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

[azwriter]

I agree.

I don't know how this was done, but that is not entirely my post. What I wrote ends with the line about how tall Grandpa was.

The paragraph that begins with JonBenet being hit by a golf club was not written by me or my post, yet my name is on that quote.

Did you combine two posts into one?

 

[Chrishope]

It wasn't just an accidental death of an older brother hitting and killing his little sister that would be reported on 911.

OK, we agree on that.

There was another circumstance surrounding what happened Chrismas night between brother and sister. And that needed to be kept a secret. JonBenet was sexual assulted that night. And I believe Burke was the one doing the deed.

OK, lets take this one step at a time.

First there is evidence of sexual assault prior to the night of her death, and we don't know how long the chronic abuse had been going on, so we don't really know if there was a sign of recent sexual assault when BR hit JB with the golf club. You can assume no, or assume yes, but either way, it's just an assumption. So the only difference that might actually exist is the severity of the injury to the head. I will grant you that if she dies in hospital there will be an autopsy, and the sexual abuse will be discovered, whereas if she recovers in hospital (not likely with that injury) no one will look at her vagina.

Second, The Rs had to know, or reasonably believe that the coroner could spot evidence of sexual assault, both acute and chronic. So how were they going to keep it secret?

Third, if you think BR did the sexual assault that night do you also think he did the chronic assaults? DeeDee knows a lot more about this than I do, but it's my understanding that the evidence of the acute assault was that it was consistent with digital penetration. It is also my understanding that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse (e.g. prior to that night).

So, is BR the one who caused both the acute and chronic injuries? To me it would seem to make quite a difference. In some versions of BDI, JR is thought to be the one who caused the chronic injuries. Under that scenario, he might have a motive to cover up the injuries, hoping that they could all be blamed on the "intruder". (But I'm not even sure here, as I can't believe a reasonable person wouldn't know the coroner could tell that there were chronic injuries- but BDI with JR as the chronic abuser isn't my theory, I'm just responding to it) OTOH, if BR, by playing "doctor" caused the chronic injuries as well as the acute injuries, then neither parent has a reason to cover up for their own legal safety.

In fact, under the scenario where all vaginal injury is due to Burke, both the acute and the chronic, the Rs might not even be fully aware of the extent of JBs injuries, especially the chronic injuries.

Fourth, how bad were the acute injuries? I'm not really clear on this, but if BR was playing doctor that night, how did the Rs become aware of JB's vaginal injuries? Were they that obvious? Remember this was supposed to have started out with kids playing doctor. Was she literally discovered, by the parents, with her pants down? I can't see digital penetration causing a lot of injury, say with blood all over the place. But I know little of these matters, so perhaps I'm wrong. What I'm getting at is how bad does this look when the Rs find out what BR did? Bad enough that they don't want to call an ambulance? Even if she's still alive? Recall that she might have been alive with the blow to the head for as long as 90 minutes before the ligature was applied.

So at least some of the "rationale" for staging the intruder scenario, to protect Burke, depends on the particular version of BDI you want to go with.

I do believe John and Patsy would go to extremes to cover up the accident in order to mainly cover a sexual insult that was done to JonBenet.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect it. I am equally entitled to mine, and I don't believe they would go to these particular extremes if Burke did both the acute and chronic injuries.

What you describe as an "extreme" is the staging. And certainly you are correct that it was extreme. But, it also implicated them in both murder, and obstruction of justice.

Now I'll grant you they were in Boulder, so they were unlikely to receive a parking ticket, or even an overdue book notice from the library. But in all seriousness, they could have been arrested that day and taken downtown, and with any DA other than Hunter, charged with murder. To me, that's a really serious situation to be in - a cost, if you'll allow me to use that term, that is out of all proportion to the benefit - the benefit being protecting their image.

Even if not charged with murder they could have been charged with obstructing justice. How would that salvage their image?

I've been trying to figure out a way to more fully articulate my thinking on this and maybe this will be helpful -

There are two possible responses to a BDI scenario in which BR has caused not only the skull fracture, but also the acute and chronic abuse.

One response is what I'd refer to as the "loud" response. Or the "Hey, look over here" response. The "loud" response is exactly what BDIs think happened. The Rs staged a bizarre kidnapping turned murder, and this was done to "protect" Burke. A kidnapping/murder is sure to generate a lot of attention. And, a lot of speculation as to "who done it".

