Created  Feb. 3, 2018                                                                                 see also

   Truth is my business!            Hoaxtead Watch No. #77

The FBI Analysis of the JonBenet case

a.k.a. JonBenet #1

From the book, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, by Lawrence Shiller.

Fair use claimed by Truth1 as a civic duty and attempt to bring justice to an innocent child murdered way before her time. I make no money on any of my labors on this site, dedicated to God's Truth.

It's finally here. Let lose the dogs of war. This is the 1st of many installments of Truth1's court of trial for the murder of JonBenet on Dec. 25, 1995 according to John and Patsy Ramsey, though the police say Dec. 26, 1995.

I am not following the order of the most excellent work/book of Lawrence Shiller. Being my court and re-investigation, the order will start with the most important material first and jump around. The truth is that there was never any evidence for any intruder or anyone else, period. The only suspects possible, as I see it, and probably the FBI, too, and the police, perhaps, are the parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. The angle of the DA was to try to suggest an intruder entered and carried out all things discovered. In my mind, this was done to help the parents deflect the obvious guilt they had in my eyes. I believe the FBI conclusions to be solid. So this first article begins with the FBI analysis to squelch and completely destroy the attempted lies of the District Attorney's office and sychophants employed by that office.

Because of the importance of trying to remain as close to the source material of such an important matter, I used the exact report published by the author Lawrence Shiller. My comments are set apart.

The FBI Analysis

Page 385

By now the Bureau's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit was quite certain that JonBenet's killer had never committed a murder before. The experts thought that the ransom note was written by someone intelligent but not criminally sophisticated. Someone who had planned a kidnapping in advance would have tried to impress the parents with how great a threat he or she posed. Words like we and us,

Page 386

my group, we're large, and we're big were absent. In the note, the kidnappers called themselves a "small foreign faction." That raised the question, foreign to whom? From whose point of view were they writing? Real foreigners would not refer to themselves as foreign. Here the author of the note had made a mistake, showing some weakness. There were also some inconsistencies: the note began formally, addressing "Mr. Ramsey," but toward the end addressed "John."

Truth1>> The FBI detected amateurs, newbies even. Not even sophisticated. These "criminals" were the equivalent of the Three Stooges. Maybe even morons. I was impressed with the FBI's sense of patterns and breaks in patterns, too. The writer of the note did not use/act as a specific character. A criminal looking to mislead, would settle on a character and stay in character, in order to pull off a con. In fact, the kidnapper would have carefully prepared the ransom note ahead of time and even go over it a few times to make sure it serves its purpose and is consistent.

Many shills make the mistake of not creating a persona or character for any particular ID, in order to hide their true identity or avoid sounding like their real personality. I see it all the time. Makes my job easy, detecting them. It is my opinion that this lack of any sophistication should have made the Ramseys immediate suspects. << end T1

The FBI experts pointed out that every item involved in the crime seemed to have come from inside the house, including the pad, the pen, and the broken paintbrush. The duct tape and the rope for the ligature had most likely been purchased by Patsy Ramsey sometime in December. Nothing seemed to have come from outside the house.

Truth1>> Now honestly, what kidnapper is going to attempt a kidnapping without some planning and prepare as much ahead of time, like have note already written and have supplies like rope or tape, with the idea of getting in and out fast with the girl, if this was really a kidnapping.

On just the few paragraphs we have so far, I will now suggest my premise that this was never intended to be a kidnapping. It was to be a Satanic sacrifice and it was intended to be sloppy and make no sense. it was even designed to leave John and Patsy as looking somewhat guilty. The goal was not really to hide what was done, but simply enable the network to drag it out and cover it over till everyone would give up go quiet.

It was sloppy and obvious, almost as if a kid had done it. The parents were intended to be suspects. All of America believed the parents did it. Could the court system drag this out and justify dropping the case. I think this was intended to be a false flag psyop, long before more obvious psyops would later be carried out in the 21st century. Bear with me on that. << end T1

There was no evidence that anyone had turned on the lights during the crime, trying to find their way around an unfamiliar house. One agent told the assembled group: Is this an offender who came to the scene totally unprepared to do anything? If you were to believe that a stranger killed JonBenet, it would have to be someone very comfortable at the scene—which is very atypical. Kidnappers are usually in and out in a heartbeat.

