RDI "intruder would not leave body and ransom note" is profiling, debunked

by redpill Thu May 07, 2015 2:42 pm

over at websleuths posters have claimed

detective pinkie wrote:
Hold yourself to the same standards - explain why an intruder would leave a body and a note, simply and believably

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?

If he wanted to ensure it was found, why hide it? If he had to bug out, not taking the kidnapped-turned-murdered with him, why did he leave the note?

Delay discovery to what end? If he were bugging out, why would he care when, where, and how she's found?

It makes zero logical sense.

ukguy wrote:
Mama2JML,
Why does an intruder need to bother with a RN at all, all that sitting around authoring a RN, increases the risk of being caught.

No JonBenet in the house tells its own story, when followed up with a ransom phone call, no RN is required.

There is no IDI explanation forthcoming as to why the said intruder did not remove JonBenet from the house, which is just as inconsistent as any staged kidnapping leaving JonBenet in the house!

Intruder plan of action: Enter Ramsey household remove JonBenet, dead or alive, relocate to the boot of awaiting car, then simply drive away. Next day phone ransom demands. Total time to execute less than fifteen minutes!

nimyat of reddit wrote:
There is absolutely 0 reason to start to write a draft ransom note and then write the real thing and make it that ridiculously long.

If it was a premeditated kidnapping, ('hid in the house' theory) why the fuck wouldn't you bring a ransome note with you and why the hell would you start to draft one and then write one on paper found in the house.

If it was a burglary turned kidnapping, why would you start to draft a ransom note, and then write the real thing 4 pages long? You would scribble something like "I've taken your daughter, dont contact police, deposit money at this location at this time if you want to see her again." A panicked burglar does not sit and start writing about his 'organisation'.

A lot of people get bogged down in the details of the case, because it is a fascinating one and it is very interesting, but the ransom note is the most ridiculous thing ever and was totally written by one of the family in my opinion. They also completely over thought it - mentioning the fathers business, his bonus, writing 4 pages worth etc.

There's no way the family wasn't involved. As for which one did it, that is what is hard to prove.

docg makes a similar claim

docg wrote:

Questions

An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.

Answers

No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

these claims are essentially a form of offender profiling. it shows that none of the RDI, certainly none of those listed above, have ever studied forensics and studied the science of offender profiling at any time ever.

RDI from andreww to cynic to tricia to ukguy to the above have never sat down and read books on the science of forensics and science of offender profiling.

there is a reason
first, claim is that this is a kidnapping for ransom money. it is entirely possible that this is a murder made to look like a kidnapping.

Brent Turvey points out

brent turvey wrote:

"You’ve got a rapist who attacks a woman in the park and pulls her shirt up over her face," says Turvey. "Why? What does that mean? There are ten different things it could mean. It could mean he doesn’t want to see her. It could mean he doesn’t want her to see him. It could mean he wants to see her breasts, he wants to imagine someone else, he wants to incapacitate her arms—all of those are possibilities. You can’t just look at one behavior in isolation.”

RDI are looking at one behavior in isolation, ransom note + dead body, and ignore all the possibilities.

perhaps this is a kidnapping gone wrong. perhaps the perp wanted to kill jonbenet and left the RN as a joke. perhaps he had fantasies that involve both. perhaps he heard voices in his head. perhaps he was dared to do so. perhaps he had no reason to do so he just felt like doing it.

there is no requirement for a sociopath to act "logically". Is it logical for Charles Manson to order his followers to kill actress Sharon Tate and write Helter Skelter using her blood? Dennis Rader is quite clear that a compulsion caused him to kill, not logic.

The RDI lynch mob had they done the most basic research into the relevant forensics, are claiming an intruder would not leave both a written message and a dead body. Of course many famous crimes from Jack the Ripper to the Zodiac Killer to the Beltway Sniper, Lipstick Killer, BTK, Charles Manson are all examples of killers leaving a body with a written message.

The other claim is that there is a certain type and that all offenders must fit this "typology"

there is famous research into this

ibid wrote:
FBI profiles are based on the assumption that there is a pattern where in fact there is none. The assumption is that facts about the crime will match up with facts about the criminal. The Liverpool psychologists tested this hypothesis:

the Liverpool group selected a hundred stranger rapes in the United Kingdom, classifying them according to twenty-eight variables, such as whether a disguise was worn, whether compliments were given, whether there was binding, gagging, or blindfolding, whether there was apologizing or the theft of personal property, and so on. They then looked at whether the patterns in the crimes corresponded to attributes of the criminals—like age, type of employment, ethnicity, level of education, marital status, number of prior convictions, type of prior convictions, and drug use. Were rapists who bind, gag, and blindfold more like one another than they were like rapists who, say, compliment and apologize? The answer is no—not even slightly.*

one stranger rapists rape in all kinds of ways, and there are no similarities among any of these stranger rapist. married rapists do not rape a certain way, and drug rapists rape a different way.

this scientific study in stranger rape using genuine science and case studies and published in journals shows there is no scientific basis for stating that intruder-killers must be a certain way, and cannot act in some way. specifically, there is no "type" of intruder that could not leave a written message at the crime scene and a dead body.

ibid wrote:

Turvey goes on to explain that according to the court, the profiler ‘acknowledged that his analysis involves some degree of speculation, and he further negated the sufficiency of his own analysis when he conceded that each case is ‘unique’ and that criminals are often driven by any number of motives’. Perhaps a reason for such a lack of support from this scientific study and the court is the range of false dichotomies drawn from a crime scene pertaining to an offender. One such dichotomy can be found in the Holmes and Holmes typology of crime scenes, the organized/disorganized typology in serial Murder;
‘The crime scene is also very disorganized. In this respect, the crime scene reflects the personality of the killer… The method of murder for the power/control type of killer is described as ‘simple and organized”
(Holmes, R.M. & Holmes, S.T. 1998)
According to Jackson and Bekerian (1998) such a dichotomy is widely accepted,pointing out that many countries and organizations such as the FBI, Canada, U.K and the Netherlands use the organized/disorganized typology as a theoretical tool at the heart of offender profiling. However, a 2004 study An Empirical Test of the Holmes and Holmes Serial Murder Typology) of such a typology shows there seems to be little evidence supporting any interpretations of the concepts and theories underlying such an ambiguous twofold model. It further details a study aimed at the etiology of serial killing sating this typology ‘provides no indication at all there is a dichotomy that might relate to how organized or disorganized the offender is’ (Stone, 2000). Stone’s paper shows once again that a careful evaluation of profiling advice must be central to the field of CP if it is to be taken as a legitimate science. Along with that, the definition of disorganized and organized is too arbitrary and subjective; it could mean anything to anyone. The link that Holmes and Holmes propose ignores the multiple points between these two extremes, hence the false dichotomy. Instead what they have is better described as a spectrum of possibilities and the very inferential nature of this spectrum makes it difficult to assign personality traits so readily to a crime scene.
The difficulty with CP and its trait based characteristic being considered an empirically supported theory, are the documented flaws in any trait based model theory (TBM) which claims to have a scientific basis in its predicting ability (Mischel, 1996). Mischel et al. have shown that TBM are not a reliable source for predicting personality and behavioral predispositions, TBM typically have low correlations, are unable to predict behavior very well and all this leads to the conclusion that behavior is not consistent across situations; the paper shows that situational factors have just as much of an affinity to the prediction of personality and behavioral propensity of an unknown suspect. In any case the predictive ability of CP is lacking as published in a 2007 meta-analysis, which synthesizes results by combining the results of a number of independent studies, performed by Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin and Cullen (2007). Possibly the most damaging conclusion in their analysis of the predictive accuracy between experienced profilers and college students/psychologists, showed there is no statistical difference in predicting behavior between the two groups. If there is no difference in predicting ability between so called ‘professionals’ and un-professionals then it would seem that all probative value is lost. The meta-analysis did show that professional profilers were only slightly better at predicting overall offender characteristics but this is to be expected as this is the profilers supposed expertise, they should be much more familiar with the CP literature providing them with a wider range of options, ideas and hypotheses. If criminal profiling is greater than chance, there should be a statistically significant different between the two groups and there simply is not.
The scientific literature does not seem to largely support criminal profiling as an empirically verifiable technique. Mischel’s research shows CP relies on an outdated theory and this conclusion can be supported independently by its disappointing profiling accuracy expressed in the literature. CP desperately lacks a fundamental aspect which can be found in any valid science, a worthy falsifiable feature to its methodology. Criminal profiling has a well founded scholarly frame work but the profilers conclusions are opinions not facts and this seems to be supported in the scientific literature, these opinions must have reliability otherwise there is little probative value to such a technique. The profiling process at best maximizes the potential of existing evidence but should not be used as the first and/or main approach to crime scene investigation, there is just not enough empirical support for this.

this is what RDI gloss over

Turvey goes on to explain that according to the court, the profiler ‘acknowledged that his analysis involves some degree of speculation, and he further negated the sufficiency of his own analysis when he conceded that each case is ‘unique’ and that criminals are often driven by any number of motives’.

each case is unique and ANY NUMBER OF MOTIVES.

had the RDI done the most elementary research into the relevant forensic science, they would know the above claims have ZERO scientific validity.

Any number of motives could drive an intruder to murder Jonbenet, hide her body and leave behind a ransom note.

as a result the following is a code of ethics which RDI breach

ETHICS AND THE PROFILER PROFESSION
There have been fiction books, movies and television shows showing the fascinating world of the criminal profiler. The Red Dragon by Thomas Harris certainly grabs one's attention. The depictions in those various efforts are fiction, however, and we must always remember that. The real world of the criminal profiler is much less entertaining and more subject to real world scrutiny. There have been efforts to professionalize criminal profiling but little has come of it as yet. Turvey (1999) touts the organization he helped found in 1999 -- The Academy of Behavioral Profiling. Some of its goals include standardized training requirements and a code of conduct or set of ethical guidelines. Improper profiling can have the bad effects of:

Delaying the apprehension of an offender by providing false leads.
Delaying the apprehension of an offender by pointing to false suspects.
Delaying the apprehension of an offender by excluding viable suspects.
Harming the personal life of a citizen by an implication of guilt based solely on the characteristics of a profile. (Turvey 1999: 717-

The ethical guidelines of the Academy of Behavioral Profiling are:

Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
Not exaggerate, embellish, or otherwise misrepresent qualifications when testifying, or at any other time, in any form.
Testify in an honest, straightforward manner and refuse to extend their opinion beyond their field of competence, phrasing testimony in a manner intended to avoid misinterpretation of their opinion.
Not use a profile or crime analysis (the inference of Offender or Crime Scene Characteristics) for the purposes of suggesting the guilt or innocence of a particular individual for a particular crime.
Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.
Maintain the quality and standards of the professional community by reporting unethical conduct to the appropriate authorities or professional organizations. (Turvey 1999: 722)

Finally, Turvey (1999) presents some revealing definitions in reference to certain unethical conduct by criminal profilers, as follows:

Conformtainment -- Conformtainment is providing reassuring, if incorrect, opinions and commentary to the public through media programs designed to entertain more than they are designed to provide accurate information.

Murdertainment -- Murdertainment is providing sensational coverage of incidents involving death and violence through media programs designed to entertain more than they are designed to provide accurate information.

Forensic Fraud -- Forensic fraud occurs when experts provide sworn testimony, opinions, or reports bound for court that contain deceptive or misleading findings, opinions, or conclusions, deliberately offered in order to secure an unfair or unlawful gain.

Dissemblers -- Dissemblers are forensic frauds that exaggerate, embellish, lie about, or otherwise misrepresent their actual findings.

Simulators -- Simulators are forensic frauds that physically manipulate physical evidence or related forensic testing.

Pseudo-experts -- Pseudo-experts are forensic frauds who fabricate or misrepresent expert credentials such as college diplomas, expert certifications, professional affiliations, or case-related experience.

Perjury -- Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any sworn statements in writing. A criminal act, it is not sufficient that the statement be false to be considered perjury; it must be regarding a material fact - a fact that is relevant to the situation. Consequently, not all lies under oath are considered perjury.

References
Ault, R. & Reese, J. (1980). "A psychological assessment of crime profiling." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 49: 22-25.
Alison, L. & Canter, D. (1999). "Professional, legal and ethical issues in offender profiling." Pp. 21-54 in D. Canter & L. Alison (eds.) Profiling in Policy and Practice. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A. & Ormerod, D. (2002). "The personality paradox in offender profiling." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8(1):115-35. [pdf available online]
Bern, D. & Allen, A. (1974). "On predicting some of the people some of the time." Psychological Review 81: 506-20.
Britton, P. (1992). Review of offender profiling. London: Home Office.
Britton, P. (1997). The jigsaw man. London: Bantam Press.
Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle: Part I. A Study of Offender Profiling. London: Home Office.
Douglas, J., Burgess, A. & Ressler, R. (1992). Crime classification manual. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Holmes, R. & Holmes, S. (2009). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool, 4e. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ormerod, D. (1996). "The evidential implications of psychological profiling." Criminal Law Review 92:863-77.
Pinizzotto, A. & Finkel, N. (1990). "Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study." Law and Human Behavior 14:215-33.
Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal profiling. San Diego: Academic Press.
Witkin, G. (1996). "How the FBI paints portraits of the nation's most wanted." U.S. News & World Report, 32.

claiming no intruder would leave a ransom note and body when any number of motives could be present violates this

Delaying the apprehension of an offender by providing false leads.
Delaying the apprehension of an offender by pointing to false suspects.
Delaying the apprehension of an offender by excluding viable suspects.
Harming the personal life of a citizen by an implication of guilt based solely on the characteristics of a profile.

RDI claiming no kidnapper would leave a body and a ransom note, or would bring a ransom note with him rather than write them on site violates this

Not use a profile or crime analysis (the inference of Offender or Crime Scene Characteristics) for the purposes of suggesting the guilt or innocence of a particular individual for a particular crime.

they are using a profile to suggest guilt of Ramsey.

this is an example of a review paper in the relevant literature

RDI "intruder would not leave body and ransom note" is profiling, debunked Page_1-1

RDI "intruder would not leave body and ransom note" is profiling, debunked Page_1-1

there is an extensive scientific literature and secondary literature. it is clear there is no
"type" of offender.

i promise you no RDI has ever read it, or if they have understand and apply it.

RDI claims above are unethical. they show a lynch mob mentality b/c they never studied the relevant forensics.

why would an intruder leave body and ransom note?
b/c he thought it would be funny that's why.
b/c he heard voices in his head.
b/c he is a fan of Dirty Harry and there's a scene in the movie where that happens
simple, clear, to the point.

whether an intruder left a body and ransom note is a question of scientific analysis and scientific reconstruction of trace evidence, not whether you think it is logical for a kidnapper to leave behind a body and ransom note.
May the Forensics be with you. Always.