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

[txsvicki]

Are there any interviews that show where the doctor stated bladder infections and yeast infections? I only found one where he seemed to maybe relate one episode of redness and burning while urinating to an intestinal upset and another episode about six months later to bubblebaths. Both at age three. Patsy stated that wet panties caused yeast infections. There has to be more episodes not mentioned that i'm not finding, but i'm wondering if she had her sleep without panties as a cure for yeast infections. Changed for bed into the gown with no panties and being carried on the hip could sure transfer fibers.

 

[Etilema]

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there were more people in this situation than the immediate family.

JBR was being abused somehow.

What if...

twenty odd years later we know a whole lot more than we did then about pedophile rings, we also know that there are female pedophiles in all levels of society thanks to people like Erika Perdue.

I find it odd that JBR's pediatrician was called to the house...beyond odd. It would be like calling your dentist. The child was deceased, no pediatrician can help that...so why him? PR had a raft of medical problems, it would have made far, far more sense to call her own doctor rather than calling JBR's?

Add in some questionable photography sessions, a couple more highly placed "friends of the family"...

Then of course there's the comment that has always bothered me, made by PR - "why would you do that to another child?" implying to me at least, there is another child in the mix, somewhere.

:moo:

You are hitting on something I always suspected, too. Years ago I saw various friends who came to the house when JBR went missing and prayed with the Ramseys interviewed on TV, and it really seemed odd to me. Ever since then, I have felt other adults were in on whatever happened.

 

[Bonnette]

Are there any interviews that show where the doctor stated bladder infections and yeast infections? I only found one where he seemed to maybe relate one episode of redness and burning while urinating to an intestinal upset and another episode about six months later to bubblebaths. Both at age three. Patsy stated that wet panties caused yeast infections. There has to be more episodes not mentioned that i'm not finding, but i'm wondering if she had her sleep without panties as a cure for yeast infections. Changed for bed into the gown with no panties and being carried on the hip could sure transfer fibers.

I am not aware of any additional, more specific information about the doctor's interviews on that subject.

Your theory about fiber transfer sounds plausible...JB's oversized diapers could have been related to something like that.

 

[midwest mama]

:newhere: Learned about Kolar's book and the web radio broadcast just as I had become empassioned with the JBR case after my nearly 16 years of gleaning casual information. My autographed hard copy arrived very quickly after a successful order from the Ventus website, following a short glitch in the ordering department. I also received an autographed softcover edition, to compensate for my initial ordering difficulty, and I was elated! I used the softcover to make notes as I gobbled up the printed info, and now can keep my hardcover clean for posterity. So glad Kolar's book was my first in-depth read on the case. It brought much clarity and sensibility to all the fragmented information, reports, photos, websites, etc. that I have seen and heard over the years about this case.

A couple of emails passed between me and the author to acknowledge his work, and I would like to pass this message along to you from his quick reply: "...the epilogue spells it out."

I went back and reread it myself - twice. It is clear to me that Mr. Kolar, while cautious with his hope for a resolution, feels that there must be some chance this case is not be forgotten and kept "cold". Please note his stated action in paragraph 3, page 441. He sent the "Theory of Prosecution" to the DA's office and the BPD. I wonder how both of those offices would respond if those of us on this Forum who support Kolar's work would write each of them a letter stating our plea to review Kolar's theory?? I've seen a good amount of favorable media buzz about Kolar's book and credibility, and renewed interest in the case. Add that Howard Stern just had a show featuring an expert criminal profiler who fingered Patsy for the crime. Isn't it time little JB had some justice?

Needing to learn so much more info about this case, I'd like to know if anyone has an answer to a couple of questions:
1. Is there any reference available as to if it was ever checked to see if the suitcase photographed under the open window in the train room would have been small enough to fit through the open window? It looks like it might be a close fit to me, given the overhead pipe there that might have interfered with maneuvering it through the window - especially if it had a small child's body in it.
2. Is there any documented information that Fleet White might have indicated how light or heavy the suitcase was when he picked it up to move it? (see Kolar book, pg 28, paragraph 5).
3. Are those latex rubber gloves at the 5:00 position of the sink in the photo on page 125, and does anyone feel as stirred by seeing them there as I do?
4. Could the animal hair on JB, identified as Beaver, have possibly been Badger instead of Beaver? Would forensic ID of the fur have been absolute?
Badger hair is used in fine artist paintbrushes.

Like all of you, I am finding all the information available on this case to be amazingly thought-provoking, and I will be working to keep my sleuth-gears humming along down the road of seeing this case get to a place that can bring some peace to the deserving.

 

[hetty]

Could someone please share what the epilogue says? I have no book thank you xx

 

[Bonnette]

Could someone please share what the epilogue says? I have no book thank you xx

It's a detailed explanation of why he decided to write the book, disclosing in the process some important pieces of evidence (and slants on previously published evidence) that have not been widely known or discussed.

He rues the treatment of the Boulder PD by the press and the DA's office, who made it seem as if the PD did not do its job in this case - whereas in reality, their hands were tied from the beginning by a DA who would not allow evidence to be collected or followed to its source.

He alludes to his view of where the evidence leads, without putting himself in legal jeopardy. He states clearly that he does not believe that an intruder was responsible, without painting a target on any particular family member; his hints are sufficient for the reader to put together the particulars of his theory of the crime.

He expresses doubt that the case will ever be prosecuted, though he believes it has been solved - and that, although mistakes were made, the BPD did a good enough job that any conscientious DA's office could have obtained convictions.

It's a long chapter, but those (to my mind, anyway) are some of the main points.

 

[UKGuy]

It's a detailed explanation of why he decided to write the book, disclosing in the process some important pieces of evidence (and slants on previously published evidence) that have not been widely known or discussed.

He rues the treatment of the Boulder PD by the press and the DA's office, who made it seem as if the PD did not do its job in this case - whereas in reality, their hands were tied from the beginning by a DA who would not allow evidence to be collected or followed to its source.

He alludes to his view of where the evidence leads, without putting himself in legal jeopardy. He states clearly that he does not believe that an intruder was responsible, without painting a target on any particular family member; his hints are sufficient for the reader to put together the particulars of his theory of the crime.

He expresses doubt that the case will ever be prosecuted, though he believes it has been solved - and that, although mistakes were made, the BPD did a good enough job that any conscientious DA's office could have obtained convictions.

It's a long chapter, but those (to my mind, anyway) are some of the main points.

Bonnette,
He must know something we do not. He must have a smoking gun, otherwise its still a RDI case?


.

 

[hetty]

It's a detailed explanation of why he decided to write the book, disclosing in the process some important pieces of evidence (and slants on previously published evidence) that have not been widely known or discussed.

He rues the treatment of the Boulder PD by the press and the DA's office, who made it seem as if the PD did not do its job in this case - whereas in reality, their hands were tied from the beginning by a DA who would not allow evidence to be collected or followed to its source.

He alludes to his view of where the evidence leads, without putting himself in legal jeopardy. He states clearly that he does not believe that an intruder was responsible, without painting a target on any particular family member; his hints are sufficient for the reader to put together the particulars of his theory of the crime.

He expresses doubt that the case will ever be prosecuted, though he believes it has been solved - and that, although mistakes were made, the BPD did a good enough job that any conscientious DA's office could have obtained convictions.

It's a long chapter, but those (to my mind, anyway) are some of the main points.

Thanks for this Bonnette, I appreciate it.

 

[Bonnette]

Bonnette,
He must know something we do not. He must have a smoking gun, otherwise its still a RDI case?

My take on it is that there is not a smoking gun, as such, but that the preponderance of the evidence points toward one member of the Ramsey family as the killer, with the remaining two covering for that person. I do not wish to put words in Kolar's mouth, so I'll just say that my perception of what he writes is that Burke's involvement demands further examination.

There might be - or might have been, at one time - a smoking gun, but Team Ramsey (with the full cooperation of the DA's office) squelched all avenues of approach to meaningful investigation. Unless and until some records are made public, all of us - including Kolar - are left with questions.

 

[midwest mama]

My take on it is that there is not a smoking gun, as such, but that the preponderance of the evidence points toward one member of the Ramsey family as the killer, with the remaining two covering for that person. I do not wish to put words in Kolar's mouth, so I'll just say that my perception of what he writes is that Burke's involvement demands further examination.

There might be - or might have been, at one time - a smoking gun, but Team Ramsey (with the full cooperation of the DA's office) squelched all avenues of approach to meaningful investigation. Unless and until some records are made public, all of us - including Kolar - are left with questions.

Kolar book, pg 452, par 1: ' I can fully understand Ramsey's motivation for wishing to see the investigation assigned to another agency. As illustrated here, Boulder PD investigators were not so easily misled when it came to interpreting the facts and evidence that had been unearthed in the case. He and Patsy had to be very concerned that, at some point, the detective's inquiries would fully penetrate their carefully crafted smokescreen and eventually determine the underlying motive for a cover-up of JonBenet's death.'

So, if the murder of JB (there are at least 13 times where Kolar uses the word 'murder', with direct relation to JB, which disallows Dr. Lee's thought her death could have been some 'sort of accident') is one day proved to have been committed by a minor, and it is proved JR had a part in a coverup, can any "Accessory" charges of any type be filed against him, or any other lesser degrees of murder? I am totally ignorant of what Colorado, or any state, law might be on this, so please bear with me.

I have read that Burke is not willing to give a new statement as an adult to BPD. Could he be called in to testify at a GJ, (OH PLEASE HEAR OUR PRAYER, LORD) based on someone finally believing in truth and justice enough to consider Kolar's current submission of his "Theory of Prosecution"? Regardless of the outcome, perhaps we would finally have enough information on the case to make sense of it all, and there would be some justice for JB. lease:

 

[Bonnette]

You raise very good questions, midwest mama. I hope that someone with legal expertise can answer them.

 

[UKGuy]

My take on it is that there is not a smoking gun, as such, but that the preponderance of the evidence points toward one member of the Ramsey family as the killer, with the remaining two covering for that person. I do not wish to put words in Kolar's mouth, so I'll just say that my perception of what he writes is that Burke's involvement demands further examination.

There might be - or might have been, at one time - a smoking gun, but Team Ramsey (with the full cooperation of the DA's office) squelched all avenues of approach to meaningful investigation. Unless and until some records are made public, all of us - including Kolar - are left with questions.

Bonnette,
ITA. Yet Kolar points to BDI and Thomas to PDI? So what does one know that the other does not?

I wonder if Kolar is simply communicating what everyone involved, DA, BPD etc, have known all along? And that he, for legal reasons, cannot be explicit about.

Unless and until some records are made public, all of us - including Kolar - are left with questions.

These will be made public some day, but I'll be pensioned off by then LOL!

If it really is BDI then that leaves the future wide open to some form of abuse being perpetrated again. There is a fashionable theory these days that psycopathy is an evolutionary adaption, e.g. natural, but it is permanent in its regressive effects, that is, not amenable to treatment.



.

 

[otg]

Kolar book, pg 452, par 1: ' I can fully understand Ramsey's motivation for wishing to see the investigation assigned to another agency. As illustrated here, Boulder PD investigators were not so easily misled when it came to interpreting the facts and evidence that had been unearthed in the case. He and Patsy had to be very concerned that, at some point, the detective's inquiries would fully penetrate their carefully crafted smokescreen and eventually determine the underlying motive for a cover-up of JonBenet's death.'

So, if the murder of JB (there are at least 13 times where Kolar uses the word 'murder', with direct relation to JB, which disallows Dr. Lee's thought her death could have been some 'sort of accident') is one day proved to have been committed by a minor, and it is proved JR had a part in a coverup, can any "Accessory" charges of any type be filed against him, or any other lesser degrees of murder? I am totally ignorant of what Colorado, or any state, law might be on this, so please bear with me.

I have read that Burke is not willing to give a new statement as an adult to BPD. Could he be called in to testify at a GJ, (OH PLEASE HEAR OUR PRAYER, LORD) based on someone finally believing in truth and justice enough to consider Kolar's current submission of his "Theory of Prosecution"? Regardless of the outcome, perhaps we would finally have enough information on the case to make sense of it all, and there would be some justice for JB. lease:

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.
.

 

[Bonnette]

Bonnette,
ITA. Yet Kolar points to BDI and Thomas to PDI? So what does one know that the other does not?

I wonder if Kolar is simply communicating what everyone involved, DA, BPD etc, have known all along? And that he, for legal reasons, cannot be explicit about.

It seems to me that Kolar and Thomas had access to the same information, but Thomas simply "couldn't go there" when it came to Burke. Thomas explicitly states his belief that PDI, whereas Kolar seems to intimate that BDI and PR/JR covered up; all three were implicated, but Kolar does not spell out his theory in the book (though he did to members of LE).

Kolar seems (to me, anyway) to be saying that everyone in LE had access to the same facts - paltry as they were, thanks to the DA's office - but the problem lies in the weight each investigator assigns to them.

 

[Bonnette]

... 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.
.

I think that is an excellent summation.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I wish he had spent more of the book reasoning how he eliminated the other suspects in favor of this theory which is supported in the book by a lot of armchair psychology and speculation. It's frustrating that he can't share with us everything he knows. I personally can't accept this theory on faith.

 

[Bonnette]

I wish he had spent more of the book reasoning how he eliminated the other suspects in favor of this theory which is supported in the book by a lot of armchair psychology and speculation. It's frustrating that he can't share with us everything he knows. I personally can't accept this theory on faith.

I am only guessing, but my impression on finishing the book was that Kolar started it with a clear idea and trajectory in mind, but the material itself - along with legal constraints - led him to finish in another manner. Toward the end of the book, he actually acknowledges how frustrating it must be for readers to have come so far, only to be denied learning precisely what his theory of the case is. 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.

In not presenting a fully developed theory, Kolar's hints and speculative statements might appear to be articles of faith - but I think that as the material took on a life of its own midstream, it presented a new set of problems for the author. My sense is that he was continually and simultaneously torn between anger at the way the case has languished, a fierce desire for transparency, and fear that he might be responsible for more of the same (or worse) if he said too much.

Even so, I think the book represents a very positive step forward in our understanding of what happened behind-the-scenes in this case, and it is the product of Kolar's intense commitment to justice and sincere desire that the case not be further mired in nonsense of the John Mark Kerr variety. I don't doubt Kolar's passion or command of the facts, though he can't spell some of them out - and while the reader by book's end almost desperately craves a resolution that does not come, I think the book will provide an excellent map of the territory for future investigators.

 

[txsvicki]

There is no statute of limitations on murder and whoever put the cord around the neck and stuck something in purposely just before death is the one who killed jonbenet.

 

[Bonnette]

I am no legal expert by any means, but as BR in 1996 was just under the age limit for being charged with murder in Colorado, even naming him now that he's a grown man could pose problems. So...yes, whoever killed JBR is the murderer, pure and simple...but PR's dead, JR is coated in legal Teflon, and BR - if he did it - could probably not now be charged with a crime he was too young to be arrested for at the time of the murder. Just my thought.

 

[Chrishope]

I am no legal expert by any means, but as BR in 1996 was just under the age limit for being charged with murder in Colorado, even naming him now that he's a grown man could pose problems. So...yes, whoever killed JBR is the murderer, pure and simple...but PR's dead, JR is coated in legal Teflon, and BR - if he did it - could probably not now be charged with a crime he was too young to be arrested for at the time of the murder. Just my thought.

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.