I bought J. Kolar's book, and find it most notable for the evidence it presents that is factual and verifiable from the documentation on the case. I also read the book by FBI profiler John Douglas who was hired by the Ramseys and proclaims their innocence (OK, I've read them all, but am just mentioning these two). Douglas's rose colored glasses regarding the Ramseys' involvement in the case was a real disappointment when I read his book-- Douglas holds as fact some of the most questionable evidence-- believing in the stun gun theory, the basement entry, etc. What really killed Douglas's credibility for me was when he totally bit on John Mark Karr as the killer. I saw an interview with him right after Karr was arrested, and Douglas was warning that Karr " might try to feign mental illness." (don't have the cite, but Google it)
My most obvious issue with the Intruder theory is that it just doesn't explain the ransom note. The 'practice" pad, the handwriting comparison, the length of the note itself, the phrasing of the note, the note being directed to JR, the $118K ransom amount, and the "terms" the "kidnappers" set-- to me, none of this makes sense except under the RDI theory.
Second, regardless of what the hired guns said, my "personal opinion only" is that there was a decided LACK of true cooperation by the Ramseys . I'm an attorney and I know what cooperation with the authorities looks like, and to me, it wasn't there. The Boulder PD, with their lack of experience in homicides and their view of the Ramseys as pillars of the community , were at a disadvantage from the start-- the Ramsey defense team was in place and the walls were up from the minute the police were called. In today's world, I would like to think that the family would have been separated immediately and statements taken. The house would have been treated as a crime scene immediately, with the family removed and a thorough search of the house done.
Also, it seems the proponents of the intruder theory embrace the basement window entry-- despite the spider webs on the window and the suitcase placed so it appeared someone tried to use it to climb out the basement window, and lack of evidence showing that it was even possible for someone to escape the house that way. Although there have indeed been cases where an intruder did enter a house and kidnap a child ( Polly Klaas, Elizabeth Smart) , in those cases no one bothered with a ransom note-- they were there to kidnap, rape and kill, and that's what they did, but NOT ON THE PREMISES-- they grabbed the kid and got the hell out of there.
The Ramseys had good legal counsel in the early stages of the investigation, followed their attorneys' advice, and therefore controlled all their statements and interviews. Once the basic "story" was set by the Ramseys, all they had to do was stick to it, not embellish it, and let their attorneys deflect the rest of the evidence.
And as for Lou Smit-- he was indeed a respected investigator, but if an investigator is out there praying with the suspects, doesn't that affect objectivity on the most basic level? Plus, the stun gun theory, which was advanced by Smit and "hired gun" Douglas, has been conclusively disproved-- the Kolar book has some nice photographs showing the difference in the marks made by the stun guns vs. what was measured on the body at the autopsy-- the prongs of the device are a different distance apart from the marks on the body.
So, I won't be checking out any pro Ramsey book on this case. If you want to see a decent analysis of some of the evidence , check out Kolar's Foreign Faction book. I found out about the book here at WS and am glad I took the time to read it. At this point, I don't see anything changing about the case, as the Boulder PD sure doesn't seem to want anything else to do with it. The case is done, and it's sad-- somebody got away with murder of a little girl. All LE can do is learn from this case and apply it to future cases involving a child's death in the home.
, Patsy the Patsy, and Fantastic Theories (which will be anyone elses theory that disagrees with his).
