR did not write the note, leaving a 3 against 3 of the handwriting experts consulted or hired by the BPD/BDA.

But to return to the other 3 who said PR didn’t write it. Dusak concluded there was not enough evidence to indicate that PR executed the RN. The expert Alford, provided essentially the same opinion as Dusak.

Speklin, the 4th examiner, said that the differences between the writing of PR handwriting and the author of the RN prevented him from identifying her as the author, but he was unable to eliminate her. Specklin was ready to testify that there was only an infinitesimal chance that an intruder would have handwriting characteristics so like PR’s.

According to Judge Carnes and the view of many experts seeing the original RN and original exemplars makes a difference. Itwasanintruder would be correct in that. But it doesn’t make the other experts wrong who testified for the plaintiff (Chris Wolf). It was Carnes decision and not the decision of a judge/ jury in a criminal trial. Had this gone to trial, most likely any experts hired by BPD/BDA would have had opportunity to see the RN and exemplars in person.

On to AH – he gave a deposition in this civil case and acknowledged that these 4 experts (the 4 from the BPD/BDA) had concluded the chances of PR writing the note were “very low” and also asserted there were other individuals who were under suspicion whose handwriting was analyzed that were not eliminated as the author of the note. (OK, just to flame the fire a little for those of you who know AH’s history in this case!)

My conclusion, if this had gone to trial, a jury member would have to Buy the ineptness of the many other experts who believe PR to have been the author of this note. I guess like BOESP notes, one can pick the experts one chooses. It makes no difference here.

 

[cynic]

This reminds me how much damage people like John Douglas and Lou Smit have done to this case.
Lou Smit’s opinion was clouded by his religious “connection” with the Ramseys, and John Douglas’ opinion was clouded by the fact that he was hired by the Ramseys and further blurred by the outright lies that he was fed by the Ramsey team.
The most blatant lie that helped form Douglas’ incorrect opinion(s) centered around the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped in.
John Douglas was told by the Ramsey team that a blanket was essentially thrown over top of the body of JonBenet. This is patently false.

This is what Douglas was told:

For one thing, the body was not protectively wrapped as I would expect to find in a parental murder. It was haphazardly draped, with the arms and feet sticking out. In all probability, the intruder intended to use the blanket to carry JonBenet out of the house. This is in no way similar to the almost hermetic wrapping or sealing I have often seen.
The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas, page 285

This is the truth regarding the blanket:

Earlier, when White had opened that same door, he had been unable to see anything in the stygian darkness. John Ramsey was kneeling beside his daughter, feeling her ashen face. A piece of black duct tape lay on the blanket, and a long cord was attached to her right wrist. Nearby was a pink nightgown. White, who had never before touched a dead person, felt JonBenét’s cold ankle, turned, and ran for help. John Ramsey picked up his daughter, who had been carefully wrapped, papoose-like, in a white blanket, and followed.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 29

LOU SMIT: Again, you had mentioned the fact that the blanket had been wrapped around her almost like, what did you describe it as?
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, she looked very, like someone had very carefully placed her on the blanket, wrapped the blanket around her to keep her warm.
John Ramsey interview, June 1998

MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it
like –
RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
MIKE KANE: Okay.
JOHN RAMSEY: You know, the blanket was under her completely. It was brought up and folded over like that.
MIKE KANE: Folded over, okay.
John Ramsey interview, August 2000, Atlanta


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2SwkXfkdyWc


Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
"Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
"Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."

Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
"Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."
Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

Also…

A criminal profiler who turned down an invitation to work for JonBenet Ramsey's family dismissed a portrait of the killer they released Wednesday as ``silly.''
``It's really fairly juvenile,'' said former FBI criminal profiler Gregg McCrary.
John and Patsy Ramsey's legal team asked McCrary in January to develop a profile of JonBenet's killer. McCrary, believing the killer would prove to be someone close to the family, declined.
Rocky Mountain News, July 24, 1997

John Douglas would have agreed if he wasn’t paid by the Ramseys to give an opinion contrary to everything he knew about murder within a family and staging:

"The child was found buried in the woods in his snowsuit, wrapped in a blanket, then completely covered with a thick plastic bag. A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and "comfortable," or to try to shelter the body from the elements. While many murder scenes show obvious and prolonged rage, and dump sites often show contempt and hostility, the hallmarks of this burial were love and guilt."
Mindhunter, page 287 (John Douglas)

STEVE THOMAS: Well, that's certainly -- the colleagues, John Douglas' former colleagues in the FBI are not of that opinion. It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html


Douglas also wrote that holidays were particularly stressful times and could trigger violent behavior. JonBenét was killed over Christmas.
Douglas stated that in parental murders, great care is usually shown in the disposal of the body. JonBenét had been carefully tucked into a blanket in a cellar room, and not
discarded outside in the freezing cold.
John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass. The dust jacket of his next book identified him as a consultant on the JonBenét Ramsey case. It did not say for which side
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 137

Also have a look here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126539"]The “Undoing” of the Ramseys. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[questfortrue]

This reminds me how much damage people like John Douglas and Lou Smit have done to this case.
Lou Smit’s opinion was clouded by his religious “connection” with the Ramseys, and John Douglas’ opinion was clouded by the fact that he was hired by the Ramseys and further blurred by the outright lies that he was fed by the Ramsey team.
The most blatant lie that helped form Douglas’ incorrect opinion(s) centered around the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped in.
John Douglas was told by the Ramsey team that a blanket was essentially thrown over top of the body of JonBenet. This is patently false.

This is what Douglas was told:

For one thing, the body was not protectively wrapped as I would expect to find in a parental murder. It was haphazardly draped, with the arms and feet sticking out. In all probability, the intruder intended to use the blanket to carry JonBenet out of the house. This is in no way similar to the almost hermetic wrapping or sealing I have often seen.
The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas, page 285

This is the truth regarding the blanket:

Earlier, when White had opened that same door, he had been unable to see anything in the stygian darkness. John Ramsey was kneeling beside his daughter, feeling her ashen face. A piece of black duct tape lay on the blanket, and a long cord was attached to her right wrist. Nearby was a pink nightgown. White, who had never before touched a dead person, felt JonBenét’s cold ankle, turned, and ran for help. John Ramsey picked up his daughter, who had been carefully wrapped, papoose-like, in a white blanket, and followed.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 29

LOU SMIT: Again, you had mentioned the fact that the blanket had been wrapped around her almost like, what did you describe it as?
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, she looked very, like someone had very carefully placed her on the blanket, wrapped the blanket around her to keep her warm.
John Ramsey interview, June 1998

MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it
like –
RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
MIKE KANE: Okay.
JOHN RAMSEY: You know, the blanket was under her completely. It was brought up and folded over like that.
MIKE KANE: Folded over, okay.
John Ramsey interview, August 2000, Atlanta


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2SwkXfkdyWc


Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
"Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
"Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."

Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
"Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."
Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

Also…

A criminal profiler who turned down an invitation to work for JonBenet Ramsey's family dismissed a portrait of the killer they released Wednesday as ``silly.''
``It's really fairly juvenile,'' said former FBI criminal profiler Gregg McCrary.
John and Patsy Ramsey's legal team asked McCrary in January to develop a profile of JonBenet's killer. McCrary, believing the killer would prove to be someone close to the family, declined.
Rocky Mountain News, July 24, 1997

John Douglas would have agreed if he wasn’t paid by the Ramseys to give an opinion contrary to everything he knew about murder within a family and staging:

"The child was found buried in the woods in his snowsuit, wrapped in a blanket, then completely covered with a thick plastic bag. A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and "comfortable," or to try to shelter the body from the elements. While many murder scenes show obvious and prolonged rage, and dump sites often show contempt and hostility, the hallmarks of this burial were love and guilt."
Mindhunter, page 287 (John Douglas)

STEVE THOMAS: Well, that's certainly -- the colleagues, John Douglas' former colleagues in the FBI are not of that opinion. It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html


Douglas also wrote that holidays were particularly stressful times and could trigger violent behavior. JonBenét was killed over Christmas.
Douglas stated that in parental murders, great care is usually shown in the disposal of the body. JonBenét had been carefully tucked into a blanket in a cellar room, and not
discarded outside in the freezing cold.
John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass. The dust jacket of his next book identified him as a consultant on the JonBenét Ramsey case. It did not say for which side
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 137

Also have a look here:
The “Undoing” of the Ramseys. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Agree. The basis at the heart of his analysis was that the crime was so violent and he did not believe PR and JR were capable of such behavior. And Douglas was paid $100,000 to provide the R team his analysis. He said it wasn’t enough. (He should’a asked for $118,000. JR was good for it. )

 

[UKGuy]

Agree. The basis at the heart of his analysis was that the crime was so violent and he did not believe PR and JR were capable of such behavior. And Douglas was paid $100,000 to provide the R team his analysis. He said it wasn’t enough. (He should’a asked for $118,000. JR was good for it. )

questfortrue,
LOL, soo funny. Yes Douglas sold himself short. For $100,000 I can offer an expert opinion which will be guaranteed to please.


Douglas is a very clever guy, he has degrees and diplomas coming out of his ears. So clever he would understand completely what he was being paid $100,000 for. No prayer sessions required.

Bear in mind Douglas was consulted in this case by both the prosecution and the defense.

So he knew the relevant facts!


.

 

[madeleine]

piece of JD's own work


Staging
When investigators approach a crime scene, they should look for behavioral "clues" left by the offender. This is when investigators attempt to find answers to several critical questions. How did the encounter between the offender and victim occur? Did the offender blitz (ambush) the victim, or did he use verbal means (the con) to capture her? Did the offender use ligatures to control the victim? What was the sequence of events? Was the victim sexually assaulted before or after death? When did the mutilation take place--before or after death? Did the offender place any item at the crime scene or remove something from the crime scene?

As investigators analyze crime scenes, facts may arise that baffle them. These details may contain peculiarities that serve no apparent purpose in the perpetration2 of the crime and obscure the underlying motive of the crime. This confusion may be the result of a crime scene behavior called staging. Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.

Reasons for Staging
Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.

The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim's family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities. This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds the body. Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the victim. For example, a husband may redress or cover his wife's body, or in the case of an autoerotic fatality,3 a wife may cut the noose or the device suspending the body of her husband.

Basically, these people are trying to prevent future shock that may be brought about by the position, dress, or condition of the victim. In addition, they will often stage an autoerotic fatality to look like a suicide, perhaps even writing a suicide note. They may even go so far as to the make it appear to be a homicide.

For both types of crime scene investigations, rape-murders and autoerotic fatalities, investigators need to obtain an accurate description of the body's condition when found and to determine exactly what the person who found the body did to alter the crime scene. Scrutiny of forensic findings, crime scene dynamics, and victimology will probably reveal the true circumstances surrounding the deaths.

Finally, at some crime scenes, investigators must discern if the scene is truly disorganized or if the offender staged it to appear careless and haphazard. This determination not only helps to direct the analysis to the underlying motive but also helps to shape the offender profile. However, recognition of staging, especially with a shrewd offender, can be difficult. Investigators must examine all factors of the crime if they suspect it has been staged. This is when forensics, victimology, and minute crime scene details become critical to determine if staging occurred.

"Red Flags"
Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. In so doing, offenders experience a great deal of stress and do not have the time to fit all the pieces together logically. As a result, inconsistencies in forensic findings and in the overall "big picture" of the crime scene will begin to appear. These inconsistencies can serve as the "red flags" of staging, which serve to prevent investigations from becoming misguided.

To ensure this doesn't happen, investigators should scrutinize all crime scene indicators individually, then view them in context with the total picture. Crime scene indicators include all evidence of offender activity, e.g., method of entry, offender-victim interaction, and body disposition.
When exploring these issues, investigators should consider several factors. For example, if burglary appears to be the motive, did the offender take inappropriate items from the crime scene? In one case submitted to the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), a man returning home from work interrupted a burglary in progress. The startled burglars killed him as he attempted to flee. But, an inventory of the crime scene determined that the offenders did not steal anything, although it did appear that they started to disassemble a large stereo and TV unit.

Further examination of the crime scene revealed that they left smaller, and easily transported, items of far greater value (jewelry, coin collection, etc.). The police subsequently determined that the victim's wife paid the burglars to stage the crime and kill her husband. She, in fact, was having an affair with one of the suspects.

Another factor to consider is the point of entry. Did the point of entry make sense? For example, did the offender enter the house through a second-story window, even though there was an easier, less conspicuous entrance that could have been used? Why did the offender increase his chance of being seen by potential witnesses who might alert authorities?

Investigators should also consider whether the offender put himself at high risk by committing the crime during the daylight hours, in a populated area. If the crime scene is a place of residence, they should also evaluate any obvious signs of occupancy, such as lights on in the house, vehicles in the driveway, etc.




Forensic "Red Flags"
Forensic results that don't fit the crime should also cause investigators to consider staging. Personal assaults should raise suspicion, especially if material gain appears to be the initial motive. These assaults could include the use of a weapon of opportunity, manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating (depersonalization), and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (overkill). In other words, do the injuries fit the crime?

Sexual and domestic homicides usually demonstrate forensic findings of a close-range, personal assault. The victim, not money or property, is the primary focus of the offender. However, this type of offender will often attempt to stage a sexual or domestic homicide that appears to be motivated by personal gain. This does not imply that personal assaults never happen while a property crime is being committed, but usually these offenders prefer quick, clean kills that reduce the time spent at the scene.

Forensic red flags are also raised when there are discrepancies between witness/survivor accounts and forensics results. For example, in one case, an estranged wife found her husband in the tub with the water running. Initially, it appeared as if he slipped and struck his head on a bathroom fixture, which resulted in his death by drowning. However, toxicological reports from the autopsy showed a high level of valium in the victim's blood. Also, the autopsy revealed several concentrated areas of injury or impact points on the head, as if the victim struck his head more than once.

Subsequently, investigators learned that the wife had been with the victim on the evening of his death. She later confessed that she laced his dinner salad with valium, and when he passed out, she let three men into the house. These men had been hired by the wife to kill the victim and to make it look like an accident.

Often, investigators will find forensic discrepancies when an offender stages a rape-murder, that is, positioning the body to infer sexual assault. And if the offender has a close relationship with the victim, he will only partially remove the victim's clothing, never leaving her completely nude. However, despite the position of the body and the removal of some of the victim's clothes, an autopsy can confirm or deny whether any form of sexual assault took place, thereby determining if the crime scene was staged.

If investigators suspect a crime has been staged, they should look for signs of association between the offender and the victim. Or, as is frequently the case with domestic violence, the involvement of a third party, who is usually the one who discovers the victim. For example, in the case involving the husband who staged his wife's murder to make it look like the crime was committed by an intruder, the husband did not immediately check on his wife and daughter once he regained consciousness. Instead, he remained downstairs and called his brother, who went upstairs and discovered the victim. Offenders will often manipulate the discovery of victims by a neighbor or family member, or conveniently be elsewhere when the victim is discovered.

 

[madeleine]

JD is not a stupid man/expert...I've read some of his work and liked it....but hey,it's understandable what he did..he was brought in/paid by the R team...he couldn't just have said,yep,I think they did it...he tried to do the best he could under the circumstances and came up with the most logical IDI theory IMO...if IDI (which I don't believe but for the sake of argument) yeah ,someone hating JR makes the most sense.He wasn't called in to help catch an intruder but to help built a defence so why even bother much...it's what defence experts unfortunately do ...make some cash and put themselves in the spotlight while twisting the truth...

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Well I was doing some searching, and I found a picture on FB from February 2013 where both DS and Burke commented on a picture by (I'm pretty sure) JonBenet and Burke's cousin, so it looks like the two families are still close.

 

[Chelly]

Well I was doing some searching, and I found a picture on FB from February 2013 where both DS and Burke commented on a picture by (I'm pretty sure) JonBenet and Burke's cousin, so it looks like the two families are still close.

Isn't that interesting? A lifetime bond between DS and BR?

 

[UKGuy]

Isn't that interesting? A lifetime bond between DS and BR?

Chelly,
Oh so interesting. I make their lifetime bond an item of consideration in my basic BDI.

Also I reckon they will read at the boards that name them as conspirators!


.