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

[Darlene733510]

Last weekend the Lifetime Movie Chanel had a series called, "Kids Who Murder." There was no doubt that children can commit murder. Whatever the reason, be it psychological, hatred for their sibling, or just plain jealousy, it does happen.
Speaking of judging by the evidence, in this case, that is impossible. We have only seen and heard 10 o/o of the evidence. The medical evidence is still sealed. Phone records were not called for. The long delay in questioning the R's was unconscionable.
It is preposterous that a long dramatized RN was written, while the dead child lay in the wine cellar.
I will say that if my child was dead, I would never leave her body, and decide to get on a plane and leave the area. I would be so eager to speak with the PD, and be a constant nag as to what were they doing to find the killer. I wouldn't be so concerned as to what to wear to the funeral. The Jackie Kennedy look, with the face covered veil was ridiculous. Of course it could be expected from someone who I would call a "Drama Queen."
The R's knew there was no killer to look for. If there was one they would have spent more money on a reward to find the culprit, instead of the millions they spent to keep them from being charged. They obstructed justice in every way possible. In fact, what they did was a horrible betrayal of a beautiful 6 year old child. Do they some day think they will be reunited with JB in Heaven? That may be the day they pay for preventing an innocent child from becoming an adult, and leading a fruitful life. Karma always rolls around, and in the end it always wins.

 

[redheadedgal]

one of our fellow posters was kind (and awesome) enough to loan me her copy of kolar's book last fall (thanks friend!!)... i just ordered my own copy and am so ready to re-read it.

question: i haven't listened to any of tricia's interviews with him... should i before i get the book? is there a lot mentioned that's not in the book?

thanks!!

 

[Chelly]

one of our fellow posters was kind (and awesome) enough to loan me her copy of kolar's book last fall (thanks friend!!)... i just ordered my own copy and am so ready to re-read it.

question: i haven't listened to any of tricia's interviews with him... should i before i get the book? is there a lot mentioned that's not in the book?

thanks!!

Hi, This isn't the answer you are looking for, but I own Kolar's book and love it as I do Steve Thomas' book. I read both twice before hearing Kolar's radio. I thought Kolar was overly cautious in the interview and answers were sometimes vague. It seems he knows a lot that he can't/won't talk about. That was my take on it; others may not agree. Hope that helps. Red, I'm sure more posters here can add to that.
C.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi, This isn't the answer you are looking for, but I own Kolar's book and love it as I do Steve Thomas' book. I read both twice before hearing Kolar's radio. I thought Kolar was overly cautious in the interview and answers were sometimes vague. It seems he knows a lot that he can't/won't talk about. That was my take on it; others may not agree. Hope that helps. Red, I'm sure more posters here can add to that.
C.

Chelly,
Kolar is bound by his employment contract and Colorado laws. Which is why he speculates during his radio interviews.


redheadedgal Kolar's interviews add stuff not available in his book, he admits as much in one interview.

Thanks go to Tricia for getting Kolar to open up as much as he does.


.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

For me, saying an IDI is like telling me the boogey-man did it. Same thing. IDI defies logic.

And this is not the first case (and it won't be the last) that power, money, and prestige have gotten people off the hook. You would have to be naive to think that doesn't happen. In a sense, the woman depicted holding the scales of justice is blindfolded but she can peek through enough to see how many "benjamins" are being thrown about.

Also, for anyone on here to assume people won't stand up in person and state their claims or questions to the "experts"-----tsk, tsk. I know there are people that have. Fact.

:banghead:

 

[Venom]

For me, saying an IDI is like telling me the boogey-man did it. Same thing. IDI defies logic.

And this is not the first case (and it won't be the last) that power, money, and prestige have gotten people off the hook. You would have to be naive to think that doesn't happen. In a sense, the woman depicted holding the scales of justice is blindfolded but she can peek through enough to see how many "benjamins" are being thrown about.

Also, for anyone on here to assume people won't stand up in person and state their claims or questions to the "experts"-----tsk, tsk. I know there are people that have. Fact.

