1100 users online (237 members and 863 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    More John Douglas talk...

    I was just re-reading some passages from JD's book, "The Anatomy of a Motive," and I came across some interesting things in a story about a phony kidnapping. Here are some excerpts below followed by my comments. I don't understand how JD is so convinced of the Ramsey's innocence when all of his literature seems to point right at them. Then, he has an interview with them and he becomes a human lie detector and declares their innocence. Anyway...

    ...this is not a kidnapping. The little girl is dead and Nicole is the killer.

    Why did you doubt her story?

    There are a couple of elements that arouse suspicion. The first is that a mother left the child alone in an apartment that might or might not have been secured - but we'll give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. The second is that when she called 911, she told the operator her "baby had been kidnapped." This is such a horrible thing for parents even to contemplate that most of them will consciously or subconsciously suppress it as long as they can. Normally a parent under this kind of extreme stress will say something to the effect that her baby or child is missing, that she can't find her, that she's run off, that she's wandered away . . . anything not to confront the idea of kidnapping.
    Sound familiar? The Ramsey house "might or might not have been secured" and the first words out of PR's mouth were "We have a kidnapping." Maybe the analysis is different because there is a note and what clearly appears to be a kidnapping (at first).

    There are really only three cases in which children are taken by strangers. The first is kidnapping for profit. The second is kidnapping by those who intend to do children harm for their own purposes, either for perverted sexual gratification or as a specific or general revenge. The third is kidnapping by unstable and pathetic people who wish to have a child of their own. The first of these three types of offenders will have to communicate with the parents to establish demands and make arrangements for payment. The second and third categories will want nothing whatever to do with the parents; only in the rarest of instances - when you have a truly insane or sadistic individual - would you see any attempt at communication. But that would be a real long shot, extremely unusual.
    The Ramsey case unquestionably falls somewhere between scenario one and two. The problem is, scenario one fits the evidence being the note, but does not fit the crime scene (a dead child is not worth any $$). (The sexual abuse doesn't add much here either)

    Therefore, we should look at scenario number two. In fact, this is what JD suggests in "The Cases that Haunt Us." He opines that JB's killer wanted revenge on JR. But this fails miserably when looking at JD's comments regarding the lack of contact in scenario two except in "extremely unusual" circumstances. Well, sure, the JBR case may be extremely unusual, but not really if you look at it from afar. It is only unusual in that there has been such difficulty in solving what seems, IMO, to be such a clear cut case of something went wrong in the house and a kidnapping was staged.

    Anyone else have any thoughts on this...?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,908
    I always read John Douglas books i really enjoy them. I hate to say it because i want so much to believe that JR and PR are innocent, but i cant help but think this is a cover up. When i do think of them as being guilty, i dont think PR did it, but i wouldnt doubt that she assisted in the cover up for burke....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,189
    If Burke didn't have a thing to do with the murder, I wonder how John and Patsy's evasiveness and refusal to answer questions is affecting his life. The two of them have had an impact on his life and how people will look at him in his career and future in laws. I think he should really be angry about it all. If Burke did kill JonBenet in anger, then I wouldn't want my daughter to be married to someone who had such a temper that they could cause such a head injury or strangulation.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,887
    Quote Originally Posted by txsvicki
    If Burke didn't have a thing to do with the murder, I wonder how John and Patsy's evasiveness and refusal to answer questions is affecting his life. The two of them have had an impact on his life and how people will look at him in his career and future in laws. I think he should really be angry about it all. If Burke did kill JonBenet in anger, then I wouldn't want my daughter to be married to someone who had such a temper that they could cause such a head injury or strangulation.
    txsvicki,

    No I guess you would not. Depending on which BDI you entertain, either Burke, or/and an older associate were given Get Out Of Jail Cards, on the assumed basis that the child protection laws of Colorado, make it an offence to publish Burke's name as being either the principal or an accomplice to JonBenet's homicide!

    Normally, and all those with child safety experience may wish to comment, children who are deemed at risk, or have committed an offence whilst beneath the age of criminal responsibility, have their name and address logged in a case system.

    If the underage crime was sexual in nature then future partners may be notified, and in extreme cases resulting children could be removed from the family?

    In JonBenet's case there is both a sexual and violent component to her death, so if the case has been solved, but has gone silent due to the child protection laws. Then what provision is there for notifying future partners regarding the potential for extreme violence?


    .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,908
    So what would happen if authorities knew a child committed a murder. Could they not do anything? I am confused about that law..

  6. #6
    Good question, michelle. Does the child just get a pass due to being underage? No court-enforced therapy?

    I recall a murder in Alberta some years back. A family was virtually wiped out. The official position was that the crime was committed by a young offender who could not be named. The young offender went into a mental hospital. I don't know if he ever got out. It was fairly evident that the young offender ws the son/brother of the victims, although the press never stated it as such. We knew the case was "solved".

    Now I concede that the law may be very different in Alberta, and this was not a 9 year old, my recollection is that it was a 12 to 14 year old, but the law did stipulate that he could not be identified.

    What is wrong with stating it was a juvenile perp, and can therefore not be identified? In the event that there was an older accomplice, the BPD could have worked with the alleged young offender to identify said perp, and done so 9 years ago.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

    Therefore, we should look at scenario number two. In fact, this is what JD suggests in "The Cases that Haunt Us." He opines that JB's killer wanted revenge on JR. But this fails miserably when looking at JD's comments regarding the lack of contact in scenario two except in "extremely unusual" circumstances. Well, sure, the JBR case may be extremely unusual, but not really if you look at it from afar. It is only unusual in that there has been such difficulty in solving what seems, IMO, to be such a clear cut case of something went wrong in the house and a kidnapping was staged.

    Anyone else have any thoughts on this...?
    The only thing unusual in this murder case is that the parents got away with it, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to their guilt.
    This is one of the most mishandled murder cases in criminal history.
    A botched crime scene coupled with a corrupt prosecution being in bed with the Ramsey laywers led to that disaster, and the Ramseys are profiting from it to this day.
    Douglas' allegation for example that Patsy knew nothing about the sum of John's bonus is laughable. How would he know that? He only had Patsy's word for it that she didn't know.
    All that revenge scenarios don't hold any water. It was a cover-up for something which went wrong on that fatal night. The whole scenario makes sense then.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,182
    Yep, it's pretty hard to believe that what happened to JBR, happened because someone hated her father or rather the country he lived in.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by narlacat
    Yep, it's pretty hard to believe that what happened to JBR, happened because someone hated her father or rather the country he lived in.
    I agree, that's almost impossible to believe. Too high risk for revenge. IMO, Douglas has zero credibility. He was paid by the Ramsey's for his work. Call me cynical, but what is he going to say?

    I am really on the fence in this case, though. I wouldn't be shocked to find the truth on either side. So much of it doesn't make sense.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by michelle
    So what would happen if authorities knew a child committed a murder. Could they not do anything? I am confused about that law..

    michelle,

    Maybe this can answer your question. Here's the Colorado statute on the issue:

    "18-1-801. INSUFFICIENT AGE. The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the 'Colorado Children's Code', title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years old shall be found guilty of any offense."

    Case law further clarified the statute. For instance, in People v Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991): "Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons could be held for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts."

    IOW, in regard to your question about a person under ten committing murder, he can be held and dealt with, but he cannot be charged with a crime. In Colorado the district attorney has full authority in dealing with the person under ten who has committed a serious crime. In Boulder in 1996 that would have been Alex Hunter.

    BlueCrab


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    michelle,

    Maybe this can answer your question. Here's the Colorado statute on the issue:

    "18-1-801. INSUFFICIENT AGE. The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the 'Colorado Children's Code', title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years old shall be found guilty of any offense."

    Case law further clarified the statute. For instance, in People v Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991): "Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons could be held for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts."

    IOW, in regard to your question about a person under ten committing murder, he can be held and dealt with, but he cannot be charged with a crime. In Colorado the district attorney has full authority in dealing with the person under ten who has committed a serious crime. In Boulder in 1996 that would have been Alex Hunter.

    BlueCrab
    But the case should have been marked "Exceptional Clearance" or something like that, not left open.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by tipper
    But the case should have been marked "Exceptional Clearance" or something like that, not left open.
    I agree.
    Not only are they not admitting the case is closed (if it was committed by a minor),they are also declaring they are still looking for the murderer.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,908
    Quote Originally Posted by narlacat
    Yep, it's pretty hard to believe that what happened to JBR, happened because someone hated her father or rather the country he lived in.
    I agree...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,887
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    michelle,

    Maybe this can answer your question. Here's the Colorado statute on the issue:

    "18-1-801. INSUFFICIENT AGE. The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the 'Colorado Children's Code', title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years old shall be found guilty of any offense."

    Case law further clarified the statute. For instance, in People v Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991): "Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons could be held for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts."

    IOW, in regard to your question about a person under ten committing murder, he can be held and dealt with, but he cannot be charged with a crime. In Colorado the district attorney has full authority in dealing with the person under ten who has committed a serious crime. In Boulder in 1996 that would have been Alex Hunter.

    BlueCrab

    BlueCrab,

    Thanks for the information regarding the age of criminal responsibility in Colorado.

    So the statute implies that the child may be held, I assume that means confined somewhere, evens if its only the local childrens home?

    So although a child may not be charged with a violation of the law, and they cannot be declared guilty since they lack the concept of criminal responsibility.

    What is the situation where a child is innocent, how is this conveyed to the local community?

    Since no communication, or a legal silence must leave all children beneath the age of 10, as uncleared suspects, since their legal status denies them due process!

    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    IOW, in regard to your question about a person under ten committing murder, he can be held and dealt with, but he cannot be charged with a crime. In Colorado the district attorney has full authority in dealing with the person under ten who has committed a serious crime. In Boulder in 1996 that would have been Alex Hunter.

    BlueCrab
    BlueCrab,

    Where in the statute or the case law does it say that any and all measures necessary to keep this a secret can be implemented by the courts, the media, and all public officials? I suspect it does not. Somewhere in Colorado law, as in most jurisdictions, I'm sure it says that a child's name cannot be released, but that does not mean that the very fact that a child is responsible for a crime must be covered up...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. John Douglas
    By santos1014 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-13-2007, 03:49 PM
  2. Has anyone read John Douglas' book?
    By ssiegmund in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-18-2006, 11:34 AM
  3. A John Douglas thread
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-30-2005, 03:48 PM
  4. John Douglas
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 09:54 PM