Profile of the killer

Okay, without "naming" the killer or giving theories to who the killer is, let's try this...

Let's identify, as factually as possible-and please distinguish between "known fact" and "personal theory/opinion" when posting-what the killer's profile would be...

I'll start..."My 'opinion' is that the killer would be 1) male because of the sexual nature of the death and 2) heavily into *advertiser censored*, again, because of the sexual nature of the death"

I will speculate, that the killer was so sexually anxious, that if he was an "intruder" he couldn't 'wait' to 'have' JB and satisfied himself then and there. This leads me to believe that the killer is into immediate gratification and does not think about longterm consequences...so, I would expect to see that if this is a man (and I think it is) he would make poor business decisions, would possibly have financial troubles due to "short term" thinking, and would have calloused relationships with people (friends/family) in his circle.

I would think that this person tends to take "stupid" risks, but frequently gets away with them because of his brazeness. I don't see this person as "calculating" but again, is "driven" by immediate gratification. I think this makes a difference in "how" this person carried out the murder..."sloppy" vs. "meticulous"...I think the ransom note is evidence of "sloppiness", not "calculating" forthought. I don't think this person is very intelligent. Works with his "hands" vs a professional career...would have an "average" or lower IQ, with strengths in math vs language.

Another thing...I don't think the killer is(was) in a marital relationship or at least if he was married, he wasn't in a "good" relationship, he would have been separated or divorced, but I think more likely not married OR he was from out of town...

The point is, his wife/girlfriend should have missed him on that day...his whereabouts should have been questioned if he was in a relationship...so, I don't think he was in a relationship.

I think it is "higly" likely that JB knew her killer, but because she was six, I don't think it would necessarily mean that she "trusted" her killer. Six yo, I think, would be inclined to "obey" an adult.

Compared to everthing that was done to the body, the slight abuse to the vaginal area is small potatos. There is no mention of sex in the rn. From this, an hormonally balanced person would conclude that sex was not a major factor in the motive of the killer.

BrotherMoon said:

Compared to everthing that was done to the body, the slight abuse to the vaginal area is small potatos. There is no mention of sex in the rn. From this, an hormonally balanced person would conclude that sex was not a major factor in the motive of the killer.

Click to expand...

BrotherMoon,

"slight abuse to the vaginal area" is like saying a woman is only slightly pregnant.

JonBenet had acute {night of the crime) and chronic (days prior to the crime) injuries to the vagina. That makes it a sex crime.

There was no mention of sex in the RN because the intent of the note was to try and hide the sexual aspects and draw attention from the inside of the house to a perp outside of the house. It's a fake ransom note, so look in the OPPOSITE direction.

JMO

BrotherMoon : Although I have not read everything regarding her genital injuries, from what I have read what you write: "From this, an hormonally balanced person would conclude that sex was not a major factor in the motive of the killer." is plausible.

My understanding is that there was a tear in the vaginal opening, and on further investigation chronic inflamation of the vagina was discovered which some say suggest prior sexual abuse and others a relatively normal dysfunction that occurs in girls in that age group.

So is it safe to assume that the tear caused by the insertion of some object was part of the staging, and the chronic inflamation "normal" dysfunction?

BlueCrab : If the intention of the RN is to hide the sexual element, and focus attention away from the Ramsey's. Why was the body found in the house and with obvious signs of "staged" sexual assualt?

Profile of the killer: There is more than one profile that may need to be accounted for and both will be valid. One will be the intended (staged) profile, hoped to be conveyed by the staging. The other more difficult to untangle will be the (non-staged) profile(s) of the real killer(s).

Taking the former, Fran Bancroft's profile loosely fits the staged profile: prebuscent girl , sexually assaulted, then murdered. The general profile here is usually that of an impulsive, socially isolated individual, statistically male, who leaves the crime scene disorganized, sometimes including staging or attempts at evidence removal.

The latter non-staged profile suggests the opposite to the staged one. Someone who was socially adept, because they acted in concert with others, including initially JonBenet.

If "The erotic asphyxiation device" was "not" part of the staging then this indicates someone who generally had their impulses under control. This person(s) left the crime scene largely organized, actions were taken to tidy and clean things up.

In the non-staged profile there is a maturity or element of worldly experience which is introduced into the staged profile. And that is largely sexual in nature, but also includes organizational skills since there is evidence of premeditation and planning. So I would assume that the non-staged profile would be that of an adult(s), who knew JonBenet, and with whom JonBenet was comfortable socializing.

UKGuy said:

BlueCrab : If the intention of the RN is to hide the sexual element, and focus attention away from the Ramsey's. Why was the body found in the house and with obvious signs of "staged" sexual assualt?

Click to expand...

UKGuy,

IMO there had been a plan to get the body out of the house. But the body was found in the house and not outside, such as in someone's back yard, because of a light snowfall that night that foiled the plan. IMO the killer was a Ramsey or was with a Ramsey and, had the body been removed from the house, the perps' footprints in the snow would have led away from the house AND BACK AGAIN. There was no option other than to leave the body in the house.

There was no "staged" sexual assault. The sexual assaults -- both the acute one and the chronic ones -- were for real and verified by expert analyses of the autopsy report. Since both the acute and the chronic injuries to the vagina were at the same 7 o'clock position in the vagina, the same perp was likely the source of both injuries.

The acute injuries were obvious because there was blood. The autopsy report of the chronic injuries were studied by seven nationally known forensic pathologists, who all agreed there had been previous sexual penetration. These seven were:

Dr. David Jones
Dr. James Monteleone
Dr. John McCann
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Dr. Ronald Wright
Dr. Richard Krugman, and
Dr. Werner Spitz

Drs' Krugman and Spitz had reservations about the chronic injuries, but neither of them denied that chronic sexual abuse had likely occurred.

In addition, other pathologists voluntarily sent in their analyses after studying the autopsy report, all of whom agreed that acute and chronic sexual abuse had occurred.

JMO

BlueCrab Thanks for the information. From this it appears more than a case of covering up an accident? I must read up more on this aspect of the evidence.

We know from the non-staged profile that the person(s) who enacted the planning of the staged murder scene, with additional elements of sexual assault kidnap, with an accompanying RN, and who oversaw the crime scene cleanup. Were resourceful, intelligent, and experienced yet at the last minute they realize the proposed plan will not work, so they just abandon it, and leave matters to fate. Since "we" cannot remove the body, why not revise "our" plan, and decide to stage an accident.?

Although I accept BDI for its consistency. Burke does not seem to fit the profile suggested by the evidence.

Many people, professional psychologists and psychiatrists, say rape is more about power than sex.

I don't discount the subject of sex in this case, I just say it should be taken in context.

Just because the vaginal area had been abused doesn't mean the motive of the abuser was sexual in nature. I mean to say, the attention directed toward JonBenet's genitals might not have anything to do with a sexual attraction of the abuser for the little girl.

I refer to the movie Sybil.

If you want to know the mind of the killer, Patsy, you are going to have to leave Freud behind.

:croc: :truce: :banghead: :slap: :croc: :doh: :woohoo: :blushing: :dance: :silenced:

Smilies by Andrew.

I think the RN and the lack of sexual content is a very good point that BrotherMoon made though. I will have to think on this one. I wonder if a person staged a crime to look like a sexual assault would also leave a note in the rest of the staging process that would indicate they were going to do something to her in a sexual manner IF they did not come up with the money. That is very peculiar to me that they didn’t do that.

The things in the note that point to the Ramsey’s are what? - $118,000 ransom request, some believe the handwriting (though I have a hard time seeing that myself) and what else? SBTC Victory? That one is kind of vague anyway, and I tend to see it as a nautical term of some sort, so maybe in that aspect it could point to them OR could point to someone who knew he enjoyed nautical hobbies. I know I have missed a point or two here.....????

Some questions I have are:

1) If you find out your son (or step-son) was the person who sexually assaulted and killed your baby girl would you continue the cover up by either bashing in her skull and/or setting up a sexual asphyxiation device to appear as though someone sadistic did this to her and then leave a ransom note without any indication of sexual content whatsoever?

2) If you found out someone you love sexually assaulted then killed your child, would you be able to sit down and write such a lengthy ransom note? Would you be able to think of the quick witted “movie references” (or even want to think of these stupid references) after the trauma and shock you must have felt finding your little angel tied up and bound like that? Picture your own child lying there like that and knowing that someone assaulted her, probably scared her beyond belief, attempted some sexual encounter with her….could YOU sit down and write such a lengthy, somewhat elaborate, thought out note? Geez, I don’t think I could write a stinking absence from school excuse for my child if my CAT died just prior to that! I would be pretty upset and distraught, I doubt I would want to take the time it took to write anything at all! So if I found my child like some say they found her, NOPE, no way could I write anything, my hands would be shaking so hard and I probably would lash out at the other child, might even break a few things in frustration and pain of this awful tragedy happening to me. Now, had I been medicated prior to finding her like that, I may not react as intensely as I suggested but I would still be pretty upset.

3) If your child died accidentally because you pushed her and she bashed her head in on some object in the house, would you cover up by setting up an erotic asphyxiation device on your child and inserting a part of a paintbrush into her vagina to make it appear she was sexually assaulted? And then you wrote a ransom note for money and never mention anything sexual in it hoping to divert attention from the house, yet knowing that the police would come and in most cases (even though they were inadequate in this case) the police surely would have searched the house thoroughly for any clues right away and would have found her from the thorough search. Would you stage essentially two kinds of crimes- one being the sexual staging, the other being the ransom note for money? Why would you do it this way? I can see this for some of the theories but not the Patsy did it theory. Could a mother have accidentally killed her child, then proceeded to set up a sexual assault on her precious baby, then have the wits about her to write such a ransom note and have it be as legible as it was and that lengthy? (not to mention the practice notes too)

4) If you did any of the above things, would you then have the wits about you to think to get rid of the duct tape, the rope, the cloth you used to wipe her down/clean her up, etc?

5) Would you be able to sit through hours and hours of “acting like you are in the middle of a kidnapping” knowing your daughter’s body is downstairs in that cold, dark room tied up all alone? Wouldn’t you suggest the cops search the entire house really well for clues, since obviously your intention was for them to find her there anyway? One might not suggest searching the house really well, if they believe their daughter is not even in there and if they believe someone has come in and taken her from her bed into the cold night and you are wondering where she is right now and if she is being hurt in anyway.


To me, this all seems to be the work of a person who really had a dislike for one or both of the Ramsey’s and took it out on one of their most precious things, JonBenet. I think this person knew that this would be devastating for both John and Patsy. I think this person had a problem with the wealth and stature the Ramsey’s held, perhaps jealous of the successful business John built up. I think the person did not care for John’s cool nature, his gentleness and calm demeanor in everyday life. I think this person had a short fuse, may have been financially okay but not to the extent of John Ramsey. I think this person had a problem with how JonBenet may have been paraded about in the pageants and such and wanted to “teach them a lesson”. Maybe their intent was to “teach them” by sexually assaulting and killing JonBenet, and then they decided another way would be to write the RN and put in the reference of $118,000 as a way of pointing towards them in some way. I really have no idea who really did this, despite my little experiences I described on another thread, but I have a hard time seeing the parents being involved in any of it.

And as for Pam Paugh stating she knows who did it, she was probably speculating just as we do here, but in her heart really believes she knows who did it and is stating it as fact. We seem to do the same thing here and we seem to have a difference of opinions on all suspects, yet to hear some of us tell it, we KNOW it had to be this person or that person because the evidence is there and it all points this way. What year did she state this anyway? Is there a transcript we can see of this conversation?

I will probably come up with more questions/thoughts later. (Aren’t you glad? LOL)

Twizzler, I agree with this that you have said and I believe it is consistent with the killer's profile:

Twizzler Quote: To me, this all seems to be the work of a person who really had a dislike for one or both of the Ramsey’s and took it out on one of their most precious things, JonBenet. I think this person knew that this would be devastating for both John and Patsy. I think this person had a problem with the wealth and stature the Ramsey’s held, perhaps jealous of the successful business John built up. I think the person did not care for John’s cool nature, his gentleness and calm demeanor in everyday life. I think this person had a short fuse, may have been financially okay but not to the extent of John Ramsey. I think this person had a problem with how JonBenet may have been paraded about in the pageants and such and wanted to “teach them a lesson”. Maybe their intent was to “teach them” by sexually assaulting and killing JonBenet, and then they decided another way would be to write the RN and put in the reference of $118,000 as a way of pointing towards them in some way. I really have no idea who really did this, despite my little experiences I described on another thread, but I have a hard time seeing the parents being involved in any of it. (End Twizzler Quote)

Specifically the "anger", "teaching a lesson" or "punishing" the Ramsey's due to jealousy and the fact that in the killer's mind JB was "paraded". Let me clarify, that I am not suggesting that Patsy or John paraded JB, but simply that in the killers lustful, envious, angry mind that his view of JB was that she was paraded...in fact, I would go one step further and suggest that possibly in the killers mind, it was done on purpose to tease him.

I agree. I do not think she was "paraded" but some people are extremely jealous of people with money, beauty and that have a sort of charasmatic personality (like Patsy), who seem to have the "perfect" life.

twizzler333 said:

And as for Pam Paugh stating she knows who did it, she was probably speculating just as we do here, but in her heart really believes she knows who did it and is stating it as fact. We seem to do the same thing here and we seem to have a difference of opinions on all suspects, yet to hear some of us tell it, we KNOW it had to be this person or that person because the evidence is there and it all points this way. What year did she state this anyway? Is there a transcript we can see of this conversation?

Click to expand...

Twizzler,

Pamela Paugh, Patsy Ramsey's younger sister during 1998 TV interview with Greta VanSustern on "Burden of Proof":

Q. "Do you know who killed JonBenet?"

A. "Yes."

Q. "Have you told the police?"

A. Yes ... Alex Hunter ... he is committed to JonBenet ... he will do exactly what he said."

Q. "Do you know who wrote the ransom note?"

A. "Yes, the killer ... I don't know specifically which person."

Q. "Who is it?"

A. "She knew them well enough to go with them ... my loyalty is to JonBenet ... I will not answer that question."

Q. "Do you know them by name?"

A. "I would rather not say."


JMO

BlueCrab said:

Twizzler,

Pamela Paugh, Patsy Ramsey's younger sister during 1998 TV interview with Greta VanSustern on "Burden of Proof":

Q. "Do you know who killed JonBenet?"

A. "Yes."

Q. "Have you told the police?"

A. Yes ... Alex Hunter ... he is committed to JonBenet ... he will do exactly what he said."

Q. "Do you know who wrote the ransom note?"

A. "Yes, the killer ... I don't know specifically which person."

Q. "Who is it?"

A. "She knew them well enough to go with them ... my loyalty is to JonBenet ... I will not answer that question."

Q. "Do you know them by name?"

A. "I would rather not say."


JMO

Click to expand...

Wow, that's the first time I've seen that. Is this sister close to Patsy? Or is there an adversarial relationship? I find it interesting that she use a "plural" reference. That makes me think teens or young adult males...which could explain a few things, but still begs the question of the $ amount in RN...however, I think their is an obvious potential explanation...but, I would need to answer a few question first.

I can't see anyone who hated John and Patsy killing an innocent child...why not kill John or Patsy that night? Both were asleep. The intruder breaks in, figures all the Ramseys are asleep and he doesn't bother to go after John?

John's not so tough, the Atlanta intruder locked John in his bathroom.

Intruder...NO WAY. The person had to become familiar enough in the Ramsey's confusing huge home, without leaving fingerprints, hair etc... and when did he take the Ram home tour? Before the Ramsey's came home without leaving physical evidence? Or after they came home in the dark? Amazing he found the wine cellar!

JonBenet was not raped, her injuries were consistant with someone covering up previous sex abuse. Though I don't believe Burke killed JonBenet, if he molested JonBenet, I can see a parent covering it up.

Is he a kidnapper? Why did he forget his note and victim?

Is he out to 'get' John or Patsy? Why did he bash, strangle, abuse JonBent and not leave her out in the open, like on the staircase, instead of his impromptu ransom note? Didn't he want to hurt and shock the Ramseys? Well...why hide the body? And he hide the body so well not even John Ramsey thought to look in the room early that morning. However once John found out or figured out the LE were ready to call rescue or cadaver dogs did he beeline it to the basement.

It all screams cover up in the family.

I've seen samples of Patsy's handwriting and the ransom note, and I believe Patsy wrote it.

Patsy wrote it either using John's phrases or by dictation from John.

Fran Bancroft said:

Wow, that's the first time I've seen that. Is this sister close to Patsy? Or is there an adversarial relationship? I find it interesting that she use a "plural" reference. That makes me think teens or young adult males...which could explain a few things, but still begs the question of the $ amount in RN...however, I think their is an obvious potential explanation...but, I would need to answer a few question first.

Click to expand...

Very early on, Peter Boyles in interview with Jeff Ruttlege..
PB - I know that you also have studied about the role of the media.

JR - I had an interesting encounter. They took an advocacy role for the R's...it was Dan Glick. Pam Paugh has pointed at a particular person, Fleet White, who is absolutely innocent. This reporter actually tried to get me to investigate FW.

PB - Dan Glick actually urged you to pursue FW as a suspect?

JR - DG said, "You have to admit he's been acting pretty strange since the murders..." The cops were flabbergasted that someone would say that.

PB - Even though the police had publicly cleared him, he still wanted you to go after him?

another mention..

Pam Paugh stated that the co-mingling DNA that does exist has been separated; that one of the DNA strands does belong to JonBenét and that the other has only been tested against Patsy, John and Burke, of which there is, unequivocally, no match. Pam further states this co-mingled DNA is in the underwear of JonBenét and believes this to blow the case wide open.
When pressed to name who she thinks the killer is, Pam Paugh stated that she will name them when she's called to the grand jury that she'll put together a time lime, put together instances, things that had been said and some factual things to back up her suspicions


BTW Pam and Patsy were/are very close. There has never been an incident that would point to a rift of any kind.

Pam Paugh was hinting that it was Fleet & Priscilla White who were involved in JonBenet's murder. That is pretty obvious and fits right in with things John and Patsy stated about the White's during their police interviews.

It's so much easier to blame this homicide on someone you think is "jealous" of you or who has a daughter who isn't quite as "pretty" as yours (or your niece) than to look into your own dysfunctional family and see the reality.

K777angel said:

Pam Paugh was hinting that it was Fleet & Priscilla White who were involved in JonBenet's murder. That is pretty obvious and fits right in with things John and Patsy stated about the White's during their police interviews.

It's so much easier to blame this homicide on someone you think is "jealous" of you or who has a daughter who isn't quite as "pretty" as yours (or your niece) than to look into your own dysfunctional family and see the reality.

Click to expand...

Unless there is a "shred" of truth in N.K.'s words. quote..but lost the link..
Ms Krebs herself does not contest that the allegations attributed to her in the various articles and broadcasts were accurately reported. She says she told Mr Hartman the same thing she told police. Indeed, a comparison of the police reports and the media reports reveals little, if any, discrepancy. Where the reported allegations were in fact the allegations she made, there is no basis to charge criminal libel against any media representative on Internet contributor. It might be added that Ms Krebs, to this day, insists she told the truth about the various events in her life.

I can understand her making mistakes in her testimony it was a traumatic life, but I can't believe everything she said was fabricated. For White to admit she and her family were long term friends of his family ,yet add he had never met her just didn't ring true. Is his money more powerful than her words? Who knows, but obviously Mckinley and a gaggle of media weren't held accountable for "spreading this story". Why not?
It's interesting !

I think Pam took his daddy mom behaviors and found them too odd. That does not make him a killer in itself, so what else did she have?