LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-04 AT 10:01 AM (EST)
 
Don:
You said
"First the Butts case has a very limited circle of suspects and none of them seem to have ever had any connection to the Ramseys."

Response:
This is a way of reasoning which is totally factual and correct; BUT the problem is that if a killer is unknown, then he/she does not have to be within a known circle. It would be wrong to say that every killer is within a limited circle of suspects. Sometimes the killer is from another area, brought in for the sole purpose of killing. He comes, he goes, nobody knows him, nobody suspects him, he is out of the limited circle of suspects. As for having connection with the Ramseys, the limited circle may have no connection to Ramseys, and that is very possible and factual and correct. But if the killer is from outside the limited circle, then that is irrelevant. The question is, is the killer connected to the Ramseys. And then again, it could be that he was not. He could be SOMEONE KNOWN BY SOMEONE KNOWN BY the Ramseys, just as he could be someone known by someone known by the Butts.

"With nothing unique about the placement of the hair at the JonBenet murder, I would not term it a 'signature item'. We don't even know if the pubic hair is related to the crime. And with a paintbrush handle having been used, it seems unlikely he even attempted to perform any acts that would be likely to have left pubic hairs at the scene."

A "signature" item (as I understand it) is something done by the killer that is common from one crime to another which can be used to link the crimes. So things which are common from one crime to another could be considered possible signature items. The fact that he used an object in the sexual assault is indeed a signature, if it was common to both crimes, regardless of what the object was. The leaving of the pubic hairs in the Butts case was obviously intentional. But in the Ramsey case it was either unintentional or possibly intentionally indiscreet. If the purpose was to deflect investigators away from himself, and if he learned from earlier crimes, (as Douglas writes), then he would realize that if the placement is too obvious then it would be less credible.

So you are right, Don, maybe the pubic hair was not related to the crime. I even remember one article saying erroneously that it was Melinda's hair. But it might be considered as a "signature" if it remains unidentified.

Similarly for the immotile sperm in the Chase case. Remember, a killer learns from his crimes, according to Douglas. Deflection of interest by placing someone elses DNA at the scene, crime after crime, would be a signature, whether by pubic hair or DNA.

edit: Also look at the idea of "signature" at the Lorraine Lawrence and Chase murders. The face, in both cases, was bashed beyond recognition and the body was dragged along the street, leaving a trail of blood. It is as if the killer does this intentionally, and yet it serves little purpose other than to put the body in a place that he wants it to be. Yet it gives a link to the two crimes, a common ground.