PMPT...page 305 ppb... The efforts of CASKU (Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit) were not scientifically precise; but it's work was important nonetheless. Its profilers studied the physical evidence and all the known circumstances of homicides in order to provide a probable portrait of the perpetrator. JonBenet was at home in bed Christmas night in an affluent neighborhood while her parents were supposedly sleeping, which by the profilers standards put her at extremely low risk of encountering a stranger who intended harm. Her risk for murder by a stranger was also low because she hardly ever interacted with strangers, her circle of playmates and friends was constant, and she hardly ever played on the street unsupervised. Several of her parents friends told police that JonBenet was always with a known adult. Appearing in child beauty pageants, however, increased JonBenet's potential risk for meeting death at the hands of a stranger. Pageants exposed her to more potential suspects, including known pedophiles. Even though JonBenet had been found dead at home, the pageant connection couldn't be ignored. Had some stranger been attracted to her? Pedophiles are persuasive by nature; they use attention, affection, and gifts to seduce a child, usually over an extended period. Force and violence are rarely involved, and the molester is not usually a stranger to the victim. But if a stranger had murdered JonBenet in her home, he took a big risk that family members might wake and discover him. The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre-or postmordem, did not appear to have been commited for the perpetrator's gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene, intended to mislead the police. Kidnappings are almost always commited for money or sex. Rarely can another motive be found. The FBI concluded that if the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth had been used to silence her during an attempted abduction, the kidnapper would have taken her out of the house immediately. There would have been no reason to stay where the kidnapper could be discovered at any moment. Instead, they theorized, the duct tape too was probably used as part of a cover-up, along with the loosely tied cord found around JonBenet's right wrist. Whether the duct tape had been placed around JonBenet's mouth before or after death could be determined by the examination of the body and tape. Skin trauma would be evident if she had been alive when the tape was applied. Applying the tape after her death would not produce noticeable skin markings. Coroner Meyer had not reported any trauma to the skin around JonBenet's mouth. The probable behavior of the offender was an important factor. If the killer did not intend to kidnap JonBenet, he or she must have been there for a reason, perhaps to assault her. But if there had been no intent to kidnap, why did the killer leave the ransom note? The FBI profilers who scrutinized th overall crime scene, the autopsy findings, and the fingerprints, fibers, and blood evidence told the police that the ransom note was the most important piece of behavioral evidence in the case. Of all the elements of the crime, it probably took the longest to complete. The police believed that if the ransom note was written before JonBenet's murder, that left the door open to the possibility of an intruder, but if it was written after she was killed, it was unlikely an intruder would have stayed to write it. But the FBI and the Police could not determine when the ransom note was written.