Garnett and others on Boyles 10/310/13
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#24 Nov 3, 2013
I'm also surprised that he hasn't read DOI, but then again, there is nothing in there that he probably hasn't heard about or already made aware of i.e. inconsistencies, statements, etc.

It isn't as useful a tool as one would think because the RAMSEYS didn't necessarily WRITE the book, giving them an out if you will, as "typos", "misunderstandings" etc.

I'm sure Garnett or anyone else doesn't think about DOI as a book you curl up with after a hard day for pleasure reading

However, that said, no matter what you already have heard or know, reading the book for yourself is something the authorities should certainly have done when the prime suspects write a book. Everyone comes away from an experience with a different perspective and you never know what will "click" with each individual reader

Therefore, he SHOULD have read it, if not for any other reason than to get his own perspective on it

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#25 Nov 3, 2013
candy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Legal Eagle,
I don't get to listen to these podcasts under the most optimal conditions, usually people are talking, etc. so I don't remember or recall him saying that on the podcasts I've heard, but I haven't heard them all yet. I haven't heard the Thomas Kelley one yet, for instance.
He said there was one big revelation he knew of that had yet come out when Charlie's article came out this past January. I emailed him and said PLEASE just give it to the police, don't tell the Ramseys via the airwaves if they don't already know.
Hi Candy,
Just wanted to follow up with you. I didn't get as much time to listen today as I had hoped but what I previously heard was NOT on the Thomas Kelly one, as I reviewed that one again today. I will keep trying to find it.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#26 Nov 3, 2013
Thank you Legal Eagle.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#27 Nov 4, 2013
candy wrote:
Thank you Legal Eagle.
Candy, it was Oct 30th Hr 1, and it wasn’t about other evidence as I had suspected, my bad, they were talking about the RN, and the fact that he had seen it, etc., and about the attempted sale, and depositions, and he did go into the story about his son being given a subpoena meant for him when he wasn’t home, and there is a lot of parody on that segment as well.

I guess I wasn’t listening as closely as I thought I was, however, what is awesome about that segment is that no one holds back in what they think of the actions of Boulder and the people who were running it, and all the stupid things they did, LOL.

If all the IDIs (the handful who are remaining) would listen to ALL of his podcasts about this case that he has done, with the key players that he has had on, there wouldn’t be any IDIs left.

I am pretty sure this IS the one I was referring to,(and obviously misremembering) but I still have more to go, and if I run across anything else I will let you know.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#28 Nov 4, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Candy, it was Oct 30th Hr 1, and it wasn’t about other evidence as I had suspected, my bad, they were talking about the RN, and the fact that he had seen it, etc., and about the attempted sale, and depositions, and he did go into the story about his son being given a subpoena meant for him when he wasn’t home, and there is a lot of parody on that segment as well.
I guess I wasn’t listening as closely as I thought I was, however, what is awesome about that segment is that no one holds back in what they think of the actions of Boulder and the people who were running it, and all the stupid things they did, LOL.
If all the IDIs (the handful who are remaining) would listen to ALL of his podcasts about this case that he has done, with the key players that he has had on, there wouldn’t be any IDIs left.
I am pretty sure this IS the one I was referring to,(and obviously misremembering) but I still have more to go, and if I run across anything else I will let you know.
Thank you very much Legal Eagle. I know what you mean about thinking someone said one thing, then you go back and find it was different. I've had that many times, I have to go back through the podcasts many times often to get what was actually said.

What Boyles mentioned about his son being served, etc. is all from the Tom Miller trial. I will for sure want to hear what he says about that. Thanks for the info.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#29 Nov 4, 2013
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
When, in 1998, did you hear Boyles say this? There are transcripts available.
---Maybe the transcripts have been pulled, distroyed -- if so ,wonder why?

Boyles was fired from one station wasn't he?
Any phone call before 5:30 AM solves the case--No one can tell me that LE didn't get phone records.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#30 Nov 5, 2013
It isn't hard to miss things on his show because the topic of conversation changes rapidly and they bounce around a lot remembering previous guests and topics they spoke on, and you don't realize just how much until you are trying to tie down something specific.

Far different to try and find a specific point as opposed to just listening to his show - but each and every one of them is invaluable and contains a plethora of information.
candy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to go back through the podcasts many times often to get what was actually said.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#31 Nov 5, 2013
I think they just went the way of everything else from 17 years ago Robert. Even the news organizations don't have their stuff archived on-line that far back, but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. Someone has those transcripts saved somewhere, I would be willing to bet on it.
robert wrote:
<quoted text>---Maybe the transcripts have been pulled, distroyed -- if so ,wonder why?
Boyles was fired from one station wasn't he?
Any phone call before 5:30 AM solves the case--No one can tell me that LE didn't get phone records.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#32 Nov 5, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
I'm also surprised that he hasn't read DOI, but then again, there is nothing in there that he probably hasn't heard about or already made aware of i.e. inconsistencies, statements, etc.
It isn't as useful a tool as one would think because the RAMSEYS didn't necessarily WRITE the book, giving them an out if you will, as "typos", "misunderstandings" etc.
I'm sure Garnett or anyone else doesn't think about DOI as a book you curl up with after a hard day for pleasure reading
However, that said, no matter what you already have heard or know, reading the book for yourself is something the authorities should certainly have done when the prime suspects write a book. Everyone comes away from an experience with a different perspective and you never know what will "click" with each individual reader
Therefore, he SHOULD have read it, if not for any other reason than to get his own perspective on it
My favorite DOI story is the one where Patsy told the public she had kept journals and WROTE EVERY WORD herself.

Right up until the actual ghost writer went public and told the public he not only wrote the book for them, he interviewed them and used tapes of those interviews to write it.

LOL Old Patsy never met a lie she didn't like.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#33 Nov 5, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I think they just went the way of everything else from 17 years ago Robert. Even the news organizations don't have their stuff archived on-line that far back, but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. Someone has those transcripts saved somewhere, I would be willing to bet on it.
<quoted text>
I'm hoping the Rapps have them...tucked away in a safe deposit box somewhere.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#34 Nov 5, 2013
koldkase wrote:
<quoted text>My favorite DOI story is the one where Patsy told the public she had kept journals and WROTE EVERY WORD herself.

Right up until the actual ghost writer went public and told the public he not only wrote the book for them, he interviewed them and used tapes of those interviews to write it.

LOL Old Patsy never met a lie she didn't like.
I haven't been able to find Patsy Ramsey quoted as saying she "WROTE EVERY WORD herself." Do you mind sharing your source?
candy

East Lansing, MI

#35 Nov 5, 2013
If the Rapps are the only ones that have the Ramseys phone records, they might as well not exist. Kolar said that he thought only GOVERNMENT illegally seized evidence would be subject to the exclusionary rule. It doesn't matter. Hell would freeze over twice before any Judge, or Hal Haddon, would let someone's PAID for "phone records" get into evidence. There's no chain of custody, nothing to prove they are authentic AND COMPLETE. Nothing in anything the Rapps have will ever be admitted in this case in any court of law. That's why BPD legal was walking Thomas by those records, making sure he didn't see them, because they were ILLEGALLY obtained, and Haddon would exclude ANYONE that ever caught a glimpse of them, the whole of their testimony, saying it was tainted by illegal "evidence."

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#36 Nov 5, 2013
According to Steve Thomas, the BPD has the Ramseys' cell & home phone records.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#37 Nov 5, 2013
In the Wolf case, it came out that Patsy destroyed her notes to DOI.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#38 Nov 6, 2013
candy wrote:
If the Rapps are the only ones that have the Ramseys phone records, they might as well not exist. Kolar said that he thought only GOVERNMENT illegally seized evidence would be subject to the exclusionary rule. It doesn't matter. Hell would freeze over twice before any Judge, or Hal Haddon, would let someone's PAID for "phone records" get into evidence. There's no chain of custody, nothing to prove they are authentic AND COMPLETE. Nothing in anything the Rapps have will ever be admitted in this case in any court of law. That's why BPD legal was walking Thomas by those records, making sure he didn't see them, because they were ILLEGALLY obtained, and Haddon would exclude ANYONE that ever caught a glimpse of them, the whole of their testimony, saying it was tainted by illegal "evidence."
That is true Candy, but the silver lining is that, like with the knowledge of the indictment before it became legally public knowledge, it is still knowledge

They will never be able to admit them legally in a court of law but the more important point and more important reality is the knowledge that these records EXIST

The "no phone records" was just more spin and outright LIES. Innocent people have no need to lie

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#39 Mar 18, 2014
Garnett didn't say anything of interest. Was Prendergast even on? I started skipping around after Garnett, but I don't think I missed too much. Then I listened to most of the first hour with Patricia Coulson (I think that was her name).

I also listened to an interview Boyles did with Carol McKinley and Kolar. I was afraid I might fall asleep and get hit with a stray softball. Kolar repeated his mantra which goes something like "I present all sides of the story and let people make up their own minds." This statement has always irked me because the only presentation he makes in his book of Thomas's "Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage precipitated by bedwetting" theory is to say that he didn't think she would do that. After reading Kolar's book I didn't even know if Kolar thought JonBenet wet the bed that night. I still don't. I suspect he does, but thinks it's unimportant because Burke killed JonBenet over pineapple, apparently a rare commodity in Colorado.

So being generous, say that Kolar devotes one page of his book to discussing Thomas's theory. Match that against, what, a hundred pages or so of Burke and SBP?(I don't have the book handy.) That's not to say that Kolar makes a convincing case for BDI; he just talks about it a lot.

I'm finally done listening to Kolar. And I think I'm done listening to Peter Boyles. He could have asked Kolar why neither Garnett or Beckner is hot on his theory. He could have asked Kolar if the red sweater had evidence of urine on it. Maybe an anecdote about finding "SBTC"? Something, anything, to justify listening to all of those commercials.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#40 Mar 19, 2014
Peter Boyles did ask one interesting question in the McKinley/Kolar interview. He asked Carol McKinley what she thought of Kolar's book. I don't think she was expecting that question because she took a long beat. Then she said, "You know me. I'm not going to give an opinion." Fine. She's a reporter after all. But then she adds, "Whatever Jim wants to throw out there...." Huh? Throw out there? As in throw together? Throw against the wall? Throw me a bone, Jim. Tell me a secret because I'm here pimping your dumb book?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#41 Mar 19, 2014
Maybe Boyles asked McKinley what she thought of Kolar's theory rather than his book. Her answer was as above.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#42 Mar 20, 2014
I assume the rationale for not asking Kolar any questions of substance regarding Burke and SBP is that to speak of it invites a lawsuit. But maybe, Mr. Boyles, you could ask him a question which skirts this issue. One of the things Kolar says in his book is that when he learned that Burke had been in therapy for a year and a half it made him, Kolar, think that Burke must have been an eyewitness and/or perpetrator of the injury to JonBenet because that was too long to be in therapy if you hadn't actually seen the injury happen. So Kolar could be asked what informs his ideas about the appropriate/typical duration of therapy for a child whose sibling is murdered. Did he consult grief counselors? Does Kolar himself have experience in this area? Just ask general questions like that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Officer French Field Report 56 min KCinNYC 204
News 'Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery' rev... 1 hr Murphey_Law 168
JAR must have been beside himself when he heard... (Jan '16) 1 hr kauna 5
SBTC Victory or Victory SBTC? 1 hr Fr_Brown 43
Random thought about the Stines (Jan '15) 3 hr kauna 103
News 'Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh!': Burke Ra... 3 hr kauna 19
RDI'z- - -Ransom Note Questions 4 hr kauna 11
More from around the web