After talking with a number of associates in criminal forensics, I was only able to find one who has done any concrete analysis of the Ramsey case, though a few others expressed suspicions consistent with the findings of this analysis. It is notable that none expressed support for an alternative view.
The individual who shared with me their findings is one of this country's leading criminal profilers specializing in behavioral analysis, and they are saying John Ramsey knows more about the identity of the killer than he is sharing with the rest of us.
Here are the probabilities suggested by the analysis:
There is a probability of 10% or less that John Ramsey committed the crime.
There is a probability of 20% or less that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime.
There is a probability of 40% or less that Patsy Ramsey felt she knew the individual who committed the crime. (This would include, but would not be limited to, Burke and John Ramsey)
There is a probability of 80% or greater that John Ramsey feels he knows the individual who committed the crime. (This would include, but would not be limited to, Burke and Patsy Ramsey)
There was not enough behavioral data on Burke to run any reliable analysis of him.
The conclusions from the analysis are these:
None of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. However, Patsy showed signs of extraordinary fear and guilt. This is likely the result of having been coached to believe she was somehow responsible and/or knew the killer. This only makes sense in relation to the behavior of John Ramsey. It appears that John Ramsey knows the killer, though likely not that well.
It's an interesting puzzle, but not one that fails to provide at last one very compelling solution. What is suggested by the arrangement of behaviors is that John Ramsey knows the killer, and has been concealing it by coaching Patsy to believe Burke may have committed the crime. With this, he has been able to construct a compelling false trail which he knows could never lead to a conviction.
The obvious question at this point would be "Why?"
For John Ramsey to put his wife Patsy through such an ordeal in order to protect the identity of the individual who murdered his daughter does not make any sense at first look. But it does leave us some very possible scenarios. John Ramsey may feel, as bad as the situation is now, it is somehow preferable to the situation as it would be if he told all he knows. This could indicate that the killer is a very powerful and dangerous associate of John Ramsey's, possibly an individual well placed in organized crime. This individual may have threatened John Ramsey directly with the suggestion that the lives of Patsy and Burke were at stake. If John Ramsey believed this individual could make good on such a threat, he may be compelled to take the safer bet, and provide the police with no information that would lead them to the killer. John Ramsey is nothing if not a very practical strategist. Much of his success in business has been the result of that fact. It may be very difficult for others who are not in his position to understand a father making that kind of choice, but John Ramsey can at times seem a very cold realist. It is not at all inconceivable that he could separate his grieving over the loss of his daughter from the cold hard decisions he may have been faced with as a result. This is a personality trait of many, if not most, successful leaders in business.
John Ramsey operating under threat to his life or the lives of his family is not the only explanation, however. The other obvious possibility is that Mr. Ramsey feels himself to be at fault, criminally or otherwise, for the death of his daughter. There are several ways that this could have come about. One scenario is very disturbing. Perhaps Mr. Ramsey allowed someone access to JonBenet for purposes which are criminal and to say the least implicates him in child endangerment. In the course of this arrangement the individual, who would obviously have to be very sick and unstable, 'lost control' and strangled JonBenet. For having facilitated such an arrangement in the first place, John Ramsey would be criminally liable and would suffer very dire consequences to his professional and personal life.
This is essentially the summery of what was shared with me by a long time associate who now works in the field of criminal forensics, and who is considered a leading expert in the area of criminal behavioral analysis. It is all I have been able to gather of insider knowledge regarding the Ramsey murder case. I hope you found it enlightening, and I will continue to ask questions of contacts and post anything else which might be of any interest.
Note: Cases like this one are not within the realm of expertise for most of my contacts. For the most part, the people I talk to on a regular basis, professionally and off the record, would be considered experts in the areas of organized crime, including industrial and political intelligence and espionage. These are the contacts I have made over the years and the ones who I've developed such a rapport so as to make myself privy to some of the more interesting information these insiders have.
4 comments:
Jeff asked, "Do you have a source who can share anything about the JonBenet Ramsey case that we haven't read in the paper?"
I will check sources and post whatever interesting tidbits I can gather from them.
After talking with a number of associates in criminal forensics, I was only able to find one who has done any concrete analysis of the Ramsey case, though a few others expressed suspicions consistent with the findings of this analysis. It is notable that none expressed support for an alternative view.
The individual who shared with me their findings is one of this country's leading criminal profilers specializing in behavioral analysis, and they are saying John Ramsey knows more about the identity of the killer than he is sharing with the rest of us.
Here are the probabilities suggested by the analysis:
There is a probability of 10% or less that John Ramsey committed the crime.
There is a probability of 20% or less that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime.
There is a probability of 40% or less that Patsy Ramsey felt she knew the individual who committed the crime. (This would include, but would not be limited to, Burke and John Ramsey)
There is a probability of 80% or greater that John Ramsey feels he knows the individual who committed the crime. (This would include, but would not be limited to, Burke and Patsy Ramsey)
There was not enough behavioral data on Burke to run any reliable analysis of him.
The conclusions from the analysis are these:
None of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. However, Patsy showed signs of extraordinary fear and guilt. This is likely the result of having been coached to believe she was somehow responsible and/or knew the killer. This only makes sense in relation to the behavior of John Ramsey. It appears that John Ramsey knows the killer, though likely not that well.
It's an interesting puzzle, but not one that fails to provide at last one very compelling solution. What is suggested by the arrangement of behaviors is that John Ramsey knows the killer, and has been concealing it by coaching Patsy to believe Burke may have committed the crime. With this, he has been able to construct a compelling false trail which he knows could never lead to a conviction.
The obvious question at this point would be "Why?"
For John Ramsey to put his wife Patsy through such an ordeal in order to protect the identity of the individual who murdered his daughter does not make any sense at first look. But it does leave us some very possible scenarios. John Ramsey may feel, as bad as the situation is now, it is somehow preferable to the situation as it would be if he told all he knows. This could indicate that the killer is a very powerful and dangerous associate of John Ramsey's, possibly an individual well placed in organized crime. This individual may have threatened John Ramsey directly with the suggestion that the lives of Patsy and Burke were at stake. If John Ramsey believed this individual could make good on such a threat, he may be compelled to take the safer bet, and provide the police with no information that would lead them to the killer. John Ramsey is nothing if not a very practical strategist. Much of his success in business has been the result of that fact. It may be very difficult for others who are not in his position to understand a father making that kind of choice, but John Ramsey can at times seem a very cold realist. It is not at all inconceivable that he could separate his grieving over the loss of his daughter from the cold hard decisions he may have been faced with as a result. This is a personality trait of many, if not most, successful leaders in business.
John Ramsey operating under threat to his life or the lives of his family is not the only explanation, however. The other obvious possibility is that Mr. Ramsey feels himself to be at fault, criminally or otherwise, for the death of his daughter. There are several ways that this could have come about. One scenario is very disturbing. Perhaps Mr. Ramsey allowed someone access to JonBenet for purposes which are criminal and to say the least implicates him in child endangerment. In the course of this arrangement the individual, who would obviously have to be very sick and unstable, 'lost control' and strangled JonBenet. For having facilitated such an arrangement in the first place, John Ramsey would be criminally liable and would suffer very dire consequences to his professional and personal life.
This is essentially the summery of what was shared with me by a long time associate who now works in the field of criminal forensics, and who is considered a leading expert in the area of criminal behavioral analysis. It is all I have been able to gather of insider knowledge regarding the Ramsey murder case. I hope you found it enlightening, and I will continue to ask questions of contacts and post anything else which might be of any interest.
Note:
Cases like this one are not within the realm of expertise for most of my contacts. For the most part, the people I talk to on a regular basis, professionally and off the record, would be considered experts in the areas of organized crime, including industrial and political intelligence and espionage. These are the contacts I have made over the years and the ones who I've developed such a rapport so as to make myself privy to some of the more interesting information these insiders have.
Does John Ramsey have any associates who are known to be involved in organized crime?
Off hand, there is nothing specific that I have heard so far.
Post a Comment