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

[ATasteOfHoney]

Iam surprised that no one on the JBR site is going nuts over what Dan Abrams said today on the Katie Couric show lol..

Can you give a recap, please?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Dan Abrams is another one who thinks they got it wrong. That the R's are not guilty and that had the police dept done a better job they would have maybe had the killer by now.

 

[Ausgirl]

Re: the Xmas timing, lala -

I wasn't really attempting to argue anything, as much as share an observation but...

On another thread, there was a discussion about Michael Moore the doco-maker, and how he did an experiment in which he and his crew rented a house, and spent a couple of weeks acting like serial killers - bloody mattress in the garbage pickup, chainsaws running in the house at 3am, screams in the night, grave sized holes dug in the yard, etc, which is hilarious in itself - not so funny was that not one single neighbour, when asked about it later, had seen or heard anything unusual at all, for all of that time, let alone called the police.

Just a good example of how 'would've seen/noticed/reported' doesn't really stack up in my mind as proof against anything at all, in any crime.

Christmas is indeed a busy time, people do pop in and out of home, etc, I certainly have no argument there. How that would stop a person bent on studying a victim prior to a crime, though, I cannot see.

All it takes to get into a house not 100% secured is one unlocked window.. one easy-to-open latch.

This is the problem with arguing "would've"s in this case - for any specific human behaviour, there will be on public record somewhere somebody clearly doing exactly the opposite. I think anyone is capable of doing anything, really, if they are set on a specific agenda and are determined enough to see it through.

I'm not actually an IDI, either. Just not sold on RDI, and finding it a little alarming that the possibility of somebody else having killed JonBenet is so soundly (never mind rudely) shouted down on this forum. It's a mistake I've made myself - becoming so sold on one suspect-based theory that I've dismissed other possibilities outright.

I was for years, and like most everybody else, convinced Lindy Chamberlain murdered her own child. Even though the distinct possibility of a bold and hungry native dog snatching the baby from the tent was right there all along -- and was how Azaria actually died. Rather than allow for this possibility, though, people argued on and on about which of the Chamberlains murdered the child even after Lindy was convicted for it, and there were at least as many theories prior to her arrest as there are about the Ramseys . That case has made me -very- cautious about being blinded by theory in this one.

In my mind, at present, there is still room for somebody else, probably either known to the family, or who had spent time enough observing the Ramseys to think they knew the family, to have killed JonBenet.

As well as room for the idea that one of them -did- do it.

Really, I wish that instead of these 'RDI only' and 'IDI only' threads (which, as far as I can see, have only served to escalate the general atmosphere of hissiness among members here) somebody had made a 'totally unbiased' thread, where aspects of the case could be calmly discussed from a truly neutral standpoint. To me that would have been far more useful (and refreshing).

 

[madeleine]

Re: the Xmas timing, lala -

I wasn't really attempting to argue anything, as much as share an observation but...

On another thread, there was a discussion about Michael Moore the doco-maker, and how he did an experiment in which he and his crew rented a house, and spent a couple of weeks acting like serial killers - bloody mattress in the garbage pickup, chainsaws running in the house at 3am, screams in the night, grave sized holes dug in the yard, etc, which is hilarious in itself - not so funny was that not one single neighbour, when asked about it later, had seen or heard anything unusual at all, for all of that time, let alone called the police.

Just a good example of how 'would've seen/noticed/reported' doesn't really stack up in my mind as proof against anything at all, in any crime.

Christmas is indeed a busy time, people do pop in and out of home, etc, I certainly have no argument there. How that would stop a person bent on studying a victim prior to a crime, though, I cannot see.

All it takes to get into a house not 100% secured is one unlocked window.. one easy-to-open latch.

This is the problem with arguing "would've"s in this case - for any specific human behaviour, there will be on public record somewhere somebody clearly doing exactly the opposite. I think anyone is capable of doing anything, really, if they are set on a specific agenda and are determined enough to see it through.

I'm not actually an IDI, either. Just not sold on RDI, and finding it a little alarming that the possibility of somebody else having killed JonBenet is so soundly (never mind rudely) shouted down on this forum. It's a mistake I've made myself - becoming so sold on one suspect-based theory that I've dismissed other possibilities outright.

I was for years, and like most everybody else, convinced Lindy Chamberlain murdered her own child. Even though the distinct possibility of a bold and hungry native dog snatching the baby from the tent was right there all along -- and was how Azaria actually died. Rather than allow for this possibility, though, people argued on and on about which of the Chamberlains murdered the child even after Lindy was convicted for it, and there were at least as many theories prior to her arrest as there are about the Ramseys . That case has made me -very- cautious about being blinded by theory in this one.

In my mind, at present, there is still room for somebody else, probably either known to the family, or who had spent time enough observing the Ramseys to think they knew the family, to have killed JonBenet.

As well as room for the idea that one of them -did- do it.

Really, I wish that instead of these 'RDI only' and 'IDI only' threads (which, as far as I can see, have only served to escalate the general atmosphere of hissiness among members here) somebody had made a 'totally unbiased' thread, where aspects of the case could be calmly discussed from a truly neutral standpoint. To me that would have been far more useful (and refreshing).

To me the only IDI theory that makes some sense is IDI+JR knowing who and why but has his own (dirty?) reasons to keep his mouth shut (who knows what he did to that person?).It would explain his behavior,him not looking for the killer and his actions after the crime.And in this case he got the message instantly IMO ,maybe NOT right from the start (RN) but for sure after he found JB.I will never buy that JR has no clue re who did it, not even if IDI.He knows.

Interesting that there are not many RIDI( IDI+RDI ) theories out there,it IS possible...the only one I found was S.Singular's. (Sex ring +JR covering up)

 

[2 percent]

On another thread, there was a discussion about Michael Moore the doco-maker, and how he did an experiment in which he and his crew rented a house, and spent a couple of weeks acting like serial killers - bloody mattress in the garbage pickup, chainsaws running in the house at 3am, screams in the night, grave sized holes dug in the yard, etc, which is hilarious in itself - not so funny was that not one single neighbour, when asked about it later, had seen or heard anything unusual at all, for all of that time, let alone called the police.

Link please?
If I'm going to devote time to debating this experiment I would like to see what was done for myself.

How that would stop a person bent on studying a victim prior to a crime, though, I cannot see.

You have to add in a paranoia factor. Unless the stalker is seriously mental, they will naturally exaggerate their visibility in their own minds and try to minimize their exposure. Most of the time by hiding in bushes or cars...which is suspicious behavior since the first thing cops ask is if you've seen anyone hanging around. Hanging around on a day when there's likely to be increased traffic and people that can potentially see you would ratchet up that paranoia just that much more.

So paranoia plays a big role in how a stalker sees himself but usually plays no role in our assessment of the stalkers behavior.

Really, I wish that instead of these 'RDI only' and 'IDI only' threads (which, as far as I can see, have only served to escalate the general atmosphere of hissiness among members here) somebody had made a 'totally unbiased' thread, where aspects of the case could be calmly discussed from a truly neutral standpoint. To me that would have been far more useful (and refreshing).

I say let 'er rip!! There is nothing in the tos that says you have to debate with personal experiences or emotions added.

 

[chlban]

Re: the Xmas timing, lala -

Christmas is indeed a busy time, people do pop in and out of home, etc, I certainly have no argument there. How that would stop a person bent on studying a victim prior to a crime, though, I cannot see.

My point, which I probably did not make well, isn't that someone couldn't have studied a victim. My point was twofold. First what good would all that studying do it the perp then attacks on Christmas Day? I don't know anyone that follows their normal routine on Christmas. So someone could have studied them for months, but that would give them no clue as to where they were going if they were having guests, etc. on Christmas Day. The only people that would generally know that in advance are good friends and family, and all of those people were eliminated and not just by one suck up DA, who was stupiid enought to take John Mark Karr seriously, but by the PD and DA's office as well.

