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

[BOESP]

[respectfully snipped]

Also, in this case it's nearly impossible to make all the evidence fit neatly into any theory b/c between the abuse, the murder, the staging, the undoing, and the crime scene contamination it's beyond difficult to discern what is most relevant to the crime itself!

:moo:

Your observation above is what makes me believe Steve Thomas's theory is the correct one. His theory explains all this and he seems to believe it leads to Patsy. Seemingly, Thomas could not eliminate her.

 

[bettybaby00]

Paula Woodward has a book coming out about this case in 2014:

http://kdvr.com/2013/01/27/new-developments-surface-in-jonbenet-ramsey-case/

It's mentioned in the video.

Ok, I'm clueless. Who is she, and how does she relate to the case???? :blushing:

Also Boesp: many do subscribe to the PDI theory that's for sure.

 

[wonderllama]

wonderllama,
Coroner Meyer stated that there had been Sexual Contact that night prior to her death.

Kolar avoided this subject since it conflicted with his pineapple scenario!

.

If you're clubbed over the head and died and hour or two later, and during the period between clubbing and being choked to death you are abused, does that fit in with "that night prior to her death?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Ok, I'm clueless. Who is she, and how does she relate to the case???? :blushing:

Also Boesp: many do subscribe to the PDI theory that's for sure.

She was an investigative reporter for a Denver news channel. She's very pro-Ramsey.

 

[bettybaby00]

She was an investigative reporter for a Denver news channel. She's very pro-Ramsey.

Thank you.

Interesting ...

 

[Chelly]

She was an investigative reporter for a Denver news channel. She's very pro-Ramsey.

Sorry for sounding dense. Do you mean she is pro RDI or she is supportive of the Ramseys?

 

[cynic]

Sorry for sounding dense. Do you mean she is pro RDI or she is supportive of the Ramseys?

She couldn't be more supportive of the Ramseys

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Sorry for sounding dense. Do you mean she is pro RDI or she is supportive of the Ramseys?

Both. In the video, she mentions that she talked to John after the indictment news came in. It sounded like it was more of a personal conversation than an interview. She also had some beanie babies of JonBenet's, that I'm guessing either John or Patsy gave her.

I wonder if anyone else (whose directly connected to the case) will write a book?

 

[questfortrue]

midwest mama,
I agree. Seemed to me like Kolar was simply speculating on the forensic evidence, then as questions became more structured he began to theorise similarly offering a narrative, one which I found confusing in parts.

. . .
In my basic RDI theory I assume JonBenet walks into the house, as per BR's account, also that JonBenet is dressed for bed and has her hair put up by Patsy.

. . .
What theory you propose will be decided by whether you think the parents knew that JonBenet had a pineapple snack?

Occam and it not being factored into the parents version of events has me thinking, on balance, they were both ignorant?

The clothing that JonBenet is found wearing in the wine-cellar I consider to be staged. She is dressed partially to conform with the parents version of events, and to stage a homicide.

Personally I reckon the case is straight forward, a no brainer as to what took place. Remove the staged evidence, analyse the remaining elements and I reckon its either BDI or JDI? .

It seems like a herculean task to separate out who did what in the staging, but I wanted to raise some questions about this.

After listening to Kolar a pesky question arose in my mind: Was the person who struck the head blow the person who molested JB that night? I didn’t hear on the radio program anything conclusive about this molestation, except the confirmation of the paintbrush violation. However, Wecht does address the trauma to JB’s vaginal area from that evening of her death, and in reviewing this information I was not given the impression that he thought that all of the trauma came only from a paintbrush jab. The wiped up blood on her thighs tells the story of an assault. So the question I have is why clean her up, and then use a paintbrush to disguise an assault.

My inclination is to assume that PR cleaned up her daughter of the blood on her thighs. So why then would she use a paintbrush to disguise abuse? Isn’t that counterproductive to cleaning her up, especially since she still bled a little from the paintbrush? But if the two adult R’s were involved in the staging, perhaps it was the adult male, ie, JR who used the paintbrush to hide prior abuse. And after that, did he grab a pair of the size 12 bloomies to dress her? We’ve already discussed the unlikelihood of PR using the size 12 bloomies.

So then, I have a problem thinking that if JR knew BR was abusing JB, wouldn’t he have made it totally clear to BR that this behavior would be met with grave consequences. If PR kept from JR that she had had panic attacks and took Paxil or another benzo, would she have kept the information about BR and SBP to herself? My supposition, and perhaps it is faulty, is that whoever inserted the paintbrush knew of JB’s past abuse. If it was PR, then from the previous clues of JB having blood in her panties, PR knew about BR’s behavior and wasn’t able to correct this. If it was JR, can’t believe he wouldn’t have put a real halt to BR’s behavior with significant harshness. Thoughts?

 

[UKGuy]

It seems like a herculean task to separate out who did what in the staging, but I wanted to raise some questions about this.

