James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

[Bonnette]

That's correct. If it was Burke (and it wasn't) he can never be charged. All that matters is his age at the time JBR was killed.

Thanks for confirming that fact, Chrishope.

 

[midwest mama]

Greetings, midwest mama -- and welcome to WS.

Interesting about Kolar's use of the term "murder". I have always felt that the strangulation was the result of an accident based partly on what we understood about the length of time between the head blow and the strangulation. But now, according to his book, there may have been as much as an hour to 1-1/2 hours between the two. This would certainly change how I see things as having been able to happen. Obviously, it would mean deliberation and intent.

May I ask, what is that 1 to 1-1/2 hours based on? Is it based only on the amount of brain swelling, and is that the opinion of someone other than Dr. Meyer?

As to your questions... I think Kolar (this is all based on what I've read about the book) pretty much sums it all up as to why there will never be any type of prosecution. The time for a successful prosecution has passed. If the "murder" (guess I'll have to get used to using that word) was committed by a minor, there was no felony crime from the start. If an adult impeded an investigation, or tampered with evidence, or anything of that sort, then a felony was committed by them, but the statute of limitations has expired on prosecution for that.

There are things that could be done, but since this is Boulder -- they won't happen. The previous GJ heard the evidence. I believe that when they wrapped up, they knew enough of what happened to know there would be no prosecution. Kolar said there were some things he cannot talk about or disclose because of the secrecy requirement of the GJ proceedings. That means there is even more evidence to support his theory than he can say.

Looks like the closest thing to "justice" for those responsible for all that happened is getting the truth out (as Kolar is trying to do). And the only "justice" JonBenet will ever get will not be in this world.
.

In answer to your question as to the source of the timing between the head blow and the strangulation:

From Kolar book, pg 64, par 3: "Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia Children's Hospital, helped explain the timing of some of the injuries sustained by JonBenet. She told investigators that the blow to the skull had immediately begun to hemorrhage, and it was not likely that she would have regained consciousness after receiving this injury. The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal. > The presence of cerebral edema, swelling of the brain, suggested that JonBenet had survived for some period of time after receiving the blow to her head. Blood from the injury slowly began to fill the cavity of the skull and began to build up pressure on her brain. As pressure increased, swelling was causing the medulla of the brain to push through the foramen magnum, the narrow opening at the base of the skull. >Dr Rorke estimated that it would have taken an hour or so for the cerebral edima to develop, but that this swelling had not yet caused JonBenet's death. "Necrosis," neurological changes to the brain cells, indicated a period of survival after the blow that could have ranged from between forty-five (45) minutes and two (2) hours."

This comes from a letter written to Stan Garnett on January 3, 2011 by Kolar: " ....During our last brief conversation, I indicated that I would consider putting together a working theory for your consideration. This task has taken longer than anticipated but I am enclosing a theory of prosecution that outlines this hypothesis. It incorporates a theoretical construct of the events of the crime and is presented in a manner that might be argued before the members of a grand jury. As expected, a working theory involves some degree of speculation and for the sake of brevity I did not duplicate all of the information that has previously been documented in my investigative reports and correspondence............I continue to argue that there is a course of action available to you that will ultimately clear this homicide. I believe that the information outlines in the attached materials provides your office with the best and perhaps the last opportunity to seek the answers that Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy were unwilling to pursue. Ultimately, the furtherance of this murder investigation rests in your hands and I would propose that the time has come for the prosecutor's office to take back the initiative from the cadre of Ramsey attorneys who have steered the course of this in quiry for far too many years."

There was an enclosure with this letter referred to as Theory of Prosecution. Reminder, date of letter is January 2011, so I assume this is a second, separate, presentation of material behind the first one that he gave to Lacy.
"
From page 422, Kolar book: The document prepared for Garnett, which ran to approximately 20 pages, included an opening statement that a prosecutor could use to outline the details of the case to a jury, and was followed by a theoretical construct of the events that I believe to have occured in the Ramsey home on the evening of December 25, 1996."

Realize this post is long, but have to include this, from Kolar book, pg 366:
Author's note: I spoke again to SSA Fitzgerald in March, 2012. He had since retired from the FBI and indicated that he had written to Chief Beckner in early 2009, not long after Boulder Police had taken back the case from the DA's Office. He was offering to put together a small team of forensic linguistic experts from around the nation to take another objective look at the ransom note. One of his peers from the United Kingdom had volunteered to participate as well, and it was posed to Chief Beckner that the analysis work would be performed pro-bono. Chief Beckner reportedly thanked the agent, but for unknown reasons, turned down the offer."

So, referring to your statement, otg, that "There are things that could be done...", coupled with Kolar's apparent conviction of the same, I ask simply: What will it take from citizens such as us, being "We, the People", for whom the laws of this country are supposed to provide societal sanity and justice, to get stimulated enough to shake the cages of the Boulder 'powers that be' about this case!?

We all keep sweeping the dirt around and piling it up here and there, but
sooner or later someone, somewhere has to come along and pick it up to put it away once and for all. I am convicted that JB has already received Heavenly Justice, but my mind and heart refuses to accept that we have to let the evils that have perpetrated this tragically unresolved case continue to prevail. I ullhair:ullhair:

This case may now historically be considered the singular most tragic unsolved murder case of a child. There seem to be worth professionals already standing by with offers of pro-bono service. Might there be others? hope would be in a live Citizen's Task Force Forum gathering, carefully planned and credibly monitored. Maybe in Boulder?? TRICIA - ARE YOU READING????? lease:

 

[txsvicki]

The doctor in the above post said the head injury would be fatal if not treated. Also fatal if strangled later.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I think he wanted to say more - much more - but his tone becomes increasingly cautious as the book proceeds; as a result, much of what he writes might indeed be interpreted as armchair psychology and speculation (as you say, twinkiesmom). Part of that is surely due to the advice of legal counsel, but also in order to avoid jeopardizing the viability of the new (to us) evidence he discusses.

It just really bugs me that Lou Smit came up with the theory that these are loving parents, it must have been an intruder....and now we have the theory that these are loving parents, they must have been covering for their son. I don't buy it...not without a lot more information that I will likely never get.

 

[hetty]

Even parents who have for the most part failed are capable of doing something *good* for their child when push comes to shove..no one is exclusively bad, or exclusively good for that matter.

 

[Intriguing]

It also irritated me that nothing sinister on the Ramseys' behalf eventuated as that was the theory I had from the get-go but the few extracts I've read from Kolar's book reproduced by other members made everything click into place - for me anyway.

I think this was an event with four acts. Act 1 - Burke accidentally kills JB (with or without sexual abuse). Act 2 - both parents discover the horrific accident and cook up and stage a somewhat ludicrous murder (although not so ludicrous if they had managed to get the body out of the house as initially planned). Act 3 - having spent the early hours concocting and executing their plan, it is finally a semi-decent hour to phone a friend. Patsy hears from the pediatrician that Burke is too young to be prosecuted. Immediately after this relieving advice, Patsy phones the police, meanwhile John has been receiving initial crisis management instructions from a lawyer. Act 4 - John manages to slip away from the group mid-morning, again speaks to a lawyer in a lengthier and detailed conversation and is advised to 'find' the body.

Yes, maybe or totally wrong?

 

[BOESP]

Whatever happened to parents who hold their kids responsible? I was raised on the "you made your bed now lie in it" generation and a child old enough to do what some believe Burke did is old enough to take responsibility for that act. Teaching kids that Mama and Daddy will get you out of whatever trouble you get into stinks in my book.

 

[Intriguing]

I think that is where many people have gone off the rails with this case. They imbue the incident with a moral imperative, their own ethics and apply a rigid benchmark of rationality in a situation so extreme that logic and rationale would have been the first sacrifices.

One thing that is unquestionably a solid fact, existential though it may seem, is that no number of theories that are prefaced by ‘as a mother’, ‘as a Christian’ or ‘as a family man’, have any cogency. Ego and pre-supposed ‘empathy’ have no place in a constructive approach to the case. What I would have done in that situation is a strange starting point. We weren’t in that situation and cannot conceive (certainly not forecast) the subsequent behaviour patterns of another, equally as unique, human being.

