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

[Augustgurl]

What I find most troubling about any BDI theory is that if you believe he was molesting JBR then who killed her? The parents? Upon finding JBR assaulted by BR They kill her to cover it up? What is the most troubling is the death. That JR would garrote his child is really hard to believe.. That PR would do it? No way. That BR would do it, No not for me.

So what happened that this child went to be Christmas night and ends up dead at the hands of her family?

IT makes no sense.. The whole PR was losing control does not work. That would have been a beating and heat of passion killing. That is not what this was. That she was killed over Bedwetting? Equally erroneous.

So give me the motive for this family putting to death one of it's own with no prior abuse history, in their house on Christmas night.

Motive is not evidence. Susan smith was the picture of motherhood 2 mo before letting her tiny babies slide into a horrible frightening watery grave in their car seats in their mothers car that was once safe and happy for them. Have u seen the 1 yr birthday video of her cuddling the baby and loving on him 2 months before she did that horrible thing to them. Unimaginable thing. As awful as garroting your child when the night or day before you spent christmas time with her. Plus, the garroting was staging I believe. The blow to the head was the deliberate act. So... Motive and to say , nuh uh, no way could a mother like PR who loved her child be able to leave he body like that. Two words to refute that: Susan Smith. And there's more and we've all seen em. " loving " mothers who do unloving things

I'm here to discuss evidence. If its looking like ( per the dots of circumstantial evidence) it is an inside job it doesn't even matter if it doesn't seem like any of them " could" have done it. By the way , I think EVERYONE, would so much rather it be anyone but family members. I certainly don't know the Ramsey's and I have no axe to grind with them. I always want " the right one or true perpetrator" to be caught of course. I think that's why this case has such interest is like all child crimes, we are outraged and want justice. It horrifies those of us with children or who love children to fathom a parent or sibling murdering their own because its not a possibility for us to do the same. BUT the reality is, it does happen and the bigger most horrifying is that most child murders are from close to home.

 

[BBB167893]

The same sort of bill (not abuse, but proof of murder) was presented in the Azaria Chamberlain case (to name one off the top of my head) and the mother, unlike PR, was consequently arrested and jailed.

She was later completely exonerated.

I don't know how things work in Australia, but in the US, or at least, large parts of it, 95-98% of the people who reach the indictment stage ARE guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't know how things work in Australia, but in the US, or at least, large parts of it, 95-98% of the people who reach the indictment stage ARE guilty.

No way. I don't believe that for a minute. We need only look at the innocence project to see people set free after the case is really examined.

Just because a group of citizens thinks that someone can be brought to trial that is not the same standard for finding them guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Even smart people make mistakes when they have no experience, Scarlett. No one is saying that they were stupid. But they had no real concept of how real criminals act.

Let me put it this way: you wouldn't ask your accountant to fix your plumbing, would you? Same thing here. You wouldn't ask two high-society people to become master criminals all at once.

Sure they do. That is why People need lawyers to help them navigate the system and police.

The rest of your response is not a response to my post you quoted.

If they did all this, And are not master criminals, tell me why it was not easier to catch them? Why it was not easier to put them on trial.

The case against them has more to do with avarice and hate than actual evidence that points only to them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Motive is not evidence. Susan smith was the picture of motherhood 2 mo before letting her tiny babies slide into a horrible frightening watery grave in their car seats in their mothers car that was once safe and happy for them. Have u seen the 1 yr birthday video of her cuddling the baby and loving on him 2 months before she did that horrible thing to them. Unimaginable thing. As awful as garroting your child when the night or day before you spent christmas time with her. Plus, the garroting was staging I believe. The blow to the head was the deliberate act. So... Motive and to say , nuh uh, no way could a mother like PR who loved her child be able to leave he body like that. Two words to refute that: Susan Smith. And there's more and we've all seen em. " loving " mothers who do unloving things

I'm here to discuss evidence. If its looking like ( per the dots of circumstantial evidence) it is an inside job it doesn't even matter if it doesn't seem like any of them " could" have done it. By the way , I think EVERYONE, would so much rather it be anyone but family members. I certainly don't know the Ramsey's and I have no axe to grind with them. I always want " the right one or true perpetrator" to be caught of course. I think that's why this case has such interest is like all child crimes, we are outraged and want justice. It horrifies those of us with children or who love children to fathom a parent or sibling murdering their own because its not a possibility for us to do the same. BUT the reality is, it does happen and the bigger most horrifying is that most child murders are from close to home.

The difference is that Susan smith did not put a hand on her children. It is not the same thing. She put those babies in the car and watched them go down but did not do it herself. She let them drown by her act, She did not with her hands kill them nor have to carry their body anywhere.

PR is not Susan Smith. Susan Smith murdered her children. PR did not murder her daughter as far as I can see proven.

