What do the profilers say?

[UKGuy]

Not exactly like a baby. When you wrap a baby the feet are covered.

I agree, also JonBenet, when her body was discovered, was wearing no socks. IMO the blanket was used to minimize forensic evidence transfer.




.

 

[rashomon]

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.

But of course strangling someone with 'deadly force' could be part of a staging.
Take for example, an unconscious person whose skull is then smashed by someone who wanted to stage a scene pointing away from him. Such a blow would also be delivered with 'deadly force', but still be a staging.
Therefore, 'deadly force' doesn't exclude staging. I could point out infamous murder cases to you where 'deadly force' was used to stage a scene.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But of course strangling someone with 'deadly force' could be part of a staging.
Take for example, an unconscious person whose skull is then smashed by someone who wanted to stage a scene pointing away from him. Such a blow would also be delivered with 'deadly force', but still be a staging.
Therefore, 'deadly force' doesn't exclude staging. I could point out infamous murder cases to you where 'deadly force' was used to stage a scene.

The idea that an accident was covered up by making it look like a strangulation murder is completely false, because she was alive when she was strangled. Therefore, no accident. JBR was murdered by strangulation and head trauma. That's what the autopsy says.

 

[rashomon]

The idea that an accident was covered up by making it look like a strangulation murder is completely false, because she was alive when she was strangled. Therefore, no accident. JBR was murdered by strangulation and head trauma. That's what the autopsy says.

I never said that the head bash was an accident. I think it was an intentional blow struck at JB in a rage.
JB was unconscious when strangled. I think the person who finally strangled her knew that either JB would remain brain-damaged from the headbash or die from it.
A ransom note was then written and a bizarre strangulation scene staged to make it look like the work of an outside intruder.

 

[UKGuy]

The idea that an accident was covered up by making it look like a strangulation murder is completely false, because she was alive when she was strangled. Therefore, no accident. JBR was murdered by strangulation and head trauma. That's what the autopsy says.

Holdontoyourhat,

If you review Lou Smit's Intruder Theory, you will not find any suggestion that JonBenet was murdered by anyone other than a sociopathic sexual sadist, who erotically asphyxiated JonBenet for his own perverted pleasure.

A variation of the same theory, which is modified to account for details and circumstances no intruder could ever hope to overcome, swaps the stranger intruder for a family friend. In this theory the rationale for her death is not sociopathic, but becomes an accident, its strongest proponent suggests this accident, occurred whilst the friend was engaged in Erotic Asphyxiation with JonBenet.

So as with Lou Smit's theory most of the same components are there, just the suspects change.

Now you state: "JBR was murdered by strangulation and head trauma. That's what the autopsy says"

And I agree with you, I am also proposing that if you consider the available forensic evidence, which is itemized in the Autopsy Report, Police Affidivits, Warrants etc, and in additional posts on this board, that it is possible to refute completely any homicide theory that is constructed along the lines of Lou Smit's Intruder Theory. It employs staged evidence, ie fake and bogus forensic evidence to promote an intruder homicide.

Now although JonBenet was brutally and violently murdered, this does not discount the possibility that her final resting place was not a staged crime scene.

The perpetrator(s) have an interest in deceiving you, they wish to avoid arrest, and point the finger elsewhere, in this they have been 100% successful, nobody has been charged, nobody brought to account, and some of the most sensational and popular Ramsey Who Done It's rely on the staged/faked evidence to beef-up their theories.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I never said that the head bash was an accident. I think it was an intentional blow struck at JB in a rage.
JB was unconscious when strangled. I think the person who finally strangled her knew that either JB would remain brain-damaged from the headbash or die from it.
A ransom note was then written and a bizarre strangulation scene staged to make it look like the work of an outside intruder.

The idea that a false RN was written, and a strangulation staged, is an idea that is without precedent. If you google-search 'strangulation and blow to the head,' right away you get dozens of examples of murders by strangulation combined with blows to the head. This is because the combination of strangulation and blow to the head is a 'modus operandi'. The murder of Bob Crane is an infamous example.

If the perps lived in the same house, then the idea that a rage headblow was followed up with a deadly strangulation to give the crime scene the appearance of a capital murder is not in the perp's own interest. The idea of leaving handwritten evidence and calling 911 earlier than their own RN prescribed, would also not be in the perp's own interests. Leaving pineapple with the perps own prints on the bowl out all night, for others to find isn't in the perp's own interests either, especially since it was the last thing JBR ate. RDI isn't able to reasonably explain why the R's would do all these things not in their own interests.

The murder is more likely in line with hundreds of other similar attacks, where the attacker used the combination of strangulation and blow to the head to kill their victim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbn.com/700club/scottross/interviews/jonbenet1.asp

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans-serif]JOHN: JonBenet was brutally murdered. She was strangled. The blow to her head would have brought down a 300-pound man. Patsy loved JonBenet as much as I did. That is insane. It’s just insane.[/font]

 

[sissi]

Can we list the kinds of victims serial killers choose?
The weak and the vulnerable...children..the homeless...prostitutes.. the elderly...women..
Denver has a serial, there were a couple of murders in Boulder ,as well. Two ,if memory serves, were BEHEADED! Serial killers can be the Ted Bundy type, however, just as often they can move from homeless shelter to homeless shelter preying on their "kind".

 

[BlueCrab]

JonBenet was brutally murdered. She was strangled. The blow to her head would have brought down a 300-pound man. Patsy loved JonBenet as much as I did. That is insane. It?s just insane.[/color][/font]

Holdontoyourhat,

We agree it is insane. So why then are the Ramseys obfuscating, lying their heads off, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, having serious memory lapses, and covering up to protect the identity of this killer?

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

Holdontoyourhat,

We agree it is insane. So why then are the Ramseys obfuscating, lying their heads off, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, having serious memory lapses, and covering up to protect the identity of this killer?

BlueCrab

Why don't I see this? Is this the difference between those that think a RDI, and those that don't, this perception of their post murder behavior?

 

[UKGuy]

Why don't I see this? Is this the difference between those that think a RDI, and those that don't, this perception of their post murder behavior?

sissi,

Most likely, and also that much of the crime-scene evidence was faked, not all, but enough to color peoples perceptions of who did it. This along with Lou Smit's Intruder theory and the resulting tabloid feeding frenzy, allows the IDI camp to feel confident they know it was an intruder.

imo both sides have been incorporated faked crime-scene evidence into their theories, and since by definition these theories will eventually collapse, each side can see some inconsistencies in the others theories, and this is used as ammunition to shoot them down!

What was Matthew's saying:
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye?

.

 

[rashomon]

The idea that a false RN was written, and a strangulation staged, is an idea that is without precedent. If you google-search 'strangulation and blow to the head,' right away you get dozens of examples of murders by strangulation combined with blows to the head. This is because the combination of strangulation and blow to the head is a 'modus operandi'. The murder of Bob Crane is an infamous example.
If the perps lived in the same house, then the idea that a rage headblow was followed up with a deadly strangulation to give the crime scene the appearance of a capital murder is not in the perp's own interest. The idea of leaving handwritten evidence and calling 911 earlier than their own RN prescribed, would also not be in the perp's own interests. Leaving pineapple with the perps own prints on the bowl out all night, for others to find isn't in the perp's own interests either, especially since it was the last thing JBR ate. RDI isn't able to reasonably explain why the R's would do all these things not in their own interests.

The murder is more likely in line with hundreds of other similar attacks, where the attacker used the combination of strangulation and blow to the head to kill their victim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
But your argumentation doesn't explain either why an outside intruder would do that: leave the victim inside the house with a ransom note.
And I disagree with your opinion that if the perps lived in the same house the idea of a rage headblow combined with a deadly strangulation was not in the perp's interest.
Imo, it was in the Ramseys' interest not to be connected to JB's death.
Everything they did followed from that. People who are not professional criminals themselves make mistakes in staging their scenes, as many a profiler has pointed out.
The handwriting of the ransom note shows that the writer was in a state of panic.

And don't forget to see it all as a sequence of events: suppose JB was bashed in the head by one of the Ramseys. The perp realizes that JB is not going to recover from that blow. In their initial panic they may have wanted to dump the body somewhere outside, which is why they wrote the ransom note. Fear of being seen may have made them change their mind, which is why they stage a bizarre strangulation scene which should point away from them and also hide signs of prior sexual abuse on JonBenet.
The dilemma the Ramseys were in offered limited choices for them. So they had to leave the victim inside the house with the ransom note.
And in terms of the pineapple: I think this is one of the things they simply forgot about in their panic. It was probably not on their mind that the contents of JB's stomach would later be analyzed.

 

[sissi]

What was the motive for writing that note?
To point away from the killer?
To take blame away from the killer and place it on "John"?
I have often thought, the killer scripted a kidnapping scenario, all the while knowing he was going to kill, because killing the child was the culmination of his fantasy and the reason he was there. The note was simply an attempt to transfer blame. Your child is dead because you can't follow my instructions, I knew you wouldn't!

 

[LinasK]

What was the motive for writing that note?
To point away from the killer?
To take blame away from the killer and place it on "John"?

Not if John was the killer, then it was written to point away from the killer and make it look like an intruder/kidnapper ala Lindbergh baby...

 

[BlueCrab]

Why don't I see this? Is this the difference between those that think a RDI, and those that don't, this perception of their post murder behavior?

sissi,

It's based on the evidence and behaviors that we have all been made aware.

For instance, the Ramseys wouldn't allow a police interview until four months after their child had been murdered. Can you think of any other child murder in which for four months innocent parents refused to cooperate with the police in the investigation of their child's murder? I can't. This kind of bizarre behavior points to Ramsey guilt.

BlueCrab

 

[Nehemiah]

What was the motive for writing that note? To point away from the killer? To take blame away from the killer and place it on "John"?
I have often thought, the killer scripted a kidnapping scenario, all the while knowing he was going to kill, because killing the child was the culmination of his fantasy and the reason he was there. The note was simply an attempt to transfer blame. Your child is dead because you can't follow my instructions, I knew you wouldn't!

But did he really know that they wouldn't follow the instructions?

 

[sissi]

But did he really know that they wouldn't follow the instructions?

It was a "psychopathic" excuse for killing the child not based on any reality. He would have no way of knowing whether John Ramsey would follow the instructions, but it gave him a sense of power to say, follow..listen..do this ..do that..and there will be a one percent chance I will kill your daughter, all the while knowing he was indeed going with that "one percent". Why did he offer John any odds? Most kidnappers would say, give me the money you get your child. This one KNEW he was going to kill this child. Killing was part of the fantasy. IF, just IF anyone could believe the Ramseys did this, why would they not offer the child a 100 percent chance of survival in a bogus ransom note?

 

[LinasK]

It was a "psychopathic" excuse for killing the child not based on any reality. He would have no way of knowing whether John Ramsey would follow the instructions, but it gave him a sense of power to say, follow..listen..do this ..do that..and there will be a one percent chance I will kill your daughter, all the while knowing he was indeed going with that "one percent". Why did he offer John any odds? Most kidnappers would say, give me the money you get your child. This one KNEW he was going to kill this child. Killing was part of the fantasy. IF, just IF anyone could believe the Ramseys did this, why would they not offer the child a 100 percent chance of survival in a bogus ransom note?

If your theory was true, why use two methods of killing, strangulation and head bash??? Wouldn't one method do it??? To me two methods implies finishing off what became an accidental killing. Most killers generally have one m.o. I believe...Also if it was a planned killing, why not a gun with a silencer?

Also, in the Ramsey scenario, which is what I believe, the RN was written after she was dead, so no need to offer 100% chance of survival.

 

[Camper]

Just popping in to toss a few rocks into the air, check em out as they fall to earth.


{Quoting Blue Crab, his post #474 - "It's based on the evidence and behaviors that we have all been made aware.

For instance, the Ramseys wouldn't allow a police interview until four months after their child had been murdered. Can you think of any other child murder in which for four months innocent parents refused to cooperate with the police in the investigation of their child's murder? I can't. This kind of bizarre behavior points to Ramsey guilt.")




--------->> I harken back to the days, when Steve Thomas believed that PR was "Good for it". Consider this, PR DID come down to help JonBenet in the night. (maybe she found JonBenet eating pineapple and dragged her up the stairs by the neck of her sweater)cutting air off while traveling UP the stairway. It appears that JonBenet was quickly becoming aware of her rights about choosing clothes etc.and knowing that she was capable of independent thought and action.

Little girl combative in the night, PR continuing to drag her by the sweater to help get her on the toilet, the little girl resists, PR loses** it and tightens her grip on the sweater, and keeps it going and going until the little girl grows limp.

PR swings the tiny girl violently against the tiled bathroom wall, crushing her skull. Loss of oxygen from the gripping of the sweater, this might explain the large bruise type thing on one side of her neck - this large bruise area could have come from the solid impact on the tile and the force of PR's fist (note: You cannot have a tight grip without the hand actually making a fist) against the neck.

Consider this also, might it have been difficult for PR to lift the little girl and carry her to the bathroom, could she have just held her up by her clothing, rather cutting off the air supply to a large extent while guiding her toward the bathroom.

**PR losing it, a result of frustrating realization that she is losing control over her previously obedient little girl, who is now questioning all orders from her 'moms' authority.

A very busy night in the Ramsey household, JR and PR trying to do a cover up. PR's ambidextrous ability in writing the note that JR dictating, she may have added a few thoughts to the note.

I would like to see the CNN broadcast again, where PR announces that 'the' killer may have confided in another person - NOW where did that come from?

I would like to study both of their expressions and body language in that broadcast.

After eight years of my postings on WS, I have never really gone here before with this theory.

JR may have been ragging on PR for the money she had been spending on the pageants etc.

The result of all this would cause -

1. The Ramseys continuing efforts to exclude their young son from any involvement.

2. PR bearing great guilt for losing control and ending their life as they knew it.

3. JR feeling he caused it by his maybe actions in not being happy about spending so much money on JonBenet and her moms fun.

4. An unbreakable bond between JR and PR.

This accidental murder, may just be a pure and simple case of rage at the wrong time.

I might add that I have goosepimples just considering this today.

The National Enquirer offered them one million dollars then if they would take a lie detector test.

I am also intrigued by the anger that PR directed at her questioners. IF a person were innocent, wouldn't they just respond quietly that NO I did not kill my daughter. PLEASE PLEASE just give me a lie detector test, anything, what can WE do to help you find the killer.

I would have made it perfectly clear that I DID NOT do this, but why would I be so angry at the authorities for just asking me if I had killed her?


.

.

 

[rashomon]

--------->> I harken back to the days, when Steve Thomas believed that PR was "Good for it". Consider this, PR DID come down to help JonBenet in the night. (maybe she found JonBenet eating pineapple and dragged her up the stairs by the neck of her sweater)cutting air off while traveling UP the stairway. It appears that JonBenet was quickly becoming aware of her rights about choosing clothes etc.and knowing that she was capable of independent thought and action.

Little girl combative in the night, PR continuing to drag her by the sweater to help get her on the toilet, the little girl resists, PR loses** it and tightens her grip on the sweater, and keeps it going and going until the little girl grows limp.

PR swings the tiny girl violently against the tiled bathroom wall, crushing her skull. Loss of oxygen from the gripping of the sweater, this might explain the large bruise type thing on one side of her neck - this large bruise area could have come from the solid impact on the tile and the force of PR's fist (note: You cannot have a tight grip without the hand actually making a fist) against the neck.

Consider this also, might it have been difficult for PR to lift the little girl and carry her to the bathroom, could she have just held her up by her clothing, rather cutting off the air supply to a large extent while guiding her toward the bathroom.

**PR losing it, a result of frustrating realization that she is losing control over her previously obedient little girl, who is now questioning all orders from her 'moms' authority.

A very busy night in the Ramsey household, JR and PR trying to do a cover up. PR's ambidextrous ability in writing the note that JR dictating, she may have added a few thoughts to the note.

I would like to see the CNN broadcast again, where PR announces that 'the' killer may have confided in another person - NOW where did that come from?

I would like to study both of their expressions and body language in that broadcast.

I think what you said could have happened. This is a far more convincing scenario imo than e. g. a 'foreign faction'/or a pedophile disguised as a Street Santa /or a group of pedophiles invading the Ramsey home on Christmas night, obviously wihout any fear of detection, lol.

And also how Jon Benet's body was handled afterwards (dressed, wrapped in papoose-style etc.) points to the Ramseys and away from intruders or kidnappers.
But since fibers from John Ramsey's T-shirt were found in JB's crotch area, I would not rule out a more sinister reason for the attack on JonBenet. Maybe Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and this was what made her snap.

I am also intrigued by the anger that PR directed at her questioners. IF a person were innocent, wouldn't they just respond quietly that NO I did not kill my daughter.

Guilty people indeed seem to get angry at the questioners far more often than innocent people, at least that's what I could observe from the true crime cases I have studied.

 

[tipper]

[...]
I am also intrigued by the anger that PR directed at her questioners. IF a person were innocent, wouldn't they just respond quietly that NO I did not kill my daughter. PLEASE PLEASE just give me a lie detector test, anything, what can WE do to help you find the killer.

I would have made it perfectly clear that I DID NOT do this, but why would I be so angry at the authorities for just asking me if I had killed her?


.

.

I don't have time to look it up today - but a while ago I posted a quote from Small Sacrifices. Pierce Brooks (I think that's who it was) has interviewed Diane Downs and one of the things he found suspicious is her lack of anger at being accused of shooting her kids. He said an innocent parent is outraged that you would suggest this is posible and protests accordingly. There is also a quote somewhere from the Runaway Bride's fiance about how angry and offended he was to be under suspicion.