Doctor/Patient confidentiality in the...

Doctor/Patient confidentiality in the JonBenet Ramsey case

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

#1 Oct 1, 2012
This has been brought up on other boards. I'm surprised people don't know that yes, doctor/patient confidentiality extends beyond the grave. Even for the psychiatrist in this article to have went to the police about her client is a breach I'm sure she sought legal advice on. It's not an issue that's ever taken lightly. Here is an excellent article on this by Carol McKinley about this issue in the recent movie theater shooting case in Colorado:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychia...

Like many people in this case, I have real concerns about Dr. Beuf, JonBenet's pediatrician, and the integrity of her medical records in this case. I'll never forget that Dr. Beuf was one of the first people associated with this case to write a check to Mary Keenan (now Lacy['s) campaign in 2000. Making it all the more hinky was Keenan's stated position on the Ramsey case at the time, which was to DO NOTHING, not spend any more money on it. Why would Beuf be so eager to support someone who was not interested in solving the Ramsey case, or spend any money on it? This was in sharp contrast to her challenger, Dave Sanderson, who said he was interested in the Ramsey case, and all the allegations made by Steve Thomas in his then new book. However, Keenan's "do nothing" approach to the Ramsey case was music to the Boulder voters ears, and Keenan won by 11 points over Sanderson.

Probably by grand jury subpoena, JonBenet's medical records did become available. The Scams refused to give up Burke's. The bottom line to me is, medical records were the last vestige of a PERPR society in which just about everything was in paper. It would be very easy to "sanitize" such records without any detection by just throwing away pages. Just like the JFK files that were sealed for 75 years, does anyone truly believe anything incriminating or damning would ever be allowed to exist?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#2 Oct 2, 2012
I understand what you're saying, candy. If I wasn't clear: I was addressing JB's medical records more than the remaining Ramseys. Lord knows no BDA attorney would ever have fought the Ramseys' "island of privacy" obstruction in this case just because a mountain of evidence indicated they'd murdered their child.

I'm no lawyer, but I find it very hard to believe that JonBenet's medical records would still be protected by privilege after she'd been murdered, especially under the circumstances proven by the autopsy: she was being molested by someone before the night of her murder.

Hunter and Lacy, however, trampled all legal paths to justice in this murder. So the wild stories about those medical records and what happened to them en route from Dr. "Feelgood" Beuf's office to a bank safety deposit box, and then potentially to the grand jury, has never been resolved, that I've seen.

I have no qualms in stating I would be shocked if they're still intact.

Someone mentioned that JonBenet's therapist had a legal duty to report even suspicions of molestation or abuse to LE. It seems that would be the case.

Except it was Boulder, Colorado. Where I now am firmly convinced awful things like this crime can freely happen with impunity because the DAs won't bother with child murder and molestation when it's one of their own upper class doing the deeds. If they would, we wouldn't be looking at the third DA ignoring the case as if it doesn't exist.

What a bunch of disgusting, corrupt cowards.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#3 Oct 6, 2012
First of all, I'd like to point out that the "Island of Privacy" agreement was made AFTER the crime, not before as implied. Now...

While reading Kolar's book, I marked many, many pages with Post-It note paper so I would have the pages on which he made questionable statements in my opinion, but after I had used practically an entire pad of paper, I started trying to be more conservative in placing the "reminders". Consequently, I failed to mark some of the most illuminating remarks he made and when I tried to go back to find these remarks, I was unsuccessful. I thus began re-reading the book in order to locate these tale-telling remarks that IMO reveal Kolar's lack of character and trustworthiness.

But now, thanks to a new friend, I have been given the locations of the remarks and I believe now there is evidence to show things heretofore never known about the investigation. And since Kolar took it upon himself to reveal confidential aspects of the investigation, I believe it should be brought out into the open so people can see for themselves the true character of James Kolar.
And to be perfectly clear, IMO Kolar has revealed to the public in his book, the contents of a confidential agreement made between the Ramseys and the District Attorney's office, an agreement known as the "Island of Privacy".

On page 252 of his book, Kolar states in relation to the beginning of John Ramsey's interview in June 1998: "...and Smit read into the record this same letter requesting an independent meeting with members of the D.A.'s office outside the scope of BPD involvement.

"Present with Smit and representing the D.A.'s office was special prosecutor Mike Kane. John Ramsey was accompanied by attorney Bryan Morgan and their private investigator David Williams. Morgan expressed the desire of wanting to continue to cooperate with the D.A.'s office, but there was a caveat. Morgan stated that the family felt the need to withhold certain medical records from the criminal inquiry, claiming that they deserved an "island of privacy" when it came to the investigation into JonBenet's murder."
From this it is clear that there is an aspect regarding medical records of someone in the Ramsey family that they wanted to keep private, away from the general public. However, Kolar is looking upon the incident as reason to believe there was "a movement afoot to segregate and distance the Boulder Police Department from further involvement in the investigation. It seems to me that the Ramseys were looking for a sympathetic ear in the law enforcement community."

Later, on Page 370, Kolar relates that "I had reviewed an investigator's report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny -- housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother's first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.

"There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenet's bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.

"Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenet's body.

"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 the symptoms of scatological behavior associated with SBP.

"I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenet's candy would have been smeared with human excrement. etc., etc., etc."

Continued~~

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#4 Oct 7, 2012
Continued~~

He then goes on with, "But these observations pointed to indicia of some type of behavioral issue that had been taking place in the Ramsey household, and they appeared to have been taking place over some period of time. Incidents like these would not likely have become known to those outside the family..."

Kolar continues with his observations regarding a telephone interview he had with Dr. Araji in which he said he wanted to know more about the treatment of children diagnosed with the symptoms of SBP and a final statement of his is, "I couldn't help but wonder what had been going on behind closed doors at the Ramsey home."

He then noted that it wasn't clear exactly how long Burke had been seeing a psychiatrist, but it seemed safe to him to assume that some type of treatment and psychological testing had been taking place after JonBenet's death.(I'd like to point out that it is well known that Burke underwent some psychological testing after the murder, presumably at the request of investigators.)

Kolar then goes on to relate how he turned to the Internet to perform his own investigation into what he considered to be a type of behavioral disorder from which Burke was suffering. IOW, he was acting upon a foregone conclusion that Burke had killed JonBenet and was looking on the Internet for proof to back up his belief.

He even goes so far as to say (p. 388), "John Ramsey noted during his June 1998 interview with Lou Smit, that he was taking medication that had been prescribed for him by Burke's psychiatrist...I did think it unusual that Burke, who reportedly had not witnessed any of the events surrounding JonBenet's kidnapping or death, was still being treated professionally nearly a year and a half after the event." (I don't know why he would think this unusual since considering the agreement, it was apparent that Burke had been undergoing psychological treatment for some years, probably from a condition he contracted while Patsy was fighting cancer when he was a young child.)

But this is IMO illustrative of his audacity, that he would take it upon himself to interpret something Pam Paugh said as having voided the doctor-patient privilege. He said, "I believed that by raising the issue of his psychological testing and treatment, she had made the issue of his mental health treatment a matter of public record, interest, and concern. I wondered whether or not her public statements (see page 389) had opened the door to accessing his psychiatric records, for I felt that they needed to be evaluated in relation to any possible knowledge he may have had about the death of JonBenet."

So, not only has James Kolar violated an agreement made between two parties, the Ramseys and the D.A.'s office, he has taken it upon himself to use his knowledge of what this agreement referenced and used the information therein to reveal in his book the same medical records to which his own office had agreed to keep private, away from public scrutiny. Furthermore, I believe he is guilty of the very thing he accuses Pam Paugh of doing, opening the door to assessing Burke's medical records -- records that are privileged information between the doctor and patient -- yet he believes he has some "right" to do that simply because he believes "they needed to be evaluated in relation to any possible knowledge he may have had about the death of JonBenet." I have to wonder if it occurred to him that that was not HIS decision to make?

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#5 Oct 7, 2012
Continued~~

So, in view of all the above, I believe it's no wonder that none of this has ever been revealed before his book was published. And that was because the other investigators had the integrity to recognize and abide by an agreement made between parties concerned. An agreement made IMO to protect a medical/psychological condition of a child who it was agreed by all parties had no connection with the events of that fateful night. Had they felt that way, there was no way in hail that any investigator would have been party to such an agreement.

As for the Ramseys, I believe it's understandable that they would want to keep from public knowledge a condition acquired by their son probably back when his mother was snatched from him at a very impressionable age, making him feel insecure and incapable of understanding what was happening to his mother. And as such, it affected him in a way that was not something that would be conducive to later good relationships with his family and friends. Therefore, the Ramseys did what they thought was in his best interest and that was to enter an agreement with the D.A.'s office that they would be forthcoming with all they knew in regard to the case in return for their keeping private the medical records of their son.

And this agreement had been recognized and adhered to by everyone --- everyone, that is, until John Kolar wrote his book. So I cannot harbor anything but contempt and scorn for a someone like him.

But now we know why no one ever heard about the encopresis before John Kolar broke an agreement made by his bosses and which he revealed in his book.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#6 Oct 7, 2012
Correction: JAMES Kolar

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#7 Oct 7, 2012
One canít kill the messenger simply because they donít like the message. It doesnít make the information any less truthful, and one canít throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, this is a homicide. If you feel like that, then everyone should dismiss everything JMK had to say.

If you could provide a link to the Island of Privacy stuff, I would appreciate it. Are you considering it to be a law or an expression? I know how it was used in Kolarís book, but if you have ready anything outside of that, I would like to read it.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#8 Oct 7, 2012
correction"
ready = read

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#9 Oct 7, 2012
Legal__Eagle wrote:
One canít kill the messenger simply because they donít like the message. It doesnít make the information any less truthful, and one canít throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, this is a homicide. If you feel like that, then everyone should dismiss everything JMK had to say.
If you could provide a link to the Island of Privacy stuff, I would appreciate it. Are you considering it to be a law or an expression? I know how it was used in Kolarís book, but if you have ready anything outside of that, I would like to read it.
The most important part of your post is that yes, this is a homicide and to complain about getting information because of where it came from is silly unless the info is somehow false

I also agree that if we are going to dismiss information because of the messenger and feel animosity toward the messenger, there is a long list of "messengers" we should feel animosity toward.

Jameson starts the list with revealing the autopsy that was secretly sent to her (cough cough) along with all the other "secret" information she revealed Funny that nobody dismissed it when the info favored the Ramseys

How about those who invaded the privacy of their favorite suspects? FW is the first to come to mind. I remember when all of Jams' cult were desperately trying to find out all about FW and his extended family as well as biz doing her own digging, not caring about privacy issues and others who couldn't wait to share "inside/private" information and they were applauded for digging it up

Funny how nobody screamed about those privacy issues being violated and how awful those POSTERS were for posting it and let's not forget about the FALSE information that was claimed to be inside or unknown information

I guess it is only a violation if the Ramseys information is revealed. I also suppose the information is secondary to who is relaying it and absorbed accordingly as truth or not

It works both ways.

As you said, no matter what anyone thinks of the messenger, it makes the information the same, which is important.

If the information is false, as biz said, we should all just wait for the inevitable lawsuit that will follow........NOT LOL. That would require having to speak and going to court. Kolar will not settle

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#10 Oct 7, 2012
3-7.
DEATH ENDS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BUT NOT CONFIDENTIALITY
a. Privacy, a Personal Right. There is no right to privacy for a dead person.
For example, the executor of an estate contracted with a film studio to make a film
based on the life of the deceased. When the deceased man's brother objected, the
court held that death had ended the individual's right to privacy. Privacy is essentially a personal right that does not endure after death, unless there is a contract. When the secretive Greta Garbo, a famous film star of the 1930's, died in 1990, the cause of
death was not released by the press. The actress had stipulated, in writing, prior to
death, that this information not be released.

b. Provider's Duty to Protect Confidential Communications. The right to
privacy, however, should not be confused with the duty of the health care provider to
withhold confidential information obtained in the course of treatment. Death does not terminate the privileged status of confidential communications (para 3-8).

3-8.
CONFIDENTIALITY
a. Protects Information Obtained in the Course of Treatment. The
confidentiality of patient information is intended to encourage openness on the part of the patient and his or her loved ones so that the best diagnosis and treatment can be provided. Even though some control is necessarily lost when access is given to one's
personal history and physical person, generally some say over information generated
about oneself is retained, at least in diagnostic and therapeutic contexts. For example, a physician may not grant an insurance company or a prospective employer access to medical information without the patient's authorization. Confidentiality also respects the patient's privacy; individuals should not have to reveal the details of their bodily condition to obtain medical care.

Confidentiality: the ethical responsibility of health care providers to maintain the
secrets of their patients, communicated to them or learned from observation,
examination, or conversation, and not to communicate same except to those with
an official need to know.

b. Confidentiality vs Privacy. The terms confidentiality and privacy both
relate to the access others have to protected information. Confidentiality is based on
the professional relationship; privacy is a general right of all. Confidentiality involves
the professional's discretion in not disclosing private information revealed within the
context of the patient-health care provider relationship. Privacy is a personal right.

The professional's respect for the confidentiality of the client upholds the individual's right of privacy. The distinction between an infringement of confidentiality and an infringement of privacy has to do with how that protected information was obtained.

Paste this in your browser:
http://tinyurl.com/9vmhvda

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#11 Oct 7, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
As you said, no matter what anyone thinks of the messenger, it makes the information the same, which is important.
If the information is false, as biz said, we should all just wait for the inevitable lawsuit that will follow........NOT LOL. That would require having to speak and going to court. Kolar will not settle
The problem is not because the information is false; it is because it is true! Biz is defending her IDI stance with opinion, nothing more. If you will remember she was asked to provide a source for her statements, and she couldnít.

He has offered his facts to anyone/everyone to dispute and no one has - and no one will sue him over it (and win). He has not revealed any information detrimental to the ongoing case, and if the medical information is stumping people, then they need to re-read it and listen to what he is saying. He hasnít broken any confidences, nor did the investigators during the investigation. If people think that, they arenít understanding the law and how it works.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#12 Oct 7, 2012
3-7.
DEATH ENDS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BUT NOT CONFIDENTIALITY

You must not be aware that Burke Ramsey is still alive, but believe it: He is.

Now:

Section 3-8 (b):

"The professional's respect for the confidentiality of the client upholds the individual's right of privacy. The distinction between an infringement of confidentiality and an infringement of privacy has to do with how that protected information was obtained."

I suggest you read again, "and an infringement of privacy has to do with how that protected information was obtained."

And although you cannot comprehend what I'm saying, I'll repeat it so others can see clearly why Kolar was wrong in putting this information in his book.

Kolar gained his information via his employment in the D.A.'s office. As an investigator employed by the D.A., he was privy to private information held by that office and it was his duty to maintain the privacy afforded him via that employment. Anyone with integrity would do just that, i.e., maintain the privacy of information gained by the office of which he was a part.

Part of the above section reads:

"Confidentiality: the ethical responsibility of health care providers to maintain the secrets of their patients, communicated to them or learned from observation, examination, or conversation, and not to communicate same except to those with an official need to know."

"EXCEPT TO THOSE WITH AN OFFICIAL NEED TO KNOW!"

The information was given freely to the D.A.'s office via an agreement with those who had an official need to know. But along with their offering the information to the D.A. there was a caveat that the information contained therein would be held confidential. So, putting it simply, Kolar gained knowledge of this agreement through his employment and then violated his allegiance to his office and revealed the contents of the agreement.

This is not a matter of blaming the messenger. It's a matter of that messenger being a traitor to his position as an investigator in an unsolved murder case.

None of you need to quote this or that poster's words regarding THEIR theories or beliefs. We are talking about the ethical responsibility of an official in law enforcement who violated the code of ethics of his profession.

AS a result, it's MY opinion that James Kolar is a traitor to his profession and has no business holding down any law enforcement job since he cannot be trusted.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#13 Oct 7, 2012
Apparently you don't know the law. Kolar is not a traitor, how silly is that? Kolar obtained information in the course of a murder / homicide investigation as opposed to someone who was just on a lark being nosy. I get that it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it no matter how wrong you are! Please source where he violated the code of ethics, chapter and verse please - section and subsection - not opinion. TIA

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#14 Oct 7, 2012
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Apparently you don't know the law. Kolar is not a traitor, how silly is that? Kolar obtained information in the course of a murder / homicide investigation as opposed to someone who was just on a lark being nosy. I get that it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it no matter how wrong you are! Please source where he violated the code of ethics, chapter and verse please - section and subsection - not opinion. TIA
What YOU don't "get" is that "traitor" does not mean the strict interpretation of the word as pertaining to one's allegiance to their country. The particular office of which theyre a part has its own rules and it's not a matter of quoting ANY of those rules specifically. If you want an example, go to your local police department or D.A.'s office and ask THEM for their requirements regarding confidential information available to their members simply through their employment. While each may very well vary in the exact wording, their meanings are similar and you will find that each agency requires adherance to their rules regarding confidential information attained purely through a member's employment.

Unless you know for a fact that the Boulder D.A.'s office allowed its members to sift through all their files whether stamped "confidential", "Private", or similar wordings and report to the world whatever strikes their fancy, then I suggest that it's YOU who is completely clueless on how such offices, including Kolar's own Chief's Office, operate.

Without having control of private, confidential informaation gleaned through investigation efforts of the members, it would be useless for agencies to endeavor to keep sensitive information that the general public has no "need" or "right" to know away from prying eyes. Do you believe that when agencies hold back information from the public so they can use it to catch a suspect by his NOT KNOWING the police have some information that can prove he's lying is a legitimate action or do you believe that EVERYTHING in a case should be laid out for everyone to see?

There are many aspects of investigations that should not be open to public knowledge and view and what Kolar revealed was one of those aspects. Specifically, he violated a confidentially contract entered into by the District Attorney and the Ramsey family. Although YOU might believe that's hunky dory, A-OK, or whatever, in law enforcement circles it's viewed as a mark of a person who cannot be trusted.

IMO, Kolar had better hang on to his job as Chief of Police for two reasons. One, no other agency would hire him since he cannot be trusted to keep confidences. And, two, he has a plush job with no one to call him down on WHAT he reveals, UNLESS someone with more authority than he has is the brunt of his "revelations"!

And since you mentioned MY opinion, it's MY OPINION that he saw the writing on the wall and was slated to be dismissed by Lacy for his obstinacy in believing that Burke killed his little sister. He therefore quit before the hatchett was lowered, which wouldn't have been done gently but would have been swift and accurate.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#15 Oct 7, 2012
L_E didn't say anything about Kolar being a traitor against his country, why would you think that?

Typical IDI group think though, a person moves to another job and it is automatically because they were about to be fired. Y'all did that with ST too, and now Kolar, yet not one IDI that I have read ever accused Smit of that when he quit, or anyone else when they left the investigation. Interesting, don't you think? I guess the RDI don't need to make things up.

How about just producing the sources you were asked for? Appreciate it, I would love to read them.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#16 Oct 7, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
L_E didn't say anything about Kolar being a traitor against his country, why would you think that?
Typical IDI group think though, a person moves to another job and it is automatically because they were about to be fired. Y'all did that with ST too, and now Kolar, yet not one IDI that I have read ever accused Smit of that when he quit, or anyone else when they left the investigation. Interesting, don't you think? I guess the RDI don't need to make things up.
How about just producing the sources you were asked for? Appreciate it, I would love to read them.
I "thought" it because she was using that definition in interpreting what I had said about Kolar, which was not applicable. There is a big difference and anyone who has worked in law enforcement knows the rules and regulations to which he must agree before accepting a position with that agency. I learned the hard way when I inadvertently let my boss' recommendation regarding a disciplinary action he recommended be known to a Captain who was after his job. While I was well aware of my instructions that I would be privy to confidential information, I was new to the job and when this officer kept badgering me for my boss' recommendation, I finally told him the recommendation had been made but that I could not reveal it. He then made an exasperating remark to the effect that he didn't expect my boss would go along with his recommendation since the officer involved was a friend of my boss. Unthinking, I immediately jumped to my boss' defense and told him he did no such thing! And as soon as this Captain left my office and picked up the telephone in HIS office (right next to mine) I realized too late that I had goofed! And when I was called into the Chief's office, luckily for me, he and my boss realized why I had made the remark and used it for a "learning lesson".

So what I'm trying to illustrate is the importance of keeping confidential information to oneself, no matter how justified an employee might feel he is in revealing such information.

And as for the "sources", I gave the page numbers where Kolar's statements that I quoted could be found.

And as for IDI "group think", you should know that I don't go along with everything an IDI utters. In fact, if that were the case, why do you persist in pointing out my RDI stance?

But since you brought up "group think", I was wondering when the third Musketeer would chime in with HIS repetition of what the other two had to say...

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#17 Oct 7, 2012
Nothing in what L_E said indicated that whatsoever. Do you not believe she might know more than one definition for the word?
Ole South wrote:
I "thought" it because she was using that definition in interpreting what I had said about Kolar, which was not applicable.
Reserving comment on this now. I will take it to the OT thread later.
Ole South wrote:
There is a big difference and anyone who has worked in law enforcement knows the rules and regulations to which he must agree before accepting a position with that agency. I learned the hard way when I inadvertently let my boss' recommendation regarding a disciplinary action he recommended be known to a Captain who was after his job. While I was well aware of my instructions that I would be privy to confidential information, I was new to the job and when this officer kept badgering me for my boss' recommendation, I finally told him the recommendation had been made but that I could not reveal it. He then made an exasperating remark to the effect that he didn't expect my boss would go along with his recommendation since the officer involved was a friend of my boss. Unthinking, I immediately jumped to my boss' defense and told him he did no such thing! And as soon as this Captain left my office and picked up the telephone in HIS office (right next to mine) I realized too late that I had goofed! And when I was called into the Chief's office, luckily for me, he and my boss realized why I had made the remark and used it for a "learning lesson".
So what I'm trying to illustrate is the importance of keeping confidential information to oneself, no matter how justified an employee might feel he is in revealing such information.
L_E didn't ask for a Kolar-source, she asked for a source for this:
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Please source where he violated the code of ethics, chapter and verse please - section and subsection - not opinion. TIA
Ole South wrote:
And as for the "sources", I gave the page numbers where Kolar's statements that I quoted could be found.
I don't. You are more of an I&RDI, you have all the bases covered.
Ole South wrote:
And as for IDI "group think", you should know that I don't go along with everything an IDI utters. In fact, if that were the case, why do you persist in pointing out my RDI stance?
Our posts differ in many ways. I think we are all entitled to weigh in though, are we not?
Ole South wrote:
But since you brought up "group think", I was wondering when the third Musketeer would chime in with HIS repetition of what the other two had to say...

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#18 Oct 7, 2012
Legal__Eagle wrote:
Apparently you don't know the law. Kolar is not a traitor, how silly is that? Kolar obtained information in the course of a murder / homicide investigation as opposed to someone who was just on a lark being nosy. I get that it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it no matter how wrong you are! Please source where he violated the code of ethics, chapter and verse please - section and subsection - not opinion. TIA
One has to assume that if she is this upset and feels that strongly about Kolar's release of private information, imagine the fury and strong feelings she must have toward Jameson after selling the transcripts that were PRIVATE to the NE for 40K or even worse, published FW's depo that was sealed BY A JUDGE, blatantly violating the law.

The rationale was that the truth must be told and the public had a right to know. The rationale must change depending on what truths are told and by whom

And Kolar didn't even break the law

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#19 Oct 7, 2012
Just for the record, I started to respond to Seuss' Post #17, above, but as I tried, I could see there is nothing to be said for his inability to understand what I said in plain English.

And if Legal Eagle has any questions, I suggest that SHE ask them and not leave it up to someone who does not have the ability to understand plain English.

So far as I'm concerned with Seuss, Subject Is Closed, since it's obvious he only wants to argue.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#20 Oct 8, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
One has to assume that if she is this upset and feels that strongly about Kolar's release of private information, imagine the fury and strong feelings she must have toward Jameson after selling the transcripts that were PRIVATE to the NE for 40K or even worse, published FW's depo that was sealed BY A JUDGE, blatantly violating the law.
The rationale was that the truth must be told and the public had a right to know. The rationale must change depending on what truths are told and by whom
And Kolar didn't even break the law
I'm still waiting for the Ramseys' utter horror and outrage at Smit's release of the child's autopsy pictures to every media outlet that would air them.

So far, not one peep.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
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
What is the significance of Burke's drawing? (May '17) 3 hr Blue Bottle 9
I Am Sure We Did 3 hr Logic101 21
Q&A Paula Woodword (Oct '16) 7 hr Ann 51
ĎThe Case Of: Investigator Says He and His Coll... (Sep '16) 9 hr heatherk79 13
Discussion of the note in the June 1998 interviews (Sep '15) 10 hr Anonymous 318
Rubber Gloves 10 hr Anonymous 23
Sacrifice of JonBenet (Nov '07) 12 hr KCinNYC 77
More from around the web