JonBenet Mr. Cruel intruder theory explanatory power part 1 intro

View previous topic View next topic Go down

JonBenet Mr. Cruel intruder theory explanatory power part 1 intro

Post by redpill on Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:56 pm

MurderMysteryReader wrote:I hope both John, Burke, and anyone currently working the case to read your Mr. Cruel theory, Redpill. It would help and might generate a new direction in the case. You have to go down all roads when you are investigating because you never know where those roads will lead; maybe to the killer.

I hope so to. for them, they have news media access,  many news media outlets are willing to let them talk about Jonbenet on prime time television to literally tens of millions of viewers.

Imagine John and Burke Ramsey, on all the major prime time television and news media outlets, CNN 60 minutes 20/20, NBC ABC CBS CNBC etc telling all the millions of viewers to carefully head over to redpill's blog, read his Mr. Cruel theory, and that they believe Mr. Cruel is a lead that should be investigated. They ask Boulder LE and FBI to investigate redpill's theory and lead.

Imagine weeks later, the DA's office, Stan Garnett, FBI, Boulder LE, even Australia, saying they have read redpill's theory that Mr. Cruel murdered Jonbenet and they plan to pursue it, and thank redpill for his work, and direct everyone to my blog.

that would be nice Smile

it's too bad Sensing Murder season 1, episode 2 Cruel Intent is no longer on youtube Sad due to copyright
that is a must see for you and everyone.

this post is the start of my new series, JonBenet Mr. Cruel intruder theory - explanatory power 1

this is Mr Cruel

this is Jonbenet Ramsey

pictures of Jonbenet

first, what is an explanation? all material from wiki

An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The components of an explanation can be implicit, and be interwoven with one another.

An explanation is often underpinned by an understanding that is represented by different media such as music, text, and graphics. Thus, an explanation is subjected to interpretation, and discussion.

In scientific research, explanation is one of several purposes for empirical research.[1][2] Explanation is a way to uncover new knowledge, and to report relationships among different aspects of studied phenomena. Explanation attempts to answer the "why" and "how" questions. Explanations have varied explanatory power. The formal hypothesis is the theoretical tool used to verify explanation in empirical research.[3][4]

explanation talks about explanatory power

Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to. The opposite of explanatory power is explanatory impotence.

In the past, various criteria or measures for explanatory power have been proposed. In particular, one hypothesis, theory or explanation can be said to have more explanatory power than another about the same subject matter

   if more facts or observations are accounted for;
   if it changes more "surprising facts" into "a matter of course" (following Peirce);
   if more details of causal relations are provided, leading to a high accuracy and precision of the description;
   if it offers greater predictive power, i.e., if it offers more details about what we should expect to see, and what we should not;
   if it depends less on authorities and more on observations;
   if it makes fewer assumptions;
   if it is more falsifiable, i.e., more testable by observation or experiment (following Popper).

Recently, David Deutsch proposed that the correct hypothesis or theory, the one that stands out among all possible explanations, is that specific explanation that

   is hard to vary.

By this expression he intends to state that the correct theory, i.e., the true explanation, provides specific details which fit together so tightly that it is impossible to change any one detail without affecting the whole theory.

Explanatory model

An explanatory model is a useful description and of why and how a thing works or an explanation of why a phenomenon is the way it is. The explanatory model is used as a substitute for "the explanation" of the thing in question:

   either because the full explanation is unavailable
   or because the full explanation is too cumbersome to be practical in the case at hand.

Explanatory models do not claim to be a complete description/explanation of the absolute about the thing/phenomenon, nor do they even claim to, necessarily, be fully accurate. The description/explanation does, however, need to fit well enough to a sufficient portion of all the knowledge, observations and theoretical circumstances known about the thing/phenomenon, so that the explanatory model becomes useful. That is: the description/explanation in an explanatory model, should be useful/helpful when one is about to make a decision or choice or when trying to successfully understand, explain or in some other way relate to the reality of the world around

As a sleuther, I make observations of the Jonbenet Ramsey crime. I observe she was murdered in her own home, with her parents present, on Christmas 1996. Certain items were associated with her murder, most famously a ransom note.

Based on these observations, I propose an explanatory model, a theory of the crime

A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings.

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[1]:131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[2]:46

As already in Aristotle's definitions, theory is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for doing, which is opposed to theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[3]

It is possible to distinguish between three types of theories. Explanatory theory, also known as descriptive or empirical, helps to explain why and under what conditions, certain situations take place. The second type is interpretive theory or constitutive theory and this imposes meaning on events and issues with the objective to understand, instead of explaining, the world. The last one is called normative theory, also referred to as prescriptive, which prescribes values and standards of conduct: that means dealing with how the world should be instead of what it is[4].

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[5] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis').[6] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature behaves under certain conditions.

my theory rests on these observations, grounded in facts

1- multiple types of trace evidence, including fiber, dna, hair,
2- unsourced murder items including nylon ligature and tape,
3- unidentified hi tech shoe print
4- Jonbenet murdered in her own home while her parents and brother were asleep
5- a ransom note, but no attempt to collect ransom money. body present in home. Jonbenet sexually assaulted as stated in autopsy and forensic medical doctors at time of death

I conclude on scientific forensic grounds that Jonbenet was murdered by an intruder.

Now what can we say about this intruder?

Unfortunately it's not possible to say a whole lot. Research into FBI offender profiling and comparing murder victims to their actual convicted killers often show FBI profiling is unreliable.

I however offer some hypothesis can serve to generate more hypothesis.

The offender was a stranger offender. the crime was pedophile sexually motivated homicide. Jonbenet's participation in beauty pageants gave her media presence that made her known to child sexual offenders. The offender most likely is a serial offender that has considerable experience and no-fear into entering a stranger home to access young female victim. The ransom note was written in English, so it seems likely the offender is from an English speaking country.

These considerations, if true, would single out one offender uniquely. Australia's Mr. Cruel from Melbourne.

Mr. Cruel is an UNSUB, an UNKNOWN SUBJECT.

As an UNSUB, I cannot obviously say he was in Boulder Colorado in Dec 1996 from Melbourne Australia.

As a theory, I posit that Mr. Cruel personally, or another home invading pedophile familiar with Mr. Cruel's methods, or Mr. Cruel and someone local in Boulder via email, entered the Ramsey home sometime before Dec 25, 1996.

I cannot prove Mr. Cruel was in Boulder, or corresponded via email to someone in Colorado, but as a theory I posit he was, directly or indirectly via email.

What I can do is ask a question:

if we assume Mr. Cruel was indeed the intruder that entered the Jonbenet Ramsey home, based on Mr. Cruel's previous crimes in Melbourne, all of which are serial intruder crimes involving young girls in their own homes, how many aspects of the Jonbenet Ramsey crime can we explain?

as an explanatory model stated above, Mr. Cruel is a model of a serial home invading intruder who targets young girls in their own homes.

as an explanation, we will assume Mr. Cruel, again either personally, or via email on a pedophile dark web exchange, entered the Ramsey home and abducted and murdered Jonbenet, and left a handwritten ransom note, but no ransom collected.

as an explanatory power, how well does the Jonbenet Mr. Cruel intruder theory explain each and every aspect of Jonbenet's murder and crime scene, from ransom note to dna, to cord ligature,  if we posit Mr. Cruel as her killer, and we infer his motives and decisions based on his previous crimes in Melbourne Australia?

this explanatory model allows for varations which include, Mr. Cruel himself, another home invading pedophile from Australia familiar with Mr. Cruel, an American pedophile from Colorado who spent time in Melbourne Australia during 80s and 90s and was familiar with Mr. Cruel, admired Mr. Cruel, and when he saw and learned of Jonbenet in his own home state, proceded to imitate Mr. Cruel using Mr. Cruel's methods and tactics, or Mr. Cruel and a pedophile in Colorado corresponded via email via dark web child porn sharing site. A pedophile in Colorado can state on  a child porn sharing site about Miss Colorado Jonbenet, and another user, Mr. Cruel from Australia, offers to provide a detailed step by step instruction list to offender in Colorado on what to do, when to do it, and how to plan for the crime, and what to do, based on his own experiences.

