What do the profilers say?

[Holdontoyourhat]

So by elimination its one of a RDI or IDI, and currently RDI has it, although I would NEVER rule out the possibility of an IDI, and in that instance it would probably need a sherlock holmes, columbo, CSI combination to explain just how clever the Intruder was!

Well, IDI has it from my POV. The R's don't fit the mold for filicidal parents. Sorry but they're just not very criminal, or socioeconomically stressed, are they?

The intruder was lucky, trained, probably even experienced, but not clever or smart. If you're smart you don't murder people in their own house. Its fraught with danger, and danger isn't smart. It could've turned out badly for the perp, with only a slight change in circumstances. I'll say the intruder is more experienced and driven than smart or clever.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Becba:
Although I understand the point you are making, this "A sexual predator is not a kidnapper" is not strictly correct.

If you google on this name "Erick Thomas Knapp" you will find he abducted and raped two girls, aged 13, and 7, from their homes. Then he RETURNED them, also he duct taped them and used a knife to threaten them. There are other similar instances, excepting that some girls were murdered.

BDI as it is proposed imo is not a testable hypothesis, it imports external agents to explain away missing evidence. So in essence is really a special case of an IDI.

That PDI or JDI is entirely plausible, there is enough circumstancial evidence to implicate them, but its not a smoking gun.

JonBenet's death is unlikely to be the result of an accident, since you really dont need an extended coverup and staging to conceal an accident, whats worse, to be found guilty of 1st degree murder, or responsible for a death by neglect? By staging from an accident you run the risk of the former becoming a reality!

So by elimination its one of a RDI or IDI, and currently RDI has it, although I would NEVER rule out the possibility of an IDI, and in that instance it would probably need a sherlock holmes, columbo, CSI combination to explain just how clever the Intruder was!

Knapp didn't leave a ransom note, didn't remain in the house.

Name me one pedophile that breaks into a home, remains there to molest the child and sticks around to pen a 3 page ransom note after murdering the child. Just ONE!

Pedophiles are not kidnappers. They may abduct, but they simply don't kidnap for ransom. EVER.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Knapp didn't leave a ransom note, didn't remain in the house.

Name me one pedophile that breaks into a home, remains there to molest the child and sticks around to pen a 3 page ransom note after murdering the child. Just ONE!

Pedophiles are not kidnappers. They may abduct, but they simply don't kidnap for ransom. EVER.

Pedophiles aren't kidnappers?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial3/marcdutroux/

 

[Linda7NJ]

Pedophiles aren't kidnappers?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial3/marcdutroux/

I read the first page, please C&P the part that says this guy ransomed the victims. I am not seeing it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I read the first page, please C&P the part that says this guy ransomed the victims. I am not seeing it.

OK.

CNN.com reported, "As Dutroux watched with a smirk from the dock, she told the court he had made her believe her parents had abandoned her after refusing to pay a ransom for her release.

 

[Linda7NJ]

OK.

CNN.com reported, "As Dutroux watched with a smirk from the dock, she told the court he had made her believe her parents had abandoned her after refusing to pay a ransom for her release.

You better go back and read it again. He told HER that, it never actually happened.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You better go back and read it again. He told HER that, it never actually happened.

Instead I went back and read your post again, the one that says "Pedophiles are not kidnappers."

Pedophiles are sometimes kidnappers.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Instead I went back and read your post again, the one that says "Pedophiles are not kidnappers."

Pedophiles are sometimes kidnappers.

They aren't. They may abduct but they don't kidnap for ransom. I stand by my statement.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

They aren't. They may abduct but they don't kidnap for ransom. I stand by my statement.

Are you telling me that at no time was any kidnapped child ever molested by his/her abductor? Really?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Are you telling me that at no time was any kidnapped child ever molested by his/her abductor? Really?

What I am telling you is no child was ever kidnapped, ransomed and molested.

While I am at it, can't think of ONE pedophile that has ever broke into a home, molested and murdered a child in the child's own home.

Pedophiles abduct to be sexually satisfied, it's not about money. That's why you won't be able to find me one example of a pedophile kidnapping & ransoming a victim

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What I am telling you is no child was ever kidnapped, ransomed and molested.

While I am at it, can't think of ONE pedophile that has ever broke into a home, molested and murdered a child in the child's own home.

Pedophiles abduct to be sexually satisfied, it's not about money. That's why you won't be able to find me one example of a pedophile kidnapping & ransoming a victim

So JBR's killer and Dutroux both lied about a kidnapping for ransom? My what a coincidence.

 

[Linda7NJ]

:laugh:

So JBR's killer and Dutroux both lied about a kidnapping for ransom? My what a coincidence.

Nice try.

BUT Dutroux lied to his victim. It's hardly the same. You can't even compare the two.

At least you are admitting the RN was FAKE and all a LIE from the beginning. So why would an intruder even write one, let alone 3 pages after the child is dead?

I'll tell you why, it was never anything more than a lame attempt to explain the child's death & deflect attention. Who would need to explain her death? A RAMSEY. Surely, not a murdering pedophile that has already accomplished his goal.

Why would an intruder stick around long enough to write the RN after he murdered the child? Why would an intruder risk being caught at all, why not whisk Jon Benet away from the house like EVERY OTHER CHILD ABDUCTION by a pedophile?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

:laugh:

Nice try.

BUT Dutroux lied to his victim. It's hardly the same. You can't even compare the two.

Lets compare JBR's killer and Dutroux anyway, even though you said I can't:

• We know they both killed.
• Both are pedophiles.
• Both lied to their victims.
• We know they both used the basement for crime against children.

 

[Camper]

Quite a tennis match, but back to square one again.

For the tennis players, it was never about the money was it, at least not for an 'unidentified perp'. It may have been about protecting status and money, by covering up truth.

Nehemiah, great input. HOW TO keep a secret, does it matter on HOW large the secret is, or the family VALUE of keeping the secret? Anyone remember how long the interview with Burke was, he did say something to the effect that everyone has secrets. Wonder if that interview was recorded, BC do you know?

>>>

Why would a pedophile ask for such a family specific amount of money? Why would an intruder ask for such a family specific amount of money?

>>>

Watched LKL the other night that was a show of LK's 20 years on TV. I either had forgotten OR never saw the one with Steve Thomas and PR/JR. Steve FLAT verbally said that PR was good for it. JR took ombrage, wild and wooly is a mild description of his return volley.

I can see Steves view.

I can also see swirling a child against a tile wall with the red shirt half on and half off over JonBenet's head, and smashing her skull, leaving the child unconscious or in a state of convulsions. Then the coverup ceremony. THIS IS A NEW thought for me. So 'what' would a court of law do to mother now? Temporary insanity? How long is temporary would it cover hours and hours of prepping time to make it look like an intruder did IT, and what of the person who would HELP in the coverup in a case like that?

The night of December 25 could certainly have had an OMG moment, what do we do? The FBI, Steve Thomas and most of the world most likely thinks it is a possibility too.

Wish an attorney or judge would check in on WS today IF they are lurking, and help with answers to my questions. We at one time did have a judge who read here and posted legal information for us. Are you still here?

I would dearly love to see that entire show in full AGAIN after so many years.

UK Guy I will check out that link another time.


.

 

[Nehemiah]

Nehemiah, great input. HOW TO keep a secret, does it matter on HOW large the secret is, or the family VALUE of keeping the secret? Anyone remember how long the interview with Burke was, he did say something to the effect that everyone has secrets. Wonder if that interview was recorded, BC do you know?

I think B said that if he told a secret, it would no longer be a secret.

Certainly kids keep secrets, as evidenced through child sexual abuse. The perp will most always play the secret game with the child, unless he/she is a very dumb perp, or fairly mentally challenged. But...in my experience with interviewing kids, they eventually begin to trip themselves up, even if they are fearful of the perp. Once they see the interviewer as someone to be trusted, often times they will spill the beans w/out much skill on the interviewer's part. It's just so much different than interviewing adults. (Plus, there is that fine line there that the interviewer not present leading questions; if so, the child most often will follow that lead and then you get into fabrication.) So, to kind of answer your question, Camper, sometimes it does matter how big a secret, and how much value the family puts on it. But, being interrogated by LE, and by either a social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist (I can't remember which now) with LE observing, I have to think that some clues could have been given by B that would have indicated some thing that went on in the house that night. Of course what we don't have, is the interview to read....to actually read the questions that were asked of B. So much lies in the interviewer and his/her techniques.

That's why if BDI, I think he truly doesn't know it...that the parents took over, made him think she was okay, sent him to bed, and then staged it for his protection. The only real way that I can go along with this train of thought, however, is if I follow BlueCrab's theory that the GJ figured it all out while B was on the stand. I just don't believe that as a 10 year old, he could withstand interrogation and not give something away.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Lets compare JBR's killer and Dutroux anyway, even though you said I can't:

• We know they both killed.
• Both are pedophiles.
• Both lied to their victims.
• We know they both used the basement for crime against children.

I am finished arguing with you. The above is a huge "so what". You've made no point. I am not going to repeat myself. I have made my point. You have been unable to dispute it.

 

[BlueCrab]

The pancake batter stays lumpy, when the R's sue over his innocence and collect money

Camper,

There's no evidence of the Ramseys collecting as much as even a nickel in regard to any of the Burke lawsuits. Every one of the lawsuits were settled out of court, most likely because the courts wouldn't let the lawsuits go forward because they would violate the Colorado Children's Code that protects the identity of children who are involved in a crime.

It appears the only lawsuit the Ramseys won and collected on was the defamation lawsuit against Steve Thomas. Burke was not a litigant in that case.

BlueCrab

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Pedophiles are not kidnappers.

This is so wrong its not even funny. Pedophiles dont have a code for moral conduct which says they never kidnap, ransom, kill, or whatever. You said they do. There's no standard for pedophilic conduct, that they abide by.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think B said that if he told a secret, it would no longer be a secret.

Certainly kids keep secrets, as evidenced through child sexual abuse. The perp will most always play the secret game with the child, unless he/she is a very dumb perp, or fairly mentally challenged. But...in my experience with interviewing kids, they eventually begin to trip themselves up, even if they are fearful of the perp. Once they see the interviewer as someone to be trusted, often times they will spill the beans w/out much skill on the interviewer's part. It's just so much different than interviewing adults. (Plus, there is that fine line there that the interviewer not present leading questions; if so, the child most often will follow that lead and then you get into fabrication.) So, to kind of answer your question, Camper, sometimes it does matter how big a secret, and how much value the family puts on it. But, being interrogated by LE, and by either a social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist (I can't remember which now) with LE observing, I have to think that some clues could have been given by B that would have indicated some thing that went on in the house that night. Of course what we don't have, is the interview to read....to actually read the questions that were asked of B. So much lies in the interviewer and his/her techniques.

That's why if BDI, I think he truly doesn't know it...that the parents took over, made him think she was okay, sent him to bed, and then staged it for his protection. The only real way that I can go along with this train of thought, however, is if I follow BlueCrab's theory that the GJ figured it all out while B was on the stand. I just don't believe that as a 10 year old, he could withstand interrogation and not give something away.

BR doesn't have the capability to do any of the things that happened in the R's house that night, IMO. He was neither physically nor mentally capable of doing any of the things that were done. He also lacked any criminal capacity. The GJ probably didn't even consider any BDI at all.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

BR doesn't have the capability to do any of the things that happened in the R's house that night, IMO. He was neither physically nor mentally capable of doing any of the things that were done. He also lacked any criminal capacity. The GJ probably didn't even consider any BDI at all.

This might be the first time I have agreed with you. I can't see any way that nine year old Burke could have been the one strangling and molested JonBenet or authoring the ransom note. He certainly couldn't have testified and not given anything away. And there's no evidence of any past behavior on Burke's part that would indicate he was capable of this crime.