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

[Ausgirl]

BBM.

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

I know. I do enjoy your posts.

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.

No need, I've read it. I don't actually have doubt that there is evidence of JonBenet being molested. I do need to read it agtain, however, it's been a long time now.

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.

This is actually a good point, and one I'll need to look at closely. I find it telling that there was such 'conviction', yet no conviction at all (forgive the wordplay) in all those years between the murder and Patsy's death, and beyond. But I can understand keeping a case open in the hope of secure prosecution.

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'm wary of "woulda-shoulda" statements, even when I make them! For every rule, there's an exception. Sometimes thousands of exceptions. And there's just no accounting for people, sometimes.

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.

And this is why I raise the Chamberlain case, in which there was physical evidence enough, and circumstantial evidence enough, to actually secure a conviction. (eta - and, I must add, in which case, the jury, the police, the prosecutors and a busload of "trained professionals" were -- completely wrong).

But yes, I do see my doubts as perfectly reasonable. Will anyone else? That remains to be seen. =P

Unfortunately, it seems like IDI theorists never want to present the evidence and logical sequence of events that steers them toward being IDI.

I'll ask a little patience. You too, Venom. I'm getting there. But will probably make a thread for it, when I'm ready.

 

[SapphireSteel]

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.

I don't think that people wish to blame parents for their child's death.

Not at all. In fact a lot of people believe that rejection of that thought by Joe Public is why the Ramseys got away with their crimes in the first place, me included. Even LE thought they were victims in the first instance.

I note that some folks don't think there is definitive evidence - there rarely is.

Courts and juries have to weigh evidence,consider what's presented, what's circumstantial, what's eyewitness, whatever is forensic.

It's only very recently that DNA has had any part to play in the justice system. Folks relied on common sense and circumstance only to decide guilt or innocence, even 30 years ago.

Now days a clever lawyer can swing this natural repugnance of infanticide, this lack of photographic proof, forensics, or even an eyewitnesses (notoriously unreliable) into Innocent until proven otherwise. The standard of "proof" is getting ridiculous.

Soon folks won't believe a crime was committed at all unless there's sky cam, dash cam, and a camera crew as well, all recording it for prime time tv.

A lot of times guilt or innocence seems to boil down to how much money you've got and how good a lawyer you can afford.

The Ramseys had A LOT of money. I don't think most people realise just how wealthy they were.

 

[BOESP]

Ausgirl, I gotta ask. What are circus pants?

 

[Chelly]

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.

Double thanks for those stats BOESP. Facts, unlike some things, are Real.

 

[BOESP]

Double thanks for those stats BOESP. Facts, unlike some things, are Real.

You are welcome. The full report can be downloaded here:

10statrpt.pdf

 

[Ausgirl]

(BOESP, not to derail the thread with my wardrobe tragedies.. but I have a pair of very interesting and motley hued baggy pants -- my daughter sent me a link to a picture of a circus performer looking quite depressed, with "I'm just a victim of circus pants" written on it - play on "circumstance" - as a bit of a dig and I am still laughing about it, months later. Having it in my sig-thing reminds me to smile, even when my head's immersed in tragedies. The pants really do deserve to be mocked, I must say.)

 

[Ausgirl]

Double thanks for those stats BOESP. Facts, unlike some things, are Real.

Chelly, I do hope I have not offended you? I'm sensing a bit of snark.

 

[Ausgirl]

or professional forum posters ...

Who would those be? All of us?

 

[BOESP]

Who would those be? All of us?

Let's just say some are more professional than others. :rockon:

 

[Chrishope]

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.

Change "should" to "would" and there is something you and I agree on.

 

[BOESP]

Change "should" to "would" and there is something you and I agree on.

So are you saying the Ramseys seem to have gone against what their lawyers advised them to do (or not do)?

 

[Ausgirl]

Let's just say some are more professional than others. :rockon:

*looks around nervously, smells own breath*

Why does Amazon not take paypal, is my next question. Having waded through Kolar's first few chapters, I'm feeling a bit unmoved to pay more than $9.99 for a copy, so am after a download source that will take PP.

I can't wait to get to the bit where there's actual facts. I've read synopses from friends who have a copy, but it's not the same as reading it for oneself.

 

[Chrishope]

So are you saying the Ramseys seem to have gone against what their lawyers advised them to do (or not do)?

No, I'm saying that I agree with you. I'd just change the word should to would, because, imo, not only should they have advised to let sleeping dogs lie, the would have so advised.

Forgive me, I'm being overly semantic.

It's another problem with BDI - what they did maximizes publicity and if BR really did it why would they want that?

The lawyers didn't advise to clam up because it's not BDI.

 

[BOESP]

No, I'm saying that I agree with you. I'd just change the word should to would, because, imo, not only should they have advised to let sleeping dogs lie, the would have so advised.

Forgive me, I'm being overly semantic.

It's another problem with BDI - what they did maximizes publicity and if BR really did it why would they want that?

The lawyers didn't advise to clam up because it's not BDI.

Okay on the semantics. I just didn't know what you meant. All is forgiven. :blowkiss:

Just so you'll know, I'm not a BDI.

 

[Chrishope]

Okay on the semantics. I just didn't know what you meant. All is forgiven. :blowkiss:

Just so you'll know, I'm not a BDI.

I know, that's what I like about you :floorlaugh:

 

[Venom]

*looks around nervously, smells own breath*

Why does Amazon not take paypal, is my next question. Having waded through Kolar's first few chapters, I'm feeling a bit unmoved to pay more than $9.99 for a copy, so am after a download source that will take PP.

I can't wait to get to the bit where there's actual facts. I've read synopses from friends who have a copy, but it's not the same as reading it for oneself.

Try ebay. I got mine on there from a member here for $14.99 including shipping. There is also a section on here to buy, sell, and trade.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think that people wish to blame parents for their child's death.

Not at all. In fact a lot of people believe that rejection of that thought by Joe Public is why the Ramseys got away with their crimes in the first place, me included. Even LE thought they were victims in the first instance.

I note that some folks don't think there is definitive evidence - there rarely is.

Courts and juries have to weigh evidence,consider what's presented, what's circumstantial, what's eyewitness, whatever is forensic.

It's only very recently that DNA has had any part to play in the justice system. Folks relied on common sense and circumstance only to decide guilt or innocence, even 30 years ago.

Now days a clever lawyer can swing this natural repugnance of infanticide, this lack of photographic proof, forensics, or even an eyewitnesses (notoriously unreliable) into Innocent until proven otherwise. The standard of "proof" is getting ridiculous.

Soon folks won't believe a crime was committed at all unless there's sky cam, dash cam, and a camera crew as well, all recording it for prime time tv.

A lot of times guilt or innocence seems to boil down to how much money you've got and how good a lawyer you can afford.

The Ramseys had A LOT of money. I don't think most people realise just how wealthy they were.

The Ramseys have not been convicted of anything so there is no "their Crimes" there is just your opinion that they were involved.

I believe in a lot of cases where it is mainly circumstantial because it make sense. This does not. It has nothing to do with the type of evidence for me but that there is a reasonable explanation that applies to the other side.

Who cares how much money they had? They had lawyers and were entitled to them. Money does not let you escape murder.. Not if there is a good case.. Lets toss out the OJ comaparison because that was not about money but a bad jury and a messed up case. Not his money.

People use the fact that they had money as some kind of fulcrum to push the guilty theory. That because they had money they were able to what? Get a lawyer? Everyone gets representation in this country and is not obligated to talk to police. That is a right and protection under the law for ALL people. It is so the police cannot force you to make mistakes that will work against you.

If this was a case where this child was found in her bed, bashed in the head, Molested and left there, Depending on the evidence that would be an easier sell. The garroting, the hands tied above the head, the place the body was left makes no sense for it to be the Ramseys.

None of them.

This is a depraved crime and someone who can garrote a little girl is a unique deviate. Not a parent with no prior history of abuse, No prior children reported to CPS, Nothing.

IT does not fit.

 

[Nom de plume]

I don't think that people wish to blame parents for their child's death.

Not at all. In fact a lot of people believe that rejection of that thought by Joe Public is why the Ramseys got away with their crimes in the first place, me included. Even LE thought they were victims in the first instance.

I note that some folks don't think there is definitive evidence - there rarely is.

Courts and juries have to weigh evidence,consider what's presented, what's circumstantial, what's eyewitness, whatever is forensic.

It's only very recently that DNA has had any part to play in the justice system. Folks relied on common sense and circumstance only to decide guilt or innocence, even 30 years ago.

Now days a clever lawyer can swing this natural repugnance of infanticide, this lack of photographic proof, forensics, or even an eyewitnesses (notoriously unreliable) into Innocent until proven otherwise. The standard of "proof" is getting ridiculous.

Soon folks won't believe a crime was committed at all unless there's sky cam, dash cam, and a camera crew as well, all recording it for prime time tv.

A lot of times guilt or innocence seems to boil down to how much money you've got and how good a lawyer you can afford.

The Ramseys had A LOT of money. I don't think most people realise just how wealthy they were.

BBM You said it all right there! Although I love CSI, it's one of the biggest obstacles facing prosecutors today. The problem is common sense is not common anymore! I often wonder how these people that so obviously lack any common sense manage to get by day to day. When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but someone says, "Hey just because it's got feathers, wings, and a bill, that doesn't mean anything!" "That's not proof it's a duck." "That's not a reliable source." "It could just as likely be a rhinoceros!" I've just got to SMH.

The really scary thing is the thought that these same people might end up on a jury one day. When that's the case (as it was in the OJ & CA trials) murderers walk free to kill again. :banghead:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Let's just say some are more professional than others. :rockon:

I agree. Some of us keep to the facts of the case and some like to pick at posters instead of keeping to the facts.

The point of this forum is to discuss the case. Dismissing people with alternate points of view as non professional, or not as smart is just bad form and also it leads me to believe the RDI is not as strong as people want it to be.

If so why be threatened by other thinking? or ideas? or comments?

As I am posting today I am watching the story of Ray Krone.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Ray_Krone.php

Innocent yet. Found Guilty twice before the defense fought so hard to get the evidence looked at over and over.

That is not how this system should work. People should only be convicted if they are proven guilty. They should not be able to be maligned and persecuted because people have made up crazy scenarios without a conviction or proof.

All we have is speculation. Sleuthing is not making up crazy stories or scenarios.

It is taking the evidence present, respecting people's innocent status and working the evidence in a way that is not personal but factual.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Double thanks for those stats BOESP. Facts, unlike some things, are Real.

Conviction rate means nothing if they are not all guilty. People are sent to prison innocent often.. too often.

Conviction rate only matters if the convicted are all 100% guilty.