It horrifies me for sure that this was done to a baby girl on Christmas night. But when you put it all together it has to make sense. PR killing JB does not. BR killing JB does not. JR killing JB does not.

 

[Augustgurl]

There is no way if one of my children was missing, I would want the other one around at all. I would want them somewhere safe. You have to be able to focus on one child at a time..
I have not issue with circumstantial evidence but there needs to be some real evidence with it. There has to be proof that leads you to truth through that evidence.
Just because someone else did something, That had no bearing on THIS case. IT was suggested they get a lawyer. It is their right. They let the lawyers handle it and did what they said. That is how it works. That means nothing about guilt. Nothing about what they could have done. They had an atty and they followed his advice. Simple as that.

If my dd had just been murdered, I would be of no help to anyone. I know what it feels like to have a child go missing and the shut down that happens and I can not even let myself go to what if..... People have big ideas about what they would do, But you just have no idea. None until you are there.

I understand if people want to pull fibers and look at them differently than I do. That is at least left to interpretation.. But people getting lawyers is their right. No one should be thought guilty because of just that.

Btw Scarlett, you do seem to have the dissenting opinion and so it interesting discussing with you. Thanks to our amazing wonderful country and its freedoms we are allowed our own opinions and ability to express and have good healthy debate. Yes, the lawyer thing. Of course they're entitled to a lawyer but they also have their own will to say, heck now I'm gonna clam up, I have NOTHING to hide! Strangers or stranger were in my home and destroyed my child!! There will be proof of that and because I know we're innocent , no proof of our involvement. Bring it on! Lets get us cleared and move on to getting justice. Whatever you need guys, ask away , whatever I can do, I'll do it. Anything. However, these folks wernt so much into " finding the perp" as they were into " an IMMEDIATE" posture of paranoia that they were gonna be inspected. That scared them. I do understand fear of that too because of course the police would need to RULE THEM OUT!! Ok, fine, lets do it then would've made more sense to me of an innocent party then, " get every single family friend, ex-wives, half-siblings who live states away, attorneys and told not to say ANYTHING to the police " huh???? How in the heck, does that help in the only goal one would have at that time of finding the perp by ruling known people out, rather than let's cover our asses and don't cooperate.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Btw Scarlett, you do seem to have the dissenting opinion and so it interesting discussing with you. Thanks to our amazing wonderful country and its freedoms we are allowed our own opinions and ability to express and have good healthy debate. Yes, the lawyer thing. Of course they're entitled to a lawyer but they also have their own will to say, heck now I'm gonna clam up, I have NOTHING to hide! Strangers or stranger were in my home and destroyed my child!! There will be proof of that and because I know we're innocent , no proof of our involvement. Bring it on! Lets get us cleared and move on to getting justice. Whatever you need guys, ask away , whatever I can do, I'll do it. Anything. However, these folks wernt so much into " finding the perp" as they were into " an IMMEDIATE" posture of paranoia that they were gonna be inspected. That scared them. I do understand fear of that too because of course the police would need to RULE THEM OUT!! Ok, fine, lets do it then would've made more sense to me of an innocent party then, " get every single family friend, ex-wives, half-siblings who live states away, attorneys and told not to say ANYTHING to the police " huh???? How in the heck, does that help in the only goal one would have at that time of finding the perp by ruling known people out, rather than let's cover our asses and don't cooperate.

Back at ya! I love discussing the case. Sometimes it makes some things clearer and some foggier. Sometimes I learn something and some times I feel things solidify. I think that when I know I have an opponent on an issue, I pay more attention and it makes me sharper.. Glad you are posting!
I don't think their initial reaction shows anything but shock and fear. I think when it was suggested they get an atty they did so that someone else could help them through it. Take the step by step through the whole process.

I think we need to think like they may have if it is at all possible in the situation. I know when my son was missing for that time. I could not think. I could not process. I could not even be coherent when speaking to 911. If the police had come to interview me when he was missing, I would not have been able to help them. If there was an atty there that could have helped me navigate because they know the law and how it works I would have gladly leaned on them. I think that was their intention. To have the help to be lead through the process. I think the attys are the ones the lead them through the process and they only followed the advice of the helpers.

I don't think it makes them less guilty or less likely to have committed the crime. That is completely not in my list of things I consider in this case.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope you know this case well enough to know that her head, arms & legs were sticking out of that blanket.

Yes, and that doesn't strike me as very "caring". I'm just supposing that a body might be easier to carry when wrapped. It would of course have made more sense to wrap her well before rigor, but again this seemingly would apply if the motive were "caring". I'm just saying the real motive might have been very practical, and doesn't necessarily demonstrate caring. I'm saying this might be true within the context of RDI.

I've [yet to see one single case of an intruder breaking into a house, sexually molesting a child, bashing her in the head, garroting her, cleansing her, redressing her, wrapping her in a blanket, AND leaving a RN. Come on now....

I must have been unclear. In no way do I think this was IDI. I'm just saying that the wrapping/redressing/cleaning might not have had anything to do with "caring" about her, even though it's probably true that JR (or PR) did care for her. All I'm saying is that we assume these are acts of caring because we believe a family member is responsible. They might simply have been acts of hiding the evidence and covering up, even though the case is RDI. It might also have been a little of both.

IF his intention was to have her found in the house, and I'm not so sure it was now, LM would only get involved if he called them!

Ok, I'll take your word for that.

IF his intention was for her to be found in the house, he would surely have expected LE to find her in a matter of minutes, no?

Absolutely. Yes. He could not have expected otherwise.

So even if they heard about the murder later, no reason for them to get involved. No reason for the FBI to get involved either.

Well certainly not the FBI. It's just a CO matter once it becomes a murder. He certainly had to anticipate the FBI being involved initially, as it's reported as a kidnapping. He would not be able to prevent BPD from calling in the FBI for help.

I am less sure about LM, which is why I asked. You seem to have read up on this particular aspect of the case, and I have not. That's why I'm asking. (This isn't a "got ya" kind of question where I'm trying to chip away at your theory.) I thought if LM gets involved- because it's a defense firm- the SFF might make them suspect potential security issues.

*I think JR really panicked when the FBI showed up!

Well, they would show up, given that it's a kidnapping until the body is found. I think his panic progressed through the morning because every hour that the body wasn't found is another hour that the FBI has every reason in the world to be involved.

 

[BOESP]

Nom and Chris, do you remember John Ramsey saying that when he found her she was wrapped papoose style? He also reported her arms (or hands) were above her head but papoose style is loving and caring and in my book means the blanket was wrapped around her, covering her legs, torso, most of her arms.

The old comeback used in the past was that JonBenet was wrapped so she could be whisked outside and away with the Intruder but the Intruder changed his mind and left her in the basement. Regardless, a pedophile wouldn't have cared whether or not she was wrapped at all and certainly not papoose style. And a kidnapper wouldn't be likely to leave the body behind, dead or alive.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Nom and Chris, do you remember John Ramsey saying that when he found her she was wrapped papoose style? He also reported her arms (or hands) were above her head but papoose style is loving and caring and in my book means the blanket was wrapped around her, covering her legs, torso, most of her arms.

The old comeback used in the past was that JonBenet was wrapped so she could be whisked outside and away with the Intruder but the Intruder changed his mind and left her in the basement. Regardless, a pedophile wouldn't have cared whether or not she was wrapped at all and certainly not papoose style.

I do believe that old adage was possible.. But I don't think she was wrapped lovingly if her arms were above her head. A Parent would tuck them all in, Arms and all. To me her arms being above her head, Sticks to me as something an outsider would do.

IT is possible that she was wrapped up by the intruder that also cared for her in a disturbing way.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I do believe that old adage was possible.. But I don't think she was wrapped lovingly if her arms were above her head. A Parent would tuck them all in, Arms and all. To me her arms being above her head, Sticks to me as something an outsider would do.

IT is possible that she was wrapped up by the intruder that also cared for her in a disturbing way.

No one could 'tuck in' the arms of a corpse in rigor mortis.

I have friends who work in aged care and the mortuary staff ask them to leave the room when collecting the deceased, as they have to actually break their legs and arms to get them straight and onto a gurney.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No one could 'tuck in' the arms of a corpse in rigor mortis.

EXACTLY. By then she was already in the blanket, yet her arms were left up and tied?

That makes no sense for a parent who was wrapping her lovingly. If that is part of the theory that goes to RDI, Then she would not have had her arms left like that. They would have pulled them down and wrapped her up..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No one could 'tuck in' the arms of a corpse in rigor mortis.

I have friends who work in aged care and the mortuary staff ask them to leave the room when collecting the deceased, as they have to actually break their legs and arms to get them straight and onto a gurney.

Just did some research on this last paragraph and it may not be true. They don't break bones to move people when in rigor, Most likely if they are in a home for the aged they are laying in bed anyway.

They move the joints to get them to bend. They never break bones to get them to fit on gurney or in coffin.

Most times if a person dies in care they are pronounced and prepared for transport. Unless you are talking about people dying at home alone, I can see it being an issue but even then they are not allowed to just destroy the body to remove it.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Just did some research on this last paragraph and it may not be true. They don't break bones to move people when in rigor, Most likely if they are in a home for the aged they are laying in bed anyway.

They move the joints to get them to bend. They never break bones to get them to fit on gurney or in coffin.

Most times if a person dies in care they are pronounced and prepared for transport. Unless you are talking about people dying at home alone, I can see it being an issue but even then they are not allowed to just destroy the body to remove it.

Either way, JB was in rigor when discovered, and was probably in rigor when wrapped. It is not easy to move rigored limbs and no one can be sure of "moving the joints" when they do it. Old folks bones just snap like twigs and stiff means stiff - the joints are locked.

The mortuary staff do not "destroy the body" - it is the only way to get the limbs straight. That is why the carers are not allowed to do it (in Australia anyway) so they don't get accused of "interfering with a corpse"...also it is quite gruesome and needs specialised training.

I'm not sure exactly what unlinked "research" you found to support your claim "they don't break limbs anymore" - yes, they do.

It's almost impossible not to.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Either way, JB was in rigor when discovered, and was probably in rigor when wrapped. It is not easy to move rigored limbs and no one can be sure of "moving the joints" when they do it. Old folks bones just snap like twigs and stiff means stiff - the joints are locked.

The mortuary staff do not "destroy the body" - it is the only way to get the limbs straight. That is why the carers are not allowed to do it (in Australia anyway) so they don't get accused of "interfering with a corpse"...also it is quite gruesome and needs specialised training.

I'm not sure exactly what unlinked "research" you found to support your claim "they don't break limbs anymore" - yes, they do.

It's almost impossible not to.

When people die in care, They are often lying in bed. There would be no need to break bones to remove them. If they are in care an attendant is there to make sure the body is prepared for removal. I worked in health care and this means that they carefully wrap the body in sheets to make it easier to move.

That is standard. and more off topic..


Back to the point of this, IT RDI is in play and one of the reasons is that the body was wrapped and "cared" for. They would have wrapped her before she was stiff. Not after and she would have been wrapped arms in and protected.

 

[SapphireSteel]

When people die in care, They are often lying in bed. There would be no need to break bones to remove them. If they are in care an attendant is there to make sure the body is prepared for removal. I worked in health care and this means that they carefully wrap the body in sheets to make it easier to move.

That is standard. and more off topic..


Back to the point of this, IT RDI is in play and one of the reasons is that the body was wrapped and "cared" for. They would have wrapped her before she was stiff. Not after and she would have been wrapped arms in and protected.

You know folks lie in bed in all sorts of positions right? The carers have to turn them regularly so they don't get bed sores. This means that they aren't just lying flat in bed always, they do often need straightening when deceased. Precious few just lie there like you see on tv.

So what are you saying? Her arms were in rigor and straight upwards, how did that happen? You're saying if it was the parents they would have pulled them down? Or an intruder would have?

Not quite sure if I've got your point...

:twocents:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You know folks lie in bed in all sorts of positions right? The carers have to turn them regularly so they don't get bed sores. This means that they aren't just lying flat in bed always, they do often need straightening.

So what are you saying? Her arms were in rigor and straight upwards, how did that happen? You're saying if it was the parents they would have pulled them down? Or an intruder would have?

Not quite sure if I've got your point...

:twocents:

I do know that, However they would not need to break bones to get someone out of a room and to the home by breaking their bones. They would just put them on the stretcher and get them to the home and wait for rigor to pass.

There is no rush...


I think you are confused.. Part of the RDI that I have seen here is that the reason she was in the blanket was because the perp cared for her. Well if it was the parents they would not have left their arms up, and on the other hand the perp could have been someone who cared and made a half effort to cover her. Either way, I don't think her being in a blanket works toward RDI.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I do know that, However they would not need to break bones to get someone out of a room and to the home by breaking their bones. They would just put them on the stretcher and get them to the home and wait for rigor to pass.

There is no rush...


I think you are confused.. Part of the RDI that I have seen here is that the reason she was in the blanket was because the perp cared for her. Well if it was the parents they would not have left their arms up, and on the other hand the perp could have been someone who cared and made a half effort to cover her. Either way, I don't think her being in a blanket works toward RDI.

I'm not confused, that's what I thought you meant.

I disagree. If JB was already in rigor when wrapped, whoever wrapped her may not have had the stomach to dislocate her arms just to get them inside a blanket.

She was already dead after all.

The blanket was around her, her arms were straight up in rigor. How this can be used to construe IDI vs RDI is beyond me.

:cow:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

She did not go immediately into rigor. IT takes time.. If the family had done this and part of RDi theory is the blanket wrapping it points away from the family. They would have done a better job. They would not have left her with her arms above her head.

 

[SapphireSteel]

She did not go immediately into rigor. IT takes time.. If the family had done this and part of RDi theory is the blanket wrapping it points away from the family. They would have done a better job. They would not have left her with her arms above her head.

Rigor sets in quite quickly.

All we can really be sure of is that she was already in rigor when she was wrapped.

:moo: