Peter Boyles interviews James Kolar and Carol McKinley - August 2, 2012

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Aug 5, 2012.

  1. cynic

    cynic Member

    This is the latest offering from Peter Boyles over at KHOW 630 Denver Radio regarding the Ramsey case.
    He interviewed Carol McKinley and Jim Kolar on his August 2, 2012 show.

    Here is an mp3 download option:
    http://downloads.iheartradio.com/media/station_content/636/08022012peter8am_1343919631_22612.mp3

    or the same audio via YouTube:

    Part One (11:37)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0bEVUUrPkg

    Part Two (10:36)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcBudyKeOFo

    Part Three (12:15)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVWPwDgkvQE

    Some excerpts:

    Carol McKinley: John Ramsey’s latest book is all about religion
    Peter Boyles: I know…John Ramsey’s latest book is a con.
    Carol McKinley: Nobody bought it.
    [SNIP]
    Carol McKinley: He said it’s his faith that got him through.
    Peter Boyles: I’m sure. No, it’s his lawyers that got him through, and his money and his BS that got him through…

    [SNIP]
    Peter Boyles: He (Michael Tracey) groomed John Mark Karr just like a pedophile grooms a kid on the Internet and this idiot woman, Mary Keenan Lacy, bought the story, that’s the GD truth, Jim, and I think you know that.
    [SNIP]
    Peter Boyles: The guy’s getting boobs put in in Thailand, the Thai’s are calling him lady-man and they buy him champagne and caviar on the plane at the Boulder taxpayer’s expense, that’s the work of Mary Keenan Lacy, that’s the work of Michael Tracy.

    [SNIP]
    Peter Boyles: I say this. If we took Lady Justice who wears a blindfold and she holds scales, if we put everything in one scale, all the evidence that points to the Ramseys and their family and we put everything in the other scale, the 10th marker from the DNA sample from JonBenet’s underwear in the other, the scale that says the Ramseys did it is going to drop like a rock.
    Carol McKinley: The cops do say that they like to look at the totality of the case, not just one piece of evidence.

    [SNIP]
    Peter Boyles: Do you think that Alex Hunter ever even allowed that Grand Jury to vote?.
    Carol McKinley: I don’t
    Peter Boyles: I don’t either.

    [SNIP]
    Peter Boyles: Paul Woodward from Channel 9 was the worst, the absolute worst, that press conference that they (the Ramseys) did when they took over that hotel in Boulder
    [SNIP]
    Peter Boyles: The condition was, and McKinley remembers, you can’t ask John and Patsy about the murder of their little girl, but you could come to the staged set. And at that point, I said, “what are you going to talk to Patsy about, the euro?”
    And Paula Woodward went up and whispered, “How’s Burke?”
    It was the great suck-up, media lay-down moment, I’ve seen many match it, I haven’t seen any top it.
     
  2. wonderllama

    wonderllama Member

    Hi, I've been pretty slack in posting since I joined here but I have a question after having listened to this interview.

    How is it that everyone in the universe is able to say "I think blah did it" and not be sued, like Peter Boyles for example, and Chief Kolar won't say anything?

    If it simply because he was working on the case?
    I mean, there's clearly a lot of people out there with opinions, most of them pointing at one or more of the Ramseys, but I don't hear any of them being sued.

    Steve Thomas clearly had some issues a few years back with his book, but he came out and said who he thought did it in the book, but who else is there? Why is everyone so scared?

    And can you be sued for saying "I don't think there was an intruder, but I don't think it was A or B...." which clearly leaves C, but without explicitly stating it.

    Okay, apologies if this is dumb, just not sure how it all might work in the US. I'm pretty sure we're not as feral in Oz.
     
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    cynic,

    Thank you for posting this. I'm wondering the same as wonderllama! Peter Boyles isn't afraid to speak out and say what he thinks while James Kolar doesn't! He still leaves it to the readers,
     
  4. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Peter Boyles is so frikkin' annoying. I appreciate that he's on our side, but the way he cuts people off incessantly is really annoying. And I wish he'd stop acting so emotionally hysterical about this case too.
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Okay, the "feral" reference has completely confused me. So I may not be on the same page as you, because I don't know what you're thinking there.

    I'm thinking you haven't read the book, right? While I can't speak for Chief Kolar, I can tell you what I got from reading his book, in which I think he makes fairly clear why he isn't putting forth his own professional opinion on what he thinks happened that night.

    It may have a lot to do with being sued: in this country, you can sue anyone for anything. All you have to do is file the papers in court. But there is a fee to do that, and fees to continue with the suit, including court costs and legal counsel, if you chose to have legal counsel. If you don't actually have a decent case against the defendant, it will be dismissed by a judge PDQ. Also, you risk being counter-sued, which can then cost you more money. So while it's easy enough to sue someone, it's risky business on many levels.

    Take Lin Wood's many lawsuits on behalf of the Ramseys: not ONE actually went to trial. The only suit in which the Ramseys were represented by Wood that even resulted in depositions--answering questions under oath, asked by both parties with a court recorder taking down everything said--was when the Ramseys themselves were sued by Chris Wolf. Depositions themselves cost thousands of dollars each, as well, especially if you have the transcriptionist actually transcribe the recorder's record. (Think about the things we learned from the depositions Wood so generously had transcribed and released through Ramsey shill Jameson online. Talk about clueless....)

    You may know all this and more about our civil court system in this country, which is different from our criminal court system. In case you don't: in civil court, grievances result in the plaintiff being awarded money and/or other material remedies for their complaints, pain, and suffering, etc., if the judgment by a judge or jury is in the plaintiff's favor. In criminal court, actual freedom is at risk, because guilty verdicts can result in imprisonment.

    So back to Kolar: while I don't think he's in fear of being sued, and knows full well the history of the Ramseys when it comes to going after anyone who doesn't spin in their favor, he does know that even defending oneself in a civil suit is expensive. It's why the Ramseys have never gone to trial in any civil suit: they always "settle out of court," as many, if not most, civil cases involving large amounts of money do.

    The Ramseys haven't bothered to sue unless the plaintiff list included a deep-pocket company, if you noticed. Large companies, like publishers of books and tabloids, etc., just pay an agreed upon "settlement" before the parties even get to depositions. Believe me when I say there's no question the Ramseys did not want to EVER go under oath while being asked questions about this case. Darnay Hoffman might not have been much of an attorney, but he's the only one who ever got Patsy Ramsey on the record under oath. John Ramsey did have to sit for a deposition in another--eventually dismissed--lawsuit for a guy who sued some news group for defamation within a couple of years of the murder--Miles, I think his name is? (That deposition transcript still is referenced today, even in Kolar's book.)

    I believe Kolar is protected from being sued by John or Burke now two reasons, and no doubt Kolar and his attorney know this better than l: he's not a rich man; more importantly, JR and Burke would have to submit to questioning by Kolar's lawyer, under oath, in a deposition.

    Let the second reason sink in: BOTH JR and Burke would have to answer questions under oath. Even if JR alone sued, Burke would still surely be subpoenaed as a witness and subjected to a deposition. Remember Steve Thomas being dragged into the Wolf suit? He fought it for months with his lawyers, but the court ordered him to appear for the deposition and he did, under threat of being jailed if he didn't show up--it's called "contempt of court." (Fleet White actually went to jail for a month in Boulder because he refused to show up in court to testify for the peripheral but related Miller criminal trial.)

    If Burke sued, he'd be front and center, under oath, being deposed by Kolar's lawyer. This is because when you sue someone in this country, or if you are sued by someone in this country, you are required BY CIVIL LAW to be deposed, under oath, and again in court in front of judge and jury, if it comes to a trial.

    Now consider who Kolar is: a 35 year veteran of law enforcement; he has seen the case files, studied them for years, interviewed many of the original detectives who worked the case on THREE sides of the investigation--the BPD, the DAs, and Team Ramsey; his credibility is impeccable and his expertise in investigation is spot on--meaning the questions asked of Burke and JR would be, at last, thorough, unyielding, with no punches pulled.

    I doubt very seriously that the Ramseys want that to happen. Very seriously. They were quite bitter at answering questions under oath in the depositions in the Chris Wolf defamation suit against them.

    Now let me point out what Kolar said about why he wrote this book, and why he decided not to state his theory of the events of Christmas, 1996.

    Kolar feels having access to the Ramseys' medical records would provide the final evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened to JonBenet. However, there is little chance there is now legal standing in a criminal case to subpoena those records, as Hunter and Lacy gave that up long ago and the statute of limitations has run out on most charges possible in this case.

    Kolar does have information which he isn't sharing, grand jury information he is legally bound not to share, on pain of prosecution himself, not to mention his own professional career would be damaged. But he's seen the records, so he can develop his theory with information we don't and will never have and present that to the DA and other LE, like Beckner, etc. That's what he did, in fact.

    Yet he chooses not to share his theory in his book, and yes, that is frustrating to us. I have to respect his decision, though, as he feels without that final evidence, he is in a position of exposing Burke with what Kolar is still classifying as involving some speculation about what happened. He doesn't feel he can prove his theory beyond a reasonable doubt without that medical evidence.

    Kolar bases his belief that the Ramseys were involved in the abuse and death of JonBenet in part on his debunking of Smit's "intruder" evidence through forensic science applied to the flimsy fabrications Smit created out of pure imagination. Once Kolar accepted there was no actual evidence of an intruder, he then worked with the evidence implicating the Ramseys.

    But there is still the problem of who did what that night.

    Kolar goes to some effort to demonstrate that Burke is a viable suspect in the death of his sister. However, since Burke was a minor, and since Patsy's dead, and since the statute of limitations has run out on any obstruction of justice crimes, Kolar brings up the question of conscience he struggled with, to justify publishing his book.

    And then John Ramsey wrote his last book, in which once again he slams the BPD and LE and again points fingers at everyone but the three people Kolar believes actually were involved in the death: John, Patsy, and Burke.

    Kolar watched silently through the PERV Karr debacle; through the faux "exoneration"; through the dog-and-pony show of the "Cold Case Task Force" which did nothing, even after some viable new evidence was shared--like the six separate, unsourced, partial DNA profiles on the ligature, wrist cord, etc. Kolar presented his Power Point with a recommendation of obtaining the Ramsey medical records, particularly Burke's, but months went by and clearly it was all being blown off--for reasons Kolar understood, but he still kept working with Beckner and Garnett, hoping for a resolution.

    Kolar fully admits even the best case scenario, as far as resolution for justice for JonBenet, would be that the truth would simply be revealed and the case resolved for all the OTHER victims of the Ramseys.

    So in the end, Kolar decided to publish his work on this case for the same reasons we come back here day after day: because the Ramseys have devastated more than their abused and destroyed child. They've lied to and about LE; they've pointed the finger of accusation at many, many innocent people, opening that infamous "umbrella of suspicion" over their heads without any remorse at all; they've spent millions of tax dollars in Boulder and thousands of hours of police work on their case which could have been spent on other cases and crimes; they've sued many people, taking the money when Wood's civil money-printing machine got them "settlements"; and they damaged not only the justice system in Boulder with their selfish and powerful Team Ramsey bulldozer, but the professional and personal lives of the men and women who worked within it.

    And all the while they knew they were lying, that there was no intruder; but they were ruthless in the harm they did to anyone and everyone who dared challenge their fantasy intruder story.

    Yet at his heart, Kolar is law enforcement. Like Thomas, he is a whistleblower because he loves the law he sees perverted by the Ramseys and their power brokers. But he still cannot use his own knowledge--which is a power in itself--irresponsibly, without deep consideration of his duties of office. But for the egregious abuse of power displayed by Team Ramsey, Smit, Lacy, and Hunter, Kolar would never have gone public, I don't think.

    At least, this is my interpretation after my first read-through. More than you wanted to know, I'm sure, but it's a complicated case, with complex issues at every step of the way, as Kolar himself says many times.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2012
  6. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Holy moly KoldKase. I've said this a time or two in the past but when you write I stop everything and read it!. This one is just about perfect for explaining why Kolar wrote his book. In many respects I'm glad that he left the conclusion up to the reader. He did take it as far as he could go because he has that "other" knowledge which still must remain private. I have the feeling if we could read about the GJ proceedings there would be careers at stake. But that is just my opinion. Thank you for this great explanation.
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    I'm in Canada so, I don't know his habits, but sometimes we need strong minded people to speak the truth instead of dancing around questions. I prefer hearing the truth!
    According to the book being out of stock; there will be hundreds out there changing their mind about the Ramsey's innocence, I'm sure!
     
  8. heymom

    heymom Member

    The interrupting reminds me so much of Bill O'Reilly. I can't watch that show, for one reason, because O'Reilly never lets anyone finish before interjecting, and he's just not that important, he's a big blowhard. Maybe Boyles has ADHD or something and can't contain his responses, but you'd think he'd realize that he owes his guests the respect of listening to them!

    :dj::rant:

    Carry on.
     
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks to you for reading, zoomama. I always hesitate before hitting the "post" button, worrying that my long diatribes just annoy people. So I appreciate your feedback. :heart:
     
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Ha ha!

    Nancy Grace comes to mind. Cannot. Watch.
     
  11. heymom

    heymom Member

    Actually since it's a self-funded printing, they only print up as many books as they have orders for, which is why it takes sometimes a couple of weeks or more to get our books. But, I still think the topic will sell books and people will finally understand what really happened.

    I put up a Facebook status yesterday about JonBenet being 22...One of my younger cousins was convinced that the DNA had already exonerated the parents. :banghead:
     
  12. Elle

    Elle Member

    Koldkase,

    I just read your above information, and I know everything you state above is the truth and nothing but the truth, and It makes me angry to know the American Government allows Lin Wood to operate the way he does - like he was the head of the Mafia. I'm amazed he hasn't been shot yet!(?).
     
  13. Elle

    Elle Member

    I remember that hm. Chief Kolar did use his own money. I hope he will be refunded. I sincerely hope Chief Skolar will be safe for having the courage to set the record of this case straight. I'm sure you lectured your younger cousins on the whole case :)
     
  14. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Me too, Mom. Carole is so good at explaining aspects of this case, but Peter cuts her off constantly. Someone needs to explain to him that just because HE knows what Carole's talking about, doesn't mean everyone who's listening does. Generally speaking, it is considered polite to allow a person to complete a sentence. God that is so irritating. I don't understand this trend amongst talk show guys who seem to feel they are more interesting when they are obnoxious.
     
  15. cynic

    cynic Member

    Well, it appears that I may be alone in my view of PB.
    I have enjoyed the shows in which he covered the Ramsey case. I find him entertaining and amusing although it’s probably only because he so unabashedly attacks the Ramseys, Lacy and others that deserve it.
    That said, I completely agree with everyone that he is an abysmal interviewer.
    You need to extract information from a guest, that’s done by allowing them to speak rather than making them feel as if they are having trouble getting a word in edgewise.
    It’s too bad that Caplis and Silverman no longer have a show, they would have loved to have had Kolar on, I’m sure, and that would have been a better interview.
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Yes, I did notice his bad manners, cynic, but he just probably can't help himself. This is the way he probably is, but he still got some truth out! I liked him bashing Lacy and the Ramseys!
     
  17. heymom

    heymom Member

    I guess you have to have a large ego to believe that the world basically wants to hear you talk...<shrugs>

    Send him an email. Tell him to shut his bloody gob and listen to the guests, they might tell him something he didn't already know.
     
  18. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Since the biatch ball is firmly in my court, I also hated the way he'd either finish Carole's answers for her, or if she wasn't giving the "right" answer, he'd supply the correct answer. I mean why bother having her on if he wasn't interested in her views? I think Carole handled herself, as always, with class and patience, but I would have throttled him!

    I have noticed that interviewers like Piers Morgan, Bill O'Rielly, Martin Bashir and others have guests on, ask questions, but you can tell by the look on their faces that they couldn't care less what the guest has to say. I love intellectually stimulating debates, but today it seems all anybody does is recite brain-dead right or leftie cliches.

    Cynic--I like Peter Boyles, always have. I just think that he gets so riled up by the subterfuge in this case that he lets it get the better of him. He seemed hyper and condescending--he is capable of much better.
     
  19. wonderllama

    wonderllama Member

    Thank you KK for the very detailed answer.
    What I got from that was that if there was a huge financial backer, then perhaps Kolar might have been more forthcoming, medical evidence aside.

    But the self-publishing avenue suggests that is unlikely.

    'Feral' here can be used like "over the top", and you pretty much answered that when you said that you can sue anyone for anything ;)

    And no, I haven't read the book, but I will get around to it at some stage.

    Thanks again.
     
  20. Elle

    Elle Member

    It would just be deleted hm with a personality like that, I think Peter is Iron clad! Still he bashed Lacy and Wood, and I have no complaints about this!
    Someone has to do it when they get the chance! He does have bad manners, Bob!

    P.S. You are not a Biotch! No way!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice