Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 25 to 28 of 28
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2003


    Quote Originally Posted by BobC View Post
    Well thank you, Elle. I do try to be a gentleman.

    Yeah Carole used to be on his show a lot way back when if I recall correctly. They used to make a good team until the lawsuits started flying.

    Yeah Nancy Grace is another one who interviews people and then bulldozes right over the top of him or her. That perma-sneer on her face turns me off.
    We all soon get to know who we want to avoid in life. You can always buy those small lightweight sponges from any supermarket, Bob, and when you are alone, you can fire them at the people you hate on the tv without breaking anything! One has to feel sorry for the people who have to work side by side with these people on a daily basis. HAGD Have a good day!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #26
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002


    I have my snout in The Wire by HBO, so I'm not watching any other TV at the moment.

  3. #27


    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    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.
    Excellent, koldkase, excellent!

  4. #28


    Quote Originally Posted by BobC View Post
    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.

    I know what you mean, BobC, but I think some of it has to do with the guests trying to be subtle in their remarks and Boyles just laying it on the line.
    I'm not excusing his interrupting as I noticed that myself but I just thought, when he asked a question, he was wanting an answer quickly and to the point and you could tell that Carole was trying to answer carefully.

Similar Threads

  1. Peter Boyles interviews Alan Prendergast and Fleet and Priscilla White
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 19, 2014, 2:45 am, Fri Dec 19 2:45:27 UTC 2014
  2. Peter Boyles interviews Stan Garnett, Alan Pendergast and more (Oct. 25 – 30, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13, 2013, 11:10 pm, Fri Dec 13 23:10:06 UTC 2013
  3. CNN Interviews James Kolar (Oct 26, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 28, 2013, 3:56 pm, Mon Oct 28 15:56:28 UTC 2013
  4. Peter Boyles interviews Dan Caplis, Craig Silverman, Julie Hayden and Carol McKinley
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 26, 2013, 4:10 pm, Sat Oct 26 16:10:11 UTC 2013

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts