I can't find a hole in this theory...

[rashomon]

[replying to UKGuy]:
If the fiber evidence tells us that Patsy must be the one who fabricated the "garotte," then the facts of the case themselves would be inconsistent.

From your blog: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.de/2012/08/making-case.html

[docg]:
If Patsy had done it all on her own, that means she'd have not only delivered the blow but also constructed the "garotte," with its intricate knot. She knew nothing about knots, but John, a navy vet and experienced sailor certainly did.

This knot is not intricate at all; it is simple and amateurishly done. It is nothing you'll find in sailing instruction books.

Michael Kane verbatim called all crime scene knots "very simple knots" (just look at the one loosely tied over JB's sleeve!), and (iirc) Kane also said he has no idea how these knots came to be labeled as 'sophisticated'.
Looks like Lou Smit created yet another myth here.

 

[Bonnette]

Lacy's "exoneration" does not prohibit a prosecution since she never had the legal authority to exonerate anyone. Only a jury can declare someone not guilty. Nevertheless, it would, under ordinary circumstances, certainly make prosecution very difficult. As would the DNA "evidence."

However, as I see it, there is a clear path to the prosecution of John Ramsey, beginning with the exposure of his broken window story. Once it becomes clear he lied to cover his staging of a phoney forced entry, then nothing else matters, including Lacy's letter, the DNA evidence, whatever else they dredged up to concoct an intruder. Exposing his story is the key.

Next step would involve pointing to the evidence of both acute and chronic sexual molestation. IF John is involved and lied about it, meaning there was NO intruder, then it becomes difficult, if not downright immoral, to ignore the molestation evidence. And regardless of how you or anyone else might feel about who did that, John, as the only adult male in the household, would certainly be considered the most likely suspect -- and as I said, ignoring that or attempting to downplay it would in itself be an immoral act. Shades of the Sandusky case!

Thank you for this very clear explanation, docg.

 

[midwest mama]

''The Theory of Prosecution that I sent to Stan Garnet and Mark Beckner also included some closing thoughts and observations on the status of the investigation, as well as a suggestion on how the case might be moved forward toward closure. These comments also included references to grand jury.' (page 425)

'I expressed my belief to Garnett and Beckner, that theory of family involvement ...was supported by witness interviews and Ramsey statements, forensic findings, fingerprints, trace evidence, and an identifiable childhood pathology that explained the circumstances leading up to, and surrounding the death of JonBenet......and that there continued to be a course of action to pursue through the assistance of grand jury.....Yet clearly, the death of JonBenet remains an open murder investigation, and while no one is likely to ever be criminally charged with this crime, I expressed the opinion that there are proactive steps that should be taken to bring it to resolution and closure'. (page 428,429)

'Under the current set of legal circumstances, it may very well be that some of the leads I suggested in the case are beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities...What prosecutor, or police chief, would want to expend additional public funds in pursuit of a murder investigation when they know that it will not result in the conviction of the person responsible for the crime?'.[/COLOR] (page 441,442)
Kolar, 'Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?', 2012

My understanding and believe:

1. Kolar wants to assemble new Grand Jury to be able to achieve the following:
- 'unseal' Ramsey's medical files;
- present new evidences/theories;
- clear the people who been put 'under Ramsey bus' for no apparent reasons;
- take the blame FROM and give the proper acknowledgment TO BPD investigators, especially the ones who left the LE frustrated, burned out and not-appreciated;
- give the Victory to US Justice (not to the power of the money by which this Justice could be bought!);
- and finally, to CLOSE this case.

2. We, as the public, do NOT have the full knowledge of the facts. Therefore, we have no rights to cheer for the 'prosecution' of particular R (especially, based on Kolar book!). We have the rights to speculate, make the theories, discuss available to us evidences, educate ourselves in intelligent discussions, if needed, write petitions to the government authorities...and pray for the new Grand Jury.

JM(strong!)O

OpenMind - With all due respect, I'll repeat this from what you posted - "...Yet, clearly the death of JonBenet remains an open murder investigation, and while no one is likely to ever be crimininally charged with this crime.....".

I respect your 'understanding and belief' of what Chief Kolar might be intending to do with his Theory of Prosecution. Please realize that there may be others, myself included, who have different understandings and beliefs as to why Kolar went forth with his work. I do agree that he is hopeful this case will go to another grand jury, and that the full amount of information available about it will then be able to be assessed, which would mean 'unsealing' records as you suggest.

But his presentation must be able to convince a DA and eventually a grand jury that there is justafiable cause to proceed with a prosecution. If this is an open murder investigation, then I see no other avenue of prosecution, except for murder. And Kolar is clear to state his feeling of family involvement surrounding the death of JonBenet. With Patsy gone, Burke not prosecutable, doesn't that only leave John Ramsey as the prosecutable option? Once John Ramsey would be in court, all the other points you mention above become addressable as part of the prosecution.

