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

[BBB167893]

I have not found that one thing that convinces me that any of the R's were complicit in this crime.

That's precisely it, Scarlett. It's not ONE thing. It's the totality of everything.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If there's one thing I've learned about the Innocence Project, it's to be careful with words like "innocent." Most of the prisoners that they have freed were released on technicalities or just muddying up the water. You could count the number of people in prison who are legitimately innocent on a single hand.

That would be your opinion about who is innocent and who is not. If not for this project many innocent people would still be in prison. Freed because of real evidence like DNA. Also if the courts get it wrong that is not a technicality. That is being freed because they did not get a fair trial. That is how we make sure innocent people don't go to jail. We hold them to a standard.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That's precisely it, Scarlett. It's not ONE thing. It's the totality of everything.

It is only the totality if together it all works and it doesn't. Not for me. There is too much that points away from the R's for me. Things I can not get past.

 

[BBB167893]

That would be your opinion about who is innocent and who is not.

Not JUST my opinion. Wendy Murphy has written extensively on the subject.

If not for this project many innocent people would still be in prison.

That's what you say. "Reasonable doubt" is not the same as innocent.

Freed because of real evidence like DNA. Also if the courts get it wrong that is not a technicality. That is being freed because they did not get a fair trial. That is how we make sure innocent people don't go to jail. We hold them to a standard.

<modsnip>

 

[BBB167893]

It is only the totality if together it all works and it doesn't. Not for me.

God knows you wouldn't be the first person who didn't understand the concept.

There is too much that points away from the R's for me. Things I can not get past.

That's what I used to think.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

God knows you wouldn't be the first person who didn't understand the concept.



That's what I used to think.

Pretty sure I understand the concept I just don't agree.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not JUST my opinion. Wendy Murphy has written extensively on the subject.



That's what you say. "Reasonable doubt" is not the same as innocent.



Should I recite The Pledge of Allegiance now?

Well let me run out and get that book too. She does not even understand a lot of the cases she talks about including this one.

Not guilty is not guilty. Call it what you want.

Keeping the LE and DA's on the right path while trying people is the most important thing we have going. The integrity of the system has to be maintained. If the State is allowed to get away with bad convictions it all goes to heck in a backpack.

IT is important that people are not convicted without proper procedure and evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

Pretty sure I understand the concept I just don't agree.

Just to be sure, I'll explain it to you. This is a case that calls for old-school investigation techniques: putting together whole from the pieces, rather than waiting around with a thumb up your butt for a test result to do all the work for you.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just to be sure, I'll explain it to you. This is a case that calls for old-school investigation techniques: putting together whole from the pieces, rather than waiting around with a thumb up your butt for a test result to do all the work for you.

Thanks. I know how it works. Pretty sure I get how it all works. I also know what evidence is and how that works too.

 

[BBB167893]

Well let me run out and get that book too.

I wish you would!

She does not even understand a lot of the cases she talks about including this one.

She knows enough to scare Lin Wood away.

Not guilty is not guilty. Call it what you want.

Keeping the LE and DA's on the right path while trying people is the most important thing we have going. The integrity of the system has to be maintained. If the State is allowed to get away with bad convictions it all goes to heck in a backpack.

IT is important that people are not convicted without proper procedure and evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks. I know how it works. Pretty sure I get how it all works. I also know what evidence is and how that works too.

I'll believe THAT when I SEE it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I wish you would!



She knows enough to scare Lin Wood away.



Keeping the LE and DA's on the right path while trying people is the most important thing we have going. The integrity of the system has to be maintained. If the State is allowed to get away with bad convictions it all goes to heck in a backpack.

IT is important that people are not convicted without proper procedure and evidence.

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

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'll believe THAT when I SEE it.

What you believe is your prerogative. It has no effect on me.

I know that integrity is important to me. Facts matter to me. Spin not so much.
I know that I look for the evidence myself and look for confirmation before I jump that to my usable list.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Nothing exploitative about it. But, you do what you think is best.

 

[BBB167893]

What you believe is your prerogative. It has no effect on me.

I know that integrity is important to me. Facts matter to me. Spin not so much.
I know that I look for the evidence myself and look for confirmation before I jump that to my usable list.

I wish you the very best.

 

[Ausgirl]

No, Chelly, it was your sig - but I see you've changed it back now, so never mind.