:banghead:

I have yet to hear any theory on an intruder. I just hear about possibilities, rights, biases, sources aren't relevant, the police were incompetent, and us rdi's are just on a witch hunt. Nope, not one idea on the who, what, how, where, when of an intruder. All just talk, of course this is all my opinion.
But yes, the R's were lucky to be able to afford those good lawyers. Think about if they didn't have the money and had to use a public defender.
*I'm not bashing public defenders.*

 

[Nom de plume]

I have yet to hear any theory on an intruder. I just hear about possibilities, rights, biases, sources aren't relevant, the police were incompetent, and us rdi's are just on a witch hunt. Nope, not one idea on the who, what, how, where, when of an intruder. All just talk, of course this is all my opinion.
But yes, the R's were lucky to be able to afford those good lawyers. Think about if they didn't have the money and had to use a public defender.
*I'm not bashing public defenders.*

Of course we don't! There is no logical way to ignore all the circumstantial evidence against the Rs! There's no way to form any theory of IDI when everything points away from an IDI an directly at the Rs. The best that can be hoped for is to disrupt productive discussion, deflect attention away from the Rs, and hopefully find someone uninformed enough to agree.

If any IDI could ever put forth and logical theory, and logical suspect, I'd be more than happy to give it serious consideration. To date, I've never seen it happen, and seriously doubt I ever will.

The best RDIs can do is to ignore the disruption & deflection and proceed with REAL work towards solving the case.

:moo: & my :twocents:

 

[Venom]

Of course we don't! There is no logical way to ignore all the circumstantial evidence against the Rs! There's no way to form any theory of IDI when everything points away from an IDI an directly at the Rs. The best that can be hoped for is to disrupt productive discussion, deflect attention away from the Rs, and hopefully find someone uninformed enough to agree.

If any IDI could ever put forth and logical theory, and logical suspect, I'd be more than happy to give it serious consideration. To date, I've never seen it happen, and seriously doubt I ever will.

The best RDIs can do is to ignore the disruption & deflection and proceed with REAL work towards solving the case.

:moo: & my :twocents:

:rockon:

 

[Chrishope]

Let's be fair, IDIs can't necessarily name a suspect, the whole idea being it's an unknown intruder.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Let's be fair, IDIs can't necessarily name a suspect, the whole idea being it's an unknown intruder.

Well, can't the IDI folks come up with a few suspects that have committed similar crimes, that were geographically in the correct neighborhood, and had a way to gain entry into the R's home, that also knew or guessed JR's bonus amount, or an IDI that was really a kidnapper but became a sexual preditor (or vice versa)? Of course this IDI also had to know the layout of the R's house too.

Who dat?

:floorlaugh:

 

[Chrishope]

Well, can't the IDI folks come up with a few suspects that have committed similar crimes, that were geographically in the correct neighborhood, and had a way to gain entry into the R's home, that also knew or guessed JR's bonus amount, or an IDI that was really a kidnapper but became a sexual preditor (or vice versa)? Of course this IDI also had to know the layout of the R's house too.

Who dat?

:floorlaugh:

There have been some specific suspects mentioned, though I can't recall the names as I never put any stock in IDI.

 

[BOESP]

I'd settle for indirect evidence that, in totality, points to an Intruder.

The DNA is a moot point. If IDI want to count it as pointing to an Intruder then by that logic any Ramsey DNA is just as important. The fact the Ramseys lived there doesn't mean their DNA got their innocently.

Regardless, a Grand Jury returned a true bill. It is really hard to get around that. I can understand why Hunter didn't indict (although I see lots of reasons, not all good, not all bad, for him not following through) but insulting a group who sat in a court of law by saying they reached that decision lightly and without due consideration and didn't "understand" is a pretty low-blow tactic in my book.

 

[Chelly]

I'd settle for indirect evidence that, in totality, points to an Intruder.

The DNA is a moot point. If IDI want to count it as pointing to an Intruder then by that logic any Ramsey DNA is just as important. The fact the Ramseys lived there doesn't mean their DNA got their innocently.

Regardless, a Grand Jury returned a true bill. It is really hard to get around that. I can understand why Hunter didn't indict (although I see lots of reasons, not all good, not all bad, for him not following through) but insulting a group who sat in a court of law by saying they reached that decision lightly and without due consideration and didn't "understand" is a pretty low-blow tactic in my book.

Just want to add that the GJ met for 13 months on the JonBenet Ramsey case.

 

[Venom]

Let's be fair, IDIs can't necessarily name a suspect, the whole idea being it's an unknown intruder.

Fair enough.
They still offer no other ideas. i.e.- sex offender, R associate, pageant associated person, disgruntled employee, or whoever.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'd settle for indirect evidence that, in totality, points to an Intruder.

The DNA is a moot point. If IDI want to count it as pointing to an Intruder then by that logic any Ramsey DNA is just as important. The fact the Ramseys lived there doesn't mean their DNA got their innocently.

Regardless, a Grand Jury returned a true bill. It is really hard to get around that. I can understand why Hunter didn't indict (although I see lots of reasons, not all good, not all bad, for him not following through) but insulting a group who sat in a court of law by saying they reached that decision lightly and without due consideration and didn't "understand" is a pretty low-blow tactic in my book.

It is not a moot point. It is biological material from someone that was not supposed to be there in that house when she was murdered. That is not insignificant. You dismiss it because it does not support the RDI theories but it is valid and substantial.

The GJ does not mean a darn thing. It is just a bunch of people pondering the evidence and then saying they think it is worth going to trial, It says nothing about guilt.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Fair enough.
They still offer no other ideas. i.e.- sex offender, R associate, pageant associated person, disgruntled employee, or whoever.

Maybe if the police had investigated better in the beginning, preserved the scene and not acted like they had no idea what to do, They would have someone in custody at this point.

I believe it was someone on the fringe. Someone that knew them that they did not necessarily know.

 

[Chelly]

Let's be fair, IDIs can't necessarily name a suspect, the whole idea being it's an unknown intruder.

True, however IDI's could assemble evidence and motive and create a reasonable theory.......Oh wait, I said reasonable. Nah, won't happen.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

True, however IDI's could assemble evidence and motive and create a reasonable theory.......Oh wait, I said reasonable. Nah, won't happen.

It is completely reasonable given the brutality of this crime that this was not a parent. IT is completely reasonable to realize that there is DNA that does not belong to the family on JBR. And a pubic hair I recall. I have to go back and look at that. I was reading it in reports somewhere, and have to go through the files and look again.

The RDI crowd does not have one perfect scenario of the crime but many scenarios that are just made out of thin air does that make them unreasonable?
The biggest assumption you have is that it is because the r's were there. It does not mean they did it. OR had anything to do with the person who did. It is just the easiest conclusion to draw not the correct one.

 

[Venom]

Now we all seem to be police bashing.
*Not saying that they didn't make any errors*

Fine, it's the police's fault that this case is unsolved.

The R's not wanting to give an interview right after this happened, even with their lawyers present, that just may shed light on a suspect.
Or leaving BR to be interviewed, maybe he could have been asked if he noticed anyone or anything odd.
Wanting to fly out of town hours after your daughter is found.
All of those sure didn't help the police out with solving the case.
And of course, the PI that the R's hired didn't seem to find out any more then the police did.
All moo.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Now we all seem to be police bashing.
*Not saying that they didn't make any errors*

Fine, it's the police's fault that this case is unsolved.

The R's not wanting to give an interview right after this happened, even with their lawyers present, that just may shed light on a suspect.
Or leaving BR to be interviewed, maybe he could have been asked if he noticed anyone or anything odd.
Wanting to fly out of town hours after your daughter is found.
All of those sure didn't help the police out with solving the case.
And of course, the PI that the R's hired didn't seem to find out any more then the police did.
All moo.

Just one opinion.