The only political aspects to this case appear to be the possible link to zoning variances for some properties such as Helgoth's junkyard and the Perl Street redevelopment that later became the site of a building housing Access Graphics as a tenant.

John Ramsey suffered a horrendous ordeal in Boulder, Colorado and ran for public office in Charlevoix, Michigan eight years later.

Very good example of an event precipitating an action which is unusual and unexpected for the individual involved.

Now, what sort of 'event' could have been causally related to Sick Puppy's later adventures and where did it take place?

Raised in harsh discipline, blue collar dad, who maybe
was alcoholic natural father or step dad,

expected to be more manly than he was, a loner, probably ridiculed by father, trauma of molestation

result: partial to under priviledged kids but jealous of priviledged children

Ambivalent sexuality, mostly hetero but bi tendencies, normal sexual drive but conflicted with feelings of guilt, tries to overcome guilt and shame thru mental and emotional effort but unsuccessfull, displaces shame and frustration toward traditional life style/staus quo types thru resentment/anger,

Still hurt by sister's molestation. Blames societal dual, victorian standards

Reactively sought manhood in out door activities to prove self, risk taker, outwardly a big BShrter, inwardly always unsure, puts on a front, loses it emotionally on precipitating occasions,

Seeks areas of control to aleviate feelings of depression and helplessness originating in childhood from uncontrolable circumstances, an activist, a shaper of thoughts thru discourse/writing/campaigning

resents sucessful people, his own dominating father, generalized to all authority figures

IF John Douglas is correct in his assessment of the Ramsey case as bearing a resemblance to the Annie Laurie Hearins case, it was bitterness over a lawsuit that motivated Annie's killer to act.

The only other case I have found so far that bears a resemblance to the Hearins case is the Marion Parker case. The killer was motivated by being discharged from his employ by Marion Parker's father.

There is also the aggressive segment of the transient population at the time to consider. John Ramsey's work and home environment were both areas transients populated. As I understand it, class lines were distinct between the wealthy and the poor breeding resentment toward the higher class.

However, my personal view, at this time, is that JonBenét had seen and spoken with her killer before and that the killer had some knowledge of the home and family. Because of the rope and where it was located, I think it's possible the offender knew of JAR and that sometimes he was home and sometimes he wasn't. So, if my view is correct, under what circumstances would a transient come to be known by JonBenét or gain inside information? I think someone would notice and remember JonBenét speaking with a transient. I also think it is a bit more than coincidence that JonBenét would be insistent on the fact that she would be receiving a special visit from Santa after Christmas and then actually have a special visit after Christmas.

Though not impossible, the odds seem astronomical to me that the 118,000 figure was completely unrelated to JR's bonus amount. (It wasn't even actually a bonus, was it?) It makes little sense to me the notewriter would not have a monetary figure in mind before entering the home. So, this could indicate some prior knowledge, but not necessarily. It could be he was planning on asking for less until he saw the 118,000 figure. It could be the figure was used because there is something about John receiving that amount that angered the offender. It could also be the offender used that amount to make it appear the crime had something to do with John's business when it did not. This could explain the odd statement about respecting John's business and the possible deliberate misspelling of the word 'business.'

Exactly!

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=65&forum=DCForumID37#18

Just after midnight on November 15, 1959, two ex-cons entered the home of Herbert Clutter, a hard working, successfull, and well respected farmer in rural western Kansas. They wore gloves, carried tape, cord, flashlight and shotgun. They woke the family, bound them,
taped their mouths and then brutally executed Herb, his wife and two teenaged children.
The crime received national attention and a few years later was detailed in Truman Capote's book, "In Cold Blood". A movie was made in 1966 based on the book and this was shown on national tv November 24, and 26, 1996 on the 37th. anniversary of the crime

In his book, Capote details Perry's quest for adventure and treasure. Perry's dad took him prospecting in Alaska when he was younger and the idea of perpetuating this life of wanderlust had been his obsession. In a conversation with Dick after the murder he reveals his favorite movie: "The Treasure of The Sierra Madre". He had seen it 8 times.

In the movie Humphrey Bogart plays the part of a broke
American in Mexico, who is cheated out of three weeks wages. He
attacks his boss in the cantina and takes his share of the money from his wallet.

