What does Kolar say about

[UKGuy]

Let's be clear here. If it's AEA say of a teenage son, who has accidentally killed himself, it basically is a suicide. They are just staging to hide the AEA. Which leaves them vulnerable to obstruction of justice, but not murder.

But perhaps you had a different scenario in mind?



Right, so BR didn't help with the staging no matter what scenario you prefer.

Right, so most likely they were trying to lower their risk by introducing the intruder theory ?

No. If it's BDI, one option they had was to call 911, let the ambulance crew do what they could (probably nothing that would actually save her). The ambulance crew or the hospital staff would call the police (unless the 911 call included the info that BR did it, then police would arrive about the same time as the ambulance) then they take whatever "tarnishment" might occur to their public image. From the standpoint of legal trouble, this is a very low risk situation for all 3. No one is going to prison. So, staging, which makes the Rs appear that they might be the murderers increases their risk.[/QUOTE]

Chrishope,

No one is going to prison.

And your source for this nugget is? How do you know the R's knew this?

So, staging, which makes the Rs appear that they might be the murderers increases their risk.

Assuming BDI. Not that they might, but quite likely that one of them asphyxiated JonBenet. And if its JDI or PDI the same applies with the accomplice risking the homicide charge.

It might be that dialling 911 and requesting medical assistance, in the BDI case, offered the best outcome, but you have to demonstrate that the R's knew this, and declined to exercise that option.

 

[Chrishope]

Staging TRIES to lower the risk, yes, the whole reason it is done, ever, anyway.



This is a total assumption based on your simple beliefs about the crime scene, what you believe they believed or knew about the law, and that the only thing to worry about is whether neither of them would be found guilty.

Right, you HAVE to minimize and simplify/eliminate the other factors, in order to believe as you do.

It is not prudent though, to elminate those factors, especially with all we know about this case..... all I'm saying.

The Rs know they aren't going to prison if it's BDI - and if they do not stage. They don't need any legal knowledge to know that.

Now if you want to say they didn't know BR was too young to be charged with a crime, that's fine. That could be. But certainly they knew he couldn't be tried as an adult, and with JR's position and money don 't you think it's likely he could get legal info anytime he wanted? Even in the wee hours of the 26th? As primitive as the "net" was in '96 could he have found that info by doing a search?

It's really not much of a stretch to think they knew what legal predicament they were in.

 

[Whaleshark]

The Rs know they aren't going to prison if it's BDI - and if they do not stage. They don't need any legal knowledge to know that.

Now if you want to say they didn't know BR was too young to be charged with a crime, that's fine. That could be. But certainly they knew he couldn't be tried as an adult, and with JR's position and money don 't you think it's likely he could get legal info anytime he wanted? Even in the wee hours of the 26th? As primitive as the "net" was in '96 could he have found that info by doing a search?

It's really not much of a stretch to think they knew what legal predicament they were in.

And that's really the whole crux of this.

You presume to know everything that the Ramseys did or didn't know.

The Omniscience fallacy -

- Argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute

 

[Chrishope]

And that's really the whole crux of this.

You presume to know everything that the Ramseys did or didn't know.

The Omniscience fallacy -

- Argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute

It's not much of a presumption to say they knew they weren't going to jail in a non-staged BDI scenario. If it really was BDI and they didn't stage, the crime scene would look like BDI, or at least be consistent with BDI. Since, in BDI, the Rs had not done anything, absent staging how could they possibly be going to jail? It's a logical conclusion. It's not really even a presumption. It's a stone cold fact. They HAD to know that they were not going to jail.

Now if you want to say they didn't know Burke wasn't going to jail that's fine. Maybe they didn't. I'm just saying it's likely that they did. If they didn't already know the minimum age for charging someone with a crime in CO, and if they couldn't find the info on the relatively primitive internet of '96, JR was the kind of man who could call his lawyer in the middle of the night and get an answer. Really, I have not presumed very much at all here.

In fact, I'm not presuming at all. I'm not saying absolutely the Rs knew BR wasn't going to prison, just that it seems more likely than not. For me, the case is all about probabilities. Anything is possible. Fewer things are probable.

 

[Roy23]

It's not much of a presumption to say they knew they weren't going to jail in a non-staged BDI scenario. If it really was BDI and they didn't stage, the crime scene would look like BDI, or at least be consistent with BDI. Since, in BDI, the Rs had not done anything, absent staging how could they possibly be going to jail? It's a logical conclusion. It's not really even a presumption. It's a stone cold fact. They HAD to know that they were not going to jail.

Now if you want to say they didn't know Burke wasn't going to jail that's fine. Maybe they didn't. I'm just saying it's likely that they did. If they didn't already know the minimum age for charging someone with a crime in CO, and if they couldn't find the info on the relatively primitive internet of '96, JR was the kind of man who could call his lawyer in the middle of the night and get an answer. Really, I have not presumed very much at all here.

In fact, I'm not presuming at all. I'm not saying absolutely the Rs knew BR wasn't going to prison, just that it seems more likely than not. For me, the case is all about probabilities. Anything is possible. Fewer things are probable.

Chris,

You know i respect you. I think you are wrong on a lot of this. RDI only makes sense if BDI. Unless you think two psychopaths lived in that house, it is BDI if RDI.

 

[wonderllama]

I think a lot of people are starting to come around to that theory to be honest.
And extending that idea that if RDI, BDI....it also means that they WERE all involved surely.

 

[BOESP]

If the R's were so concerned about protecting their reputation, why did they go on CNN?

In my opinion, it was a case of scripted CYA and arrogance.

 

[Roy23]

I think a lot of people are starting to come around to that theory to be honest.
And extending that idea that if RDI, BDI....it also means that they WERE all involved surely.

I am not tooting my own horn here, but I have said that from day 1

 

[wonderllama]

Toot away!

 

[Chrishope]

Chris,

You know i respect you. I think you are wrong on a lot of this. RDI only makes sense if BDI. Unless you think two psychopaths lived in that house, it is BDI if RDI.

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.

 

[Chrishope]

No. If it's BDI, one option they had was to call 911, let the ambulance crew do what they could (probably nothing that would actually save her). The ambulance crew or the hospital staff would call the police (unless the 911 call included the info that BR did it, then police would arrive about the same time as the ambulance) then they take whatever "tarnishment" might occur to their public image. From the standpoint of legal trouble, this is a very low risk situation for all 3. No one is going to prison. So, staging, which makes the Rs appear that they might be the murderers increases their risk.

Chrishope,

And your source for this nugget is? How do you know the R's knew this?

Assuming BDI. Not that they might, but quite likely that one of them asphyxiated JonBenet. And if its JDI or PDI the same applies with the accomplice risking the homicide charge.

It might be that dialling 911 and requesting medical assistance, in the BDI case, offered the best outcome, but you have to demonstrate that the R's knew this, and declined to exercise that option.

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.

 

[ozazure]

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.

 

[txsvicki]

John spoke of not being able to find work and how once a reputation is tarnished it stays tarnished. Some people would do anything to protect their money and status.

 

[FairM]

John spoke of not being able to find work and how once a reputation is tarnished it stays tarnished. Some people would do anything to protect their money and status.

It failed spectacularly though didn't it? Their repuatation in tatters, money gone to the extent John ended up living on his boat for a period of time, job gone...........

 

[eileenhawkeye]

It failed spectacularly though didn't it? Their repuatation in tatters, money gone to the extent John ended up living on his boat for a period of time, job gone...........

I would argue that it wasn't a failure. They never went to jail. They never even had to go through a trial. I never heard about John living on his boat, but they still had enough money to keep the private jet (I think they still have more than one), send Burke to private school, and John can still afford multiple houses across the US. As we saw from John's media tour, he can still get airtime on any show very easily. The case remains one of the most notorious. John has said that although the media "vilified" them, people were great, so I don't believe him and Patsy were ever harassed in public, at least not on a "every time they left the house" extent.

 

[FairM]

I would argue that it wasn't a failure. They never went to jail. They never even had to go through a trial. I never heard about John living on his boat, but they still had enough money to keep the private jet (I think they still have more than one), send Burke to private school, and John can still afford multiple houses across the US. As we saw from John's media tour, he can still get airtime on any show very easily. The case remains one of the most notorious. John has said that although the media "vilified" them, people were great, so I don't believe him and Patsy were ever harassed in public, at least not on a "every time they left the house" extent.

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

 

[Roy23]

I would argue that it wasn't a failure. They never went to jail. They never even had to go through a trial. I never heard about John living on his boat, but they still had enough money to keep the private jet (I think they still have more than one), send Burke to private school, and John can still afford multiple houses across the US. As we saw from John's media tour, he can still get airtime on any show very easily. The case remains one of the most notorious. John has said that although the media "vilified" them, people were great, so I don't believe him and Patsy were ever harassed in public, at least not on a "every time they left the house" extent.

John got taken to the cleaners. I am not sure what he had but he spent tons on attorney's. Some of that is his fault though.

 

[Roy23]

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.

I agree with you Chris. I can't be certain because Kolar won't spill out his entire theory, BUT---I think Kolar seems to hint that JR wasn't involved until the following morning. In other words the damage was done and somehow he figures it out in early morning before JBR is found. He even kind of suggests that JR finds the body in the morning, maybe sees a problem with the scene, and covers it up.

Like I said, I am not sure about that. I totally agree with 100% that if an accident occured or B went nuts on his sister he would have called in the Police had he known about it.

 

[Chrishope]

Uh, I don't disagree as to the point of staging to point to an intruder, thereby them HOPING, ASSUMING, that the risk of guilt is less. Yes. Again, that's not what I was asking. I was asking why staging only for THEMSELVES was less risky. Not the point of staging at all.

You just assume the risk is HIGHER if they stage for Burke, because you think there is no need to, because all is well if they do NOT stage for Burke...

But staging potentially lowers risk no matter which Ramsey you are covering for. Yes, I know you don't believe this - or we would not be discussing...



This is not what I'm arguing against - I'm not arguing why they STAGED at all.
It's like, you change what you are arguing with me on, if you don't like my answer..(except it's clear that it's not as simple as 'no risk at all' if they stage. I mean, obstruction of justice law, for one. It's not like you have 'nothing to lose' if you stage. So, I don't know why you keep saying that.

And,
- I was not arguing BDI only
- I am not arguing no reason to stage either.
- I know why IDIs believe what they believe; yes, it's definitely hard for them to get past any parents doing this. And I've sent many a thread response on how horrible some parents can be.... but I've also sent responses like that on siblings as well.

I've eliminated NO Ramsey. They are all capable, they all had opportunity (the 3 that were there - that we know of). They all also provided a potential reason to stage.

I was asking why staging only for THEMSELVES was less risky. Not the point of staging at all.

If RDI, staging for themselves is less risky because they are already at very high risk. There is nothing to loose by staging an intruder. If you are going up for murder, anything is worth a try.

If BDI, staging for themselves is unnecessary as far as the law is concerned. (Unless JR is the chronic molester, then there is a little bit of an argument that he's want to cover up his prior acts) If you want to believe they did it to protect their image, fine, we'll agree to disagree.

You just assume the risk is HIGHER if they stage for Burke, because you think there is no need to, because all is well if they do NOT stage for Burke...

I don't assume it. I calculate it. If BDI, no one is going to jail if the crime scene is not staged. In BDI with BR as the chronic abuser, JR didn't do it, PR didn't do it, the crime scene doesn't look as if they did it, so they aren't going to jail. The crime scene looks like BR did it, but he's too young, so he's not going to jail either.

The staging makes the Rs look like they tried to cover up a murder that they committed. How is that not higher risk than the alternative - which is they didn't do it and are not going to jail?

But staging potentially lowers risk no matter which Ramsey you are covering for. Yes, I know you don't believe this - or we would not be discussing...

How does staging, in BDI, lower the legal risk for JR and PR?

 

[Chrishope]

I agree with you Chris. I can't be certain because Kolar won't spill out his entire theory, BUT---I think Kolar seems to hint that JR wasn't involved until the following morning. In other words the damage was done and somehow he figures it out in early morning before JBR is found. He even kind of suggests that JR finds the body in the morning, maybe sees a problem with the scene, and covers it up.

Like I said, I am not sure about that. I totally agree with 100% that if an accident occured or B went nuts on his sister he would have called in the Police had he known about it.

I'm looking forward to getting the book. Unfortunately I have to wait a couple months to order it so I'll be behind on the developments for a while.