By explanation, crime scene evidence explained in terms of Mr. Cruel's previous actions and intentions inferred from his crimes in Melbourne Australia.

the primary source is
Victoria Police and FBI dossier on shocking Mr Cruel child attacks
Keith Moor, Herald Sun

Sensing Murder Cruel Intent season 1, episode 2

wikipedia and other news articles

An example,

Why was Jonbenet Ramsey attacked in her own home, with her parents and family present?

explanation: Mr. Cruel is a serial home invading pedophile, who targets young female victims in their own homes with their family present.

The explanation I have provided to the first issue is one of the most fundamental facts about the Mr. Cruel crime series. He targets his victims inside their own homes, with their family members present.

why was Jonbenet Ramsey attacked on Christmas Eve-Day after Christmas Dec 25/26, 1996?

explanation:  this is 10 year old Sharon Wills, a known Mr. Cruel victim

On Monday, December 26, 1988, John Wills and his wife Julie and their four daughters were away from their Ringwood home from

Christmas with Mr. Cruel. A Mr. Cruel's Christmas

it is a basic fact of Mr. Cruel's crime that a known victim Sharon Will was inside her own home with both parents and sisters present when Mr. Cruel arrived sometime around Dec 26, 1988 and entered the residence and left with Sharon Wills Dec 27, 1988.

The fact Mr. Cruel targetted Sharon Wills on Dec 26, 1988 explains why Jonbenet was targetted on Dec 26, 1996 some 8 years later.

How would Mr. Cruel know of Jonbenet and would he target her in her own home?


It’s possible, that, like the 11-year-old Lower Plenty victim, Mr Cruel selected Sharon as his victim after seeing her photograph in a local newspaper. Sharon’s photograph was published in the paper a few months before she was abducted.

Mr Cruel chooses young girls based on their news media in the news paper. Jonbenet of course received considerable publicity as Miss Colorado a child beauty pageant, and something Australia did not have in the 70's 80's and 90s

Again I cannot prove Mr. Cruel, who remains UNSUB was in Boulder Colorado. What I can do is offer a theory that he was in Boulder Colorado and targetted Jonbenet. If we assume this, we can then as an explanatory model, ask how many facts of the Jonbenet crime can be explained by positing he was personally involved either directly or indirectly.

Why Mr. Cruel?

Mr Cruel is suspected of at least 12 attacks on children over a 10-year-period.

The four which police are most convinced were the work of Mr Cruel are the attacks on the 11-year-old girl in 1987, Sharon Wills in 1988, Nicola Lynas in 1990 and Karmein Chan in 1991.

Melbourne Australia's Mr. Cruel has considerable experience entering homes to assault young girls, at least a 12 over a 10+ year period. He has the skill set and lacks the fear to enter a home of a family, just to get the young girl.

for the purposes of this theory we will also include Eloise Worledge age 8 and Seanna Tapp age 9, as both were Melbourne girls victims of a home intruder.

Even if Mr. Cruel didn't murder Jonbenet, Mr. Cruel is a real life home invading home intruder pedophile predator of young girls who uses white nylon cords and electrical tape on his victims, puts on leash around their neck, and provides an example of what an intruder would do to Jonbenet and evidence left behind.

but yes for the purposes of explanatory power, we will assume Mr. Cruel was in fact the intruder who murdered Jonbenet, and based on all the information from 12+ crimes, including Eloise Worledge Seana Tapp, Sharon Wills Jill, Karmein Chan Nicola Lynas, explain the Jonbenet crime accordingly.

a second issue is
what better explains the evidence and crime, RDI - BDI JDI PDI or Mr. Cruel?
this will be most evidence in the ransom note.

Mr. Cruel better explains the Jonbenet crime than any Ramsey did it theory, including specific statements in the ransom note.

in reading this ransom note

Mr. Ramsey,

Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We do respect your bussiness [sic] but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession [sic]. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a [sic] earlier delivery pick-up of your daughter.

Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart [sic] us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.

You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. It is up to you now John!



is this ransom note better explained by John or Patsy writing it? or better explained if Mr. Cruel was the author?

the ransom note says

a small foreign faction

why would John or Patsy write this?

the explanation Mr. Cruel would write this is he's from Australia, which while English speaking is foreign.
you've been redpilled.

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 1488
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum