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

[Venom]

It is completely reasonable given the brutality of this crime that this was not a parent.

*He then proceeded to bludgeon his children to death.
*It was soon discovered that Mary had been shot, and that all three of the victims (his kids) had their throats slit prior to the explosion.
*She had deliberately rolled the car into the lake to drown them.
*He then proceeded to attack his sons with a hatchet before blowing up his house in a premeditated murder-suicide.

http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-shocking-cases-of-parents-murdering-their-families/

Sure it's still completely reasonable that because of the brutality it wasn't a parent.

 

[2 percent]

It is completely reasonable given the brutality of this crime that this was not a parent.

No, it's not. Parents that murder their children are as brutal as any other murderer and sometimes they're worse. Most people don't sit on or throw crying babies against walls, but parents do it.
I remember one little girl who was stabbed in her palms to hold her hands while her father raped her. And sometime you should check out the recording of that teenage muslim girl who was held down by her mother while her father stabbed her six times.

The RDI crowd does not have one perfect scenario of the crime but many scenarios that are just made out of thin air does that make them unreasonable?

It's hard to refute this, then debate it, when you aren't specific. Which RDI theory is out of thin air and unreasonable?

The biggest assumption you have is that it is because the r's were there. It does not mean they did it. OR had anything to do with the person who did. It is just the easiest conclusion to draw not the correct one.

Not the easiest...just the most likely.

More children of that age are killed by their parents than by strangers. That likelihood goes up exponentially when the child is murdered in the home, especially late at night.
That quite logical assumption is just a start.

The staged scene is the next step. The people at the scene are the ones that stage it, no intruder would care about that. There are only a few reasons why the people at the scene would clean up or stage it, they want to hide something or add something missing from the scene. Either way, the stagers didn't want the scene to stand as is. Innocent people don't do that.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There was no staging for police.

 

[BOESP]

I took it that Venom was being sarcastic about the parents not being responsible because it was so brutal. :dunno:

 

[DeeDee249]

It is not a moot point. It is biological material from someone that was not supposed to be there in that house when she was murdered. That is not insignificant. You dismiss it because it does not support the RDI theories but it is valid and substantial.

The GJ does not mean a darn thing. It is just a bunch of people pondering the evidence and then saying they think it is worth going to trial, It says nothing about guilt.

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.

 

[2 percent]

The FBI saw staging within staging. Do you have any thoughts you could share about that?

Were they specific? If so, I'd love to know what evidence evidence of staging they felt were from different people.

And was the theory that the staging was independently achieved? I'd like to hear a scenario for that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

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.

:deadhorse:

 

[2 percent]

:deadhorse:

Does anyone else think that looks like a donkey instead of a horse?

Just sayin'.....:giggle:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

Im sorry it tires you out, The fact is a source is a source and until it is a known source it remains a possibility.


It is not useless. Not at all. The same exact DNA has been used to solve cases.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16119844
Peggy Hettrick to name one.. And where was the TDNA found, In the same area.. Where someone would have pulled pants down or up.

You can toss it out if you like but it is a source that needs to be explored. And it is part of the evidence.

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.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, it's not. Parents that murder their children are as brutal as any other murderer and sometimes they're worse. Most people don't sit on or throw crying babies against walls, but parents do it.
I remember one little girl who was stabbed in her palms to hold her hands while her father raped her. And sometime you should check out the recording of that teenage muslim girl who was held down by her mother while her father stabbed her six times.



It's hard to refute this, then debate it, when you aren't specific. Which RDI theory is out of thin air and unreasonable?



Not the easiest...just the most likely.

More children of that age are killed by their parents than by strangers. That likelihood goes up exponentially when the child is murdered in the home, especially late at night.
That quite logical assumption is just a start.

The staged scene is the next step. The people at the scene are the ones that stage it, no intruder would care about that. There are only a few reasons why the people at the scene would clean up or stage it, they want to hide something or add something missing from the scene. Either way, the stagers didn't want the scene to stand as is. Innocent people don't do that.

There is a difference in parental crimes and stranger crimes.
There is nothing in the Ramsey background that says they ever abused their children. There is nothing in the way these parents raised their kids that said they were capable of such brutality.

This is not a rage killing or a heat of passion killing. This is someone who tied up a baby girl molested her with her hands tied and then garroted her. 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.

 

[gramcracker]

Im sorry it tires you out, The fact is a source is a source and until it is a known source it remains a possibility.


It is not useless. Not at all. The same exact DNA has been used to solve cases.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16119844
Peggy Hettrick to name one.. And where was the TDNA found, In the same area.. Where someone would have pulled pants down or up.

You can toss it out if you like but it is a source that needs to be explored. And it is part of the evidence.

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

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

just one opinion

No. that case was looked at again and had a complete shift because of the TDNA. Not opinion. Fact.

 

[BOESP]

Were they specific? If so, I'd love to know what evidence evidence of staging they felt were from different people.

And was the theory that the staging was independently achieved? I'd like to hear a scenario for that.

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.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

Linked from a book...

The problem is that they viewed this case as being done by the parents from the beginning and STILL could not prove it. They all agree about the evidence and yet, No charges, no trial??? This should have been a slam dunk! Everyone thinks they did it ..

But wait.... Lets look at the evidence another way, that maybe since this crime had never been attempted before in this way that it was someone that was not in the family.
Wait, No one charged not even the family that everyone was so sure they did it. They all knew it..

Sorry, There is enough evidence here that points to someone that no one knows or can identify. There is nothing that points to the R's with enough proof that anyone was even charged.
And please with the R machine and their power.. If you have enough evidence you bring it to trial. You put your evidence in the public and nail them.

They were not charged because there is STILL no evidence that definitively says that they did this.

 

[BOESP]

For those who want the general and simple explanation without reading a book, it means someone stages certain elements of a crime scene to mislead or misdirect investigators. The intent is to misdirect, mislead, and divert suspicion from the perpetrator or someone the stager is protecting. The perpetrator or the protected unknown person is most often a family member or someone close to the family.

Staging-within-staging, simply put, is a staged crime scene that has additional staging added to the original staging to further mislead. In other words, restaging the staging or adding to the original staging.

Take it or leave it.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Staging occurs in most crimes.

Even moving a gun away from a loved ones head to make it look "not like suicide" is considered staging.

Staging is intentionally altering the scene to make it look like a different scenario.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And sometimes the crime scene is just what it looks like.

 

[Venom]

I took it that Venom was being sarcastic about the parents not being responsible because it was so brutal. :dunno:

Yes. I was.

 

[BOESP]

Staging occurs in most crimes.

Even moving a gun away from a loved ones head to make it look "not like suicide" is considered staging.

Staging is intentionally altering the scene to make it look like a different scenario.

BBM. Nah. Usually it is only when a family member or someone close to a family is involved.

And the purpose of altering is to divert suspicion from the perpetrator.

Do you reckon we've gotten that splained yet Lucy ... errr ... I mean Sapphire? :floorlaugh:

 

[Venom]

And sometimes the crime scene is just what it looks like.

So what does this crime scene look like?