What do the profilers say?

[aussiesheila]

The type of sex offender you ascribe this crime to first of all does NOT work in groups.
Secondly, this is THE most dangerous type of offender. One who enters a home to abduct the child for sexual purposes. Think of Polly Klass' murderer Davis and Danielle VanDamm's murderer David Westerfield. THESE are the type of offenders you are claiming killed JonBenet. And yet it bears no resemblance to what happened in the Ramsey case at all.
This level of sex offender is the most dangerous type: predatory.
They get IN quickly and OUT just as quickly with they victim.
They do NOT stick around the house for hours writing long and rambling (oh please believe me!!) ransom notes!
Their purpose is one thing - sexual - and it is extremely ugly and violent.
This was NOT the case with JonBenet. Not even close.

This crime was never INTENDED by anyone.
This was a tragic "accident" turned deadly.
By "accident" I mean that someone lashed out at JonBenet in a fit of rage/anger but never intended to fatally injure her.
The head blow is what started this whole chain of sad events - and what precipitated the head blow is still a mystery. A whole host of causes are possible. And none of them exclude any of the 3 family members in the house that night.

I somehow missed replying to your post 47 in reply to my post 45. What I would like to explain is that I think there was a group of local Boulderites who had been sexually abusing JonBenet for years. They NEVER intended for her to be killed. Why would they? You don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so to speak. These people were all known to the Ramseys and were considered by them to be friends of one sort or another. I think that only Patsy knew they were abusing JonBenet but did nothing about it other than take her on frequent visits to Dr Beuf for reassurance that the ailments her daughter suffered from were all perfectly normal. I don’t think John had any idea the abuse was happening. I think the pedophiles hid it well from John by ensuring that it mainly took place when he was away on business.

I think the pedophiles had one of their regular abuse sessions planned for Christmas night. On this particular night though, I think they took some extra risks, one of them was to result in JonBenet’s death. That one risk was that they allowed an outsider to join them. This was the person they had only met several days earlier at the Ramseys’ Christmas party - the boarder from across the street who had invited himself to the party.

I think this guy was the violent, brutal killer. I think he probably did usually act alone, but this opportunity was too good to miss. I think he brought a stun gun, I think the regulars just used drugs and ropes. I don’t know whether the neck ligature was accidentally pulled too tight by one of the regulars or deliberately by this outsider, however I think the outsider was the one who delivered the killing blow to her head with a baseball bat. I think this guy DID leave immediately after the killing, taking with him the bat which he threw in the yard and the stun gun which he took back home. This left the regular abusers with a mutilated dead body. They couldn't just leave the body there and let the boarder be arrested as the killer because he would have told LE about their involvement and they would be found guilty at least of sexual abuse if not murder as well. To avoid this they had to stage some sort of cover up.

I think the panicked pedophiles contacted another Boulder pedophile, who was in their little clique but happened not to be present that night, for advice. He became the mastermind behind the cover up. He told them to stage a kidnapping, to hide the body so that John would not find it and he, the mastermind would arrange for the body to be disposed of somewhere once they had got John out of the house. So her regular abusers cleaned her up a little and re-dressed her and Santa wrapped his little angel in her white blanket. They hid her where where she could safely (they thought) remain for subsequent removal and discovery in the mountains as a supposed kidnap victim.

I think the mastermind, together with another pedophile who had left the session early on, composed the first part of the note that implicated a fictitous foreign kidnapper and for good measure included a ransom amount that might implicate someone from Access Graphics.

I think the mastermind was able to persuade Patsy to write the note and after the essentials had been written down, she was given instructions to complete it on her own, but to include statements that would frighten John into refraining from calling the police (which didn't work) and would encourage him to take his time about getting the money. Patsy was perfectly able to stick around the house for hours and compose what was required but because of her distressed state and her rising anger at her husband the note ended as a long, rambling, raging tirade directed at John.

 

[Voice of Reason]

BR was probably asleep within minutes of coming home and stayed that way until morning.

While nothing is set in stone, I prefer to rely on what I have heard/read as opposed to just making stuff up out of thin air. Whether we believe the Ramseys or not is our decision, but according to them, Burke and JR stayed up when they got home and worked on a model Burke got for X-mas. I don't see why they would make that up.

 

[Voice of Reason]

How did you find these things? I have been searching for years for the same stuff? I do have a friend who "hard copied" the site, back in 98 or so, but since it came down, I thought it had been blocked from all search engines. If you found this, try to find "barbie the ultimate *", and he did use Andy Savage, but that wasn't his name , so you can use it without worry.

Many old sites can be found using the "Waybackmachine" at www.archive.org. You won't be able to see pictures, but you can get text. Not every site makes it into the archive, though. I could not find the barbie site, although I found many of the old URL's for his websites in Google Groups. Most of them pulled up nothing in the archives...

So, was he officially cleared?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

While nothing is set in stone, I prefer to rely on what I have heard/read as opposed to just making stuff up out of thin air. Whether we believe the Ramseys or not is our decision, but according to them, Burke and JR stayed up when they got home and worked on a model Burke got for X-mas. I don't see why they would make that up.

I believe the R's on everything they said, so if they said they stayed up to build a model, they stayed up to build a model. I don't selectively decide what I'm going to believe and what I'm not going to believe as it suits me.

 

[Jayelles]

I believe the R's on everything they said, so if they said they stayed up to build a model, they stayed up to build a model. I don't selectively decide what I'm going to believe and what I'm not going to believe as it suits me.

That seems like a contradiction. IMO, to say that you believe everything the Ramseys said, then you ARE selecting what you believe.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That seems like a contradiction. IMO, to say that you believe everything the Ramseys said, then you ARE selecting what you believe.

Hello? IOW I don't take the pool of statements made by the R's and select as truthful only those statements that fit my personal POV. That would be 'informational discrimination.'

 

[Jayelles]

Hello? IOW I don't take the pool of statements made by the R's and select as truthful only those statements that fit my personal POV. That would be 'informational discrimination.'

Hello.

Not sure anyone was suggestng you select to believe such statements as would fit a personal POV. Perhaps a wise approach would be to believe only those statements which can be 100% borne out by evidence.

Suspects' statements should always been taken with a little salt. I would be inclined to reserve judgement until such times as the statements could be substantiated by evidence or a 3rd party with no axe to grind.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hello.

Not sure anyone was suggestng you select to believe such statements as would fit a personal POV. Perhaps a wise approach would be to believe only those statements which can be 100% borne out by evidence.

Suspects' statements should always been taken with a little salt. I would be inclined to reserve judgement until such times as the statements could be substantiated by evidence or a 3rd party with no axe to grind.

The R's are more like witnesses, and less like suspects as you suggested. As credible witnesses, thier statements don't necessarily have to be '100% borne out by evidence."

In your mind, what has made the R's seem more like suspects and less like witnesses? Was it the enhanced tape? Thats junk.

 

[Jayelles]

The R's are more like witnesses, and less like suspects as you suggested. As credible witnesses, thier statements don't necessarily have to be '100% borne out by evidence."

In your mind, what has made the R's seem more like suspects and less like witnesses? Was it the enhanced tape? Thats junk.

The Ramseys were in the home at the time of the murder. They had means and opportunity. Statistically, the parents are the most likely killers of a 6 year old child.

Therefore, they were prime suspects.

Unfortunately, the Ramseys did not knuckle down and allow police to investigate and clear them. Instead they negotiated conditions for interviews and did not sit down with police until 4 months had elapsed. It took a further 18 months for them to agree to a second set of interviews. They refused to take polygraphs - which would have gone a long way to helping police move past them.

I haven't heard the enhanced tape - none of us have and therefore none of us are qualified to say whether it's junk or not.

 

[Voice of Reason]

I believe the R's on everything they said, so if they said they stayed up to build a model, they stayed up to build a model. I don't selectively decide what I'm going to believe and what I'm not going to believe as it suits me.

That's fine. But if you are going to believe what they said, how about you read what they said first, before posting misinformation based on nothing other than pure speculation (e.g., Burke went straight to bed).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's fine. But if you are going to believe what they said, how about you read what they said first, before posting misinformation based on nothing other than pure speculation (e.g., Burke went straight to bed).

Misinformation? I said BR 'probably' went to bed minutes after arriving home. I presented it as speculation, not fact. Good try though.