He and his buddy use the money to fund a trip to the mountains to look for gold. The old prospector, who reminds Perry of his dad (nicknamed the Lone Wolf), agrees to act as guide for the men but he warns them that gold has a way of turning good men into greedy thieves. The three men do find a lot of gold. Bogart's character turns greedy and steals all of it and heads out across the desert toward the nearest town. Mexican banditos intercept and kill him. In
turn, the Federalies execute the bandits and as the movie ends, the gold dust is being blown away by the wind. Perry doesn't understand the film's message"...BUT THE KILLER DOES.

"The killer thinks that John Ramsey and a friend moved to the mountains to find their fortune. John became very successful and turned on his friend, firing him. When the..." CORPORATION GIVES THE EQUIVILENT AMOUNT OF MERRICK'S CLAIM FOR BACK WAGES TO JOHN THE KILLER FINDS OUT ABOUT IT AND IT INFURIATES HIM. THE KILLER "...sees corporate executives as the foreman in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre who tries to cheat Bogart and his buddy. Extreme personal wealth is evil, turning otherwise good men into greedy ones who will turn on others. THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT HAPPENED AT AG!

Capote spends quite a bit of time developing Hickock's resentment of rich guys who get the good looking dames. When Richard feels guilty for his pedophilic attraction to young girls, several of whom he has seduced, he defends his behavior by insisting rich guys feel and do the same thing with prepubescent girls but get away with it because they can lawyer up. He relishes the thought of using a knife to gain power over them, and stealing their girls."

THE KILLER HAS TRIED TO CREATE THIS SAME SENARIO IN JOHN AS THE RICH GUY THAT GETS AWAY WITH EVERYTHING.

Excerpted from Jams webpage on the Clutter murders:

PERRY'S SENTIMENTS & EXPLANATION OF HIS MOTIVATION:

"Perry Smith - "They never hurt me. Like other people. Like people have all my life.
MAYBE IT'S JUST THAT THE CLUTTERS WERE THE ONES WHO HAD TO PAY FOR IT"

THE KILLER'S MOTIVE:
"MAYBE IT'S JUST THAT THE RAMSEYS WERE THE ONES WHO HAD TO PAY FOR IT" Of course the Clutters fell into Dick and Perry's radar because Dick's prison cell mate had previously worked for Mr. Clutter. And the Ramseys and this event (the bonus amount & Merrick incident) was known to some AG employee WHO KNOWS THE KILLER.

HOW THE KILLER PREACHES HIS SERMON:

The movie "Seven", released in 1995, concerns a fictional series of murders based on the "7 Deadly Sins" of Dante's "Inferno". The pathologically self-righteous killer, chillingly played by Kevin Spacey, turns each crime scene into a "sermon". Each of his victims are chosen as a particularly appropriate representative of each sin and the means of their death is sadistically calculated to make them "atone" for their sin. An obese man, for example, is forced to eat until he explodes internally. The word "gluttony" is found written in grease on the wall behind the refrigerator. A crooked lawyer is forced to cut off a pound of his own flesh; the word "greed" is then written on the floor with his blood. A prideful model has her face hideously disfigured and is given the choice of "facing" life or committing suicide. At each crime scene the murderer, known as John Doe, has purposefully left clues that lead to the next victim. He revels in the control he thus exercises over the police. His methodology demonstrates his superior intelligence. At the end he surrenders to the detectives and manipulates them into participating in the last murder. On the way to the scene of the last murder The young detective played by Brad Pitt rails at John Doe for being a pervert and for murdering innocent people. John Doe responds: "innocent? Is that supposed to be funny?". He then reveals his philosophy and reasons for the killings. Sin is so common place. It is on every corner. Someone has to call attention to the evilness and pervasiveness of it all. John Doe is that instrument chosen to get every one's attention. You have to hit them over the head with a sledgehammer any more to get their attention, he says. You have to be dramatic. The victims deserved to die, in the way they did. You'd like to get me in a "windowless room" wouldn't you detective?, he asks, meaning a place of judgement where no one could see him work the pervert over. At the chosen site a box is delivered to the detectives, which turns out to CONTAINS THE HEAD of the detective's wife. In shock and rage he shoots John Doe. In Doe's mind, Pitt becomes as much a killer as Doe at that point, demonstrating his hypocrisy and sin of anger. Doe, himself, becomes the last victim, having committed the sin of envy...of envying the detective's relationship with his wife.

LIKEWISE "...the killer(s) of JonBenet Ramsey purposed to make certain statements about his philosophy and motive, his resentments and the faults of certain groups and philosophies OF WHICH THE Ramseys are representative, IN THE CRIME SCENE.

