Who Benefits?
#1
Similar to Jams's thread about "What kind of person?" another way in which to identify the killer is to answer a question of motive, such as the important question for any homicide in which the perpetrator isn't obvious:

Who benefits?

For most child homicides, there isn't a huge insurance policy, there aren't webs of lovers and former lovers, there isn't valuable property, and so on.  It seems that for most child homicides, there really isn't anyone who benefits in such a measure as to justify homicide, so the question doesn't come up, certainly not in the same obvious manner as for an adult homicide.

However, with the JonBenét Ramsey homicide, precisely because of its notoriety, a large number of people did benefit, and some did greatly benefit.  Amongst these people who did benefit, who could have anticipated such a benefit in advance, that is, before the case actually did become a national and international sensation?

Keep in mind that the Ramsey family had had some publicity in the magazines and newspapers already.  John's business also had some of its own separate publicity in business circles.  JonBenét had been participating in beauty pageants which, although they didn't provide a lot of publicity, surely provided her more of it than most six-year-old children had.  There was existing publicity, but there was still a very large amount of room to grow even more of it.

It's entirely possible that the perpetrator anticipated that this already-existing publicity would be fertile ground to quickly grow a burgeoning bit of positive publicity into astounding notoriety if a sudden reversal of fortune for the family was to take place.  

In addition, the fact that JonBenét was killed in her own home greatly added to the notoriety, as did having been killed on most American children's favorite holiday, in a town that regarded itself as one of the best and safest in the country.  The ransom note was outrageous in almost every aspect.  To extend Schiller's title:

Perfect Murder + Perfect Family + Perfect Child + Perfect Day + Perfect Home + Perfect Town = Notorious.  Is this simply a coincidence?

Who would benefit from the case becoming notorious –- the more notorious the better?

Besides people close to the family who could sell their stories, and in addition to investigators who could benefit immediately as well as from later selling their stories, it seems fair to say that the press in general was the biggest beneficiary.  Individual reporters and photographers flocked to this case to make a name for themselves and to collect big paychecks.  

Did one of these persons of the press put this whole thing into motion?  

Calculating the risk: Would one such individual actually stand out such as to draw suspicion if a large flock of them showed up?  They are all just “regular” guys and gals doing their job, aren't they?  Who would suspect that one of them started it all?

For a number of years I have felt that a primary motivation for this crime was to create a sick, twisted publicity stunt or “shock crime” that may, as a secondary motivation, result in a windfall profit.  Members of the press who were close to the family were well-versed and well-placed to bring this about.  

Perhaps such a person already had rights to something valuable from which to profit, for example something that was to be in short supply after the crime had been committed.  If so, he wouldn't have to be part of the wolf pack.  He could just sit idly by and wait for opportunities to arise, giving an appearance of detachment and therefore of total innocence.
Reply
#2
The only media people I can think of who I think vile enough to do such a horrendous crime are Peter Boyles and Nancy Graceless.

Nancy was busy playing victim/bitch (and that is really not the worst word I have seen used to describe her) far from Boulder, Colorado.

But Peter Boyles! He sure did benefit from this case. His venom was legendary then and from what I understand still is!

Should I add Tricia Griffith? Not sure but, yeah, I think she could be that nasty - - - but she was in an unhappy marriage and dealing with her own drama - - how woud she know anything about John Ramsey and JonBenet?

So we are back to Peter Boyles.

Not accusing him of anything other than being a very nasty person. Not even accusing because he did it so publicly there isn't any question of what he is.

But did he kill JonBenet? I think his history has to be considered. I have never heard of any evidence of interest in sexual sadism or pedophilia. I don't think he did this.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)