When this murder occurred, we were all pretty damn naive when it came to profiling, DNA matching and forensics. It was only AFTER this murder that we saw TV shows on forensic evidence and profiling. Yes, there were a few books out there - - but it hadn't captured the attention of a vast audience. Prove it? Just remember the early forums. No one knew much of anything back then.

I knew about profiling way back then. Anyway, it doesn’t matter what anyone else knew, especially us! it would only matter what he knew, what his experiences and interests were…

...
Lou believes that the killer was carrying JonBenet down the stairs and saw the light on the panel that indicated the alarm was activated. (Probably by John before he went to bed.) Not knowing that was a fire alarm, not a burglar alarm, the killer may have felt he HAD to go to the basement to get out the broken window. With or without the child, he may have thought that was the only way to get out without tripping an alarm.

this explanation doesn’t sound very good to me. He’s already in the house, he has his victim and now all of a sudden he’s worried about an alarm? Now, I’m not very criminally sophisticated, but if I’m kidnapping I’m thinking of disappearing after I get my loot and I know I’m not going to get caught the most important thing is to get away with my victim and into some rapid means of escape. You might care and he might care of an alarm goes off, but I wouldn’t – I’m not trying to hide anything. I want people to know she’s been kidnapped and I don’t care if they know when. It’s nice to make a quiet getaway, sure – but I’ve already taken the risk, I’ve accomplished the better part of my task. I just want to get away now. All my alarm concerns have been dealt with or rationalized away before I even entered the house to begin with. maybe Lou’s right, but it sounds like fishing to me.

>If one wishes to entertain the idea that something went
>wrong, even if we can’t think of what that something could
>have been, it is important to note that whatever it was,
>must have happened after the killer was already finished
>with his dirty deed. The child was molested and killed in
>the boiler room, after this, she was put into the windowless
>room, cord and tape put on her, body wrapped in sheet (arms
>and legs exposed).
Nope, I think it went wrong so he was forced to do his nasty deed there, not where he planned.

I don’t understand this. Something went wrong but only wrong enough to change his mind about kidnapping? Jameson, everyone (if anyone else is out there!), he could have gotten her out of the house without any problem at all. He got out without any problem without her, he could have got out with her. If he was planning on getting her out to begin with, if he was already able to take the first few steps, getting into the house, taking his time, writing the note, nabbing her from her room, he was already halfway there! It was already a done deed in his head. It would be better to say you think he changed his mind than something went wrong. Because it is obvious that nothing went wrong. Why would taking her out of the house and to a place of seclusion be any riskier than staying in the house – and when he’s done, he still has to leave?

The authorities were going to get involved no matter how you reason this. I think if the writer was really trying to make it look like the parents wrote the note, they would have used her name and asked for a lot more money - - and that's just for starters.
>
>in addition and to his benefit the note would delay
>discovery of the body and the true nature of the crime. A
>delay in discovery allows for crime scene contamination.
>Although it may not have been a consideration or a concern,
>it would also allow time for the killer to slip back into an
>alibi.
Had the scene of a kidnapping been properly protected- there would not have been any crime scene contamination.
The killer wasted time writing a note so he might go someplace to establish an alibi? How's that work again?

of course the authorities were going to get involved. The point is that the note contains red flags that alerted the authorities about the false nature of the note. You might have asked for more money and if you had you might not have aroused any suspicions. It is because of the unusual amt that suspicions were aroused. The amt is the important factor. The amt is what has everybody talking. And maybe he didn’t know her name.

It doesn’t matter what you or I or anyone else would do if we had the same goal. It only matters what he did. That’s all we have to work with. I see people do thing all the time and I’m, like, what were youtrying to do? And they’re, like, well was trying to do this. And I say, why’d you try it like that? You should have done this. And they’re, like, oh... it doesn’t matter if you would have wrote the note differently, it isn’t relevant. and as it is he did a pretty good job (witness the borg).

The point about crime scene contamination is this: the killer, because of his understanding or misunderstanding (as explained elsewhere in the theory) of crime scene analysis, etc may have believed that a kidnapping crime scene would be treated much differently than a murder crime scene (one of several reasons not to kill her in her bed. Anyway if a staged kidnapping scenario is being created, he has to hide the body in the house! She can’t be found dead and have that reported – it has to be the kidnapping – no body immediately found! Although I do believe that he thought the body would have been found much earlier than it was. A kidnapping crime scene would, he may have believed, allowed for the exact kind of thing that actually happened, although as with the discovery of the body, I don’t think he dreamed that things would get as bad, as far as contamination, as they did.

The point about the alibi is this: temporal – time. Time before the body is discovered and the true nature of the crime is known and the investigation and the response (if there’s a kidnapper on the loose it’s one thing – he already has his target. If it’s a child murderer… wouldn’t that change things?). on the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to assume that he may have believed that the ransom note would cause the Ramseys to hold off on notifying the authorities. It gives him freedom to move about with no one looking… if he had some distance to travel or someone to be with, it might be nice to say he wasn’t anywhere around when people were looking, etc. it doesn’t matter, I don’t care, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was not concerned in this regard at all. It’s just a remote maybe… anyway, I’m not saying he wrote the note for that purpose, just that depending on unknowns it might be an added bonus.

>
>Because the note suggests a kidnapping, it would guarantee
>FBI involvement which in turn means getting the attention of
>profilers.
And the killer wanted that why? (Actually I kind of like this one - - someone wanting attention as badly as that note writer seemed to would LOVE to think he would have the FBI looking for him. But I don't sense this killer thought that far head. If he had I think we would have had evidence of that in the note itself.

The killer wanted the attention of profilers because they would recognize, or so he would have believed, the red flags in the note, they would recognize ‘As horrible unnatural as it is to contemplate, parents do kill their children for a variety of reasons, and normally when they do so they report them missing or abducted, leaving a staged scene.’ (John Douglas). Getting the attention of profilers is the number one concern of my theoretical killer. When you ask why he would want to do that it makes me think I screwed up pretty bad in explaining things. I haven’t explained things properly.

He wouldn’t like the idea of the FBI looking for him. He didn’t, doesn’t believe anyone is looking for him. He wanted people to be looking for the Ramseys. The only evidence he would want in the note would be the Ramsey Hints. Of course, he put more in there – it was inevitable but certainly unintended. If you want some sort of FBI link in the note, many have much of his use of F.B.I., Police, alert bank authorities, scanned for electronic devices, law enforcement countermeasures and tactics, monitor, constant scrutiny,etc

Maybe one of the problems I’m having is that people think I’m presenting a theory about why he wanted to do this. I’m not. I’m presenting a theory that merely says he wanted to do this, I’m not addressing the why of it. intent not motive.

I do agree that there is enough in the note that someone should recognize something. Yes, it should be out there in a more visible way.

No one actually believes they can disguise 3 pages of handwriting! No, I think the killer was willing to leave his handwriting because he didn't think anyone would ever look at him as a suspect. No one actually believes they can disguise 3 pages of handwriting! No, I think the killer was willing to leave his handwriting because he didn't think anyone would ever look at him as a suspect.

I read this book in the early nineties, Hoax by Clifford Irving. Irving produced letters and documents and many, many pages (hundreds?) of handwriting to support his claim to publishers that he had exclusive access to howard Hughes and that he was being authorized by Hughes to write his autobiography. All of the documents passed inspection. In the end he was found out and Hughes himself made a public appearance via telephone (experts also pronounced this as genuine) denouncing Irving. Maybe the killer read this book, too. just joking.

And what about the hitler diaries? Handwritten and announced as authentic at first (though rejected as fakes soon after, mainly because of paper and ink used)? and the jack the ripper diaries...

I’m sorry but you are demonstrably and definitely wrong when you say no one believes they can disguise three pages of handwriting.

However, I do believe that he wasn’t worried about being identified by the handwriting because no one would look at him as a suspect. I made that point already.

I don’t think or rather I’m not theorizing that the killer hoped to forge anything, I am arguing that he took other steps (the notepad and pen out away in separate locations, the practice note, the ransom note itself as an obvious, to the fbi, hoax, the stuff with the paintbrush, the staging, for lack of a better word, of a kidnapping, etc.) such that they would overwhelm any failures or doubt of handwriting analysts to identify a Ramsey.

All other methods of writing the note would be ambiguous and harder to believe and probably harder to pull off.

I honestly don't see where the killer was trying to frame the parents. If he had been, there wouldn't have been any note with unmatching handwriting - - and the child would not have been left in the basement but in her own bed.

the entirety of the theory as posted addresses what you don’t see. Not much else to say there. As far as the child being found in her bed – not a chance. Now we have a crime scene and an immediate response from police (no FBI), nothing to connect the parents other than that they were there and the added risk of doing the crime in her room, no opportunity or limited opportunity to create a scene – remember the john Douglas quote, when parents kill their children they often report them as missing or abducted and stage a scene!

The cord on her wrists does appear to be for appearances only. I am not so sure about the tape. But the cord on her neck certainly DID serve a function - - it was a murder weapon.

I haven’t addressed the garrote fully. Yet. as stated at the beginning these are theory excerpts, I will be covering this aspect of the crime and others if I continue working on this (I’m feeling a little discouraged right now), as for the tape, examiners came to the conclusion that she was dead when the tape was applied – something to do with imprints on the tape. Pmpt is one source for this information.

>The cord and tape and the ransom note all form one picture:
>a kidnapping. But there was no kidnapping and the cord and
>tape were not functional, they served no practical purpose –
>they were for appearance only.
>
>Appearance of what?
Appearances play a very large part in certain fantasies.

the question was rhetorical. it’s the appearance of a phony kidnapping.

What shifting position? He might have been able to reach the tote from his position over JonBenet. The splinters are right there at the tote - and I don't know if any shards were in the tote - - do you?

he may have been able to reach over her. This, of course, implies that she was there when he broke the paintbrush (and I don’t have a firm opinion on whether she was there or not at that moment). So, what was she doing while he was reaching over, grabbing the paintbrush, breaking it, putting the brush end back in the tote, etc? no, I don’t know if shards were found in the tote, I do know fibers were found and that was reported – nothing about shards. But, maybe. I have to say that I swing towards probably not more than probably, some paint tote evidence was ‘released’ and shards don’t seem like the kind of thing to keep secret. Shards on the floor were reported.

I have a floor plan with the locations of these items shown, I don’t know how accurate they are, they do show that the body, before being placed in the windowless room, was between the tote and the shards and when you write, He might have been able to reach the tote from his position over JonBenet, you give the impression that you believe the same. So, I’m confused when you also write, The splinters are right there at the tote.

I want to note here that I disagree with Lou on that one point - - no way she was assaulted with the paintbrush handle - - not with her clothes on and no scratches left behind as evidence of exactly how he would have done that.

there is evidence, material found, that demonstrates that Lou is right on this point and that the killer did do this. Your disagreement, based on her clothes being on and no scratches is not reasonable. Let’s say she’s unconscious, dead or otherwise rendered incapable of resistance, you pull down the pants however far you need to pull them down, use the unbroken (though it need not have been broken at this point) end of the brush and give a quick slip inside. Her pants were down at some point, she was molested, she was wiped down.
If he didn’t use the tip we have to ask, not only where did it go but why did it exist at all? That is, he could have broken the paintbrush in two and taken the brush end as a souvenir (if you like the tip taken as souvenir explanation).
...
the theory is only presented in part. There is much more, for example I will be addressing intruder evidence and how it impacts the theory (it doesn’t! indeed, it is integral). the DNA, the window and window well, the suitcase, the flashlight, etc, etc, etc – I’ve got it all.
...
I very much appreciate that you took the time to read and respond to my theory. I’ve put a lot of hours and effort into these silly threads I start and it’s nice to know someone’s listening.

I've always been confused about the positioning and consciousness of JB when the cord was placed around her neck. The way her hair is swept along the front seems to indicate she was upright, but I don't know. If she was lying down on her face unconscious, it seems her hair would have been caught up from the top and swept downward. I think it is odd, too, how the cord is right on the neck instead of over her hair.

Not true. In May of 1995, when the OJ Simpson case was in full flower, CNN and Court TV were getting record TV ratings from the millions of viewers who were watching the trial, and specifically in May of 1995, the start of the detailed DNA analysis. By the time of JonBenet's murder, the American public had been saturated in the details of forensic evidence and DNA matching.

Jameson, I think many of those posters and many other people who have been attracted to this case were attracted for reasons that had nothing to do with an interest in profiling, forensics, linguistics, etc. these people have had to play catch up. It isn’t at all indicative of what was known or out there for people who are interested in this case (or the general public) for other reasons – like me. This stuff was out there – but Jonbenet oriented forums didn’t attract and weren’t hosted by people with prior knowledge – they had to learn as they went along.

Hiding the true nature of the crime is what side-tracked law enforcement, no doubt. I read a long time ago that a certain child predator called, a misopedist, sometimes create elaborate kidnapping hoaxes to conceal their true motive of wanting to kill a child. Other than that, I really can't think of objections to the theory.

He may have realized that handwriting analysis isn't an exact science and felt the other clues would overcome any doubt.

Why do you think he left the rope in John Andrews room?

I’d need some real evidence demonstrating it’s relationship to the crime before I’d try to incorporate it into any theory.

However, for entertainment purposes, consider these scenarios:
1) sack of rope has unknown or unremembered origins and is completely unrelated to the killer or the crime.
2) Info regarding sack of rope is a red herring, released as an investigatory aid (only LE and the killer know it’s relationship or non relationship).
3) Killer comes to crime scene disguised as Santa, the sack of rope is his sack of presents. the rope is there for appearances, give the bag weight and form and the rope had no other use.
4) Etc, etc

As far as I know, no one in the Ramsey family claimed the rope. It was photographed in a crime scene photo. It was said to have been in a paper sack, and sack fibers were found in JonBenet's bed. It was a very dirty rope, so I have always wondered what kind of evidence they found on that rope. Investigators have been silent about it.

misopedia:
1. A morbid hatred of children, sometimes including ones own.
2. In psychiatry, the hatred of children that may include the idea of incest with an unconscious viewing of the child as the consequence of incestuous relations.

As Mikie has said John Ramsey may have read the John Douglas Mindhunter book since the JonBenet murder. There is nothing illegal or suspicious about that. The Ramseys had a business relationship with John Douglas, after JonBenet's murder, which was purely a business transaction. There is nothing illegal or suspicious about that.

Steve Thomas deposition with Lin Wood in 2001:

Q. There has been a lot of debate about whether or not John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey or some of the Ramsey family before the murder of JonBenet owned the book Mind Hunter by John Douglas. Have you ever seen a photograph of that from a crime scene photo in their house?

A. No, but Tom Wickman swears up and down it was in the parents' bedroom.

Q. Does anyone else, besides Tom Wickman, swear that up and down?

A. No, but Tom Wickman has told that to several people.

Q. Where in the bedroom?

A. I was always under the impression as we recollect it now on one of the two night stands.

Q. By John's bed or by Patsy's?

A. I'm sorry, it's one or the other, I thought. Maybe I -- no, maybe I referenced it in the book, maybe I didn't. All I can tell you right now is on one of the night stands.

Q. Did you keep a -- but Wickman is the only person that says that, right?

A. As far as crime scene people that were in the house.

Q. Or anybody.

A. Yeah, Wickman is the source of Mind Hunter by Douglas.

Q. Anyone else, besides Wickman, is all I'm trying to find out?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

You are wrong about that - - the book was NOT inthe house and John had NOT read it- - he hadn't heard of John Douglas until after the murder and didn't read the book until after his attornies had hired Douglas.

Was a copy of Manhunter found in the Ramsey home?
great, this is interesting form my little office in my
- converted garage (where the book was written, BTW)
Mindhunter. Sorry
Ramseys deny it, apparently. Sgt tom Wickman, who came back
- to take chagre of the original crime scene, says it was there.

July 21, 1998 Linda Wilcox (former Ramsey housekeeper) interview on Peter Boyles Show

Peter Boyles: We'll talk about the police interview and we'll talk about the books by the bed. One of the stories we broke was about John Douglas' book Mindhunter being seen in the crime scene photos. You know a little bit about books by the Ramseys beds...
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-evidence.htm

He was good at passing misinformation and never taking responsibility for any of it.

…
I’d still like to know more about the paper sack and the rope and the ‘small pieces of sack material.’ What kind of paper? What kind of sack, size, shape, usage? They found material in her bed and in the body bag but nor on her body, hair or clothing? Did they find any of this material on the tape? The sheet? The boiler room floor (where the assault took place)? Material from the interior or exterior of the bag? Any other fibers or material in the bag or on the rope? Any rope fibers from the rope found anywhere? Etc, etc… it’s very difficult to know how to answer any questions about the bag at this point. It’d be nice if it could be definitively determined that the bag was brought into the house by the killer or if it’s just one of those things that sometimes show up in people’s houses and no one can figure out or remember where it came from?

Well, the sack material was brown, so I assume it was a brown paper bag. By my estimation, the rope was at least 15 feet long, so I'm thinking it was a large grocery sack. There must have been sack material on her body, otherwise, they wouldn't have found it in the body bag. The Ramsey family says the rope in the sack was not theirs. Considering a brown paper sack of rope was found in the guest bedroom, and sack material was found in her bed and on her, it's hard to imagine this sack of rope was unrelated. Lou said he had more fiber evidence that he wasn't releasing so there could have been sack fibers elsewhere. I think it's odd the note would mention an unnecessary transfer of the money from an attache to a brown paper bag in light of the brown paper bag he may have brought in.

I'm not sure what's "unnecessary" about the transfer. FWIW, the money requested amounted to 2 stacks of $100 dollar bills containing 500 bills apiece (i.e., the height of a ream of paper), plus another 2 stacks of $20 bills containing 450 bills apiece. These relatively small amounts could have fit in a lunch sack and didn't require a grocery sack. It could have been carried by the perp relatively easily and surreptitiously (in a backpack or even plastic grocery bag), perhaps more so than if the entire attache were handed over.

I realize most view the "kidnapping" as a ploy/cover-up--not an intended outcome. I view the situation more akin to a kidnapping gone wrong. The fact that the ransom note indicates some forethought has gone into the logistics of the money transfer helps reinforce that view (and the "War and Peace" of ransom notes myth is just that: very similar details/length were present in the Lindbergh kidnapping and that sure wasn't a ploy/cover-up. Admittedly, the Ramseys in theory could have handed over $1 million or more, but in easily-convertible bill form, that would have required 8 times the space and could have posed far more difficulty to transport if the perp were on bike or foot.
Miss Marple

I think, at his moment anyway, that the most that can be said is that the bag (or something very similar to it’s material) was in or on Jonbenet’s bed at some point. I don’t see how this is a benefit or a detriment to any RDI or intruder theory. RDI’s can easily say, of course the bag and rope belongs to the parents, they know it and they’re lying. They used something in that bag and than hid it so they could later say they knew nothing about it.

How easily do paper bags shed material anyway?