Where there is smoke, there is a smoke generator machine, particularly in Hollywood.
Jane Doe 2 a/k/a Jenna T a/k/a Jenna Thompson:
>>Thompson described her story to People,
Strange how these lice always talk to the media, not the police or lawyer or respectable press.
>> in which she was a 17-year-old from Maryland who visited a New York City modeling agency in 1988.
>>There, she said, she was sent to meet Cosby during the height of his fame on ”The Cosby Show.”
Oh, a powerful modeling agency it must be to risk sending a 17 year old girl out. What records exist of this agency?
>> His interest in her developed
Developed?? Over time?
>>into uncomfortable advances by Cosby, People reported Thompson as saying.
Advances? (Plural)! She went back for more?
>> She visited his home during a last encounter in the late 1980s.
Can't be more specific, can you? I would think she would remember the date.
As well as also remembering a reason she went to man's home instead of his office.
>> Cosby gave her $700 upon her departure.
In which bank did she deposit the money? Surely she would remember that. Seventeen year old boys who get a windfall, blow it in a bar, but seventeen year old girls bank it.
Did she give the agency their ten percent?
Or did she rip off the agency thereby revealing her proclivity for crime and deception?
Showing posts with label Investigative Techniques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Investigative Techniques. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Monday, January 28, 2013
Parents of JonBenet Ramsey indicted?
JBR:
JonBenet Ramsey related article in Daily Camera alleges once again that the Grand Jury actually voted to indict each of the Ramseys but that DA Hunter, doubtful he could get a conviction against either one, refused to sign the indictment. Colorado law requiring both the Foreman of the Grand Jury and the Prosecutor to sign a True Bill of Indictment.
There were tabloid inspired rumors of this right from the start and even now I'm not convinced it actually happened. The indictment, if it existed, was for child neglect not murder or torture. Four year statute of limitations.
Most of the Grand Jurors are refusing to speak and it seems some are only speaking if their identity is not revealed. The indictment, if indeed it ever existed, seems to have been born of frustration and hopelessness, and not based on any specific actions or inactions by the Ramseys.
It still seems strange that the parents would have been indicted by the grand jury when the jury failed to call either of the parents as witnesses.
Scott Shapiro is, of course, magnifying this out of all proportion and claiming that the possible indictment for child neglect is a complete repudiation of Lou Smit and his theories and complete acceptance of the theories of that incompetent motor mouth from the BPD.
JonBenet Ramsey related article in Daily Camera alleges once again that the Grand Jury actually voted to indict each of the Ramseys but that DA Hunter, doubtful he could get a conviction against either one, refused to sign the indictment. Colorado law requiring both the Foreman of the Grand Jury and the Prosecutor to sign a True Bill of Indictment.
There were tabloid inspired rumors of this right from the start and even now I'm not convinced it actually happened. The indictment, if it existed, was for child neglect not murder or torture. Four year statute of limitations.
Most of the Grand Jurors are refusing to speak and it seems some are only speaking if their identity is not revealed. The indictment, if indeed it ever existed, seems to have been born of frustration and hopelessness, and not based on any specific actions or inactions by the Ramseys.
It still seems strange that the parents would have been indicted by the grand jury when the jury failed to call either of the parents as witnesses.
Scott Shapiro is, of course, magnifying this out of all proportion and claiming that the possible indictment for child neglect is a complete repudiation of Lou Smit and his theories and complete acceptance of the theories of that incompetent motor mouth from the BPD.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
How cops get the proper suspect ...
Police actions (or perhaps more properly inactions):
Focused immediately on the missing woman's husband who stated he was on a walkway at the time and passed a surveillance camera. The police waited over six months and then reported that the film for that day had been either lost or recorded over. The only real problem is that the surveillance camera was on the exterior of their own police station and could have been obtained by them in two minutes flat. The police also seized his shoes and after cleaning them, pronounced them to be insufficiently muddy for him to have taken the path that he claimed to have taken.
Conducted three forensic examinations of a motor vehicle but despite it being a major case with over forty officers assigned to it, they claim they never photographed the process and thus the unprecedented fourth forensic test just happened to find an inculpatory blood stain in a highly suggestive location. Of course the reagent used was luminol which is only a presumptive field test never to be relied upon without further serology work at the lab but the police felt there was no need for more detailed serology work. Anyone remember the Dingo Baby case from Australia wherein Luminol reacted with the underlying rust proofing in the automobile and was declared to be indicative of arterial spray?
Discovered the missing woman had withdrawn large sums from a number of banks then visited a man who knew of the withdrawals and shortly thereafter the woman went missing but the police never viewed him as a suspect or investigated his whereabouts even though what little he did tell police was proven to be lies. Despite his attempts to thoroughly clean his car later examination did find traces of blood. Witnesses who came forward to report the boyfriends car in close proximity to the victim's car were ignored. Witnesses who reported seeing the victim alive the day after the husband was supposed to have killed her were ignored despite one of them having known the victim for ten years.
Is it any wonder how the cops get the proper suspect? It is because they are the ones who choose who should be viewed as a suspect.
Focused immediately on the missing woman's husband who stated he was on a walkway at the time and passed a surveillance camera. The police waited over six months and then reported that the film for that day had been either lost or recorded over. The only real problem is that the surveillance camera was on the exterior of their own police station and could have been obtained by them in two minutes flat. The police also seized his shoes and after cleaning them, pronounced them to be insufficiently muddy for him to have taken the path that he claimed to have taken.
Conducted three forensic examinations of a motor vehicle but despite it being a major case with over forty officers assigned to it, they claim they never photographed the process and thus the unprecedented fourth forensic test just happened to find an inculpatory blood stain in a highly suggestive location. Of course the reagent used was luminol which is only a presumptive field test never to be relied upon without further serology work at the lab but the police felt there was no need for more detailed serology work. Anyone remember the Dingo Baby case from Australia wherein Luminol reacted with the underlying rust proofing in the automobile and was declared to be indicative of arterial spray?
Discovered the missing woman had withdrawn large sums from a number of banks then visited a man who knew of the withdrawals and shortly thereafter the woman went missing but the police never viewed him as a suspect or investigated his whereabouts even though what little he did tell police was proven to be lies. Despite his attempts to thoroughly clean his car later examination did find traces of blood. Witnesses who came forward to report the boyfriends car in close proximity to the victim's car were ignored. Witnesses who reported seeing the victim alive the day after the husband was supposed to have killed her were ignored despite one of them having known the victim for ten years.
Is it any wonder how the cops get the proper suspect? It is because they are the ones who choose who should be viewed as a suspect.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Choppergate. Brisbane, Australia.
Kudos to Channel Nine in Brisbane. A 25 year veteran employee has been allowed to resign and three reporters were fired for their involvement in filing news reports regarding a police search of remote rugged terrain when the news helicopter was actually in the air near the station's headquarters and sitting on the station's helipad in another incident.
The reports related to developments in a massive forensic search for evidence relating to the murder of a young lad abducted in 2003 at age 13. Normally Australian law would not allow the naming of the arrested murder suspect since he had been a witness at a prior coroner's inquest but the court has lifted the restriction on publishing his name in order to aid the ongoing investigation.
Revised and extended comments:
The Courier Mail reports that the Nine and Seven channels have been rivals locked in a five year struggle for ratings and that Choppergate started when some Seven personnel who were aviation enthusiasts noticed the helicopter was orbiting their neighborhood but no major story was then taking place locally. Channel Seven decided to monitor the actual location of Channel Nine's helicopter and twice caught the Nine Channel switch "live" to the reporters in a helicopter that was described as being over the scene of the Daniel Morcombe forensic search when it clearly was not anywhere near it at or about that time.
The Courier Mail reports that the 25 year veteran who fell on his sword was actually pushed. We never really had much doubt about that.
It seems a Channel Nine employee had twittered that "they would be "LIVE from Beerwah with the latest at 6. Just after 6pm, seemingly true to their word, Nine crossed "live" to young reporter Melissa Mallet hovering "near Beerwah" where police were hunting for the body of the murdered teenager..."
The Courier Mail reported that Channel Nine initially claimed air traffic controllers had ordered the chopper to land due to bad weather and the producer had not been promptly informed of this.
"Management in Sydney were notified and an on-air apology was issued. Following a series of closed-door meetings the axe fell for Price, Mallett and producer Aaron Wakeley at about 6.30pm. Nine news director Lee Anderson promptly fell on his sword."
..........
There are now reports that the three reporters have taken to Twitter to present an alternative viewpoint about a tempest in a tea pot.
.........
Audience reaction: It seems the viewing audience has had an initial reaction. Channel Nine lost an average of 1,000 viewers whereas Channel Seven which had exposed the situation lost an average of 15,000 viewers as all Brisbane stations combined lost a total of 30,000 viewers, as reported in news.com.au. Of course the dip in viewership may have been due solely to the public's "burnout" over what may have been viewed as excessive coverage of the Morcombe forensic search and the Slacks Creek fire.
Addendum: Mellisa Mallet sacked by Channel Nine due to the investigative actions of Channel Seven has now been hired by Channel Seven.
The reports related to developments in a massive forensic search for evidence relating to the murder of a young lad abducted in 2003 at age 13. Normally Australian law would not allow the naming of the arrested murder suspect since he had been a witness at a prior coroner's inquest but the court has lifted the restriction on publishing his name in order to aid the ongoing investigation.
Revised and extended comments:
The Courier Mail reports that the Nine and Seven channels have been rivals locked in a five year struggle for ratings and that Choppergate started when some Seven personnel who were aviation enthusiasts noticed the helicopter was orbiting their neighborhood but no major story was then taking place locally. Channel Seven decided to monitor the actual location of Channel Nine's helicopter and twice caught the Nine Channel switch "live" to the reporters in a helicopter that was described as being over the scene of the Daniel Morcombe forensic search when it clearly was not anywhere near it at or about that time.
The Courier Mail reports that the 25 year veteran who fell on his sword was actually pushed. We never really had much doubt about that.
It seems a Channel Nine employee had twittered that "they would be "LIVE from Beerwah with the latest at 6. Just after 6pm, seemingly true to their word, Nine crossed "live" to young reporter Melissa Mallet hovering "near Beerwah" where police were hunting for the body of the murdered teenager..."
The Courier Mail reported that Channel Nine initially claimed air traffic controllers had ordered the chopper to land due to bad weather and the producer had not been promptly informed of this.
"Management in Sydney were notified and an on-air apology was issued. Following a series of closed-door meetings the axe fell for Price, Mallett and producer Aaron Wakeley at about 6.30pm. Nine news director Lee Anderson promptly fell on his sword."
..........
There are now reports that the three reporters have taken to Twitter to present an alternative viewpoint about a tempest in a tea pot.
.........
Audience reaction: It seems the viewing audience has had an initial reaction. Channel Nine lost an average of 1,000 viewers whereas Channel Seven which had exposed the situation lost an average of 15,000 viewers as all Brisbane stations combined lost a total of 30,000 viewers, as reported in news.com.au. Of course the dip in viewership may have been due solely to the public's "burnout" over what may have been viewed as excessive coverage of the Morcombe forensic search and the Slacks Creek fire.
Addendum: Mellisa Mallet sacked by Channel Nine due to the investigative actions of Channel Seven has now been hired by Channel Seven.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
No Country For Old Men
Okay. I saw the film. It featured Michelle Monaghan, the "look at those stems" girl from Kiss Kiss, Die Die. So you know I would watch that movie. I decided I would start the novel too. I hope to finish it but am suddenly having some tough going. The opening of the film shows a young man who is an experienced hunter happening upon the aftermath of a drug dealers shoot-out and appropriating the money for himself.
The novel is able to bring out more of the hunters careful analysis of his situation, his decision making skills and the wisdom of his actions. He correctly assumes that the last man standing left with the money, he tracks it down knowing that a wounded man won't get far, he takes the money home and stashes it. He carefully reminds himself that he has to be careful and not think of it as luck. He has to stay alert to danger because he knows that someone is going to come looking for that money.
So far, so good! Now why would a man like that, who has the loot and has reached a place of seeming safety go and screw his life up by heading back to scene of the shoot-out with a glass of water for the wounded victim who had muttered Aqua Por Dios? I just can't see a shrewd hunter who is so fully aware of the situation as being so weak and so stupid as to take water to a dying man. Yes, he does tell his wife "I'm fixin to do somethin dubern hell but I'm goin anyways". Sure, its a novel. The characters have to have flaws. Without the hunter being a fool, the novel would end right there. I just wonder how plausible it is that man with a whole lot of loot who has made a clean getaway would go back to give a drink of water to a man who clearly is likely to be dead either by the time the hunter gets there or very shortly thereafter. All his self preservation skills that he had just exercised suddenly desert him. Strange. Perhaps the essence of the situation is captured in the terse dialog wherein the wife says "Its a false god" and the highly competent, realist husband replies "Yeah, but its real money".
I hope I am able to finish the novel. I have my doubts however. I wonder too if the killer of JonBenet Ramsey may have made mistakes. Sure those mistakes have not yet tripped him up, but what sort of man was he? Did he have a background involving home intrusions in the dead of night? Or was this his first time? Did he leave the grandiose note to mislead investigators or solely to entertain himself? Did he make a prompt departure in response to the scream or was it planned right from the start? If we adopt a 1:00am departure, do we narrow the "window of enjoyment" so much that it becomes a ploy rather than a goal? Would a pedophile want to linger in the basement or make quick work of the task? Do pedophiles draw out their time with the victim or is the perverted sex itself considered to be simply a sort of foreplay for the murder? Clearly the real goal in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey was indeed murder. Yet it is obvious that the perversion was a major and critical task. What conclusions are proper for us to make when we are dealing with subjects that are so alien to us?
Okay. I finished the novel. Not a satisfactory resolution of the issues. Life is like that. It was interesting. The triumph of evil is often a proper subject. The Hunter got into the mess because he went back to give water to a dying man. The Hunter later got killed because he was protective of a teenage runaway girl. The Hunter's wife was killed simply because the psychotic hit man had promised to kill her. Not entirely satisfying.
The novel is able to bring out more of the hunters careful analysis of his situation, his decision making skills and the wisdom of his actions. He correctly assumes that the last man standing left with the money, he tracks it down knowing that a wounded man won't get far, he takes the money home and stashes it. He carefully reminds himself that he has to be careful and not think of it as luck. He has to stay alert to danger because he knows that someone is going to come looking for that money.
So far, so good! Now why would a man like that, who has the loot and has reached a place of seeming safety go and screw his life up by heading back to scene of the shoot-out with a glass of water for the wounded victim who had muttered Aqua Por Dios? I just can't see a shrewd hunter who is so fully aware of the situation as being so weak and so stupid as to take water to a dying man. Yes, he does tell his wife "I'm fixin to do somethin dubern hell but I'm goin anyways". Sure, its a novel. The characters have to have flaws. Without the hunter being a fool, the novel would end right there. I just wonder how plausible it is that man with a whole lot of loot who has made a clean getaway would go back to give a drink of water to a man who clearly is likely to be dead either by the time the hunter gets there or very shortly thereafter. All his self preservation skills that he had just exercised suddenly desert him. Strange. Perhaps the essence of the situation is captured in the terse dialog wherein the wife says "Its a false god" and the highly competent, realist husband replies "Yeah, but its real money".
I hope I am able to finish the novel. I have my doubts however. I wonder too if the killer of JonBenet Ramsey may have made mistakes. Sure those mistakes have not yet tripped him up, but what sort of man was he? Did he have a background involving home intrusions in the dead of night? Or was this his first time? Did he leave the grandiose note to mislead investigators or solely to entertain himself? Did he make a prompt departure in response to the scream or was it planned right from the start? If we adopt a 1:00am departure, do we narrow the "window of enjoyment" so much that it becomes a ploy rather than a goal? Would a pedophile want to linger in the basement or make quick work of the task? Do pedophiles draw out their time with the victim or is the perverted sex itself considered to be simply a sort of foreplay for the murder? Clearly the real goal in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey was indeed murder. Yet it is obvious that the perversion was a major and critical task. What conclusions are proper for us to make when we are dealing with subjects that are so alien to us?
Okay. I finished the novel. Not a satisfactory resolution of the issues. Life is like that. It was interesting. The triumph of evil is often a proper subject. The Hunter got into the mess because he went back to give water to a dying man. The Hunter later got killed because he was protective of a teenage runaway girl. The Hunter's wife was killed simply because the psychotic hit man had promised to kill her. Not entirely satisfying.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
However measured and far away.
