JBR and The Vidocq Society

I am trying to determine if TVS has been asked to look in on the JBR case. I have not been able to find an answer. I have called the Boulder Police Hot Line (twice!)(303-441-1974) and offered to tell them about TVS but they have not returned my calls :furious:.

Can anyone tell me, for certain, if TVS has been asked to look into this case?

Thx

Hi AGettler,

Trying to remember and I think the answer is yes. Then again it could be no.

Anyone else? Didn't Steve Thomas say something about Vidocq?

So many years ago it scares me.

Tricia

I have the book The Murder Room in front of me. Nowhere in the table of contents do I read about JBR. I have read the book as well, and don't recall the case being discussed. Of course, if they had taken the case, I have to think it would be in the book which is copyrighted 2010. Also, if they were asked, there is no conceivable reason that I can think of for them not taking the case. The case is discussed in two of John Douglas' books (Law and Disorder and The Cases That Haunt Us) and in Bill James' book Popular Crime....
So, if TVS was asked, why would they turn it down? I believe the case meets the three criteria for them to take the case. Also, if TVS was not asked to take it, then why the hell not? My two messages on the tip line mention TVS specifically and I threw in the term "pro bono" to boot. They can't even call me back for a one minute conversation about whether or not they had contacted TVS? No wonder the case is unsolved.

Bill James, in his book, Popular Crime, Reflections on the Celebration of Violence, on page 388, writes about the JBR case: "...what I believe to be the most unusual crime scene in American history." One must think the members of TVS would be foaming at the mouth to get involved; however, one of the criteria is that TVS must be asked to get involved. They do not go out and volunteer their superlative services. That is why I started this thread, to get to the bottom of this question.
If you have info about the TVS and this case, please source it. I am completely fed up with the BPD.
Thx,
AGettler

I have a link (that no longer works) to a story. At any rate, according to my notes, Ressler made a presentation to Vidocq in Jan. 1998. It was his “profile of the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note.”

“Television and print reporters developing feature stories on The Vidocq Society were not allowed to hear Ressler's presentation or the vigorous question-and-answer session that followed.”

Quotes are from the article with the faulty link: http://www.vidocq.org/pressroom.html

I also, vaguely, remember and see in my notes “...one of vidocq’s members claims to know who killed jonbenet, but he’s keeping that to himself. I think his name is Walter or Walters or something like that...”
...

AK

I think it is quite clear that the Boulder DA's office has absolutely zero interest in rehashing this case. I think that anybody who is familiar with the case knows that there was some questionable behaviour by Alex Hunter. Whether he was feeling political pressure, legal pressure, or was being extorted for one reason or another, it is abundantly clear that he was determined to take the case in the opposite direction that BPD investigators were presenting to him. The DA's that replaced him all had no interest in investigating the direction that all the investigators provided either.

The perpetrator of this crime was one of three people, and for one reason or another the DA's office decided to give that person a pass, keeping the public satisfied with their pursuit of a mystery intruder that there is absolutely no evidence of.

There is a reason why Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, Etc, never speak of this case after leaving office. There is a dark secret, and they were all a part of in its coverup. This case has not been worked since 1990, and I highly doubt that anybody in Boulder will ever allow it to ever be worked again.

Anti-K said:

I have a link (that no longer works) to a story. At any rate, according to my notes, Ressler made a presentation to Vidocq in Jan. 1998. It was his “profile of the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note.”

“Television and print reporters developing feature stories on The Vidocq Society were not allowed to hear Ressler's presentation or the vigorous question-and-answer session that followed.”

Quotes are from the article with the faulty link: http://www.vidocq.org/pressroom.html

I also, vaguely, remember and see in my notes “...one of vidocq’s members claims to know who killed jonbenet, but he’s keeping that to himself. I think his name is Walter or Walters or something like that...”
...

AK

Click to expand...

Thank you, Anti-K. The man's name is Richard Walter. He is TVS's resident profiler and a very interesting (unusual) guy.

The link is dead, but thanks anyway. TVS publishes a journal, but the oldest one on their web site is 2010. I will find out what is in their journals, and then, if applicable, find out if I can get to the one that discusses their involvement (or lack of) in this case. I will, of course, share any info I can find.

AGettler said:

I have the book The Murder Room in front of me. Nowhere in the table of contents do I read about JBR. I have read the book as well, and don't recall the case being discussed. Of course, if they had taken the case, I have to think it would be in the book which is copyrighted 2010. Also, if they were asked, there is no conceivable reason that I can think of for them not taking the case. The case is discussed in two of John Douglas' books (Law and Disorder and The Cases That Haunt Us) and in Bill James' book Popular Crime....
So, if TVS was asked, why would they turn it down? I believe the case meets the three criteria for them to take the case. Also, if TVS was not asked to take it, then why the hell not? My two messages on the tip line mention TVS specifically and I threw in the term "pro bono" to boot. They can't even call me back for a one minute conversation about whether or not they had contacted TVS? No wonder the case is unsolved.

Bill James, in his book, Popular Crime, Reflections on the Celebration of Violence, on page 388, writes about the JBR case: "...what I believe to be the most unusual crime scene in American history." One must think the members of TVS would be foaming at the mouth to get involved; however, one of the criteria is that TVS must be asked to get involved. They do not go out and volunteer their superlative services. That is why I started this thread, to get to the bottom of this question.
If you have info about the TVS and this case, please source it. I am completely fed up with the BPD.
Thx,
AGettler

Click to expand...

When I first heard about The Vidocq Society (TVS), I too had hopes that they might get involved in the Ramsey case. But alas, if you read the criteria that they have publicly stated, you can see why this will never happen. From the TVS website (http://www.vidocq.org/case-acceptance/) (emphasis mine):

1. 
   [*=1]The victim must not have been engaged in criminal activity that caused his/her death.
   [*=1] The department with investigative jurisdiction must invite the Society to assist their effort.
   [*=1]The case should, at minimum, have the following:
   

The only family members who could ask TVS for involvement would be John Ramsey or Burke Ramsey -- and it should be obvious that that’s not going to happen. Even if a family member requests their assistance, they will not take the case unless they have the full cooperation of the “department with investigative jurisdiction” (BPD) -- and neither is that going to happen. So unfortunately, TVS (as helpful as they might be in clarifying what happened) will not be getting involved in investigating this.

The best that might be hoped for is to get Richard Walter to spill the beans on what he thinks personally based on his personal knowledge of the crime. As AK has pointed out, Walter has said that he “knows” who killed JonBenet, but he won’t tell anybody. Think about that: If he “knows” who killed JonBenet, why would he not say who it is and how he determined it? Could it be that he knows the name of some intruder that the police have dismissed as a suspect? Or has he surmised from what is known publicly which of the three persons present in the house that night is most likely the one responsible? And what is Walter’s specialty that would give him any type of insight into this? Richard Walter is a forensic psychologist who helped develop the field of criminal profiling.

I would submit that Walter has looked at the behaviors of those involved and the circumstances that are known about the crime, and he has concluded by logic who he thinks caused her death.



Here are a few links you might find interesting:

Article about TVS and the book by Michael Capuzzo about them (The Murder Room):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129032377

An article written by Capuzzo about TVS and his book where he states Walter’s claim about knowing JonBenet’s killer:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a8211/vidocq-society-members-081010/

Each of the three founding members of TVS is fascinating -- even if somewhat quirky. Frank Bender (RIP) was a self-described sex-addict (he claimed to have “slept with” hundreds of women with the full consent of his wife). Here is a book about him and his attempt at identifying some of the “feminicidio de Juarez” -- the hundreds of decomposing bodies of young women found near the Texas/Mexico border:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Girl-Crooked-Nose-Botha-ebook/dp/B005ERIRRM


Several years ago Mansfield University did a series of interviews with different people. (Since we can only link one video per post at WS, I'll link the first and then the others you'll have to copy and paste the video number in the URL.) Here are two interviews with Richard Walter:

[video=youtube;nHsMWKChaTw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHsMWKChaTw[/video]

...and:
/watch?v=Gp1l34qNGtg

And here are two interviews with Michael Capuzzo:
/watch?v=Gp1l34qNGtg
/watch?v=IPJKRB34yoc





(I know this is all more information than you asked for, AGettler, but I just thought I’d follow up with the information I had found when I was looking into TVS a few years ago myself.)

The Daily Camera

Updated at 10:00:05 AM MST Thursday, January 29, 1998
Ramsey ransom note gets new look

By MATT SEBASTIAN
Camera Staff Writer

Meeting in Philadelphia today, a secretive international crime-fighting organization will take a crack at deciphering the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note.

But don't expect the group of forensic experts to solve the year-old slaying, the organization's spokesman said Wednesday.

"The Vidocq Society has a history of investigating and looking into unsolved murders that are normally years old," said spokesman Dick Lavinthal. "However, the society is not involved in any way with the investigation of this particular crime."

Robert K. Ressler, a famed former member of the FBIs violent criminal apprehension team, is scheduled to give a presentation today on the phony ransom note in the Ramsey case.

"This is neither prosecution- nor defense-oriented," Ressler said. "Essentially, Im just doing this from the outside looking in."

Ressler said he wouldnt be dropping any bombshells, but would simply analyze the ransom note, along with some autopsy reports and other public records.

Named after the 18th century French detective Eugene Francois Vidocq - considered the father of modern criminal investigation - the 150 members of the 8-year-old organization meet twice a month to review "long-cooled" homicide cases. Lavinthal said the group has, in the past, helped both prosecutors and defendants prove their cases.

JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered in her parents Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996. Prior to the discovery of the body, the 6-year-olds mother found a three-page ransom note. There are no suspects in the case, although investigators have said the girls parents "remain under an umbrella of suspicion."

Although the Vidocq members dont plan to review the full Ramsey case, Lavinthal said, any new revelations gleaned from the ransom note presentation will be forwarded to Boulder police.

"Im sure if, for some reason, someone were to propose something that might be germane, we will make sure to communicate that to the right people," Lavinthal said.

Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby, when told of the secretive forensic society, said he has no problem with the groups plans to study the bogus ransom note.

"Nothing bothers me in this case anymore," Koby said.

http://tinyurl.com/ownqlqh
...

AK

Thank you, OTG, for a great post. However, I do not see why TVS can't get involved. All the BPD has to do is ask and that is why I have called them twice, to ask them if they have asked TVS.

Some specific criteria are:

The victim must not have been engaged in criminal activity that caused his/her death. criteria met
The department with investigative jurisdiction must invite the Society to assist their effort. criteria can be met
The case should, at minimum, have the following:

a. A bodycriteria met
b. A known crime scene criteria met
c. Physical evidencecriteria met

Click to expand...

I am aware of these criteria and all are met that I know of except the BPD asking for help. Especially since the work would be pro bono, how can they not ask and live with themselves (esp. now that Eller is gone)?

Anti-K, thanks for the post. This article, as it is written, perplexes me. It sounds as if TVS will review the case (as a teaching tool?) but I get the feeling they were not asked to do so because: "However, the society is not involved in any way with the investigation of this particular crime." WHY ON EARTH NOT? OMG. The biggest case since OJ and TVS is not going to get involved? I just...

What I am trying to find is if TVS was not involved, why not? If they were involved, what were their findings? Beginning in Nov. I will delve into this more deeply, because, WE want answers. I will call TVS and ask them if I have to.

Justice for JBR!

AG

I’ve also found the article where Walters is said to know who killed JBR. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a8211/vidocq-society-members-081010/

Very little of the case is mentioned, and, I am quite skeptical of the claim.
...

AK

AGettler said:

Thank you, OTG, for a great post. However, I do not see why TVS can't get involved. All the BPD has to do is ask and that is why I have called them twice, to ask them if they have asked TVS.

Some specific criteria are:
​

1. 
   [*=1]The victim must not have been engaged in criminal activity that caused his/her death. criteria met
   [*=1] The department with investigative jurisdiction must invite the Society to assist their effort. criteria can be met
   [*=1]The case should, at minimum, have the following:
   

a. A body criteria met
b. A known crime scene criteria met
c. Physical evidence criteria met
​

Click to expand...

​

I am aware of these criteria and all are met that I know of except the BPD asking for help. Especially since the work would be pro bono, how can they not ask and live with themselves (esp. now that Eller is gone)?

Click to expand...

You’re correct, AG, that all of the stated criteria have been met except that one little requirement for jurisdictional involvement. But that little requirement is the big stumbling block to getting official TVS participation. Note also that TVS doesn’t take over a case when they get involved -- they state that they only assist the jurisdictional authority in its investigation, and right now, BPD doesn’t have one. So the question would have to be why the BPD (who now has jurisdiction again) NOT want to invite TVS to assist them in an investigation. All we can do is speculate on what that reason might be.

I would speculate a couple of possibilities (you might be able to come up with a few more):

1. BPD is no longer actively investigating this and therefore is not even interested in having it "solved".
2. BPD would prefer to simply forget about it because any renewed public interest and scrutiny would simply remind them and the public of their past mistakes.
3. (And many reading this will not agree with this one) Perhaps the crime actually was “solved” in the past; but for reasons that can only be speculated, they do not or cannot pursue charges.

On that third possibility: The Statute of Limitations has expired on all crimes that may have been committed except for First Degree Murder. On that charge, there are only two people who could be charged and one of them has died. (I’m not entertaining the idea here of an IDI -- let’s keep it real.) So in order for the one remaining adult suspect to be charged at this time, they would have to have compelling evidence (indisputable proof, actually) that he is directly responsible for the death. And we have to face the reality that if they haven’t had that evidence before now, they’re not very likely to find it any time in the future. Any other crimes that were committed (and there were many) have long since had the SoL pass and could not be pursued.

I’m not surprised that your calls to the BPD have been ignored. This is not an active investigation. Those who were involved in the investigation in the past are no longer. The detectives assigned to the case now have no desire to “solve” it. To them, the Ramsey case is just an embarrassing footnote in the history of their department. And you should know that they don’t look at any of us as concerned citizens seeking justice or simply wanting to help out. To them, we are just a bunch of loons, kooks, and nut jobs who have some obsessive compulsion to delve into in a case that everyone else wants to forget. Take a look at the “Comments” at the bottom of some of the online articles about JonBenet when some kind of news breaks out (e.g., most recently, news of the RGJ True Bills). Besides the usual posts about the murder being done by Bob Enyart, the OCCK, the smiley face killer, or that Patsy did it because of an obsession with a novel by Muriel Spark; you’ll also see comments asking “Who cares,” “Why can’t we just forget about this,” and “What difference, at this point, does it make?” (oops, that was a quote from somewhere else). The only point is that, besides the people who post here and on other forums, no one else cares.

I don’t like being so discouraging if you feel you can convince someone to do something. But just understand the situation so you don’t get let down and feel frustrated with the apparent lack of concern from others.

I tend to disagree OTG. The fact that Barbara Walters new show kicks off tonight and features John Ramsey as a guest tells me that this case is still interesting to many Americans, possibly more interesting than any other case in history. Why? Because unlike OJ or the Menendez brothers, we don't know who did this, and like the legend of DB Cooper, this case will be interesting until the day we know for sure what the hell happened.

As far as LE and the AGs office, they simply want this case to go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww said:

I tend to disagree OTG. The fact that Barbara Walters new show kicks off tonight and features John Ramsey as a guest tells me that this case is still interesting to many Americans, possibly more interesting than any other case in history. Why? Because unlike OJ or the Menendez brothers, we don't know who did this, and like the legend of DB Cooper, this case will be interesting until the day we know for sure what the hell happened.

As far as LE and the AGs office, they simply want this case to go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah, I read comments about this case on every article that I see....and the majority are perfectly fine. After all, I wouldn't be able to read them if they were all negative and calluous. I think what happens is if you are scrolling through comments and they are all pretty generic and then you come across one that is vile, it's going to stick in your mind. The "Who cares" tend to be the minority. I do see some that want to let JonBenet rest in peace, but I don't really see those as offensive. Also, a lot of times, nasty comments are made by trolls with clearly fake accounts who want a reaction. How many other cases are there where the chief of police can do a Reddit AMA and have it make national headlines? This case has longevity that very few cases have. If you see a negative comment about JonBenet, just remember, that trolls would not be able to say those comments if these articles did not exist.

andreww said:

I think it is quite clear that the Boulder DA's office has absolutely zero interest in rehashing this case. I think that anybody who is familiar with the case knows that there was some questionable behaviour by Alex Hunter. Whether he was feeling political pressure, legal pressure, or was being extorted for one reason or another, it is abundantly clear that he was determined to take the case in the opposite direction that BPD investigators were presenting to him. The DA's that replaced him all had no interest in investigating the direction that all the investigators provided either.

The perpetrator of this crime was one of three people, and for one reason or another the DA's office decided to give that person a pass, keeping the public satisfied with their pursuit of a mystery intruder that there is absolutely no evidence of.

There is a reason why Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, Etc, never speak of this case after leaving office. There is a dark secret, and they were all a part of in its coverup. This case has not been worked since 1990, and I highly doubt that anybody in Boulder will ever allow it to ever be worked again.

Click to expand...

Let's take this elsewhere, andreww.