the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey as a copycat killing a case study copycat

first watch this

CopyCat Killers Season 1 Episode 1: Scream




Top 10 Real-Life Crimes Inspired by Movies and TV




Top 5 Movies that Inspired Real Crimes


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.

one, i think these posters are all idiots. just because a killer kills someone for a reason that makes zero logical sense to you, does not in any way deter a killer. Jonbenet isnt the only crime and there are plenty of other cimes that "make zero logical sense" that ended up in murder. there's no fundamental law of physics that is broken when a killer kills someone and leaves a handwritten message behind, and there are many such examples that have actually occurred, and there are many possible motives.

but to answer the question, the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey was a copycat crime.

her killer was inspired by the movie Dirty Harry which itself was inspired by the real crime of the Zodiac killer


as well as Speed, Ransom, Die Hard, the Rock, The Fugitive the Deer Hunter.

as a copycat crime, the killer wanted to leave the body and a ransom note at the crime scene b/c thats what Dirty Harry's Scorpio did.




To answer the question, the killer was a copycat of Dirty Harry. Since Scorpio killed and left handwritten messages at the murder scene, Jonbenet's killer did likewise.

if you are going to argue this makes zero sense to you, then you're an idiot. you can take the crimes that involve copycats, and ask if they make any sense to you. if the answer is no, well you're an idiot since that didn't stop the killers from killing based on fantasies gleened from movies. as well as just about any kind of crime that is also makes no sense to you.

seriously if a killer wants to kill someone, and do something strange at the crime scene, what does that have to do with how the crime actually was commissioned? If Jack the ripper wanted to kill prostitutes and remove their organs, does that make any sense? Jack the ripper even left handwritten message at crime scenes one was "the jews would not be blamed for nothing" in victim blood. makes zero logical sense yet he did it anyway.