1211 users online (231 members and 980 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    The Anatomy of a Motive

    i know that a bunch of you hear have read some of FBI profiler John Douglas' books. they really are great if you are interested in criminal profiling. i recommend starting with "Mindhunter" since that was the first. i never read the one that specifically addressed this case, but i have read that he feels the Ramseys are innocent, although reading his other writings, i'm not really sure how he came to that conclusion.

    anyway, i picked up one of his other books, "The Anatomy of a Motive", which basically is the story to why killers kill. i came across an interesting passage, that i thought was worth sharing with the folks here...

    from p. 26, "The Anatomy of a Motive", by John Douglas

    "If the body is wrapped in a sheet or blanket, say, or obviously cared for after death, that's going to suggest that the killer had some tender feelings toward the victim, maybe even remorse. On the other hand, if the body is mutilated and/or left in plain sight, or casually dumped by the side of a road, that tells me the killer had contempt for the victim, maybe even a disdain for women in general."

    i'm aware that douglas dismisses the blanket in the JBR case as a means by which the killer used to carry the body from her room, but it seems that more steps were taken to show "care" for the body. aside from the blanket, you also have the body in the basement, and hidden in a room. furthermore, she was possibly sexually assaulted, yet left fully-clothed. this does not seem to suggest the work of a sex-crazed killer, but rather someone close to JBR.

    i guess i'll have to read douglas' book directly on point about the ramsey case, because i have tremendous respect for his work, and put a lot of stock behind his conclusions about violent crime. my problem is that the conclusions he supposedly draws in the ramsey book do not seem to parallel with anything else i've read by him. perhaps someone whose read the book could shed some light here...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    In "The Cases That Haunt Us" John Douglas writes that neither John Ramsey nor Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet, but he also writes "The killer is a young man or teen with a personal and specific grudge against John Ramsey".

    I agree fully with Douglas' conclusion.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    In "The Cases That Haunt Us" John Douglas writes that neither John Ramsey nor Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet, but he also writes "The killer is a young man or teen with a personal and specific grudge against John Ramsey".

    I agree fully with Douglas' conclusion.
    Blue Crab,

    The "grudge" part of Douglas' theory is the most interesting, IMO.

    That awful head wound.. possibly occuring after death.. speaks to someone that meant to make a statement to John... 'here's your precious kid, fat cat'....The strangulation had already killed her. Why bash in her head?

    BTW, where was Patsey's bike finally located? I haven't been able to find anything about that yet.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Daisey
    Blue Crab,

    BTW, where was Patsey's bike finally located? I haven't been able to find anything about that yet.

    Miss Daisey,

    I don't know who took Patsy's bike or how they got it back, if it was even taken in the first place. But my "guess" is that it was found about 5 blocks away.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    hmm, interesting..since there has NEVER been a mention of that bike being stolen..my guess is ..the bike was never stolen!

  6. #6
    LazyCat08's Avatar
    LazyCat08 is offline I may not be Glenn Beck, but I am a thinker......
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    i know that a bunch of you hear have read some of FBI profiler John Douglas' books. they really are great if you are interested in criminal profiling. i recommend starting with "Mindhunter" since that was the first. i never read the one that specifically addressed this case, but i have read that he feels the Ramseys are innocent, although reading his other writings, i'm not really sure how he came to that conclusion.

    anyway, i picked up one of his other books, "The Anatomy of a Motive", which basically is the story to why killers kill. i came across an interesting passage, that i thought was worth sharing with the folks here...

    from p. 26, "The Anatomy of a Motive", by John Douglas

    "If the body is wrapped in a sheet or blanket, say, or obviously cared for after death, that's going to suggest that the killer had some tender feelings toward the victim, maybe even remorse. On the other hand, if the body is mutilated and/or left in plain sight, or casually dumped by the side of a road, that tells me the killer had contempt for the victim, maybe even a disdain for women in general."

    i'm aware that douglas dismisses the blanket in the JBR case as a means by which the killer used to carry the body from her room, but it seems that more steps were taken to show "care" for the body. aside from the blanket, you also have the body in the basement, and hidden in a room. furthermore, she was possibly sexually assaulted, yet left fully-clothed. this does not seem to suggest the work of a sex-crazed killer, but rather someone close to JBR.

