Comments
221 - 240 of 281 Comments Last updated Feb 14, 2014

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#231
Jan 27, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Legal__Eagle wrote:
Fr_Brown/whodatninja,
Hiding behind another hat doesn't change the tone of your disdain for Chief Kolar. He has worked the case, seen the evidence, read the reports (which is how he actually interprets them), spoken with other officers, and has inside knowledge that you don't have. He also had an open mind, something else you have not expressed. Maybe you could try leaving your feelings for Kolar "at the door" and you might be able to see the evidence in a different light.
I don't know if BR was a sexual deviant. I do believe there were some problems with him and whether or not it was jealousy or just plain sibling rivalry, I have no reason not to believe that BR was as irritating to JBR as she was to him, and I think to an extent that is normal. If the boundaries were erased between the two of them, and he was even pranking her with feces on a candy box or leaving soiled PJ bottoms in her room, that is a horse of a different color.
Of course Kolar's profession has fact checking standards. They may not equate to your standards but I would think the circumstances might dictate the standards.
I'm not hiding behind another hat. I forgot to sign in. And please don't limit my disdain to Kolar.

Didn't Lou Smit work the case, see the evidence, read the reports, talk to officers and have inside knowledge? Does that put him beyond criticism?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#232
Jan 27, 2014
 
This 9 year old boy had an autopsied 6 year old sister with significant changes to her female anatomy consistent with being the victim of repeated sexual molestation prior to her murder. Itís a unique situation for any child to have a sibling that is autopsied let alone the victim of a murder with sexual innuendo. Pedophiles do not sexually abuse child. They are not attracted to child, itís CHILDREN. A childís growth and development means they need to find new victims continually.

The minute the prior history of abuse appeared in that autopsy Burke should have been removed from the dysfunctional family home. At the least he should have been questioned by a licensed therapist about who abused Jonbenet as a means to find the killer and the peculiar circumstances of his soiled pajamas. He was not because the molestation of these children was already being professionally addressed.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#233
Jan 27, 2014
 
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Fr_Brown/whodatninja,
Hiding behind another hat doesn't change the tone of your disdain for Chief Kolar. He has worked the case, seen the evidence, read the reports (which is how he actually interprets them), spoken with other officers, and has inside knowledge that you don't have. He also had an open mind, something else you have not expressed. Maybe you could try leaving your feelings for Kolar "at the door" and you might be able to see the evidence in a different light.
I don't know if BR was a sexual deviant. I do believe there were some problems with him and whether or not it was jealousy or just plain sibling rivalry, I have no reason not to believe that BR was as irritating to JBR as she was to him, and I think to an extent that is normal. If the boundaries were erased between the two of them, and he was even pranking her with feces on a candy box or leaving soiled PJ bottoms in her room, that is a horse of a different color.
Of course Kolar's profession has fact checking standards. They may not equate to your standards but I would think the circumstances might dictate the standards.
And to clarify, I'm not criticizing your beliefs about the case. I'm assuming that you think I am and that's why you're telling me what you think about Burke. What you and I think isn't evidence.
Sue

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#234
Jan 27, 2014
 

Judged:

3

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#235
Jan 27, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#237
Jan 28, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#238
Jan 28, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239
Jan 28, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#240
Jan 28, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#241
Jan 28, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#242
Jan 28, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#243
Jan 28, 2014
 
correction:
I'm not sure I can't = I'm not sure I can

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#245
Jan 28, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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?

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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 :)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Before I Die 4 hr Undrtheradar 3
Note-odd detail? 6 hr Note 208
Snow Prints? 12 hr Detective Xyitech 30
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." 13 hr JBI_fan 22
I know what really happened to JoneBEnnet 14 hr Just Wondering 62
Sid Wells mother complains (Mar '08) 22 hr Rupert 25
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) Jul 25 JTF 7,452
•••
•••