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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
As for intruders spending time in the home -- there's any number of cases where that's happened.. Off the top of my head, the East Area Rapist would break into houses and wander about at leisure, planting binding implements behind cushions etc. He would do this to several houses, sometimes, in the neighbourhood of the house he would finally choose to attack. Then he'd stalk the house, watch the occupants, learn things about them. During an attack, he'd spend hours in the home making himself a sammich in between rapes... but ofc, by then the occupants were pretty much aware he was in the house.

There's no 'always' or 'wouldas' when it comes to this sort of person. And their actions cannot be held to same standard of logic that one would use to assess a non-psychopathological human being.

IF an intruder murdered JonBenet, he very well might have lounged about writing notes ... plenty of killers have done far stranger things.
 
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.

I'd recognize almost immediately the handwriting of immediate family and close friends so your argument won't work about that -- it's 50/50. It is likely that someone, out of a group of many, would recognize something about the note writer simply by the way it looked and read, including the QDEs who couldn't eliminate Patsy.
 

Rader masturbated on two of his victims but never sexually assaulted them.

Sells is a little trickier. He sexually assaulted the girl he was convicted of murdering (fondling a child is technically sexual assault in Texas). But other crimes he's confessed to and recanted have not been sexual at all.
 
Rader didn't leave witnesses in the household either. I don't know about Sells. Neither left ransom notes. Rader wrote taunting letters to police.

No semen was found on JonBenet or in the surrounding areas (unless that is withheld information).

Lots of differences here when comparing these crimes to JonBenet's.
 
Yes, but I believe the issue being contended here covered only -one single- point of comparison. Not notes, etc.
 
I'd recognize almost immediately the handwriting of immediate family and close friends so your argument won't work about that -- it's 50/50. It is likely that someone, out of a group of many, would recognize something about the note writer simply by the way it looked and read, including the QDEs who couldn't eliminate Patsy.

I don't think Im wrong at all. You must be assuming that the letter writer didn't also attempt to disguise from their normal writing style. I am not even going to get into Patsy cause for one that couldn't eliminate her, one did. Just sayin.
 
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?

Because they needed to, Felt compelled to, Thought they were covering evidence?? I don't know. But I have seen it before.

The babysitter killer kept the kids clean and groomed before killing them.

If this killer was planning on keeping her he could have cleaned her up in preparation of taking her and then when it went awry he left her there. Cleaned and dressed.
 
So I just can't get my head wrapped around this theory:

The intruder skillfully and boldly enters an occupied home to kidnap a young girl (and does not do the safer method of abducting her in a semi-public area like in a playground, coming-or-going to school, while outside walking, playing with other kids, etc etc). This intruder has no worries about the father waking up and using perhaps a gun on him during his intruding.

....and this intruder intends to kidnap JBR to some other location so he/she writes a ransom note

....but then he/she decides to sexually assault the young girl while he is in the family's home with adults there and (but decides against waiting to do this in the "comfort" and safety of his own place) and then goes against what he wrote in the ransome note and inflicts severe damage to the kidnapped victim (?) before he's had the chance to collect money

....and then he/she kills her in the process so he cleans up some things, takes some things, disposes of some things

....and yet, and yet

leaves the ransom note behind. Very risky leaving anything else about considering that JBR was dead and additional evidence could be garnered of a pointless ransom note is highly risky.

Simply preposterous!

moo
 
So I just can't get my head wrapped around this theory:

The intruder skillfully and boldly enters an occupied home to kidnap a young girl (and does not do the safer method of abducting her in a semi-public area like in a playground, coming-or-going to school, while outside walking, playing with other kids, etc etc). This intruder has no worries about the father waking up and using perhaps a gun on him during his intruding.

....and this intruder intends to kidnap JBR to some other location so he/she writes a ransom note

....but then he/she decides to sexually assault the young girl while he is in the family's home with adults there and (but decides against waiting to do this in the "comfort" and safety of his own place) and inflicts severe damage

....and then kills her in the process so he cleans up some things, takes some things, disposes of some things

....and yet, and yet

leaves the ransome note behind. Very risky leaving anything else about considering that JBR was dead and additional evidence could be garnered of a pointless ransom note is highly risky.

Simply preposterous!

moo


IKR? Boggles the mind. :facepalm:

Occam's Razor would be a helpful guide when the convolutions become too absurd to even consider.
 
So I just can't get my head wrapped around this theory:

The intruder skillfully and boldly enters an occupied home to kidnap a young girl (and does not do the safer method of abducting her in a semi-public area like in a playground, coming-or-going to school, while outside walking, playing with other kids, etc etc). This intruder has no worries about the father waking up and using perhaps a gun on him during his intruding.

....and this intruder intends to kidnap JBR to some other location so he/she writes a ransom note

....but then he/she decides to sexually assault the young girl while he is in the family's home with adults there and (but decides against waiting to do this in the "comfort" and safety of his own place) and then goes against what he wrote in the ransome note and inflicts severe damage to the kidnapped victim (?) before he's had the chance to collect money

....and then he/she kills her in the process so he cleans up some things, takes some things, disposes of some things

....and yet, and yet

leaves the ransom note behind. Very risky leaving anything else about considering that JBR was dead and additional evidence could be garnered of a pointless ransom note is highly risky.

Simply preposterous!

moo

All this is possible, But I think it most likely that the note was left because it was put there first. Before he even had JBR. I think he left it and when whatever happened happened, He could not help himself, Or something went wrong, He just exited and did not return upstairs that place he left the note.
 
All this is possible, But I think it most likely that the note was left because it was put there first. Before he even had JBR. I think he left it and when whatever happened happened, He could not help himself, Or something went wrong, He just exited and did not return upstairs that place he left the note.

Isn't the kitchen right near the stairs?

Wasn't this intruder so careful as to not leave DNA but yet forgets that he/she wrote a lengthy and "flowing" ransom note?

The kidnapper forgot that his original intention was the $118,000.?
 
Isn't the kitchen right near the stairs?

Wasn't this intruder so careful as to not leave DNA but yet forgets that he/she wrote a lengthy and "flowing" ransom note?

The kidnapper forgot that his original intention was the $118,000.?

The Killer left DNA. There is unknown DNA on JBR until that is sourced It can not be ruled out as the killer.

I don't know if that was the killer's intention. None of us do. Not until we know who it is.
 
And sometimes the crime scene is just what it looks like.

Exactly!

It looks EXACTLY like one of the family killed her and then other members of the family assisted in the staging and ludicrous attempts to forge a ransom note.

You are right on the money, there. It is just what it appears to be. The solution with the fewest contrived assuptions is usually the correct one.

There was no intruder. That is balderdash.
 
The Killer left DNA. There is unknown DNA on JBR until that is sourced It can not be ruled out as the killer.

I don't know if that was the killer's intention. None of us do. Not until we know who it is.

Funny thing about DNA (and no, I'm not talking about touch-DNA), there's a lot that can be extracted and studied about it even if the perp is not in the criminal DNA database.
They could analyze and compare this DNA to similar markers and find out potential surnames, who is a close relative of the perp genetically, etc etc.
So I wonder just how much we don't know and/or what hasn't been analyzed?
 
I'll agree the Killer left DNA. Yep, I think she did. :wink:
 
Touch DNA solves a case ONLY if the donor can be identified and sourced to a person who can be proved to have actually been in the location where the murder occurred. Without a name, it is useless.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
237
Total visitors
407

Forum statistics

Threads
609,021
Messages
18,248,629
Members
234,527
Latest member
smarti4
Back
Top