<BR><b>A Textbook Case: The JonBenét Ramsey Case</b><P>17 July 2002, 19 July 2002 <P><BR><b>The Textbook</b><P>Lately I have been posting that the murder of JonBenét Ramsey is a "textbook case of sexual homicide." I now have a completely different idea of what this crime is <i>really</i> all about, that is, the purpose of the crime, yet I can still claim that the murder was a "textbook case of sexual homicide." I shall explain why this is.<P>Many people are familiar with John Douglas' or Robert Ressler's books on profiling, serial killers, or sexual obsession murders. The book: <i>Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives</i> <1> appears to have predated all of these, having been published in 1988. This book describes, in more technical terms, what the Behavioral Sciences Unit (now called the Investigative Support Unit) does to aid in solving sexual homicides. There are chapters on theory, chapters on case studies, a discussion of the history of VICAP, and so on.<P>There is something very interesting about this book, related to the JonBenét Ramsey case. The number 118 shows up again and again and again. The number 118 shows up in this book just like Christmas does in any book about the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. It's hard to overstate this, and it's impossible to miss it if one reads this particular book. The number 118 is the number of victims in a comprehensive study of 36 murderers, all 36 of whom were interviewed by members of the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI. <P>Also in this particular book was considerable discussion of the four phases of a sexual homicide: <P> 1) pre-crime activities and planning<BR> 2) the murder itself<BR> 3) disposal of the body<BR> 4) post-crime activities. <P>Pre-crime activities include, for example, selection of the victim. The murder itself could be accomplished as we all know by "shooting," "stabbing," or, as was suggested in the ransom note, "beheading." Disposal of the body involves such things as placement, dismemberment, burial, or positioning of the corpse, transporting the corpse, dressing or undressing the victim, and the final resting location. Post-crime activities are described as quite varied, but include "confession." <P>Interviews of the murderers were structured so that information was obtained about each of these phases for each of the murderers. Quite a lot of effort was evidently expended in ensuring that complete information was obtained for each phase for each murderer so that comparisons and contrasts could be made. If a perpetrator were to read this particular book, he/she may very well conclude that there are four steps involved in the commission of a sexual homicide.<P><BR><b>A Little Bit of History</b><P>Now to switch gears, recall the movie <i>Silence of the Lambs</i> (1991). As almost everyone knows, the incredible John Douglas, formerly head of the Investigative Support Unit, was a technical advisor to the makers of this movie, and became an acquaintance of the even more incredible Jodie Foster. This movie to some extent helped bring what has been called "criminal profiling" out of the FBI Academy and into the open.<P>In late 1995, Scribner published <i>Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crimes Unit</i> <2>. A book club edition was published in the spring of 1996; then in late summer of 1996 a paperback version was published. So by the end of 1996, profiling was completely out in the open. Not only that, but the "profilers" were becoming celebrities in their own right. However, the profilers were also making a few enemies amongst those who believed that the profilers were grossly exaggerating not only their own personal contributions, but the contributions of the field as a whole to the task of solving crimes. <P>Also in 1995, and in Boulder, Colorado no less, the company that published the book <i>Hit Man</i> took a hit in court with the filing of a lawsuit. <i>Hit Man</i> is Paladin Press' nonfiction how-to book which describes how to discreetly and professionally kill someone. A lawsuit was filed against Paladin Press for damages related to a murder which was committed with what was almost certainly the exact advice given in the book. In addition, it was known that the killer had purchased the book.<P>It's 1996: The 118-minute-long movie <i>Silence of the Lambs</i> was extremely popular just a while ago and had won Oscars; profilers are superheroes; there is talk in the thin air of Boulder as well as the thicker air elsewhere about issues related to using textbooks to commit murder. Suddenly in Boulder, a young girl is brutally attacked and murdered in the sanctuary of her home on Christmas night. A very strange note is left at the scene with cryptic references which people are still arguing about. The note is too cryptic and the true message doesn't get out. Because of the misunderstanding of the note (the blame for which rests solely with the author), people never understand what the crime is really all about. For several years, theories rage like wildfires in the west. The inexperienced Boulder Police Department, led by the press and the FBI (Famous But Incompetent), fail to make any real headway in solving the case.<P><BR><b>Relating the Textbook to the Crime</b><P>This crime is very likely to have been <i>mostly and quite literally</i> a textbook sexual homicide, but perpetrated for the purpose of embarrassing the FBI regarding their alleged profiling capabilities. The textbook <1>, a very comprehensive one, was used as a guide to conduct this crime somewhat in the same fashion that Paladin Press (Boulder, Colorado) books have been used to perpetrate other crimes. The ransom amount of $118,000 was intended to attract the attention of the Investigative Support Unit of the FBI because the author was convinced that Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas would surely recognize the number 118. It was probably no accident that the movie <i>Silence of the Lambs</i>, which touted profiling, was 118 minutes long. How could they possibly miss it? Use of the number 118 in the context of a "textbook sexual homicide" should indicate quite clearly that the perpetrator is familiar with the material on sexual homicides and will be very difficult to apprehend. It also suggests that the textbook was used to design the homicide, at least in some respects, in order to degrade and belittle the profilers' professional activities.<P>One aspect of the design of the homicide is that it should contain four phases. What were these phases? Possibly something like: (S)elect; (B)ehead; (T)ransport; (C)onfess. Note that, concerning the letters S.B.T.C in the ransom note, there is no period after the letter "C" as one might expect there should be. Most people probably assume that this was an accident. Consider this: If we are talking about four phases, and if we merely want to separate the four letters which represent them by some symbol, then we need only three symbols. We don't need four. If the letters S.B.T.C refer to the four phases of the crime, as described in the book <i>Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives</i> <1>, then the periods are separators, not terminators. The missing period isn't a mistake; it's completely intentional.<P>So where is this confession, if it in fact exists? Well, it may be all over the place. Confession to a member of the clergy, an attorney, or other qualified professionals is confidential. Interestingly, if the perpetrator were to confess over and over again, it would satisfy the need to relive the crime over and over again, just like it says in the textbook. The perpetrator could go into a confession booth or an office and confess while thoroughly enjoying not only the telling of the crime, but in seeing the anguish of the person to whom he is confessing. He can even show off his trophies. He can brag all he wants to about the crime, but the person to whom he is bragging may feel as though his hands are completely tied. (I would hope that any clergyman reading this and having heard such a confession would think about the fact that this was NOT a true confession; it was sheer cockiness intended to inflict pain.)<P>Now please understand that I am NOT saying that these words are necessarily the actual words implied by the letters S.B.T.C --- what I AM saying is that I think it probable that these letters do somehow refer to the four phases discussed in the textbook on sexual homicides.<P><BR><b>The Purpose of the Ransom Note</b><P>The true purpose of the peculiar ransom note was to attract the attention of the FBI, and very specifically the Investigative Support Unit (the "profilers"), but it failed in its primary purpose --- or at least appears to have failed. Attracting the FBI was the reason why there was ransom note in the first place. It's also why there is mention of a foreign faction and dislike for the U.S. government. (The FBI, not the CIA, has primary jurisdiction over domestic intelligence --- or at least historically and legally it had such jurisdiction.) It may also be why John Ramsey was specifically instructed to go to a bank. The FBI has jurisdiction over bank robberies as well as other various banking irregularities. The ransom note was a summons to the FBI to "step outside." "Catch me if you can you arrogant SOB's!" The ransom note has "Hey FBI!" written all over it.<P>The reason the ransom note is so long is that it is like a fishing line with a lot of lures on it; it's bulky. It also has some totally unnecessary verbiage that is merely composed of taunts that amused the author. In particular, "John" is not necessarily the same person as "Mr. Ramsey." Neither "John" nor "Mr. Ramsey" are from the South, but they both have strong ties there. The author may have felt it necessary not only to tie on a lot of lures, but also to spew out some thinly disguised venom to someone he despises ("John," not "Mr. Ramsey").<P><BR><b>The Perpetrator</b><P>Lest I be criticized by those who say that my ideas here are simply a consistency-only "theory," I make some predictions: The perpetrator has a tattered, dog-eared, marked-up copy of <i>Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives</i>. He has nothing but disgust for the FBI, and especially for the Investigative Support Unit, and for criminal profiling in general. He probably hates John Douglas, Robert Ressler, and Roy Hazelwood (but may have mixed feelings for Jodie Foster). If you approach him and say, "Famous But Incompetent," he <i>must</i> laugh. He hates the FBI so much that he cannot help himself. If you approach him and say, "FBI profiler," he goes off on a tirade.<P>I would also like to point out here that I am not telling an imaginative story. I'm not trying to pretend as though I know what happened the night of 25 December 1996, nor am I pretending to get inside the perpetrator's head. I'm simply saying that I am convinced that the number $118,000 refers to the same 118 as is in the textbook <i>Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives</i>. From this, a lot follows. More importantly, a lot of what follows fits very well without the typical convoluted reasoning and force-fitting of the many existing so-called theories.<P><BR><b>Future Work</b><P>What now? Well, it would be nice to see the FBI step forward to help the young girl who "took a bullet" for them, but I'd be surprised. The FBI doesn't necessarily like to get involved in hard-to-solve cases. They do best at recovering stolen vehicles, bank robberies where there are video cameras, etc. They are very, very image-conscious. In this case, they were specifically targeted, and they actually may be fully aware of that but unwilling to take the risk that they may not be able to catch the perpetrator. I think it's time for the rest of us to get the FBI to take up the case. Here are some more or less obvious things they should do:<P>They should do a good once-over of themselves. They need to do a check of their records for applicants who were turned down for employment, for example, not just for suspects in criminal cases. They need to check the "good" guys, not just the "bad" guys. The FBI seems to have a great affinity for massive projects, so re-checking the list of thousands of names connected with this case should provide them with a welcome task.<P>They should probably do a thorough investigation of everyone connected with the movie <i>Silence of the Lambs</i> (1991). Did the FBI rub someone the wrong way? Recall the constant movie references in the ransom note? Has Ms. Foster attracted another deranged admirer who became jealous of John Douglas' interaction with her? Whose idea was it to make the movie 118 minutes long? How many people knew about this or seemed to think that it was important?<P>Judging by reviews on Amazon and Barnes and Noble websites, there are a number of people who have no great love for John Douglas and his colleagues. Perhaps there is someone out there who is livid about the claims of these people. This could be either someone who was affected by some work done by the Investigative Support Unit or someone who thinks they are full of hot air and has decided to prove it. An example of the latter may be someone in law enforcement him/herself.<P>Now it's possible that the FBI is aware of all I have said here and is actually working on the case from this angle. However, if they are, it's time to fess up and get help from the public. It is the height of arrogance to think that they are going to solve it by themselves. They may, but it's already taken --- how long? <P><BR><b>A Failure and a Plea for Miss Ramsey</b><P>Many people regard the murder of JonBenét Ramsey was an example of a perfect crime. Well, that depends upon what is meant. In the sense of having gotten away with murder, and at this particular time, this is true. However, and very paradoxically (just like everything else in this case), this mission-oriented perpetrator actually failed miserably in accomplishing his mission. He failed miserably to call out the FBI. Yes, he killed a six-year-old girl. What an accomplishment! He got past the inexperienced and incompetent Boulder Police Department. What skill! He outwitted Steve Thomas. What brilliance!<P>The fact of the matter is that this individual may very well be just like most whom have been profiled by the Investigative Support Unit: They are intelligent, but basically failures in life. They cannot and do not really accomplish anything. They fail in school; they fail in business; they have a string of jobs; they fail in marriage, and so on. I'm not sure that this perpetrator is any different, really. He can't even attract the attention of the FBI despite all his efforts. Well, maybe we should help him. Would you people at the FBI please at least look at this a little more? <P>Do it for Miss Ramsey --- not for the despicably gutless coward that killed her.<P><BR><b>Notes and References</b><P><1> Robert K. Ressler, Ann W. Burgess, and John E. Douglas. <i>Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives</i>. Free Press, 1988 (hardcover).<P><2> John E. Douglas and Mark Olshaker. <i>Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crimes Unit</i>. Scribner, 1995.<BR> <BR>