In contrast, "JBR's prior abuse" is presented as fact when it is clearly speculation at best. "EA device" is also pure speculation that was presented as fact. Is it OK to present speculation as fact as long as it supports RDI? IOW why aren't you objecting to other posts where the poster is clearly presenting something as fact when it isn't?

As far as "reading what they said first," or "presenting my qualifications" are concerned, please stop telling me what to do, OK?

 

[BlueCrab]

In contrast, "JBR's prior abuse" is presented as fact when it is clearly speculation at best. "EA device" is also pure speculation that was presented as fact. Is it OK to present speculation as fact as long as it supports RDI? IOW why aren't you objecting to other posts where the poster is clearly presenting something as fact when it isn't?

HOTYH,

The prior sexual abuse was substantiated by a team of credible medical experts. It is not speculation.

The erotic asphyxiation device was wrapped around JonBenet's neck and is plainly observable in the autopsy photos. It is not speculation.

BlueCrab

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH,

The prior sexual abuse was substantiated by a team of credible medical experts. It is not speculation.

The erotic asphyxiation device was wrapped around JonBenet's neck and is plainly observable in the autopsy photos. It is not speculation.

BlueCrab

There was no prior sexual abuse that was substantiated by a team of credible medical experts. There may have been some medically credentialed people who expressed their opinion, but I'm sure this 'substantiating team' doesn't exist.

The 'garrote,' historically used for quiet control and kill, was found around JBR's neck, and yes it is plainly observable. That it was used on JBR for the purpose of 'erotic asphyxiation' is about the most speculative, and absurd, idea yet.

 

[Nehemiah]

What, everything needs to be sourced? I can tie my shoes, and I know that PR described JBR to the 911 operator, and that means the police put her description on the air.

No, that in itself doesn't mean the police put her description on the air. Have you read any of the books that pertain to the case, or read the depositions? Some of what you say seems to be speculation unless you can source it. I can state that Burke can tie his shoes, too, but unless I personally know Burke, or can source that statement, then for all I know Burke cannot tie his shoes and wears velcro sneakers.

Sources are simply ways to make oneself more credible, unless of course you say that you know the Rs, which in that case, would be proof enough for me.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, that in itself doesn't mean the police put her description on the air. Have you read any of the books that pertain to the case, or read the depositions? Some of what you say seems to be speculation unless you can source it. I can state that Burke can tie his shoes, too, but unless I personally know Burke, or can source that statement, then for all I know Burke cannot tie his shoes and wears velcro sneakers.

Sources are simply ways to make oneself more credible, unless of course you say that you know the Rs, which in that case, would be proof enough for me.

Credibility is an interesting thing. Take it away arbitrarily from the R's, and give to someone with a piece of paper from a crackerjack box, and suddenly you're able to say anything you want.

 

[Nehemiah]

Credibility is an interesting thing. Take it away arbitrarily from the R's, and give to someone with a piece of paper from a crackerjack box, and suddenly you're able to say anything you want.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
before admitting hearsay
The only things I would admit into evidence at this point are the ransom note, the slain 6 year old, weapons, and the testimony of the inital reaction of the parents. There's a lot that can be established from this, a lot of work to do, before admitting hearsay.

I don't really understand why you are taking such a defensive position? I don't even think the Rs are guilty of murder. However, sourcing information, as I said above, makes one credible. Sourcing can come from books, even the R's own book, depos, newspaper articles, autopsy, etc...Just because someone asks for a souce doesn't mean he/she is challenging you as a poster; it can simply mean that he/she would like to make sure that the information is correct and that he/she doesn't accept that info for the truth when it may or may not be.

 

[Camper]

aussiesheila, boy your scenario has my hair falling out at the roots. Simple solution, just round up all of the participants in your sexual perversion 'ring' and someone will squawk.

===============

HOTYH, just a quickie about your 'view' on Burke saying that JonBenet walked up the stairs that night, and John said he carried her up the stairs. Which one do you believe, the totally innocent Burke, er the totally innocent father?

===============

Such an odd figure in the ransom note, $118,000.00. If aussiesheila can come up with a scenario that causes my hair to fall out, how about this one. A twenty yr old young man can get terribly mad/angry at his father, IF he knows pops has a new pile of money and the young man WANTS a car er something very very special and pops says nooooooooooo. OR IF the young man that Mr. Barnhill saw walk up to the house on Christmas day, could have been in the missing traditional family 'movie' requesting such an item, hmmm.

===============



.

 

[Nehemiah]

...What I would like to explain is that I think there was a group of local Boulderites who had been sexually abusing JonBenet for years. They NEVER intended for her to be killed. Why would they? You don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so to speak. These people were all known to the Ramseys and were considered by them to be friends of one sort or another. I think that only Patsy knew they were abusing JonBenet but did nothing about it other than take her on frequent visits to Dr Beuf for reassurance that the ailments her daughter suffered from were all perfectly normal. I don’t think John had any idea the abuse was happening. I think the pedophiles hid it well from John by ensuring that it mainly took place when he was away on business.

I think the pedophiles had one of their regular abuse sessions planned for Christmas night. On this particular night though, I think they took some extra risks, one of them was to result in JonBenet’s death. That one risk was that they allowed an outsider to join them. This was the person they had only met several days earlier at the Ramseys’ Christmas party - the boarder from across the street who had invited himself to the party.

I think this guy was the violent, brutal killer. I think he probably did usually act alone, but this opportunity was too good to miss. I think he brought a stun gun, I think the regulars just used drugs and ropes. I don’t know whether the neck ligature was accidentally pulled too tight by one of the regulars or deliberately by this outsider, however I think the outsider was the one who delivered the killing blow to her head with a baseball bat. I think this guy DID leave immediately after the killing, taking with him the bat which he threw in the yard and the stun gun which he took back home. This left the regular abusers with a mutilated dead body. They couldn't just leave the body there and let the boarder be arrested as the killer because he would have told LE about their involvement and they would be found guilty at least of sexual abuse if not murder as well. To avoid this they had to stage some sort of cover up.

I think the panicked pedophiles contacted another Boulder pedophile, who was in their little clique but happened not to be present that night, for advice. He became the mastermind behind the cover up. He told them to stage a kidnapping, to hide the body so that John would not find it and he, the mastermind would arrange for the body to be disposed of somewhere once they had got John out of the house. So her regular abusers cleaned her up a little and re-dressed her and Santa wrapped his little angel in her white blanket. They hid her where where she could safely (they thought) remain for subsequent removal and discovery in the mountains as a supposed kidnap victim.

I think the mastermind, together with another pedophile who had left the session early on, composed the first part of the note that implicated a fictitous foreign kidnapper and for good measure included a ransom amount that might implicate someone from Access Graphics.

I think the mastermind was able to persuade Patsy to write the note and after the essentials had been written down, she was given instructions to complete it on her own, but to include statements that would frighten John into refraining from calling the police (which didn't work) and would encourage him to take his time about getting the money. Patsy was perfectly able to stick around the house for hours and compose what was required but because of her distressed state and her rising anger at her husband the note ended as a long, rambling, raging tirade directed at John.

What do you believe was in this for Patsy? Why would she allow such behavior toward her daughter?

 

[Voice of Reason]

Misinformation? I said BR 'probably' went to bed minutes after arriving home. I presented it as speculation, not fact. Good try though.

You can backtrack all you want and play the word games, but this is a very basic fact, that I would assume you are aware of. You post quite a bit here, and other people might think that because of that fact, you know what you are talking about. I was surprised to see that you simply supplanted your own speculation in place of what is a very basic fact that someone seemingly as interested as you are in this case should know...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You can backtrack all you want and play the word games, but this is a very basic fact, that I would assume you are aware of. You post quite a bit here, and other people might think that because of that fact, you know what you are talking about. I was surprised to see that you simply supplanted your own speculation in place of what is a very basic fact that someone seemingly as interested as you are in this case should know...

This seems to be an application of a double-standard. EA device is a 'supplantation,' and so is 'prior abuse,' as is 'BR in the background'. I could go on and on with 'supplantations' presented as qualified facts.

BR going straight to bed or building a model with his dad is more 'JBR trivia' than 'very basic fact.'

An example of a 'very basic fact' is that the basement was used for the crime. Why use the basement unless you were trying to hide things from other occupants of the house? If RDI then they'd be hiding JBR from themselves. That makes as much sense as PR calling 911 earlier than the RN prescribed.