First Impressions.

I've wondered recently about first impressions and the JonBenet Ramsey case. We invest a great deal of discretion in our police and be they patrol officers or detectives they are pretty much on their own. Oh there can be budget constraints and a variety of other constraints such as a hot pursuit policy, but in reality the beat cop is pretty much on his own.

So in the very early stages of the investigation when information is filtering in and its all pretty much jumbled, contradictory, vague, ambiguous and confusing we have to have some action being taken despite all the uncertainty involved.

Someone contacted the FBI profiling types. Oh, okay so the unit has a fancy name and it doesn't use the title profiling but that's what they do, nevertheless. So what was given to the profilers? I don't know. What was available to be given to them? Well, such gems as "No Footprints in the Snow". Not exactly a true statement to begin with because one of the invited guests left his footprints in the snow. Also of great relevancy to the question of footprints is the corrollary: there was no snow on the paved approach paths that surrounded the house. There was never any reason to suspect that an intruder would have had some reason to cut across the snow covered grass and leave footprints.

What else was available? Okay, so we got a ransom note. Its long and its weird. That's about it. The profiler might have had nothing more specific than "there is something hinky about the note". We know that the FBI agents at a conference in Denver who were "beeped" to be on standby status for possible travel to Boulder felt the ransom demand was strange though they made no precise analysis of it.

What else: How about demographic information. The profilers might have been told that the parents are rich, the home seems neat and fairly presentable, there is no obvious drug use, the parents support their church and school. However, its unlikely that any of this information was really made available to the profilers. Probably the main thing that was said is that the kid's corpse was found inside the home ... by the parents! We surely know that the BPD didn't fess up right away to those profilers that the cops had bungled the initial searches and that having an ineffective detective on-scene sure didn't help matters any. Do we really expect the profilers to stop and recall that all their expert interviewing of perpetrators had involved low-class common vulgar drug addicts who live a life of constant strife, inescapable poverty and prior involvement with police and social service agencies? No. The profilers shoot from the hip and provide their "expert guidance" which basically is "look to the parents". This guidance from the FBI profilers then is used to re-inforce the opinions already held by the those luminaries at the BPD who have trouble with opening simple wooden latches.

Is it really any wonder the case got derailed right from the start? Stubborness aside, the performance of the first responders was so bad that the case went askew right away. No real case management. No control over the crime scene. Cops sent to search the basement but not knowing just how thorough to be or what they are really looking for. Cops certainly not reporting back what they have done and not done in that basement. On-scene detective never once went to the basement. Fouled up case right from the start!