    i guess i'll have to read douglas' book directly on point about the ramsey case, because i have tremendous respect for his work, and put a lot of stock behind his conclusions about violent crime. my problem is that the conclusions he supposedly draws in the ramsey book do not seem to parallel with anything else i've read by him. perhaps someone whose read
    the book could shed some light here...
    But couldn't this also suggest that the body was found, moved, altered and or hidden by someone close to her after the murder occurred? Meaning that the person who "took care" of the body may not have been the same person who murdered her? Either that or a parent knew that the scene had to be concealed or cleaned up - which would suggest that they knew who killed her or they had something to hide with regards to the circumstances of her death.
    I would think that if you found your 6 year old daughters dead body - strangled, beaten, naked and/ or bound - your first instinct would be to hold her and then to cover her in some way. I don't think that a parent or someone close to the victim would think - "this is a crime scene so I shouldn't touch anything" - ya know?
    bhp

  7. #7
    LazyCat08's Avatar
    LazyCat08 is offline I may not be Glenn Beck, but I am a thinker......
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    In "The Cases That Haunt Us" John Douglas writes that neither John Ramsey nor Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet, but he also writes "The killer is a young man or teen with a personal and specific grudge against John Ramsey".

    I agree fully with Douglas' conclusion.
    I have to respectfully disagree with this - well, maybe he is right that the person who commited the crime wanted to get revenge on JR or the family - but the evidence suggests to me that the person who did this - or someone involved - was VERY sick and deranged - or wanted it to look that way. It's one this to kidnap the child to get at JR or to get money -I think it's quite enough to kill her to make some point or hurt the family in a way that couldn't never be fixed. BUT to sexually assault and beat a six year old child - why do that? How could anyone do that unless they were totally psycho to begin with?

    I don't know, nothing makes ense in the case. I feel like for all we know - aliens could've abducted he JBR , preformed some bizarre ritual sacrifice on her and then beamed her dead body back to the basement!!!
    bhp

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    'round and 'round and 'round we go

    The evidence suggests that JonBenet lived for a while after being clubbed, and the evidence suggests that JonBenet lived for a while after the noose was tightened around her neck.

    The evidence does not suggest that she was first strangled to death, then beat on the head. Nor does it suggest that she was first beaten to death, then necklaced with the cord.

    The evidence suggests that these two life-threatening processes overlapped; i.e., while she was dying from lack of oxygen to the brain, she was also dying from brain injury and intracranial bleeding.

    Any theory anyone comes up with has to accommodate these two overlapping processes. Either she first received the impact to the head, and soon thereafter was strangled, or she was strangling at the time she received the head impact. Since one can be strangled to death in four or five minutes (assuming one's assailant doesn't run into difficulty), if the strangulation process began first, the impact to the head would have had to occur within that four to five minute time frame. Since how long she could (as opposed to might) have remained alive with the injured brain is debatable, all one can say with some degree of confidence is that, irrespective of which process was set into motion first, she probably didn't remain alive for more than four or five minutes following application of the neck ligature.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    John Douglas

    I read that part of The Cases That Haunt Us, which dealt with the JonBenet homicide, several times and checked the book out of the library twice over the span of a few years.

    When I first read it, being a PDI enthusiast, I was stunned, and disappointed and discouraged. I thought Douglas made some cogent arguments.

    Before I read the book, the first time, I was bewildered by his conclusions which he stated on the lobotomy box. I didn't find him very convincing at that time and thought that he was giving the Ramseys an underserved pass; wondered if maybe they hadn't payed him off. Sorry, John. I had read Mind Hunter first.

    After reading the book, for the first time, and finding out that Douglas had been informed by someone he trusted that the blanket WASN'T wrapped around the body, but draped over it (as I have already stated in this forum a few times), I was still a little skeptical of his argument in favor of the body having been carried in the blanket; i.e., that the blanket had been used solely to carry the body and for no other reason. Nevertheless, utlimately, I trusted John Douglas at that time.

    I returned to my study of the case with this new perspective in mind, and still had trouble eliminating the Ramseys. My confidence in my old theory began to return when I purchased and read DOI and discovered so much "evidence" in that book. Still, I couldn't decide for sure who did what, when and for what reason. Years passed, and I checked out the Douglas book again. I had the same reaction to reading it the second time and having my memory refreshed, as I'd had when I first read it--the Ramseys didn't do this.

    Round three.....

  10. #10
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    I read that part of The Cases That Haunt Us, which dealt with the JonBenet homicide, several times and checked the book out of the library twice over the span of a few years.

    When I first read it, being a PDI enthusiast, I was stunned, and disappointed and discouraged. I thought Douglas made some cogent arguments.

    Before I read the book, the first time, I was bewildered by his conclusions which he stated on the lobotomy box. I didn't find him very convincing at that time and thought that he was giving the Ramseys an underserved pass; wondered if maybe they hadn't payed him off. Sorry, John. I had read Mind Hunter first.

    After reading the book, for the first time, and finding out that Douglas had been informed by someone he trusted that the blanket WASN'T wrapped around the body, but draped over it (as I have already stated in this forum a few times), I was still a little skeptical of his argument in favor of the body having been carried in the blanket; i.e., that the blanket had been used solely to carry the body and for no other reason. Nevertheless, utlimately, I trusted John Douglas at that time.

    I returned to my study of the case with this new perspective in mind, and still had trouble eliminating the Ramseys. My confidence in my old theory began to return when I purchased and read DOI and discovered so much "evidence" in that book. Still, I couldn't decide for sure who did what, when and for what reason. Years passed, and I checked out the Douglas book again. I had the same reaction to reading it the second time and having my memory refreshed, as I'd had when I first read it--the Ramseys didn't do this.

    Round three.....
    This sounds like me. I have gone back and forth, round and round.
    It's so frustrating.
    Bits and pieces fit the Ramsey's did it.
    Bits and pieces fit the Intruder did it.
    The whole HUGE question is How and WHY?
    And on Christmas night...
    To me, Christmas night points away from BOTH the family and the intruder.
    I know, I know, I can't have it both ways...

    But that secret visit after Christmas... that sticks for me. I really believe that has something to do with this case.

    Does anyone think this case will be solved in our lifetime?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    Christmas connection

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishMist
    This sounds like me. I have gone back and forth, round and round.
    It's so frustrating.
    Bits and pieces fit the Ramsey's did it.
    Bits and pieces fit the Intruder did it.
    The whole HUGE question is How and WHY?
    And on Christmas night...
    To me, Christmas night points away from BOTH the family and the intruder.
    I know, I know, I can't have it both ways...

    But that secret visit after Christmas... that sticks for me. I really believe that has something to do with this case.

    Does anyone think this case will be solved in our lifetime?

    I, too, have suspected a Christmas connection: Christmas is a religious holiday (as you well know) as well as a secular consumption frenzy. The Ramseys claimed to be devoutly religious. I don't quite know how this fits into John's infidelity, but, oh well.....or Patsy's narcissism.

    Maybe someone broke into the house hoping to steal some of the goodies that Santa had left there the night before--a bicycle (thinking of Raburn); some jewelry; a look-alike doll...nah. Maybe what began as a burglary ended as a homicide. Wouldn't be the first time, but why the subterfuge?

    Maybe someone who was really pissed at the Ramseys (perhaps especially John) or really jealous of JonBenet's pageant success and viewed her as a formidable competitor (she was Little Miss Christmas--what a perfect time to kill her) hired a hit person. I'd look at the parents/relatives of the girls who competed in that Christmas pageant. There are two ways to capture the Miss America crown: eliminate the competition; win legitimatley.

    If someone pissed at the Ramseys, why choose Christmas??? Maybe Christmas had nothing to do with it; was just an opportunity that presented itself at that time.

    The Santa secret sure raised my eyebrows. But, weren't the Ramseys preparing to celebrate Christmas again in Charlevoix? Maybe someone explained to JonBenet that Santa would be visiting her again there and that she should keep it a secret. The Ramseys say they intended to have gifts for Stewart and Linda and John Andrew and even some gifts for the neighbor kids. No gifts for Burke and JonBenet?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,618
    There can only be three people who knew the orientation of the blanket and none have made any public statements on this subject.

    So why should the orientation of the blanket in the wine cellar clear anyone?
    Last edited by UKGuy; 03-12-2005 at 07:25 PM. Reason: spelling error

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Redchief

    After reading the book, for the first time, and finding out that Douglas had been informed by someone he trusted that the blanket WASN'T wrapped around the body, but draped over it (as I have already stated in this forum a few times), I was still a little skeptical of his argument in favor of the body having been carried in the blanket; i.e., that the blanket had been used solely to carry the body and for no other reason. Nevertheless, utlimately, I trusted John Douglas at that time.
    The only two people who saw the body and blanket in situ were John Ramsey and Fleet White. John Ramsey stated in his police interview that the blanket was "under her completely".

