BTW - I meant to mention, OEJ - GREAT summary of what the Note Writer was saying, in plain English (first post).

>BTW - I meant to mention, OEJ - GREAT summary of what the
>Note Writer was saying, in plain English (first post).

Oh, thanks, Margoo.

including the Ramseys and the police....so it could be what it is---a note meant to strike terror in the Ramseys so they wouldn't call the police, and they would come up with the money. If the perp did not intend to kill JBR, the whole plan may have been abandoned after that, and the phone call would never come. If a crook bungles a robbery, do we say it's really something else because he wasn't successful? Or a bungled robbery attempt? Could be the case here---the critical time in a kidnapping according to one report is around the first 20 minutes---the time when the victim might get away---the time when the victim may get killed, because of the adrenalin rushing through the perp's body.

".....including the Ramseys and the police...."

One person the note may or may not have fooled is Fleet White, Jr. I don't think he is the perp (unless there is some sort of huge cover up, which I can't imagine to be so, with Keenan now on the case), but I don't think it's known for sure, except in the DA's office, whether or not Fleet White, Jr. has been ruled out.

And Fleet could have been just spacing out in the tremendous anxiety and fear of that morning, with JonBenet missing. But why did he search the house, even calling out JonBenet's name (?), thinking perhaps it was similar to the incident when Daphne was missing but just hiding?

What could have been his reasoning? That JonBenet wrote that 3-page ransom note, and then she went into hiding someplace in the house before 6 a.m.? I have wondered about this several times. Why in the world would Fleet think it could be like what Daphne did, with that 3-page kidnapping note sitting there?

>floor in the cellar room? Wouldn't that be a logical place
>to get money from? Then JBR would have been found
>immediately, after JR went scrambling to get money. How did
>the killer know if there was money stashed in it or not?

I've thought about that safe a number of times. I understand it wasn't real easy to see. I also wonder why, if the perp was interested in the safe, he didn't come up with a plan that incorporated it, or why he would think the 118,000 was in the safe. Maybe there wasn't that much. Maybe, there was a whole lot more! If there were any relevance at all to the safe, I think it would be the symbolic message that John's sack of money and his safe can't buy back the life of his daughter.

>The one item that we don't know about is that magazine
>article that was marked up similar to "Ricochet." If that
>was part of the message the perp wanted to convey, it makes
>it more likely that this was some kind of vendetta...and
>yes, then I would agree that murdering JR's daughter and
>sexually assaulting her might have been pre-planned. On the
>other hand, as gruesome as this crime was, the parents whose
>children are never found never have closure----and they
>never have a "proper burial." They wonder forever what
>happened.

If only we knew for sure about that article. Lou Smit was curious. It sure got John Ramsey's attention. I don't know that they would get all that excited about a child's scribble.

>If murder was part of the plan, I don't think they would
>have left JBR in the house.......for one thing, the forensic
>evidence that can be obtained from the body.
>Remember--perps take something with then---they leave
>evidence behind. The perp was careful in trying to cover
>his tracks, but even with the contaminated crime scene he
>left plenty of clues behind, such as a
>footprint....DNA...hair and fibers...ransom note in
>someone's writing...and possibly a few things that have
>never been made public. It still seems like a kidnapping
>gone bad to me by an amateur.

You could be right. In some ways, it seems the most sensible way to think. If JonBenet had sustained more overall random injuries, I could see the kidnapping gone bad scenario. If the note, itself, sounded more like a ransom note then someone writing a self-gratifying, Hollywood script, I could believe it was a kidnapping. If he had fled in a panic, it would be more believable. I think he was over-confident that night, and that may be his undoing.

>I, ofcourse, agree with that.
>However, I am not certain about the use of your term
>'control device'.

I'm thinking one of the reasons for the note was to control John's actions, thoughts and feelings as much as possible. To me, this offender is a very controlled and controlling individual, but he is terrified to have direct confrontations with those who he sees as equal or superior to him. I think he would have loved to put John through hell directly, if he could, but he can't, so he used the note to begin controlling him from the moment John read it. I think he may have used the note to control the investigation by sending LE down the wrong path right from the beginning. I liken the note to the garotte in that both were constructed for the purpose of control.

>I would agree that he wanted the note to instill a viewpoint
>of 'we must get the money and sit by the phone'. It was
>still overly wordy for such a message, but that is the
>behavior he wanted.

Not just get the money and sit by the phone. Immediately begin looking for what might be the proper size case to carry the money in. Make the arrangements with the bank to get the money and have it sorted into the proper denominations. Bring the money home and transfer it into a sack. Then wait by the phone for a phone call that may come any second because the perp said if he got the money earlier he might call. And, of course, John's brain will not be idle while he is waiting. The perp has given John plenty of bloody and terrifying imagery, plenty of questions, and he still has many hoops to jump through after the call. John Ramsey probably didn't relax and begin healing for many, many months. The offender had to put enough in the note to satisfy himself that, at least until JonBenet was found, he was in total control of John Ramsey. The offender is either a natural at psychological warfare or he studied it. You and I know that a simple, "We've got the kid. Get the money. We'll call you," would have had the same affect, but that would in no way satisfy the offender, would it?

>Sit by the phone endlessly waiting for a call that would not
>come and going through pure hell everytime some darned
>telemarketer called.

It's hard to imagine anyone would think this way or be so cruel, but that is what it looks like to me.

>Was this solely for his amusement or did he have to get
>someplace in particular before the corpse was discovered?

I don't know, but I do think he would have rehearsed his alibi and reinforced it to others.

I, too, have considered the safe in the windowless room. I'd feel more confident that the killer may have thought there was cash in there if he had NOT written all the instructions about a trip to the bank with an attaché, specific denominations, and a brown paper bag.

The safe had been removed. Nothing left but a hole and the door, I believe.

Rainsong

LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-04 AT 11:43 PM (EST)
 
I don't know, but I do think he would have rehearsed his alibi and reinforced it to others.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dosen't someone have to rehearse a lie? We know of one suspect who told a BIG one. Maybe there's more suspects who did the same... but he's the only one i know of that flat out lied to the police about where he spent the Christmas Holiday.

I think Margoo's comments about luck are definately relevant.

I'd imagine that separating that luck into 'crime scene luck' and 'post-discovery luck' might help.

Obviously the incredible bungling and the foolish obsession of the BPD could not have been predicted, but should we credit him with having been 'lucky' at the crime scene or should we think it more 'skill'?

If he left a sack and some un-used rope as well as perhaps leaving a flashlight at the scene one wonders if he is lacking in task attention abilities or if he is somehow being really clever.

Forensic awareness? Or just luck. Maybe he did leave footprints of some sort or debris from his shoes and that is why the carpet was cut from each side of the bed by the forensic types.

And if the ransom note's monetary amount was based on his favorite numbers, having that amount turn out to be the annual bonus was an incredible piece of luck rather than any sort of inside knowledge.

I was thinking more along the lines of what the note, itself, sounds like it is saying, irregardless of whether the offender was lucky or unlucky, above or below average intelligence, etc. However, I understand the relevance in terms of super planning as opposed to just getting lucky. I think this crime would have been a challenge for any police department, but especially so, apparently, for the BPD. I think we can hand them the credit for making what I would consider negligent mistakes in the investigation, as Margoo pointed out, and possibly letting this offender slip through their hands.

There are a lot of things the offender could not have known would happen in the aftermath of the crime, but I'm sure he felt he could count on the fact that the crime would devastate John Ramsey and that it wouldn't be that hard to kill a small child. That's all I can see the guy really wanted out of the crime.

That's all I can see the guy really wanted out of the crime.

I agree. He hasn't struck again in 7 years. No little girl has been killed in her home on Christmas night or any other night in this manner. He wanted JB and he had a lot of info. He had an opportunity, just like Westerfield did. Only thing is, this was planned down to a ransom note and a stun-gun.

It had to be someone with a vantage point and an axe to grind, imo. Someone very close to the home. A neighbor.

>It had to be someone with a vantage point and an axe to
>grind, imo. Someone very close to the home. A neighbor.

There would be a considerable advantage to the perpetrator to have had an observation post nearby. The easiest one is a home, but a van might work also. If he did not actually live in the area, that might be okay too: he could visit a friend or relative. There are other possibilities, but the primary one is indeed someone who lives nearby.

Living nearby provides not only a vantage point for observations but also a greater liklihood of knowing about JonBenet and having had some sort of interaction with John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey and thereby forming some sort of grudge.

For those who see this crime as primarily a crime against the parents, a neighbor makes sense. For those who do see this crime as a sex crime then a neighbor makes sense too. Statistically, someone from the neighborhood is high on the list anyway.

The lack of any similar crimes is indeed significant though some people can be satiated rather easily. Alot of people have been tormented by demons but give in to impulses after years of such torment. It is possible that someone nearby was 'satisfied' with the crime. And if it is a 'grudge' against the parents, he is perfectly happy to refrain from any similar crimes just to make sure the parents continue to suffer in the Court of Last Resort.

The incredible bumbling of the BPD's failure to canvass the neighborhood is an absurd impediment to the investigation.

>When I look at this crime, I see an offender who is very
>controlled and controlling. I suggest the "Ransom" note has
>more in common with a terrorist threat than a demand for a
>ransom payment. NoteWriter focused his efforts on creating
>the imagery he wanted John Ramsey to see and attempted to
>control how John would act and feel after discovery of the note.

Quite some time ago, when I first read the title of this thread, I reacted to the words 'control device' as more relating to physical control and felt it very strange, but opened the thread anyway.

I tend to think of handcuffs, thumb cuffs, cattle prods as 'control devices' and would probably prefer a term such as 'manipulative artifact' or some such nonsense.

I do agree, however, that the essential purpose of the so-called ransom note is to manipulate the mind and actions of the parents.

And although I would not necessarily think the note-writer was 'controlled' I would certainly agree that he is controlling in a very manipulative way and desires to exercise control directly but is unable to do so.

The note was more than the "added touch". It was very important to the killer that the parents spend anxious hours awaiting a call that would never be made to them. It was very important for the killer to revel in the fact that he knew what they were going through and that he had been responsible for it and that he alone knew of the real situation they were in. He so reveled in power that he undoubtedly lacks it in his normal life. After all, who can revel in power over a six year old girl if he is a full grown man? Only someone who is utterly at odds with the whole world in which he lives.

I also believe the note, together with the totality of the crime, was part of a plan to "punish" or torment the Ramseys.

But it seems completely unnesessary to write anything more than a perfunctory note: "If you want to see your daughter again you'll wait by the phone until we call...notify the cops and she's dead".

That being the case, I have a hard time thinking all that other extraneous wordiness was just clap trap or time filler. The logical answer, it seems to me, is that the note is the way it, in order to accomplish the writer's purpose, beyond tormenting or controlling the family and serving as a deterrant on the stair.

Specifically, it set the Ramseys up for the kidnapping call to the police which led to the FBI textbook conclusion that "they were good for it". It really is simple in this, it's primary purpose, and thus affords the writer the secondary pleasure of outwitting the dumb cops/FBI, whom he distains as much as the Ramseys.

What if the call had never been made...the RN warning being taken seriously? A day or two gone by, a trip postponed, a lot of money collected, at least in terms of cash on hand, and it would look like they were trying to buy time to figure out what to do-the note would justyify that-to hide the body or leave the country?

In a short time, the body would have made itself known and the Ramseys would have been just as vilified as they have been.

Either way, the note would have served it's purposes. A drunk, high as a kite, loner, fantasy following pedophile didn't write this note in a few moments; Somebody gave a lot of thought to what this note could do.

a lot of commotion and publicity, and started out as a sick joke. At some point the perp had to know it would be made public. But I don't think the intent initially involved murder. I even wonder about a real vendetta-----because John Ramsey was in the house that night, asleep. If someone wanted to get to him they could have. I don't really buy that they attacked JBR to get back at him.

>If someone wanted to get to him they could have.
>I don't really buy that they attacked JBR to get back at him.

I think it might be best to compare the two immediately preceeding posts together.

One post points out that the note could have been ten words long and still communicated the same message.
one post points out that John Ramsey, if the intended target, was there asleep and could have been attacked almost certainly successfully.

Just as the note was elaborated excessively, so too was the crime.
Why try to kill John Ramsey when you can elaborately make him suffer for years? And why try to kill him when you are slightly built and might lose the fight? Much more sensible to do it in a very elaborate manner. Attack the six year old. Besides, maybe he did enjoy the "other activities" too.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-04 AT 02:42 PM (EST)
 
"Quite some time ago, when I first read the title of this thread, I reacted to the words 'control device' as more relating to physical control and felt it very strange, but opened the thread anyway."

It probably is strange. I was thinking more along the lines of a physical item used for control even if not face to face.

"And although I would not necessarily think the note-writer was 'controlled'..."

Let us say the hypothesis of "revenge crime" is correct. Typically, one thinks of an angry individual, angry enough to kill, who loses his temper and fully vents his hatred as soon as he feels free to do so. I don't see that in this case.

The note begins politely, almost cordially, before it descends to threats and taunting. Even those, though, are kept within the context of the note. There are no tangents about 'getting even." JonBenét was taken from her bed quietly and carefully. The application of the garotte was controlled in that pressure enough to cut into skin and underlying structures did not occur. There was not full or repeated penetration during the vaginal assault. The blunt force trauma was one, well-aimed blow. For someone who was out for revenge, this individual acted in a very controlled way. My impression of the note is NoteWriter was eager to say more, but could not. In terms of control, I think the offender is very controlled and would consider losing one's temper beneath him. I think he is a bit of a snob this way.

"He so reveled in power that he undoubtedly lacks it in his normal life. After all, who can revel in power over a six year old girl if he is a full grown man? Only someone who is utterly at odds with the whole world in which he lives."

I have to agree this is the inner condition of the offender. Do those around him see it, too? Not really. He is used to interacting with the world and knows what society wants to hear. Those around him might think he is a pompous jerk or "wimp" at times but he keeps to himself for the most part, and no one really wonders what he does when they aren't around him. He has a carefully crafted facade for family and "friends." He knows society doesn't consider a grown man attacking a child as particularly brave or courageous. He knows he has violated the ultimate taboo. He just doesn't see it that way. I would dare to take it one step further to say he is throwing this crime in our faces right along with the Ramseys by challenging LE as Braveheart has pointed out.

"He so reveled in power that he undoubtedly lacks it in his normal life. After all, who can revel in power over a six year old girl if he is a full grown man? Only someone who is utterly at odds with the whole world in which he lives."

Many inadequate types do inflict pain, suffering and death on someone other than their primary target and many of them choose children or older women as their victims. It's payback time, and to the perpetrator, who pays the price isn't important as long as the punishment he inflicts makes him feel better about himself--in control.

Rainsong

I would agree, he may strangle one person and even visualize someone else as he is doing it.

However, I think there is a good chance that this guy was interested in a particular victim, not just a surrogate for some face he would visualize. He wanted to visualize this specific victim dying.

Sure its possible that he just opened the phone book and studied his arbitrarily selected victim, but I doubt it.

"Many inadequate types do inflict pain, suffering and death on someone other than their primary target and many of them choose children or older women as their victims. It's payback time, and to the perpetrator, who pays the price isn't important as long as the punishment he inflicts makes him feel better about himself- -in control."

Rainsong

So true. It is not at all stretching the bounds of reality to think the offender killed JonBenét as a strike to the heart of her father. It happens more frequently than one suspects. How much easier to kill someone weaker than to perhaps get hurt and apprehended by facing the primary target.

>If someone wanted to get to him they could have.

Well yeah, if someone wanted to kill John Ramsey they could have, you are right. Shot dead by a sniper/hit man with a silencer. Quick. Not traceable. Possibly a 4"x 4"article in the local news section of the paper, a brief mention on the Boulder late night news, "local businessman shot dead-police have no clue". The family grieves privately for a while and they eventually move on, probably back to Georgia. NOBODY hears anything about this ANYMORE.

>I don't really buy that they attacked JBR to get back at him.

One of the motives of this crime is not just to "get"John but to point out John and Patsy's faults to the whole world. One of the motives for this is to make them suffer in the public eye. John wouldn't have suffered much if he was wacked. Maybe a few terrible painfull moments and then....gone.
His family would have suffered, sure. Yet, wives expect their spouses to die someday. Adults expect to die someday. But nobody expects to see their child murdered, and then get blamed for it.

Watch "Richochet"again and watch the bad guy complain at the end, "It's not fair...you should suffer for ever"(or something like that ).

Remember the story I told of the kid that started a fight with me only to run home and lock himself in? I must have chased him a mile and when he wouldn't come out and fight I got so frustrated I took it out on his brother, who had no idea what hit him?

The difference between my motive and the killer's: He thought about this a long time, he didn't just react. He wanted to make the Ramseys guilt known-they deserved this, not because they did this personally to him, but they were two well known persons in the community who represented the groups of people he hated and whom he thinks are respomsible for societies, and his, problems.

Like the brother, they just happened along and had a daughter and situation that he could exploit.
He planned this to go down a certain way. I can't think of a crueler way to get at them. But that certainly wasn't his only motive.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-04 AT 00:39 AM (EST)
 
>Watch "Richochet"again and watch the bad guy complain at the end, "It's not fair...you should suffer for ever"(or something like that ).

The note and the movie lines/themes and the marked up picture indicate a vendetta. By the same token, it could be the perp's own idea of a movie script (ie: role-playing...copycat crime). If he knew about the death of Beth, pre-planned murder of the youngest daughter and sexually assaulting her would surely be almost more then one person could bear. The note tends to shift the outcome on JR....so I'm not completely convinced it wasn't pre-meditated murder.

However, something about the way the note sounds, lacks punch...and seems to lack a real passion for a personal vendetta. Unless the perp were directing the investigation, how could he possibly have known the coroner would miss the stun gun marks....the police would think someone in the house wrote the note....would miss signs of an intruder by the basement window? That his DNA wouldn't be found? They know who the perp is by his DNA---they just haven't been able to put a name to it. How did the perp know that the police wouldn't thoroughly search the house and find JBR earlyon? I think he would have done a much better job of setting John Ramsey up, by planting porn and drugs, and he could have written a shorter note that still got his "personal" grudge across to JR. Something that didn't have 3 pages of his handwriting. Most of that note contains superfluous words.

The outcome must have been icing on the cake, but I don't think this perp was that smart or cunning to be able to predict how the police investigation would go---I think he got out of Dodge fast---thinking he had really screwed up, because I don't think he meant to kill JBR---just cause a commotion when the note was made public...and I think he thought he could get some cash as well.

over JBR, did not particularly like JR---that statement from the note could be true---he didn't particularly like (or dislike) JR----not a strong statement one way or the other.

I can see how one might view the note as not particularly indicating any sort of revenge at all much less revenge against John Ramsey. And I would certainly agree that even one item of child pornography in the house would have been sure to nail the father but good!

But I don't think the intruder wanted to nail the father, I think he wanted to needle him.

Got out of Dodge? Yeah, maybe. That might be the purpose of corpse concealment. And he might have later been ecstatic to find that his ransom demand which was determined by the roll of the dice turned out to be near John Ramsey's annual bonus.

We all know there are alot of possibilities.

I do however see this crime as being quite likely to have been a grudge against the parents or one of them.

I always thought it was a tease - I think the killer knew he would never try to get any ransom - the note was just a cruel tease.

>I always thought it was a tease - I think the killer knew he
>would never try to get any ransom - the note was just a cruel tease.

Yes. And ofcourse it is indeed possible to impose some 'cruel tease' on a randomly selected person or simply by whim. It is possible to hate the whole world, but I think the "cruel tease" implies a desire to cruely tease a particular victim.

He was not 'cruely teasing' the parents of 'that cute girl he had encountered'. He was cruely teasing the Ramseys and was doing it for some long simmering reason.

"However, something about the way the note sounds, lacks punch...and seems to lack a real passion for a personal vendetta. Unless the perp were directing the investigation, how could he possibly have known the coroner would miss the stun gun marks....the police would think someone in the house wrote the note....would miss signs of an intruder by the basement window? That his DNA wouldn't be found? They know who the perp is by his DNA---they just haven't been able to put a name to it. How did the perp know that the police wouldn't thoroughly search the house and find JBR earlyon? I think he would have done a much better job of setting John Ramsey up, by planting porn and drugs, and he could have written a shorter note that still got his "personal" grudge across to JR. Something that didn't have 3 pages of his handwriting. Most of that note contains superfluous words."

I've often wondered if the missing pages, assumed to be practice notes, may have had that added punch you are referring to. In writing that note, the NoteWriter would have to be careful he did not give away any self identifiers. When NoteWriter starts talking about killing JonBenét, I see plenty of punch...decapitation? Shades of Adam Walsh whose father is one of the most well known men in the world. The figurehead for what all parents fear the most? By talking about what would happen to his daughter, extensively, the perp was telling John this is personal without actually saying it. When NoteWriter said the two gentlemen did not particularly like John, he directly contradicted what he said earlier in the note...this isn't personal. He couldn't say he or anyone he knew loathed John because that would send the police straight to searchng for anyone with even a remote agenda for revenge. NoteWriter couldn't help himself, though, he had to get a few little digs in there as non-descript as they were.

I doubt the offender knew how the police investigation would go beyond the fact that they would be looking for him. Whatever came after was a result of the political atmosphere of LE in Boulder over which the offender had little or no control.

As far as the superfluous words in the note, I think a much more careful reading is in order. I think the perp used an economy of words to get his point across without revealing his identity. He HAD to make this crime look like something else, IMO.

I agree, though, the goal was not to set up the Ramseys. He could have done a much better job of it if that were his goal.

I would agree that leaving his 'grudge' out of the note would have been necessary since it undoubtedly would identify him. Its like the guy who went around vandalizing cars that did not have a front license plate and leaving notes signed by "Committee for something or other". The cops were no fools, they knew there was no committee, just one nutcase somewhere and all they did was ask the newspapers to search their letters to the editors reject pile.

For this reason, I think the 'grudge' related to something a bit more than letting a door slam on him. That would not be identifying. Something more precise in John or Patsy's past. Something. But what?

Who would have a long simmering problem with John Ramsey? If not an employee, then who? It would have to be someone that John was completely unaware of.

Who was John close enough too that they may not like him and close enough for him to be able to know the families comings and goings, bonus amount and know the had a little girl?

I feel John would be completely unaware of this person...someone he quite possibly had never even met in person.

What if this perp just heard about John all the time. JOhn this and JOhn that. He's so successful, he's this and that. The perp starts obssessing,he's jealous. Maybe someone that he was close too and always longed for the kind of attention that this person was paying John. How come he didn't look up to him like he did John?

Maybe he wasn't successful enough for him, had disappointed him all his life.

He wanted this John Ramsey who gleaning all this attention to suffer, maybe feel a loss like he had felt.

That's who I feel has committed this murder. Someone close, yet far.

It could be that John offended someone who was very unimportant in his life and mind. It could be as simple as cutting someone off in a conversation or not saying thank you when someone made a delivery to his office.

>It could be that John offended someone who was very
>unimportant in his life and mind. It could be as simple as
>cutting someone off in a conversation or not saying thank
>you when someone made a delivery to his office.

Is there any record of a murder of anyone, or a member of anyone's family, such as a child, by a creep, based only on an overly sensitive reaction to a small slight? Pardon my ignorance if there is. I know that there are instances where a perp who already sort of had a plan to kill got set off by something in passing the victim said, such as may have happened in the Dartmouth faculty killings (or just the visual stimulus of money in the man's wallet in that case). But to put a plan into action to kill a person, or to kill a man's child, to put a plan into action only because of a small slight?.... where has this happened before?

I am more inclined to think JonBenet's murder was in the broad class of the L&L variety, or by a sick-O teenager experimenting with his first human kill, while also experimenting with his undifferentiated sexuality and anger.

Recently, I have been studying the murders of those three 8-yr-old boys in Arkansas, where there may be three men wrongfully in prison for those murders, one on death row. What is also intersting there, is that a forensic profiler, who also was very active in the unabomber case, did a re-analysis of the Arkansas autopsies of the three eight-year-old boys' murders and was the one who pointed out that the marks on two of the victims' bodies were HUMAN BITE MARKS, which I believe has been confirmed by experts who do this type of dental forensic work, AND which bite marks do not match any of those convicted and in prison for the murders. This certainly reminds me of Lou Smit's work and with other experts' help showing that marks on JonBenet were from a stun gun. In both cases, the types of the marks were not recognized by the cororners at the time of the autopsies. I don't think the cororners should be criticized. Communities can get whatever expertise they are willing to pay for.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-04 AT 11:11 PM (EST)
 
You never know what might send someone over the edge.

It could be be something slight. But in this case, I think it could be that he didn't care for the family, but John was not the person he was after, he was just icing on the cake. No, I believe this was nothing more than a sadist who wanted a little girl. a real sick pup, who learned of JB thru a close neighbor or friend who might have idolized John or put him on a pedestal.

The perp would have had to observe the family at some point to know about little JB.

What I'm wondering is this: Did JB ever go to Barnhill's to play with her dog? Could that be where the kiler first laid eyes on her. She might have even talked with him.

>The perp would have had to observe the family at some point to know about little JB.

Not really.
It is likely though.
Draft of note: We have your (son/daughter) in our possession.

Now, quite frankly, I think he knew about her in advance. And I also think there most likely was some 'observation' of the premises. Maybe prolonged such as by a neighbor or maybe fairly briefly such as from a distant vehicle, etc.

I think he saw them troop out on their way to FWs party, simply because no one has been identified as the person who was seen approaching the house in a non-furtive manner.

If the two year old article with red ink is related to the crime, that might have biographical material. If not, it certainly shows he knows how to obtain such information. I feel confident he selected who he was going to kill in advance. I just don't think JonBenet was the real target of his crime. She was just an enjoyable means to an end: creating pure hell for the parents.