THE KILLER HAS WATCHED A LOT OF MOVIES AND HE IS VERY MUCH IN TOUCH WITH THE MESSAGES THEY PRESENT AND IN TOUCH WITH THE MESSAGES HE BELIEVES IN. THE MOVIES SEVEN, TREASURE, IN COLD BLOOD, COMPULSION, ROPE and RICOCHET tell his story and the clues to these movies and his message are in the RN, the FL, the ranson amount, the cord, the revenge motive, the framing of the killer's target and the destruction of his reputation, anmd so on and so on....blah blah..

This guy doesn't know the Ramseys but their personna, their image, their assummed status in society all tweak his buttons. He has a lot of resentment built up over the years concerning these types of people. He would make a very good BORG poster. That represents his very strong prejudices.

Dig out the employee list for AG 1996 and start looking for people in that circle who would havce known about Merrick and his claim and John's bonus and someone in their realm of aquaintences who could be characterized as an activist, anarchist, (see previous profile)...

Recently you posted:

"Though not impossible, the odds seem astronomical to me that the 118,000 figure was completely unrelated to JR's bonus amount."

No, the odds are not astronomical against the figure being totally unrelated to the bonus. Not at all.

If you look at the financial statements of any person that has any kind of 401K and who is the CEO, COO, or some such officer in a corporation, a homeowner with a valuable home, and so on, you should see numerous amounts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So no matter what the amount of the ransom demand, as long as it was chose to be in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars, it is not that big of a coincidence that one should match one such number. The fact that there is another match to the 118,000 figure in the story about John Ramsey and his business dealings confirms that the number 118,000 may be merely coincidental to the bonus amount (Merrick's claim against Access Graphics as reported by Schiller).

Suppose the bonus amount was $100,047.38 and the ransom amount was $100,000. Would you say that the odds against these amounts being unrelated was astronomical? Or would you say that this is probably a coincidence? What about $150,047.38 and $150,000? Probably still a coincidence? $158,047.38 and $158,000? Now suddenly the odds against a coincidence are astronomical?

Another way of looking at it: The perpetrator decides to ask for a few hundred thousand, say less than $250,000 in round thousands. There are only 150 possibilities between $100,000 and $249,000, inclusive. If the Ramseys have numerous financial statements with many accounts having amounts in this same range, they have a lot of numbers with each number having a little less than a one percent chance of matching. If there are many such amounts, the total chance of one matching becomes quite a few percent. If you are also lenient in the method of rounding (truncation versus rounding to nearest, etc.), then it's even larger.

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

Now let's consider the perpetrator. He may have chosen the number 118 thousands for some completely different reason out of millions or billions of possibilities. This number just so happens to match one of the Ramseys' financial statements. Now his reason is totally obscured. This could easily have been an error on his part. He may have been trying to say something by choosing this amount. It is entirely possible that he didn't appreciate how likely it was that his target may have some financial statement with an amount very close to what he chose, possibly because he himself does not deal with such financial statements, and the thought never occurred to him.

I'm trying to dissuade anyone from fixating on the bonus amount, regardless of how tempting that may be. Yes, it's certainly possible, but no, the likelihood isn't nearly as great as some assume. Not only would I not assign it a likelihood of 99.99999%, I wouldn't even give it a 90% chance. Maybe somewhere near half of that, slightly less on weekends --- just kidding.

If I randomly chose a series of numbers between 100,000 and 250,000 and gave you the chance to guess the number after each selection was, how likely would it be that you would guess the correct number? I say it wouldn't be very likely at all, even through 150 tries. Why should we restrict the range of numbers so much? I would expect an amount like $1,000,000 or $500,000 in a kidnapping. That, of course would increase the odds, but again, the number is odd not because it is a number but because it is an odd ransom amount. The fact that it is not exactly the amount of John's bonus and not exactly the amount of Merrick's claim for back wages but ALMOST the same as BOTH means something to me. Otherwise, I'd expect it to match exactly one or the other, or some other number. This is probably the only Ransom amount ever recorded in history that wasn't rounded off. THAT IS WHY IT MEANS SOMETHING.

If this were a faux kidnapping attempt I'd still expect the amount to seem real, if the killer really wanted to fool people.

118,000, though? If it was a rounded figure, I could understand it being coincidence, but who asks for 118,000 at all? I see what you are saying about the coincidence of the Merrick affair, yet Braveheart appears to think they are all three related.

On the other hand, if someone left a random figure on a ransom note in my home, there would probably be more than several references from paperwork to books that would have the same number or very close. Although, I don't believe there would be anything indicating I might have that much in the bank I could get my hands on right away.

I also think it unlikely the note writer had no idea of what figure he would be asking for. Why in the world would he dig through John's paperwork trying to come up with a figure? He wouldn't unless the plan for the note came after entry to the home or he was going to ask for a smaller amount before he saw the paystubs.

About the only thing I can say with any surety is that the figure meant something to the writer. It's just too oddball not to have a purpose.

The figure of 118,000 and also the figure of dollar amounts rather close to 118,000 have been linked to a number of suspects, however, so far nothing appears to have lead in the intervening years to anything interesting or incriminating.

I agree that the number 118 or 118,000 "means something" <1> to the perpetrator, although it could have been selected purely to pique curiosity as could SBTC; it doesn't necessarily mean very much. Both of these could have been selected purely to diffentiate this ransom note from all others in history. It isn't at all clear that it should mean any more to John Ramsey than SBTC does. I think we all agree that SBTC doesn't mean anything to John --- don't we?

The problem is that if any perpetrator selects a unusual ransom amount for ANY particular reason whatsoever, and someone goes through the victims' paperwork, finding a matching number, most people with little training in statistics will miscalculate the odds against this being merely a coincidence. They will probably claim that the connection between the ransom amount and the financial paperwork should be obvious to everyone. This is exactly what is happening in the Ramsey case, and it is an error in mathematical reasoning. It is not necessarily an error in fact; it is possible that they are connected. I don't claim otherwise, only that the odds are being miscalculated. The odds against a coincidence are not anywhere near "astronomical."

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

<1> "Means something" is merely "NOT 'means nothing,'" a trivial criterion to satisfy.

I thought I should separate this post addressing issues you raised from the previous post because it's slightly more technical.

If we consider the distribution of all ransom amounts, including those in novels, TV shows, and movies, it seems safe to say that there would be peaks at precisely even amounts of 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands, and millions. However, if we move off of these amounts by only one dollar, the peaks disappear completely. What is left if we exclude the peaks? Probably a nearly nonexistent distribution that LOCALLY looks uniform. This is why it's perfectly reasonable, without more data on actual distributions, to assume that it's random.

Why restrict the range? Financial amounts are not uniformly distributed. The large peaks of ransom amounts are probably not uniformly distributed either, but that's less of a concern. The number of financial amounts between $100,000 and $250,000 is not the same as between $850,000 and $1,000,000, even though these have the same range (namely $150,000). This probably has to do with the fact that the range is a far smaller portion of the amount in the latter case than in the former. In other words, even though the range is the same, the percentage, therefore the precision, is completely different. So if we consider a range of financial values as LOCALLY uniform (as described in the previous paragraph), we must restrict the range. Another way to handle it would be to consider nonuniform distributions, but to do that I'd feel obligated to go off and do some financial research on actual distributions. I don't have time to do that myself.

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

ADDED: I neglected to address the example you described for a choice of numbers. The example you described doesn't match the situation for the Ramsey case. This isn't picking one number, then guessing, picking another one, then guessing. It's picking one number then guessing over and over and over again an unspecified number of times. It's very likely (100%) that I would guess your number if you let me guess 150 times. Even picking randomly, it's 63% = (1.0 - (149/150)^150).

That's what I would expect. Even if JonBenét were nowhere to be found that day, I think the police would be looking hard into that 118,000 figure.

Sometimes, I wonder if we shouldn't be looking more into Patsy's world than John's for a source of motivation if this indeed was motivated by dislike. There are some indications the offender was known by JonBenét, and she spent more time with Patsy than she did with John.

Yes, I agree. In fact, this is all quite suspicious to me --- the note totally neglecting Patsy whom is arguably more affected by John by the loss of their daughter. I have argued previously, and long ago, that the author of the note appears to be portraying closeness to John and that this may be a ruse, part of the motivation for leaving a note in the first place. There is also no mention of JonBenét's name in the note, merely "your daughter." To me these two incidences of neglect suggest an attempt to distance oneself from both Patsy and JonBenét rather than not knowing their names. So I see in the ransom note some clues suggesting movement away from Patsy and JonBenét and towards John. Most people seem to follow right along this path. OK, somebody's got an issue or two with John.... Hmmm, maybe not.

However, what was Patsy's world? The home, the school, the kids and their activiities. Oh sure there were some 'outside' activities such as at AG parties, shopping, NIH treatment center, etc. but in general it does not seem to be a world where one would be encountering a nutcase.

One can come up with some suspicions about 'the business world' because John Ramsey is a businessman, but what do you have when the person involved is a housewife?

I agree that Patsy should be included as a target of the crime. I believe that the killer was aware of both and disliked both of them. The fact that the note is addressed to John and doesn't mention Patsy or JonBenet may be intentional- an attempt to focus away from the incident or manner in which the killer is related to them, for example, a student in the art class on campus who might not want to relate something relating that group with the crime; that would narrow the circle of suspects very quickly.

It's possible the offender was trying to obscure the true connection between himself and the Ramsey family by making it appear it was a business related upset toward John. IF the amount demanded in the note is related to John's bonus, it could explain why the offender needed to break in and go through John's business records before he could write the note. It could explain why the word, business, was misspelled. Although, why he/she mispelled, possession, I don't know.

It seems like there was an intent to confuse the scene, deliberately, but I don't know that either.

I have to admit I'm still disturbed about the Lucy attack and the connection between her and JonBenét through the dance studio. JonBenét lived a structured life. I think someone did tell JonBenét she would receive a special visit after Christmas, and the most likely places for that to have happened were within her adult social circle. Patsy would have been the one to escort her there.

My impression is the offender knew some things about the family but not enough to bring him under direct attention. He could have found out a few things from JonBenét.

The question about Patsy is the same as with John. What could either one of them done to have offended a nutcase to this degree?

>JonBenét lived a structured life.
I'm not sure about that, but she certainly was not some sort of latchkey kid.

>I think someone did tell JonBenét she would receive a special visit
>after Christmas, and the most likely places for that to have
>happened were within her adult social circle. Patsy would have been
>the one to escort her there.
You may well have an important point here. Although this 'special visit message' came afterwards and has been 'filtered' by recollection of what was at the time a rather trivial conversation, if indeed you accept the existence of the message then clearly it is indeed from an adult and from an adult that she encountered in her normal activities. Ofcourse playing in the yard might lead to such an encounter, but I think it more likely to have been a more normal encounter with one of the adults in and around the school, church, whatever. Since no one has stepped forward and explained that they said that to JonBenet and given a reason such as 'my daughter's birthday party is the 28th and we were going to have a Santa there', we are left to conclude that some adult gave JBR the second visit message and that most likely would mean a woman was involved. What males get to talk to six year old girls? Schoolbus driver, groundskeeper?

Ofcourse, a dance instructor.

And perhaps we should recall that 'Lucy' although much older than JonBenet was indeed very slightly built, so they could each have appealed to the same pervert.

It's also not necessary that Patsy did anything to "offend" the perpetrator. Patsy being Patsy or JonBenét being JonBenét may have been enough to attract the perpetrator's attention. The Ramseys were not necessarily the targets of an attack, perhaps merely convenient victims. For example, serial killers don't usually attack someone because of an offense, real or imagined, but instead because they are convenient victims, often of a particular type. JonBenét and the Ramsey family may have been of a particular type.

For example, if you're itching to invade an occupied house and attack the young girl inside, it's good to choose a bigger house. This implies more wealth, so you would look for "fat cats" with young daughters. An unemployed housewife who not only takes her daughter to beauty contests, but also buys her expensive costumes and provides dance lessons may be married to such a "fat cat" and live in a nice, big house. And so on.

A factor weighing heavily against some offense being the root cause of this crime is that this type of perpetrator is usually a predator and a sociopath. He used JonBenét, then disposed of her. This type of predator doesn't usually choose victims based on social reasons, but on personal desires or basic drives, albeit perverted ones. I'm not sure that it's productive to spend a lot of time trying to discover what particular event caused this crime to occur at the time or place it did. I think it's more because he wanted to do it at that time and place, like most predatory types of kills.

That has always been my belief. The killer did everything he did because it met HIS needs at the time.

Since such predators have life experiences that cause psychological short circuiting, an inability to suppress their rage and act out with their 'uncontrollable' needs, JonBenét and Patsy seen together MAY, in tandem, have triggered this Sick Puppy's reasons for his sick needs --- very attractive Mother and Child demonstrating the ultimate 'fat cat' waste in pageants, or Southern Mother's over-indulgence in Pretty (spoiled?) Female Child. There may have been an 'in tandem' Super Trigger. While JonBenét MAY have caught his eye simply from being 'around' the neighborhood, this predator's observations of Patsy WITH JonBenét MAY have reinforced his interest in her (his inappropriate feelings, a need to 'interact' with her, triggering his dark side). This killer may have viewed Patsy and JonBenét as ultimate examples of 'fat cat' excess in Boulder, demonstrated by a spite-inducing Mother and Child relationship.

Maybe the Ramseys didn't include the killer in any of these categories and THAT was the trigger.

Do you think he would in fact have a criminal record as a result of his risk-taking? If he were a 'fat cat' he might get his thrills by driving on a racetrck and avoid even a speeding ticket.

on-edit: I know that Lou Smit has generally been of the opinion that the intruder was a criminal and that he was a pedophile. Much of Lou Smit's investigative efforts have been concentrated on known sex offenders who were known to have been in Boulder or atleast known to have been in Colorado in December of 1996. Its simply that I am trying to question this assumption that Sick Puppy is a criminal of any sort.

One aspect of this criminality personality is that prior involvement with the law would lead to his being more visible to the investigators. For instance, if he had a prior conviction and was registered in Boulder County as a sex offender, I would say he would be quite a bit more 'visible' than if he were an otherwise law abiding individual. Therefore he would be more likely to be identified.

It is simply that I can not see someone killing JonBenet Ramsey for any of the 'theoretical reasons' that have been proposed from time to time. If it was because John Ramsey slammed a heavy door in his face, I'm sure it was the umpteenth time someone had slammed a door in his face. If it was a sidewalk crack I'm sure there are a zillion kids in Boulder who step on the sidewalk cracks. So how does some sort of dislike become a sufficient motivation for an attack on JonBenet if he has never become enraged in the past by such door slamming or crack-stepping behavior?

Jeffrey Dalmer, "...for example."

And Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy...These people got caught eventually, but only after many crimes and victims, and in some cases they operated right under the police dept.'s "nose".

What about Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac, DB Cooper, the Black Delilah murderer, the person who killed Susannah Chase? O.J? Sometimes they do get away with their crimes, at least they aren't recognized, convicted, served with justice...in the here and now.

And if Scott Peterson had not been such a prolific liar, if he had kept his mouth shut, he might not have been convicted, despite the currents, the bodies, the multiple affairs and Amber Frye, particularly in California.

Sometimes these predators tip their hand to someone around them but often, I think, when someone gets that close to them it's too late.
I don't think most people know what to look for, behavior-wise, in these people and that is why, when they are exposed the neighbors always say "oh gosh, I don't believe this, he was such a nice regular guy. I mean, he was a little bit eccentric, stayed off to himself mostly, didn't have many people over, but he always said 'hello' when we passed each other."

How about the guy that kidnapped women and flew them to Alaska where he hunted them down with a rifle. His wife had no idea she was married to a serial killer.

Much of crime solving seems to be a mix of 'focusing on the evidence' and 'focusing on the probabilities'. A recent crime-tv show involved a wealthy California businessman who had been killed: the cops focused on the fingerprints and firearms evidence but they also focused on the probabilities: the son who would inherit and whose post crime behavior seemed a bit odd in several minor ways.

Since we don't have much in the way of forensic evidence available to us, I was concerned with the traditional avenues involving 'motive'. One possible consideration has always been a business related motivation, although one might think John Ramsey, not his daughter, would be the target if it were business related. The problem is that John Ramsey was no Exxon executive, he does not have a lengthy list of enemies. So you are indeed correct about the 'no useful results' when we focus on a precipitating event from the 'usual sources' such as 'people who think you owe them money'. I was trying to extend the "precipitating event" concept to include such fanciful and unknowable notions as a heavy door being slammed in his face. This would truly be some sort of nutcase scenario and I don't really think the intruder is a nutcase. Indeed, whether he be a sociopath or not, if he kills because of a slammed door, he probably didn't start that behavior with the Ramseys but has lived that way for years of interaction with others.

So I guess this really boils down to "if the usual suspects have proven to be an unproductive line of inquiry, should we re-assess whether this is indeed an attack on the parents?" Maybe Lou Smit is right: this really is a pedophile and not some normal person who wanted to hurt the parents.

"Much of crime solving seems to be a mix of 'focusing on the evidence' and 'focusing on the probabilities'."

If one wants to have a long and good track record overall, this is the way to go, especially with limited resources. It's the maximization of minimal resources to a large problem that makes this a good approach.

"I was trying to extend the 'precipitating event' concept to include such fanciful and unknowable notions as a heavy door being slammed in his face."

As a general strategy, this works contrary to the maximization of minimal resources. As an individual effort, there shouldn't be any problem with this, and it certainly should be a part of any brainstorming session; but I personally don't want to see my tax dollars going towards this approach as a general rule. The question would then arise, "What crimes should go unsolved so that we can pursue this one more ineffectively?"

Incident two:
John fired a former friend from AG, after that company was acquired by a larger corporation, supposedly under pressure from the parent company to trim costs. I personally think the $118,000 in the RN refers to this incident. Jeff Merrick was incensed, and in fact, he threatened John. But, he must have realized that, if he in fact did anything, it would have been easy to trace his envolvement. A lot of people say things they regret in the heat of the moment. But they don't act on those feelings.

It is not difficult to imagine others who would be incensed even though they were not personally wronged. I offer as an example the women who cheered when the Peterson verdict was announced. Thousands of women felt vindicated, having taken the murder of Laci as an attack on womanhood in general by a worthless chauvinist two timing pig. A lot of women can identify with that view even though they have never been murdered. They may have known someone who was, or may have been married to an abusive husband. If the verdict had been otherwise there might have been one of those WITH ISSUES who would have decided to enforce justice herself.

I'm not sure what exactly the offender was looking to gain from the crime. If it was money, then it seems like one or more young offenders who thought the amount was quite a lot of money and thought a kidnapping would be much easier than it really is. The sexual assault could have been committed because the opportunity presented itself to an inexperienced and youthful offender. The boldness could indicate youth. The murder could have been done to silence JonBenét so she could never identify her attacker. The whole movie mentality of the note reminds me of the way a young person would think.

JonBenét fought, and she probably screamed. Is this something the offender expected? She had to be stun-gunned twice. She had scratch marks on her calf, petechia near her shoulder, her hair was wildly messed up, and the sleeves of her shirt look dirty. There was a nightshirt in her bed with the sleeves right side out but the neck area was inside out. Like the shirt was pulled over her head and then pulled off. Another nightgown was beside her body wrapped with the blanket taken from her bed. It kind of seems like JonBenét may not have been very cooperative right from the start and that her attacker was trying to take her out of the house. Neither John nor Patsy have said anything about leaving a nightshirt in her bed.

Perhaps she was killed and hid away in the cellar room because of panic rather than deliberation. Sometimes, I wonder if there were two perps and one was waiting with JonBenét in the basement for the other one to go get the van that was seen earlier that day when JonBenét got the duct tape off her mouth and started screaming. Perhaps he took the opportunity while waiting to molest her. Could be. Maybe she wasn't taken out by a more direct route because the offender assumed the house was alarmed except for that broken basement window. Just some thoughts.

One a kidnapper who was quite youthful and one a supposed kidnapper to whom either an opportunity presented itself or he had such real intentions anyway but awaited that "other dude left to get the van" opportunity.

I've always been opposed to the notion of a group effort on this crime because I feel its just not something one can recruit people for. I've always thought the note sounded too middle aged for young kids.

I would agree that the weak, whiney character in the Dirty Harry movie was too weak and too whiney.

I still see this as far too targeted a crime to be just two kids from the area. Lots of other homes, no need to write notes if all they wanted were thrills of robbery and one of them wanted perverse thrills too.

If two, one could have been duped--happens all the time. One's a leader, the other a follower. The tone of the note indicates two voices. The first 2/3's is relatively polite....the ending either a change in mood, or someone else dictating. If a pre-written note was brought in, I think the bulk of it was the first 2/3's and the last part ad-libbed.

The darkside of Boulder didn't surprise me, since I'm familiar with Boulder....I posted numerous articles under the "My theory" section of what was going on in Boulder and the Ramsey neighborhood. Boulder is a mecca for all kinds of people, and it's become a rich vs poor kind of place....and there is a certain subculture that resents the "fatcats" that moved in. What is surprising is why Steve Thomas and the BPD couldn't figure it out. Someone once told me that what he heard, and what started the feud was Eller's was counting on being the hero to JR, and when that didn't happen, the lines were drawn earlyon. You had the media portraying the BPD as a bunch of dufuses...and the Ramseys lawyering up.