What does Kolar say about

[DeeDee249]

KoldKase,
Interesting discussion. I like the confirmation regarding the acute and prior sexual abuse. particularly confirmation about the object being inserted, which I presume is different from the injuries inflicted digitally, staging anyone? What we want now is Holly Smith's book, thats the one I want to read. She wrote one, and included parts into her autobiography, but had them redacted and was told not to publish about JonBenet. I have to query how Kolar can publish, or is it open season, now so long has passed?

I wonder if JR's new wife will read this book?


.

Anyone here can write about anything they wish, including an unsolved murder. Kolar is just as able to do this as JR or Smit's recent shill on the BPD.
But he is also subject to libel laws. However, anyone may write a personal OPINION, or may write the TRUTH. Libel laws only apply when someone makes a false claim. Here's the trick- Lawyers like LW scare people by just the THREAT of litigation. But if it were to go all the way to a libel trial, the TRUTH will come out and a charge of filing a false claim (libel) or frivolous lawsuit can bite the attorney in the a$$. So blustering attorneys have to be very careful when making libel claims. If the information is actually TRUE- there is no libel and no crime and that information will then be made public. Kolar cannot say that a particular person IS guilty, though, unless he can prove it and that will take charges filed.
As far as BR- he is forever protected by Colorado's ridiculous child criminal laws, so anyone claiming publicly- as in a book- that BR was involved can expect BR's attorneys to start barking. If Boulder LE (including past and present DAs) have knowledge that BR was involved they can never admit it. Ever. So the case remains "dead" (like poor JB) to use JR's choice of words. Since it is now public knowledge the the case is NOT being investigated (contrary to the new DA's comments) combined with Patsy's death and BR's immunity from prosecution- I think we have our answers, don't we?

 

[otg]

About Kolar's revelation (RE: fecal-smeared candy) and Holly Smith's opinions...

This is from an interview Smith did just after the book was published:

Holly Smith recently wrote a book about her 20 years with the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team. She left out the chapter about the Ramsey case, but is now revealing her part of the investigation exclusively to us.

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.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."
​

I wonder if it was the same fecal-smeared candy Kolar refers to, or was it some "clean" candy she wanted to keep hidden away for herself (indicating she was the one who tainted the other one). I wonder if at the time she saw it, Smith realized that it had feces on it like the soiled undies hidden away in her drawers. Does Kolar say in the book who the feces belonged to?

And also from that article:

A lawyer for the Ramsey family did not return our phone calls. But the Ramseys have always denied that JonBenet suffered any kind of prior abuse and point out her pediatrician never saw anything indicating abuse, either.
​

.

 

[Chrishope]

Anyone here can write about anything they wish, including an unsolved murder. Kolar is just as able to do this as JR or Smit's recent shill on the BPD.
But he is also subject to libel laws. However, anyone may write a personal OPINION, or may write the TRUTH. Libel laws only apply when someone makes a false claim. Here's the trick- Lawyers like LW scare people by just the THREAT of litigation. But if it were to go all the way to a libel trial, the TRUTH will come out and a charge of filing a false claim (libel) or frivolous lawsuit can bite the attorney in the a$$. So blustering attorneys have to be very careful when making libel claims. If the information is actually TRUE- there is no libel and no crime and that information will then be made public. Kolar cannot say that a particular person IS guilty, though, unless he can prove it and that will take charges filed.
As far as BR- he is forever protected by Colorado's ridiculous child criminal laws, so anyone claiming publicly- as in a book- that BR was involved can expect BR's attorneys to start barking. If Boulder LE (including past and present DAs) have knowledge that BR was involved they can never admit it. Ever. So the case remains "dead" (like poor JB) to use JR's choice of words. Since it is now public knowledge the the case is NOT being investigated (contrary to the new DA's comments) combined with Patsy's death and BR's immunity from prosecution- I think we have our answers, don't we?

If CO is ridiculous, so are most states, and most countries. An age of responsibility is a feature of most legal systems. English common law set the age at 7, and ECL is our law unless superseded by statute. Age of responsibility ranges from 6 years to 12 years in various US states. England and Wales today set the age at 10. All Australian states set the age at 10. Thailand and Switzerland both set the age at 10. Scotland, Ireland, and Canada are all 12.

It's a very common law, and 10 is a very common age for such statutes. IOWs there is nothing very unusual about the CO law, nor anything particularly lenient, as compared to many other states and nations.

 

[UKGuy]

About Kolar's revelation (RE: fecal-smeared candy) and Holly Smith's opinions...

This is from an interview Smith did just after the book was published:

Holly Smith recently wrote a book about her 20 years with the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team. She left out the chapter about the Ramsey case, but is now revealing her part of the investigation exclusively to us.

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.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."
​

I wonder if it was the same fecal-smeared candy Kolar refers to, or was it some "clean" candy she wanted to keep hidden away for herself (indicating she was the one who tainted the other one). I wonder if at the time she saw it, Smith realized that it had feces on it like the soiled undies hidden away in her drawers. Does Kolar say in the book who the feces belonged to?

And also from that article:

A lawyer for the Ramsey family did not return our phone calls. But the Ramseys have always denied that JonBenet suffered any kind of prior abuse and point out her pediatrician never saw anything indicating abuse, either.
​

.

otg,

lawyer for the Ramsey family did not return our phone calls. But the Ramseys have always denied that JonBenet suffered any kind of prior abuse and point out her pediatrician never saw anything indicating abuse, either.

How convenient, maybe he missed something, or maybe he never looked where it mattered. The Ramsey family are surely not claiming JonBenet underwent intimate inspection?

All this evidence relating to fecal deposits is just so bizarre, what else is there waiting to be revealed? Holly Smith was soo diplomatic with her take on JonBenet's underwear, for me, it all screams abuse, poor JonBenet acting out etc.

 

[Maureen92]

Thanks everyone and KoldKase for that FFJ info.

 

[DeeDee249]

otg,

How convenient, maybe he missed something, or maybe he never looked where it mattered. The Ramsey family are surely not claiming JonBenet underwent intimate inspection?

All this evidence relating to fecal deposits is just so bizarre, what else is there waiting to be revealed? Holly Smith was soo diplomatic with her take on JonBenet's underwear, for me, it all screams abuse, poor JonBenet acting out etc.

The pediatrician never looked. He ADMITTED that he never examined JB internally. He would never have seen the eroded hymen unless he had given her a pelvic exam. This exam, done on a child, requires the child to be anesthetized as a speculum is needed, and would only be done on rare occasions. The pediatrician was a personal friend of the Rs- they were members at the same country club. By some accounts he was very taken with them. He would never have looked for evidence of abuse.

 

[wonderllama]

This whole "I never saw anything" is a bit like the old "I didn't know we were out of peanut butter"....you don't notice these things unless you are specifically looking for it.

It's a pointless and unhelpful discussion in my books.

 

[Chrishope]

otg,

How convenient, maybe he missed something, or maybe he never looked where it mattered. The Ramsey family are surely not claiming JonBenet underwent intimate inspection?

All this evidence relating to fecal deposits is just so bizarre, what else is there waiting to be revealed? Holly Smith was soo diplomatic with her take on JonBenet's underwear, for me, it all screams abuse, poor JonBenet acting out etc.

Kids will sometimes take their feces and smear it on things. It's not really that unusual.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

The pediatrician never looked. He ADMITTED that he never examined JB internally. He would never have seen the eroded hymen unless he had given her a pelvic exam. This exam, done on a child, requires the child to be anesthetized as a speculum is needed, and would only be done on rare occasions. The pediatrician was a personal friend of the Rs- they were members at the same country club. By some accounts he was very taken with them. He would never have looked for evidence of abuse.

When I would take my grand daughter (she lived with us from age 2 -10) in for her yearly well check up her pedi would open her legs and peek between her legs real quick and go on with her examination. I took this as checking for abuse.

 

[wonderllama]

Why do kids need yearly checkups?
Is this an American thing, cos we certainly don't do it in Australia.

 

[SunVenus]

Why do kids need yearly checkups?
Is this an American thing, cos we certainly don't do it in Australia.

Hi Wonderllama—

To give some background: I was born in the US and lived there for 34 years. I now live in Australia, moved here in 2001.

In my experience, yes, the way they do medicine in the US is a bit different from how we do it here in Oz. In the US, there is a big emphasis on preventative medicine; this includes yearly medical exams, twice yearly dental cleanings & check-ups, and for women, yearly pap smears & breast exams, plus after forty (or if prone) regular mammograms. Men have regular prostate exams and the like and of course if one has a history of a certain illness in one’s gene pool, you have that added to your regular schedule of screenings. (For example, I am genetically inclined towards diabetes; I have that checked at least twice a year here in Australia, at my request.)

This may have to do with insurance and the differences between each country's medical system overall, someone probably knows more about all that than me & and can give a more detailed answer. But yes, it is very common & normal for US children to have regular, yearly check-ups, particularly those at middle to upper levels on the socio-economic scale. Other people's experiences may vary, but that is how I experienced it as a child and then as an adult in the US.

Hope that helps.

 

[wonderllama]

That does actually.
We do all those preventative things though, except visiting the paediatrician.

I think I'd like to know how many things have been picked up through the yearly visit to the Paediatrician as opposed to just going when someone feels unwell.

 

[TexasLori]

Kids will sometimes take their feces and smear it on things. It's not really that unusual.

Maybe some kids do, but IMO by the time they are six years old they have grown out of that stage. My six year old girl would sooner eat broccoli than touch poop.

 

[wonderllama]

I'm pretty sure this is a very uncommon thing....never heard of this amongst ANY of my friends.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

That does actually.
We do all those preventative things though, except visiting the paediatrician.

I think I'd like to know how many things have been picked up through the yearly visit to the Paediatrician as opposed to just going when someone feels unwell.

Yes, it's quite normal for many Americans and their kiddies to have an annual check-up. Not everyone does, but many do, and our doctors recommend it.

Neither my children, myself, nor any other members of my family have contracted any illness at a doctor's office. Many pediatricians have "well children's rooms" and "sick children's rooms" to keep the germs away from the well children. When my daughter was 10 days old, she had to go to the doctor unexpectedly, they told us to enter through the back door without going through the reception area because she was so young and they wanted to avoid exposing her to germs.

 

[UKGuy]

The pediatrician never looked. He ADMITTED that he never examined JB internally. He would never have seen the eroded hymen unless he had given her a pelvic exam. This exam, done on a child, requires the child to be anesthetized as a speculum is needed, and would only be done on rare occasions. The pediatrician was a personal friend of the Rs- they were members at the same country club. By some accounts he was very taken with them. He would never have looked for evidence of abuse.

DeeDee249,

He would never have looked for evidence of abuse.

Right! And thats why none was found.

An interesting question might be: was the prior abuse of JonBenet related to her death, or was her death independent of her abuse?

If its not the latter, e.g. PDI, then BDI starts to become more prominent due to the circumstantial evidence.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

When I would take my grand daughter (she lived with us from age 2 -10) in for her yearly well check up her pedi would open her legs and peek between her legs real quick and go on with her examination. I took this as checking for abuse.

NO, that isn;t checking for abuse. But that is a common procedure in s pedistric exam, however, What he was doing is checking for irritation or infection- very common in little girls. Think about it- to check for a missing or eroded hymen you have to do an internal pelvic exam, not just peek between her legs, You need to check for lesions in the vagina or other evidence of penetration.

 

[Chrishope]

Maybe some kids do, but IMO by the time they are six years old they have grown out of that stage. My six year old girl would sooner eat broccoli than touch poop.

From my experience working in schools, there are kids who do this. Not a lot of course, but one or two in every building. It continues into high school. Whether HS kids do it for the same reason as grade school kids, I wouldn't know.

 

[madeleine]

does he say anything in his book re what kind of boots/shoes BR was wearing at the White's party?i don't find anything re this info anywhere...i just would like to know if it could have been his high tech boots...

TIA

 

[cynic]

does he say anything in his book re what kind of boots/shoes BR was wearing at the White's party?i don't find anything re this info anywhere...i just would like to know if it could have been his high tech boots...

TIA

No he doesn’t, but he does reveal something very interesting about Burke and the Wine Cellar. Those presents that were torn open, it was Burke that did it but Patsy lied and claimed responsibility.

There had been another discrepancy in one of Patsy Ramsey’s law enforcement interviews that caught my attention. Investigators had noted that the wrapping paper on a pair of Christmas presents observed in the Wine Cellar at the time of the discovery of JonBenét’s body had been torn. She told the detectives that she couldn’t remember what was contained in the presents, and hence the need to tear back part of the paper. I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this. Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke’s upcoming January birthday.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? James Kolar, page 339