What does Kolar say about

[UKGuy]

Chrishope,

JR and PR both had to know that in BDI -w/o staging- they weren't going to prison. (Assuming for the moment that BR is the chronic abuser) They had not done anything and the crime scene would be consistent with BDI. So unless they were very slow witted (and we can be reasonably sure JR wasn't) they knew as an absolute fact they would not go to prison if they just left everything alone and called 911. There would be no reason for police to suspect anything other than BDI. This isn't mind reading, this is just a straightforward conclusion. They didn't do the crime, the evidence does not suggest they did the crime, so they aren't going to prison. Surely you'll give them credit for being able to figure that out?

Whether or not they knew BR was too young to be charged, could go either way, but how hard was it for JR to get legal info? He's the kind of guy who can call his lawyer at 3am and get a polite answer to his question.

If they did all that staging in the mistaken belief they were saving Burke from going to prison, it's very tragic. A phone call could have given them all the info they needed to make a better decision. I can't believe JR didn't know that nearly all states have a minimum age for charging someone. Even if he didn't know the exact age in CO, wouldn't that be worth finding out before implicating yourself in a murder?


It gets a little more complicated if JR (or some people prefer PR) was the chronic abuser. Then the theory is that he had a reason to cover up. That makes more sense, but IMO is not really that convincing. Pretty hard to prove he was the one doing the chronic digital penetration. People would guess, but it's pretty unlikely there would be enough evidence for an indictment. Even if JR thought he might be convicted of child abuse, that is still preferable to going up for murder. So why stage it in such a way that police (well, you know, real police) would suspect them of murder?

If BR was the chronic abuser staging makes no real sense at all.

Chrishope,
I agree with you. if its BDI, then both parents know dialling 911 on the spot means they never run any risk of conviction.

Now regardless of what we think the parents knew, who they could access for information etc, they chose to stage the homicide of JonBenet!

Now the staging was enacted to save someone's skin whether it be JR, PR or BR? I think we all intuitively know putting your hands up and saying Burke Did It, or John Did It, or Patsy Did It, carry a lower risk.

The R's patently decided to roll the dice and go for staging. John and Patsy must have agreed on this strategy since they both played their roles, even offering versions of events that could never have taken place, e.g. chair in front of the basement door.

So your assessment of the risk and theirs differs for some particular reason, probably because they thought they could mask whomever killed JonBenet and fake a crime-scene, which from their perspective seemed better than pointing the finger directly at say Burke.

If BR was the chronic abuser staging makes no real sense at all.

Obviously there were more factors considered than sentencing outcomes?


Maybe the R's were fatalists, e.g. they thought if Burke is publicly blamed for the death of his sister etc, then our reputation will be tarnished, so they thought lets roll the dice and go for a staged crime-scene, that way we can defend ourselves, and if we are detected, well we get a similar outcome.


.

 

[Roy23]

Chrishope,
I agree with you. if its BDI, then both parents know dialling 911 on the spot means they never run any risk of conviction.

Now regardless of what we think the parents knew, who they could access for information etc, they chose to stage the homicide of JonBenet!

Now the staging was enacted to save someone's skin whether it be JR, PR or BR? I think we all intuitively know putting your hands up and saying Burke Did It, or John Did It, or Patsy Did It, carry a lower risk.

The R's patently decided to roll the dice and go for staging. John and Patsy must have agreed on this strategy since they both played their roles, even offering versions of events that could never have taken place, e.g. chair in front of the basement door.

So your assessment of the risk and theirs differs for some particular reason, probably because they thought they could mask whomever killed JonBenet and fake a crime-scene, which from their perspective seemed better than pointing the finger directly at say Burke.


Obviously there were more factors considered than sentencing outcomes?


Maybe the R's were fatalists, e.g. they thought if Burke is publicly blamed for the death of his sister etc, then our reputation will be tarnished, so they thought lets roll the dice and go for a staged crime-scene, that way we can defend ourselves, and if we are detected, well we get a similar outcome.


.

I think what Chris is saying and logic dictates that John would never conspire to cover up either and accident or murder. It doesn't seem logical at all and John is too smart for that. Not even LE has promoted a theory such as that. Thomas blamed Patsy and Kolar insinuates Burke with JR having to cover up for the both of them being a stupid idea in the first place.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

there you go.......everyone on here just argues for argument's sake...I give up.

Whoa. How was I arguing with you? I wasn't posting a different opinion just for fun but because I actually disagree.

 

[KoldKase]

there you go.......everyone on here just argues for argument's sake...I give up.

That's a bit of a broad stroke of an insult, don't you think? "Everyone on here"?

This is a forum for "debate": it's all we have in this case because there has never been a trial or any resolution. It is primarily RDI, but there are forums which are primarily IDI, as well.

The "argument" here is in fact how we put together information, take it apart, test it, and determine what we may or may not learn from it.

It's not personal.

I know it gets hot and testy at times, but I don't think the answer you are responding to is anything other than a counterpoint.

JMO, of course.

 

[Roy23]

That's a bit of a broad stroke of an insult, don't you think? "Everyone on here"?

This is a forum for "debate": it's all we have in this case because there has never been a trial or any resolution. It is primarily RDI, but there are forums which are primarily IDI, as well.

The "argument" here is in fact how we put together information, take it apart, test it, and determine what we may or may not learn from it.

It's not personal.

I know it gets hot and testy at times, but I don't think the answer you are responding to is anything other than a counterpoint.

JMO, of course.

I think Fair M is saying that if we take off our RDI and IDI glasses and look at the evidence from both sides we will accomplish more. I know that is hard because everyone thinks RDI or IDI. We don't really have proof of that, we just have information that leads us in that direction.

I mean now this case has a poop story and we are turning it into evidence when we don't even know if it was tested or pertinent. I understand we are here to philosophize but none of us really work together. It is way it is.

 

[KoldKase]

I think what Chris is saying and logic dictates that John would never conspire to cover up either and accident or murder. It doesn't seem logical at all and John is too smart for that. Not even LE has promoted a theory such as that. Thomas blamed Patsy and Kolar insinuates Burke with JR having to cover up for the both of them being a stupid idea in the first place.

This is in general to all who are in this debate right now, just my thoughts, nothing more.

I'm not sure the Ramseys would have been "home free" as far as legal charges if it was all BDI.

I say this because not that long ago, maybe a year or so, there was a poster here and at FFJ who wrote about some issues with the law which would have applied in the instance of the Ramsey case. I'm going to be vague as it's been a while and I will have to try to find it again--and I don't even remember who the poster was. :waitasec:

But to remind those who have managed to miss my obnoxiously repetitious point about it, we have no idea what calls the Ramseys could have made in the middle of the night on Dec. 25-26, because Hunter blocked any subpoena for the phone records and when the Ramseys selected what they would allow the BPD to see a year later, that month was entirely blank for one cell phone.

I know people love to act like this is nothing, but it is quite NOT nothing: it's HUGE. That evidence could have solved this case in one week, if the phone was used to get legal or other assistance for the Ramseys that night. Now it's just more speculation in a case destroyed early on by just such favoritism to a rich, influential family.

But my main point is this: the legal issue to which I am referring is the parents could have been charged with negligent homicide or something similar, because they failed to protect their child in a clearly deadly situation involving either criminal acts against her--the chronic, ongoing sexual assault by an adult--or at the very least physical abuse which may not have been illegal if Burke were the abuser, but would have been illegal if the parents KNEW and did not act to prevent further abuse.

Which clearly they did not.

I'm not sure I'm being clear about this. As I said, it's not a legal area I know and the information posted about it was news to many of us.

I do think JR and Patsy may have gotten similar information that night from their legal advisor, or maybe even before that night.

We'll never know, I suspect. But if they did, and if that meant they had to conceal the ongoing sexual abuse--a subject just now being accepted in general, even though the autopsy has been there with the evidence available for 15 years--to protect themselves as well as Burke, this could have factored into the cover up.

If no one else remembers the legal topic I'm addressing, which was here at some point, as well, I'll try to dig it up.

 

[KoldKase]

I think Fair M is saying that if we take off our RDI and IDI glasses and look at the evidence from both sides we will accomplish more. I know that is hard because everyone thinks RDI or IDI. We don't really have proof of that, we just have information that leads us in that direction.

I mean now this case has a poop story and we are turning it into evidence when we don't even know if it was tested or pertinent. I understand we are here to philosophize but none of us really work together. It is way it is.

I guess it's just point of view, then, because I thought we were all working together. We are human, though, and disagreeing and having opinions is pretty much a given, in my experience.

Philosophy? That's a moving target.

 

[Tadpole12]

If BDI, maybe his parents did not have the option of calling 911 because she was well and truly dead by the time they knew. The physically hardest part of her murder is supposed to be the head bash which occurred before anything was done to her neck, so to me it seems if he is capable of that blow, the subsequent activities are well within his physical capabilities.

I must admit I first was aghast coming across BDI theories. Seemed absurd even though I lent towards RDI. Without being specific I have since come across child behaviour and family dynamics that make me understand how parents would go to cover-up versus what we'd expect most would do which is call for medical assistance regardless, with no immediate thought as to the consequences for the guilty party.

Listening to adult participants of consensual kinks, many report an interest in these activities at a very young age and even if they were unaware that it was a sexual interest. So without knowing why they found non-sexualised images of say, cowboys tied up in a comic book, as compelling and would like to play out these scenarios. Many people have those inclinations that they only indulge in their minds or in safe scenarios, it's not uncommon. I think it is common enough that it could overlap with a child with behavioural issues, an early interest in sexuality, and go very very wrong.

I believe Patsy wrote the note and potentially John dealt with JonBenet's body. It makes sense to me why Burke was sent away in this scenario. Why the parents are loyal to each other. The staging is perhaps not in the ligature but in the cleaning and placing of her body.

I am going to get this book when it is on kindle simply because I am very interested in what's been written about Burke and if it lines up with my musings.

heyya ozazure,

Your post makes me think back to Dawna Kaufmann's comments on
WS blog radio show, when she suggested that the bindings around JBR's hands
had a functionality within a 'sex game'.

DK: If all there were were vaginal injuries and genital injuries, then we could make this, you know,
a parlor game. Or whatever. We could do that what if. But there was another thing, she had, she was
gently, manually, strangled before she went into, which depressed her vargas nerve, which caused her
to have spasms, from which she could not be shaken out of, and then she was killed.
Then during that process, she had a rope around her neck, and also tied over her sweater, very
lightly. As if to lead her around, not to restrain her. So that becomes a different kind of game that
may not have been just, you know, poking her sexually. Perhaps the poking sexually, that happened as a
result, right as she was dying, which left the blood in her underpants, was to cover up the previous
chronic assaults. Because otherwise, once she started going into spasms, she should have been carried
to the hospital where the previous molestation would have been discovered. And that would be a
different thing. There was a point in which her killer or killers decided to finish her off and
create a hoax of a situation. So it's the geschtalt of it, the whole thing you have to look at .
to get. Which so interesting from so many points of view. It does not seem to be typical in any way.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
I agree with you. if its BDI, then both parents know dialling 911 on the spot means they never run any risk of conviction.

Thank you for putting that more succinctly and understandably than I've been able to do.

Now regardless of what we think the parents knew, who they could access for information etc, they chose to stage the homicide of JonBenet!

Now the staging was enacted to save someone's skin whether it be JR, PR or BR?

I think we all intuitively know putting your hands up and saying Burke Did It, or John Did It, or Patsy Did It, carry a lower risk.

I'm not sure I follow. Are we still in BDI? The only scenario in which I think it makes sense just to tell the truth is BDI (where BR is the abuser)

The R's patently decided to roll the dice and go for staging. John and Patsy must have agreed on this strategy since they both played their roles, even offering versions of events that could never have taken place, e.g. chair in front of the basement door.

Agreed.

So your assessment of the risk and theirs differs for some particular reason, probably because they thought they could mask whomever killed JonBenet and fake a crime-scene, which from their perspective seemed better than pointing the finger directly at say Burke.

It might very well be that their assessment of risk differs from mine. I can only know what the evidence we have suggests. The Rs obviously have more knowledge than I of various details. Among those details might be month of Dec. phone calls. It might also have been a call to someone in a position of power who told them what to do. I don't know. I can only try to theorize based on the available evidence. It could also be, as you seem to be suggesting, that they simply had a lot of confidence in their ability to fool the authorities with their staging.

OTOH, it might be that they chose staging because it's actually RDI (and not BDI) and staging was their only real option other than doing nothing, which leaves them very vulnerable in an RDI scenario.

Obviously there were more factors considered than sentencing outcomes?

That may be. I've kind of stopped arguing about whether they'd run these risks to protect their public image. People seem to either believe they would, or not. I'm really just focusing on their legal risks.

Maybe the R's were fatalists, e.g. they thought if Burke is publicly blamed for the death of his sister etc, then our reputation will be tarnished, so they thought lets roll the dice and go for a staged crime-scene, that way we can defend ourselves, and if we are detected, well we get a similar outcome.


.

I don't see that the outcomes would be similar.

 

[Chrishope]

I think what Chris is saying and logic dictates that John would never conspire to cover up either and accident or murder.
It doesn't seem logical at all and John is too smart for that. Not even LE has promoted a theory such as that. Thomas blamed Patsy and Kolar insinuates Burke with JR having to cover up for the both of them being a stupid idea in the first place.

I'm saying in RDI, it makes sense to stage the intruder as it can't increase their risk (they are already at risk for murder) and may lower their risk if they can fool the 12th juror. (Or even better, if they can fool police and investigators)

I'm saying that in BDI, their legal risk is zero - at least as far as murder charges- so staging tends to increase their risk, as it looks like they tried to cover up a murder done by one or both Rs.

I have given up trying to convince anyone that their public image is not worth going to prison for. It seems to be an article of faith that they would run any level of risk to protect that image. I do not argue religion.

 

[Chrishope]

This is in general to all who are in this debate right now, just my thoughts, nothing more.

I'm not sure the Ramseys would have been "home free" as far as legal charges if it was all BDI.

I say this because not that long ago, maybe a year or so, there was a poster here and at FFJ who wrote about some issues with the law which would have applied in the instance of the Ramsey case. I'm going to be vague as it's been a while and I will have to try to find it again--and I don't even remember who the poster was. :waitasec:

But to remind those who have managed to miss my obnoxiously repetitious point about it, we have no idea what calls the Ramseys could have made in the middle of the night on Dec. 25-26, because Hunter blocked any subpoena for the phone records and when the Ramseys selected what they would allow the BPD to see a year later, that month was entirely blank for one cell phone.

I know people love to act like this is nothing, but it is quite NOT nothing: it's HUGE. That evidence could have solved this case in one week, if the phone was used to get legal or other assistance for the Ramseys that night. Now it's just more speculation in a case destroyed early on by just such favoritism to a rich, influential family.

But my main point is this: the legal issue to which I am referring is the parents could have been charged with negligent homicide or something similar, because they failed to protect their child in a clearly deadly situation involving either criminal acts against her--the chronic, ongoing sexual assault by an adult--or at the very least physical abuse which may not have been illegal if Burke were the abuser, but would have been illegal if the parents KNEW and did not act to prevent further abuse.

Which clearly they did not.

I'm not sure I'm being clear about this. As I said, it's not a legal area I know and the information posted about it was news to many of us.

I do think JR and Patsy may have gotten similar information that night from their legal advisor, or maybe even before that night.

We'll never know, I suspect. But if they did, and if that meant they had to conceal the ongoing sexual abuse--a subject just now being accepted in general, even though the autopsy has been there with the evidence available for 15 years--to protect themselves as well as Burke, this could have factored into the cover up.

If no one else remembers the legal topic I'm addressing, which was here at some point, as well, I'll try to dig it up.

I'm reluctant to respond too quickly, as your points on charges of sexual abuse deserve some thought - which takes time.

It strikes me that negligent homicide is unlikely unless the Rs had some reason to suspect BR was likely to harm his sister. They can't watch the kids 24/7, so unless there were some other circumstances, such as recent threats by BR for example, I just don't see any charges relating to her being killed. But I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone who is could weigh in?

If one of the parents is the abuser, they know what the potential evidence is. I think the prior abuse is pretty hard to pin on any particular individual - the evidence that there was prior abuse is present, the evidence to link it to an individual is, by the night of her murder, gone. If BR was the chronic abuser and they knew it, then yes, they might be facing some charges - depending on what, if anything, they'd done about it. IMO those the consequences of those charges would pale in comparison to implicating one's self in murder.

If they did get legal advice, as you speculate, surely they were informed of the fact that BR could not be charged with a crime.

I'm going to give this particular topic -when/why would staging make sense a rest. There are new developments from the Kolar book to focus on.

 

[KoldKase]

I'm saying in RDI, it makes sense to stage the intruder as it can't increase their risk (they are already at risk for murder) and may lower their risk if they can fool the 12th juror. (Or even better, if they can fool police and investigators)

I'm saying that in BDI, their legal risk is zero - at least as far as murder charges- so staging tends to increase their risk, as it looks like they tried to cover up a murder done by one or both Rs.

I have given up trying to convince anyone that their public image is not worth going to prison for. It seems to be an article of faith that they would run any level of risk to protect that image. I do not argue religion.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but perhaps, in their minds, staging the scene did not run any risk, as others have said, I know.

I know we've discussed for years that if BDI...all of it but writing the ransom note...there was no crime, as he was a minor. So going for a cover up was simply rolling the dice, with two possible outcomes: people believed it was an intruder and Burke wouldn't have to live with the stigma of monstrously killing his sister; or the staging wouldn't be convincing and the worst case was nothing more than what they already faced. They had nothing to lose, IOW.

I don't include obstruction of justice as a risk because in Boulder, that's obviously not a crime, as two DAs did it freely for 11 years.

In this case, the issue is did Burke also strangle her. If he didn't, if that was the parent/s, then it does become another crime altogether. If for cover up, or if somehow they missed that she was still alive and this was committing murder as well, or if they knew that she was alive but time was running out and so, since she was dying anyway--there could have been little doubt about that--they went on with the staging to help Burke, that's still premeditated murder.

In any of these cases, what was in their minds, we can't know. What legal and/or medical advice they may have gotten, we don't know. Someone on these forums who worked in the legal community--allegedly--once claimed to know that they did make more than one phone call that night, but as usual, no source was given and no details, so it's just more gossip.

What the evidence proves is all we can know. It has always been a question of confusing elements, and I've often wondered if this was a three person crime which caused that. Since the important part of this cover up happened out of the DA's Office, it's doubtful we will ever know the undisguised truth.

 

[KoldKase]

Okay, found it at FFJ, and it was...no surprise here...cynic who had the "felony murder" issue covered.

Here is the thread, which I had started after following Molly Midyette's charges and conviction for her baby's death. I was wondering if these charges related to the Ramsey case, as well.

The first two pages are mostly discussion of those particular questions:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10020"]Could Patsy have been tried for negligent homicide? - Forums For Justice[/ame]

On page three, cynic arrives and has the legal issues covered. MY conclusion: ARREST PATSY. :jail:

 

[Chrishope]

I'm starting to read up on the Midyette case. Only read a handful of articles so far, but it appears that the facts of the case are significantly different than the Ramsey case.

Jason Midyette had 22 to 27 broken bones as well as a skull fracture when he was taken to the hospital. He was only 10 weeks old at the TOD. It would be hard to believe the mother was unaware of the injuries. No medical care was sought for these chronic injuries in the weeks prior to his death - until the night he was taken to the hospital.

JBs skull fracture, I'm assuming, happened the night of the 25th/morning of the 26th. There were no other broken bones. The chronic vaginal injuries would not have been noticeable by PR unless she actually looked for them. And of course PR did take JB to the doctor many many times.

Thanks for the link. I really only follow the JBR case but I may delve into the Midyette case in some depth.

 

[Nehemiah]

I think Fair M is saying that if we take off our RDI and IDI glasses and look at the evidence from both sides we will accomplish more. I know that is hard because everyone thinks RDI or IDI. We don't really have proof of that, we just have information that leads us in that direction.

You are incorrect when you say 'everyone'. I plainly state that I am neither RDI or IDI, and I have been reading here for 12.5 years.

 

[BOESP]

there you go.......everyone on here just argues for argument's sake...I give up.

Well, the result of two conflicting opinions in the two above posts results in one of us stating they are giving up. Actually, FairM, I think this is a great example of what would have happened with a jury presented with a case defended with the cross-fingerpointing defense. I'd say the Ramseys won by default.

Don't get me wrong. I wholly understand what you are saying, especially toward any argument that is repeated a dozen times by the same person. Repetition doesn't make an opinion fact.

I just think your statement, which is based on two valid posts made above, #94 and #95, is a great illustration of why the Ramseys weren't prosecuted. Thanks! :maddening:

 

[BOESP]

That's ok Roy. I'm willing to be the lone RDI who doesn't think it's BDI, just as you are the lone (almost) IDI.

I just think JR was a lot better at relating risk to reward than he's being given credit for.

That's a presumptuous statement that isn't true. What's the point?

 

[Roy23]

You are incorrect when you say 'everyone'. I plainly state that I am neither RDI or IDI, and I have been reading here for 12.5 years.

Fair enough. I should have said the majority. I apologize

 

[Nehemiah]

Fair enough. I should have said the majority. I apologize

I was mostly being an agitator. No apology needed.

 

[SyraKelly]

I think when people read the book & see the sequence of events between JR-FW & French's visit to the basement-base on their own words-the IDI theory really is hard to believe.This again JMO-
My biggest ah moment was-why did the intruder use a suitcase to get back out the window-when their was a chair?