What do the profilers say?

[tipper]

[...]

Secondly, the "threats" of violence in that note made the experts laugh. It was clearly someone writing trying to appear as someone who was tough. Writing what they THOUGHT a tough kidnapper would write. But no one writes long, rambling kidnap for ransom notes like that. The sheer length of the note (letter) was a huge red flag that it was bogus. ("thou doth protest too much Patsy!)

How about Leopold and Loeb?

"IF" JonBenet were dead? Huh? She WAS dead! And she was dead when the note was written. The note was written BECAUSE she was dead!
"How do I explain this horrific accident turned deadly???"
There was no extortion.
No money was ever sought. Period. To this day.

Weren't there 2 hang-up calls that morning?

The Ramsey's didn't "point to themselves" on purpose by wiping her down (according to the coroner) - but a case is built on FACTS. And it is a FACT that she was molested, wiped down, panties pulled back up, redressed, laid on a blanket and covered/wrapped up like a baby.
NOT something a dangerous predator pedophile kidnapper who doesn't bother to take the child out of the home person would do. Because they DON't EXIST!
There is only so much ANY criminal or killer can do to cover up their crime.
To ask why they did something that would "point to them" - well it's because THEY DID THE CRIME!! AND COVER-UP! (duh)
[...]

Not exactly like a baby. When you wrap a baby the feet are covered.
It's possible the killer did feel remorse. Perhaps he hadn't really intended for her to get hurt. Perhaps he'd never killed before and the reality was more than he thought it would be.

How many parents molest their children as part of a cover-up to murder?

I think the note was written ahead of the murder

 

[narlacat]

QUOTE<<Weren't there 2 hang-up calls that morning?<<

I thought there was only one?
Where did you read that Tipper?

 

[BlueCrab]

I'd like to know which expert 'laughed' at the part of the ransom note threatening to 'behead' a six year old.

Holdontoyourhat,

The detectives shook their heads and were especially amused by the "small foreign faction" mentioned in the ridiculous "ransom" note (the source is somewhere in PMPT). No one of authority, including the BPD and the FBI, believed for even a minute that the note was a real ransom note. It was childishly worded with all of its silly threats and didn't make any sense since the collateral for the $118,000 (the body) was left in the house.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

QUOTE<<Weren't there 2 hang-up calls that morning?<<

I thought there was only one?
Where did you read that Tipper?

Could have been one. I was thinking two but perhaps I'm mixing in Shirley Brady's call.

 

[aussiesheila]

The ransom note was bogus and written by Patsy

There was never any intending kidnapper who was ever going to telephone about collecting any ransom

There was simply of group of pedophiles who just wanted to molest JonBenet again a little bit and didn't mean for her to be killed

There was a newcomer to the group who was only supposed to be joining in for some molestation but who turned out to be a vicious killer

After the psychpath killed JonBenet her distraught adoring Santa wrapped his darling little angel's body in her little white blanket

And Patsy covered up for him and the other regular members of the group




The above explains the absurdity and the lengthiness of the note and how it came to be lying exactly where Patsy would 'find' it in the morning

It explains why you can have on the one hand evidence of the work of a vicious killer and on the other the work of a loving caring person, albeit a very sick one.

It explains why JonBenet was molested AND killed in her own home

It explains why no motive for the killing can be found - accidental killing do not have motives

 

[Brefie]

The ransom note was bogus and written by Patsy

There was never any intending kidnapper who was ever going to telephone about collecting any ransom

There was simply of group of pedophiles who just wanted to molest JonBenet again a little bit and didn't mean for her to be killed

There was a newcomer to the group who was only supposed to be joining in for some molestation but who turned out to be a vicious killer

After the psychpath killed JonBenet her distraught adoring Santa wrapped his darling little angel's body in her little white blanket

And Patsy covered up for him and the other regular members of the group




The above explains the absurdity and the lengthiness of the note and how it came to be lying exactly where Patsy would 'find' it in the morning

It explains why you can have on the one hand evidence of the work of a vicious killer and on the other the work of a loving caring person, albeit a very sick one.

It explains why JonBenet was molested AND killed in her own home

It explains why no motive for the killing can be found - accidental killing do not have motives

Pity it don't explain the absurdity of the theory.

Pity it don't explain why Patsy would cover for a stranger.

Pity it don't explain why Santa was molesting JB if he 'adored' her.

How many people are supposed to have arrived and left the Ramsey house without being noticed by anyone?

How many people are involved in this murder and how the he!! has NOT ONE PERSON ever let anything slip??

 

[concernedperson]

I don't think one can assume that everyone in the USA, in 1996, including JR and PR would know that kidnapping is an "automatic FBI invitation".

This may be the post of the century. Thanks! I believe in levity and your post surely shows that.

 

[IrishMist]

I don't think one can assume that everyone in the USA, in 1996, including JR and PR would know that kidnapping is an "automatic FBI invitation".

This may be the post of the century. Thanks! I believe in levity and your post surely shows that.

I think she was being serious, Concered Person, and I also agree with her. Unless you follow true crime- which alot of people don't- I'm not so sure that JR and/or PR would know that the FBI automatically get involved.

 

[Brefie]

I didn't know the FBI automatically got involved.

 

[Camper]

I didn't know the FBI automatically got involved.

Hey Brefie, how are you? Are you still not doing what you wanted to not do, hope so.

FBI gets involved ASAP, a law that was enacted after the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped. I did not Google it, but am sure could find the info on line.

My recollection is that the FBI man that came the morning of the 26th and was shooed away by LE, said, "Look at the family".

imop, 'THAT', ransom note might as well have had a flashing neon light attached to it with an arrow pointing at someone in the house that morning.



.


.

 

[tipper]

I recall something about when a kidnapping happens it is assumed that crossing state lines is involved. It doesn't have to be proven or specifically suspected in a particular crime. That’s so the FBI gets involved from the start.

I was interested that in the second article the FBI says to call them directly. Nothing about local police or 911. Perhaps they’re afraid some other police department has also lost their Kidnapping Manual.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569691_3/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation.html
In the 1930s Congress made a number of crimes federal offenses, significantly expanding the bureau’s authority. In response to the kidnapping of the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh, Congress in 1932 passed the so-called Lindbergh Act, which made kidnapping a federal crime if the victim was transported across state lines. The law allowed the bureau to take control of the investigation and, eventually, to capture the kidnapper.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...h+act+fbi+kidnapping&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9


THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN KIDNAPPING INVESTIGATIONS:
Whenever a kidnapping takes place, it is crucial that the victim’s family immediately initiate action to help return the victim. The FBI and local law enforcement have greatly enhanced their capacity to successfully investigate such cases. Sophisticated trap and trace devices, state-of-the art physical surveillance and tracking techniques and equipment, high-tech forensic identification techniques (like DNA analysis) and advances in behavioral sciences (profiling the abductor) have enabled investigators to solve more kidnappings and bring more kidnappers to justice.

The FBI can become involved in a kidnapping under the authority of the Federal Kidnap Statute, sometimes known as Lindbergh Act. This legislation was enacted following the March 1932 kidnapping of the infant son of the aviator Charles Lindbergh, making it a Federal crime to kidnap someone and transport him or her across state lines.

The FBI encourages families to do the following:

* Telephone the FBI immediately. Local FBI offices are listed in the front of the directory. The emergency number at FBI headquarters is 1-202-324-3000.
* Maintain absolute secrecy. Do not permit any of the facts regarding the kidnapping or ransom demands to be known outside the immediate family (except the investigating officers).
* Do not touch or handle letters or communications demanding payment of the ransom. Turn these over to investigators as soon as possible.
* Neither touch nor disturb anything at the crime scene. Minute particles of evidence not visible to the human eye may be destroyed.
* Be calm and strive to maintain a normal routine.
* Place full confidence in law enforcement. In addition to photos and descriptions of the victim, it is essential that law enforcement have facts relating to personal habits, characteristics and peculiarities of the victim.

RESOURCES
There are many resources that you can use. Here are a few:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has primary jurisdiction over kidnapping in the United States:
The emergency number at FBI headquarters is 1-202-324-3000.
http://fbi.gov

 

[IrishMist]

Thanks for the info, Tipper. But now I have another question- if they have primary jurisdiction in a kidnapping case... why oh why didn't they step in and take over at the Ramsey house?

ETA: Now that I think about it, by the time they were called and showed up, it had turned into a homicide, isn't that right?

 

[tipper]

Thanks for the info, Tipper. But now I have another question- if they have primary jurisdiction in a kidnapping case... why oh why didn't they step in and take over at the Ramsey house?

ETA: Now that I think about it, by the time they were called and showed up, it had turned into a homicide, isn't that right?

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if they'd been first in the door?

I think Douglas? Ressler? said in one of their books that they try and not step on local toes. I know they were aware in the morning but, of course, once it was a homicide everything changed. Although I believe they still offered any help BPD needed.

 

[tipper]

Douglas, Ressler, and VanZandt are all FBI-types that had some involvement in JBR's murder. Probably more because it became a high-profile murder, and less because it was a kidnapping.

I meant one of them said in his book that the FBI generally tries to not step on local toes. They were talking generally, not just about Boulder or the JonBenet case. The agents in the Denver office were the ones I meant were aware of the case that morning.

My recollection is there was an agent outside the house that morning.

 

[IrishMist]

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if they'd been first in the door?

You know what? It really would have been wonderful.
And if only the BPD would have accepted their offer of help.

 

[rashomon]

First of all, your first mistake is BELIEVING Patsy Ramsey that she "found" a note on the stairs. That is a huge assumption. As there were no video cameras present to confirm her claim, we must take it with a grain of salt. As well as taking into account the fact that she'd been caught in lies regarding this case. Which of course makes everything she says suspect.

Secondly, the "threats" of violence in that note made the experts laugh. It was clearly someone writing trying to appear as someone who was tough. Writing what they THOUGHT a tough kidnapper would write. But no one writes long, rambling kidnap for ransom notes like that. The sheer length of the note (letter) was a huge red flag that it was bogus. ("thou doth protest too much Patsy!)

"IF" JonBenet were dead? Huh? She WAS dead! And she was dead when the note was written. The note was written BECAUSE she was dead!
"How do I explain this horrific accident turned deadly???"
There was no extortion.
No money was ever sought. Period. To this day.

The Ramsey's didn't "point to themselves" on purpose by wiping her down (according to the coroner) - but a case is built on FACTS. And it is a FACT that she was molested, wiped down, panties pulled back up, redressed, laid on a blanket and covered/wrapped up like a baby.
NOT something a dangerous predator pedophile kidnapper who doesn't bother to take the child out of the home person would do. Because they DON't EXIST!
There is only so much ANY criminal or killer can do to cover up their crime.
To ask why they did something that would "point to them" - well it's because THEY DID THE CRIME!! AND COVER-UP! (duh)

This was no "foriegner" who committed this crime and cover-up.
The note was written as the experts have said, by an educated caucasian woman who was panicked. Period.
And Patsy's signature is all over that note in her linguistics and style not to mention that her disguised handwriting, try as she might, could never be eliminated as authorship. Hmmm.... and given those things she just also happened to be IN THE HOUSE that night by her own admission!
Out of the 6 BILLION people on the planet.

This is not rocket science folks. :banghead:

ITA - very convincing argumentation in your post!

Arriving at such a conclusion is indeed no rocket science, but 'Occam's Razor' applied: try to look at the simple explanation first before looking at more far-fetched explanations.
And Occam's Razor aka the 'Keep it Simple' principle is the royal road to the truth in the vast majority of murder cases.
The Ramsey case is no exception.
Statistics are pretty grim: many children killed are killed by members of their own family, and the percentage is even higher when the child has been killed in its own home.
The circumstantial evidence in the JBR case only confirms this statistics:
every single shred of evidence points to no one else than the Ramseys themselves. Simple as that.

 

[JBRMod2]

Please remember that we do not tolerate sarcasm or personal attacks on this forum. We want to keep this forum on topic at all times and therefore posts containing inflammatory remarks will be deleted in their entirety.

Repeat offenders will be suspended.

 

[BlueCrab]

The consideration of the RN as 'ridiculous' or 'fake' is in fact one of the main reasons the case remains unsolved. 'Especially amused,' 'ridiculous,' and 'silly' did not appear in any articles I read that quoted any detectives or any nationally renowned experts on the murder anyway. Maybe you could source some of these?

Holdontoyourhat,

The "source" is better known as common sense.

 

[K777angel]

I'd like to know which expert 'laughed' at the part of the ransom note threatening to 'behead' a six year old. That's a really unusual threat to aim at a child, even in a coverup ransom note.

Of course "behead" is an unusual threat to aim at a child - but it is far more understandable to see it in the damage control fake note being written when the child's HEAD had just been accidentally mortally injured!! Not to mention string pulled tight around child's neck in order to present something VISIBLE to the authorities (to explain why she was dead).
It is a subconscious move on the author's part to mention the "head" part of the child. THAT is what the author was panicked over and it naturally comes out in the note. It is, IMO, another piece of linguistic evidence. And it indicates that JonBenet was already mortally wounded when the note was penned. It is WHY the note was penned.

I appreciate that you and others have a hard time characterizing the perp, but I don't. The perp used deliberate and deadly force on a child, intending to kill her. The perp writes notes that direct extreme and unusual violence at a child.
Wrong. The perp NEVER intended to "use deliberate and deadly force" on the child intending to kill her. The death was accidental in that the perp's motivation was NOT murder but a reaction to the anger he/she was experiencing at that moment. A moment he/she regrets and will regret forever. What triggered that anger remains a mystery.
The violence mentioned in the note was again a subconscious confession of what had happened to JonBenet.
The author was desperately attempting to divert attention away from the TRUTH of what had happened and as is always the case, the truth seeps into the lies.

There's so many things about this case that mystifies, when you're looking at it from RDI, like why they would do it in the first place. C'mon the R's don't even have a motive, do they.
There is no motive for death in an accident. The motive for the blow to the head was anger/rage. The OUTCOME of the blow was totally unexpected.

Things are simplified alot from IDI. For example, understanding how come the perp wasn't worried about leaving tons of handwriting evidence. The risk of leaving handwriting goes down with distance. It would be so risky to leave handwriting evidence if you lived in the same house, its unbelieveable that anyone would consider the R's actually having authored the note!

It is totally believable that one would consider the R's having authored the note because they did.
You cannot look at one fact of the case in isolation. It must be held up in context of the other facts.
The note is THE most incriminating piece of evidence against the Ramseys next to them being at the scene of the crime and admitting they were.
The very fact that a kidnap for ransom note was at the scene of the crime and yet the victim was never taken from the home nor was any money ever sought - renders the note nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
Note was not brought to crime scene.
Note penned at crime scene using pen and paper FROM home.
Pen placed back in pen cup.
Paper pad placed back.
Note had NO wrinkles nor fingerprints.
NO ONE saw that note on the stairs.
We have only Patsy's word for it.
And answer this: Just WHEN do you think this "intruder" placed that note on the stairs?
Before he went up to snatch JonBenet?
On his way down the stairs with her?
After he killed her in the basement? Then he comes BACK upstairs?
It's just a good laugh to consider ANY scenario because none of them work.
Patsy wrote that note.
Who she was covering for...that's another story.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You cannot look at one fact of the case in isolation. It must be held up in context of the other facts.

The local hemorrhaging around JBR's neck should be a clue that she was strangled with deadly force while she was still alive. Therefore there was no no staging to make an accident appear as a capital murder.