    I wish we knew what Fleet White saw, but we don't, so I think we should give more weight to Johns testimony which is a fact rather than some hearsay of John Douglas (who has gotten numerous details about this case wrong).
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    blanket orientation

    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    There can only be three people who knew the orientation of the blanket and none have made any public statements on this subject.

    So why should the orientation of the blanket in the wine cellar clear anyone?

    I don't see how it could clear anyone, but it might shed some light on the motive of the person who placed it there in that orientation. To anticipate your rejoinder, it could be staging; it could also be a sign of respect, compassion, remorse or the like. But what smart person (having staging expertise) would attempt to stage a convincing scene, portraying a certain homidice scenario, yet add an element that is obviously counter to that scenario--the papoose adornment?

    The great FBI profiler, John Douglas, himself, in his book, Mindhunter, said (and I paraphrase) that when it appears that the victim has received tender/compassionate/dignified treatment after his/her death, the person rendering that treatment is probably someone close to the victim; e.g., a family member. To me, this is just plain common sense. Of course, "probably" doesn't mean without a doubt, but in recognizing what may be signs of emotional attachment, isn't the investigator prompted to investigate the family?

    Suppose that JonBenet's body had been dismembered and the parts strewn throughout the basement. Would you suspect a parent had been involved in the death and/or staging? Of course, a shrewd parent-perpetrator, could do that to mislead the investigators. Bearing that in mind, in addition to looking for other evidence, the investigator would probably look into the background of the parent to satisfy himself that they weren't the sort who'd resort to such monstrous extremes. Things are not always what they seem.

    In this case, we have John finding the body, with Fleet in attendance. Fleet said he touched the ankle of the child and found it cold. The body was yet lying on the blanket at that time. Fleet can affirm or deny what John reported, so John's testimony must be evaluated on that basis. John can't lie and get away with it. John has gone on record as reporting that the body was wrapped like an "Indian papoose." That is undeniable. He said the blanket was under her. That is undeniable. He said her head lay on the blanket. That is undeniable. I believe he said (not stating this as a fact) that it appeared that someone had intended to comfort her. He never once testified, that I'm aware of, that the blanket had been unceremoniously draped over the body. The blanket being under the body rules that out. A blanket doesn't get under a body in the process of being draped over it. But, that the body was lovingly (my characterization) wrapped, doesn't rule out the possibility that it had been carried into the cellar in the blanket.

    What if the blanket had been carefully draped over the body, in the manner of a funerary shroud? What would you make of that?

    The devil is in the details, and his DNA is in her underwear...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    I don't see how it could clear anyone, but it might shed some light on the motive of the person who placed it there in that orientation.
    I have not found the attribution of motives to evidence helpful in looking for JonBenet's killer.

    John Douglas is on record as discounting John or Patsy from being implicated in their daughters death. Was he not employed by them subsequent to his analysis and profile?

    I have read his account which contained most of the salient points. His analysis is in the FBI Behavioural Unit style, which views all criminals as statistical entities, from which conclusions can be drawn about completely unknown people who may or may not be criminals. That this method does not work is self evident from their failures in many different fields.

    So whilst his remarks about the victim being treated in a particular manner can be seen as a sign of potential emotional attachment etc, and are not without merit, they just dont follow in all cases. So this technique ends up being a personal preference in what you wish to select from the crime scene which you can then use to demonstrate some familial relationship.

    i.e. attributing motive to evidence.

    That the blanket was there at all is the important feature of the crime scene.

    Its perfectly reasonable to assume it was used to avoid the transfer of forensic evidence.

    From its orientation you could surmise if she had already been wrapped in it or had just had it placed over her, then relocated to the wine cellar.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    What if the blanket had been carefully draped over the body, in the manner of a funerary shroud? What would you make of that?
    In the John Douglas manner you can make anything you want of it. You could suggest it was the perpetrator wishing to hide JonBenet's violation from direct familial gaze or discovery!

    But the blanket was with her in the wine cellar, and like most of the other artifacts, they all have linkage with her bedroom, which as you know is my preferred interpretation of the wine cellar evidence e.g. that it is mostly staged.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast