Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) - from James Kolar's book about Ramsey case

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    In California in 1996 a six-year-old boy was charged with attempted murder. But in Colorado a kid under 10 couldn't even go to juvenile court no matter how grave the offense? It must be the thin air there. Hypoxia.
     
  2. heymom

    heymom Member

    I have a feeling that Kolar dealt with that point in the information he DIDN'T give us at the conclusion of the book. DA Garnett got it, though. And will do nothing with it, of course.

    :hopmad:
     
  3. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Yea, Kane did state that. I always thought that was the case since Karr was let go. I never did buy that Karr was let go only on DNA evidence. No way they're going to let a confessor go on that microscopic touch DNA evidence alone. Karr concocted his story on the publicized evidence in this case and he was released, IMO, because his story didn't jive with unpublicized evidence.

    At any rate, Kolar's book sure brings out a few things that the public didn't know, for sure.
     
  4. Karen

    Karen Member

    I thought they finally traced that to Patsy. I know they first thought it to be Melindas?

    I don't think that's DNA-X at all.
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member


    Just when John Ramsey thought he had it made, writing another book; getting married again etc. WHAM! Chief James Kolar's book is published,
    giving us a more accomplished set of facts. This has to make you feel a bit better, heymom.
     
  6. heymom

    heymom Member

    Well....yes, a bit, and no, quite a bit. I am praying that Kolar gets more coverage in the press and that his book catches on FIRE with the public! There is a lot of detail in the book that we have not known for sure. A few things that will make us all go :eek:

    One omission is that Kolar doesn't spend a lot of time on Pam's Evidence Run through the house. The only time he mentions it is when he is documenting red flags, and that is because John asked for his golf clubs to be brought out of the house. But Pam removed a hell of a lot more than just JonBenet's things! He does say that Pam was prevented from going down to the basement and so she could not get the golf clubs.

    Knowing what happened would only mean that people like us could put this case down forever, and go on with our lives. It wouldn't change the fact that no one will ever be prosecuted for the crimes against JonBenet.

    After Patsy had died, if she really had been the one who killed JonBenet, John could have come forward and told the truth. I think he would have, if only to raise his stock on the speaking circuit. But he continues to protect...who? Burke.
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    heymom,

    What's jumping out at me right now is John Ramsey having the audacity to ask for his golf clubs. I find this strange as many others have! Nothing was ever discovered relating to them. Was he thinking of his next game of golf, In the same way he was thinking about leaving for a business meeting with his youngest daughter dead? This is one cold callous businessman!

    Kolar's book has set the posts on fire here, and the fact his book was out of stock at Amazon tells me John Ramsey will never have any peace hm.

    I feel the coverup was to protect their son, Burke who was maybe unaware he had killed his sister accidentally with the flashlight. This would explain the great lengths they went to with the coverup. They overdid it, but Patsy Ramsey's scheme worked. Fifteen years later, her husband and son are still free!

    I wonder why Kolar didn't spend some time with Pam's raid on the house? Seems odd, doesn't it?
     
  8. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I came to the conclusion that it was the arm hair DNA, based, I think, on something I read on another forum. For one thing, DNA-X was sent to the FBI lab where the mitochondrial DNA testing was done and that would be the kind of testing done on hair.

    Wood and Beckner go a few rounds about the results of the testing during Beckner's deposition. Though Beckner refuses to answer directly, I infer that the police did get a result back that made further comparisons unnecessary. And I've read somewhere that the hair belonged to Patsy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
  9. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I'm at a disadvantage in not having read Kolar's book, but any theory of what happened would have to take the balled-up red turtleneck into account. By the time of her first interview Patsy had changed her story about what JonBenet wore to bed. Then there are the bruises on JonBenet's neck. Spitz said that he thought JonBenet was slung around by someone clutching her top and pressing his/her knuckles into her neck and collarbone.
     
  10. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    I mentioned this on another thread today:
    Kolar's book has a b/w photo showing the turtleneck (on p. 125). It doesn't really look "balled up" to me, more like simply discarded on the counter.
    But then this section of the photo is a bit undistinct and doesn't seem to show the whole garment.
    What do those that have the book think?
     
  11. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member


    I received my copy today. I don't even see a turtleneck in the photo on
    p. 125!

    So are all crime scene photos in black and white, just wondering.
     
  12. heymom

    heymom Member

    That photo is very unclear. I think the turtleneck shirt is on the far right, and it's not "balled up," IMO, just placed there.

    There are no color photographs in the book.
     
  13. heymom

    heymom Member

    Well, I understand the reason why Chief Kolar chose not to let us see the stuff he gave DA Stan Garnett. That doesn't mean I like to come to the end of the book and have nothing. It was time for an exposition and there was none. I wanted to hear how he thought that night and early morning had gone, and EXACTLY what had happened to JonBenet. But his legal counsel probably told him that he'd better not do it. Anyway, what's to gain since there will be no prosecution?

    What always hung me up about the BDI theory was my belief that if he had done such a violent act at the age of nearly 10, surely he would act out again at some point along the way. If he had no problems, then perhaps he had NOT killed his sister. But in the book, Kolar mentions that many of these sexually aggressive children, even the violent offenders, can be treated and may never offend again! And we know that Burke did get therapy, I think both before and after the murder.

    I agree, the pieces fit better with Burke as the person who struck JonBenet. Both parents would protect him, but each might not protect the other if either one had done it. And the way John said that he wasn't angry, and when John Andrew said the killer deserved, "forgiveness."
     
  14. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    It's very hard for me to tell anything from that particular photo. I will defer to
    crime scene technicians who must've described it as being balled up. I think Father B made a pertinent statement. If Patsy changed her story about whether or not JBR was wearing the turtleneck when she went to sleep, and it was found balled up on the counter, then, it might suggest it has importance.
     
  15. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Maybe the turtleneck was "unballed" during the investigation and photographed at a later time. The cops were probably originally looking for a kidnapped child wearing a red turtleneck. A cop might pick it up to see if this red piece of clothing was a turtleneck.

    I'm curious if the left upper side (from the wearer's point of view) appears stretched out at all.
     
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    That is correct.
     
  17. sboyd

    sboyd Member

    wHATTTTTTTTTTT? That is huge to me KK. :hiya:
     
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hey back atcha, sboyd. Good to see you again.

    Yes, it is huge to me, as well.

    Was it Holverstock who threatened to get a lawyer, or got one?

    So many people were helping cover for the Ramseys.

    I understand their empathy, as they knew the family and were all probably having PTSD, at least those who saw this dead child being brought out of the basement, stiff as the "look-alike" doll Patsy bought her.

    But at some point, you either have to just tell the truth and let the law apply, or you have to give up on the U.S. Constitution and agree if this is how the system works, then we need stop the elitist hypocrisy and let everyone out of prison.

    Otherwise, it's all a sham.

    Which is why in my opinion Chief Kolar and Steve Thomas are righteous dudes.
     
  19. heymom

    heymom Member

    The next thing he knew, he was standing in the foyer area near the top of the basement stairs, and John Ramsey had his daughter in his hands. It was Holverstock's recollection that Ramsey blurted out, "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket," or that "she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."

    I had to repeat this quote. If this is really what John Ramsey said, then it wasn't Patsy who killed JonBenet. And I doubt if "he" was meant to be him, John Ramsey. I only know one other "he" who was in the house that night, and may have not actually meant to kill JonBenet.
     
  20. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I don't think he meant to hurt her

    koldkase, in another thread, raised some questions about the statement, uttered by John, as he brought JBR's body upstairs. Koldkase wondered if JR was referring to BR or was he just trying to throw the suspicion on another
    "insider". Good question.

    For, if JR was referring to BR, then, it would seem he was totally unaware of the staging that was done...meaning PR and BR were the only ones involved.

    I'm going to give my opinion on JR's statement and the reasoning behind it. I would be interested what other posters glean from this most revealing statement uttered by JR.

    First of all. JR read the ransom note and he had all morning (if he was truly unaware of what took place) to think about what might have happened. Surely, BR would have crossed his mind and he would've questioned the lad before police arrived. Also, he had to know, if he thought five minutes about it, that BR could not have written the ransom note.

    Secondly. JR rushed BR out of the house and would not let him be questioned by LE saying: "He was asleep, he didn't know anything." Why would he do such a thing if he (JR) was truly ignorant about what was going on? Remember. At this time, if JR was ignorant, JR thought the body was out of the house. So, if JR was truly ignorant, then, JR could not have suspected BR at this point. Ransom note plus body gone out of the house equals BR's innocence.

    It appears, then, that JR wasn't ignorant so why did he implicate BR by stating a he was involved and that he didn't mean to do it?

    I have two theories about this statement:

    JR had to feel that the staging was a long shot...that they probably weren't going to pull this thing off so, when he met Father Rol at the top of the steps with his little girl's dead body, he wanted Father Rol to know (if the truth came out) that BR didn't mean to hurt her.

    But he didn't want LE to know this for when he came face to face with Arndt, he said: "This is an inside job." Why not make the same remark to Arndt? Why not say: "He didn't mean to hurt her, she was warm and covered up?

    TWO:

    They (PR and JR) staged a kidnapping by someone who was close to the family. FW, MP and LHP, Santa Bill, etc., etc. Now both statements, made by JBR (He didn't mean to hurt her and this is an inside job) make sense.

    Which one of these do you think come closer to the truth and do you have any theories of your own?
     
  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