New Theory accounting for the death of Jonbenet.

[Robittybob1]

The next bit tests my New Theory to the max.  I really have no explanation for it. 

Maybe it is crucial to have an explanation for Patsy's behaviour. 

Kolar writes on page 33:

"I was also perplexed by Patsy’s behavior exhibited upon the discovery of JonBenét’s body. As noted in police reports, Fleet White charged up from the basement shouting for someone to call an ambulance after he and John Ramsey had found JonBenét’s body in the Wine Cellar.

In this setting, I think it is reasonable to presume that most of us would be thinking that someone was
injured , and in need of immediate medical attention. Why else would White be shouting for an ambulance? Apparently, Barb Fernie and Priscilla White thought the same thing, for they immediately rushed out of the solarium to see what was going on.

Not Patsy Ramsey, however. According to Detective Arndt’s reporting of events, the mother of the missing and kidnapped child remained in the solarium during all of this commotion, and it was not until she directed John to retrieve his wife did she enter the living room to encounter the lifeless body of her daughter.

We weren't there to assess the situation.  The incident is of no real importance in the scheme of things.

[Robittybob1]

Kolar continues:

"In Patsy’s interview conducted on April 30, 1997, she stated that she had heard White’s screams for an ambulance. She kept asking, “What is it? What is it?”, but never took the initiative to leave the room to find out. She claimed to have been restrained in the solarium by family friend Barb Fernie.

A big red flag flew up the pole on this particular behavioral clue. I would have expected a mother to have rushed into the fray to determine if her child had been found, and be asking why an ambulance was being called to her home. I didn’t believe anyone would have been able to hold back a mother under these circumstances.

To me, Patsy Ramsey’s actions in this specific instance were counter-intuitive."  (End quote)

I'm thiking was an ambulance called?  Linda Arndt saw an ambulance go slowly past the house earlier IIRC.  Had someone else rang for the ambulance?  Is it possible the kidnapper rang the ambulance, but never gave the full address?

[Robittybob1]

Kolar continues page 34:

"So, under those circumstances, I had to ask myself:

Why did Patsy remain behind in the solarium when Fleet White was shouting for an ambulance?
Was it because she already knew that her daughter was dead?
If that was the case, how did she come to know that information?
Further, if she already knew of her daughter’s death, did she play a role in that crime?"  (End quote)

We don't know what knowledge the Fernies gained from reading that note on the floor.  Maybe that is why Patsy was held back  by Barbara Fernie.

[Robittybob1]

Kolar leaves us with 4 questions about Burke:

"When I took into consideration all of this information, I had to pose the following questions:

1. What does it matter whether or not Burke was awake at the time that Patsy Ramsey made the 911 call to police and why would his parents wish to conceal this information?

2. Furthermore, what parent would not ask their son, who slept just feet from the bedroom of their kidnapped and murdered daughter, if he had seen or heard anything during the night? This course of action defies human nature and had long been a red flag for me.

3.  And why would the Ramseys refuse to allow homicide investigators the opportunity to interview Burke about the death of his sister? Instead, they insisted that this interview be performed by a psychologist / psychiatrist.

4.  Why were Burke’s parents so adamant that he was not a witness in this investigation? Was it because the family was afraid that direct contact with experienced police investigators might reveal some way in which he was involved in this case?

[Robittybob1]

Where Kolar's analysis and the "New Theory" merge.

James Kolar writes:
"The realization slowly dawned that, according to John Ramsey’s account, at least one of the intruders must have remained hiding in his home well after the time that police arrived on the scene to investigate the kidnapping of his daughter.

That realization abruptly halted my westerly progress, and I paused to gather my thoughts. I struggled to remember the details of the chronology of the visits to the basement that had taken place before the discovery of JonBenét’s body. I knew that four people had been through various parts of the basement that morning, either looking for JonBenét or for a viable point of entry and exit from the home. The sequence of those events was significant, and I recognized that confirmation of this watershed moment was to be found in the various statements provided by those who had been in the house that morning." End quote.


Was the confirmation of this to be found in the statements?    Read about it on page 41 https://100vampirenovels.net/pdf-novels/foreign-faction-who-really-kidnapped-jonbenet-by-kolar-a-james-free/41-page

OK so what is going through my mind is where in the house were these one or more persons hiding in the house?   What seems logical is if one was in the wine cellar with JonBenet then another person had to turn the wooden latch that held that door shut.

[Robittybob1]

"At no point does John Ramsey ever state that he visited the basement prior to the arrival of Officer French. As outlined herein, over the course of numerous interviews and public statements, he vaguely indicates that the time frames were within one to three hours after French’s arrival and likely after the 10:00 a.m. ransom call had failed to materialize."


Surely the parents would have to consider looking into the basement.  There were unopened Christmas presents down there.

Kolar theorises "Based upon the historical record of his statements and the timing of events described above, it is therefore presumed that John’s first visit to the basement did not occur before Officer French arrived on scene. One has to surmise that John Ramsey did not report his trip to the basement or his suspicions about the suitcase to Officer French, for otherwise the first CSI on scene would have been diligently processing the area when Fleet White arrived that morning.

If these are accurate statements, then it must be concluded that an “intruder” had to have moved the chair into a position to block the doorway after Fleet White had conducted his search of the basement. The time frame of White’s trip to the basement can be estimated to have occurred between 0730 - 0745 hours. Following this testimonial evidence, this places an intruder in the home well after a number of police officers and CSIs were on scene and processing the house." (end quote)

But I don't see any reason why John didn't go down to the Butler Pantry and into the basement via the short stairs while Patsy was on the 911 telephone call.  In fact that makes a lot of sense, in order to get the conversation after Patsy hangs up.  Therefore I'm left thinking for the first time could it have been John Ramsey who locks "the kidnapper" into the Wine Cellar.

That really does make the case interesting then doesn't it?

[Robittybob1]

There has always been the report of John finding the basement window open 1/8 th of an inch and he says he closes it, but later in a crime scene photo the window is wide open, the suitcase also gets moved about, chairs get moved about, wine cellar doors are opened and closed, and the buttler pantry door is found open  by Fernie and by  John Ramsey at what appear to be different times.

It seems that a degree of crime scene alteration is going on under the disguise of "searching the basement".

I wonder what Kolar makes of it?

Kolar is confused by it all too!

Quote: "There is another aspect of Fleet White and John Ramsey’s statements that need to be considered. During his first in-depth police interview conducted on April 30, 1997, John advises that he “closed and latched” the Train Room window during his first visit to the basement. Fleet White clearly states that he observed the window to be closed but “unlatched.”

Giving consideration to the likely timing of John’s first visit to the basement (after 1000 hours), this means that Fleet visited the Train Room before John was there to close and latch the window. Under these conditions, based upon John’s statements, it must be presumed that the perpetrator was still concealed within the basement and didn’t block the Train Room doorway until after Fleet left the basement. This again places an intruder in the basement from approximately 0730 to 1040 hours.

If, on the other hand, John was somehow mistaken about the time frames involved and visited the basement before Fleet, then the doorway blockage would have been cleared and the window latched. This could only have occurred after police had arrived.

The intruder would have to have been responsible for unlatching the window and escaping after John’s visit to the basement, but before Fleet conducted his examination of the basement at 0730."

[Robittybob1]

Page 42:
Covers the position of 6 distinct DNA profiles found associated with JBR.
Quote:
"We collectively recapped the DNA evidence that had been analyzed in this investigation, and it included the following:

1.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath JonBenét’s fingernails of both hands during autopsy that was identified as belonging to her.

2.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her left fingernails during autopsy that belonged to an unidentified male.
84

3.) There had been trace DNA samples collected from beneath her right fingernails during autopsy that belonged to another unidentified male, and a female. (JonBenét could not be eliminated as a possible contributor of the female DNA.)

4.) There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.

5.) The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.

6.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the wrist bindings that belonged to a different unidentified male.

7.) The new technology of Touch DNA had located another sample of DNA located on the garrote that belonged to yet another unidentified male.

By our count, we were looking at six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female."  End quote.

[Robittybob1]

Kolar says:

"Over a year has passed since I first sent the “Theory of Prosecution” to the offices of the District Attorney and Boulder Police Department. There had been no acknowledgement of the receipt of this correspondence, or any indication, that police and prosecutors were willing to consider the grand jury leads that were presented in the documents. It appeared that no one in Boulder wanted to ask the difficult questions, or pursue the sensitive information that could solve this murder case."  End quote.

I have also been trying to get the JonBenet case understood for just about 1 year.  Today the reader count broke through the 10,000 barrier.  Thanking all the readers.

[Robittybob1]

Imagine if it was John Ramsey who locked the "intruder into the wine cellar.  What did he see?  Who would he want to lock into the wine cellar?  It certainly would go along way to explain why Linda Arndt found him "cordual" that morning, rather than the expected frantic father of a missing child.

[Robittybob1]

Imagine if it was John Ramsey who locked the "intruder into the wine cellar.  What did he see?  Who would he want to lock into the wine cellar?  It certainly would go along way to explain why Linda Arndt found him "cordual" that morning, rather than the expected frantic father of a missing child.

I'm not sure if I ought to go any further.  Have a Merry Christmas everyone.

[Robittybob1]

Third point I noted was that the cellar door appeared to one of the initial officers to have been "painted shut".  This was obviously a missed reading (misunderstanding) of the situation by the officer and IMO could only have indicated there was someone inside that room applying a "pulling" force to keep the door from opening.
IMO and in my theory at least one of the killers was still in the room when the police had arrived.

Imagine if it was John Ramsey who locked the "intruder into the wine cellar.  What did he see?  Who would he want to lock into the wine cellar?  It certainly would go along way to explain why Linda Arndt found him "cordual" that morning, rather than the expected frantic father of a missing child.

Where Kolar's analysis and the "New Theory" merge.

James Kolar writes:
"The realization slowly dawned that, according to John Ramsey’s account, at least one of the intruders must have remained hiding in his home well after the time that police arrived on the scene to investigate the kidnapping of his daughter.

That realization abruptly halted my westerly progress, and I paused to gather my thoughts. I struggled to remember the details of the chronology of the visits to the basement that had taken place before the discovery of JonBenét’s body. I knew that four people had been through various parts of the basement that morning, either looking for JonBenét or for a viable point of entry and exit from the home. The sequence of those events was significant, and I recognized that confirmation of this watershed moment was to be found in the various statements provided by those who had been in the house that morning." End quote.


Was the confirmation of this to be found in the statements?    Read about it on page 41 https://100vampirenovels.net/pdf-novels/foreign-faction-who-really-kidnapped-jonbenet-by-kolar-a-james-free/41-page

OK so what is going through my mind is where in the house were these one or more persons hiding in the house?   What seems logical is if one was in the wine cellar with JonBenet then another person had to turn the wooden latch that held that door shut.

We've proven where the intruder could hide, and the intruder had the opportunity to escape later.

I'm thinking of the proof that there were two ways to access the basement, and one gave a secluded access to the outside via the split level bathroom and butlers pantry.

[Robittybob1]

This "New Theory" puts a new meaning to the words John Ramsey says from memory "we are a loving family and that is why we have to find out why it happened".   Is he blaming one part of the family turning against another?  Why did this happen?

I am now looking for the page with the transcript of that interview.  It is on Google but the page link won't work, but I was able to get a cached version of it.

"This is Google's cache of http://edition.cnn.com/US/9701/11/slain.girl.update/transcript.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 13 Dec 2019 12:37:46 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime."

The section I was refering to was:
"RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.

CABELL: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are ."


OK in my memory I had the phrases in the other order.

Also a bit strange is the bit about losing one child.  He had lost two of his children by that stage, but what he said is still technically true as John and Patsy have only lost one.


Full transcript was released on the website too. http://www.acandyrose.com/04222004Declaration-of-Jason-P-Conti.htm 

[Robittybob1]

This "New Theory" puts a new meaning to the words John Ramsey says from memory "we are a loving family and that is why we have to find out why it happened".   Is he blaming one part of the family turning against another?  Why did this happen?

I am now looking for the page with the transcript of that interview.  It is on Google but the page link won't work, but I was able to get a cached version of it.

"This is Google's cache of http://edition.cnn.com/US/9701/11/slain.girl.update/transcript.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 13 Dec 2019 12:37:46 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime."

The section I was refering to was:
"RAMSEY, J: This -- we cannot go on until we know why. There's no answer as to why our daughter died.

CABELL: Are you fully convinced that your daughter was kidnapped by some outsiders outside your family or circle of friends?

RAMSEY, J: Yes. I -- we don't -- you know, it's just so hard to know, but we are -- our family is a loving family. It's a gentle family. We have lost one child. We know how precious their lives are ."


OK in my memory I had the phrases in the other order.

Also a bit strange is the bit about losing one child.  He had lost two of his children by that stage, but what he said is still technically true as John and Patsy have only lost one.


Full transcript was released on the website too. http://www.acandyrose.com/04222004Declaration-of-Jason-P-Conti.htm

Everyone has always pointed the finger at Patsy, but I'm now seeing a possible involvement of John Ramsey.   

What I am having trouble fathoming out is why John would lock anyone into the wine cellar if Jonbenet lay dying or dead in there.  Maybe that part didn't happen.   But enough happened down in the basement later for both Fleet White and John Ramsey to go down into the cellar that morning without Detective Arndt being aware of that happening.

Once you realize there is an alternate passage into the  basement this is not so hard to understand.  One could go to the toilet, then go downstairs into the butler pantry and then up to the landing and onward to the stairs to the basement.  That path is completely invisible to a person in the sun room or the lounge.
There is no way one detective can keep track of where people are going if they start wandering around.

[Robittybob1]

There seems to be a notable absence of anyone checking the basement.   It is the kid's play area.  How come the parents didn't check there early? In fact why didn't they check there first thing?