Just look at the Polly Klaas case. They don't kill and then hang around to write a two-and-a-half-page bogus note. And why choose, of all nights, Christmas, when someone else, maybe a guest staying with the family, could wander in?

Truth1>>  Oh, I have to answer this one. Why Christmas? Cause it was the day of Saturnalia and JonBenet was to be the sacrifice. Other blogs will address that aspect. This is why John and Patsy wrote that JonBenet died on Dec. 25, not Dec. 26. It was calculated that a scream heard by a neighbor was after Midnight. But Ramseys seem to indicate that it was before midnight, which should further incriminate them. And as of this moment of writing, Rob and Ben, on their youtube channel, "Edge of Wonder" by word of a former mind control slave, she says, reports that JonBenet was an Xmas sacrifice as well, because of John making a deal with the devil, that brought about great wealth. the book has the details of the business transactions, that I will cover in future blogs. << end T1

If the perpetrator had enough time to write the note at the Ramseys' home, he had enough time to take the victim alive or to take the dead body somewhere else. Then there was the scream. If it was loud enough for a neighbor to hear, a stranger wouldn't have hung around. After all, the parents might hear it and respond to their child's cry for help. Maybe the family dog would wake the sleeping parents? After all who knew besides those living inside the house that that night the dog would be staying with the Barnhills?

Truth1>>  If one takes all this at face value, one would be forced to conclude that the whole of this crime makes no sense at all. And this may have been the intention. Or it might make perfect sense if one knew what the real intentions were. But the world of that time was not prepared for what really went on. We saw the 80s bring a rash of Daycare and pre-school scandals involving porn and Satanic rituals, along with prostituting the kids.

I will strongly suggest that John and Patsy together, did JonBenet in, as a sacrifice to Satan. All the things they did were a part of that ritual sacrifice. In that context, then the entirety of that crime scene makes perfect sense. I will cover elsewhere what John received that required a sacrifice. << end T1

To the FBI profilers, the time spent staging the crime scene and hiding the body pointed to a killer who had asked, "How do I explain this?" and had answered the question: "A stranger did it." The staging suggested a killer desperate to divert attention.

Truth1>> My belief is that the Ramseys were also being tested, and serving as part of a greater and a testing of the general public of that time, too. In hind sight, a Satanic sacrifice is not so far fetched. While the McMartin case was wrapped up in the 80s, no one really knew had happened in that trial. It would remain secret till now as I have recently covered it. No one in 1996 knew about it. It had been well covered up at that time. << end T1

Moreover, there was staging within staging: The loop of cord around one wrist was not a real indication that JonBenet had been restrained. The ligature that suffocated JonBenet—though she would eventually have died from the head injury—was in their opinion an unusual cover-up attempt, if that was what it was. The way the cord


had been made into a noose—with the stick tied 17 inches from the knot—suggested staging rather than a bona fide attempt to strangle JonBenet. It suggested that the killer was a manipulative person, with the courage to believe that he or she could control the subsequent investigation. In short, everything about the crime indicated an attempt at self-preservation on the part of the killer.

>>Truth1: What he is saying if you look carefully, is that someone believed he or she would be investigated and would be able to steer it to the desired outcome. I think it is a thinly disguised way for the FBI to say that John and Patsy did it. Maybe the FBI was in on it, too, sort of giving some of it away and then seeing if the system could pull off a coverup and get it to go away. This strikes me as being a lot like the Viet Nam war. The USA was making new military vehicles like the choppers to deploy troops without the need of roads, and fight up hill, something not normally considered possible, and overtake it.

Viet Nam was a training ground for new battle strategies and techniques as well as developing new weapons. What other possible reason is there for Viet Nam? It had nothing to offer and nothing to gain from, and certainly nothing to fear. It was a total waste of time, unless . . . it was as I suggest. And developing new weapons and tactics would be no small gain. But it would be a huge loss of life for little to nothing gained otherwise, by comparison.

So, I ask, Could a huge scandalous thing like the murder of a beautiful little pageant girl, with the parents looking rather guilty, be covered up or dragged out and exhausted so that everyone would give up and go away?

This was another battle field testing ground. The Media as enemies, and the political machinery as the workhorse, and the unsophisticated public as the dupes in this ultimate experiment. The guilty ones were obvious. Yet, it takes till the year of 2019 (14 years) to even realize what really happened. Even then, most have long ago let this pass. Tenacity is not a common virtue of the people.

I also say that the entirety of the world and society is being tested and to be used as a learning platform in the future when humans are guided and instructed on why certain attitudes and virtues are so important, so that things like JonBenet, can never happen again.  <<T1 end

FBI: On the other hand, the killer cared about the victim and wanted her found. He or she didn't want JonBenet outside in the dead of winter in the middle of the night. The child had been wrapped in a white blanket, her Barbie nightgown found lying next to her. Such caring and solicitude were not usually associated with a malevolent criminal.

Truth1: Can you see the FBI pointing the finger at John and Patsy? They loved JonBenet. Patsy put her whole life and time into that girl. So why did they kill her? Because either Satan directly, or Satan thru an earthly spokesman of very high rank, required a sacrifice of the girl and I do believe this particular sacrifice was to be big test and learning experiment. Mankind has never known a time without child sacrifices. Some periods were more bold and open than others, but it has been with us continually, without interruption, though at times more concealed and at other times more bold. <<T1 end


Neither the behavioral nor the technical experts had ever seen a parental killing of a child that involved both a fatal injury and garroting, but that was a statistical detail, not evidence, they pointed out. And after reviewing what was known about the points of entry to the house, the shoe imprint, the palm print on the wine cellar door and the partial palm print on the ransom note—neither of which could be dated with certainty—the FBI told the visitors from Boulder that there was no hard evidence to indicate that an intruder had entered the house that night.

This was their best assessment of the crime scene, the FBI said. Where the Ramseys might or might not fit into it was up to the Boulder PD to determine. The circumstances seemed to rule out the involvement of a stranger. Nevertheless, it was a possibility, however remote.

Truth1:  The FBI would not come out and say it unequivocally, that the Ramseys did it, yet say it was not a stranger. You have to fill in the rest. You can do it, can't you? Its not rocket science. The handwriting is on the wall! <<T1 end

The police then mentioned the Ramseys' behavior immediately after the body was found: the fact that

John Ramsey was ready to fly to Atlanta with his wife and son and leave his daughter's body—and the investigation into her murder—behind;

The refusal to cooperate with the police; and the hiring of criminal attorneys.

Truth1: is it becoming obvious to you yet?

In reply, the FBI experts pointed out that no two people respond to trauma and grief the same way, and that the police should not overanalyze what they had observed. Most of the time, the parents of a victim are all over the police. "Why the hell haven't you caught my child's killer?" "What's going on? I want to know everything." In this case, the police had to acknowledge that it was their own commander's actions that had led to the long postponement of the parents' interviews.

The police also mentioned that the Ramseys had separate attorneys. Did this imply separate liabilities? They wondered aloud if one parent had knowledge of the crime before the fact, and the other had knowledge after the fact. The FBI had no answers to these speculations.   End of FBI Report/Analysis

Truth1: the FBI was being tight lipped after pretty well fingering the parents. The rest was now to be played out by the many players. The FBI simply pointed out the most obvious. I believe their analysis should be listened to.

But the job of the DA was to drag the case out and make it look like perhaps: "We think they might have been guilty but we did not have enough evidence." There was plenty of solid evidence of behavior that has no answer or explanation except guilt. The girl was found dead in the house while the parents were home. And no intruder! Case closed! The parents are the only possible suspects. You otherwise have no leads at all. A perfect crime.

I have no time table for the next installment, and I got a few things coming up. But just as this entry was long in the works, I have stuff waiting for final touches. I will likely be supplying the Final Police assessment Report for the 2nd entry into the JonBenet affair.

 Truth1 Out!

Hoaxtead Watch Article list/Menu page

Back to Home/Index       Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!
Back to Top

                                                       Truth is my business!

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.  .  .  .   George Orwell

#008000  #CC0000