The other response is the quiet response. Call 911. After the ambulance arrives the paramedics would call the police and it becomes known that Burke did it. It probably can't be kept out of the papers and off the TV news, but it probably can be downplayed as an "accident". The sexual abuse can be explained as exactly what it really would have been under this BDI scenario - the result of playing doctor. This response generates a minimum of attention - or at any rate, a lot lot lot less attention than a kidnapping/murder.

So if the Rs were going to salvage their image, which option does that best?

I understand what many BDI theorists are saying. The Rs would do ANYTHING -ANYTHING to protect their image. All I'm saying is that I disagree. There are risks associated with the staging, risks that not only are severe personally, individually, but end up destroying their image anyway. I believe they'd go to great lengths to keep this as quiet as possible. I do not believe they'd do anything. I think some risks are disproportionate to the benefit. I also think John didn't get where he was by not being able to manage risk.

And further, I think this is the center of activity between the two children that was going on when Burke hit his sister in order to shut her up so his parents would not discover he once again was "playing doctor" (or whatever you want to call it) with JonBenet.

Just my opinion ya know.

We don't really know that it was JB screaming, but I'll go along with that assumption for now. (I don't have any problem with the assumption, I'm just pointing out that what a neighbor heard could have been someone/something else)
Bashing her in the head, with such force that it caused an 8.5" crack in her skull seems like an odd response to a scream. Why not cover her mouth?

If I'm going to believe a 9 year old could swing a flashlight hard enough to do that kind of damage, I'm going to also have to assume extreme rage. The response to her scream would be, IMO, more in the nature of fear (of alerting the parents) than of rage. The skull fracture strikes me more as a deliberate act than an unthinking response.

 

[Chrishope]

I don't know how this was done, but that is not entirely my post. What I wrote ends with the line about how tall Grandpa was.

The paragraph that begins with JonBenet being hit by a golf club was not written by me or my post, yet my name is on that quote.

Did you combine two posts into one?

What I did was hit the quote button and responded to FairM.

I think the two posts were combined because he (or she) quoted you, then I quoted him quoting you.

I'm sorry if I misrepresented your views in any way. It was not intentional.

 

[Whaleshark]

What you describe as an "extreme" is the staging. And certainly you are correct that it was extreme. But, it also implicated them in both murder, and obstruction of justice.

...they could have been arrested that day and taken downtown, and with any DA other than Hunter, charged with murder. To me, that's a really serious situation to be in - a cost, if you'll allow me to use that term, that is out of all proportion to the benefit - the benefit being protecting their image.

Even if not charged with murder they could have been charged with obstructing justice. How would that salvage their image?

Chris. I implore you. Please - You need to break down your own LOGIC path here, please. Please.

The reason I kept saying to you on the other thread that 'they staged anyway'!!!! is because --

Follow me here. Please... Let's take it slow. Please.

You say you are RDI. ok.
You know that they staged. ok.
You acknowledge that this staging makes them look guilty anyway, even though the intention is to cast guilt from them. ok.

Bear with me here now. Here's the point of that statement - right here:

You ask why they would stage if it still implicated them in the murder and all the risk associated with it possibly landing them in jail, for Burke. ok.

BUT HERE IT IS THOUGH: Whether they staged to protect Burke or to protect themselves, the risk did not go down by doing the staging either way!!!

If you believe that they are the guilty party, and that they did the staging, then how does your argument about them staging only makes them look guiltier anyway, so they wouldn't have done it for Burke - make any sense?!?!?!?

It doesn't matter if you think they wouldn't do it for Burke, if they look just as guilty (which they do) by staging for themselves anyway!!!!

This is what you're not getting.

They. staged. anyway.

The only way that argument would work is if you think they didn't stage and aren't guilty, so as not to make themselves look even guiltier if the staging points to them anyway!


Sigh..

 

[UKGuy]

I don't like "garotte" because it was a "ligature" and not a garotte.

Ligature strangulation and asphyxiation by garotte are different. Both asphyxiate but they are different methods.

BOESP,
Well, it was staged as such. Patsy, and I assume it was her, went to great lengths to add the piece of paintbrush handle, it was not required, as you suggest a ligature would be sufficient.

Although the garrote may not have been used in the manner of a garrote, it was added to give that effect?

JonBenet as she lay in the wine-cellar was nearly completely staged, she may have been wearing different clothes when alive upstairs?


.

