What kind of person
#1
In his book, BPD Detective Supervisor Robert Whitson repeatedly asks, "What kind of person kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenét Ramsey?"

On page 107, he compares the killer to a dog, and I really like the analogy made.

He talked about walking with his dogs in a field and having them go off running after rabbits.  His calling them back didn't bring them back under his control and they clearly paid no attention to the fact that cars on a nearby road might put them in danger.  Whitson pointed out that this was "part if their behavior - their basic instinct - their prey drive..."  snip ... "the way their minds were programmed." 

He goes on to say "the sex drive is an extremely powerful emotion - a basic instinct."  But when a "sadistic psychopath becomes focused on sex and having the opportunity to completely dominate another person, he gets tunnel vision, just like a dog chasing a rabbit. He does not think about anything else.  He does not think about the consequences of his actions.  He knows his behavior is wrong but he does not care."

I honestly can't imagine anyone not understanding that what they were doing to JonBenét the night she died was wrong.  The man who did that to her just didn't care because he was satisfying his own desires, as he likely had before and since.
Reply
#2
I like that analogy too!!

Whitson is entirely right. Whoever did this was seeking out to satisfy some sick and twisted urge they were having. Although the act was done, he loves seeing JonBenet on the news, media etc... reliving the event.. He probably had no idea how badly the LE would trash the crime scene.. so glad they were able to collect some evidence because he WILL be caught!

He knows what he did was extremely wrong but people like him feel no remorse. They are the worst type of predators.

I always wondered if hes still alive.
Reply
#3
Gaby Wood interviewed Michael Tracey and he said...


'This was not a staging,' Tracey says, pulling a photograph of JonBenet's neck out of his envelope. 'This was a vicious attack. There's no question in my mind now that someone came in who kind of knew them, who got off on little girls, extremely violent. She was asphyxiated - that begins to explain why there's no blood in the head - and he's getting off on this. I think they wanted to play with her. I think it was a very sick game by a very sick person.'
Reply
#4
from Steve Thomas' depo in Wolf v Ramsey

Q. At Quantico, was there one FBI agent that said at the end of discussion that the Boulder police
should keep an open mind on the case because it could be a sex offender?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that agent?
A. I believe that was Ken Lanning.


(Found this in TIME - "A child molester who abducts and kills his victim is the rarest kind of molester," says Ken Lanning, a former FBI agent who has spent more than three decades studying crimes against children, and currently operates his own consulting company. )
Reply
#5
Holmes and Holmes (1996)

"The sadistic rapist is the most dangerous.... Many of the rapists who fall into this category have antisocial personalities and are quite aggressive in their everyday lives, especially when criticized or thwarted in their quests for personal satisfaction.... If this rapist is not apprehended, he will eventually begin to kill his victims.. It is not unusual for this offender to escalate his violence to the point where the serial rapist becomes a serial killer."
Reply
#6
"Inadequate childhood development that leads to dependency on sadistic fantasy to obtain aberrant sexual arousal and gratification has long been reported in studies of sexual murderers. When the sadistic fantasy is no longer sexually satisfying, a series of successive "trial runs" will be attempted to enact the fantasy a it is imagined. (Prentky et al., 1989)

My comment - I think our killer had a fantasy and it didn't work like he thought it would. I think someone knew back in 1996 that this person had a troubled mind - - and if they knew some person with a troubled mind was in Boulder that Christmas - - I wish they'd think hard now - - - has that person done anything since that should put tem on the suspect list?
Reply
#7
Believe me, I have thought so hard about this for the longest time. Could the killer be anyone I know? I don't come up empty but nothing that rises to the level of naming or accusing anyone. However, I was pretty upset about the abduction, murder and torture of Jessica Ridgeway in 2012. So, I think Austin Sigg is the kind of person you might be looking for; but he wasn't even alive when JonBenet was killed so you would have to look deeper into his circle to determine how he got that way. Hairdresser gossip might suggest his father was a bit of a demon and I think I read he was convicted of Mortgage Fraud, and I also heard that the father would take the young child out camping and hunting with no motivation other than to mutilate and torture animals. I believe this kind of evil streak is somewhat nurtured, or mentored.
Reply
#8
(04-03-2017, 01:55 PM)searchinGirl Wrote: Believe me, I have thought so hard about this for the longest time.

We all have. I don't see these perpetrators as necessarily evil. They may simply have run out of coping skills. Think of a single mother who deals with pregnancy and poverty for six years and is a good mother concerned about her daughters safety. She then starts turning tricks and doing drugs. Suddenly there is no concern for the kid. Did she turn evil? Was she evil for those six years of admirable behavior?

If a woman has a final fight with her boyfriend in Vegas, makes it halfway back to her hotel before sore feet set in, gets picked up by four men in a cab, goes to their casino and gambles with them for awhile but then invites all four across the street to her hotel room for the night, many of you would say 'slut' rather than 'alternative set of moral values'. Is there really that much of a difference between the woman with multiple lovers separated by a bath and perfume versus a woman who sees no need for such artificial barriers to enjoyment and allows the men to simply take turns with her?

At what point do we acknowledge that many people have a complex range of values and often act in keeping with them but occasionally act contrary to them.

We look at the linguistically confused PolyAmory world and see new definitions of marriage and child rearing exist. We look back at the Edwardian Era and see that public display of morality was essential but rampant immorality was near universal. A Vegas host once arranged a celebration for a man, his wife, the man's lover and the wife's lover. Fortunately for the host, this involved a total of three people, not four. These things are probably becoming more common, they are certainly becoming more openly acknowledged.
So 'different' moral values can be a lifestyle or an intellectual exercise. 

I view the 'interest' of the perpetrator as torture, humiliation, murder and manipulation. Is he changed? Is he the same? Was he simply 'out of coping skills'? Kurt Vonnegut's kid went camping in Canada and had a breakdown that he blamed on inadequat protein intake over an extended period of time. We know that "Into the Wild" kid who died in that bus died partly because he mis identified a certain berry. The Texas Tower Shooter is thought to have had a brain tumor and sought help but basically got sent home with two aspirin tablets. 

So perhaps the Intruder recovered or perhaps his sense of values still allows such fixations and actions. The intruder may have obtained enough revenge against the Ramseys or maybe he wanted more but learned to get it with less notoriety. I think he was fixated on the family, not JonBenet. JonBenet was merely the object he used. All children are objects. All people are objects. All the world is his and it is up to him to choose the tools that he makes use of.

But is it evil or 'alternative'?
Reply
#9
After finishing the book PMPT by Schiller in about 2001, I made a list of attributes that I considered the perpetrator to have.  At that time, I had absolutely no one whomsoever in mind.  

The simplest way to summarize many of these attributes is to say that I concluded that this was someone who shared many attributes with some of the most notorious serial killers, someone who

1) Is an extremely deviant and very calculating male whose friends and family have little or no knowledge of his extremely deviant nature

2) Has interest and uncommon knowledge and familiarity with police activities, capabilities, etc. [1]

3) Has uncommon knowledge of forensics and how to minimize leaving physical evidence

4) Has experience in handling children who are not his own through occupation or vocation, for example, can be engaging and even charming to children

5) Has knowledge of how to easily and thoroughly inflict fatal injuries without blood spatter and without ballistics evidence

6) Someone who knew JonBenét and, given her age, at least one of her parents [2]


In addition to concluding that this couldn't possibly be John, Patsy, or Burke, I asked myself, back in 2001 and regarding attributes 2 through 6:

How many such people should a six-year-old girl be expected to know?  

I think most people would answer “absolutely zero” just as I initially did.  Then I went back and skimmed all of the italicized portions of PMPT because I thought that attribute 6 above led to a high probability that the perpetrator was named in the book....


Notes

[1] This did not come from the claims made in the ransom note, but from the fact that many serial killers have such knowledge which prevents them from being so easily apprehended.  But I do indeed accept, after the fact, the perpetrator's claim in the ransom note about familiarity with “tactics and countermeasures” as being largely true.

[2] Most children of JonBenét's age are killed by someone they know because most children of that age are unknown to people outside the close family circle of relatives and friends.  JonBenét appears to have been targeted, so the perpetrator almost certainly knew her, and not just about her.  Her pageant activities do make this argument slightly less appealing, but the pageants for her age group are not widely appreciated like the Miss USA or Miss America series of pageants.

[3] Alert readers may notice that my exercise is the polar opposite of confirmation bias.  If I had had someone in mind, then created the list already aware that someone had these characteristics, this would have been confirmation bias or something akin to it.  It would have been difficult to know whether the list was created from knowledge of the perpetrator or solely from knowledge of the crime.  In my case, the list was created first.
Reply
#10
(04-05-2017, 01:17 PM)Dave Wrote: [2] Most children of JonBenét's age are killed by someone they know because most children of that age are unknown to people outside the close family circle of relatives and friends.  JonBenét appears to have been targeted, so the perpetrator almost certainly knew her ...
"Know" is a term with different meanings. I think as far as Violent Crimes Database-speak goes 'know' means some prior connection with the parents or the kid. So 'know' includes a next door neighbor, a pre-teen 'babysitter' for a desperate mother who has to go get some drugs, a new acquaintance from the pub, an uncle or an "uncle" or any sort. Meet someone and five minutes later ask them to "watch my kid for a minute"... and it will get into the database as a "known" perpetrator. Silly, silly "dataspeak".

You would never tell a five year old girl to look at the face of the driver and if its a stranger, feel free to cross the road because only people you know will ever be likely to kill you. 

IF someone at Access Graphics really and truly hated John Ramsey, he may never have met or even heard of JonBenet. It was simply 'the bosses daughter'. Think of that road rage incident in California wherein a man grabbed a pooch out of a car and threw it into oncoming traffic .. he didn't know the motorist or the pooch. Yet, I'm sure the statistics show most pet killers know the pet and the pet owner. IF you start with that statistic you can easily go wrong simply because 'most' and 'virtually all' are deceptive terms. Damon Runyon reminds us of how to allocate our bankroll but even Damon Runyou would admit to the existence of ringers and outliers and sheer blind luck.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)