If JonBenet's death was an accident...

[SunnieRN]

I'm thinking that the women were in the room with PR who was distraught. JR was most likely with the men. LA probably had a choice as to whether she stayed with PR or went to stay with the men. I'm thinking she chose PR. Does this make JR 'missing'. I think not. Let's hear from whoever has statements from the other people present that none of them saw JR during that 80 minute period. Then I'll agree that we was 'missing'.

It has been stated several times, that John was 'off by himself'. He wasn't with Patsy, or 'the men'. People commented that they thought it was strange that he isolated himself. This is not said to start an argument, but as previously stated by people present.

As for your response to DeeDee, both Patsy and John stated they never read the autopsy report. The head bash was 'heard round the world' as far as newspapers and tabloids are concerned, some of which the Ramseys saw fit to sue over. They must have read at least some of them. He also saw JonBenet with the ligature around her neck and arms when he carried her upstairs. Instead of saying that I hope my child didn't suffer, I would have been cursing and damning the person/people who did the crime FOR making MY child SUFFER!!! Their statements can usually be interpreted to fit the evidence. Inside knowledge.

 

[MurriFlower]

It has been stated several times, that John was 'off by himself'. He wasn't with Patsy, or 'the men'. People commented that they thought it was strange that he isolated himself. This is not said to start an argument, but as previously stated by people present.

As for your response to DeeDee, both Patsy and John stated they never read the autopsy report. The head bash was 'heard round the world' as far as newspapers and tabloids are concerned, some of which the Ramseys saw fit to sue over. They must have read at least some of them. He also saw JonBenet with the ligature around her neck and arms when he carried her upstairs. Instead of saying that I hope my child didn't suffer, I would have been cursing and damning the person/people who did the crime FOR making MY child SUFFER!!! Their statements can usually be interpreted to fit the evidence. Inside knowledge.

my bold

Or they can be interpreted to fit the suspect you have in mind.

 

[BBB167893]

I also have to wonder if after her death, if they developed a sort of "dislike" for JonBenet. Did they blame JonBenet for them going from having the perfect fairy-tale life to having to spend millions on lawyer fees, constant media and public scrutiny, and Patsy's cancer coming back, etc? If JonBenet hadn't died, they would still be living the dream life. (Although I'm sure John still has plenty of money and still lives the dream life compared to many Americans, but it's probably a step down from their 1996 life.)

I have often thought that.

 

[BBB167893]

interesting comment from JR- his daughter was bashed on the head hard enough to punch a hole in her head and crack it halfway around her skull. She has had a cord wrapped so tightly around her neck that a deep red furrow was made. (while she was alive). And something caused her to bleed from her vagina. And he likes to think she "didn't suffer"? How did he think it would have felt to her?
Of course, if you read between the lines- if the head bash came first, she was knocked unconscious immediately and wouldn't have felt the pain of the strangulation. As she didn't struggle against it, I'd say that is probably the case. So what JR was really saying was that he KNEW she didn't suffer.

Very telling, isn't it?

 

[WANM]

eileenhawkeye,
Probably because they were playing a scripted role, with legal advice going in one ear, and friendly advice leaving the other.

Like the staged crime-scene , they saw the aftermath as a damage limitation exercise. Something to get through, to say non-incriminating things, to blame others, and lay a trail of lies and deceit.

It has to start with Patsy opening the door still wearing yesterdays clothes!


.

That can seem odd to if you aren't used to it, but I have many times worn an outfit for a small amount of time and then put it up to wear again the next day. Patsy had only worn the outfit to a Christmas dinner, so it wouldn't be tremendously dirty. Not to mention, she had already packed for a family trip so alot of her clothes were already packed. I remember my own mother doing that when I was child, simply because she didn't want to iron another outfit. It's not wierd, it's practical to wear an outfit again, especially for a busy mom.

 

[WANM]

"The bottom line was that JonBenet had been strangled with a garrotestyle ligature and had suffered
massive blunt-force trauma to the right side of her head. Though there was and still is some question
about which injury occurred first, either would have been sufficient to kill her. The petechial
hemorrhages on the insides of the eyelids as well as other places, coupled with the lack of substantial
bleeding from the head wound, suggest that the strangulation was first, so that by the time of the head
injury her heart was no longer pumping or was pumping only weakly."

It is likely that the strangulation came first and then trauma to Jonbenet's head to make sure she was dead. There is no possible way that Jonbenet's parents accidentally strangled her with an expertly tied garotte. I think the evidence clearly points to a perpatrator that is not the parents but even if it was the parents,The death was clearly not an accident, and it doesn't matter whether you think the parents did it or not, the evidence clearly points to an intentional homicide. No one strangles a child and then hits them on the head hard enough to cause blunt force trauma, and doesn't expect them to die. If anything, the blunt force trauma was done to make sure she was dead after she had been strangled.

 

[BBB167893]

"The bottom line was that JonBenet had been strangled with a garrotestyle ligature and had suffered
massive blunt-force trauma to the right side of her head. Though there was and still is some question
about which injury occurred first, either would have been sufficient to kill her. The petechial
hemorrhages on the insides of the eyelids as well as other places, coupled with the lack of substantial
bleeding from the head wound, suggest that the strangulation was first, so that by the time of the head
injury her heart was no longer pumping or was pumping only weakly."

I was wondering where this came from, WANM. But then I found out it was from John Douglas's book, and that pretty much told me all I needed to know.

It is likely that the strangulation came first and then trauma to JonBenet's head to make sure she was dead.

The vast majority of true expert opinion agrees that the head injury took place first, quite a while first, actually. Estimates range anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour.

There is no possible way that Jonbenet's parents accidentally strangled her with an expertly tied garotte.

My bold.

Just to point out a few things:

1) NOBODY strangled her with an "expertly made" garotte. In fact, it was described as simple and sloppy. The person who made the one that was found on JB did NOT know how to make one or how it's supposed to be used.

2) When we say "Accident" we mean that the killing was not intentional from a legal standpoint. And to that end, if the person who strangled her honestly thought she was dead, it's not murder.

I think the evidence clearly points to a perpatrator that is not the parents but even if it was the parents,The death was clearly not an accident, and it doesn't matter whether you think the parents did it or not, the evidence clearly points to an intentional homicide.

You'll probably get some argument on both points.

 

[madeleine]

there are three cases that always fascinated me,
this one,the Michael peterson case (staircase murders) and the jeffrey macdonalds case.
I see no difference between these 3 men (JR,MP,JMCD)
all three were ex military
all three are very arrogant
manipulative
love telling stories (charming)
are always in denial shouting out their innocence when it's obvious from the evidence that what they did was with malice (even planned maybe)
their defense lawyers all argued intruder even if there was no proof of such thing (hey,MP even tried to appeal based on that ridiculous the owl did it scenario,LMAO)
not even after they were convicted (MP,JMCD)(thank GOD) didn't they stop promoting their lies like it's the most normal thing in the world.
in fact,all three have proven to be LIARS and cowards,they're brave men only in their sick fantasies.
all three love TV appearances,MP even had everything filmed after the murder (check the documentary,it's fascinating),all three love to portray themselves as the victims and don't talk a lot about the REAL victims but about THEMSELVES,poor babies!
I don't think JB's death was an innocent accident like I don't believe it happened in the other 2 cases because we're dealing with the same kind of players.


IMO :twocents:

 

[BBB167893]

That can seem odd to if you aren't used to it, but I have many times worn an outfit for a small amount of time and then put it up to wear again the next day. Patsy had only worn the outfit to a Christmas dinner, so it wouldn't be tremendously dirty. Not to mention, she had already packed for a family trip so alot of her clothes were already packed. I remember my own mother doing that when I was child, simply because she didn't want to iron another outfit. It's not wierd, it's practical to wear an outfit again, especially for a busy mom.

Problem there, WANM, is that this was a woman described by people who knew her as "repulsed" by the idea of wearing the same clothes twice in a row without washing them first.

 

[Tadpole12]

Problem there, WANM, is that this was a woman described by people who knew her as "repulsed" by the idea of wearing the same clothes twice in a row without washing them first.

Heyya SD.
Who said "repulsed"?

 

[BBB167893]

Heyya SD.
Who said "repulsed"?

One of the house employees. LHP, if memory serves.

 

[Toltec]

"The bottom line was that JonBenet had been strangled with a garrotestyle ligature and had suffered
massive blunt-force trauma to the right side of her head. Though there was and still is some question
about which injury occurred first, either would have been sufficient to kill her. The petechial
hemorrhages on the insides of the eyelids as well as other places, coupled with the lack of substantial
bleeding from the head wound, suggest that the strangulation was first, so that by the time of the head
injury her heart was no longer pumping or was pumping only weakly."

It is likely that the strangulation came first and then trauma to Jonbenet's head to make sure she was dead. There is no possible way that Jonbenet's parents accidentally strangled her with an expertly tied garotte. I think the evidence clearly points to a perpatrator that is not the parents but even if it was the parents,The death was clearly not an accident, and it doesn't matter whether you think the parents did it or not, the evidence clearly points to an intentional homicide. No one strangles a child and then hits them on the head hard enough to cause blunt force trauma, and doesn't expect them to die. If anything, the blunt force trauma was done to make sure she was dead after she had been strangled.

JonBenet was unconcious when the cord was placed around her neck. There were no defensive wounds in her body...no skin or blood under her nails. No nail marks around the cord. The cord was placed in a perfect circumference and JonBenet's hair was tangled in the knot...suggesting it was placed on an unconcious girl. The panties and longjohns were wet in the front, suggesting she was on her stomach when she was strangled...and then voided.

 

[Tadpole12]

Thanks SD.

I realize that PR was a clotheshorse, nothing wrong with that.

Just wondered who would describe it with such a harsh word. LHP.
Makes sense.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks SD.

No problem.

I realize that PR was a clotheshorse, nothing wrong with that.

Never said there was.

Just wondered who would describe it with such a harsh word. LHP.
Makes sense.

Yeah, she's not known for mincing words.

 

[cynic]

"The bottom line was that JonBenet had been strangled with a garrotestyle ligature and had suffered
massive blunt-force trauma to the right side of her head. Though there was and still is some question
about which injury occurred first, either would have been sufficient to kill her. The petechial
hemorrhages on the insides of the eyelids as well as other places, coupled with the lack of substantial
bleeding from the head wound, suggest that the strangulation was first, so that by the time of the head
injury her heart was no longer pumping or was pumping only weakly."

It is likely that the strangulation came first and then trauma to Jonbenet's head to make sure she was dead. There is no possible way that Jonbenet's parents accidentally strangled her with an expertly tied garotte. I think the evidence clearly points to a perpatrator that is not the parents but even if it was the parents,The death was clearly not an accident, and it doesn't matter whether you think the parents did it or not, the evidence clearly points to an intentional homicide. No one strangles a child and then hits them on the head hard enough to cause blunt force trauma, and doesn't expect them to die. If anything, the blunt force trauma was done to make sure she was dead after she had been strangled.

Every time I see a post like this, it reminds me how much damage people like John Douglas and Lou Smit have done to this case, (as your quotation is from Douglas' book, The Cases that Haunt Us, page 285)
Lou Smit’s opinion was clouded by his religious “connection” with the Ramseys, and John Douglas’ opinion was clouded by the fact that he was hired by the Ramseys and further blurred by the outright lies that he was fed by the Ramsey team.
The most blatant lie that helped form Douglas’ incorrect opinion(s) centered around the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped in.
John Douglas was told by the Ramsey team that a blanket was essentially thrown over top of the body of JonBenet. This is patently false.

This is what Douglas was told:

For one thing, the body was not protectively wrapped as I would expect to find in a parental murder. It was haphazardly draped, with the arms and feet sticking out. In all probability, the intruder intended to use the blanket to carry JonBenet out of the house. This is in no way similar to the almost hermetic wrapping or sealing I have often seen.
The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas, page 285

This is the truth regarding the blanket:

Earlier, when White had opened that same door, he had been unable to see anything in the stygian darkness. John Ramsey was kneeling beside his daughter, feeling her ashen face. A piece of black duct tape lay on the blanket, and a long cord was attached to her right wrist. Nearby was a pink nightgown. White, who had never before touched a dead person, felt JonBenét’s cold ankle, turned, and ran for help. John Ramsey picked up his daughter, who had been carefully wrapped, papoose-like, in a white blanket, and followed.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 29

LOU SMIT: Again, you had mentioned the fact that the blanket had been wrapped around her almost like, what did you describe it as?
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, she looked very, like someone had very carefully placed her on the blanket, wrapped the blanket around her to keep her warm.
John Ramsey interview, June 1998

MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it
like –
RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
MIKE KANE: Okay.
JOHN RAMSEY: You know, the blanket was under her completely. It was brought up and folded over like that.
MIKE KANE: Folded over, okay.
John Ramsey interview, August 2000, Atlanta
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SwkXfkdyWc[/ame]

Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
"Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
"Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."

Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
"Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."
Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

Also…

A criminal profiler who turned down an invitation to work for JonBenet Ramsey's family dismissed a portrait of the killer they released Wednesday as ``silly.''
``It's really fairly juvenile,'' said former FBI criminal profiler Gregg McCrary.
John and Patsy Ramsey's legal team asked McCrary in January to develop a profile of JonBenet's killer. McCrary, believing the killer would prove to be someone close to the family, declined.
Rocky Mountain News, July 24, 1997

John Douglas would have agreed if he wasn’t paid by the Ramseys to give an opinion contrary to everything he knew about murder within a family and staging:

"The child was found buried in the woods in his snowsuit, wrapped in a blanket, then completely covered with a thick plastic bag. A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and "comfortable," or to try to shelter the body from the elements. While many murder scenes show obvious and prolonged rage, and dump sites often show contempt and hostility, the hallmarks of this burial were love and guilt."
Mindhunter, page 287 (John Douglas)

STEVE THOMAS: Well, that's certainly -- the colleagues, John Douglas' former colleagues in the FBI are not of that opinion. It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html


Douglas also wrote that holidays were particularly stressful times and could trigger violent behavior. JonBenét was killed over Christmas.
Douglas stated that in parental murders, great care is usually shown in the disposal of the body. JonBenét had been carefully tucked into a blanket in a cellar room, and not
discarded outside in the freezing cold.
John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass. The dust jacket of his next book identified him as a consultant on the JonBenét Ramsey case. It did not say for which side
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 137

Also have a look here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126539"]The “Undoing” of the Ramseys. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[cynic]

There is no possible way that Jonbenet's parents accidentally strangled her with an expertly tied garotte.

It was not expertly tied, and it was not, technically, a garrote.
There is a good recent thread on the subject:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117975"]Cords, Knots, and Strangulation Devices - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OStap-JOLo[/ame]

 

[Ames]

It has been stated several times, that John was 'off by himself'. He wasn't with Patsy, or 'the men'. People commented that they thought it was strange that he isolated himself. This is not said to start an argument, but as previously stated by people present.

As for your response to DeeDee, both Patsy and John stated they never read the autopsy report. The head bash was 'heard round the world' as far as newspapers and tabloids are concerned, some of which the Ramseys saw fit to sue over. They must have read at least some of them. He also saw JonBenet with the ligature around her neck and arms when he carried her upstairs. Instead of saying that I hope my child didn't suffer, I would have been cursing and damning the person/people who did the crime FOR making MY child SUFFER!!! Their statements can usually be interpreted to fit the evidence. Inside knowledge.

What I thought was pretty odd, is the fact that Patsy sat on the couch with her friends, flipping through some photo albums and strolling down memory lane, when they could have been...oh...I don't know...outside looking around for clues. When Fleet yelled..."WE FOUND HER! CALL AN AMBULANCE!"....Did Patsy jump up and run to her (what could have been severely injured but still alive) child? NOOOOOO...her butt was planted firmly on the couch. Her own friends said that she...at first...did not budge. OKAY...I will give her the benefit of a doubt...IF Fleet had said..."WE FOUND HER! SHE'S NOT BREATHING!" I can see why she wouldn't have wanted to come running, knowing that her child is most likely dead. Fleet NEVER mentioned that though...ONLY...CALL AN AMBULANCE! Still....Patsy just sat there...WHY? Because she knew that her child was dead. HOW? Because she was there when she died.

 

[SunnieRN]

My gosh Ames, I never thought about that. In fact John brought her upstairs and LA moved and covered JonBenet before Patsy bothered to go and see her. I never put two and two together to come to that thought. Thank you!

 

[Ames]

My gosh Ames, I never thought about that. In fact John brought her upstairs and LA moved and covered JonBenet before Patsy bothered to go and see her. I never put two and two together to come to that thought. Thank you!

You are welcome!! Patsy also tried to explain away her jacket/sweater fibers found on JB, by saying that they had gotten there when she flung herself on JB's body (when she FINALLY decided to get up from the couch), but....as you stated....she was already covered by then, with a sweat shirt and a blanket...the fibers would have been on THOSE two things...not on the underside (sticky side) of the tape that had covered JB's mouth...that JR removed while they were still in the WC (or not to mention....the paint tote...and entwined in the garotte). Why would anybody sit on a couch with friends...and flip through a photo album, looking at photos of their kidnapped child in the first place?? Certainly they could have found something more useful to do. I could see maybe flipping through a photo album and strolling down memory lane...like later...at a memorial service, or after a funeral or something. NOT after finding a RN, and finding your child missing. It's as if....she already knew that she was dead or something. (Hmmmm....)

 

[MurriFlower]

Every time I see a post like this, it reminds me how much damage people like John Douglas and Lou Smit have done to this case, (as your quotation is from Douglas' book, The Cases that Haunt Us, page 285)
Lou Smit’s opinion was clouded by his religious “connection” with the Ramseys, and John Douglas’ opinion was clouded by the fact that he was hired by the Ramseys and further blurred by the outright lies that he was fed by the Ramsey team.
The most blatant lie that helped form Douglas’ incorrect opinion(s) centered around the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped in.
John Douglas was told by the Ramsey team that a blanket was essentially thrown over top of the body of JonBenet. This is patently false.

This is what Douglas was told:

For one thing, the body was not protectively wrapped as I would expect to find in a parental murder. It was haphazardly draped, with the arms and feet sticking out. In all probability, the intruder intended to use the blanket to carry JonBenet out of the house. This is in no way similar to the almost hermetic wrapping or sealing I have often seen.
The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas, page 285

This is the truth regarding the blanket:

Earlier, when White had opened that same door, he had been unable to see anything in the stygian darkness. John Ramsey was kneeling beside his daughter, feeling her ashen face. A piece of black duct tape lay on the blanket, and a long cord was attached to her right wrist. Nearby was a pink nightgown. White, who had never before touched a dead person, felt JonBenét’s cold ankle, turned, and ran for help. John Ramsey picked up his daughter, who had been carefully wrapped, papoose-like, in a white blanket, and followed.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 29

LOU SMIT: Again, you had mentioned the fact that the blanket had been wrapped around her almost like, what did you describe it as?
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, she looked very, like someone had very carefully placed her on the blanket, wrapped the blanket around her to keep her warm.
John Ramsey interview, June 1998

MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it
like –
RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
MIKE KANE: Okay.
JOHN RAMSEY: You know, the blanket was under her completely. It was brought up and folded over like that.
MIKE KANE: Folded over, okay.
John Ramsey interview, August 2000, Atlanta
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SwkXfkdyWc

Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
"Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
"Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."

Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
"Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."
Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

Also…

A criminal profiler who turned down an invitation to work for JonBenet Ramsey's family dismissed a portrait of the killer they released Wednesday as ``silly.''
``It's really fairly juvenile,'' said former FBI criminal profiler Gregg McCrary.
John and Patsy Ramsey's legal team asked McCrary in January to develop a profile of JonBenet's killer. McCrary, believing the killer would prove to be someone close to the family, declined.
Rocky Mountain News, July 24, 1997

John Douglas would have agreed if he wasn’t paid by the Ramseys to give an opinion contrary to everything he knew about murder within a family and staging:

"The child was found buried in the woods in his snowsuit, wrapped in a blanket, then completely covered with a thick plastic bag. A kidnapper or child molester would not have taken this much care to make him warm and "comfortable," or to try to shelter the body from the elements. While many murder scenes show obvious and prolonged rage, and dump sites often show contempt and hostility, the hallmarks of this burial were love and guilt."
Mindhunter, page 287 (John Douglas)

STEVE THOMAS: Well, that's certainly -- the colleagues, John Douglas' former colleagues in the FBI are not of that opinion. It's interesting that the defense-paid experts and investigators and so forth that are working on the case have one opinion whereas law enforcement and those in Colorado working this case have another.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html


Douglas also wrote that holidays were particularly stressful times and could trigger violent behavior. JonBenét was killed over Christmas.
Douglas stated that in parental murders, great care is usually shown in the disposal of the body. JonBenét had been carefully tucked into a blanket in a cellar room, and not
discarded outside in the freezing cold.
John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass. The dust jacket of his next book identified him as a consultant on the JonBenét Ramsey case. It did not say for which side
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 137

Also have a look here:
The “Undoing” of the Ramseys. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

This is so funny. What we are discussing is RDIs view that the R's together or in collusion, killed and staged their daughter's murder on the one hand. Then on the other hand RDI are saying that JR knew where she was or even that he moved her from somewhere else (in the house) earlier in the day, so she would be found. I'm not sure where she was moved from they haven't worked that out yet. Then they are saying that given an opportunity, (asked to search by LA) he went straight to where he already knew she was, without even pretending to search. But instead of calling for the Cops so they could see all his hard work in staging and laying out the body so it looked like someone else had done it, he picked her up and carried her upstairs. He then gave LA 'a look' that convinced her he was guilty (rather than looking like the innocent grieving father he was pretending to be). Following this, when interviewed, he described how he had found her, wrapped in the blanket and in doing so, apparently implicated himself, because as RDI ask themselves who else but a parent would do this.

All the funnier, because you don't even know this doesn't make any sense at all. You guys crack me up!!