The general level of animosity in the threads here is very daunting. It feels to me like anyone who doesn't agree with the group consensus is viewed as somehow a little suspect themselves. It really doesn't foster an atmosphere of reasoning debate, and it's hard not to enter a dissenting opinion without feeling one ought to have one's back up.

Really, I'm inclined to think - life's too short. But BOESP and Venom, given a bit more time to chill out and do my research, I'll have that thread up sooner or later.

 

[Chrishope]

Since the R's are known and the Intruder would be Unknown, I am assuming that it was someone and not someone specific in turn preserving an innocent party..

I don't know who, I have some people on my horizon that I need to look at again and deeper, but will not name them because I do believe in preserving people's innocence until proof of guilt.

Wanting to make sure that people are not convicted if they are innocent matters to me a lot. I am not on the lets get them bandwagon ever. I want to see the proof and I want to make sure justice is done. Convicting someone who is not guilty is not justice.

Scarlett,

We don't have the power to convict here on WS. Since we don't have the power to convict we also don't have the obligation to prove our theories beyond a reasonable doubt. All we're doing is discussing who we think did it. We could be wrong, and most of us acknowledge that. No one is in any jeopardy because some internet poster thinks so and so did it.

I get the impression you feel that IDI is a default position that should be accepted until there is an open and shut case against one (or all) of the Rs. There is no obligation to see at as IDI unless one (or more) Ramsey can be proven guilty.

Proof of guilt only comes from a jury saying guilty. Until there is a trial, there will never be proof of guilt. Should we just not discuss the case until there is a trial?

 

[BOESP]

Scarlett,

We don't have the power to convict here on WS. Since we don't have the power to convict we also don't have the obligation to prove our theories beyond a reasonable doubt. All we're doing is discussing who we think did it. We could be wrong, and most of us acknowledge that. No one is in any jeopardy because some internet poster thinks so and so did it.

I get the impression you feel that IDI is a default position that should be accepted until there is an open and shut case against one (or all) of the Rs. There is no obligation to see at as IDI unless one (or more) Ramsey can be proven guilty.

Proof of guilt only comes from a jury saying guilty. Until there is a trial, there will never be proof of guilt. Should we just not discuss the case until there is a trial?

Chrishope, I'm really getting worried. That's three of your posts I've agreed with in 24 hours. :dance:

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope, I'm really getting worried. That's three of your posts I've agreed with in 24 hours. :dance:

The world is definitely coming to an end :seeya:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett,

We don't have the power to convict here on WS. Since we don't have the power to convict we also don't have the obligation to prove our theories beyond a reasonable doubt. All we're doing is discussing who we think did it. We could be wrong, and most of us acknowledge that. No one is in any jeopardy because some internet poster thinks so and so did it.

I get the impression you feel that IDI is a default position that should be accepted until there is an open and shut case against one (or all) of the Rs. There is no obligation to see at as IDI unless one (or more) Ramsey can be proven guilty.

Proof of guilt only comes from a jury saying guilty. Until there is a trial, there will never be proof of guilt. Should we just not discuss the case until there is a trial?

I realize the standard on the forum is not the same as a Court of law, but I think that in that, People take liberties to malign and disparage with a hubris they would not use if they had to stand up, be counted and liable for their opinion.

My stance is always that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I know that has been tossed out of this forum and people can and will believe what they like, however when going over the evidence there is plenty of room for the possibility of someone other than the R's. I don't necessarily believe it was an unknown to them, But it could have been.

When I see the evidence of the crime, Not of who is friends with who, or how much money they have, I see room for someone else to be involved. Until that door is shut by real evidence or trial, I will always give people their due presumed innocent status. If not we become a nation of witch hunters and we all know how well that goes.

I can think of more than a few people that have been hung out to dry, I know someone that was accused of something horrible, It was in all the papers and then the truth came out that the other party lied. But at that point, it matters not.
Richard Jewel was sacrificed in the court of public opinion.. And it was not him. Not at all.

<modsnip>
I am concerned that people speak of things like they are fact when they are just theory and opinion. It took me a long time to filter a lot of that out to see the facts and not just someone's opinion of the evidence.

I will always come from a place of innocent until it is proven to me that they are not. I will always give people their chance. It is not hard to convince me with evidence. There are many I would be glad to watch prance through the gates and go behind bars for life...

But here, No one is indicted, No one is charged, There was so many mistakes made, that I think there is ample room to consider Someone other than the R's <modsnip>