Psychology Today Who Killed JonBenet? Stephen A. Diamond and Mr. Cruel

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Psychology Today Who Killed JonBenet? Stephen A. Diamond and Mr. Cruel

Post by redpill on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:15 am

Stephen A. Diamond Ph.D.
Evil Deeds
Who Killed JonBenet? Part 2: The Ransom Note
A forensic psychologist considers a key piece of evidence in this perfect crime.
Posted Feb 23, 2017

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201702/who-killed-jonbenet-part-2-the-ransom-note

Stephen A. Diamond Ph.D. says he is a forensic psychologists from California who has been consulted in criminal cases for psych evals.

He of course puts no credence in the theory that Patsy Ramsey killed Jonbenet as a result of psychosis or narcissistic personality

He reviews the ransom note

tl;dr he thinks it is highly unlikely the parents wrote it. He thinks the intruder wrote it.

he does however say, if parents wrote it  and if intruder wrote it

it would be interesting for MurderMysteryReader to read this if you have the time

and compare his analysis with my theory Mr. Cruel wrote it

i.e he says
Stephen A. Diamond Ph.D. Stephen A. Diamond Ph.D wrote:
"Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We xx [the word "do" was crossed out here] respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves."

Here the author(s) for some reason identifies him/herself as a foreigner (not an American) and part of a group of co-conspirators acting on behalf of some other country or perhaps a disgruntled cadre of individuals who dislike America and are fairly familiar with John Ramsey's business. Interestingly, the choice of the rather obscure English word "faction" may be significant here, since it is formally defined as a small group from within an organization who are working in concert together against the organization. This suggests to me the possibility that the kidnapper(s), if indeed one ever really existed, could conceivably have been a disgruntled current or ex-employee(s) of John Ramsey's computer company. In that case, the writer of the ransom note most likely had met John and already knew something about him, his personality, his finances, and his family. Of course, if the Ramseys wrote the ransom note to cover up what really happened to their daughter that night, the suggestion that the kidnappers were enemies of America could have been a deceptive attempt to garner sympathy and support from the American public in particular. However, if the writer was in fact a foreigner, this could explain not only the possible chauvinism noted above, but also the spelling error (in bold here) on the word "business," though, naturally, this word could have been deliberately misspelled by the writer to mislead investigators. To say first that "we do respect you," later removing the emphatic word "do", indicates a feeling of deference and even admiration for Mr. Ramsey, almost sounding somewhat apologetic for what is being done to him. Referencing that John Ramsey's business somehow "serves" the U.S. seems somewhat bizarre, unless he was in fact contracted by and worked closely with the government. (His company in fact did do business with aerospace giant Lockheed Martin.) If so, who would know that? Certainly not a total stranger or random intruder. Who would see a private for-profit American business as existing to "serve" the country? Not most average Americans, in my view. Perhaps more likely someone who grew up in a foreign, socialistic, totalitarian, theocratic, communistic or third-world country?

Mr Cruel is from Melbourne Australia, so he would be foreign.
Stephen A. Diamond Ph.D. Stephen A. Diamond wrote:
"Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."

This is obviously another direct and explicit threat to ensure John's full compliance with the note's demands and instructions. Again, if her "executed" body had been in the basement all along, this additional consequence of being "denied her remains" would have been an idle threat. Either the author believed he\she\they could or would be able to actually deliver on this threat, requiring that they had JonBenet in their "posession," or it was only meant to cow John into compliance, assuming that JonBenet's body would not be discovered before then. That seems unlikely. This is another example of what would be a totally unnecessary detail, beyond the threat of "execution," to include had the note been composed by Patsy and/or John Ramsey. Perhaps it could be argued that, if the parents created the ransom note, these superfluous details were intentionally concocted and incorporated to make the note seem more realistic to police. But it would take significant time, thought, and creativity it seems to me, for the author(s) to come up with and include all these convoluted details if the letter was in fact fake. Finally, the use of the phrase "any deviation of" rather than "any deviation from" suggests to me again the possibility of a non-native English speaker, and seems too subtle a detail to have been calculatingly included by John and/or Patsy Ramsey under duress.

"The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them."

This statement suggests, again, that the kidnappers, allegedly numbering now at least three, are personally familiar with John Ramsey and his business, enough so that though they "respect" his business, they "do not particularly like you." This, in conjunction with the writer's apparent familiarity with Mr. Ramsey's business and informal use of his first name, suggests that the author and at least two other fellow kidnappers actually knew or had met John Ramsey at some prior time. It seems to me that this supports the notion that the kidnapper(s) could have been employed by John Ramsey at some point. Or, alternatively, that this is what whoever wrote the ransom note wanted either John Ramsey or the reader to believe.


it's worth mentioning Mr Cruel made statements to this effect to his known victims.
He told Sharon Wills, Nicola Lynas and presumably Karmein Chan about another gentlemen in the other room watching over her, and not to provoke him or attempt escape.

and Karmein Chan was executed.

worth a read

again link is

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201702/who-killed-jonbenet-part-2-the-ransom-note

there is also part 1 and 3

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201701/who-killed-jonbenet

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201704/who-killed-jonbenet-part-3-the-grand-jury

he comes out in favor of an intruder theory.

there are plenty of replies saying this psychologist is off-base lol No Suspect

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1695
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