My other point was that if this was an IDI, they somehow got into the house and then felt they had time to write the War and Peace of ransom notes. That's one calm intruder.

Many IDI's seem to believe the length of the note indicates whoever it was waited in the house and hid until the Ramseys got home and went to bed. I think if that were the case there would be family members of the killer somewhere who would have noted that their brother/father/cousin whatever was not around on that particular Chrstmas Day making virtually an other day a far better choice.

Now I know some IDI will argue that whoever did this was not rational, so therefore not making good choices, but nothing anywhere indicates that to be the case. If this was an IDI he had to be not only rational, but calm. He did not bring a ransom note with him. He did not jot down a simple "We have your daughter, you will pay, will be in touch" no, he wrote a book on the Ramseys notepad with the Ramsey's sharpie. He got in and out without leaving a footprint, fingerprint, or disturbing the spider web if he came in thorugh the window. He was quiet enough not to disturb anyone in the house. That s not irrational, not at all. It is, in fact, downright amazing.

There are plenty of organized killers out there including many serial killers. Crazy does not mean they act irrational.

Of course parents who are not killers by nature, who end up with a dead child they cannot explain, now they could certainly act irrationally and disorganized. Like writing a completely ludicrous "ransom note" that sounds like something out of a really bad B movie, on their own notepad with their own sharpie (because really what other choice did they have?) and then hiding the body in the house..........

 

[SapphireSteel]

That the police and investigators were inept. We are discussing the R's but it is obvious from the beginning these people were over their heads and had no idea how to handle this.. Even when 8 months later a man sneaks into a house and stays there for 3 hours waiting for people to come home and tries to attack 12 yr old girl, The family had to fight the police to investigate and keep on it.

This LE team most likely is the reason there is no one convicted of this crime.

Erm....most of the evidence we are debating was only secured because someone did their job properly.

Could LE have done things differently, or better? Absolutely. But that failing came from above and trickled down, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

LE were ready to arrest. The Politicians stopped them.

:banghead:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Erm....most of the evidence we are debating was only secured because someone did their job properly.

Could LE have done things differently, or better? Absolutely. But that failing came from above and trickled down, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

LE were ready to arrest. The Politicians stopped them.

:banghead:

All the things that the missed and got trampled. Most likely if they had done their job correctly there may have been an arrest earlier.. Who knows? They made so many mistakes and blunders.

 

[tezi]

All the things that the missed and got trampled. Most likely if they had done their job correctly there may have been an arrest earlier.. Who knows? They made so many mistakes and blunders.

Yes, Patsy and John would have been arrested.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, Patsy and John would have been arrested.

JMO

Nope. I believe that if they had taken the time to process the scene correctly they would have gotten the person who did this and it was not a Ramsey.

 

[SapphireSteel]

All the things that the missed and got trampled. Most likely if they had done their job correctly there may have been an arrest earlier.. Who knows? They made so many mistakes and blunders.

Yes, there were mistakes made.

Did these compromise the investigation and the "fact gathering"?

:dunno:

I'm not sure what you refer to as "trampled".

I notice a persistent pattern in your posts Scarlett. You insist that LE in both JB's cases and Madeleines were incompetent, and to illustrate that incompetence, you use evidence that the "incompetent" LE collected.

:waitasec:

If one truly believes LE was totally incompetent, there is literally nothing to sleuth, as one can have absolutely no faith in any of the evidence collected, therefore nothing to add to a sleuthing discussion based on that fumbled evidence.

I don't see why are you so sure of your IDI theory when in the next breath you state the evidence and investigation was incompetent? How can you be sure of anything in view of this?

If they were so incompetent it follows that relying on evidence that the Incompetents collected to forcefully and repeatedly argue black is white, is a folly.

You can't have it both ways...KWIM?

:seeya:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, there were mistakes made.

Did these compromise the investigation and the "fact gathering"?

:dunno:

I'm not sure what you refer to as "trampled".

I notice a persistent pattern in your posts Scarlett. You insist that LE in both JB's cases and Madeleines were incompetent, and to illustrate that incompetence, you use evidence that the "incompetent" LE collected.

:waitasec:

If one truly believes LE was totally incompetent, there is literally nothing to sleuth, as one can have absolutely no faith in any of the evidence collected, therefore nothing to add to a sleuthing discussion based on that fumbled evidence.

I don't see why are you so sure of your IDI theory when in the next breath you state the evidence and investigation was incompetent? How can you be sure of anything in view of this?

If they were so incompetent it follows that relying on evidence that the Incompetents collected to forcefully and repeatedly argue black is white, is a folly.

You can't have it both ways...KWIM?

:seeya:

LE was absolutely incompetent here. They let how many people trample the crime scene, Sent JR to search the house and he found the body of his dd. The mistakes they made were epic..

Im only talking JBR here because that is where we are.

 

[tezi]

Nope. I believe that if they had taken the time to process the scene correctly they would have gotten the person who did this and it was not a Ramsey.

Again, that is your opinion.

JMO

 

[tezi]

LE was absolutely incompetent here. They let how many people trample the crime scene, Sent JR to search the house and he found the body of his dd. The mistakes they made were epic..

Im only talking JBR here because that is where we are.

LE may have been incompetent, but the Boulder County DA's office took that incompetence to a whole new level.

Epic mistakes? Ha, Hunter and Company have them beat hands down in that department.:banghead::banghead:

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Again, that is your opinion.

JMO

Sure is. I have looked at this up and down. I can not dismiss real evidence like DNA in favor of stories, scenarios and rumors that have no basis in fact.

IT has to stay in what happened that night for me. Not who knew who and how much make up did they have on and stuff not at all related to the actual crime.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

LE may have been incompetent, but the Boulder County DA's office took that incompetence to a whole new level.

Epic mistakes? Ha, Hunter and Company have them beat hands down in that department.:banghead::banghead:

JMO

Nope. I think the DA righted the ship. They took the mess that that LE Made and refused to go along with the incompetence and further the bad work.

 

[2 percent]

LE was absolutely incompetent here. They let how many people trample the crime scene, Sent JR to search the house and he found the body of his dd. The mistakes they made were epic..

Im only talking JBR here because that is where we are.

Hold on, crime scenes don't have to be perfect. In actuality there was some contamination in this case but everyone at the scene that morning before it was shut down was accounted for and later questioned and investigated.

I've seen a trend of statement implying the cops were incompetent when collecting evidence but see no real mention of what, exactly, was incompetent, ignored or overlooked.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Hold on, crime scenes don't have to be perfect. In actuality there was some contamination in this case but everyone at the scene that morning before it was shut down was accounted for and later questioned and investigated.

I've seen a trend of statement implying the cops were incompetent when collecting evidence but see no real mention of what, exactly, was incompetent, ignored or overlooked.

Of course they don't.. But this one was a disaster. IT was unbelievable how they did not preserve the scene. These cops were a disaster. No one can argue otherwise. I have seen many cases were cops did an amazing job. But not this case.

 

[SapphireSteel]

In the olden days, before all this DNA etc, juries had to decide mainly on circumstantial.

They didn't have any problem with that because they trusted their instincts.

We have had a jury on this case, who also trusted their instincts, and voted to indict.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

In the olden days, before all this DNA etc, juries had to decide mainly on circumstantial.

They didn't have any problem with that because they trusted their instincts.

We have had a jury on this case, who also trusted their instincts, and voted to indict.

And many of them got it wrong. We have had lots of people exonerated with DNA. It is important.