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

[Chrishope]

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.

I for one respect the innocent status of the intruder. So much so that I refuse to even consider IDI.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I for one respect the innocent status of the intruder. So much so that I refuse to even consider IDI.

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.

 

[2 percent]

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?

People on forums are just like people everywhere...they have their quirks. Some people want to reason through, apply logic. Others are what I call the Chuck Schumer' s of the world, more interested in putting people in their place (as defined by him) than having discussion.
(Schumer' s solution for any Republican is for the leaders of the party to "send them home" or something similar. Shaming or bully tactics)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by RDI not being as strong. I'm RDI and if there's a place where they meet to test the strength of the theory, I'm unaware of it. I see the beliefs in this case as much more individual.
Now if you're saying some of the RDIs stick together on this site, it probably has more to do familiarity than solidarity.

I've been knocking around forums, specifically crime forums, for a very long time and the craziest most out of control supporters I ever met were Betty Broderick supporters. Most argue she is exonerated or forgiven because he cheated. That kind of crazy you don't find here. Thank God...and the angels:angel:

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.

Again, nothing functions in a vacuum. Police are usually pretty good but they bring their biases with them and sometimes what is called science is given a larger importance than it should.

At the time of Krone' s first trial , Daubert (SCOTUS case setting the standard for expert testimony) didn't exist.If it had, that baloney teethmark evidence wouldn't have passed the junk science smell test. What's puzzling is that Daubert did exist in the second trial. I haven't seen transcripts so I don't know if that standard was used but it should've been.

 

[2 percent]

I for one respect the innocent status of the intruder. So much so that I refuse to even consider IDI.

:silly: Now I have to get my keyboard cleaned again...and don't think I won't send you the bill! :floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

People on forums are just like people everywhere...they have their quirks. Some people want to reason through, apply logic. Others are what I call the Chuck Schumer' s of the world, more interested in putting people in their place (as defined by him) than having discussion.
(Schumer' s solution for any Republican is for the leaders of the party to "send them home" or something similar. Shaming or bully tactics)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by RDI not being as strong. I'm RDI and if there's a place where they meet to test the strength of the theory, I'm unaware of it. I see the beliefs in this case as much more individual.
Now if you're saying some of the RDIs stick together on this site, it probably has more to do familiarity than solidarity.

I've been knocking around forums, specifically crime forums, for a very long time and the craziest most out of control supporters I ever met were Betty Broderick supporters. Most argue she is exonerated or forgiven because he cheated. That kind of crazy you don't find here. Thank God...and the angels:angel:

I hear that. As with some insane people that think that truly guilty convicted people are innocent, That has to be chalked up to the peanut gallery for me. I have no issue calling the guilty guilty. It is not about that to me.
For me, RDI has many issues. We all look at this case from our experiences and from what we have learned and gathered from other cases. We look at the people who form their opinion and weigh that against what they say.
I know that there are many RDI theories but for me I have not found that one thing that convinces me that any of the R's were complicit in this crime.
That may be frustrating but it is what it is. I can not give up my thoughts and convictions to appease the masses. I believe with all my heart that we should indeed stand up for the innocent and not convict those innocent even in the court of public opinion. So for me, I will always be giving the benefit of the doubt until that doubt is gone for me.

Again, nothing functions in a vacuum. Police are usually pretty good but they bring their biases with them and sometimes what is called science is given a larger importance than it should.

At the time of Krone' s first trial , Daubert (SCOTUS case setting the standard for expert testimony) didn't exist.If it had, that baloney teethmark evidence wouldn't have passed the junk science smell test. What's puzzling is that Daubert did exist in the second trial. I haven't seen transcripts so I don't know if that standard was used but it should've been.

It was a true travesty of justice. The shoes were not his shoes nor his size, The jury got it wrong 2 times. Eventually the got the right person but until then this man spent years in prison. That is not acceptable to me.

Maybe if people can understand that my cause in chief is that no innocent person is ever convicted, they may be able to stomach my position. I need proof. It does not have to be video, or confession. But I need convincing proof to consider someone guilty.

 

[Augustgurl]

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.

Scarlett, how in the he?! can the police help them as you say they wanted WHEN THEY CLAM UP AND WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS!! I don't understand why you don't see this. And you talk like you " know" for a fact that the R's wouldn't do this to their child , and no possible way they'd do that after a sweet Christmas Day. How do YOU know? You say there was no history of depravity but the R's children were NEVER allowed to talk to authorities. The R machine got into full swing Xmas day shutting everyone up. People's medical records are sealed , we all know that. The R's had ALOT of money and paying off friends of JR's older daughters or anyone for that matter who matter to keep hush hush about anything they may have suspected or even been told. Money and power can do a lot of damage control and you'd be naive not to see that. How anyone who is IDI can discount a Grand Jury 13 mo investigation where they were privy to more than were getting perhaps is beyond me. I'm sure if the GJ came back WITHOUT a true bill all the IDI would be telling us (RDI) that is the proof positive they are innocent. :banghead:

 

[Augustgurl]

Here's another tidbit of RDI. I really took to heart Linda Arndts interview. She thot it strange that the R's wernt concerned about the time. That is the " kidnappers " said they'd call 8 to 10. They never noted the time or paid attention to a clock. When 10 oclock came and then went, neither parent went into a panic knwing that could possibly mean the end for their kidnapped child. Remember she was an eyewitness and first on the scene. Here's a good one, she said JR at one point got his mail and was perusing through it. Now before you come at me with " he was looking for something from kidnappers" LA specifically said he was simply looking through the mail casually. No dialogue. THAT'S ODD. So when I hear this" there's no way these loving parents could do the things they did to the child " look at some of these behaviors that tell otherwise. MOO

 

[BOESP]

There seems to be confusion about the purpose of the DOJ statistics I posted. The purpose was to demonstrate that Grand Juries usually get it right. The statistics are proof positive that 93% of felony true bills result in indictments that result in convictions or pleas bargains. Iirc (but did not post), 83 of all those felonies resulted in "not guilty."

There are very few cases when compared to total prison population, male and female, in the last decade or two who were released because on appeal or retrial, for one reason on another, were considered innocent or the ruling was overturned. For the innocent ones released, I am thankful. However, imo, that does not mean certain selected people should be exempt from trial.

The grand jury thought the Ramseys should be indicted for child abuse resulting in the death of a child. That's a fact.

 

[BOESP]

I for one respect the innocent status of the intruder. So much so that I refuse to even consider IDI.

Oh dear, we agree on two things in less than 24 hours. :drumroll:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, how in the he?! can the police help them as you say they wanted WHEN THEY CLAM UP AND WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS!! I don't understand why you don't see this. And you talk like you " know" for a fact that the R's wouldn't do this to their child , and no possible way they'd do that after a sweet Christmas Day. How do YOU know? You say there was no history of depravity but the R's children were NEVER allowed to talk to authorities. The R machine got into full swing Xmas day shutting everyone up. People's medical records are sealed , we all know that. The R's had ALOT of money and paying off friends of JR's older daughters or anyone for that matter who matter to keep hush hush about anything they may have suspected or even been told. Money and power can do a lot of damage control and you'd be naive not to see that. How anyone who is IDI can discount a Grand Jury 13 mo investigation where they were privy to more than were getting perhaps is beyond me. I'm sure if the GJ came back WITHOUT a true bill all the IDI would be telling us (RDI) that is the proof positive they are innocent. :banghead:

They seemed to focus on the Ramseys right away and I bet the lawyers felt that. The police had evidence in the house and then could have spoken to the Ramseys as their lawyer laid out. If you want info, you make it work. If the ramseys felt more comfortable with one det over another, what is the big deal? Interview them get what you can and that apply it to the case. But don't stonewall yourself and blame it all on them.

There is no history of any reports or police reports on the R's prior this event. They were not investigated before this event. There is no reports of abuse before this event. Nothing is out of the ordinary until this horrible event.

Christmas is a great time and most families tend to be in a good mood and excited. There is nothing to the contrary here. They went to parties, they socialized, They seemed to have a regular Christmas.

Medical records are private unless subpoenaed.
Show me proof they paid anyone off. That is rumor unless it has a proper foundation.

I think the GJ means little. It certainly does not mean someone is guilty. Only that they think there may be enough probable cause to bring it to trial. That is all. IT is not a finding of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Probable cause means only that there is more than 50% chance they could be guilty. Not that they are most likely guilty. Just that they see enough to try them on the charges and leave it to a jury.

I think that there was something hinky about the information given to the GJ. I think that could be a reason that the indictment never went further.

I don't ever see people lawyering up as something that means anything other than they are taking advantage of their rights.

I don't see the R's paying anyone off. No where. I see people claiming all kinds of things about R's and power but no proof of any of it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There seems to be confusion about the purpose of the DOJ statistics I posted. The purpose was to demonstrate that Grand Juries usually get it right. The statistics are proof positive that 93% of felony true bills result in indictments that result in convictions or pleas bargains. Iirc (but did not post), 83 of all those felonies resulted in "not guilty."

There are very few cases when compared to total prison population, male and female, in the last decade or two who were released because on appeal or retrial, for one reason on another, were considered innocent or the ruling was overturned. For the innocent ones released, I am thankful. However, imo, that does not mean certain selected people should be exempt from trial.

The grand jury thought the Ramseys should be indicted for child abuse resulting in the death of a child. That's a fact.

That does not mean they get it right. Because we know they don't when people are found to be innocent later. It only means that they set in motion a trial. the outcome is up to a jury and that is sadly not always reliable either.

 

[madeleine]

I for one respect the innocent status of the intruder. So much so that I refuse to even consider IDI.

:floorlaugh:
thanks,I needed the laugh,having a crappy day

 

[Venom]

They seemed to focus on the Ramseys right away and I bet the lawyers felt that. The police had evidence in the house and then could have spoken to the Ramseys as their lawyer laid out. If you want info, you make it work. If the ramseys felt more comfortable with one det over another, what is the big deal? Interview them get what you can and that apply it to the case. But don't stonewall yourself and blame it all on them.

There is no history of any reports or police reports on the R's prior this event. They were not investigated before this event. There is no reports of abuse before this event. Nothing is out of the ordinary until this horrible event.

Christmas is a great time and most families tend to be in a good mood and excited. There is nothing to the contrary here. They went to parties, they socialized, They seemed to have a regular Christmas.

Medical records are private unless subpoenaed.
Show me proof they paid anyone off. That is rumor unless it has a proper foundation.

I think the GJ means little. It certainly does not mean someone is guilty. Only that they think there may be enough probable cause to bring it to trial. That is all. IT is not a finding of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Probable cause means only that there is more than 50% chance they could be guilty. Not that they are most likely guilty. Just that they see enough to try them on the charges and leave it to a jury.

I think that there was something hinky about the information given to the GJ. I think that could be a reason that the indictment never went further.

I don't ever see people lawyering up as something that means anything other than they are taking advantage of their rights.

I don't see the R's paying anyone off. No where. I see people claiming all kinds of things about R's and power but no proof of any of it.

They focus on the family because they start inward and then work out. They couldn't do that in this case, as the R's wouldn't talk to them. And, yes, I know they had the right to a lawyer. The point people are trying to make to you is that they wouldn't answer some questions when they finally did agree to talk. Could the lawyers have told them not to answer so they wouldn't self incriminate?
Since when do people get to pick who interviews them? And where?
Good grief, you want people to see your side and say that people might learn some truths in hearing others- well then the same can be said to you.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

They focus on the family because they start inward and then work out. They couldn't do that in this case, as the R's wouldn't talk to them. And, yes, I know they had the right to a lawyer. The point people are trying to make to you is that they wouldn't answer some questions when they finally did agree to talk. Could the lawyers have told them not to answer so they wouldn't self incriminate?
Since when do people get to pick who interviews them? And where?
Good grief, you want people to see your side and say that people might learn some truths in hearing others- well then the same can be said to you.

They are not supposed to do that. They are supposed to start looking outward at the same time. There should be parallel investigations. That is the problem. They are supposed to be looking EVERYWHERE not at just one source. That is how you miss things and lose evidence.

I know they point people are making but it is irrelevant. Under the law they did not have to talk. THey had a lawyer who told them not to. That is that simple.
If they are not under arrest it is all voluntary and so why would it matter if they wanted to speak to a certain detective. That would actually work for the police because they may feel more open to talking.

I am listening. I read every post. Just because I don't agree with it does not mean I am not listening or open. I am always open. Just because I have not been convinced to change my thoughts, Does not mean I am not interested in what people have to say or ignoring their feelings about it. I just don't agree.

 

[Linda7NJ]

They seemed to focus on the Ramseys right away and I bet the lawyers felt that. The police had evidence in the house and then could have spoken to the Ramseys as their lawyer laid out. If you want info, you make it work. If the ramseys felt more comfortable with one det over another, what is the big deal? Interview them get what you can and that apply it to the case. But don't stonewall yourself and blame it all on them.

There is no history of any reports or police reports on the R's prior this event. They were not investigated before this event. There is no reports of abuse before this event. Nothing is out of the ordinary until this horrible event.

Christmas is a great time and most families tend to be in a good mood and excited. There is nothing to the contrary here. They went to parties, they socialized, They seemed to have a regular Christmas.

Medical records are private unless subpoenaed.
Show me proof they paid anyone off. That is rumor unless it has a proper foundation.

I think the GJ means little. It certainly does not mean someone is guilty. Only that they think there may be enough probable cause to bring it to trial. That is all. IT is not a finding of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Probable cause means only that there is more than 50% chance they could be guilty. Not that they are most likely guilty. Just that they see enough to try them on the charges and leave it to a jury.

I think that there was something hinky about the information given to the GJ. I think that could be a reason that the indictment never went further.

I don't ever see people lawyering up as something that means anything other than they are taking advantage of their rights.

I don't see the R's paying anyone off. No where. I see people claiming all kinds of things about R's and power but no proof of any of it.

Child abuse skyrockets on Christmas.

http://m.independentmail.com/news/2008/nov/29/child-abuse-increases-holidays-times-economic-tens/



http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ne...christmas-the-deadliest-day-of-the-year-study

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Child abuse skyrockets on Christmas.

http://m.independentmail.com/news/2008/nov/29/child-abuse-increases-holidays-times-economic-tens/



http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ne...christmas-the-deadliest-day-of-the-year-study

That article ties in finances to the equation too. Since we know that was not an issue for the R's that would not come into play. Since there was no abuse before hand this day, This is way over the top for a first event of abuse.
First link..
"“During the holidays, emotions are high. We find that especially … where there is a fractured family situation, often the children are used in ways that are inappropriate, such as being used as a weapon

against the other parent,” Brown said. “And anytime there is an economic slowdown, tensions run much higher. Tempers flare more quickly. ... Definitely there are far more emotions that come to the fore during holidays, and add to that frustration, financial burdens, "

BBM, Not the case here.

It seems this article talks about abuse already in play or some fracturing. Not what we have here.

The second article is just about an increase in death rates.. Which we know .

 

[Chelly]

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

Whatever are you talking about? I was responding to BOESP concerning his list of statistics. Perhaps you should have scrolled back and read more carefully before being accusatory. This isn't about you!:scared:

 

[Darlene733510]

It has been said that there is 90o/o of the evidence that has never been brought forward.
That is because AH was the deciding factor as to what should be sent to the lab, who should testify, etc. he even ignored the GJ's decision, and kept their decision under wraps, because he knew he wasn't capable of going any further with the case.
I am a BDI, and I won't go into all the reasons. I do feel that the parents did the staging to protect him.

So if this tragedy was brought to trial, and I doubt it will, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that the evidence in storage, and the uncalled witnesses would bring a guilty verdict, not for BR, because of the age factor, but on the one remaining family member who is guilty of all the staging, and tried to blame it on everyone but the kitchen sink.
If the R's had been poor people there would have been a prosecution 17 years ago.

 

[BOESP]

Good post #1518, Darlene733510.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

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.