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

[BBB167893]

I second the welcome!

 

[DeeDee249]

Glad to "meet" you, Lovebug.

 

[osadelnorte]

Hi, I'm new to the JBR forum but have been on Websleuths a long time, first as a lurker for many years before joining officially.

I've just finished reading James Kolar's book. I'd never seen references to it anywhere but here. When it was first published, I tried to borrow it from my local library system but they don't have it. I even put it in a request with the central office for new-book purchasing, but to date they still haven't added this book to the system's collections. I think this is really unfortunate and I wish they would so that more people can read Kolar's experience and perspective. I ended up buying a copy on Amazon through a marketplace seller. It's a former library copy, actually, a discard. It makes me wonder if the book is not popular among the library-using public, to already have been discarded from one library system and still not available in mine. That's really disappointing to me. I think more people should be reading it.

I come to my reading with many years of interest in the case. I was a senior in high school when JBR was murdered. I distinctly remember the first time I heard anything about it. I was watching the news with my mother at home in a suburb of NYC. The city ABC affiliate had a brief story two days after Christmas. I clearly remember the video footage in JBR's bedroom being shown on the news. I remember wondering what kind of people put a full Christmas tree in a six-year-old's bedroom. I thought maybe that's just what people do in Colorado. Later, I married a man born and raised in Colorado and found this not to be the case. This was a special family. The case has stayed in my mind ever since and I have read and re-read Thomas' and Schiller's books many times over the years.

Now, I'm the mother of two. I currently have a nine-year-old boy and a six-year-old girl. Since their birthdays, JBR has been on my mind even more. I look at my daughter and think about the terrible things done to JBR and get chills. Reading Kolar's analysis of Burke's possible responsibilty for her death gives me chills too, but I also see a lot of validity in his theory. My son is much bigger than his sister and stronger too. He is never violent at all, thankfully, and usually treats his sister gently and respectfully. But their size difference is great. He is about 56 inches tall and weighs about 70 lbs. She is about 44 inches tall and weighs 42 lbs. He is considered about average size for his age, she is on the smaller side for hers. But I think they'd look fairly typical when compared to other pairs of their genders and ages, and I can see how a boy of nine could severely injury a girl of six, given the right amount of rage or jealousy, which I do think could have been at play between BR and JBR. He did not sound like a healthy, well-adjusted boy in Kolar's descriptions.

My own theory of the case has changed over the years. For a long time I thought this was done by PR, with JR helping to cover up. I thought maybe she lost her mind after one too many accidents. But I don't think this is the strongest possibility anymore. I think Kolar's theory makes a lot of sense and I'll tell you what changed it for me: the discussion of the Polaroids taken of each of the three family members at the police station shortly after JBR's murder. The parents were described and looking haggard and despondent while BR sat smiling and relaxed. I can only imagine how desperate they must have felt, on top of their grief. I'm not excusing them at all for their choices, but I can understand better now the state they must have been.

Thanks for the chance to share my ideas.

 

[questfortrue]

Welcome, osadelnorte!

 

[osadelnorte]

Welcome, osadelnorte!

Thanks, questfortrue!

 

[UKGuy]

osadelnorte,

Welcome to WS. What changed it for me was learning that BR was present during the 911 call, meaning he colluded with his parents faking being asleep.

Also that JR moved BR out of the house that morning ASAP. That is the parents go out of their way to divorce BR from any link to the morning activities, so much so, the young nine year old boy who was due to fly off on vacation, em happened to sleep in that morning?

.

 

[osadelnorte]

Thanks for the welcome, UKGuy!

I agree with both of your points, they are also odd to me. I also noticed Kolar's point about BR's eagerness to have a fire at the Michigan house, which could go back to the signs of sexually-aggressive behavior in children. I appreciated the way Kolar sort of dropped in these types of points without making much judgment of them. I felt like Schiller did that in his book too, sort of shared the salient points and let the reader connect the dots. I'm glad we have decent books about this mind-boggling case.

 

[ninaskids]

BBM What? So now JR wasn't even there that night? How did BR get to be the "only other person in the house that night"?

Not only was Burke there with his parents but now we find out that John Andrew may have been there as well because Mark
Beckner mentioned it when he did the Q&A session with Reddit!! Mark Beckner was TRYING to give out new information. Information that would lead to a new suspect, one who will never be convicted. Why? Because someone provided an alibi for him that cannot be broken.

When the crime first happened and the cops were dutifully canvassing the neighborhood to see what the neighbors saw or heard, a neighbor said he saw JAR in the alley that night. This neighbor was elderly and somehow his comments were swept away as him being too old to know what he saw. Give me a break....
But because JAR said he was at his mother's they did not pursue it further. But come on.

So an alibi can't be faked? a mom wouldn't lie for her son?

If JAR had access to the house anytime he wanted during his school semester, wouldn't that be a fourth person in the house that night possibly? Would that not be another person who could have had access to both kids?

Just saying, even when things are said to be "impossible" you have to investigate.

mary Lacey never have allowed a full investigation into JAR. And Beckner wanted his comments deleted because he foolishly reminded people that JAR lived in Boulder.

 

[DeeDee249]

Not only was Burke there with his parents but now we find out that John Andrew may have been there as well because Mark
Beckner mentioned it when he did the Q&A session with Reddit!! Mark Beckner was TRYING to give out new information. Information that would lead to a new suspect, one who will never be convicted. Why? Because someone provided an alibi for him that cannot be broken.

When the crime first happened and the cops were dutifully canvassing the neighborhood to see what the neighbors saw or heard, a neighbor said he saw JAR in the alley that night. This neighbor was elderly and somehow his comments were swept away as him being too old to know what he saw. Give me a break....
But because JAR said he was at his mother's they did not pursue it further. But come on.

So an alibi can't be faked? a mom wouldn't lie for her son?

If JAR had access to the house anytime he wanted during his school semester, wouldn't that be a fourth person in the house that night possibly? Would that not be another person who could have had access to both kids?

Just saying, even when things are said to be "impossible" you have to investigate.

mary Lacey never have allowed a full investigation into JAR. And Beckner wanted his comments deleted because he foolishly reminded people that JAR lived in Boulder.

The neighbor who said he saw JAR was (the late) Joe Barnhill, who lived across the street. He and his wife were good friends of the Rs and he was very familiar with all of them- I doubt he'd have been mistaken. In fact, the Barnhills were dogsitting the Rs dog while they were going to be away- and they already had the dog at their house the night JB was killed. They also kept JB's new bike hidden at their house. I think the ONLY thing that explains his "confusion" is the same thing that caused the neighbor who heard the scream to be "confused"- and that was an intervention by the R defense lawyers and possibly the DA's office warning them to keep quiet and change their stories.
JR immediately for lawyers for his ex-wife in Georgia. This way, no one could get to her directly to question JAR's whereabouts Christmas Day. The "evidence" presented to "prove" JAR's presence in Georgia was a movie ticket stub (could have been anyone's) and an ATM photo where you cannot see the man's face because the brim of his baseball hat obscures it, as the camera is above him. Hardly PROOF, is it?

 

[tweezybird]

IIRC, wasn't JAR supposed to be with a friend at that movie, has his name every been released or has he spoken publicly to say, "yes JAR was with me in Atlanta?".

 

[Mama2JML]

IIRC, wasn't JAR supposed to be with a friend at that movie, has his name every been released or has he spoken publicly to say, "yes JAR was with me in Atlanta?".

JAR reportedly went to the movies with 2 friends; Brad Millard and Chris Stanley. AFAIK, neither has spoken publicly, but both have been questioned by LE as were Melinda and Lucinda. Other family members & friends have spoken with LE and verified JAR's alibi, as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

JAR reportedly went to the movies with 2 friends; Brad Millard and Chris Stanley. AFAIK, neither has spoken publicly, but both have been questioned by LE as were Melinda and Lucinda. Other family members & friends have spoken with LE and verified JAR's alibi, as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mama2JML,
At the end of the day it comes down to JR, PR and BR, end of. All the forensic and circumstantial evidence points to this. Just because there might not be charges levelled at any of these suspects does not mean we have to airbrush them from culpability.

The most charitable interpretation of events is the PR had a bad hairday and whacked JonBenet on the head, the rest being staging?

This I doubt given JonBenet's prior internal injuries, very significant for a six year old girl. So I reckon a more psycho-sexual interpretation is relevant?

.

 

[Prahasaurus]

At the end of the day it comes down to JR, PR and BR, end of. All the forensic and circumstantial evidence points to this. Just because there might not be charges levelled at any of these suspects does not mean we have to airbrush them from culpability.

And with that, we can more or less close this entire subsection at WebSleuths. What else can we say?

All the evidence points to someone inside that home. There are 3 possibilities, plus various combinations thereof. Take your pick. Each theory is problematic. But one must be correct.

I don't see how we're going to go anywhere from here, to be honest. Unless Burke saw something or did something and eventually decides to talk, there is little hope of solving this. All of the evidence is out there, and it's just not enough to convict anyone beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's why this case is so fascinating. So many details are known, and yet we cannot say definitively what happened. We know someone in that house brutally killed a defenceless little girl. But the rest is mostly speculation. A true tragedy.

 

[UKGuy]

Prahasaurus,
It's not all over, even though there might not be any prosecutions, there will be many participants who will want to come forward and offer their account of events, e.g. Fleet White, Det. Arndt, Holly Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, she found this in JonBenet's bedroom:

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

If you add in James Kolar's evidence of fecal smearing in JonBenet's bedroom, then obviously something was going on, i.e. the children were having issues over toileting, and possibly acting out?

I hope Tricia secures an interview with Holly Smith, since she can clear up a lot of misinformation over the underwear, e.g. was there a Wednesday size-6 pair in JonBenet's drawer, including how prevalent the fecal smearing was?

James Kolar is to update his book, so hopefully he will structure it so we can work out some of the details regarding his prosecution theory.

.

 

[BoldBear]

I have a question about the book that been bothering me. As I recall, Kolar said that the legal team the Ramseys hired needed to interview them to determine if they were innocent before they accepted the case. That whole concept bothers me. A legal defense team wouldn't be looking for an innocent client--they would be looking for a defensible one. I've always had the impression that a law firm with a big reputation wouldn't be interested in taking-on an indefensible client. It would hurt their statistics. I see it like a surgeon refusing to take clients who aren't healthy enough to survive on the operating table. A death would hurt the surgeon's statistics so the surgeon would pass on the patient.

Most law firms wouldn't care if their client was innocent or not. They'd just want to know if the client could meet the legal bills. After that, I think they'd consider whether or not the client could hurt their reputation.

Did anyone else find this odd?

 

[andreww]

I have a question about the book that been bothering me. As I recall, Kolar said that the legal team the Ramseys hired needed to interview them to determine if they were innocent before they accepted the case. That whole concept bothers me. A legal defense team wouldn't be looking for an innocent client--they would be looking for a defensible one. I've always had the impression that a law firm with a big reputation wouldn't be interested in taking-on an indefensible client. It would hurt their statistics. I see it like a surgeon refusing to take clients who aren't healthy enough to survive on the operating table. A death would hurt the surgeon's statistics so the surgeon would pass on the patient.

Most law firms wouldn't care if their client was innocent or not. They'd just want to know if the client could meet the legal bills. After that, I think they'd consider whether or not the client could hurt their reputation.

Did anyone else find this odd?

Likely just PR spin on behalf of the legal firm. Yes they probably did interview the Ramsey's, but what they are looking for is a case that is winnable. In their eyes, winnable probably equates to innocence. Do you actually think Johnny Cochrane and crew actually believed OJ was innocent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CherCher]

Likely just PR spin on behalf of the legal firm. Yes they probably did interview the Ramsey's, but what they are looking for is a case that is winnable. In their eyes, winnable probably equates to innocence. Do you actually think Johnny Cochrane and crew actually believed OJ was innocent?

Exactly andreww. Kolar might have been speaking "tongue in cheek" so to speak. That's what lawyers say they do. They ask a "POI" or a defendant if they did it. The defendant says "no" the lawyer says "ok". And looks for all kinds of alternate yet not provable reasons why the lead suspect didn't do it.

That's what a good lawyer does, anyway, imo. The Rs had the best. They were practically untouchable from a political standpoint. Some of the Press dug up dirt, but for the most part the MSM was happy and compliant with the "powers that be" at that time and in that place.

 

[DeDee]

JAR. There is no way Joe Barnhill saw JAR in the alley unless Joe Barnhill was also in the alley. I've been to the alley. One cannot see across the street when you are in the alley. If there is any reason for Mr. Barnhill to change his statement, it would be due to the fact that one cannot see from the Barnhill home into the alleyway.

Besides, I always thought Joe Barnhill said he spotted JAR walking up a hill near the Ramsey home.

If JAR was in Boulder, where was he during the party on the 24th? Did he hide in the basement? Was he secreted in the basement while the family attended Christmas Dinner with the White's? How did he get into the vehicle with Melinda when they showed at the Ramsey home the afternoon of the 26th? If it wasn't JAR, then who used his airline ticket from Atlanta to Minneapolis? Do you know how many people, aside for Lucinda, would have to lie about his alibi? It is falderal, jmo.

1. ... John Andrew said that after the movie he went back to Brad Millard's house to get his car and arrived back at his mother's house at 1:00 A.M. The next morning he left his mother's house with Melinda, who had come there to pick him up. Together they boarded a flight to Minneapolis at 8:36 A.M. local time. That was forty-four minutes after Patsy called 911 to report that JonBenet was missing." (Schiller, 1999a:67).

2.No Record of Commercial Airline Travel. Schiller later states that police "finished their background checks on John Andrew and Melinda and had verified commercial airline schedules and private flight plans and found no record that either of them had traveled the night of December 25. Their alibis were solid." (Schiller 1999a:257). Any theory of John's flying back in a private plane would have to explain how he managed to avoid detection and whose plane he used to go back and forth several thousand miles.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682501/Ramsey Did It Theories

Not for one minute do I think Patsy Ramsey would kindly sit by and accept that her step son murdered the Pageant Queen nor do I think she would have written that nearly 3 page Ransom Note for JAR's benefit.

JMHO and all that jazz

 

[BBB167893]

I have a question about the book that been bothering me. As I recall, Kolar said that the legal team the Ramseys hired needed to interview them to determine if they were innocent before they accepted the case. That whole concept bothers me. A legal defense team wouldn't be looking for an innocent client--they would be looking for a defensible one. I've always had the impression that a law firm with a big reputation wouldn't be interested in taking-on an indefensible client. It would hurt their statistics. I see it like a surgeon refusing to take clients who aren't healthy enough to survive on the operating table. A death would hurt the surgeon's statistics so the surgeon would pass on the patient.

Most law firms wouldn't care if their client was innocent or not. They'd just want to know if the client could meet the legal bills. After that, I think they'd consider whether or not the client could hurt their reputation.

Did anyone else find this odd?

Yeah, I do. My understanding is that defense lawyers, the great majority of them anyway, DON'T ask their clients those kinds of questions. Then again, the Haddon law firm is notorious for doing exactly what you described, BoldBear: making sure the client had money rather than caring about innocence. After all, this is the same law firm that has a bronze plaque reading, "reasonable doubt for a reasonable price."

Of course, we don't know what the interview consisted of. It could have gone something like this:

Lawyer: Did you do it?
Ramseys: No.
Lawyer: We're in business.

 

[BoldBear]

Thanks Dave. That cracked me up.