I'm in the middle of James Kolars book. I feel priveleged to have access to the thoughts of someone so close to the case. It's a good read. Despite everything I have read on this case (a lot) I am still at a loss for certain explanations about the case. If there are avid followers of this case with opinions regarding the following questions, I'd like to hear them.
1) Why did the Ramseys call the police with their child's body still in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?
2) Why did John Ramsey "find" his daughter's body in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?
3) Why do at least 3 legitimate investigators support the IDI theory? I am speaking of Lou Smit (now deceased), John Douglas (FBI profiler), Lawrence Schiller. It would seem to me that one of the family members murdered the child (either one of the parents or the brother) and staged the scene to cover it up. From everything I read so far in so many books on the case, that much seems clear.
So I wonder what would cause credible professionals to draw different conclusions. In my opinion it must be one of the following reasons: 1) their reputations aren't deserved and they are mis-assessing the evidence. 2) They are biased toward the Ramseys for some reason (probably a financial one.)
Comments please.
topcop,
1.) They did stage a kidnapping. According to the Ramsey version of events JonBenet was missing from her bedroom. Hidden from view somewhere in the basement is consistent with this version of events. You know now what the police did not know at 5.50 am on 12/26/1996.
2.) Firstly because he knew where JonBenet was, secondly he was tacitly told to do so by LA, so he took the opportunity to discover JonBenet, an outcome he was resigned to, despite Fleet White looking into the wine-cellar earlier that morning. As an aside the kidnapping ruse had served its purpose, i.e. that of deflection, JR had a better handle on the outcome, so attempted to flee interstate, failing that staying with friends, rather than arrest and detention.
3.) All three reached partisan conclusions because they were fed specific information from their employers.
If as Kolar hints the case is BDI, then it follows that much of the forensic evidence has been withheld. This is what might bias the case towards a PDI or JDI, unless there has been an outright conspiracy to engineer a BDI and furnish either JR or PR with a legal defence via obscurity, all the evidence leans towards a BDI.
Some of Kolars remarks hint at him knowing that some forensic evidence carries more importance than what has been stated in public. Kolar reckons it all kicked off in the breakfast bar, but nowhere does he elaborate how it went from there to the basement?
.