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

[TheyDontSee]

....It consumes Kolar that the killer is still out there.

The killer very well could have died in these many years since it happened.

"That's why I put in extra time, take material home and read it at night," Kolar said.

Kolar runs the DNA retrieved from JonBenet's underwear through a national database every single week.

well that's good... if the killer is alive and get's caught for some other crime deemed worthy of having his DNA taken from him. If this never happens, all for nothing. But I support his doing this. Can you imagine if one day we all wake up to headlines stating a DNA match??

 

[madeleine]

The killer very well could have died in these many years since it happened.



well that's good... if the killer is alive and get's caught for some other crime deemed worthy of having his DNA taken from him. If this never happens, all for nothing. But I support his doing this. Can you imagine if one day we all wake up to headlines stating a DNA match??

Not holding my breath while waiting for it....
but let's assume there is a match someday and it turns out it belongs to a kid that used to play with JB (innocent transfer)...oh I would looooooove to watch the chaos...there will be no more "intruder DNA">>>>no more "intruder did it" arguments...would be interesting to see what LE does then cause this would mean start fresh and #sigh# go back to what makes sense (RDI)

 

[simplesimon]

I just read Kolars book and was very impressed! I am a bit confused about the chair that was in front of the wine cellar, did Fleet White see it there when he went to the basement? It seems that JR says it was there......

 

[questfortrue]

I just read Kolars book and was very impressed! I am a bit confused about the chair that was in front of the wine cellar, did Fleet White see it there when he went to the basement? It seems that JR says it was there......

IIRC, the chair was in front of the train room. Neither the detective French nor FW who visited the basement prior to 6:30 am that morning, saw the chair in front of the train room door. Kolar uses this and other statements as evidence of JR's "evolution" in recall of the crime.

 

[Chrishope]

IIRC, the chair was in front of the train room. Neither the detective French nor FW who visited the basement prior to 6:30 am that morning, saw the chair in front of the train room door. Kolar uses this and other statements as evidence of JR's "evolution" in recall of the crime.

And JR's "evolution" is from an inside job -e.g. someone with a key- to an intruder through the basement window.

 

[UKGuy]

And JR's "evolution" is from an inside job -e.g. someone with a key- to an intruder through the basement window.

Chrishope,
JR himself rejects the via the basement window option, so if its an inside job why did the insider not leave via the front door, and how did they know about the wine-cellar, and where the size-12's were located?

It sounds like JR is blaming JAR, or a past babysitter to JonBenet?


.

 

[UKGuy]

IIRC, the chair was in front of the train room. Neither the detective French nor FW who visited the basement prior to 6:30 am that morning, saw the chair in front of the train room door. Kolar uses this and other statements as evidence of JR's "evolution" in recall of the crime.

questfortrue,
This is an interesting point, one where JR does slip up. Was JR actively staging or engaged in something else?

With Fleet White not seeing JonBenet in the wine-cellar that morning could there be a link here?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
JR himself rejects the via the basement window option, so if its an inside job why did the insider not leave via the front door, and how did they know about the wine-cellar, and where the size-12's were located?

It sounds like JR is blaming JAR, or a past babysitter to JonBenet?


.

JR rejects intruder through the window initially, but after LS effectively starts playing for Team Ramsey, he goes along with the intruder through the window nonsense.

On the 26th he is at pains to make sure everyone knows he himself broke the glass in the window, supposedly when he forgot his key and had to break in through that window. He isn't fingering anyone at this point, he's just explaining the break, because if he doesn't explain it, even BPD will start to figure out it looks like a half completed staging job. He knows at that point that the body will be found (he probably doesn't think it will take 7 hours, but he knows the body is going to be found) So he'd have a dead girl, a broken window, a RN, and it would look for all the world like he (they) were staging a break in/kidnapping to explain JB's disappearance.

Months later, when he finally decides it's time to help police find the killer, he suddenly "remembers" that the window's frame was ajar, and that he closed it. He doesn't know why he closed it, and he doesn't know why he didn't mention this to the police on the 26th -given he and the cops were discussing the security of doors and windows one wonders why he didn't mention it while it was fresh in his mind. At the interviews he also now can "remember" that the suitcase is out of place. Again something he "forgot" to tell the police the morning his wife called 911.

So it's pretty obvious that on the 26th he's saying "No, no way did anyone break in. All the doors and windows were locked, and the broken window in the basement, well I broke that myself, so it had to be an 'inside' job." That's not a quote of course, that's the essence of how JR is trying to shape the story. Months later the story has changed to "Yes, I broke the window, but now that I think of it the frame was ajar, and the suitcase was under the window, and an intruder could have come in that way, yah, that's the ticket, and intruder came in that way." Again not a quote, just showing how the story has changed. He's trying now to give some plausibility to the intruder through the window theory.

It doesn't sound to me as if he's blaming JAR or a babysitter. On the morning of the 26th he's just making sure no one is thinking he staged an intruder through the window because it's obvious no one came through the window. He'd be arrested if the cops could put it together on the spot.

A babysitter wouldn't likely have a key, but if she did would she also know where the WC is, and where the 12s are? No reason to blame the murder on such an improbable perp.

As for JAR, JR knows he's in Atalanta or winging his way north for the meet up in Mich, so it makes no sense for him to try to point a finger at JAR. JAR has a pretty good alibi.


As your questions make clear, an "insider" seems unlikely as that person would have to have locked the door behind him (why bother) would have to know where the WC is, and would have to know the 12s were in a package in the basement -if in fact that's where they were. As implausible as an insider is, he switches to the even less plausible intruder through the window theory with LS's assistance. If he's got LS in his corner, pushing the window break in theory he can't very well disagree.

 

[UKGuy]

JR rejects intruder through the window initially, but after LS effectively starts playing for Team Ramsey, he goes along with the intruder through the window nonsense.

On the 26th he is at pains to make sure everyone knows he himself broke the glass in the window, supposedly when he forgot his key and had to break in through that window. He isn't fingering anyone at this point, he's just explaining the break, because if he doesn't explain it, even BPD will start to figure out it looks like a half completed staging job. He knows at that point that the body will be found (he probably doesn't think it will take 7 hours, but he knows the body is going to be found) So he'd have a dead girl, a broken window, a RN, and it would look for all the world like he (they) were staging a break in/kidnapping to explain JB's disappearance.

Months later, when he finally decides it's time to help police find the killer, he suddenly "remembers" that the window's frame was ajar, and that he closed it. He doesn't know why he closed it, and he doesn't know why he didn't mention this to the police on the 26th -given he and the cops were discussing the security of doors and windows one wonders why he didn't mention it while it was fresh in his mind. At the interviews he also now can "remember" that the suitcase is out of place. Again something he "forgot" to tell the police the morning his wife called 911.

So it's pretty obvious that on the 26th he's saying "No, no way did anyone break in. All the doors and windows were locked, and the broken window in the basement, well I broke that myself, so it had to be an 'inside' job." That's not a quote of course, that's the essence of how JR is trying to shape the story. Months later the story has changed to "Yes, I broke the window, but now that I think of it the frame was ajar, and the suitcase was under the window, and an intruder could have come in that way, yah, that's the ticket, and intruder came in that way." Again not a quote, just showing how the story has changed. He's trying now to give some plausibility to the intruder through the window theory.

It doesn't sound to me as if he's blaming JAR or a babysitter. On the morning of the 26th he's just making sure no one is thinking he staged an intruder through the window because it's obvious no one came through the window. He'd be arrested if the cops could put it together on the spot.

A babysitter wouldn't likely have a key, but if she did would she also know where the WC is, and where the 12s are? No reason to blame the murder on such an improbable perp.

As for JAR, JR knows he's in Atalanta or winging his way north for the meet up in Mich, so it makes no sense for him to try to point a finger at JAR. JAR has a pretty good alibi.


As your questions make clear, an "insider" seems unlikely as that person would have to have locked the door behind him (why bother) would have to know where the WC is, and would have to know the 12s were in a package in the basement -if in fact that's where they were. As implausible as an insider is, he switches to the even less plausible intruder through the window theory with LS's assistance. If he's got LS in his corner, pushing the window break in theory he can't very well disagree.

Chrishope,
Interesting account and analysis. Not many questions answered though.

I think seasoned WS members are familair with LS. Its almost a rite of passage to forming a valid RDI theory.

A babysitter wouldn't likely have a key, but if she did would she also know where the WC is, and where the 12s are? No reason to blame the murder on such an improbable perp.

Of course not, but what if the babysitter was male?

You see, myopia discounted, DocG's theory does not explain JR's behaviour that morning. The chair, the broken window, the suitcase, placing JonBenet into the wine-cellar, redressing JonBenet, i.e. not required, ignorance about the pineapple snack, etc.

Then we have JR dropping a RN on the stairs glibly assuming it must achieve his purpose, hello this is a homicide, not a college play.

Presumably when JR suggests its an inside job, he does not have himself in mind?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Interesting account and analysis. Not many questions answered though.

I think seasoned WS members are familair with LS. Its almost a rite of passage to forming a valid RDI theory.


Of course not, but what if the babysitter was male?

He'd still have to know where the WC was, where the 12s were. He still wouldn't likely have a key. Why do you think (as you seem to suggest) that JR was trying to point at a babysitter? I don't see that it makes much sense male or female.

You see, myopia discounted, DocG's theory does not explain JR's behaviour that morning. The chair, the broken window, the suitcase, placing JonBenet into the wine-cellar, redressing JonBenet, i.e. not required, ignorance about the pineapple snack, etc.

Well Doc's theory definitely explains the broken window, but you'd know that if you had ever read it as you claim to have done.

JR's comments about the suitcase only come up in police interviews, he said nothing about it on the 26, so obviously he's trying to incorporate it into some intruder theory.

Placing JB into the WC is simply to keep her from view until she is disposed of.

Then we have JR dropping a RN on the stairs glibly assuming it must achieve his purpose, hello this is a homicide, not a college play.

I don't know what you are trying to get at here. This is not part of the Doc theory, it's just what happened. This event would come after PR ruined JR's original plan.

Presumably when JR suggests its an inside job, he does not have himself in mind?


.

That would be my assumption.

 

[UKGuy]

He'd still have to know where the WC was, where the 12s were. He still wouldn't likely have a key. Why do you think (as you seem to suggest) that JR was trying to point at a babysitter? I don't see that it makes much sense male or female.



Well Doc's theory definitely explains the broken window, but you'd know that if you had ever read it as you claim to have done.

JR's comments about the suitcase only come up in police interviews, he said nothing about it on the 26, so obviously he's trying to incorporate it into some intruder theory.

Placing JB into the WC is simply to keep her from view until she is disposed of.



I don't know what you are trying to get at here. This is not part of the Doc theory, it's just what happened. This event would come after PR ruined JR's original plan.



That would be my assumption.

Chrishope,
Well there was a male babysitter or chaperone, not sure about the USofA phrase, and he did have a key, and he did ferry BR and JonBenet to school and other places etc. This person was cleared early on in the case.

JR might have simply been wanting to blame anyone who fitted the profile, i.e. inside job as long as it point away from him.

No RDI theory seems to explain JR's behaviour that morning satisfactorily, some stuff is left out whilst others are incorporated.

.

 

[bettybaby00]

I'm eagerly awaiting the book from inter-library loan! I'm especially interested as my understanding is that he goes over the entire case, and for someone like me who is only now delving into the details should be a good primer of all the facts thus far.

I have a question for those of you who have read it. Why is it do you think that Kolar's "conclusions" have not gained much traction???

This surprises me.

 

[ozazure]

I'm eagerly awaiting the book from inter-library loan! I'm especially interested as my understanding is that he goes over the entire case, and for someone like me who is only now delving into the details should be a good primer of all the facts thus far.

I have a question for those of you who have read it. Why is it do you think that Kolar's "conclusions" have not gained much traction???

This surprises me.

Because he doesn't really make any! From memory the "bombshells" are the web in the window and the fecal matter in the house. There's information about sexually aggressive children and why the touch dna isn't good evidence for an intruder. A lot is "missing" in the book and I'm only vaguely up on the details via this forum - there is little/nothing about the bizarre sized undies, the function of the apparatus around her neck for example. My recall isn't grand for books, but I have a vague memory of Kolar on one of Tricia's shows and he didn't know something like the Ramsey's later returned the rest of the packet of undies - I could be wrong on the exact point - but while I imagine he has a great depth of knowledge it will still have gaps in it.

The first time I came across the BDI theories you might as well of told me the sky is green on a cloudless sunny day. I was just Nope to that. My world view hadn't been altered yet by the family dynamic I have since encountered that makes me see how it is a possibility. I feel like Kolar's goal is just to pull the wool off more eyes with regards to this possibility.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm eagerly awaiting the book from inter-library loan! I'm especially interested as my understanding is that he goes over the entire case, and for someone like me who is only now delving into the details should be a good primer of all the facts thus far.

I have a question for those of you who have read it. Why is it do you think that Kolar's "conclusions" have not gained much traction???

This surprises me.

bettybaby00,
Kolar does not offer any smoking gun facts, but he does clarify much that came before him.

His BDI is elliptical and worthy of a Golden Dagger award. Yet his thoughts echo many who reckon BDI is the most consistent theory all the others have some large holes in them.

His revelations regarding the fecal matter and the mental health of both JonBenet and BR seem to add to a BDI also.

I get the impression he and Steve Thomas are keeping the case warm in the media. They both know much, much more than they ever relate in public, e.g. Kolar suggests BR kicked events off with JonBenet in the breakfast bar, really how so? Either he knows some critical forensic evidence that links the breakfast bar with the basement, or he is making most of it up?

For WS members, especially those recently joined, it should be a very good summary, to date, on the JonBenet case.


.

 

[bettybaby00]

bettybaby00,
Kolar does not offer any smoking gun facts, but he does clarify much that came before him.

His BDI is elliptical and worthy of a Golden Dagger award. Yet his thoughts echo many who reckon BDI is the most consistent theory all the others have some large holes in them.

His revelations regarding the fecal matter and the mental health of both JonBenet and BR seem to add to a BDI also.

I get the impression he and Steve Thomas are keeping the case warm in the media. They both know much, much more than they ever relate in public, e.g. Kolar suggests BR kicked events off with JonBenet in the breakfast bar, really how so? Either he knows some critical forensic evidence that links the breakfast bar with the basement, or he is making most of it up?

For WS members, especially those recently joined, it should be a very good summary, to date, on the JonBenet case.


.

Thanks for your input....I guess "bombshell" is relative given how much one knows or doesn't know about the facts. I know I have to get a better grasp of the facts as I've come to realize how much I don't know, and how much that had been released was largely spin, by either the Ramsey's or the their influential "friends."

&& BBM when I read this it immediately made me think of the quote from the movie JFK. The critical scene between Garrison, and X..

"X: "...your only chance is to come up with a case. Something, anything. Make arrests, stir the **** storm, hope to reach a point of critical mass that'll start a chain reaction of people coming forward..."


I take it from your comment that you're not a believer in BDI?

 

[DeeDee249]

It wasn't really a "bombshell" the way you'd expect, anyway. While there was some information that might not have been previously mentioned, there was little that most people familiar with the case did not already know. Kolar HINTED strongly that he suspected BR was the perp and the parents covered it up. However, as BR can never be charged in the case even if guilty (because he was underage at the time), Kolar is forbidden from making his beliefs public in an outright statement. NO one can publicly say that BR is involved in this crime whether they had the knowledge or not. So that is why it was a "soft" rather than a "hard" bombshell.

 

[bettybaby00]

It wasn't really a "bombshell" the way you'd expect, anyway. While there was some information that might not have been previously mentioned, there was little that most people familiar with the case did not already know. Kolar HINTED strongly that he suspected BR was the perp and the parents covered it up. However, as BR can never be charged in the case even if guilty (because he was underage at the time), Kolar is forbidden from making his beliefs public in an outright statement. NO one can publicly say that BR is involved in this crime whether they had the knowledge or not. So that is why it was a "soft" rather than a "hard" bombshell.

:gthanks:
BBM
Can anyone clarify/point me to the law Re: my bold? I get the "too young" to be held responsible and/or prosecuted, but I can't find the details that indicate such complete immunity? If BR did in fact cause JRBs death, why can't he at least be named so that at least the case could be solved/closed?

I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into the BDI theory. TIA

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for your input....I guess "bombshell" is relative given how much one knows or doesn't know about the facts. I know I have to get a better grasp of the facts as I've come to realize how much I don't know, and how much that had been released was largely spin, by either the Ramsey's or the their influential "friends."

&& BBM when I read this it immediately made me think of the quote from the movie JFK. The critical scene between Garrison, and X..

"X: "...your only chance is to come up with a case. Something, anything. Make arrests, stir the **** storm, hope to reach a point of critical mass that'll start a chain reaction of people coming forward..."


I take it from your comment that you're not a believer in BDI?

bettybaby00,
Out of all the theories BDI is the most consistent. It also might explain why no former officers of the law have broken ranks to offer a frank account, and all the litigation involved, also all the collusion between the defense and the prosecution, thats nearly twenty years, and still there is silence.

Colorado law has a minimum age of criminal responsibility and BR was beneath this on 12/25/1996. So he has legal protection on all fronts, including that of being named. All those involved in the case would have had to sign legal disclaimers regarding disclosure of case details, hence silence from Steve Thomas, James Kolar, and others.

.

 

[bettybaby00]

bettybaby00,
Out of all the theories BDI is the most consistent. It also might explain why no former officers of the law have broken ranks to offer a frank account, and all the litigation involved, also all the collusion between the defense and the prosecution, thats nearly twenty years, and still there is silence.

Colorado law has a minimum age of criminal responsibility and BR was beneath this on 12/25/1996. So he has legal protection on all fronts, including that of being named. All those involved in the case would have had to sign legal disclaimers regarding disclosure of case details, hence silence from Steve Thomas, James Kolar, and others.

.

Thanks for clarifying!!!!

It's crazy to me that in a scenario like this cant ever be considered solved.

ETA: not trying to say this makes burke guilty of murderer....just my observations regarding the law

 

[DeeDee249]

:gthanks:
BBM
Can anyone clarify/point me to the law Re: my bold? I get the "too young" to be held responsible and/or prosecuted, but I can't find the details that indicate such complete immunity? If BR did in fact cause JRBs death, why can't he at least be named so that at least the case could be solved/closed?

I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into the BDI theory. TIA

He can't be named because, according to Colorado law on underage persons, he cannot be associated with the crime on any level. None. He cannot be arrested, indicted, or even named a suspect because he is forever "legally" not guilty, even though he may have committed the crime. His guilt (if he was guilty) is forever "sealed" from public knowledge.
It is as if he doesn't exist, in a legal sense. And you can't name a non-existent person as the perp.