After listening to Kolar a pesky question arose in my mind: Was the person who struck the head blow the person who molested JB that night? I didn’t hear on the radio program anything conclusive about this molestation, except the confirmation of the paintbrush violation. However, Wecht does address the trauma to JB’s vaginal area from that evening of her death, and in reviewing this information I was not given the impression that he thought that all of the trauma came only from a paintbrush jab. The wiped up blood on her thighs tells the story of an assault. So the question I have is why clean her up, and then use a paintbrush to disguise an assault.

My inclination is to assume that PR cleaned up her daughter of the blood on her thighs. So why then would she use a paintbrush to disguise abuse? Isn’t that counterproductive to cleaning her up, especially since she still bled a little from the paintbrush? But if the two adult R’s were involved in the staging, perhaps it was the adult male, ie, JR who used the paintbrush to hide prior abuse. And after that, did he grab a pair of the size 12 bloomies to dress her? We’ve already discussed the unlikelihood of PR using the size 12 bloomies.

So then, I have a problem thinking that if JR knew BR was abusing JB, wouldn’t he have made it totally clear to BR that this behavior would be met with grave consequences. If PR kept from JR that she had had panic attacks and took Paxil or another benzo, would she have kept the information about BR and SBP to herself? My supposition, and perhaps it is faulty, is that whoever inserted the paintbrush knew of JB’s past abuse. If it was PR, then from the previous clues of JB having blood in her panties, PR knew about BR’s behavior and wasn’t able to correct this. If it was JR, can’t believe he wouldn’t have put a real halt to BR’s behavior with significant harshness. Thoughts?

questfortrue,
The simple answer is no! Being able to factor out the staged evidence gives clarity to what remains, e.g. remove the RN, we know an R wrote it, but making inferences from it will likely lead nowhere, since its staged.

I think much of what you outline above is on the right track. Patsy patently knew that JonBenet was being molested, playing doctors with her peers, however you describe it, given her obsession with social climbing and displaying her wealth, she was likely blind to how serious it was?

So the question I have is why clean her up, and then use a paintbrush to disguise an assault.

The blood may have arisen after she was cleaned up?

It is important to satisfy yourself as to what took place prior to her death and what occurred postmortem so to speak, even the period between the head blow and her final asphyxiation.

I reckon the big clue is in the staging, most people incorporate staged elements into their theory, e.g. DocG's theory employs the RN along with other assumptions, e.g. Ramsey future behaviour, none of which can be corroborated.

One of the R's staged a homicide in the wine-cellar complete with some extraneous forensic evidence tossed in.

So why would this be done if JonBenet could have been left lying on her bed staged as a victim of an intruder, same scenario different tactics?

Consider R's wake up the morning of the 26th and find JonBenet dead in bed. What do you reckon might be the response, 911 call?

Again same scenario, but now similar tactics, or MO.

So the question to ask is what benefit does the wine-cellar staging confer on the R's that an intruder bedroom assault does not?

I think the answer lies in the cleanup and removal of forensic evidence from another primary crime-scene, which I do not think is the breakfast bar?


.

 

[Chrishope]

questfortrue,
The simple answer is no! Being able to factor out the staged evidence gives clarity to what remains, e.g.remove the RN, we know an R wrote it, but making inferences from it will likely lead nowhere, since its staged.

I think much of what you outline above is on the right track. Patsy patently knew that JonBenet was being molested, playing doctors with her peers, however you describe it, given her obsession with social climbing and displaying her wealth, she was likely blind to how serious it was?


The blood may have arisen after she was cleaned up?

It is important to satisfy yourself as to what took place prior to her death and what occurred postmortem so to speak, even the period between the head blow and her final asphyxiation.

I reckon the big clue is in the staging, most people incorporate staged elements into their theory, e.g. DocG's theory employs the RN along with other assumptions, e.g. Ramsey future behaviour, none of which can be corroborated.

One of the R's staged a homicide in the wine-cellar complete with some extraneous forensic evidence tossed in.

So why would this be done if JonBenet could have been left lying on her bed staged as a victim of an intruder, same scenario different tactics?

Consider R's wake up the morning of the 26th and find JonBenet dead in bed. What do you reckon might be the response, 911 call?

Again same scenario, but now similar tactics, or MO.

So the question to ask is what benefit does the wine-cellar staging confer on the R's that an intruder bedroom assault does not?

I think the answer lies in the cleanup and removal of forensic evidence from another primary crime-scene, which I do not think is the breakfast bar?


.

Not true. It's very reasonable to make some inferences based on the RN. First it sets up a fake kidnapping. That's a pretty safe inference. Could be wrong, but probably not. Most likely the RN is meant to facilitate a fake kidnapping.

Second, a kidnapping explains the disappearance of someone. It doesn't explain moving the body and other articles from one part of the house to another. It explains why someone has gone missing.

Third, the original plan likely involved dumping the body somewhere, because the kidnapping scenario is not worth the paper it's written on if the body is still in the house.

 

[UKGuy]

Not true. It's very reasonable to make some inferences based on the RN. First it sets up a fake kidnapping. That's a pretty safe inference. Could be wrong, but probably not. Most likely the RN is meant to facilitate a fake kidnapping.

Second, a kidnapping explains the disappearance of someone. It doesn't explain moving the body and other articles from one part of the house to another. It explains why someone has gone missing.

Third, the original plan likely involved dumping the body somewhere, because the kidnapping scenario is not worth the paper it's written on if the body is still in the house.

Chrishope,
Your grasp of what seems reasonable appears very elastic when it comes to your adopted pet theory, yet extremely inelastic towards other theories.

Any inferences based on the RN are simply speculation they cannot be substantiated or demonstrated in any manner.

So infer away, just do not expect people to take you seriously, since your speculations cannot be corroborated.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Your grasp of what seems reasonable appears very elastic when it comes to your adopted pet theory, yet extremely inelastic towards other theories.

Any inferences based on the RN are simply speculation they cannot be substantiated or demonstrated in any manner.

So infer away, just do not expect people to take you seriously, since your speculations cannot be corroborated.


.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about your grasp of reasonableness. Recently you had some very flimsy reasons for inferring that BR was molesting JB, yet you reject solid inferences when they don't suit your theory of the case.

 

[UKGuy]

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about your grasp of reasonableness. Recently you had some very flimsy reasons for inferring that BR was molesting JB, yet you reject solid inferences when they don't suit your theory of the case.

Chrishope,
You are not required to accept anyones conclusions on websleuths. You are free to cherrypick so to build your own theory.

Any conclusion I have reached regarding BR and the subject of molestation is based on premises that are evidence based, e.g. LHP walked in on BR allegedly playing doctors with JonBenet, i.e. prior behaviour. Also we have the nature of JonBenet's internal injuries, and the verbatim opinion from Coroner Meyer regarding Sexual Contact. These premises can be substantiated separately from any claims I wish to make about them.

In contrast DocG's theory is largely speculation using staged forensic evidence, i.e. some of the premises are patently flawed, so regardless of the form of your argument, any conclusions will be invalid.

Thats not to say you cannot arrive at the correct conclusion by invalid means, but it does not inspire confidence.

As I'm sure you know I reckon the case is either BDI or JDI in that order.

Also depending on how you interpret the forensic evidence another outcome is possible.


.

 

[Chelly]

UKGuy and Chrishope:
I've a question for you both.


If there had been no ongoing sexual abuse of JB, would you revise your theories?

Thanks
C.

 

[BOESP]

In my opinion the ignorant fake ransom note compares favorably to the ignorant fake molestation with a paint brush handle. Both were staged by someone desperate who thought they were clever but in reality didn't know what they were doing.

 

[wonderllama]

I have to agree with UK Guy on this one.
I don't think examining the Ransom Note gives you any clues to the crime, other than answering who wrote it and therefore who was involved in the crime.

It's all garbage written to confuse law enforcement.

But then I believe most of the crime scene is also like that.

The sexual abuse is now an important aspect as the timing of it tells us whether it was part of the staging.

I need to go through the threads here to see if I can find all the information as to over what time period it is supposed to have occurred, but I was still under the impression that the injuries on the dead JBR were not the first, but that the first had taken place relatively recently. I haven't read that it was anything more than a recent event.

Just to answer Chelly's question - If there was no prior sexual abuse, and by prior, I mean more than a day before, then I would suggest that it is clearly part of the staging, much like the note, the pants, the garotte, the paintbrush etc.

If there WAS prior abuse, and again, I mean in the days, weeks leading up to it, then it should in theory help point to the perpetrator, but doesn't change who I believe was involved.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy and Chrishope:
I've a question for you both.


If there had been no ongoing sexual abuse of JB, would you revise your theories?

Thanks
C.

Chelly,
Probably. Yet there are only three real suspects so any revision need not be too drastic.

.

 

[Chelly]

Chelly,
Probably. Yet there are only three real suspects so any revision need not be too drastic.

.

Agreed, absolutely. I'm from the BDI school but this mind of mine tends to be wide open to new thoughts.

 

[questfortrue]

I have to agree with UK Guy on this one.
I don't think examining the Ransom Note gives you any clues to the crime, other than answering who wrote it and therefore who was involved in the crime.

It's all garbage written to confuse law enforcement.

But then I believe most of the crime scene is also like that.

The sexual abuse is now an important aspect as the timing of it tells us whether it was part of the staging.

I need to go through the threads here to see if I can find all the information as to over what time period it is supposed to have occurred, but I was still under the impression that the injuries on the dead JBR were not the first, but that the first had taken place relatively recently. I haven't read that it was anything more than a recent event.

Just to answer Chelly's question - If there was no prior sexual abuse, and by prior, I mean more than a day before, then I would suggest that it is clearly part of the staging, much like the note, the pants, the garotte, the paintbrush etc.

If there WAS prior abuse, and again, I mean in the days, weeks leading up to it, then it should in theory help point to the perpetrator, but doesn't change who I believe was involved.

Excellent summary from a variety of experts on the sexual abuse information:
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9657"]Chronic vaginal injuries - Forums For Justice[/ame]