Investigators who insist upon marching to the beat of a different drum:
We all celebrate when a dissident investigator proves himself to have been right. That lone voice at the end of the table who sees a case in a very different manner than the others see it is much admired when he is finally shown to be correct in his views, but what about the time that really matters: before the case is solved. The FBI steadfastly ignored the agent who kept telling them that the Unabomber was a "monk on a mountaintop in Montana" and thereby wasted countless man-years and untold millions looking solely at well-educated, wealthy engineers.
Recently a news item contained the following snippet:
>Did not want to investigate child abuse and child pornography that went outside the Ramsey family..."
Well, there was no child abuse or child pornography inside the Ramsey family and I see no reason to investigate child abuse or child pornography outside the Ramsey family and call it trying to solve a homicide. Some broad inquiry into alcoholism in Colorado does not belong as part of a homicide investigation just because some tabloid editors think the perpetrator might be an alcoholic. I'm much more interested in the unsociable man who made vitriolic threats against John Ramsey prior to the murder than in some broad inquiry into child abuse in Colorado. Its a homicide investigation, not a sociological study. The suspect to which I refer had a brain injury and episodes of deep depression, that doesn't mean you conduct a study of minimal brain damage or a study of depression. Its a homicide investigation, not a socio-medical inquiry into US society. A broad study of pornography is meaningless when the only nude photographs ever taken of the victim were taken by the medical examiner.
The rejoinder was:
Whoa--if there are legitimate reasons Singular is privy to that you might not be that give him reason to explore the world of CP and its consumers, then don't you think that should be ruled out? Its not like the decedent wasn't molested and sexually-sadistically tortured - chronic pedophile or situational molester might be a debatable question.
And my response focused on not so much as it being a logically incorrect association but more that it was incorrect as an investigative goal since it was more an unnecessary detour than anything else. Oh sure, any door may be the right one. We all hope that surely the BPD has by now learned to do such things as open doors.
Well, of course on that night a great many things took place, none of which we really want to dwell on beyond what is necessary for the investigation. A stun gun was used, it appears to have been experimental in nature rather than dedicated torture. Does that mean we should take a detour into a general investigation of sadism? Even if we attempt to limit our study to sadism in Colorado it seems to me to be a waste of investigative resources. Those who have perused the faux ransom note have often used the term "James Bondish" to indicate its style, does that mean we should assign Boulder detectives to read all the works of Ian Fleming? And watch all those silly movies?
In a Hit and Run investigation, do you focus on readers of Car and Driver magazine and elevate chronic possession of a driver's license to the status of a profound clue? It is, of course, entirely possible that the person who left the scene of an accident without rendering aid to the dying will indeed turn out to be a subscriber to Car and Driver and will be in general an aficionado of motor-cars. It is not however an excuse to go off on a tangent and devote resources to a field of inquiry that is more a general survey of sociology rather than a finely focused homicide investigation.
There are a great many allegations of investigators protecting powerful pedophiles. Probably some of these allegations are quite well founded. Chances are that by sheer percentage some of the allegations of Pedophile Rings in High Governmental Circles will turn out to be true, but so far I've seen no evidence that either pornography or child-pornography had the least bit to do with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. So why are there persistent calls for investigative resources to be dedicated to such tangents which consist of low-grade ore? Oh, its not that we should be unwilling to mine low-grade ore, its simply that higher grade ore should be mined first.
I do not think the entire detective division of Boulder should hie away to foreign shores in search of that "small foreign faction". Its a false trail. One that was provided for a reason. Provided for an unknown reason and provided by a demented mind perhaps, but provided as an artificial construct. No time should be wasted and no funds should be expended sending detectives off on junkets to a variety of foreign shores in search of small foreign factions.
We all have information available to us about which we are uncertain. Uncertain as to its exact nature and uncertain as to its weight and uncertain as to the veracity of our informants. Life is uncertain. Death is certain, but a homicide investigation is a part of life, not death. One of my particularly uncertain sources has provided me with information which does not negate the possibility of a pedophile being involved but which does provide an aspect to the crime which casts serious doubt on the pedophilia aspects of the crime and also casts serious doubt on the torture aspects to the crime. This makes me hesitant to wander off on what I perceive to be a tangent. It is, however, a factor that is clouded by uncertainty. The trouble with the Boulder investigators has always been that they heard the music loud and clear, it is the bolder investigators who hear a different and more distant measure. Yet that does not mean that the famed distant drummer is playing the correct beat.
The stun gun use seems not only experimental but very perfunctory. Its as if it were almost two quick jolts and that's it for the stun gun. Did he stop because he discovered he did not enjoy it? Or perhaps is it that he stopped because he had left the sufficiently misleading clue? Its possible to view the molestation as consisting of largely perfunctory acts performed quickly rather than unspeakable acts performed with care and savored by a demented mind. We do not know for certain what was experienced or how long things took or how much they were enjoyed, but there is at least some body of evidence which supports a conclusion that irrespective of time of entry into the home, time of departure was quite prompt. Therefore if a reasonably intelligent intruder already lying in wait in the JBR/Guest room were to have waited until he felt the parents would be asleep and if the intruder did in fact depart prior to the 1:00am time constraint we have a very narrow time frame for taking his victim to the basement, applying a stun gun, applying a garrote, hiding the body and leaving. With a very narrow time frame comes the obvious question: if he did not linger and savor the events as they unfolded, then perhaps he was not really there for the purpose of enjoying them. Oh, he was clearly there to kill JonBenet Ramsey. Right from the start this was a murder and it was never any sort of kidnapping plot or some faux-kidnapping ploy to obtain a ransom payment. Its just that if the application of a stun gun to a six year old girl was performed so briefly then it is possible that the lack of a prolonged usage means that there was no great enjoyment. Perhaps it is equally true of the perversion: no great enjoyment and therefore not a pedophile and not likely to re-offend.
Normally one would expect any criminal to have a measure of goal directed action. We also expect a short order cook to have a measure of goal directed action. Some places serve fast food, not culinary masterpieces that take great time to prepare. Some people simply do not linger over a meal or linger over its preparation. If there was a failure to linger over a meal that does not mean that a person is necessarily not a gourmand. He may simply have been pressed for time and not been able to dally. So if the intruder who killed JonBenet Ramsey failed to extend the activities it does not necessarily mean that he was not a pedophile. He may have been desirous of limiting his exposure to danger, he may have become slightly concerned by the scream, any number of things may have happened but one thing is still possible: he simply had no interest in prolonging the events because he was no more interested in perversion than he was in foreign factions or ransom payments.
A weekly search of the CODIS database is hardly going to yield good results if the perpetrator is not likely to be a repeat offender. Now I do realize that there are a great many uncertainties in this. Was it a brief crime? Does such brevity actually indicate lack of intense sexual interest, does such lack of sexual interest mean he is not likely to be a repeat offender? These are all unknown imponderables that can be debated forever but meanwhile an investigation should be proceeding and if these musings are to be given any weight at all they should be given that weight now.
Addendum: Elsewhere these comments were posted with the following closing comments.
A police force bears the hallmarks of a paramilitary organization and there is less room for diversity of opinion amongst investigators. Recall perhaps The Caine Mutiny. The burden of command can be great but so to is the burden of subordination. Humphrey Bogart sitting there with his steel ball bearings and a demented conviction that there is a plot amongst his junior officers may make for an entertaining movie but Jose Ferrer’s character is the one who points out that the fault does indeed lie with the junior officers.
We on the internet are a bit more free to speculate about alternative case scenarios and alternative viewpoints. When a little girl is missing we tend to hope she is merely lost but we worry about some demented pervert as well as disorientation. When it is a kidnapping, we worry about a ransom demand but still also worry about a pervert even if the note and circumstances utterly convince us that the kidnappers are professional criminals whose only interest is financial. When a victim is found not only murdered, but brutally murdered and subjected to torture and unspeakable indignities we tend to focus largely on the perverted aspects of the crime. Perhaps that is the correct thing to do. It is certainly the most obvious path for an investigator to take. Yet when that path turns out to be unfruitful, perhaps it is time to reconsider the nature of our underlying assumptions about the crime. Perhaps investigators should consider a more distant drummer may indeed be playing an interesting measure.
We all celebrate when a dissident investigator proves himself to have been right. That lone voice at the end of the table who sees a case in a very different manner than the others see it is much admired when he is finally shown to be correct in his views, but what about the time that really matters: before the case is solved. The FBI steadfastly ignored the agent who kept telling them that the Unabomber was a "monk on a mountaintop in Montana" and thereby wasted countless man-years and untold millions looking solely at well-educated, wealthy engineers.
Recently a news item contained the following snippet:
>Did not want to investigate child abuse and child pornography that went outside the Ramsey family..."
Well, there was no child abuse or child pornography inside the Ramsey family and I see no reason to investigate child abuse or child pornography outside the Ramsey family and call it trying to solve a homicide. Some broad inquiry into alcoholism in Colorado does not belong as part of a homicide investigation just because some tabloid editors think the perpetrator might be an alcoholic. I'm much more interested in the unsociable man who made vitriolic threats against John Ramsey prior to the murder than in some broad inquiry into child abuse in Colorado. Its a homicide investigation, not a sociological study. The suspect to which I refer had a brain injury and episodes of deep depression, that doesn't mean you conduct a study of minimal brain damage or a study of depression. Its a homicide investigation, not a socio-medical inquiry into US society. A broad study of pornography is meaningless when the only nude photographs ever taken of the victim were taken by the medical examiner.
The rejoinder was:
Whoa--if there are legitimate reasons Singular is privy to that you might not be that give him reason to explore the world of CP and its consumers, then don't you think that should be ruled out? Its not like the decedent wasn't molested and sexually-sadistically tortured - chronic pedophile or situational molester might be a debatable question.
And my response focused on not so much as it being a logically incorrect association but more that it was incorrect as an investigative goal since it was more an unnecessary detour than anything else. Oh sure, any door may be the right one. We all hope that surely the BPD has by now learned to do such things as open doors.
Well, of course on that night a great many things took place, none of which we really want to dwell on beyond what is necessary for the investigation. A stun gun was used, it appears to have been experimental in nature rather than dedicated torture. Does that mean we should take a detour into a general investigation of sadism? Even if we attempt to limit our study to sadism in Colorado it seems to me to be a waste of investigative resources. Those who have perused the faux ransom note have often used the term "James Bondish" to indicate its style, does that mean we should assign Boulder detectives to read all the works of Ian Fleming? And watch all those silly movies?
In a Hit and Run investigation, do you focus on readers of Car and Driver magazine and elevate chronic possession of a driver's license to the status of a profound clue? It is, of course, entirely possible that the person who left the scene of an accident without rendering aid to the dying will indeed turn out to be a subscriber to Car and Driver and will be in general an aficionado of motor-cars. It is not however an excuse to go off on a tangent and devote resources to a field of inquiry that is more a general survey of sociology rather than a finely focused homicide investigation.
There are a great many allegations of investigators protecting powerful pedophiles. Probably some of these allegations are quite well founded. Chances are that by sheer percentage some of the allegations of Pedophile Rings in High Governmental Circles will turn out to be true, but so far I've seen no evidence that either pornography or child-pornography had the least bit to do with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. So why are there persistent calls for investigative resources to be dedicated to such tangents which consist of low-grade ore? Oh, its not that we should be unwilling to mine low-grade ore, its simply that higher grade ore should be mined first.
I do not think the entire detective division of Boulder should hie away to foreign shores in search of that "small foreign faction". Its a false trail. One that was provided for a reason. Provided for an unknown reason and provided by a demented mind perhaps, but provided as an artificial construct. No time should be wasted and no funds should be expended sending detectives off on junkets to a variety of foreign shores in search of small foreign factions.
We all have information available to us about which we are uncertain. Uncertain as to its exact nature and uncertain as to its weight and uncertain as to the veracity of our informants. Life is uncertain. Death is certain, but a homicide investigation is a part of life, not death. One of my particularly uncertain sources has provided me with information which does not negate the possibility of a pedophile being involved but which does provide an aspect to the crime which casts serious doubt on the pedophilia aspects of the crime and also casts serious doubt on the torture aspects to the crime. This makes me hesitant to wander off on what I perceive to be a tangent. It is, however, a factor that is clouded by uncertainty. The trouble with the Boulder investigators has always been that they heard the music loud and clear, it is the bolder investigators who hear a different and more distant measure. Yet that does not mean that the famed distant drummer is playing the correct beat.
The stun gun use seems not only experimental but very perfunctory. Its as if it were almost two quick jolts and that's it for the stun gun. Did he stop because he discovered he did not enjoy it? Or perhaps is it that he stopped because he had left the sufficiently misleading clue? Its possible to view the molestation as consisting of largely perfunctory acts performed quickly rather than unspeakable acts performed with care and savored by a demented mind. We do not know for certain what was experienced or how long things took or how much they were enjoyed, but there is at least some body of evidence which supports a conclusion that irrespective of time of entry into the home, time of departure was quite prompt. Therefore if a reasonably intelligent intruder already lying in wait in the JBR/Guest room were to have waited until he felt the parents would be asleep and if the intruder did in fact depart prior to the 1:00am time constraint we have a very narrow time frame for taking his victim to the basement, applying a stun gun, applying a garrote, hiding the body and leaving. With a very narrow time frame comes the obvious question: if he did not linger and savor the events as they unfolded, then perhaps he was not really there for the purpose of enjoying them. Oh, he was clearly there to kill JonBenet Ramsey. Right from the start this was a murder and it was never any sort of kidnapping plot or some faux-kidnapping ploy to obtain a ransom payment. Its just that if the application of a stun gun to a six year old girl was performed so briefly then it is possible that the lack of a prolonged usage means that there was no great enjoyment. Perhaps it is equally true of the perversion: no great enjoyment and therefore not a pedophile and not likely to re-offend.
Normally one would expect any criminal to have a measure of goal directed action. We also expect a short order cook to have a measure of goal directed action. Some places serve fast food, not culinary masterpieces that take great time to prepare. Some people simply do not linger over a meal or linger over its preparation. If there was a failure to linger over a meal that does not mean that a person is necessarily not a gourmand. He may simply have been pressed for time and not been able to dally. So if the intruder who killed JonBenet Ramsey failed to extend the activities it does not necessarily mean that he was not a pedophile. He may have been desirous of limiting his exposure to danger, he may have become slightly concerned by the scream, any number of things may have happened but one thing is still possible: he simply had no interest in prolonging the events because he was no more interested in perversion than he was in foreign factions or ransom payments.
A weekly search of the CODIS database is hardly going to yield good results if the perpetrator is not likely to be a repeat offender. Now I do realize that there are a great many uncertainties in this. Was it a brief crime? Does such brevity actually indicate lack of intense sexual interest, does such lack of sexual interest mean he is not likely to be a repeat offender? These are all unknown imponderables that can be debated forever but meanwhile an investigation should be proceeding and if these musings are to be given any weight at all they should be given that weight now.
Addendum: Elsewhere these comments were posted with the following closing comments.
A police force bears the hallmarks of a paramilitary organization and there is less room for diversity of opinion amongst investigators. Recall perhaps The Caine Mutiny. The burden of command can be great but so to is the burden of subordination. Humphrey Bogart sitting there with his steel ball bearings and a demented conviction that there is a plot amongst his junior officers may make for an entertaining movie but Jose Ferrer’s character is the one who points out that the fault does indeed lie with the junior officers.
We on the internet are a bit more free to speculate about alternative case scenarios and alternative viewpoints. When a little girl is missing we tend to hope she is merely lost but we worry about some demented pervert as well as disorientation. When it is a kidnapping, we worry about a ransom demand but still also worry about a pervert even if the note and circumstances utterly convince us that the kidnappers are professional criminals whose only interest is financial. When a victim is found not only murdered, but brutally murdered and subjected to torture and unspeakable indignities we tend to focus largely on the perverted aspects of the crime. Perhaps that is the correct thing to do. It is certainly the most obvious path for an investigator to take. Yet when that path turns out to be unfruitful, perhaps it is time to reconsider the nature of our underlying assumptions about the crime. Perhaps investigators should consider a more distant drummer may indeed be playing an interesting measure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)