My understanding of Kolar's desire includes this opinion: He does not feel it likely anyone will ever be criminally charged, because of the history of all of the former actions played out in this case which indicate that the Rasmey wealth and power has a strangle-hold (pun?) on so many, even to include the current authorities that could make a difference in this case.

In forming my own personal opinion that John Ramsey should be indicted for murder, I have studied much of the case material, viewed the opinions of other posters, and support the same beliefs that they also have regarding John's participation in JB's death.

Full knowledge of the facts? Of course not. Rights to speculate, etc...as you mention above? Yes. And, because I have come to the conclusion that John Ramsey murdered his daughter, I fully support whatever means it will take to get John Ramsey indicted. I do have the right to cheer for that, and will continue to do so. You are very right about these points: we should all be writing letters, creating petitions, etc, and PRAYING for a new Grand Jury!

 

[midwest mama]

Lacy's "exoneration" does not prohibit a prosecution since she never had the legal authority to exonerate anyone. Only a jury can declare someone not guilty. Nevertheless, it would, under ordinary circumstances, certainly make prosecution very difficult. As would the DNA "evidence."

However, as I see it, there is a clear path to the prosecution of John Ramsey, beginning with the exposure of his broken window story. Once it becomes clear he lied to cover his staging of a phoney forced entry, then nothing else matters, including Lacy's letter, the DNA evidence, whatever else they dredged up to concoct an intruder. Exposing his story is the key.

Next step would involve pointing to the evidence of both acute and chronic sexual molestation. IF John is involved and lied about it, meaning there was NO intruder, then it becomes difficult, if not downright immoral, to ignore the molestation evidence. And regardless of how you or anyone else might feel about who did that, John, as the only adult male in the household, would certainly be considered the most likely suspect -- and as I said, ignoring that or attempting to downplay it would in itself be an immoral act. Shades of the Sandusky case!

DocG :goodpost:

I'm with ya on exposing his story! :skip:

 

[Bonnette]

Michael Kane verbatim called all crime scene knots "very simple knots" (just look at the one loosely tied over JB's sleeve!), and (iirc) Kane also said he has no idea how these knots came to be labeled as 'sophisticated'.

Another thing that strikes me about the knots is that BR was a Boy Scout; and JR might have taught him some knots in conjunction with the family's sailing trips. So I've never viewed the knots as compelling evidence of JR's participation in crimes against JBR.

 

[midwest mama]

Kolar's language is a little open-ended, and I'm not sure that he is actually calling for another Grand Jury. He states that the evidence that already exists is sufficient to indicate what happened (if the DA would allow it to speak); and where it is not, he wants the DA to go after the material (medical and phone records, especially). He doesn't state that a conviction for murder would be possible, only that the case could be brought to resolution - i.e., we could find out what happened, period. He seems to suggest that public pressure, combined with a willing DA, could reopen the files and let the chips fall where they may. At least, that's my interpretation of his very carefully worded last chapter and epilogue.

Right..........he does not state that a conviction for murder would be probable. But he does feel the case, in theory, can be prosecuted. Case is open as a murder investigation. Grand jury has to call for an indictment against SOMEONE for murder. John Ramsey is most likely suspect, based on all published evidence. So, if JR is brought to trial, ALL the facts could be presented, and the truth could lead to a 'resolution', even if there is no murder conviction brought against John Ramsey. And hence, that is why Kolar states the current LE agencies might be hesitant. Lots more public money spent, in case there is no conviction, but at least the case facts would lead to resolution and closing the case. Unless........just maybe, some of those facts that we don't know about would bring JR down!

 

[DeeDee249]

One of the forensic specialists had said that if JB had been brought to the hospital, "the father would have been arrested". (his words). I am sure he was referring to the sexual molestation that would surely have been discovered at some point.
I think at least some of those forensic specialists who looked at this case felt it was JR who did this.

 

[SweetT]

Well, that note wasn't whipped out in a couple of minutes...taking into account, the practice notes, and what looks like back and forth referece checking, (books, bible, etc.), I think 90 minutes to get it written, sounds plausible. moo.

IS it possible the person who wrote ransom note thought she was dead..after note was written went to where she was and found her still alive..therefore then stangulating her?

 

[redheadedgal]

This knot is not intricate at all; it is simple and amateurishly done. It is nothing you'll find in sailing instruction books.

Michael Kane verbatim called all crime scene knots "very simple knots" (just look at the one loosely tied over JB's sleeve!), and (iirc) Kane also said he has no idea how these knots came to be labeled as 'sophisticated'.