 

[hetty]

You are right, there is little point in thinking what we would have done in that situation, we've never been there as of yet, and truthfully we don't know how we would have reacted,precisely because we haven't..we imagine, but we don't know..and even if we did it has no bearing on how someone else might act.

 

[BOESP]

Intriguing and Hetty, not sure if your posts were directed at what I said but if so both posts seem to contradict the point I assume you were trying to make. In my opinion, if JonBenet's death was an accident and Burke did it why not get help for JonBenet. If purposeful and Burke did it, he should be accountable. I can't find any excuse for adults not acting with character and integrity. Compassion and charity should not exclude the former two attributes in my opinion.

For the record, I am not necessarily a BDI but I think whoever did it should be accountable.

 

[UKGuy]

It also irritated me that nothing sinister on the Ramseys' behalf eventuated as that was the theory I had from the get-go but the few extracts I've read from Kolar's book reproduced by other members made everything click into place - for me anyway.

I think this was an event with four acts. Act 1 - Burke accidentally kills JB (with or without sexual abuse). Act 2 - both parents discover the horrific accident and cook up and stage a somewhat ludicrous murder (although not so ludicrous if they had managed to get the body out of the house as initially planned). Act 3 - having spent the early hours concocting and executing their plan, it is finally a semi-decent hour to phone a friend. Patsy hears from the pediatrician that Burke is too young to be prosecuted. Immediately after this relieving advice, Patsy phones the police, meanwhile John has been receiving initial crisis management instructions from a lawyer. Act 4 - John manages to slip away from the group mid-morning, again speaks to a lawyer in a lengthier and detailed conversation and is advised to 'find' the body.

Yes, maybe or totally wrong?

Intriguing,
The correct answer is maybe!

Simply because it might not be BDI. Also there was chronic sexual assault as well as the acute assault. And that is before you head off down the road of interpreting what was and was not staged?

Whatever you come up with, someone in the house assisted the person who originally injured JonBenet. Both JR and PR's fibers are all over what I reckon is an abandonded staged crime-scene, there is stuff in the wine-cellar that should not be there!

I reckon the wine-cellar scenario was not the R's original plan, something did make them change their mind?

Myabe it was a phone call as you suggest, or some other aspect of the evidence convinced them to change course.

With Burke awake and talking prior to the 911 call, and subsequently sound asleep in his bed, shortly before heading off with Fleet White, tells you all three R's acted in concert, thereby colluding to stage an abduction scenario.

The 64K question is: if its not BDI why was Burke involved in the presentation of the Abduction staging?


.

 

[midwest mama]

It also irritated me that nothing sinister on the Ramseys' behalf eventuated as that was the theory I had from the get-go but the few extracts I've read from Kolar's book reproduced by other members made everything click into place - for me anyway.

I think this was an event with four acts. Act 1 - Burke accidentally kills JB (with or without sexual abuse). Act 2 - both parents discover the horrific accident and cook up and stage a somewhat ludicrous murder (although not so ludicrous if they had managed to get the body out of the house as initially planned). Act 3 - having spent the early hours concocting and executing their plan, it is finally a semi-decent hour to phone a friend. Patsy hears from the pediatrician that Burke is too young to be prosecuted. Immediately after this relieving advice, Patsy phones the police, meanwhile John has been receiving initial crisis management instructions from a lawyer. Act 4 - John manages to slip away from the group mid-morning, again speaks to a lawyer in a lengthier and detailed conversation and is advised to 'find' the body.

Yes, maybe or totally wrong?

Like your breakdown of events, but here's what I would change in able to agree with you 100%:

Act 1: Erase the word 'accidentally'. According to experts, the head bash did not kill her. If Burke did it to inflict harm, but no intent to kill, I can understand that. The cord that was used to stangle her (official cause of death) had to have been taken from somewhere to where she was stricken. This, then, brings INTENT into play. According to facts presented about all the knots at her wrists and throat, they were amateurish, so I assume Burke could have tied those knots, meaning he would have strangled her - whether it was because he feared she could wake up and it would get really ugly for him, so he'd better just finish her off (intent)nor because he thought she was too far gone to help her and thought it might be merciful (intent) to just get it over with rather than have her be agonized any longer. With there being about 1-1/2 hours between the bash and strangulation, he could have tried and tried and waited and waited for her to wake up, and just couldn't deal with that any longer himself. The paintbrush stick, according to many could have been attached to the end of the cord after the strangling to add the drama of it being a garrote (part of staging), which would have allowed for the Patsy fibers being found entangled within it.

Act 2: Agree. Consider this, Kolar book talks about imprint marks in the carpet of a butt and shoe outside JB's bedroom door. Maybe one of the parents awakened to see about taking JB to the bathroom, and saw Burke sitting there all numbed and confused from the ordeal and it all unfolded from there. I seem to recall a remark that Burke, during one of his interviews, folded up and sat curled in the chair as they were talking.

Act 3: Agree - all very possible. Remember too, that they were scheduled to get on a plane around 7:30, so that call had to go out in time to get all "leaving" business halted. Remember too, Patsy's connection to drama in college, and her ability to help prepare JB for her pageant drama.

Act 4: Agree to the possibility, reserving my thoughts about a couple of other things I think JR could have been doing while he went missing at that time. Point is, he was up to something to help complete the confusion created during a cover-up. :twocents:

 

[midwest mama]

Intriguing and Hetty, not sure if your posts were directed at what I said but if so both posts seem to contradict the point I assume you were trying to make. In my opinion, if JonBenet's death was an accident and Burke did it why not get help for JonBenet. If purposeful and Burke did it, he should be accountable. I can't find any excuse for adults not acting with character and integrity. Compassion and charity should not exclude the former two attributes in my opinion.

For the record, I am not necessarily a BDI but I think whoever did it should be accountable.

:goodpost:

Finally, someone who thinks like I do!! :skip:

 

[KoldKase]

I think that is where many people have gone off the rails with this case. They imbue the incident with a moral imperative, their own ethics and apply a rigid benchmark of rationality in a situation so extreme that logic and rationale would have been the first sacrifices.

One thing that is unquestionably a solid fact, existential though it may seem, is that no number of theories that are prefaced by ‘as a mother’, ‘as a Christian’ or ‘as a family man’, have any cogency. Ego and pre-supposed ‘empathy’ have no place in a constructive approach to the case. What I would have done in that situation is a strange starting point. We weren’t in that situation and cannot conceive (certainly not forecast) the subsequent behaviour patterns of another, equally as unique, human being.

Well said.

However, this is why we have laws written by elected law-makers, government investigative agencies held to a reasonable standard of competence and lack of bias in conducting investigations, and a court system which is supposed to apply the laws without prejudice.

When the social and financial status of suspects in any case subverts those laws, then the system breaks down.

The Ramseys did what they did. Why they did it is simply a matter of human curiosity.

What followed after is no less than the result of the corruption in the system in Boulder and Colorado. How many innocent people have been victims of that system because of the privileges afforded the Ramseys by: currently, three Boulder DAs; how many judges; how many governors and Colorado State Attorneys General; and how many U.S. Attorneys General? (It's not like this is some case nobody ever heard of outside of Colorado, after all.)

If the Ramseys are to be given a pass because of the stress of the situation they found themselves in, no matter which one of them did what to JonBenet, not to mention the countless individuals and agencies the Ramseys attacked and brought every evil thing upon they could devise with their money, lawyers, and powerful political and media influence to keep up the subversion, then the system itself cannot be defended.

Until our government, whether at the state or federal level, investigates these suspected crimes of conspiracy like any other RICO case, including investigating Lin Wood and the Ramsey's for their SLAPP suits, Boulder stands as a cancer in the U.S. Justice System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket...izations_Act#Where_RICO_laws_might_be_applied

I'm no lawyer, but this isn't rocket science and there are plenty of precedents.

This went way beyond the crimes against JonBenet Ramsey the moment the Boulder DAs decided to conspire with the Ramseys' lawyers to obstruct the investigation. There is sufficient evidence now that three DAs have and are openly refusing to investigate the plethora of crimes committed in this case and in its wake. Organized crime ain't got nothing on Team Ramsey.

It speaks to the branch of our government responsible for creating and enforcing laws. It's no less than this: if our justice system is so corrupt that the initial acts of investigating and prosecuting crimes are based on the financial resources and connections of the suspects, who can defend it?

If the horrible abuse and death of JonBenet Ramsey can't be reasonably adjudicated with all the evidence collected, with two million dollars spent to build the case file, what's wrong with this picture?

When the prime suspects are not only able to slip through the system because of their legal and personal firepower, but are then aided by the same DAs in attacking companies and individuals, even financially benefiting from that aid with a ruthless, vindictive, and greedy streak of legal threats and actions against every vulnerable victim they choose to exploit for those purposes...well, what are we playing at? This makes O.J. look like a good guy.

I may be over-reacting, but I've watched this epic unfolding of the hijacking of our justice system for 15 years and it only gets worse. We now have had two highly competent, decorated, dedicated police officers throw down the gauntlet, writing entire books listing the facts of this case and how it was deliberately derailed, not only by the prime suspects, but by the very DAs who took an oath to be officers of the court and to represent the People.

There is no competent, unbiased lawyer in the land who didn't marvel at the transparent shenanigans of Hunter and Lacy for 12 years.

Yet not one government agency, not one law bar, not one elected official has come forward to investigate this abuse of power.

If our government has become callous and indifferent to such blatant and historic corruption within, because clearly the so-called officers of the court are unwilling and unable to police themselves, then in fact the Ramseys, Hunter, and Lacy don't live by the same laws as we beer can collectors: they are above it.

That means our U.S. Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

As I see it now, the lawyers of Oz have destroyed the system because finally we've seen behind the curtain.

Only there is no benevolent wizard there; just greedy opportunists without any scruples at all.

 

[UKGuy]

That means our U.S. Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

KoldKase,
NOPE, thats why there was all those financial bail outs. He that pays the piper calls the tune.


.

 

[midwest mama]

KoldKase -

APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE to your post #616!!

 

[DeeDee249]

The acute sexual assault which happened that night still has to be accounted for. The evidence exists, it was noted in the autopsy, and is not a matter of conjecture or theory. She was penetrated with something that made her bleed, and she was alive when it happened. Bruising does not occur on a dead person. There was vaginal bruising, both on the labia and internally, and blood internally as well as evidence of wiped blood externally. Whether it was BDI or not, there was sexual contact with JB that night by someone in that house.
The parent's motive for staging this to look like an intruder murder may have had to do with the sexual abuse as well as the head bash, and they may have been covering up for their son(s) or one of themselves.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Is the fact that the Ramseys got away with it, and the ensuing coverup that followed, is that really a Boulder/Colorado thing or more of a wealthy person thing? They had only been living in Colorado for five years; it's not like their family had deep roots there, you know what I mean? Couldn't they have paid for top lawyers in any state?

 

[KoldKase]

The acute sexual assault which happened that night still has to be accounted for. The evidence exists, it was noted in the autopsy, and is not a matter of conjecture or theory. She was penetrated with something that made her bleed, and she was alive when it happened. Bruising does not occur on a dead person. There was vaginal bruising, both on the labia and internally, and blood internally as well as evidence of wiped blood externally. Whether it was BDI or not, there was sexual contact with JB that night by someone in that house.
The parent's motive for staging this to look like an intruder murder may have had to do with the sexual abuse as well as the head bash, and they may have been covering up for their son(s) or one of themselves.

You will be dismayed to learn, or at least I was, that the statute of limitations has run out on every crime related to this case but murder.

Since Patsy will always be reasonable doubt for anyone else in the ligature strangulation and writing of the ransom note, there's no way anyone will ever be charged with that crime, either.

They got away with it. Thanks to Hunter and Lacy, IMO.

 

[KoldKase]

Is the fact that the Ramseys got away with it, and the ensuing coverup that followed, is that really a Boulder/Colorado thing or more of a wealthy person thing? They had only been living in Colorado for five years; it's not like their family had deep roots there, you know what I mean? Couldn't they have paid for top lawyers in any state?

I should say up front I'm bitter and mad as heck about all of this.

But that's only because I drank the Kool-aid way back in childhood and spent most of my life believing in Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Now? I think we'd find plenty of corruption in every arrest, trial, and conviction or not guilty verdict we chose to examine. From the innocent and guilty, from lawyers to judges, from politicians to crime syndicates--it's probably all rigged from the git-go.

And probably always has been.