Kolar misleading.

[wonderllama]

I'd hate to think what people would infer after going through my long long LLLLLLOOOOOONG collection of books relating to killing and killers

And FWIW, we own a Bible and I'm an atheist.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'd hate to think what people would infer after going through my long long LLLLLLOOOOOONG collection of books relating to killing and killers

And FWIW, we own a Bible and I'm an atheist.

My personal library consists of books on communicating with the dead, life after death, deciphering Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, alien abductions, the Twilight series and 18th Century France. That collection would confound anyone!

 

[Chrishope]

I'd hate to think what people would infer after going through my long long LLLLLLOOOOOONG collection of books relating to killing and killers

And FWIW, we own a Bible and I'm an atheist.

I'm an atheist as well, but we have at least 2 and maybe 3 bibles. All given as gifts. (I guess I just can't take a hint

I would not like someone to infer much about me from my collection of books, or from the amount of time I spend obsessed over the death of a 6 year old girl.

 

[DeeDee249]

And I might add that Nedra struck me as exactly the kind of meddling grandma who would give her daughter and son-in-law books she felt were "helpful" with her grandkids problems. Nedra was a pushy woman and Patsy was intimidated by her.

 

[RANCH]

Chrishope,


You must demonstrate why cynics claims are invalid, mere assertion is redundant.


Cynic is not citing any books as a reference to moral authority, so why should you? Of course something can be inferred from the possession of a bible, that you wish to infer nothing might be a reflection of your moral values, and not those enunciated in the bible?

Of course as a matter of elementary reasoning, one might ask, are the Ramsey's Christian? Ownership of a book does not compel the owners to adhere to its rules.

So returning to the subject, if every Christian household has a bible, and only a few households possess the books cited by cynic, then I think you make cynics point for him. Also presumably the households possessing the bible purchased it themselves, and did not have it purchased for them! The distinction matters, particularly for us looking on externally.

That other Ramsey relatives purchased these books for the Perfect Family suggests something was not quite right.


.

BBM
I have a question about this statement. Does the fact that relatives of the Ramsey's gave these books as gifts to them mean that it is a fact that they believed that something was not quite right?

Another way of asking this question is, could they have had another perfectly innocent reason to give these books to them as gifts? Or does it mean that the person who gifted these books had to have personal knowledge of specific problems in the family?

 

[UKGuy]

No, the existence of these books infers absolutely nothing. They were sold in the millions, and you cannot infer that every family in possession has children with problems. The books are too general for that.

If a family had a book about children who wet the bed, I'd find that odd if the family did not have a child wetting the bed. But to find a family with very general parenting books does not infer anything at all except perhaps that the family is literate and they, or the gift givers, might have a subscription to the book of the month club.

The reason for speaking of the moral authority of the bible is because cynic was indeed speaking of the same thing. He believes that these very general books which speak to permissiveness and secularism might be helpful to the parents of children with very specific disorders. Likewise, the general advice of the bible might be equally useful, if one views general advice as being useful for specific problems.

And of course, many bibles are given as gifts.

I think it's well established that the Rs are Christian, but your point is valid - one can't adduce Christianity by mere possession of a bible. Likewise one may not adduce family problems by mere possession of these 3 books.

Chrishope,
I have no wish to draw inferences from anyone who owns books. That as others have illustrated is a redundant exercise. Valid inferences can be drawn from the information that someone purchased books for other relatives.


.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM
I have a question about this statement. Does the fact that relatives of the Ramsey's gave these books as gifts to them mean that it is a fact that they believed that something was not quite right?

Another way of asking this question is, could they have had another perfectly innocent reason to give these books to them as gifts? Or does it mean that the person who gifted these books had to have personal knowledge of specific problems in the family?

RANCH,
One book might represent an innocent reason, two books might represent a concern, but three, well that probably represents an ongoing problem.

Does the fact that relatives of the Ramsey's gave these books as gifts to them mean that it is a fact that they believed that something was not quite right?

No, the giving of the books does not make the problem a fact, but then why bother with those books, why not sailing books or flight training books for Burke's elucidation, you decide.

 

[claudicici]

I thought Nedra in fact did say "just a little bit molested" in the Geraldo Rivera interview?

 

[RANCH]

RANCH,
One book might represent an innocent reason, two books might represent a concern, but three, well that probably represents an ongoing problem.


No, the giving of the books does not make the problem a fact, but then why bother with those books, why not sailing books or flight training books for Burke's elucidation, you decide.

All I can say is my mother has given me books that didn't help elucidate anything meaningful to me.

 

[Peepers]

I dont get why Kolar noting that these books were purchased and in the house is misleading anyone??? Its simply a fact that someone purchased the books for them and they were in the house.
Whats misleading about that?

 

[RANCH]

I dont get why Kolar noting that these books were purchased and in the house is misleading anyone??? Its simply a fact that someone purchased the books for them and they were in the house.
Whats misleading about that?

I imagine that he had a reason for noting that the books were purchased and in the house. I guess the question is, was he trying to mislead people by noting this, or merely stating a fact?

I haven't read his book yet, so I don't know if he was trying to make a point or just using this information as filler.

 

[Bonnette]

Kolar mentions the presence of these books (reportedly purchased by the Paughs for the Ramseys) in a chapter exploring specific developmental/behavioral problems of children. Given some of the information contained in these books, he wonders whether or not they might suggest difficulties within the Ramsey family. He does not single the books out for particular attention; he only ponders whether or not they might fit into the picture of the family dynamic that seems to be developing through the totality of the evidence.

 

[Chrishope]

Kolar mentions the presence of these books (reportedly purchased by the Paughs for the Ramseys) in a chapter exploring specific developmental/behavioral problems of children. Given some of the information contained in these books, he wonders whether or not they might suggest difficulties within the Ramsey family. He does not single the books out for particular attention; he only ponders whether or not they might fit into the picture of the family dynamic that seems to be developing through the totality of the evidence.

That's quite sensible. And quite different from the inference that some people are making e.g. that problems can be inferred from the existence of the books.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
I have no wish to draw inferences from anyone who owns books. That as others have illustrated is a redundant exercise. Valid inferences can be drawn from the information that someone purchased books for other relatives.


.

No, the inferences you are trying to draw from the gifting of the books cannot be drawn.

 

[Chrishope]

BBM
I have a question about this statement. Does the fact that relatives of the Ramsey's gave these books as gifts to them mean that it is a fact that they believed that something was not quite right?

Another way of asking this question is, could they have had another perfectly innocent reason to give these books to them as gifts? Or does it mean that the person who gifted these books had to have personal knowledge of specific problems in the family?

Nicely put. The books were written for a general audience, so they may have been purchased and given because it was assumed the Rs would share that general interest.

Presumably they were not all purchased at the same time, though we don't know that (does Kolar say?) so if they liked one, it made sense to buy a 2nd. If they liked the 2nd, it made sense to buy them a 3rd.

The inference UKGuy is trying to draw, e.g. that the Paughs gave the Rs the books therefore it strongly suggests they saw problems, is invalid.

What makes the defense of the invalid inference doubly nonsensical is that there is no need for this inference. If one wishes to say there were ongoing behavior problems no one will disagree. There's bed wetting and fecal smearing, and playing doctor, and BR's cold distant attitude. All these things are solidly in evidence. No reason to bring in an invalid inference.

Problems with the family dynamic can't be inferred because the books were given as gifts. It can be considered. That is, it's reasonable to wonder if the books were part and parcel of ongoing behavior issues, and it's reasonable to wonder if they were purchased to help deal with the issues, but the inference can't be drawn just because the Paughs gave them as gifts. This is a conclusion gone off in search of supporting evidence. The thing is, there is already plenty of valid evidence.

I'm not arguing that the books could not have been given for exactly the reason that the Paughs saw some problems, I'm just saying that making that inference is invalid.

 

[otg]

That quote has been on various forums for years, although I’m not sure that that is the actual quote. It may have simply “evolved.”
The only source for Nedra commenting on JonBenet being molested was the reference she made to a producer for the Geraldo show and later brought to light in Schiller’s book.
There may be a further source out there, but there isn’t one that I’m aware of.

When Nedra mentioned the crime, it was in a string of half-completed thoughts and seeming nonsequiturs: “I didn’t know that she had been mole…molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn’t know that. And somehow I hoped that she had died very quickly, and I think that she did. I…I really do believe that whoever has done this strangled her, because I’m sure that she put up a tremendous fight. Although she had tape on her mouth, she couldn’t scream. But I knew she had fought.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 512 - 513

(bbm)

I can see where, if that was the original phrasing, it could be interpreted as, and then repeated as, "a little bit molested". "To some extent" would imply the same as "not all the way". Probably she was trying to dispel the idea that JB was "raped" or that someone actually had intercourse with her, although the idea that these quantifications on how much molestation was done seem strange to us and immediately throw up red flags.

As you say, cynic, it may have simply "evolved".
.

 

[BOESP]

Kolar mentions the presence of these books (reportedly purchased by the Paughs for the Ramseys) in a chapter exploring specific developmental/behavioral problems of children. Given some of the information contained in these books, he wonders whether or not they might suggest difficulties within the Ramsey family. He does not single the books out for particular attention; he only ponders whether or not they might fit into the picture of the family dynamic that seems to be developing through the totality of the evidence.

My view is the books could have applied to JonBenet's behavior just as much as to Burke's.

Obviously, Nedra Paugh thought the books would be of interest in some way or she wouldn't have purchased them. Yes, Nedra was in to pageant life but that doesn't mean she liked the way JonBenet's personality was turning.

Kolar's mention of the books, in view of other case facts, seems logical to me.

 

[BOESP]

<snip>

The inference UKGuy is trying to draw, e.g. that the Paughs gave the Rs the books therefore it strongly suggests they saw problems, is invalid.

<snip>

I'm not arguing that the books could not have been given for exactly the reason that the Paughs saw some problems, I'm just saying that making that inference is invalid.

Kolar included the books for a reason and it is reasonable to assume they are connected with other data Kolar furnished in his book. It isn't like he is commenting on the weather because someone reading his book might be interested in weather reports as filler.

Why would grandparents give as gifts books that, basically, are summed up as books giving advice on how to prevent your child from developing a personality disorder(s). Maybe it is JonBenet with the problems...maybe not.

And what is invalid is your statement above that I bolded because you *are* arguing that they could not have been given for exactly that reason else you would not have said another poster's inference was invalid. Circular reasoning, illogic, fallacy, call it what you will. UKGuy made a valid inference based on the knowledge known by him. You are making the major mistake new investigators and researchers often make ... you seem to be coming to a conclusion based on only one statement or one piece of information.

 

[UKGuy]

All I can say is my mother has given me books that didn't help elucidate anything meaningful to me.

RANCH,
Sure and quite possibly the same happened with the books purchased by the Paughs.

Its not simply the purchase of the books, its the context and subject matter. If the R's had purchased these books, then not a lot could be assumed since the R's might simply be concerned parents.

It looks to me as if the Paughs had identified some issues with Burke or JonBenet, or both, and thought the books might enlighten Patsy?

This might have nothing to do with the death of JonBenet, it might simply be circumstantial case evidence, or it might corroborate the theory that Burke or JonBenet, or both were behaving dysfunctionally?

I'll have to read Kolars book to reach an informed decision.



.

 

[txsvicki]

May be all these people had way too much money and couldn't figure out what to give each other. But, they probably would not buy secular books on very troubled kids either. They
would seek out christian books