 

[Whaleshark]

BOESP,
Well, it was staged as such. Patsy, and I assume it was her, went to great lengths to add the piece of paintbrush handle, it was not required, as you suggest a ligature would be sufficient.

Although the garrote may not have been used in the manner of a garrote, it was added to give that effect?

JonBenet as she lay in the wine-cellar was nearly completely staged, she may have been wearing different clothes when alive upstairs?

Per FairM's report of the interview with James Kolar:

"... it was effective in that it was used to "facilitate the strangulation" and that hair HAD been pulled out of JonBenet's head and neck, which was found in the loop of the handle and the cord....this suggests it was effective ..he also made the point that the cord was embedded in her neck...and that it was constructed at the scene and not brought in from outside..."

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Well, it was staged as such. Patsy, and I assume it was her, went to great lengths to add the piece of paintbrush handle, it was not required, as you suggest a ligature would be sufficient.

Although the garrote may not have been used in the manner of a garrote, it was added to give that effect?

JonBenet as she lay in the wine-cellar was nearly completely staged, she may have been wearing different clothes when alive upstairs?


.

I agree there was staging. We are told there was even "staging within staging." None of the staging, in my opinion, was done with the intention of making the police think there was staging. That, however, is a different discussion than whether or not a ligature was used instead of a garotte.

The wooden handle does not make it a garotte. The implement and the way it was used make it a ligature, not a garotte. If someone put a wire around Jonbenet's neck criss-crossed it and pulled one wire to the left and one wire to the right, that would be one example of a garotte and how it is used.

The use of a garotte, to a profiler, implies a different probability than does the use of a ligature.

 

[UKGuy]

Just one other thing...

Perhaps they (PR especially) felt they were protecting more than themselves and BR. Maybe, in their way, they felt they were also protecting the image and the innocence of JonBenet?

Just a thought...
.

otg,
There was no need to stage the death of JonBenet, and thats what we have here, JonBenet redressed, wiped down, wrapped in a blanket, then deposited away in the wine-cellar.

An IDI could have been constructed with a naked JonBenet, visibly sexually assaulted, and manually asphyxiated in her own bed. This was not done!

The staging, as in most cases, was done to hide a crime already committed. Here it looks like a sexual assault and physical trauma to the head. Also JonBenet's asphyxiation was masked by constructing a garrote.

Since there are allegations of both acute and chronic abuse, then these might result from more than one person, e.g. inter-generational abuse.

This would offer the parents the motive for the staging, e.g. not only might they be staging for BDI, but also familial reputation?

They also probably expected to be arrested early that morning, but this never happened, JonBenet was not found, and it dragged on until John discovered JonBenet, by this time the R's had composed themselves and realized they might gain their freedom.

The parents forensic traces are all over JonBenet, e.g. her underwear, the garrote, the duct tape, the paint-tote, etc. So any concern about risk was disregarded, for them the staging mattered, so regardless of whomever initially asaulted JonBenet, the person(s) who staged her body in the wine-cellar most certainly killed her, and that is a capital offence.

So the bottom line is even only one person was originally responsible, by the following morning all three R's were complict in the death of JonBenet.

This is why the death of JonBenet is a sexually motivated homicide.



.

 

[Whaleshark]

UKGuy,

Hair stuck in the ligature and stick was pulled out from the head and neck.


....At this point I think your overall theory needs to be revisited.

 

[UKGuy]

Per FairM's report of the interview with James Kolar:

"... it was effective in that it was used to "facilitate the strangulation" and that hair HAD been pulled out of JonBenet's head and neck, which was found in the loop of the handle and the cord....this suggests it was effective ..he also made the point that the cord was embedded in her neck...and that it was constructed at the scene and not brought in from outside..."

Whaleshark,
Thats a step forward, if we know her hair was pulled out. But we do not really know how the ligature/brush handle was used.

For example the lower neck trauma might represent a failed first manual attempt followed up by using the garrote, however it was applied.



.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree there was staging. We are told there was even "staging within staging." None of the staging, in my opinion, was done with the intention of making the police think there was staging. That, however, is a different discussion than whether or not a ligature was used instead of a garotte.

The wooden handle does not make it a garotte. The implement and the way it was used make it a ligature, not a garotte. If someone put a wire around Jonbenet's neck criss-crossed it and pulled one wire to the left and one wire to the right, that would be one example of a garotte and how it is used.

The use of a garotte, to a profiler, implies a different probability than does the use of a ligature.

BOESP,
Sure, so why was it described as a garrote and not say, asphyxiation device? Or you reckon it might have been a Team Ramsey invention promoted by Lou Smit via his, IDI?

With indications that JonBenet's hair was indeed pulled out at the roots, this is new information nobody had before, outside of the lea etc, so other than making a noose with the paintbrush handle at the other end and pulling vertically hard, its difficult to see how it might work? Not unless the missing piece of paintbrush handle played a role?


.

 

[dodie20]

Well, otg you certainly have made my day. Thanks for the compliment.

As a parent myself, I can see this part of the scene would be a big hurdle to overcome, especially for the Ramsey parents who had such a remarkable standing in the community (If only in their own minds).

Yes, Patsy alone, as I see it, would be absolutely devistated that any breath of a sexual nature would be connected to her child. I also believe she would have terrible guilt that she did not manage to stop this activity by Burke before it lead to the death of her daughter.

Patsy was a Miss America contestant. She won the Talent portion of that pageant. She was a community leader, gave elaborate home tours. Was very active and visable in her children's school activities. She was well known and talked about in the beauty pageant industry. Her vanity stuck out in every line of her Christmas letters as she bragged about her children.

There is IMO no way she would ever allow something like this be known to the public about Burke. I'm sure she would do all she could to hide this from the world including a fake kidnapping and murder of the daughter she loved so much.

I can't change anyone's mind or make them believe my theory. But I'm glad to have an opportunity to express it.

just my O

I understand your theory, but I'm not sold on BR, even though it wouldn't surprise me. I'm not even convinced this was an accident. I guess it depends on who did what. BR has always worried me, and as a matter of fact, he was my very 1st suspicion. I read The National Enquirer's, (I think), enhanced 911 calls where B could be heard, and I don't remember the exact words, but I remember JR saying something like, 'we're not speaking to you'...which IMO, was a very bizarre and angry thing to say. 1st of all, if they had really just found a ransome note, keeping B safe, would have been a priority. So, regardless of who did what, this points to them not being worried about a kidnapper being in the house or coming back for B. Which I find inconceivable. So, if JR Did speak those words to B, why was he angry? And if B was up and awake, why not say so? Also, I remember a news clip of the funeral, where PR was surrounded by her supporters, JR was surrounded by his, and BR was walking alone, kind of lumbering with his hands in his pockets. This might have actually been just a mere few seconds, but again, I noticed it, because it didn't seem right. At the time, I thought the parents were angry with their son, and wondered why they weren't huddling together...now, after years of reading and thinking, IDK what to think. MOO

 

[Whaleshark]

BOESP,
Sure, so why was it described as a garrote and not say, asphyxiation device? Or you reckon it might have been a Team Ramsey invention promoted by Lou Smit via his, IDI?

Autopsy does not say garrote.

YES, it was a Team Ramsey / Lou Smit RED HERRING. We've been trying to tell you this for a long time.

Because as long as this was a 'complex garrote with complicated or sophisticated' knots, per LOU SMIT, then it must not have been something the Ramseys could have even thought up, don't ya know?.... but that's because it was not a complex garrote. did not function like one. not intended to be one. not staged to look like one. Red Herring.

With indications that JonBenet's hair was indeed pulled out at the roots, this is new information nobody had before, outside of the lea etc, so other than making a noose with the paintbrush handle at the other end and pulling vertically hard, its difficult to see how it might work? Not unless the missing piece of paintbrush handle played a role?

No, it's not. I said before a long time ago:

...wrapped around the neck a few times - tightened at knot at back/base of neck like a tourniquet.
hair ripped out at base of neck and head where stick w/ cord intertwined with hair as it was being turned, tightening and asphyxiating.

Period.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Sure, so why was it described as a garrote and not say, asphyxiation device? Or you reckon it might have been a Team Ramsey invention promoted by Lou Smit via his, IDI?

With indications that JonBenet's hair was indeed pulled out at the roots, this is new information nobody had before, outside of the lea etc, so other than making a noose with the paintbrush handle at the other end and pulling vertically hard, its difficult to see how it might work? Not unless the missing piece of paintbrush handle played a role?


.

The autopsy states ligature.

I have no clue how saying a garotte was used got started. I've read it started with John Ramsey.

The photos showing JonBenet's hair entwined have been around for years. I really don't remember when the autopsy photos first appeared in public but I'd say the late 1990s. That's not new information.

Edited to add: the photos also show hair detached from the scalp entertwined in the device.

 

[Whaleshark]

Here you go:

From A Candy Rose:

In reference to the crime scene of the garrote, Lou Smit says:

"The person who killed JonBenet,....He did build a specialized garrotte to kill her."

"According to Smit, the garrote used to strangle JonBenet was very intricate in its design, a tool he believes was used for murder and for pleasure."

Long before this, John Ramsey had stated:

"And this garrote will be a clue. This was not an amateur device. This was a professional strangling tool."

These are just three of the instances of hundreds of times that John Ramsey, Lou Smit, and others have claimed as "evidence" alleged intruder expertise in the construction and use of a garrote. Adjectives such as "intricate," "specialized", "sophisticated" and "professional" are often used."
___


Entwined hair noted, yes. Ripped out hair not confirmed previously.... has been a point of heated debate for awhile, as it makes a difference as to how the device was used and people's theories about it....

 

[BOESP]

<snip>
Long before this, John Ramsey had stated:

"And this garrote will be a clue. This was not an amateur device. This was a professional strangling tool."<snip>

Poor John Ramsey. I wonder where he got the statistics that professionals use strangulation devices. Professionals usually use guns in the USA.

I'm not sure what professional device small foreign factions might use ... maybe a machete? a scimitar? a suicide bomber?

 

[Chrishope]

Chris. I implore you. Please - You need to break down your own LOGIC path here, please. Please.

The reason I kept saying to you on the other thread that 'they staged anyway'!!!! is because --

Follow me here. Please... Let's take it slow. Please.

You say you are RDI. ok.
You know that they staged. ok.
You acknowledge that this staging makes them look guilty anyway, even though the intention is to cast guilt from them. ok.

Bear with me here now. Here's the point of that statement - right here:

You ask why they would stage if it still implicated them in the murder and all the risk associated with it possibly landing them in jail, for Burke. ok.

BUT HERE IT IS THOUGH: Whether they staged to protect Burke or to protect themselves, the risk did not go down by doing the staging either way!!!

If you believe that they are the guilty party, and that they did the staging, then how does your argument about them staging only makes them look guiltier anyway, so they wouldn't have done it for Burke - make any sense?!?!?!?

It doesn't matter if you think they wouldn't do it for Burke, if they look just as guilty (which they do) by staging for themselves anyway!!!!

This is what you're not getting.

They. staged. anyway.

The only way that argument would work is if you think they didn't stage and aren't guilty, so as not to make themselves look even guiltier if the staging points to them anyway!


Sigh..

Respectfully, I believe you are the one missing the point. I am saying that if Burke did it, it seems unlikely that the Rs would have staged at all.

If Burke did it, they had an option, stage the intruder scenario, or not. I am saying that if it really was BDI, they would choose - not. Since they did stage, it must be RDI (as opposed to BDI), as this is, IMO, the only scenario in which it makes sense for them to stage.

So it's not a matter of them staging "anyway". It's a matter of which scenario is most likely to include staging.

BUT HERE IT IS THOUGH: Whether they staged to protect Burke or to protect themselves, the risk did not go down by doing the staging either way!!!

This may be the source of confusion. The risk DOES go down with staging, if it was RDI. While risk goes up with staging if BDI.

It matters very much whether they did it for themselves or for Burke. They would only do it for themselves if it was an RDI scenario. They would only do it for Burke in a BDI scenario.

If it was RDI (and not BDI) then what would have happened if they had not staged? Certainly the evidence would point even more clearly at the Rs. If it was RDI then the only way to lower the risk is to do the staging. The staging lowers the risk in an RDI scenario. If they can convince police that an intruder did it, their risk is substantially lower. Even if they couldn't convince police, they still only have to fool one person out of 12 on the jury. In RDI, risk is lower with staging.

If it's BDI, staging raises the risk. We have gone through all the reasons, and it seems you understand my point about that -though you disagree, which is fine - so no need to go all through it again.

Since it is my opinion that they did not run extremely high risk to avoid public embarrassment, and since we know they staged, it must be RDI, not BDI.

Now, I have seen your posts for a number of years, and you are an intelligent person -therefore I must accept the possibility that I'm still missing something. I will continue to try to articulate my points and hope you'll do the same.

At this point it seems to me that your repetition of the prhase "They. staged. anyway." seems to indicate that you believe they would have staged in either RDI or BDI, and that the risk of staging is equal in both scenarios. I'm saying they would be far more likely to stage in RDI, far less likely to do so in BDI, and that the risk goes down with staging in RDI, while risk goes up substantially by staging in BDI. Therefore I believe BDI is the less likely scenario.

I hope we are a little closer to understanding each other, and if I'm still missing the point I hope you'll continue to try to get through to me.

 

[Whaleshark]

Respectfully, I believe you are the one missing the point. I am saying that if Burke did it, it seems unlikely that the Rs would have staged at all.

I know that's what you're saying. Not missing the point - you're just not making it.

If Burke did it, they had an option, stage the intruder scenario, or not. I am saying that if it really was BDI, they would choose - not. Since they did stage, it must be RDI (as opposed to BDI), as this is, IMO, the only scenario in which it makes sense for them to stage.

Right, that's your opinion - based on your values of what makes sense to you. For example, it does not make sense to me to lie on the stand to cover up my son's crimes. It made perfect sense to Cindy Anthony. How come Cindy Anthony lied on the stand? Because her personal values were as such that she would rather save the one child she had left, since she couldn't save the granddaughter she lost, even if she knew (which she did) that it was at the hands of her own daughter. Totally personal choice. Wouldn't be mine - therefore, I cannot deduce that every parent would make the same choice.

Your only answer to that is because 1) She knew that Casey was old enough to go to jail, and 2) The Ramseys must have known that Burke was not old enough to go to jail, and 3) Your opinion that the other reasons to protect Burke wouldn't matter...how can you know with 100% certainty what would matter to them as far as personal values... that's my point. To you, those other things wouldn't be a factor to stage. To others, it would.

You see no reason to stage to protect a child anyway, yet numerous, numerous, other parents said they would protect their children and cover up for them in a crime... even if their child murdered someone. This is the end of your argument right here. ...But I bet you don't know why....

So it's not a matter of them staging "anyway". It's a matter of which scenario is most likely to include staging.

A parent protecting a child at all costs IS a scenario as equally likely to include staging, for a parent who wants to protect their child at all costs! You presume the value of the Ramseys level of concern for protecting their child (and anything else important to them). I think that is YOUR error. You are placing YOUR value of importance on THEIR likeliness to stage, without taking into account everything we know about them. Big mistake. Even numerous parents who don't have as much to lose as the Ramseys said they would cover up/lie/protect for their murdering children.

This may be the source of confusion. The risk DOES go down with staging, if it was RDI. While risk goes up with staging if BDI.

Well, of course it is the source of confusion. How do you figure the risk goes up with staging if BDI? I've been saying the risk is the same, because the staging still pointed to the Ramseys if they did it only to protect themselves, uh - because IT DID POINT TO THEM ANYWAY, based on all that happened, and where we are with the case right now....

If it was RDI (and not BDI) then what would have happened if they had not staged? Certainly the evidence would point even more clearly at the Rs. If it was RDI then the only way to lower the risk is to do the staging. The staging lowers the risk in an RDI scenario.
If they can convince police that an intruder did it, their risk is substantially lower. Even if they couldn't convince police, they still only have to fool one person out of 12 on the jury. In RDI, risk is lower with staging.

If it's BDI, staging raises the risk.

You still have not answered my question as to how staging for Burke RAISES their risk. You only mentioned that it helps lower their risk if their staging for RDI. Why does it then not lower it the same for BDI?

At this point it seems to me that your repetition of the phrase "They. staged. anyway." seems to indicate that you believe they would have staged in either RDI or BDI, and that the risk of staging is equal in both scenarios.

Yes, and it is/was. But we still don't know who it is. And there was obvious parental involvement, ie: Ransom note.....

I'm saying they would be far more likely to stage in RDI, far less likely to do so in BDI, and that the risk goes down with staging in RDI, while risk goes up substantially by staging in BDI. Therefore, I believe BDI is the less likely scenario.

I know this is what you are saying - but even in that statement above, you do not say HOW the risk goes UP for staging for a BDI only scenario. You just say that it only goes down for an RDI scenario. How?

I hope we are a little closer to understanding each other, and if I'm still missing the point I hope you'll continue to try to get through to me.

No we're not.

I give.

My brain hurts.

 

[concernedmother]

Id love to read it but the price is way too expensive for me.

 

[KoldKase]

We have some threads discussing the book at FFJ, if that helps, concernedmother.

Also, as per the ligature, Kolar details that the ligature was tied with a slip knot and pulled from behind to strangle the child.