Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ram...
Sue

UK

#234 Jan 27, 2014
egad wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't remember how Kolar deals with evidence of bed-wetting that night: See pictures at JonBenet Investigation on Facebook too, the red turtleneck, the urine-stained sheets, the Pull-ups half out of the cabinet. Does he more or less ignore it in his book?
Good book.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#235 Jan 27, 2014
I think part of the disconnect here is that people don't fully appreciate what Kolar is implying. He writes: "I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in his sister's bedroom, could have been related to scatological behavior associated with SBP [sexual behavior problems]. I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenet's candy would have been smeared with human excrement."

So for Kolar it's not a matter of a 9yo pranking his little sister. And, as I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#237 Jan 28, 2014
And if it matters what my feelings are, I don't think I feel disdain. I don't feel disdain yet. Maybe Kolar is sitting on a mountain of corroborating evidence he keeps forgetting to tell us about. "Puzzled" is the right word for how I feel, I think.

I see myself as being in the moral mainstream, but I seem to be the only person in the world who's shocked by Kolar publishing such innuendoes about Burke with almost nothing to back them up.

For the record, I don't care if Burke did it. I don't care if an intruder did it. I don't care if Patsy did it. I don't care if John did it. I'm interested, but I'm not invested in the guilt of any of the above.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#238 Jan 28, 2014
Like Steve Thomas and all others who wrote books and offered public opinions, etc. Kolar gave HIS take on the evidence and in no way claimed for it to be the ABSOLUTE re: answers to all the questions

He provided information we didn't have before, gave HIS interpretation as HE sees it and never claimed it couldn't be anything else.

This case is not solved and there are few definitive answers to much of the questions and Kolar's book was meant to offer new evidence and new theories as HE sees it.

He doesn't need extraordinary evidence. He is offering HIS OPINION

Nobody has to agree with his opinion but he surely has offered food for thought
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#239 Jan 28, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
And if it matters what my feelings are, I don't think I feel disdain. I don't feel disdain yet. Maybe Kolar is sitting on a mountain of corroborating evidence he keeps forgetting to tell us about. "Puzzled" is the right word for how I feel, I think.
I see myself as being in the moral mainstream, but I seem to be the only person in the world who's shocked by Kolar publishing such innuendoes about Burke with almost nothing to back them up.
For the record, I don't care if Burke did it. I don't care if an intruder did it. I don't care if Patsy did it. I don't care if John did it. I'm interested, but I'm not invested in the guilt of any of the above.
The Ramseys have not managed to bring suit against Kolar over his book and allegations as they have others. Perhaps he was just wiser about his method of asserting his opinions or suspicions. After all, he makes it clear from the beginning that his aim is to provide us with all the evidence/information he has collected. He would rather we form our own opinion from that information. And, perhaps, there is proof but Kolar is not at liberty to provide those exact details for fear of compromising the evidence should this case ever be brought to trial? Which seems highly unlikely

I think most of us just want justice for Jonbenet. I would rather think her family did not harm her. Yet, then again, an angry blow from a brother that was swift would have been more merciful that a pedophile's tortuous death. Maybe we, RDIs, would prefer to think of it in those terms.

If, indeed, the Ramseys are innocent of all wrongdoing, then it is heartbreaking to think of the way their lives have been turned inside out and scrutinized. Then, again, they were responsible for much of the scrutiny. Had they come out and cooperated immediately with the BPD, much of the information about their lives may never have been disclosed.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#240 Jan 28, 2014
I am sure Kolar dotted all his "i's" and crossed all his "t's" before the book was published. I have no doubt that all legal implications were addressed

IF there is information he didn't tell us in the book, like all confidential evidence, he could not reveal it for reasons that would be illegal.

He revealed what he COULD and made it clear that we are to take the information given and interpret it ourselves while giving the reader his OPINION.

It's heartbreaking for anyone to be presumed guilty when they are innocent, but in the case of the Ramseys, they brought that all on themselves.

Others, like the Van Dam family during that trial were just victims of maliciousness by holier than thou people who didn't approve of their lifestyle

There are many families/people wrongfully accused whether in public opinion or in a courtroom and there is not much worse than that; however, in this case it was done by their own doing IMO

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#241 Jan 28, 2014
One shudders to think what Kolar *can't* tell us considering how much he's already told us that's merely speculation.

I took a look at the Araji book Kolar likes so much. It's very sketchy about scatological behaviors in general, let alone those associated with sexual arousal. My own peripheral experience with this had to do with an adult who was compelled to use a particular public bathroom in the middle of the night for these activities. Needless to say, he eventually got caught. I'm told that this phenomenon is not unknown to police departments. Compulsive and public is part of the sexual arousal, along with the mess. If Burke were really inclined to this activity, a lot of people would know about it.

It's not as easy to prevail in a libel suit as one may think. I'm not sure if actual malice would need to be proved. If there is only one pair of poopy pants in Jonbenet's room and they belonged to JonBenet, this might rise to reckless disregard. Maybe Paula Woodward can help figure this out, if she's up to the task.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#242 Jan 28, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:

It's not as easy to prevail in a libel suit as one may think. I'm not sure if actual malice would need to be proved. If there is only one pair of poopy pants in Jonbenet's room and they belonged to JonBenet, this might rise to reckless disregard. Maybe Paula Woodward can help figure this out, if she's up to the task.
Paula will write whatever John Ramsey wants her to write. Something had to happen from that side of the case after the announcements the GJ voted to indict J&P.

Paula and the truth are fairly well known as strangers to one another, and if she wrote it in an attempt to get sued (which she readily boasts about) I'm not sure I can't count on the voracity of the information, because it will have been written for all the wrong reasons.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#243 Jan 28, 2014
correction:
I'm not sure I can't = I'm not sure I can

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#244 Jan 28, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Paula will write whatever John Ramsey wants her to write. Something had to happen from that side of the case after the announcements the GJ voted to indict J&P.
Paula and the truth are fairly well known as strangers to one another, and if she wrote it in an attempt to get sued (which she readily boasts about) I'm not sure I can't count on the voracity of the information, because it will have been written for all the wrong reasons.
If her information is specific, that'll be something. That's one thing about Lou: it was usually pretty easy to prove him wrong.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#245 Jan 28, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
If her information is specific, that'll be something. That's one thing about Lou: it was usually pretty easy to prove him wrong.
Very true, because he made stuff up, and pushed his opinion as fact, which it wasn't!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#246 Feb 5, 2014
Does Kolar, in fact, have a lot of corroborating evidence he hasn't told the public about? It occurred to me that I could at least read Mary Lacy's evaluation of it. Presumably Kolar put all of his best stuff in the presentation he gave her, her ADAs and her chief investigator, Tom Bennett. Bennett, at least, Kolar seems to respect. After claiming that they are all in agreement, including Bennett, about the value of Kolar's theory, Lacy writes, "We are in agreement that the first portion of your presentation is based on the Boulder Police Department's Case Summary and facts that have been previously documented and debated. There is nothing new in terms of evidence in this presentation. The last quarter of your PowerPoint Presentation which is the final seventy plus frames are not based on facts supported by evidence. You[sic] theory is based upon conjecture, which at times approaches pure flights of fantasy. Your conclusions are based upon suppositions and inferences with absolutely no support in evidence or in the record. Your presentation lacks the fundamental substantive factual basis from which reasonable minds cannot differ...."

Ouch. It's those last seventy frames she seems to have the biggest problem with. Those are no doubt mostly devoted to his research on SBP and how it relates to Burke.

Does Kolar think that Tom Bennett is just scared to tell Lacy his real opinion about the presentation? He doesn't say.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#247 Feb 5, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
Does Kolar, in fact, have a lot of corroborating evidence he hasn't told the public about? It occurred to me that I could at least read Mary Lacy's evaluation of it. Presumably Kolar put all of his best stuff in the presentation he gave her, her ADAs and her chief investigator, Tom Bennett. Bennett, at least, Kolar seems to respect. After claiming that they are all in agreement, including Bennett, about the value of Kolar's theory, Lacy writes, "We are in agreement that the first portion of your presentation is based on the Boulder Police Department's Case Summary and facts that have been previously documented and debated. There is nothing new in terms of evidence in this presentation. The last quarter of your PowerPoint Presentation which is the final seventy plus frames are not based on facts supported by evidence. You[sic] theory is based upon conjecture, which at times approaches pure flights of fantasy. Your conclusions are based upon suppositions and inferences with absolutely no support in evidence or in the record. Your presentation lacks the fundamental substantive factual basis from which reasonable minds cannot differ...."
Ouch. It's those last seventy frames she seems to have the biggest problem with. Those are no doubt mostly devoted to his research on SBP and how it relates to Burke.
Does Kolar think that Tom Bennett is just scared to tell Lacy his real opinion about the presentation? He doesn't say.
I think it is quite possible that Lacy was a fixer for the Ramseys from when Hunter was "investigating" the case. It is as if she had a strong vested interest in making sure that they were not properly investigated and prosecuted. At least if Lacy was working for the Ramseys you could logically explain her behavior, in any other context her actions in this case were of someone who would have been nuttier than a granola bar. Sometimes I wonder if she instigated the whole Karr fiasco to cement her perception as someone who is just plain idiotic or a complete imbecile to avoid serious scrutiny of her misconduct in the case.
real Topaz

AOL

#248 Feb 5, 2014
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is quite possible that Lacy was a fixer for the Ramseys from when Hunter was "investigating" the case. It is as if she had a strong vested interest in making sure that they were not properly investigated and prosecuted. At least if Lacy was working for the Ramseys you could logically explain her behavior, in any other context her actions in this case were of someone who would have been nuttier than a granola bar. Sometimes I wonder if she instigated the whole Karr fiasco to cement her perception as someone who is just plain idiotic or a complete imbecile to avoid serious scrutiny of her misconduct in the case.
well said, and I agree.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#249 Feb 6, 2014
It's interesting the way Kolar sees Lacy's letter. He says, " Not long thereafter, I received a letter from Lacy that more or less accused me of overstepping my authority, and being too willing to pursue leads that she did not think likely to be productive."

More or less? She's crystal clear about it.(The letter is in his book's appendix.)

Didn't think likely to be productive? She tells him that there's zero evidence for his theory and that he's confabulating. Whatever you think of Mary Lacy, she's not mincing many words.(And we're only seeing a redacted version.) Why is he characterizing her letter this way when it's obvious she thinks he's a loon?

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#250 Feb 6, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
It's interesting the way Kolar sees Lacy's letter. He says, " Not long thereafter, I received a letter from Lacy that more or less accused me of overstepping my authority, and being too willing to pursue leads that she did not think likely to be productive."
More or less? She's crystal clear about it.(The letter is in his book's appendix.)
Didn't think likely to be productive? She tells him that there's zero evidence for his theory and that he's confabulating. Whatever you think of Mary Lacy, she's not mincing many words.(And we're only seeing a redacted version.) Why is he characterizing her letter this way when it's obvious she thinks he's a loon?
Because he is allowing the public to know the true Mary Lacy, not unlike how ST allowed the public to know the inner workings of the investigation though his book.

Lacy never read the information gathered in this investigation, she boxed it up and placed it in storage, and proved herself to be a buffoon causing the Karr fiasco, and then furthering that public opinion of herself, she exonerated the Ramseys without so much as a viable suspect to take their place.

Exemplary case handling by a DA, eh Fr Brown?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#251 Feb 6, 2014
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is quite possible that Lacy was a fixer for the Ramseys from when Hunter was "investigating" the case. It is as if she had a strong vested interest in making sure that they were not properly investigated and prosecuted. At least if Lacy was working for the Ramseys you could logically explain her behavior, in any other context her actions in this case were of someone who would have been nuttier than a granola bar. Sometimes I wonder if she instigated the whole Karr fiasco to cement her perception as someone who is just plain idiotic or a complete imbecile to avoid serious scrutiny of her misconduct in the case.
Good morning everyone,

Steve is likely right on the money with this supposition. Lacy was the Ramsey's "fixer" since before she even ran for office. She came IMO with instructions from Hunter et al as to what she HAS to do to even consider running for the DA's office. She complied and showed ever since, that she was in on the fix from before the beginning of her reign in the DA's office.

For those who can really look at it objectively, whether IDI or RDI, her position as the DA was unprofessional and truthfully made her look like a complete idiot. If you look at that, you realize that nobody who gets that job is JUST stupid; but CORRUPT as well

However, she is also stupid :)
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#252 Feb 6, 2014
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Good morning everyone,
Steve is likely right on the money with this supposition. Lacy was the Ramsey's "fixer" since before she even ran for office. She came IMO with instructions from Hunter et al as to what she HAS to do to even consider running for the DA's office. She complied and showed ever since, that she was in on the fix from before the beginning of her reign in the DA's office.
For those who can really look at it objectively, whether IDI or RDI, her position as the DA was unprofessional and truthfully made her look like a complete idiot. If you look at that, you realize that nobody who gets that job is JUST stupid; but CORRUPT as well
However, she is also stupid :)
So true!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#253 Feb 6, 2014
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Because he is allowing the public to know the true Mary Lacy, not unlike how ST allowed the public to know the inner workings of the investigation though his book.
Lacy never read the information gathered in this investigation, she boxed it up and placed it in storage, and proved herself to be a buffoon causing the Karr fiasco, and then furthering that public opinion of herself, she exonerated the Ramseys without so much as a viable suspect to take their place.
Exemplary case handling by a DA, eh Fr Brown?
She says that she, her ADAs (who may still be in the DA's office), and Kolar friend and ally, Tom Bennett, reviewed Kolar's Investigative Report, Summary Report and PowerPoint Presentation and all of them independently came to the same conclusion. I don't know if they all did, of course. But Kolar doesn't say she's wrong, that I saw anyway.

While I'd love to have the opinion of someone I trusted more, I don't. My takeaway is that Kolar's presentation on Burke is light on evidence. And the amount of evidence (as opposed to speculation) is what I was interested in.

Also, there's an odd disparity between what Mary Lacy says in her letter and what Kolar says she said.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#254 Feb 6, 2014
And it probably doesn't come as news to those who read to pg. 421 that Kolar wrote and presented a document to Stan Garnett which included an opening statement to present to a jury.

I had thought that Kolar just wanted more investigation of Burke.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
the box of candy 52 min heatherk79 33
Kolar Writes About Feces and Burke (Nov '16) 3 hr Logic101 108
Archived Thread about Paper Bag/Rope (May '07) 3 hr Texxy 45
Music for the soul (Feb '17) 8 hr KCinNYC 511
2.5 Pages of RN 9 hr KCinNYC 88
News Sundance 2017: 'Casting JonBenet' and the Age o... (Jan '17) 19 hr robert 10
News JonBenet Ramsey's Brother Sues Over Documentary... (Sep '16) 20 hr Texxy 9
More from around the web