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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...?

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....

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?


.

So what would happen if authorities knew a child committed a murder. Could they not do anything? I am confused about that law..

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.

Voice of Reason said:

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...?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

narlacat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

michelle said:

So what would happen if authorities knew a child committed a murder. Could they not do anything? I am confused about that law..

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

tipper said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

narlacat said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree...

BlueCrab said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

.

BlueCrab said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

The Colorado Children's Code, as I understand it, provides the authority for a legal coverup to occur. But it needs a court order to put it into effect; otherwise the name of the child perpetrator can probably be legally released. IMO the court gag order on the JonBenet Ramsey case provides the authority for that legal coverup.

I agree with what all of you are saying or implying about the government coverup, if indeed one is taking place. As you may know, because of the missing items of evidence from the crime scene, and for other reasons, I personally believe a fifth person was in the house that night. Although I agree with the Colorado law protecting the identity of a child, I would like to know the age of that fifth person (or persons). He could be the killer, and if so he is getting away with murder by also being inadvertently shielded by the court protective order covering the child.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

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

Click to expand...

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but a)what does the children's code say?; yes, they can't be convicted of a criminal offense, but that doesn't presume total exculpation from juvenile justice; b)I recall someone saying that handling juvenile offenders was under some cloak of secrecy, so Hunter couldn't say or do anything even if he wanted to. Is that the case?

If not, then there's no reason this case couldn't come to a conclusion if the perp is a juvenile.

on the kidnapping scenarios. I'm not enthralled with profiling. It's an educated guess as to who the perp is likely to be based on known factors. I can't think of a single case where profiling solved the crime and a few cases where it actually hindered the investigation. (Notably the D.C. Sniper investigation)

In my opinion the conceit of more than a few people intimidated the D.A.'s office from ever trying this case. The first is John Eller, which is another story, the second is John Douglas and the third is Lou Smit. Both Douglas and Smit seem to think they're human lie detectors who can sniff out a prevaricator and dissembler just by looking at the person. What nonsense. Even children can look you straight in the eye and tell the most audacious lies without the guile and subtlety that adults by virtue of experience and maturity can bring to any such interrogation. I remember Douglas saying something (and I'm paraphrasing) "John Ramsey, if you're lying to me, you're one of the best liars...and I've been lied to by the best." If Douglas thinks that Ramsey couldn't look him straight in the eye and lie, then he has no business being a profiler.

Lou Smit was another hindrance to this case. He lost any objectivity by allowing the Ramseys to waylay him the first day and "pray" with them. His ignorance of forensic science was embarrassing, for example his claim that there were "brown paper bag fibers" on the child's bed. Of course there were brown paper bag fibers on her bedding - they put the sheets in brown paper evidence bags. Naturally the fibers were "consistent" with the brown paper bag found in the other bedroom. Brown paper "grocery" bags are all made of the same materials. That's so elementary it's laughable. Another case in point is the "scuff mark" on the wall below the window. Now there's a clue that according to Smit absolutely points to an outside perp. However, one would have to completely disregard John Ramsey's testimony that he had previously come in that window and that the scuff mark could have been there long before that night and the evidence of a police officer who claims he saw cobwebs over the window grate and the crime scene photos which show a garden hose and a grill partially resting on the window grate.

If just about everyone involved in this case had parked their egos at the door, there might have been a chance to resolve it.