Robert Ressler on JonBenet's Murder

[JMO8778]

I'm sure he could have killed John by now, but probably wants him to watch him suffer.

ok,well,the only thing about that is,JR seems pretty darn happy.
not to mention smug as well..the sheepish little grin on his face that says he got away with all the lies tells it all.JMO.

 

[Eagle1]

ok,well,the only thing about that is,JR seems pretty darn happy.
not to mention smug as well..the sheepish little grin on his face that says he got away with all the lies tells it all.JMO.

Yes, it occured to me also that JR may not be suffering as much as the madman hoped. JR may be a little crazy too, in fact, but like you said, "sheepish", and like he said about his one-year job probation not working out, "low impact". He's definitely not a murderer. Might be counting his blessings that at least HE'S still alive even if his child isn't. He may be a total crud, besides a wimp, but not a murderer.

Even professional shrinks, which we aren't, let's remember, can't read his mind. Many of us who've known for a long time that we have a nutty enemy sabotaging our lives get smug about surviving, which gets back at him in a way, although not all the way. We may be having to wait for some justice until he's either caught for something else, like treason against the nation, stirring up terrorists, or laws change which "they say" gives certain gov't entities blanket immunity, or crime entities, of course. It's been a while since we've heard much about the mafia but probably that sort of thing is still out there.

Where I'm getting my spy idea, btw, is "Daddy's Little Princess" at www.Konformist.com , spacing twice to try to make that clickable, not just making it up in my own head. It's such a long article I didn't even read it carefully, but it's plausible. A search at that site would probably be necessary to find "Daddy's Little Princess".

 

[Solace]

Yes, it occured to me also that JR may not be suffering as much as the madman hoped. JR may be a little crazy too, in fact, but like you said, "sheepish", and like he said about his one-year job probation not working out, "low impact". He's definitely not a murderer. Might be counting his blessings that at least HE'S still alive even if his child isn't. He may be a total crud, besides a wimp, but not a murderer.

Even professional shrinks, which we aren't, let's remember, can't read his mind. Many of us who've known for a long time that we have a nutty enemy sabotaging our lives get smug about surviving, which gets back at him in a way, although not all the way. We may be having to wait for some justice until he's either caught for something else, like treason against the nation, stirring up terrorists, or laws change which "they say" gives certain gov't entities blanket immunity, or crime entities, of course. It's been a while since we've heard much about the mafia but probably that sort of thing is still out there.

Where I'm getting my spy idea, btw, is "Daddy's Little Princess" at www.Konformist.com , spacing twice to try to make that clickable, not just making it up in my own head. It's such a long article I didn't even read it carefully, but it's plausible. A search at that site would probably be necessary to find "Daddy's Little Princess".

John looks like he is just fine to me. And he looks like he could do a great job of convincing his son that they need to move on.

 

[Toltec]

.........

As for the "sounds" heard in the night - why does everyone assume that any sounds heard during the night in that neighborhood HAD to have come from the Ramsey home and be related to the death of JonBenet?

It may very well be ("if" there were indeed sounds as Stanton described) that those sounds came from some innocuous source of a another neighbors home.........................

We KNOW all the factors you're citing, no use going over them over and over, which, though maybe a little strange, don't prove a darned thing, for instance their "lying" about Burke being awake. I don't feel that was even important. And most of it calls for just our emotional speculation. I want to know about the few definite realities we have to go on.

Many of us have admitted we might not/would not be too reliable in such circumstances, wouldn't necessarily remember whether Burke was awake or not.

There was a young peoples' "rave" party, whatever that is, two or three houses away, but I think Stanton would have known where the strange sound came from, and the fact that a murder happened in the Rs' house also lends credence to the strange sound in the middle of the night coming from there.

Another thing, another neighbor said someone was moving around with a low light like a flashlight in the Rs' house, and WHY WAS HE LOOKING, into their house at that hour after a usually-exhausting holiday?

Maybe he heard a sound too, but didn't mention it, assumed like Melody S. that maybe he'd dreamed it. The vent DUCT carried the sound across the street. This neighbor was in the opposite direction. Across the alley in back? So it would have been a fainter sound, probably, than what Stanton heard. None of the neighbors had seemed to really notice the rave party. Somebody who was there reported it lately, and naturally the name escapes me the minute I'm ready to type it. Colfax. J.T. Colfax. I think he worked for the morgue.

The neighbor saw strange lights around midnight.

Melody Stanton heard a scream around 2am.

edited to add that the sunroom light was off that night....which had never been done before. John and Burke were in the living room working on putting together a toy....did John or Burke notice the light off? What about the lightpost outside?

 

[Eagle1]

The neighbor saw strange lights around midnight.

Melody Stanton heard a scream around 2am.

edited to add that the sunroom light was off that night....which had never been done before. John and Burke were in the living room working on putting together a toy....did John or Burke notice the light off? What about the lightpost outside?

Re Melody Stanton's hearing the scream, I believe it was about 1 am. I think that's the time her husband stated, when he heard the scraping of metal on conrete, not any crash of any trash can being bumped around, about 1 am. That hour difference may be important somehow.

Who turned off the normal outside light that night, I don't know. Have been assuming it was the walker, who was part of some kind of team, but could be wrong. Why would John or Burke turn off that light if they never had before? You mean by accident?

 

[Toltec]

Re Melody Stanton's hearing the scream, I believe it was about 1 am. I think that's the time her husband stated, when he heard the scraping of metal on conrete, not any crash of any trash can being bumped around, about 1 am. That hour difference may be important somehow.

Who turned off the normal outside light that night, I don't know. Have been assuming it was the walker, who was part of some kind of team, but could be wrong. Why would John or Burke turn off that light if they never had before? You mean by accident?

I don't know who turned off the lights...my point is IF John or Burke had not noticed the lights off?

Was John not asked by LE if he noticed the sunroom lights off when he was in the living room with Burke. I know Patsy was asked by LE about the lights.

According to the Ramseys, the lights usually left on are the outside lamppost...the sunroom lamp, the den lamp, the sconces next to the spiral staircase, the light in the 2nd floor landing.

 

[BOESP]

Bumping this thread for several reasons. First, some of the new readers might be interested. Second, in honor of the late Robert Ressler who passed away last month. And third, to post a link to some interesting articles concerning this case and a few others: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/prof_archives_media.html .

 

[madeleine]

I've always loved Mccrary :blushing:

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

There's an old adage that goes something like this: Actions speak louder than words. In the criminal field, there's a time-tested twist to the adage: Behavior is more telling than words.

But former FBI profiler John Douglas, who has worked for the family in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, seems to have veered from that old principle.

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. If John Ramsey is a liar, Douglas said on national TV, he's one of the best. ITA wink wink

But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. 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. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.

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." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."

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."

 

[BOESP]

I've always loved Mccrary :blushing:

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

There's an old adage that goes something like this: Actions speak louder than words. In the criminal field, there's a time-tested twist to the adage: Behavior is more telling than words.

But former FBI profiler John Douglas, who has worked for the family in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, seems to have veered from that old principle.

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. If John Ramsey is a liar, Douglas said on national TV, he's one of the best. ITA wink wink

But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. 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. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.

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." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."

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."

:bump:

 

[KoldKase]

Bumping this thread for several reasons. First, some of the new readers might be interested. Second, in honor of the late Robert Ressler who passed away last month. And third, to post a link to some interesting articles concerning this case and a few others: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/prof_archives_media.html .

Great collection of articles, BOESP. Thanks for sharing. :lookingitup: