17 July 2002, 19 July 2002

The Textbook

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 really 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.

Many people are familiar with John Douglas' or Robert Ressler's books on profiling, serial killers, or sexual obsession murders. The book: Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives <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.

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.

Also in this particular book was considerable discussion of the four phases of a sexual homicide:

1) pre-crime activities and planning
2) the murder itself
3) disposal of the body
4) post-crime activities.

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."

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.

A Little Bit of History

Now to switch gears, recall the movie Silence of the Lambs (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.

In late 1995, Scribner published Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crimes Unit <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.

Also in 1995, and in Boulder, Colorado no less, the company that published the book Hit Man took a hit in court with the filing of a lawsuit. Hit Man 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.

It's 1996: The 118-minute-long movie Silence of the Lambs 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.

Relating the Textbook to the Crime

This crime is very likely to have been mostly and quite literally 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 Silence of the Lambs, 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.

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 Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives <1>, then the periods are separators, not terminators. The missing period isn't a mistake; it's completely intentional.

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.)

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.

The Purpose of the Ransom Note

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.

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").

The Perpetrator

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 Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives. 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 must 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.

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 Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives. 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.

Future Work

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:

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.

They should probably do a thorough investigation of everyone connected with the movie Silence of the Lambs (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?

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.

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?

A Failure and a Plea for Miss Ramsey

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!

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?

Do it for Miss Ramsey --- not for the despicably gutless coward that killed her.

Notes and References

<1> Robert K. Ressler, Ann W. Burgess, and John E. Douglas. Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. Free Press, 1988 (hardcover).

<2> John E. Douglas and Mark Olshaker. Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crimes Unit. Scribner, 1995.

Advertised his crime to alert the FBI? Maybe. After all, contempt for the publicity seeking FBI is quite common.

Some have suggested that those who have purchased forensic texts by credit card rather than by institutional purchase orders should be looked at closely.

But the FBI handled that Unabomer case without shrinking away from a challenge, so I don't see them as likely to be avoiding this one. Its simply that they don't have jurisdiction and don't want any bad publicity.

I suppose there are a lot of false confessors too...

So the FBI could easily assert jurisdiction in this case, and they could even cite YOUR ideas about interstate travel of the perpetrator to do so.

>It's 1996: The 118-minute-long movie Silence of
>the Lambs was extremely popular
Popular? Yes. But not really any more relevant than any other 118 minute long movie that dealt with crime.
>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.
FBI... lol. How true.

In addition to being mentioned whenever the study of 36 murderers is introduced or re-introduced, the number 118 shows up six times in 3 pages (pages 62-64) where various statistics are cited. Instead of merely saying X%, the authors say X out of 118 for EACH statistic, then they provide the percentage, followed by a paragraph of discussion for each statistic. These pages contain discussion of Phase Four (post-crime activities), and are therefore arguably relevant to planning a crime. Suffice it to say that anyone who read to at least page 64 has seen this number at least eight times, both as part of describing the study and repetitively cited (bang, bang, bang, ...) in a very short space as a component of a statistic.

If one reads this book to at least page 64, I think he/she would agree that either of the numbers 118 or 36 could be interpreted as symbolic of this type of murder (sexual homicide).

---------------------------------
Postscript: Another minor and perhaps insignificant detail, but interesting to ponder in addition to the length of the movie. Recall that in the ransom note, the author strangely specifies that $18,000 be in 20's. Do you detect the scent of 36 in that? Another hint, or just a meaningless coincidence?

Everyone has been looking in the wrong place for the wrong person. The target of the crime was the FBI, not the Ramseys. (The Ramseys were the victims.) This isn't something that has to do with Access Graphics; it has to do with the Investigative Support Unit of the FBI. This crime isn't about the perpetrator's love-hate relationship with six-year-old girls; it's about his love-hate relationship with middle-aged Special Agents. BPD shouldn't be focusing solely on "friends," acquaintances, and neighbors of the Ramseys; they should include "friends," acquaintances, and neighbors of the FBI, and perhaps particularly of the celebrity profilers.

This may, in fact, be the primary reason why the crime hasn't been solved.

Oh --- and don't count on either the handwriting or the DNA samples to provide anything. They may, but I'd be surprised. That would be just too easy, perhaps even intentional.

No. I always thought it would be foolish to leave traceable writing there and I never thought this crime was commited by a fool.

I'm willing to bet that some of the clues that we know of point directly to who it is, but we just don't know how, due to evidence that was messed up or whatever.

I think it's crazy ironic that weird things happened in the Michigan home, too. I think they are related.

I beleive that some of the clues should point to who it is if someone could only put it all together.

We haven't been told everthing but that's because some of it only the perp would know. There are those who confess to crimes they didn't commit and that's a way to know; cause they have stuff that they don't tell us; and shouldn't, either.

Also, if someone were telling a story and just happened to include somethng that wasn't public knowledge, we'd have a new direction to look, wouldn't we?

I still think the letter was put togehter with a lot of the writers own words in it, and that that can tell us what kind of a person to look for. Movie lines too perhaps, but in between those, the writers own personality is there for the seeing.

I think those who read it failed on that point because they either looked at the movie lines and said "that's the persons character" or else they recognized the movie lines and said "it's composed entirly of movie lines so there is no information there!"

I know that some here believe that we COULD sort it out, and I think it can be sorted out, you just have to know which is a movie line and remove all of those, and replace those with an "X" or something, and read the REST of it.

I think then it will more clearly show the personality of the writer.

I do think that's important and I do think that some here on this forum COULD do that. I don't know where all of the movie lines are at. Someone here DID write all of those out one time so THEY know. So I guess we'd just have to go through it all over again, just replace the bogas parts (the movie lines) with a variable like in Algebra, and THEN read it.

If so, this seems strange. He would have been more likely to have picked a crime that directly involved some FBI jurisdiction.

The perpetrator may very well have assumed that John would call the FBI first rather than the now-infamous BPD. This is a perfectly reasonable assumption, I must admit: Recall that John has said that he has friends in the FBI.

It's really too bad that the perpetrator didn't do a better job of getting the FBI involved and getting them involved sooner --- before the body was found. I would rather that he be forced to tangle with the 800-pound gorilla of law enforcement rather than a dysfunctional one-ounce mouse.

If the note, particularly with its 118,000 demand was some sort of invitation to the FBI, then that 118 would be most probably totally unknown to the few FBI agents who would respond or learn of the kidnapping in some manner.

The '118' might be instantly recognized by someone familiar with the work in question, but the resident agent in Boulder or Denver who would be the first to get involved would hardly match that curious amount with the FBI's own profilers. The resident agent is no flatfoot, but he sure ain't a profiler and probably has not read the text that you have cited. Indeed, he probably has not heard of it at all.

Why plan such an elaborate humiliation of the FBI and then not continue to taunt them?

You labeled this scheme as "elaborate." I don't see this as elaborate at all. It involves some planning, so it's more elaborate than robbing a convenience store --- but that is usually done by idiots. This shouldn't be compared to those types of crimes, but instead to a "big score."

As far as continued taunting: He actually may be doing that, but in a way that we can't recognize. It doesn't even have to be something that we (you and I) would see. He's not necessarily going to come to this forum, for example, and post messages to the FBI. On the other hand, maybe he went to Amazon and trashed all of John Douglas' books. Maybe he wrote a letter to the editor of a Denver paper and criticized the FBI's work (or lack of it) on this case.

The primary question in my mind:
If this is in fact a major taunting of the fbi and its profiling unit, then who would have both an intense interest in and knowledge of the unit as well as some very intense interest in the Ramseys?

First, if he really just wanted 'a prominant Boulderite-Businessman' I don't think John Ramsey would be at the top of the list (or even near the top) even before the 12/21/96 article on Billion in Sales. Okay John Ramsey was not a homeless bum hanging around Pearle Street, we know that, but he wasn't the kind of businessman who had his name in the paper all the time or on people's minds all the time. Stop ten people on Pearle Street prior to the murder and ask them who is John Ramsey and only those who actually worked for Access Graphics would probably know the answer.

I also think that atleast some degree of planning and 'anticipation' went into this. By anticipation I mean that the perpetrator savored the effect the note would have on them and savored the effect the tape would have on them.
So I see a bit too much 'targeting' of a specific person than just 'some fat cat from the Boulder businessworld'.

Given data such as this, it would be obvious that the crime would most likely be directed at the Ramseys rather than simply at 'a businessman'.

Unfortunately, I doubt the Chamber of Commerce actually prepares such lists.

Regarding interchanging selection of the family and knowledge of the Ramseys: It's hard to say which came first, but as far as investigative payoff goes, I'd look at anyone who ingratiated themselves to the Ramseys, say, a year or so prior to the murder. Is there anyone who appeared on the scene who was "too good to be true?" Anyone who gave them a "really good deal?" Anyone who wanted to "help JonBenét's career?" I would guess that the perpetrator may have inserted himself into the Ramseys' lives, having picked them due to the local prominence of both John and JonBenét, plus the naiveté of the family regarding security. John's having "friends" (John's word) in the FBI may have also played a role in the selection.

If you use an Internet search engine, searching for "black duct tape" (with quotes), you will find some websites that discuss bondage. Perhaps the black duct tape was intended to be a symbol of bondage. There are those who have suggested that the black duct tape would totally ineffective in restraining anyone from screaming, even JonBenét, due to its low adhesion and short length. They then conclude that this supports the contention that Patsy merely staged the crime scene.

Apart from finding it difficult to believe that Patsy would have such detailed knowledge of the scene of a crime of sexual homicide (which book of the Holy Bible is that in?), I think that this indeed may have been staging. "Here is bondage!" "I'm a freak!!" "Stop me from killing more innocent little girls!!!" This fits well with the objective of flagging down certain law enforcement individuals.

It's also possible that, in addition, the tape held something in JonBenét's mouth. This is just speculation on my part, of course, but the existence of something in her mouth would fit with this entire scenario. Nothing of this sort was mentioned in the ME's report, but it may have been withheld and be known by the investigators. There may also have been something inside of JonBenét, in another body cavity, such as the missing part of the paintbrush handle which some have speculated was a "trophy." If so, I believe that it supports the idea that this was staged by someone who had studied sexual homicides. This person would have wanted to ensure that something was found that unambiguously pointed to sexual assault.

"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."

Maybe we aren't the audience that is supposed to "get it." Last year I wrote about the play at Naropa that analysed this murder according to the literary theories of William Burroughs.
HE was always writing about doing gross things to girls and women. Burroughs spent a lot of time in the Arab world and had this big theory of terrorism that involved killing girls. He also loathed southerners.

When he wasn't in Boulder teaching at Naropa Burroughs also lived on a farm in Kansas where he shot guns with other wierdos. He also had a stun gun. I can't go into it all anymore. My old computer was stolen and it was on there.
One of his book characters (his persona really) was Hassan Sabbah, a historical Muslim fanatic who had a mountain redoubt in what was then Persia and is now Tadzhikistan. He lived there in midieval times but had agents everywhere and could have people killed in Paris. Just like Bin Laden who almost certainly models his Al Qaeda after Hassan Sabbah's group called the Assassins. Burroughs gave performances of Hassan Sabbah where he issued threats against capitalists, etc. He also wrote a book that called for killing girls and encouraging boys to join a homosexual terrorist movement.
He wrote a lot of really gross things about how to kill and desecrate females.

Burroughs also hated the FBI. He died a few months afte JBR was murdered.

I think the killer was someone that was facinated with Burroughs. Such people are often on drugs, into really dark "punk" stuff.

I don't know what it's like in your field, but in the fields in which I work there are many textbooks that are just terrible. People who read them sometimes explain this situation by saying that the author is just so intelligent that no one can understand what he/she is saying. The actual usual case is that the author cannot communicate effectively. That is, the author is a terrible writer. Editors have demonstrated this by taking paragraphs which are very obscure and rewriting them to show what the author was really trying to say and saying badly. Often the paragraph is reduced to a couple of sentences. I think that we have that here. The author of the ransom note does not appreciate the fact that the number 118 doesn't mean anything to anyone. He thinks it should because it means something to him and because it was in a book written by celebrity profilers.

He's the one who doesn't get it.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-25-02 AT 09:01 PM (EST)

with such a large ego wouldn't he feel frustrated that nobody was stung by his message?

Wouldn't he try to help "analyse" this case so people could appreciate his arcane allusions?

Here are some pages of the book from amazon.com.
Maybe some of what you mention will be here.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0028740637/slide-show/002-8559303-5453666#reader-link

Wow! I clicked on page 4 and it said that data were collected on 118 victims, primarily women.

I believe that the purpose of the crime was to commit a perfect crime<1>, and to challenge the nation's so-called best of law enforcement to try and solve it. The message of 118 and the choice of a sexual homicide was, I believe, an attempt to call out the "best" or what was popularly thought of as the best of law enforcement immediately rather than wait for the local authorities to call them in --- to challenge them directly. This is what was too obscure to be interpreted, the blame for which rests with the author. He failed to skirt around BPD, so he in essence merely challenged the inexperienced and unprepared.

Does this bother him? I don't know. I've observed that people with large egos tend to alter their interpretations of reality to suit their egos, so probably not. The Ramsey case keeps coming up again and again. Several books have been written about it, including Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. This title alone suggests that not only did this perpetrator commit the perfect crime, but he chose the perfect locale in which to commit it. To a large extent, I agree with Lilac who says he was lucky (so far). He can credit his own genius if he wants to, in fact I hope he does. Don says this perpetrator is no fool. Perhaps not in the ordinary sense of the word, but I believe that the biggest fools are those who fool themselves --- and I hope that we have a case of that right here with this perpetrator.


<1> I should mention that Jams has pointed out many times the similarities between the ransom note in this case and that in the case of Leopold and Loeb, another attempt to commit a perfect crime. Despite their high IQ's, Leopold and Loeb were just two more fools when it came to committing a crime. Thankfully the BPD wasn't called in on this one.

You wrote in an earlier post: "The '118' might be instantly recognized by someone familiar with the work in question, but the resident agent in Boulder or Denver who would be the first to get involved would hardly match that curious amount with the FBI's own profilers. The resident agent is no flatfoot, but he sure ain't a profiler and probably has not read the text that you have cited. Indeed, he probably has not heard of it at all."

I read the chapter in John Douglas' book "The Cases that Haunt Us" on the Ramsey murder.

Douglas writes that the Denver FBI agent was trained by Douglas himself to do profiling and even saved Douglas' life when Douglas went into a coma from viral encephalitis. (282).

The agent's name was Ron Walker.

Agent Walker told the police to look closely at the family.

The police seemed to have stopped there. They did not take advantage of other services the FBI could have provided IF ASKED.

Since murder is a state crime, the FBI has to be asked and their services used early.

The police didn't feel they needed help.Douglas feels this was the mistake.

Having already received the FBI-profiling section's 'bottom line', the police really didn't need anything further from them.

So, you think it's a coincidence that John's bonus was approximately $118,000 after taxes?
Do you think the FBI hater was a friend of the Ramseys? I think you're absolutely correct about his/her taunting & disdain for law enforcement.

Even if the perpetrator expected to collect a ransom, at some point he knew the FBI would see the ransom note. That note looks like someone spent a lot of time on it, perhaps even two or more different hands imo.

Do you think the killer had subjugated conspirators, or acted alone?

118 has been mentioned in a lot of contexts:
*JR's after tax bonus
*118th Street from Leopold and Loeb--where the body of Body Franks was found
*Bible passages
*even an astronomy reference to a study involving ll8,000 stars

IMO, I think the truth lies somewhere between John Douglas's assessment and Lou Smit's. The crime is what it is---and the perp could have been jealous of, or had a vendetta against JR.....and the article in the newspaper triggered it.

IMO, I think there would have been more taunting notes over the last several years to the FBI, if the perp was fixated on them.

The most serious problem that I see with profiling is that it is based on correlations. Profilers have interviewed many offenders, then they correlated the attributes. They look for commonalities and develop statistics for these. If a perpetrator now uses these findings, currently written up in many books and articles, to commit a crime according to the template provided, the so-called "profiling" becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. It may occur to the profiler that their findings are being utilized to create the appearance of something that they are pre-disposed to look for (that is, staging), but I seriously doubt that it would ever occur to the profiler that he or law enforcement in general, not the victim or the victim's family, is the target.

As far as tauting notes to the FBI, etc. I don't see how you or anyone else who has no knowledge of the perpetrator can predict any kind of behavior. Attempts to do this will result in exclusion of potential suspects.

I wish I knew the answer regarding accomplices. I've always had the impression, and it's only that, that this person knows that it's best to act alone. But Leopold and Loeb didn't, so ???

"Pre-crime activities include, for example, selection of the victim...
Post-crime activities are described as quite varied, but include "confession."

Why do you think JonBenet, rather than Burke, was chosen? Do you believe the family knew her killer? "When" the killer is finally arrested, do you think he will readily confess, or taunt the investigators for a bit? Personally, I think the sick coward will eventually crumble like a cookie, but wonder what you think about an arrest scenario for this type of perp?

Any or all of these impressions could easily be completely erroneous. Unlike some members of this forum, I am not psychic; I am sixth-sense disabled.

The profilers achieve the same thing by stripping away all the nuances and developing broad 'profiles' that then become a locked-in mindset that denies any hope of dealing with something that is the least bit outside the 'guidelines'.

I've used the example before about ATMs. It sure didn't take the street criminals long to discover they made great sites for crimes, but it took about three years for the crime statistics to reflect what the street criminals learned immediately.

Any kind of system, including those involving humans, may be easily fooled because the system doesn't really understand what it's doing. It's just following a recipe. And, as you pointed out, even halfway intelligent criminals easily figure these kinds of things out.

>even halfway intelligent criminals easily figure
>these kinds of things out.
But during the time-lag, those who follow the 'guidelines' and 'statistics' and 'profiles' are the ones who are too dumb to realize that if there is a machine dispensing twenty dollar bills at that location, thats why people are getting mugged near there.

Oh, how true!

Sometimes I think one of the real problems with this case is that we tend to forget that it sometimes comes down to a question of ethics.

I've used the example before about the 'nutcase who, having observed JonBenet stepping on a sidewalk crack and not being punished, decided to kill JonBenet so as to punish those evil parents'.
Now we would all think that such a nutcase was well,,, a nutcase! But it sometimes just comes down to a question of values and of simply being a bad person. Not an insane person. Not a nutcase. Just someone who operates on a different set of fundamental values.

There are indeed people who would be perfectly willing to kill a man's daughter as part of a business dispute. Just look at the recent Philadelphia kidnapping of a young girl as leverage in a drug-payment dispute. Just look at a great many drug related killings of 'every living thing' in the home, even including pets and houseplants.

It doesn't take someone who is delusional. It doesn't take someone who is evil. Some people really do not get mad, but they do get even!

>I've used the example before about the
>'nutcase who, having observed JonBenet stepping
>on a sidewalk crack and not
>being punished, decided to kill JonBenet
>so as to punish those evil
>parents'.

>Not an insane person.
>Not a nutcase. Just someone who
>operates on a different set of
>fundamental values.

This time I'm asking. What did JBR do that was the violation of this persons 'code'? Or what did her parenents do that was a violation of this persons 'code'?

You surly have an idea, right? If you do then maybe one of the 'irregulars' can spot said person who'd have such and such a code. I don't live in Colorado but there are probably people here who do.

Supposedly we will all hear more on this subject by the end of the year. By the end of the year I hope to either be in Alabama or Florida working for a sign painter, so if I dissapear for awhile, then that's because I'm moving. If it all works out right, then I'll be back to read but probably not to write very often.

We DO hope that whatever Lou has uncovered will bring the perp to justice though and be national so we'll hear about it whether we are online or not.

I wish I knew. I don't really think it was something like stepping on a crack in the sidewalk. But I don't think it involved the pageants either.

Paraphrasing Schlossberger:

1) Serial killers think "I'm so intelligent that I can do this and you'll never catch me."

2) They want to get as close to getting caught without getting caught as they can. That's the kind of thrill that they are seeking. They escalate their behavior as far as they can without getting caught.

3) They write letters so that they can establish credit for the killings. David Berkowitz's letters were full of ranting and raving, but like a lot of such letters, they attempt to show some sort of intelligent purpose for the killings so that they won't be viewed simply as random killings by a lunatic.

4) There is nothing spontaneous in the serial killer. They regard everything about the killing as an artist painting on a canvas --- the scene and the behavior are designed.

5) Serial killers don't enter pleas of insanity because the believe that they are "so superior to everybody else that they don't need to do that."

6) Profiling is NOT a useful tool for catching an particular killer, but instead is a useful tool for developing new theories.

7) We'll never be able to get into the mind of a serial killer; they are in their own little world.

A female psychiatrist, I believe she was, whose name I didn't catch said that "grandiosity" was part of the behavior of a paranoid schizophrenic.

In the killing of JonBenét Ramsey, combined with the ransom note, I see "I'm so intelligent you'll never catch me." I see grandiosity ("respect your bussiness sic but not the country..."). I don't think that there is anything spontaneous about the killing. I don't think we'll be able to get into the mind of the killer. I think that developing new theories, such as I have done here, is a GOOD thing to do.

>I think that developing new theories,
>such as I have done here, is a GOOD thing to do.
Yes. Its certainly far, far more than the BPD are doing. Or even trying to do.

>My impression of why he chose JonBenét rather
>that Burke is fundamentally that he is
>predominantly or completely heterosexual.
Agreed.
Even if posters do not agree that the sexual activity was 'minimal' or 'perfunctory', I still think it was not a major motivating factor at all.
At most it was like the icing on a piece of birthday cake. Even if you enjoy it, you are not eating the cake because you are hungry. You are eating it because it is the right and proper thing to do.

>My impression has always been that this
>perpetrator is on the periphery of the family ---
>knows them, but is not a close friend of the family.
Agreed. Though I would place him somewhat even more remotely, such as merely having had some prior knowledge of the Ramseys but not necessarily ever having met them.

>Any or all of these impressions could easily be
>completely erroneous.
Yes, indeed. If it turns out to have been their minister or something, I would be dumbfounded, but I do agree that a great deal of this case has to be based on 'impressions' due to the BPD's having bungled so much of it. "Impressions" are not particularly desirable as an investigative tool (except possibly to would-be psychics who want to sell a paperback), but sometimes such impressions are really all you have.

For some reason, I am reminded of the "Textbook Answer" situation at West Point during 1942. Along the Eastern Coast of the United States, merchant vessels were being sunk at an alarming rate and each individual explosion was quite impressive and headline making.

Some young cadet at West Point decided to incorporate this information into his response to a question regarding the use of submarines in warfare, but was told that the correct answer was that submarines were of use only in the defense of a country's home coastal port cities. The "official" view was that German submarines would only be of use in European waters, so the clear evidence of their use along American shores was simply ignored.

I don't know what happened in the Aisenberg case, but I think a similar 'textbook orientation' may have been at work. Some woman who wants a baby and goes into a maternity ward is recognized as a rare crime, while some woman going into a home and taking a baby is not recognized at all despite the fact that all those articles in the newspaper about increased security at maternity wards makes it a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

The "Textbook" gets to be enshrined as gospel and no one ever wants to go beyond the official dogma. Certainly no one on the BPD does.

On edit: Along the lines of some of the prior comments on enshrinement of 'guidelines' and concerning 'ethics', I would like to add that we often view the "I don't get mad, I get even" type as a beer guzzling, blue-collar workman with a lunch pail who goes to a pool hall and a gym, but quite often its a man in a business suit who is a well educated professional carrying an attache case and who goes to an upscale health club and the theater. Doctors and dentists often are involved in insurance scams and tax evasion schemes, but we forget that they too are often guillty of arson, rape, smuggling, murder and the like. So I see this JonBenet murder as a work of a heterosexual male who is the 'upscale type' in appearances but who definitely is at his core the 'I don't get mad, I get even' type.

Yes, two 'wine and cheese' professionals rather than two 'beer and chips' factory workers. Thats what I mean, but I was excluding from consideration any 'emotional crime' such as a wife-husband situation.

The essential point is that although there may well have been a high degree of impulsiveness in this situation, they were well educated, high income professionals.

One need only glance at the business section's headlines about corporate chicanery to be disabused of the notion that crime is limited to the lower levels of society.

The BPD have been so unsuccessful because they are focused solely on the family and have paid mere lip-service to the local low-lifes around Boulder. If the BPD would raise their sights quite a bit they would realize that upscale, high-income professionals are quite likely to have been involved in crimes of violence rather than just white-collar crimes.

The moral of this story is, if you feel you must accuse your wife of sleeping with another _woman_, avoid j-walking, avoid parking lots, and take the bus for a while.

His primary goal was to kill.
He particularly wanted to kill a child.
He most definitely wanted to kill JonBenet and it was not as a result of some random encounter or generalized selection process.
Since he had decided for some unknown reason to embark on this course of action he also decided to demonstrate how clever he is with such demonstration being a declaration of his cleverness to all law enforcement types, not just the fbi's special unit.
So his choice of the recipients, the BPD, is simply an example of an undifferentiated recipient.
Undifferentiated in his mind.
The 'universal other'... his genius versus the world.

1.) Why was the writer of the note seemingly unconcerned about getting caught and unafraid of his handwriting being identified?

2.) Why does it appear that the writer either went back and added little curly-q's on the top of the a's or did it as he went along?

If one pictures someone with a drug-induced ego enhancement mimicking Patsy's handwriting, it would answer both questions.

Bonus question number 3:

Why was the ransom note writer unconcerned about having an alibi?

>
>Why was the ransom note writer unconcerned about having an alibi?
Because he is nowhere on the horizon at all. Geographically and Socially so remote that he would never be on even the top 100 charts much less the Top Ten charts. And also because he is such a 'loner' that no one will ever notice he doesn't have someone as an alibi. He never does.