Looks like Lou Smit created yet another myth here.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OStap-JOLo"]July 17, 2003 - Michael Kane on MSNBC - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UKGuy]

One of the forensic specialists had said that if JB had been brought to the hospital, "the father would have been arrested". (his words). I am sure he was referring to the sexual molestation that would surely have been discovered at some point.
I think at least some of those forensic specialists who looked at this case felt it was JR who did this.

DeeDee249,
Of course he would. Do you reckon he knew that, what did Patsy say to John that night, did she request dialling medical assistance?

After listening to a few online radio talks, I note nobody, not even Kolar addresses the sexual assault or staging, however you describe it, maybe they do not want to go there?

During Kolars interview someone referred to the artwork and the title of the book. Given Kolar could not be pressed to offer who he thought did it. I thought his emphasis on the books title Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? was interesting, since when queried on it. He said if someone is taken from one location to another, by force then that is a kidnapping, I think he cited from the kitchen to the basement as an example. Somewhere else he reckons JonBenet was snacking pineapple and went from there to the basement: BDI?


.

 

[Chrishope]

On knots.

I served several years in the navy. I can only tie a few types of knots. My job involved electronics and I seldom had need for using rope at all, and seldom had need of tying knots.

It is true that naval training includes knot tying, and identification of several types of knots. The training is basic, and brief. This training is quickly forgotten if it is not used.

The knots in the garrotte, at the neck, are not intricate or difficult to make, IMO. The weird way that the garrotte is attached to the handle would, IMO, take some time to make and is evidence of some knot tying skills.

JR was an officer, though I am not aware whether he was a line officer or in a specialty. If he were, for instance, in the supply corps, there is no reason to assume he'd have any special proficiency in knots. If he were a line officer he'd have had to spend some time in deck division, where he would have become familiar with, and competent in, tying useful knots. Useful, in this context, meaning that they are useful for naval operations. I do not know what the "macrame" stuff at the handle of the garrotte would be useful for.

 

[Bonnette]

Burke was too young for Boy Scouts, but he could have learned about knots from his father, yes. So it's conceivable he could have fashioned that device. But he couldn't have written the note. So we have to wonder what sort of parent or parents would have wanted to go to such extraordinary lengths to cover for a child so utterly depraved as to strangle his sister in such a manner (or any manner for that matter).

JR says in Death of Innocence that BR had been a Boy Scout since 1993, which would have made him 6 years old when he joined - JR might have meant that he was a Cub Scout, but that's not what he said. I've never thought that BR wrote the note. I think JR and PR wanted to cover for BR because he was their child and they loved him, period. They'd known he was troubled for a long time and felt guilty in the existential (even if factually inaccurate) way parents often blame themselves for their children's woes. They had only one child left now, and they defended him with ferocity, in the hope that he would not be thought of as a murderer for the rest of his life (irrespective of his legal status as a child). They hoped he could be salvaged through therapy, anonymity, and the trappings of a normal life. It became their entire reason for being. MOO.

 

[Bonnette]

Kolar ends by handing John a pass, a get out of jail free card. No one reading his book and agreeing with his analysis would bother trying to prosecute John on such a basis. I'm wondering whether his tepid conclusion was due to the threat of a lawsuit. In any case, Kolar's case againts Burke amounts to a whitewash of John. No way is that helpful.

I agree, and "tepid conclusion" is a good way to put it. The book starts out with a bang (or the promise of one), and ends almost with a whimper and a plea for...what, exactly?

I think you are correct, the burgeoning threat of a lawsuit determined the book's change in tone and force. As a man of conscience and honor, Kolar wants all of the evidence to come out; but as a realistic member of LE, he cannot speak with the moral or legal authority the situation demands.

Kolar's in a tough spot, and I respect him for writing the book at all, which was risky; still, absent a clear idea of his theory of the case (which he acknowledges as a frustration for the reader), I don't know how to assess what his aims are. It seems to me that he believes the case can be resolved (his word), in the sense that there is enough evidence for us to know what happened; but the book does not speak to the likelihood of prosecution, per se.

 

[txsvicki]

Kolar says in his book and kane also said there were dozens of secrets. Where there are secrets is a very manipulative person. What if docg is right about the note being written to fool a spouse and buy time. For those who disagree about john, it could have been patsy trying to manipulate and get him off running around getting money and out of the house.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Kolar says in his book and kane also said there were dozens of secrets. Where there are secrets is a very manipulative person. What if docg is right about the note being written to fool a spouse and buy time. For those who disagree about john, it could have been patsy trying to manipulate and get him off running around getting money and out of the house.

...or could be both (PR and JR) trying to manipulate LE and all of us....and they were pretty successfull so far, isn't?:woohoo:

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Kolar says in his book and kane also said there were dozens of secrets. Where there are secrets is a very manipulative person. What if docg is right about the note being written to fool a spouse and buy time. For those who disagree about john, it could have been patsy trying to manipulate and get him off running around getting money and out of the house.

This is something I have been considering lately after reading a few comments here and some things that have troubled me. It is still fairly low on my list of scenarios but what if John didn't know? At some point down the track he works it out which explains some backflips in his statements but maybe he didn't know on the day.

It explains why he offers up innocent reasons for the broken window etc which is not what you want to do when you are trying to blame an intruder. And it explains other contradictions like the chair blocking the door and offering up the incriminating pen. Maybe he was genuinely trying to help police. This will, of course, change later.

I am not entirely sold on this theory but after the talk about docg's theory, it did make me think.

 

[BOESP]

This is something I have been considering lately after reading a few comments here and some things that have troubled me. It is still fairly low on my list of scenarios but what if John didn't know? At some point down the track he works it out which explains some backflips in his statements but maybe he didn't know on the day.

It explains why he offers up innocent reasons for the broken window etc which is not what you want to do when you are trying to blame an intruder. And it explains other contradictions like the chair blocking the door and offering up the incriminating pen. Maybe he was genuinely trying to help police. This will, of course, change later.

I am not entirely sold on this theory but after the talk about docg's theory, it did make me think.

Detective Pinkie, you aren't the Lone Ranger on this possibility. I have considered it strongly over the years because it could explain John's behavior. The first interview the Ramseys gave (the hold your babies close interview) when Patsy mentions the belief they supposedly share that the killer confided in someone thus two people knew what happened, the look John Ramsey gave her and his body language was striking to me. You could almost see the wheels turning in his mind. In videos made years later he comes across as an arrogant, all-knowing, pompous :behind:.

Also, Linda Arndt mentions in her video the secrets that imprisoned Patsy yet Arndt, at least at that time, said she believed John Ramsey was the killer. Steve Thomas said he believed Patsy was the killer. I am on chapter five of Kolar's book.

One thing I haven't seen addressed in a while are the garland pieces found in JonBenet's hair said to match the green garland on the stairway leading from the second floor to the first floor. Maybe Kolar talks about this in his book.

Thanks for your post.

 

[DeeDee249]

What do you think would have happened if someone with inside info on the FACTS of the case (like Kolar) actually would have come out and SAID that the investigation pointed to BR as the killer?
We KNOW there would be a lawsuit, that is a given. But if it went to trial, wouldn't it be on LW and his ilk to have to PROVE BR wasn't involved? I mean- some really unpleasant stuff would come out publicly. And corruption and incompetence in Boulder's LE and DA would be exposed too. Who knows how far up that would go.
What I am wondering is if there are any CRIMINAL charges that could be filed against someone naming a killer when the state's laws prevent that killer from being made public because of his age.
What would the fallout be? And the liability?

Because all we need is for someone who KNOWS the truth to just come out and say it.

 

[BOESP]

DeeDee, about all I can think of to say is I have no clue if Burke actually did part of the physical damage that resulted in JonBenet's death but I have serious doubts a boy nearly ten years old could have done all that was done to and for JonBenet that night. One or both adults were involved wholly or partly. Patsy's dead. John may not have found out until later but after he found out then I'd consider him liable. I have Kolar's book but am only on chapter five.

One question comes to my mind: why should I believe Kolar over Thomas or Thomas over Kolar? I can't see, so far, in reading four chapters that Kolar knew more than Thomas knew at the point Thomas resigned. Truly, what was actually discovered after Thomas's resignation that would make a difference where the finger of guilt points?

John is not a good actor. Patsy thought she was and I know she won awards for her drama skills but frankly I thought she came across as totally fake.

Off my soap box. I get ill in my stomach every time I think of John or Patsy. Smarmy fakes in my opinion.

 

[OpenMind4U]

DeeDee, about all I can think of to say is I have no clue if Burke actually did part of the physical damage that resulted in JonBenet's death but I have serious doubts a boy nearly ten years old could have done all that was done to and for JonBenet that night. One or both adults were involved wholly or partly. Patsy's dead. John may not have found out until later but after he found out then I'd consider him liable. I have Kolar's book but am only on chapter five.

One question comes to my mind: why should I believe Kolar over Thomas or Thomas over Kolar? I can't see, so far, in reading four chapters that Kolar knew more than Thomas knew at the point Thomas resigned. Truly, what was actually discovered after Thomas's resignation that would make a difference where the finger of guilt points?
John is not a good actor. Patsy thought she was and I know she won awards for her drama skills but frankly I thought she came across as totally fake.

Off my soap box. I get ill in my stomach every time I think of John or Patsy. Smarmy fakes in my opinion.

I know you asked DD this question...sorry for interruption...IMO, these are the MAIN facts ST woudn't know before he resigned: DNA analysis which points to 6 different 'contributors' AND knowledge of GJ interviews and findings.