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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So what does this crime scene look like?

Like someone intended to take her and for whatever reason they didn't. Something happened that changed that.

They killed her in the basement and left her.

 

[redheadedgal]

what i don't get: if one has such a disdain for kolar's book

There has been so much speculation and books, Everyone has a theory and backs it up with their slant on the evidence.

To me writing books in the subject negates your credibility with me.

There is no value in it as a resource to find guilt or not.. But the other books, Written by people " in the know", Are supposed to be some big harp sounding, gotcha that they know what happened and their book is supposed to say " I KNOW WHO DID IT, BUY MY BOOK AND FIND OUT"

People in LE should not be writing books calling out killers.

I don't read books that are exploitive. Nothing to learn in them.

Linked from a book...

Find the reference.. If it is from a book, don't bother...

Im not talking about tumor or book fodder.

I have no interest in his book. Wonderful guy or not, his book is nothing more than his opinion and that he sold it and says things like " I am not going to tell you everything.. You have to read the book for that, " Bothers me.

It is only his truth.. NOT THE TRUTH as none of us where there and are only speculating.

His theory means little to me.

Again. No one who wrote a book has any standings with me.

This is from Kolar's book so I don't take this as anything more than his say so.

Can I ask where the report is from? Wait, You got this from Kolar's book?? Some one who wants people to think he has all the answers to the case and it lies at BR's feet? Sorry. Not valid to me. I need an independent report please.

I still don't put a lot of stock in books written about cases. It just is one persons opinion on what they think.

why post in this thread?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

While it seems that Kolars book was the beginning of this thread it has morphed into theories and thoughts on the case.

And I don't see anything wrong with discussing the cons of the pros other people see.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

We get so tired of explaining the difference between skin cell (touch) DNA and other DNA that I am not going to o it again. However, I will repeat that although it was DNA from an unknown person, it does not necessarily mean it had anything to do with the crime. Skin cells are so easily transferable and omnipresent that unless a donor is identified by name, it is pretty useless.
A GJ means a lot in our legal system. While they are not the ones who decide guilt or innocence, they do determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring it to trial. In this case, they did. It was the DA, a puppet of the politically connected defense team, who lacked the courage to do so.
Calling a GJ meaningless is an affront to our justice system and to anyone who serves on one.

BBM: Excellent post, DeeDee.

What I can't understand is that some theorize that LE contaminated the crime scene (or allowed for contamination in shoddy police work) and yet they still think that touch-DNA is ok.

How can they have it both ways?

 

[2 percent]

Double post

 

[2 percent]

PMPT Page 498 (courtesy of www.acandyrose.com)

"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.

"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."

Here is another link, to "Perfect Murder. Perfect Town," where this is discussed:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fd...#v=onepage&q="staging within staging"&f=false

Imo, what the staging-within-staging meant was, simply, "overkill" and not necessarily more than one person involved.

Gotcha

 

[Chrishope]

Like someone intended to take her and for whatever reason they didn't. Something happened that changed that.

They killed her in the basement and left her.

What happened to make the intruder morph from a kidnapper to a murderer?

They didn't simply kill her a leave her, the wiped her down, redressed her, wrapped her in a blanket and stashed her in the WC. Why would they do all that?

 

[Venom]

I would bet you can not find one other crime that a parent did like this.

There is no other case of a parent doing this to their child. People like to say there is no other criminal that has done this, But what matters most is you start with the obvious and there is no other case where a parent did this to their child.

I find it incredulous to see such short sighted vision, when aimed at the Ramseys but not at the option that someone else could have done this when that is most likely.

I used this:http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all&vr=W&vs=F&rel=DA&kr=W&w=85

I put in white child, relationship to killer as daughter, killer was white, weapon as asphyxiation, years 2000-2010.

And came up with:

93
murders of white (non-Hispanic) female victims by white (non-hispanic) killers. The relationship of the victim to the killer was ‘daughter’. The method of death was 'asphyxiation'.

 

[Venom]

Leaving out the race:

161
murders of female victims. The relationship of the victim to the killer was ‘daughter’. The method of death was 'asphyxiation'.

 

[madeleine]

What happened to make the intruder morph from a kidnapper to a murderer?

They didn't simply kill her a leave her, the wiped her down, redressed her, wrapped her in a blanket and stashed her in the WC. Why would they do all that?

and why would an intruder bother to take the bloody cloth he wiped her off with...according to IDI he ran off with a bag containing JB's panties,the bloody cloth,the roll of tape,the remaining cord...but he left behind his handwriting so that anyone could track him down...

 

[Roy23]

and why would an intruder bother to take the bloody cloth he wiped her off with...according to IDI he ran off with a bag containing JB's panties,the bloody cloth,the roll of tape,the remaining cord...but he left behind his handwriting so that anyone could track him down...

Well you can't track anyone down based on handwriting. But he could be tracked down for a cloth that had his fluids on it. I think more than likely he was wearing gloves. I don't know what all the killer took with him but it is pretty clear that some of the items at the scene were not found in the house. But they really don't explain what all that is exactly. Food for thought.

 

[madeleine]

Well you can't track anyone down based on handwriting. But he could be tracked down for a cloth that had his fluids on it. I think more than likely he was wearing gloves. I don't know what all the killer took with him but it is pretty clear that some of the items at the scene were not found in the house. But they really don't explain what all that is exactly. Food for thought.

yeah but all of your friends and relatives might see a sample of that handwriting on TV and call the cops,no?why risk?

 

[Roy23]

What happened to make the intruder morph from a kidnapper to a murderer?

They didn't simply kill her a leave her, the wiped her down, redressed her, wrapped her in a blanket and stashed her in the WC. Why would they do all that?

Maybe he panicked. Maybe sexual assualt was the idea all along but the intruder was really not sure if he could accomplish his goals in the house or had to get her out of the house. I think if IDI that was most likely the case. I imagine the person was fixated on JBR for whatever reason and the redressing was guilt and shame because of his own desires.

 

[Roy23]

yeah but all of your friends and relatives might see a sample of that handwriting on TV and call the cops,no?why risk?

You can adjust your own handwriting, you can't adjust science. I couldn't recognize most of my family's handwriting if they changed a thing. It's not like this note was like T. Kazenski's (SP) manifesto. It was a letter with phrases from movies.

 

[madeleine]

Maybe he panicked. Maybe sexual assualt was the idea all along but the intruder was really not sure if he could accomplish his goals in the house or had to get her out of the house. I think if IDI that was most likely the case. I imagine the person was fixated on JBR for whatever reason and the redressing was guilt and shame because of his own desires.

In this case IMO he would have focused on JB not on writing a long ,meaningless RN.It's not like he had all the time in the world.

 

[Venom]

Maybe he panicked. Maybe sexual assualt was the idea all along but the intruder was really not sure if he could accomplish his goals in the house or had to get her out of the house. I think if IDI that was most likely the case. I imagine the person was fixated on JBR for whatever reason and the redressing was guilt and shame because of his own desires.

If the sexual assault was the plan all along, why would he even attempt it in the house, with other people there? Why not just take her out of the house?
And if sexual assault was the idea all along, why write a novel of a ransom note quoting movies? Why not just leave with her in the house?

 

[gramcracker]

If the GJ comes back with an indictment, no one is surprised. They indict most everyone. IT does not mean they are guilty. That AH did not charge anyone says that there was something wrong with that indictment and he knew it. He knew there was NOT enough to bring anyone to trial let alone find them guilty.

just one opinion

 

[Roy23]

In this case IMO he would have focused on JB not on writing a long ,meaningless RN.It's not like he had all the time in the world.

Maybe the person didn't have access to his own house and had to pick a night that would be quiet outside. And maybe the Ransom note was a tactic to delay law enforcement.

Any way you slice it, I realize that it is all strange no matter what IDI or RDI theory is created. You can cut holes in them all by using simple logic. And I realize any time IDI comes up so will the note. And anytime RDI comes up, IDI are going to say it is not logical that people without any criminal history or deviant behavior do this. etc etc etc.

 

[Ausgirl]

If the sexual assault was the plan all along, why would he even attempt it in the house, with other people there? Why not just take her out of the house?

Ask Tommy Lynn Sells. BTK. Etc. It's been done...

And if sexual assault was the idea all along, why write a novel of a ransom note quoting movies?

Now, that to me is an incisive question. Possibly THE most important question of this whole case, aside from 'who dunnit' obviously.

In my mind, there's really only three reasons that note could be there:

1. RDI - pick a scenario, any scenario.

2. IDI, and the killer was psychotic enough to stalk the family for weeks (YES it's been done), rummage through their garbage for information and the like, break into their home when they're not there to case the place (YES it has been done) and pick up enough details about the family's life to a/ think he knew them, and b/ write that note, not to divert but to taunt the Ramseys and/or possibly the police.

3. The crime wasn't about JonBenet at all. She was a means to an end, and the whole thing was aimed at causing distress to JR.

 

[2 percent]

If the GJ comes back with an indictment, no one is surprised. They indict most everyone. IT does not mean they are guilty.

This reminds me of a famous flawed study where child abusers were asked if they were abused as children. Almost 90% said yes so there were screaming headlines that violence begets violence, etc. What those idiots didn't remember, though, is not all people that have been abused abuse their their own children. They were only getting half the story!

By law Grand Jury proceedings are secret. So you will almost always hear when they vote to indict...and almost never hear when they don't vote to indict.
You, also, are only getting half the story and cannot definitively say "they indict everyone". You can say they publicize all of their votes for indictment, though.

That AH did not charge anyone says that there was something wrong with that indictment and he knew it. He knew there was NOT enough to bring anyone to trial let alone find them guilty.

If this was such a strong and solid decision for AH why didn't he follow legal procedure? When the DA is handed an indictment the proper procedure is to honor the Grand Jury decision by signing off on the lawfully voted on indictment. If they later choose not to proceed they dismiss the charges in court.

One can't help but wonder if it was more important to AH that the indictment, which can't go forward unsigned, not be brought out in open court.