He was smiling from ear to ear at Patsy's funeral, too. (So was John.)So very, very sad for JB. I remember the funeral and BR smiling from ear to ear. Sickening. This was more than a dysfuntional home (close to a hellhole) I would say
He was smiling from ear to ear at Patsy's funeral, too. (So was John.)So very, very sad for JB. I remember the funeral and BR smiling from ear to ear. Sickening. This was more than a dysfuntional home (close to a hellhole) I would say
Several agree, as do I, that there are some who've studied this case well enough to have a reasonable solution to the mysteries. Also agree that we can spend a lot of time in the forum studying each piece of the puzzle before we snap it into our resolutions, and each time we do, we might even see things a bit more clearly. As we do, it either serves to confirm or dispel an avenue of thought.
Unless some of us are able and willing to really DO something to form a Citizen's Task Committee to erode the barrier put up by LE in Colorado, Chrishope is right - we'll all be here with our own 'Jack the Ripper' case a hundred years from now.
As for me, the ONE shred of hope I see in all of this is that Kolar feels there is a way to prosecute this case to a resolve. He knows it's nearly a fruitless effort on his part - but HE did what he knew he had to do. He can't go it alone, pure and simple. You all know the power of the RST.
After Whaleshark posted his great method of examining the RN, and I was able to confirm to myself, that it could be demonstrated as such to a jury that the note was a collusion, my own puzzle pieces came together.
This is my theory, and I'm sticking to it: (I will only post the highlights, since my reasoning it too detailed)
- JR killed JB.
- Burke either came upon the scene or was at the scene when it happened.
- JR did 'damage control' on Burke, knowing his personality/psychological disorder would allow for him to keep Burke thoroughly managed forever.
- JR told Patsy Burke killed JB. Either Patsy also came upon the scene at one point or JR awakened her to bring her into the morass.
- Patsy helped JR stage the crime out of protection of Burke, which she believed until she died.
- JR should be charged for the murder of JonBenet.
If this does not agree with anyone else's theory, or with Kolar's Theory of Prosecution, so be it. But unless JR is charged and brought to trial, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE FULL TRUTH ................
unless one of those midgets from the Foreign Faction really does come forth!
Open Mind - and others who would really would like to see justice for JB, if Kolar was to present a weekend seminar on his Theory of Prosecution to the public, with the intent of drafting a capable group of citizens who could help him create his own Spin Team, would you be willing to attend the seminar?? Costs would be all your own, including a fee for the seminar, which would probably have to be held in Colorado.
MM, I think that would be professional suicide for Kolar, who is still the sheriff of Telluride.Open Mind - and others who would really would like to see justice for JB, if Kolar was to present a weekend seminar on his Theory of Prosecution to the public, with the intent of drafting a capable group of citizens who could help him create his own Spin Team, would you be willing to attend the seminar?? Costs would be all your own, including a fee for the seminar, which would probably have to be held in Colorado.
Has the case fizzled a bit?
Thanks for all the replies.
I'm going with the theory that the reason this case has, in my mind, fizzled a bit, is because everyone is too damned scared to put their theory out there for the public to see through fear of being sued off the face of the Earth!
Thomas had that problem, Kolar went to great lengths to avoid that problem....but that doesn't resolve the murder.
Have you noticed how there's still a large number of people out there who DO believe the IDI theory? And this is in spite of the 'mountain' of evidence linking the family to the crime.
So, more of the same in a book isn't really going to cut it.
You don't sway the public via vague suggestions or reasons why the intruder didn't exist.
You need to come right on out and say it, then back it up with the evidence that is already there.
Sure, someone is going to say "if it was that easy, they'd have done it already"...but that's not quite the point. We've already established that they are trigger happy with the threats of legal action, but didn't Dave point out that in order to be charged/prosecuted you would need to go before the courts and have the accusations tested...which would include having some of the players in court?
Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but I think the aim of a good defence lawyer is to scare people into non-action, and that's working. Perhaps it's time to lobby a Bill Gates type person to back someone who is prepared to speak the truth.
After all, if money has kept this case out of court, surely money can drag it in!
JR will never be charged in the crime. Patsy's fibers on the tape, entwined in the cord place her WITH JB at the time of the crime. JR's fibers in the panties place him there as well. There is no way to prove who did what, and as Patsy is dead, there is no way to prove JR did it. Patsy's fibers can't be explained innocently. She was there, regardless of whether she did it, he did it or their son(s) did it. Reasonable doubt.
I am not sure whether this differs from state to state, but maybe someone here will know...I recall several murder cases over the years where multiple people were charged. Only ONE person may have committed the actual murder (fired the gun, bashed the skull, pushed someone over a cliff, etc.) but ALL the people who were participating and/or present during it were ALL charged with murder. When you're "in for a penny, you're in for a pound" kind of thing. It didn't matter that not all of them pulled that trigger, etc. There were ALL responsible.
So WHY didn't that apply in this case? Why should it have to be proved definitely which parent did what? Couldn't they BOTH be charged? They were BOTH involved in some way, fiber evidence places them there with JB's body. Even of they didn't kill her, they covered up the crime. Why couldn't the DA charge them with that at the very least? Well, the problem with my last sentence would certainly be that if they are charged with covering up a crime that someone else committed...you'd have to say (or infer) who that "someone else" was, and obviously it could only have been their son(s). So that ends that.
Kolar gets less and less straightforward as the book progresses, and is almost coy by the end of it. But my perception all the way through was that he thought BDI, with Patsy covering for him (hence her suspicious behavior from the get-go). I never got the impression from the book that Kolar thought Patsy actually killed JB - but for legal reasons, he couldn't actually come out and say, one way or the other. Steve Thomas did declare Patsy the killer, and he was practically eaten alive by Team Ramsey.
Having read both books, I find Steve Thomas's more beneficial. Thomas either thought Patsy was guilty based on his analysis of the evidence or he used the book hopefully to prod Patsy into confessing what she knew (whatever that might have been).
The Ramseys and the DA's office spent an awful lot of taxpayer money to cover up a BDI (if that, indeed, was their purpose) since, according to what I've read here, Burke could not be held accountable anyway. That seems a bit far-fetched to me. Patsy acted guilty, in my view, from the very beginning. John acted more and more guilty as time went on.
Regardless, taxpayer money knowingly went down the tube if it was a BDI or any RDI.
JR will never be charged in the crime. Patsy's fibers on the tape, entwined in the cord place her WITH JB at the time of the crime. JR's fibers in the panties place him there as well. There is no way to prove who did what, and as Patsy is dead, there is no way to prove JR did it. Patsy's fibers can't be explained innocently. She was there, regardless of whether she did it, he did it or their son(s) did it. Reasonable doubt.
I am not sure whether this differs from state to state, but maybe someone here will know...I recall several murder cases over the years where multiple people were charged. Only ONE person may have committed the actual murder (fired the gun, bashed the skull, pushed someone over a cliff, etc.) but ALL the people who were participating and/or present during it were ALL charged with murder. When you're "in for a penny, you're in for a pound" kind of thing. It didn't matter that not all of them pulled that trigger, etc. There were ALL responsible.
So WHY didn't that apply in this case? Why should it have to be proved definitely which parent did what? Couldn't they BOTH be charged? They were BOTH involved in some way, fiber evidence places them there with JB's body. Even of they didn't kill her, they covered up the crime. Why couldn't the DA charge them with that at the very least? Well, the problem with my last sentence would certainly be that if they are charged with covering up a crime that someone else committed...you'd have to say (or infer) who that "someone else" was, and obviously it could only have been their son(s). So that ends that.
I agree. I've read Kolar's book twice and Thomas' four times...pound for pound (so to speak), Thomas' substance seems weightier; Kolar delivers some new pieces of information, but overall he doesn't add much to Thomas' earlier contributions. A lot of the credit for that must also go to Thomas' coauthor, who was adept at cogent organization, presented in a conversational - but still professional - style.Having read both books, I find Steve Thomas's more beneficial. Thomas either thought Patsy was guilty based on his analysis of the evidence or he used the book hopefully to prod Patsy into confessing what she knew (whatever that might have been).
Right. And in addition to most people (typically those who weren't absorbed by the case early on) being tired of the Ramsey name, citizens today are bedeviled by all manner of financial, social and political woes that were not predominant in 1996 - our focus was narrower: it could afford to be, which makes what the Ramseys got away with then all the more maddening. In 2012, there simply isn't enough money, passion or influence to go around. People and energy are spread thin.It's really up to the people of Colorado to demand answers of their current government as no one will reopen this mess voluntarily. People power is the only thing that will work.
Unfortunately most people are heartily tired of the name Ramsey, and would also just like to forget it ever happened.
I believe history will be the judge. It already is, with most people convinced RDI despite the fact they were never charged. Karma has already taken care of the main player in a lot of people's opinions, including perhaps those closest to the crime, so maybe there has been some sort of justice.
Poor Jonbenet.
:rose:
I posted regarding this over at FFJ, Ill recap here.I am not sure whether this differs from state to state, but maybe someone here will know...I recall several murder cases over the years where multiple people were charged. Only ONE person may have committed the actual murder (fired the gun, bashed the skull, pushed someone over a cliff, etc.) but ALL the people who were participating and/or present during it were ALL charged with murder. When you're "in for a penny, you're in for a pound" kind of thing. It didn't matter that not all of them pulled that trigger, etc. There were ALL responsible.
So WHY didn't that apply in this case? Why should it have to be proved definitely which parent did what? Couldn't they BOTH be charged? They were BOTH involved in some way, fiber evidence places them there with JB's body. Even of they didn't kill her, they covered up the crime. Why couldn't the DA charge them with that at the very least? Well, the problem with my last sentence would certainly be that if they are charged with covering up a crime that someone else committed...you'd have to say (or infer) who that "someone else" was, and obviously it could only have been their son(s). So that ends that.
The second way that the crime of murder can be charged under Colorado law is felony murder. Felony murder is actually another way that a person can commit the crime of 1st degree murder without the elements of deliberation (or premeditation) or intent. Felony murder occurs when a person commits certain felony crimes specified by Colorado statute (such as sexual assault, burglary, robbery, arson, or kidnapping) and in the course or furtherance of that crime, another person (who is not involved in the commission of the underlying crime) dies. Here, the crime of murder does not require deliberation or intent to cause the death of a person. In fact, the actor may only have the intent of the underlying felony that he or she is committing and still be charged with murder when a person dies during the course of the commission of that underlying felony. Possible sentencing for felony murder is the same as described above for 1st degree murder.
I posted regarding this over at FFJ, Ill recap here.
respectfully skip
Therefore, I believe that class 3 sexual assault on a child could be the underlying felony on route to a felony murder charge if a pattern of sexual abuse could be proven.
Its possible that there was only one incident of sexual contact that night solely for the purpose of concealing chronic sexual abuse or perhaps a single incident solely for the purpose of sexual abuse. Its also possible that there were two incidents of sexual contact that night, a sexual assault/molestation followed by her death, followed by further sexual contact as part of the staging to cover a history of ongoing sexual abuse.
To successfully prosecute under the felony murder statute, the prosecution would probably leave it as an open ended situation, merely showing that there was evidence of acute trauma as a result of sexual assault, (in addition to the evidence for chronic abuse.)
Ritter was wrong in his assertion that it would have to be proven that JonBenet was alive when she was violated.
Originally my focus would have been on John or Patsy as the perpetrator of sexual assault on JonBenet.
If the focus is to be on Burke, as per Kolars theory, then it would probably be better to use kidnapping as the underlying felony.
In order to go down that road, evidence would need to be provided to show that at some point JonBenet was moved from one point in the home to another, as a consequence of the use of force.
If that could be shown then John could be charged for his role in the cover-up
Colorado laws classify kidnapping into two categories; first degree kidnapping and second degree kidnapping. According to C.R.S. 18-3-301, a person commits first degree kidnapping if s/he carries any person from one place to another using force; or persuades another to move; or imprisons or secrets any person with the intent to force the victim to make any concession or give up anything of value in order to secure release.
A person committing first degree kidnapping is guilty of a class 1 felony if the victim suffered bodily injury. However a person convicted of first degree kidnapping shall not be awarded death penalty if the person kidnapped was liberated alive prior to the conviction of the defendant.
If the victim was liberated unharmed, prior to the conviction of person who kidnapped, then the offender is guilty of a class 2 felony.
Second degree kidnapping is a class 2 felony if the person kidnapped is a victim of a sexual offense or robbery.