We can't get it into court by arguing, as kolar did, that Burke both sexually molested and killed his sister, with his parents then covering up by strangling her and writing a ransom note and then calling the police on themselves with the body still in the house. That's beyond bizarre, and Lacy was justified in dismissing it. No judge would allow it to get to a jury, it's simply beyond belief.
Not only that, but you forget that Kolar conveniently (for john) points out that Burke couldn't be tried (too young) and john couldn't be tried as an accessory (statute of limitations), so even if you could find a judge willing to buy this absurd theory, there'd be no point in pursuing it.
That is NOT the way to resolve this case, sorry, it's a dead end.
First let's clarify - though Kolar wrote a book which includes information he gathered about the case, along with details that provide new information to the public, he DID NOT lay out his opinion in the book, of how the crime was committed, as you have indicated above.
His FIRST presentation to Lacy (which is
not the same as the 20 page Theory of Prosecution that he compiled and placed into the hands of Boulder LE in 2011) ended abruptly when, after presenting evidence for nearly 6 hours, and with another 50 slides of evidence yet to be shown, Chief Kolar decided to "cut to the chase" as he states in his book, because at 7pm at night, without a break during the session, he sensed attention to the presentation was fading. Mind you, these are law enforcement professionals who had an obligation to review this material with the utmost credibility in order to pursue justice.
This then, is what Kolar writes in his book, pg 280:
"I felt, that given the above information (aspects of his presentation), we should be revisiting and intensifying our investigation of the involvement of the family. Among other things, we should be seeking the psychiatric records of Burke to determine if he had had any knowledge of the death of his sister, either through a grand jury or by asking the Ramseys for the information.
I believed wholeheartedly that this was a viable investigative lead that deserved pursuit. If nothing came of it, then as least we could say that we had covered all of our bases.
Mary Lacy's response is something that I will have difficulty ever forgetting.
She told me that she was unwilling to pursue that lead because she 'didn't want to harm her relationship with the Ramsey family.'
This response left me speechless, and it effectively ended the presentation. At that juncture, I felt that nothing more could be said, or done, that would sway Lacy from this position. "
For the records, all 'bolding' of Kolar's writing above is done by me. Because it looks to me, DocG, that Lacy dismissed what wasn't even Kolar's full presentation, based upon her
personal desire of not wanting to rock the boat with the Ramseys, NOT based upon this case being too bizarre.
IMHO, there is NO CASE which should ever be considered too bizarre for prosecution when there is a suspect that can be brought to trial based upon a well-substantiated collection of ANY TYPE of collaborative evidence. If Kolar would not have believed this case has an avenue of prosecution, there would not be a Theory of Prosecution now in the hands of Boulder law enforcement.
There have been numerous DA's and judges throughout history who have "bought" the premises of many cases that may have seemed absurd to amateur sleuths like many of us, and those cases have gone on to a successful resolution. We have no right to pre-determine, or guess, the decisions of those significantly more qualified than we are as to whether a case can be tried or not.
And, I beg to differ,
THERE IS A POINT IN PURSUING IT !! A beautiful six year old girl was murdered, and the murderer, who may very well be her father, John Ramsey, has not been tried and received a verdict. Should he stay 'Innocent until Proven Guilty' for the rest of his life, or should we continue to pursue seeing to it that he gets a fair trial in a court of law, and let a jury come to a final resolution of this case?
None of knows for sure what Kolar laid out in his current Theory of Prosecution. Who knows, maybe while he put his theory together, it ended up reading exactly like your scenario. Maybe he thought he'd better write it that way just to make sure it would really get considered by the DA and/or a judge as viable. Or maybe he didn't. Matters not, as long as there is HOPE this case can bring a charge of murder against John Ramsey, we
must not accept this case is at a DEAD END.
lease:
