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

[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.

:lol:

sorry but this is not how it works.

Almost every hospice has a queue for the beds...they do not leave deceased people lying around anywhere until the rigor breaks. They call the coroner, who sends a hearse/ambulance, the person is lifted onto a gurney by the mortuary staff, in private, because hospitals have live patients and relatives of the deceased wandering around, they don't just leave a deceased person to lie anywhere, or delay the call for the rigor to end!

Rigor breaks when decomposition breaks it - they will already start to smell.

Imagine the corridors littered with decomposing bodies waiting for the rigor to vanish...seriously....unhygienic at the very least, impractical too.

:twocents:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I am not sure you do understand this process. No.. Of course they don't leave them lying around.. but they do have storing areas to move them to and/or then the mortician comes and collects them and then the mortician can deal with the body in whatever way he needs to.

They will be in a cooler. Bodies are not kept at room temp...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Rigor sets in quite quickly.

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

:moo:

Depending on the condition the body sets into rigor at about 4-6 hours. Then can last from 24 hours or more.. Some much more. There are a lot of factors..

Rigor mortis begins within two to six hours of death, starting with the eyelids, neck, and jaw. This sequence may be due to the difference in lactic acid levels among different muscles, which corresponds to the difference in glycogen levels and to the different types of muscle fibers. Over the next four to six hours, rigor mortis spreads to the other muscles, including those in the internal organs such as the heart. The onset of rigor mortis is more rapid if the environment is cold and if the decedent had performed hard physical work just before death. Its onset also varies with the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build.

Read more: http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html#ixzz2eWsX59fU

 

[BOESP]

Just some comments that I feel are worthy of considering on felony offenses:

If a case makes it to court it is most likely a grand jury put them there with a true bill, followed by .
an indictment.

Most indictments on felony offenses are plea-bargained.That means either an Alford plea or the defendant pleads guilty in hopes of getting a lighter sentence.

All homicides for 2010

Number of deaths: 16,259
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3

FISCAL YEAR 2010 STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS
(ACTUAL DATA AS OF THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2010)
OVERALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
160,696 matters received with 198,111 defendants—matters received decreased
by three percent
68,591 cases filed against 91,047 defendants—case filings increased by one
percent
67,697 cases against 88,369 defendants terminated—case terminations increased
by one percent
81,934 defendants convicted
93 percent conviction rate (BBM)
81 percent of convicted defendants sentenced to prison

The above comes from:
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
United States Attorneys’
Annual Statistical Report
Fiscal Year 2010

It seems fair to say that most guilty people are found guilty through due process of law. Yes, there are innocent people in prison. What does this have to do with the Ramsey case? At best, they were robbed of their chance to clear all suspicion (suspicion which appeared valid to a Grand Jury who spent months considering the evidence) and at worst JonBenet's killer(s) went Scot-free.

 

[Ausgirl]

BOESP, I raised the Chamberlain case for a couple of reasons. It was our version of JonBenet, in many ways, and the camps were every bit as firmly divided as they are in this case.

There was also evidence - actual and circumstantial, far more of the latter than the former, though. And the mother of the dead child was, after a complete circus and several years, sent to prison for murder.

Instead of child creators and incest rapists, though, Lindy and Michael were crazy religious cultists who sacrificed their baby. Or Satanists. Or their son did it, in a jealous fit and the parents were covering it up.

Only, they were not guilty. Lindy might've (to half the country, certainly to the jury) looked guilty, and things did look very 'hinky' and damning. But in the end, re-examination of the evidence years after the tabloids had forgotten her and the books deals dried up, proved Lindy - and her husband - quite innocent.

So the Chamberlain case went one further than the Ramseys' and secured a conviction - that's how guilty Lindy appeared. That's how much the evidence stacked up against her.

So her family not only lost their youngest child, but was put through untold amounts of further suffering, and for what?

Just some food for thought, as I read all these heated posts. A parallel that stood out in my mind. What if the Ramseys are also innocent?

How sad for them, if they are. And how would all that evidence against them be viewed, then?

<mod snip removed snarky comment>

 

[DeeDee249]

Rigor under "standard" conditions follows a 36-hour arc. Standard means indoor (room) temperature, which the basement would be considered. The R's basement was not a cold one, JR had claimed not to be in a rush to fix the window he had broken because the basement was rather warm.
Factors like vigorous exercise immediately before death and an fever can all affect rigor.
In JB's case, nothing unusual affected it. A body takes 12 hours to reach FULL rigor, and remains in this state for about 12 hours. It then begins to dissipate (also described as "passing off"). In JB's case, it perfectly conforms to the most accepted timeline- found at 1 pm in FULL rigor (indicating time of death of about midnight to 1 am), and still in full rigor when first examined by the coroner in the home in a 10-minute exam. At the time of the autopsy, which was 8 am the morning of the 27th, she had been dead approximately 30+ hours and rigor was beginning to pass off at that point.
Bones don't usually have to be broken to "break rigor" Massaging the corpse can work, but usually the joints have to be forced, and it can make an unpleasant sound that may sound like bones breaking.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP, I raised the Chamberlain case for a couple of reasons. It was our version of JonBenet, in many ways, and the camps were every bit as firmly divided as they are in this case.

There was also evidence - actual and circumstantial, far more of the latter than the former, though. And the mother of the dead child was, after a complete circus and several years, sent to prison for murder.

Instead of child creators and incest rapists, though, Lindy and Michael were crazy religious cultists who sacrificed their baby. Or Satanists. Or their son did it, in a jealous fit and the parents were covering it up.

Only, they were not guilty. Lindy might've (to half the country, certainly to the jury) looked guilty, and things did look very 'hinky' and damning. But in the end, re-examination of the evidence years after the tabloids had forgotten her and the books deals dried up, proved Lindy - and her husband - quite innocent.

So the Chamberlain case went one further than the Ramseys' and secured a conviction - that's how guilty Lindy appeared. That's how much the evidence stacked up against her.

So her family not only lost their youngest child, but was put through untold amounts of further suffering, and for what?

Just some food for thought, as I read all these heated posts. A parallel that stood out in my mind. What if the Ramseys are also innocent?

How sad for them, if they are. And how would all that evidence against them be viewed, then?

Glad to see some people get a nice cheery welcome to the thread, by the way. Sorry I can't agree with all the RDI, and be one of them.

Welcome Ausgirl. :seeya:

BBM. As for the evidence against the Ramseys, it leaves no doubt in my mind that one or both are guilty. The Grand Jury believed there was enough evidence to indict them both on child abuse resulting in the death of a child.

I haven't gotten my information from tabloids so let's make that clear. There's also no need to apologize for your position. As to the cheery welcome given to "some people," well, you can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. I try to operate on the principles of Hanlon's and Occam's Razors and Donald Duck's Razor: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. :facepalm:

 

[BOESP]

Rigor under "standard" conditions follows a 36-hour arc. Standard means indoor (room) temperature, which the basement would be considered. The R's basement was not a cold one, JR had claimed not to be in a rush to fix the window he had broken because the basement was rather warm.
Factors like vigorous exercise immediately before death and an fever can all affect rigor.
In JB's case, nothing unusual affected it. A body takes 12 hours to reach FULL rigor, and remains in this state for about 12 hours. It then begins to dissipate (also described as "passing off"). In JB's case, it perfectly conforms to the most accepted timeline- found at 1 pm in FULL rigor (indicating time of death of about midnight to 1 am), and still in full rigor when first examined by the coroner in the home in a 10-minute exam. At the time of the autopsy, which was 8 am the morning of the 27th, she had been dead approximately 30+ hours and rigor was beginning to pass off at that point.
Bones don't usually have to be broken to "break rigor" Massaging the corpse can work, but usually the joints have to be forced, and it can make an unpleasant sound that may sound like bones breaking.

Glad you brought this up DeeDee. I forgot to include JonBenet's state of rigor mortis in the list I posted about why I think she died around midnight.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think she was dead most likely by 4 or 5 am. I am starting there and moving backward...

 

[Ausgirl]

Welcome Ausgirl. :seeya:

Why, thank you!

I'm not suggesting anyone got their info from tabloids, just that there was as much division in that case as this one, it is a striking parallel.

And also pointing out that Lindy's conviction wasn't about opinions. The evidence -did- indeed look damning, and she -was- found guilty.

JonBenet may well have been molested prior to her murder, poor child. But did they prove the Ramseys were responsible for it? Apparently not, as no conviction was made, no trial brought. So my question there is, how firm is the evidence that the Ramseys caused this abuse? No conviction, not even any charges means, to me, plenty of room for doubt.

And why were none of them charged with 'child abuse leading to death'? = room for doubt

Like there is, IMO, for the whole RDI case across the board.

I am not crying 'innocent' here. To be clear. I am saying there's room for doubt, and room for exploring IDI theories. And room for feeling concerned for the welfare of a potentially innocent family, if they indeed are innocent.

To bring it back to Kolar, I am sure he's knowledgeable, thorough and is worth every ounce of respect offered him. But so were the men who had Lindy Chamberlain put away. You know?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just some comments that I feel are worthy of considering on felony offenses:

If a case makes it to court it is most likely a grand jury put them there with a true bill, followed by .
an indictment.

Most indictments on felony offenses are plea-bargained.That means either an Alford plea or the defendant pleads guilty in hopes of getting a lighter sentence.

All homicides for 2010

Number of deaths: 16,259
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3

FISCAL YEAR 2010 STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS
(ACTUAL DATA AS OF THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2010)
OVERALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
160,696 matters received with 198,111 defendants&#8212;matters received decreased
by three percent
68,591 cases filed against 91,047 defendants&#8212;case filings increased by one
percent
67,697 cases against 88,369 defendants terminated&#8212;case terminations increased
by one percent
81,934 defendants convicted
93 percent conviction rate (BBM)
81 percent of convicted defendants sentenced to prison

The above comes from:
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
United States Attorneys&#8217;
Annual Statistical Report
Fiscal Year 2010

It seems fair to say that most guilty people are found guilty through due process of law. Yes, there are innocent people in prison. What does this have to do with the Ramsey case? At best, they were robbed of their chance to clear all suspicion (suspicion which appeared valid to a Grand Jury who spent months considering the evidence) and at worst JonBenet's killer(s) went Scot-free.

Just because the conviction rate may be that high and I have to check these stats, Does not mean they are all guilty.

All it means is that just because the GJ indicted, Does not mean anyone is guilty.


http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

"About 10,000 people in the United States may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year"
"Based on these results, Huff estimated conservatively that 0.5 percent of the 1,993,880 convictions for index

crimes in 1990 were of innocent people. (Index crimes, which are reported by the FBI, are murder and non-negligent

manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson.)

That would result in an estimated 9,969 wrongful convictions."

"Our sample was stacked in favor of obtaining conservative estimates,"

The thought of someone innocent being convicted is way more disturbing to me than a guilty man going free.

 

[Venom]

BOESP, I raised the Chamberlain case for a couple of reasons. It was our version of JonBenet, in many ways, and the camps were every bit as firmly divided as they are in this case.

There was also evidence - actual and circumstantial, far more of the latter than the former, though. And the mother of the dead child was, after a complete circus and several years, sent to prison for murder.

Instead of child creators and incest rapists, though, Lindy and Michael were crazy religious cultists who sacrificed their baby. Or Satanists. Or their son did it, in a jealous fit and the parents were covering it up.

Only, they were not guilty. Lindy might've (to half the country, certainly to the jury) looked guilty, and things did look very 'hinky' and damning. But in the end, re-examination of the evidence years after the tabloids had forgotten her and the books deals dried up, proved Lindy - and her husband - quite innocent.

So the Chamberlain case went one further than the Ramseys' and secured a conviction - that's how guilty Lindy appeared. That's how much the evidence stacked up against her.

So her family not only lost their youngest child, but was put through untold amounts of further suffering, and for what?

Just some food for thought, as I read all these heated posts. A parallel that stood out in my mind. What if the Ramseys are also innocent?

How sad for them, if they are. And how would all that evidence against them be viewed, then?

<mod snip removed snarky comment>

Welcome Ausgirl :seeya:

 

[Ausgirl]

Cheers, Venom.

 

[BOESP]

Why, thank you!

I'm not suggesting anyone got their info from tabloids, just that there was as much division in that case as this one, it is a striking parallel.

And also pointing out that Lindy's conviction wasn't about opinions. The evidence -did- indeed look damning, and she -was- found guilty.

JonBenet may well have been molested prior to her murder, poor child. But did they prove the Ramseys were responsible for it? Apparently not, as no conviction was made, no trial brought. So my question there is, how firm is the evidence that the Ramseys caused this abuse? No conviction, not even any charges means, to me, plenty of room for doubt.

And why were none of them charged with 'child abuse leading to death'? = room for doubt

Like there is, IMO, for the whole RDI case across the board.

I am not crying 'innocent' here. To be clear. I am saying there's room for doubt, and room for exploring IDI theories. And room for feeling concerned for the welfare of a potentially innocent family, if they indeed are innocent.

To bring it back to Kolar, I am sure he's knowledgeable, thorough and is worth every ounce of respect offered him. But so were the men who had Lindy Chamberlain put away. You know?

BBM.

You are welcome. I enjoy reasonable discussions about this case.

The autopsy report leaves no doubt that JonBenet had been sexually abused in some manner before the night she died. There are a lot of good threads here covering that so I won't repeat all of that.

Based on Hunter's public statements and interviews, and information from Steve Thomas's book, the consensus of RDI's seems to be not that there was doubt about the Ramseys participation but that DA Hunter feared the cross-fingerpointing defense and him not being able to prosecute effectively because of that very real rebuttal. There didn't seem to be any doubt that one or both were guilty -- only a problem of who did what and a fear of loosing the case.

My personal opinion is, if Burke did it, then the Ramseys lawyers should have advised John and Patsy to keep their mouths shut and quit being media hounds. Let sleeping dogs lie but that's not what they did. The Ramseys spent way too much time being on television and most of it was about them, not JonBenet.

I don't see any room for reasonable doubt. There is always a glimmer of doubt in most anything but is it reasonable? In this case I see it as unreasonable not to put two and two together and come up with the statement that 12-23 people thought the evidence pointed to child abuse that resulted in the death of a child and that John and Patsy were responsible for that. That Grand Jury didn't make a rash, snap decision. They studied the evidence and made their own visit to the house on 755 15th Street and came back with a true bill.

Unfortunately, it seems like IDI theorists never want to present the evidence and logical sequence of events that steers them toward being IDI. It mostly seems to be beliefs and feelings based on limited anecdotal evidence. The TouchDNA is neither reasonable evidence for nor against the Ramseys. It is smoke and mirrors in this case and there are thread upon thread here that refutes its usefulness.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM.

The autopsy report leaves no doubt that JonBenet had been sexually abused in some manner before the night she died. There are a lot of good threads here covering that so I won't repeat all of that.

The consensus seems to be not that there was doubt about the Ramseys participation but that DA Hunter feared the cross-fingerpointing defense and him not being able to prosecute effectively because of that very real rebuttal. There didn't seem to be any doubt that one or both were guilty -- only a problem of who did what and a fear of loosing the case.

My personal opinion is, if Burke did it, then the Ramseys lawyers should have advised John and Patsy to keep their mouths shut and quit being media hounds. Let sleeping dogs lie but that's not what they did. The Ramseys spent way too much time being on television and most of it was about them, not JonBenet.

I don't see any room for reasonable doubt. There is always a glimmer of doubt in most anything but is it reasonable? In this case I see it as unreasonable not to put two and two together and come up with the statement that 12-23 people thought the evidence pointed to child abuse that resulted in the death of a child and that John and Patsy were responsible for that. That Grand Jury didn't make a rash, snap decision. They studied the evidence and made their own visit to the house on 755 15th Street and came back with a true bill.

Unfortunately, it seems like IDI theorists never want to present the evidence they steers them toward being IDI. It mostly seems to be beliefs and feelings. The DNA is not neither reasonable evidence for otr against the Ramseys. It is smoke and mirrors in this case and there are thread upon thread here that refutes its usefulness.

What consensus? because a consensus does not mean truth.. Just more people believing the same thing.

Some times the best way to find information and the truth is to chip away at what other people call evidence.

Since no one is in jail now it seems to me that it is more likely it was not someone from the family than someone in the the family. The crime itself does not make sense. The note does not make sense.

To me it looks like some plot gone awry more than a staging.
No way. Christmas night comes and after a nice holiday they decide to tie Jb up, Molest her and then bash her and garrote her.

It is incredulous without solid proof that any of the R's had a history of abuse or any history of depravity.

This was not a control killing or a heat of passion killing.This was a planned torture and assault and murder of a little girl.

 

[Chelly]

The Ramsey's lived in a sort of alternate reality. They considered themselves superior to the average person. Everything about the Ramsey's was about them and only them. They had an inflated sense of self. Their interviews and tv appearances, their "Team Ramsey" all prove that they did not even think like the rest of us.

The fact is JB had been repeatedly sexually assaulted in the days/weeks prior to her murder.

There only other people in the house when JB died were PR, JR, and BR.

The vaginal violation and ligature were cover-up and staging.

The RN was a pathetic piece of nonsense.

The GJ after interviewing BR came back with a true bill AGAINST PR and JR.....NOT an intruder.

 

[Venom]

Why, thank you!

I'm not suggesting anyone got their info from tabloids, just that there was as much division in that case as this one, it is a striking parallel.

And also pointing out that Lindy's conviction wasn't about opinions. The evidence -did- indeed look damning, and she -was- found guilty.

JonBenet may well have been molested prior to her murder, poor child. But did they prove the Ramseys were responsible for it? Apparently not, as no conviction was made, no trial brought. So my question there is, how firm is the evidence that the Ramseys caused this abuse? No conviction, not even any charges means, to me, plenty of room for doubt.

And why were none of them charged with 'child abuse leading to death'? = room for doubt

Like there is, IMO, for the whole RDI case across the board.

I am not crying 'innocent' here. To be clear. I am saying there's room for doubt, and room for exploring IDI theories. And room for feeling concerned for the welfare of a potentially innocent family, if they indeed are innocent.

To bring it back to Kolar, I am sure he's knowledgeable, thorough and is worth every ounce of respect offered him. But so were the men who had Lindy Chamberlain put away. You know?

I respect your opinion. What are your thoughts on an intruder?

I think that what others say is right in regards to none of the R's being charged. There was just too much for a "Who did what?" and risk of a hung jury or not guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The Ramsey's lived in a sort of alternate reality. They considered themselves superior to the average person. Everything about the Ramsey's was about them and only them. They had an inflated sense of self. Their interviews and tv appearances, their "Team Ramsey" all prove that they did not even think like the rest of us.

The fact is JB had been repeatedly sexually assaulted in the days/weeks prior to her murder.

There only other people in the house when JB died were PR, JR, and BR.

The vaginal violation and ligature were cover-up and staging.

The RN was a pathetic piece of nonsense.

The GJ after interviewing BR came back with a true bill AGAINST PR and JR.....NOT an intruder.

That is not fact but opinion. There is no absolute proof that there was no one else in that house.

The ligature is not staging. Not by a parent. No way.

They are who they were, Were they snobby? I don't think so, I think that once their dd was killed they just turned cold toward the police who they thought was going to help them and the media who was crucifying them.

The only fact is that there was a GJ finding.. But again, That is just not proof positive of anything.

 

[BOESP]

The Ramsey's lived in a sort of alternate reality. They considered themselves superior to the average person. Everything about the Ramsey's was about them and only them. They had an inflated sense of self. Their interviews and tv appearances, their "Team Ramsey" all prove that they did not even think like the rest of us.

The fact is JB had been repeatedly sexually assaulted in the days/weeks prior to her murder.

There only other people in the house when JB died were PR, JR, and BR.

The vaginal violation and ligature were cover-up and staging.

The RN was a pathetic piece of nonsense.

The GJ after interviewing BR came back with a true bill AGAINST PR and JR.....NOT an intruder.

Excellent post, Chelly. The autopsy is out there for all to read. The people in the house and the true bill are irrefutable. The FBI so stated as you did that the event was staged, even staging-within-staging, and that the note was also pretense.

Just those few statements are enough to raise my eyebrows.

Trained professionals or professional forum posters ... to whom should we give the most credence?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Excellent, concise, accurate post, Chelly. The autopsy is out there for all to read. The people in the house and the true bill are irrefutable. The FBI so stated as you did that the event was staged, even staging-within-staging, and that the note was also pretense.

Just those few statements are enough to raise my eyebrows.

Trained professionals or professional forum posters ... to whom should we give the most credence?

That is a really good question when so many here seem to fit that last bill.

Staging with in staging could be anyone. It makes no sense to stage it in your own home like that and write a note.

There is too much that does not make sense for it to be the ramseys. I think it is just easier for people if it is all laid at their feet.