James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett (and I mean this in all due respect), why was it appropriate for you to mention that you had an intruder into your own home (and you suspect it was an intruder into the Rams*y's home that fateful night) yet you did not get hurt or killed.

So why is that not considered inappropriate for you to bring up?

I'm only asking because I am trying to follow your thought process and logic as we all shed light onto this JBR mystery case.

Not at all the same thing. Shawn was a victim it is inappropriate to being up anything he could have done while under victimization.

Me saying I had an intruder in my home that was a normal sized house 4bed 2 floors and not even knowing he was there is proof that people can have someone in their home and not know they are there.

Like Elizabeth Smart. Had her sister not been in the room, the smarts had no indication he was there. Jessie Lunsford. Break in child taken no one hears it.
It is possible and probable in a house that big that no one would hear someone. You don't expect an intruder in your home at night so even hearing sounds you would not think it odd.

SH should be off limits. He is a victim through and through.

 

[Venom]

Ok, in those instances the intruder didn't stay in the house. I'm guessing that your intruder robbed your home and left? Elizabeth Smart and Jessie Lunsford were both taken out of the house. Their intruders didn't write a ransom note, sexually assault them, kill them, and leave them in their houses. Do you see what I'm getting at? Why would an intruder risk spending that much time in the home, it's just more of a chance of being caught? Wouldn't an intruder want to get JB out of the house as quickly as possible?

 

[Venom]

Has there ever been a child killed and left in the house under the pretense of a kidnapping other then JB?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Has there ever been a child killed and left in the house under the pretense of a kidnapping other the JB?

I don't know. Not that I can see but there have been children murdered and left in the house.

I believe it was the intention to take her and the offender could not help himself and something happened and that changed. I think that this being unique does not make it less likely that is what happened.
It just means this person had an odd plan.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ok, in those instances the intruder didn't stay in the house. I'm guessing that your intruder robbed your home and left? Elizabeth Smart and Jessie Lunsford were both taken out of the house. Their intruders didn't write a ransom note, sexually assault them, kill them, and leave them in their houses. Do you see what I'm getting at? Why would an intruder risk spending that much time in the home, it's just more of a chance of being caught? Wouldn't an intruder want to get JB out of the house as quickly as possible?

Breaking in is already a chance of getting caught. Look at tommy lee sells. A monster who broke in and murdered kids in their homes and left them.

 

[Venom]

Ok, has there been a case where the kidnapper couldn't help himself before leaving the house?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ok, has there been a case where the kidnapper couldn't help himself before leaving the house?

Since I'm not a criminal I don't know. What I do know is that criminals break in and some don't care about getting caught. Some take kids with someone else in the room. Some kill children in their homes. Some steal them and kill them later. The possibilities are endless considering who that criminal is.

Basically saying that no intruder would do this would be to say you know what every criminal is thinking or their intentions.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Ok, has there been a case where the kidnapper couldn't help himself before leaving the house?

That is a very good question, Venom.

In our history of crimes throughout the world, has there ever been a case where a kidnapper decided to assault the child in his own home and then kill them there (instead of kidnapping them)?

'Cause that would seem counterproductive since a kidnapper's motive is money in return for the (live) child.

So we are to believe in the JBR case that this kidnapper who wanted (JR's bonus) money was also a pedophile/murderer and he ruined his own kidnapping plan? Not logical at all.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Not at all the same thing. Shawn was a victim it is inappropriate to being up anything he could have done while under victimization.

Me saying I had an intruder in my home that was a normal sized house 4bed 2 floors and not even knowing he was there is proof that people can have someone in their home and not know they are there.

Like Elizabeth Smart. Had her sister not been in the room, the smarts had no indication he was there. Jessie Lunsford. Break in child taken no one hears it.
It is possible and probable in a house that big that no one would hear someone. You don't expect an intruder in your home at night so even hearing sounds you would not think it odd.

SH should be off limits. He is a victim through and through.

Sorry but I don't know a thing about the SH case and I do know that the OP that brought up that case also brought up quite a few cases as examples for you. I don't understand your focus on this one example but anyway, that is not important or relevant.

Back to this topic: having an intruder in your home and not knowing it is one thing. It is rare to have an intruder in your home and then someone gets violently murdered, and then someone leaves a lengthy randsom note to boot all the same night......**and no one knows a thing about any of it**

Never happens.

 

[2 percent]

Not at all the same thing. Shawn was a victim it is inappropriate to being up anything he could have done while under victimization.

Why?
Reality is that victim preyed on another child and he qualifies for this discussion of children who commit serious crimes like murder.

SH should be off limits. He is a victim through and through.

"Victim" is way too arbitrary for me.
And I don't agree he should be off limits.

 

[2 percent]

That is a very good question, Venom.

In our history of crimes throughout the world, has there ever been a case where a kidnapper decided to assault the child in his own home and then kill them there (instead of kidnapping them)?

'Cause that would seem counterproductive since a kidnapper's motive is money in return for the (live) child.

So we are to believe in the JBR case that this kidnapper who wanted (JR's bonus) money was also a pedophile/murderer and he ruined his own kidnapping plan? Not logical at all.

I haven't researched at all but in my limited experience the ones that want to kill children outright do it where convenient to the murderous desire. Those that kidnap for whatever reason take them out of the house because money or sex are the objective and neither can be achieved with the child in the house - dead or alive.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

There have been children killed in the home while their family slept. Stephanie Crowe, and there was a little girl in California in the 60's/70's. She wasn't a child but Valerie Percy, too. Considering how infamous the JonBenet murder is, if there were cases similar to it, we definitely would've hear about it. The R's would've paraded around with them "See, this little girl/boy was killed by an intruder while her parents slept too." So yes it has happened, but it's so extraordinarily rare. But of course there was no ransom note left in either of the cases I just mentioned.

Also, sometimes I will watch true crime shows about entire families who are murdered, and they will say how first the killer murdered the first victim, and then they went into another bedroom where another family member is sleeping, and even though they just killed someone, the person didn't hear a thing, and they kill that person too. Forensics show that the subsequent victims were not awake when they were killed.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I haven't researched at all but in my limited experience the ones that want to kill children outright do it where convenient to the murderous desire. Those that kidnap for whatever reason take them out of the house because money or sex are the objective and neither can be achieved with the child in the house - dead or alive.

Yeah, look at the Stephanie Crowe case. She was killed in her home too while her family slept. Her killer stabbed her 7x and then fled. I don't believe he sexually assaulted her. He just wanted to outright kill her.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

There have been children killed in the home while their family slept. Stephanie Crowe, and there was a little girl in California in the 60's/70's. She wasn't a child but Valerie Percy, too. Considering how infamous the JonBenet murder is, if there were cases similar to it, we definitely would've hear about it. The R's would've paraded around with them "See, this little girl/boy was killed by an intruder while her parents slept too." So yes it has happened, but it's so extraordinarily rare. But of course there was no ransom note left in either of the cases I just mentioned.

Also, sometimes I will watch true crime shows about entire families who are murdered, and they will say how first the killer murdered the first victim, and then they went into another bedroom where another family member is sleeping, and even though they just killed someone, the person didn't hear a thing, and they kill that person too. Forensics show that the subsequent victims were not awake when they were killed.

Right....the *ransom note* (kidnapping) is the big differentiator!

So, how many times is a child found brutally murdered within their own home and a ransom note is also discovered?

Never happens....

 

[Venom]

Since I'm not a criminal I don't know. What I do know is that criminals break in and some don't care about getting caught. Some take kids with someone else in the room. Some kill children in their homes. Some steal them and kill them later. The possibilities are endless considering who that criminal is.

Basically saying that no intruder would do this would be to say you know what every criminal is thinking or their intentions.

I'm not saying no intruder would do this. I'm trying to point out how very rare that it has happened before. I have never seen a kidnapping, sexual assault, and killing all done in the house. If the perp wanted to kidnap for money, what is the chances of him being into sexually assaulting her? Pretty darn slim if you ask me. That is what I'm getting at; to have an intruder come for a kidnapping, sexually assault the girl, and then kill her is going to be a very odd occurrence. It can happen, but what are the odds?

 

[Nom de plume]

When you use the anything is possible theory you are then open to even the slightest twinge that could point you to a solution. When you put your blinders on and think you know it all then you miss the truth. You have to be open to all possibilities.

When you put your blinders on and think you know it all then you miss the truth. You have to be open to all possibilities.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry but I don't know a thing about the SH case and I do know that the OP that brought up that case also brought up quite a few cases as examples for you. I don't understand your focus on this one example but anyway, that is not important or relevant.

Back to this topic: having an intruder in your home and not knowing it is one thing. It is rare to have an intruder in your home and then someone gets violently murdered, and then someone leaves a lengthy randsom note to boot all the same night......**and no one knows a thing about any of it**

Never happens.

Because SH should be off limits. He is a victim through and through.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm not saying no intruder would do this. I'm trying to point out how very rare that it has happened before. I have never seen a kidnapping, sexual assault, and killing all done in the house. If the perp wanted to kidnap for money, what is the chances of him being into sexually assaulting her? Pretty darn slim if you ask me. That is what I'm getting at; to have an intruder come for a kidnapping, sexually assault the girl, and then kill her is going to be a very odd occurrence. It can happen, but what are the odds?

Rare does not matter. That is what I am trying to say. It makes no difference what someone has done before or what they have done since. Just what is possible here.

There was no kidnapping, But we don't know what the original plan was.

Odds make no difference to me. What are the odds that someone will break into a home and take a child and kill them? Not much different.

It only takes one person with a mind like this to do it. And then they may have tried something different the next time. Maybe there are dead now and were not able to repeat the crime. Maybe they moved onto a new type of victim?

I just can not discount something because it is a rarity.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why?
Reality is that victim preyed on another child and he qualifies for this discussion of children who commit serious crimes like murder.



"Victim" is way too arbitrary for me.
And I don't agree he should be off limits.

Shawn Hornbeck is a victim and should be completely off limits. He was taken by a monster, tortured and raped. He is a victim.

 

[redheadedgal]

So let me get this straight. You think he accidentally bashed her in head but then to cover it up someone else in her family garroted her?
This gets more ludicrous as it goes on.

You have to be open to all possibilities.

these two comments are a total contradiction...