Kolar misleading.

[RANCH]

I think what's significant about the books is that the GRANDMOTHER purchased them.That means she either feels there are REAL problems with her grandchildren or she feels GUILTY about the grandchildren's problems?if the GRANDMOTHER is trying to fix something that means she has observed certain things that made her purchase not just 1 but 3 different books.She didn't just take Patsy aside and told her......and I'm sure she did that as well....but she also purchased these books......

You make some good points. But maybe the grandmother's intentions were to prevent problems by supplying these books rather than trying to solve existing problems.
JMO.

 

[dodie20]

Judging from the effort he must have gone to in tracking down these books, I have a feeling Kolar is, very sadly, going down the same wrong path as Steve Thomas. What a shame. I ordered his book and will read it with great interest. I understand he's unearthed or made public some very relevant evidence pertaining to the "intruder theory," and that could certainly make a difference. (For my take on that theory, see some of my latest blog posts, at http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/)

But no amount of speculation regarding domestic issues, child psychology, bedwetting, painting of fecal matter on walls, hysterical mothers, etc., will take this case any farther than where Thomas was able to take it -- and we know how that one turned out.

There is simply no evidence linking either Burke or Patsy to this crime. Many have seen Patsy's handwriting as a match but many others have rejected that possibility. By now we've seen a wide variety of different interpretations of the handwriting, including some "experts" who matched Karr's writing with the note, absolutely positively. Too bad for them, but they were just as sincere and just as convinced as the Patsy dunnits. As I see it, John's deposition looks a lot like the note, but that's neither here nor there because all of it is only an opinion and nothing more. Handwriting id, especially where it pertains to a deliberately disguised hand, is NOT a science. Far from it.

Patsy's fibers on or around JonBenet are not evidence. It's something one would expect to find even if no crime had been committed and it's easy to see how such fibers could have been transferred to the "garotte," which also happened to be Patsy's paintbrush. What else is there, except idle speculation based on wild theories and hunches? If Kolar's idea is that they were covering for Burke or that John and Patsy were duking it out and JonBenet got caught in the middle, then God help us, we'll never see the end of this case. An injury of that sort could have easily been explained away as an accident. And if anyone wants to claim they wrote the note together or that Patsy wrote it on her own, that theory would be stopped dead in its tracks when their defense lawyer pointed out that Patsy called the cops first thing in the morning, thus nullifying the staging in the note. After hearing such an argument no judge would let the case go forward.

There is only one viable suspect, the one who was the principal suspect from the first day. But he was "ruled out," wasn't he? Oh lah dee dah . . . Why is it so hard for you folks to see the obvious? Why keep going round and round and round in the same boring circle?

This post is very interesting. I've gone back and forth on who I thought did what, so I guess I'm officially on the fence, except I do believe somebody in that house is responsible for JonBenet's death, and I think that same person more than likely authored the note, maybe with some help. Right now, I guess I lean towards the obvious. I recently relistened to the 911, and it's hard for me to correlate that PR, with the person who thought and then wrote about beheading her daughter. I don't remember where I heard the enhanced tape, but I remember JR's cold, stern voice when talking to BR, and since this call may have happened only minutes after the note was finished, it's MOO, that it was he, not PR, who had the demeanor, that I personally find necessary, to think and write words like that. Unless PR had some major hidden acting skills, she was an emotional wreck. Also, there were certain 'bragging' words and phrases that I associate more with JR's arrogance than PR...like the ransom sum and fat cat. Words like beheading, execution, proper burial, the use of percentages, IMO, seem cold and masculine, not traits that I associate with PR at all. And after the phone was hung up, why would PR stay in character, wailing for Jesus? If she was putting on an act, wouldn't she have instead, focused on her son? or cleaned up feces? or done something constructive? but there on the sidelines, within earshot of the phone, was JR, cool as a cucumber, sternly talking to B. IDK what happened, but a case could be made against any of these 3, and that's where the trouble lies. MOO

 

[KoldKase]

Well, as far as Patsy's acting skill goes, dodie, maybe you would like to read up on her actual history: she won national awards for it.

As a teenager in state and national competitions and a college-aged contestant in the Miss America pageant.

Did you see her nose-to-nose with Steve Thomas on Larry King Live? She was no wilting little flower.

I'll never forget when she growled at him, "...if you can BROKER that deal...."

Patsy also helped John build his company to the success it was. She had a degree in advertising, after all, and worked for an ad agency in Atlanta long before they moved to Boulder to launch the company that became Access Graphics.

One thing everyone who knew her said about Patsy: she was a take-charge kind of person. You can read those very favorable accounts of her in the book her friend wrote about her, quoting many family and friends who apparently thought Patsy hung the moon.

So whether she wrote the note by herself or she physically wrote it while John dictated, at least some parts, I don't know: but it's her handwriting which could not be eliminated by nearly every professional examiner who did the anaylsis, including those the Ramsey hired.

I've looked at some of those comparisons myself and if she didn't write that note, an expert forger trying to frame her did, IMO. On her pad, with her pen, in her house, the night her child was killed. What are those odds?

 

[KoldKase]

You make some good points. But maybe the grandmother's intentions were to prevent problems by supplying these books rather than trying to solve existing problems.
JMO.

If that's true: epic fail.

 

[dodie20]

Well, as far as Patsy's acting skill goes, dodie, maybe you would like to read up on her actual history: she won national awards for it.

As a teenager in state and national competitions and a college-aged contestant in the Miss America pageant.

Did you see her nose-to-nose with Steve Thomas on Larry King Live? She was no wilting little flower.

I'll never forget when she growled at him, "...if you can BROKER that deal...."

Patsy also helped John build his company to the success it was. She had a degree in advertising, after all, and worked for an ad agency in Atlanta long before they moved to Boulder to launch the company that became Access Graphics.

One thing everyone who knew her said about Patsy: she was a take-charge kind of person. You can read those very favorable accounts of her in the book her friend wrote about her, quoting many family and friends who apparently thought Patsy hung the moon.

So whether she wrote the note by herself or she physically wrote it while John dictated, at least some parts, I don't know: but it's her handwriting which could not be eliminated by nearly every professional examiner who did the anaylsis, including those the Ramsey hired.

I've looked at some of those comparisons myself and if she didn't write that note, an expert forger trying to frame her did, IMO. On her pad, with her pen, in her house, the night her child was killed. What are those odds?

yes, I knew she could act, but for a performance to be this convincing, I would think she would have had to rehearse and memorize for weeks. kwim? Maybe I'm too gullible, but on the 911 anyway, I bought into her panic. I also knew she helped build the company, but BR's drawing, has been nagging at me. He seemed to think his mother was small and insignificant, at a time, where if she was in charge and running things, IMO, it should have showed up in the drawing. My views on this case have gone back and forth so much, but a couple of things have moved me a little away from PR...the interview between BR and the psychologist, and the interview with JR, where he tried to explain the broken window, etc...After reading his own words, I liked him even less. IDK, maybe after this material has had time to absorb with all the other information, it won't seem so significant. Another thing....I've never really ruled out BR, but after this book came out, and I really started considering him, to the point of ruling out his parents, I couldn't do it. IMO, too much is left unexplained. This new book is a mind blower, and it has me rethinking everything. MOO

 

[Nehemiah]

I haven't received Kolar's book yet but when reading the excerpt about the three books found in the home, it made me wonder if he had taken the time to look into what they were really about. I have personally read the first two listed. I don't think they indicate anything that sheds a light on the R's or their parenting skills. Both are books that I read during my parenting years and not because we had problems. They are more about how our culture has affected our children and what steps parents can take to lessen the cultural impact.

 

[cynic]

This is very telling, talk about misleading. *Makes me wonder what else in the book is misleading. *One of these books was a bestseller.

So, your basis for saying that Kolar is misleading, and further insinuating that there may be other misleading information in his book is by simply reading a post on another forum which in turn is also from a poster who has not actually read any of these books but is merely forming an opinion on the basis of various publisher’s reviews of the books, do I have that right?
I am also assuming that you have probably not even read Kolar’s book to see how this all fits in?
I hope this is not the way you have looked at other information to do with the JonBenet case, because if you have you will surely always be IDI.

All of the books mention the issue of the potential for early expressions of sexuality and inability to discern right from wrong.

The books deal with many other issues as well, but to say that these books have no relevance to the disturbing behavior noted by Kolar about Burke, that is simply unfair.
That is misleading.

Let me pose a somewhat analogous scenario.
There is a boy that is 75 pounds overweight. The boy’s mother confides in her parents that she would like to correct the issue but is having problems.
The next thing you know, she receives three books from them dealing with diet and nutrition.
It can be argued that books dealing with diet and nutrition might be given to any parent in terms of helping to raise a healthy child, and that is, of course, true.
It could also be argued that the books were given as a response to a problem which in this case does happen to be the reason.
Context is important.
Kolar in his investigation learned that in the context of the behavioral issues that he came across with regard to Burke, the possibility was there that the books were given to address a problem.

Quotes from Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong, William K. Kilpatrick:
"our present culture sends out confusing and misleading messages about sex."
and...
"when teens are confronted by adults over sexual misbehaviors, a frequent response is simply, "I didn't know it was wrong.'"
Similar to what is expressed in the book is the following:
Although there is little or no talk of love, commitment, family or marriage in their curriculums, there is much use of a technique called “desensitization”—a technique that is almost guaranteed to have a coarsening effect on youngsters. For example, ten-year olds may be required to stand up in class and give the four letter words for various body parts and sexual practices, or students may be encouraged to “see, feel, smell and taste” condoms.
[SNIP]
And these are only some of the mild forms of desensitization. I won’t go on to describe the others. Suffice it to say that in the United States, at least, parents who practiced these techniques on their own children could easily end up in jail.
The attempt here is to desensitize children to the special nature of sex, to demythologize it and deromanticize it. The rationale is that they can then view sex as a non-moral, non-romantic, recreational activity, much the way we view such body-contact sports as football or hockey.
The American Experience With Sex Education, William K. Kilpatrick

The media too, including books, music, films, and television, increasingly portray young people as precocious and present them in more or less explicit sexual or manipulative situations. Such portrayals force children to think they should act grown up before they are ready.
The Hurried Child by David Elkind, page 15

These young students merely learned the lessons they were taught by the value-free educational system Their teachers taught them in sex education classes that there is nothing right or wrong, no standard for moral judgment.
Children at Risk, James C. Dobson, Gary Lee Bauer, page 292

 

[UKGuy]

if that's true: Epic fail.

lol!!

 

[Chrishope]

So, your basis for saying that Kolar is misleading, and further insinuating that there may be other misleading information in his book is by simply reading a post on another forum which in turn is also from a poster who has not actually read any of these books but is merely forming an opinion on the basis of various publisher’s reviews of the books, do I have that right?
I am also assuming that you have probably not even read Kolar’s book to see how this all fits in?
I hope this is not the way you have looked at other information to do with the JonBenet case, because if you have you will surely always be IDI.

All of the books mention the issue of the potential for early expressions of sexuality and inability to discern right from wrong.

The books deal with many other issues as well, but to say that these books have no relevance to the disturbing behavior noted by Kolar about Burke, that is simply unfair.
That is misleading.

Let me pose a somewhat analogous scenario.
There is a boy that is 75 pounds overweight. The boy’s mother confides in her parents that she would like to correct the issue but is having problems.
The next thing you know, she receives three books from them dealing with diet and nutrition.
It can be argued that books dealing with diet and nutrition might be given to any parent in terms of helping to raise a healthy child, and that is, of course, true.
It could also be argued that the books were given as a response to a problem which in this case does happen to be the reason.
Context is important.
Kolar in his investigation learned that in the context of the behavioral issues that he came across with regard to Burke, the possibility was there that the books were given to address a problem.

Quotes from Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong, William K. Kilpatrick:
"our present culture sends out confusing and misleading messages about sex."
and...
"when teens are confronted by adults over sexual misbehaviors, a frequent response is simply, "I didn't know it was wrong.'"
Similar to what is expressed in the book is the following:
Although there is little or no talk of love, commitment, family or marriage in their curriculums, there is much use of a technique called “desensitization”—a technique that is almost guaranteed to have a coarsening effect on youngsters. For example, ten-year olds may be required to stand up in class and give the four letter words for various body parts and sexual practices, or students may be encouraged to “see, feel, smell and taste” condoms.
[SNIP]
And these are only some of the mild forms of desensitization. I won’t go on to describe the others. Suffice it to say that in the United States, at least, parents who practiced these techniques on their own children could easily end up in jail.
The attempt here is to desensitize children to the special nature of sex, to demythologize it and deromanticize it. The rationale is that they can then view sex as a non-moral, non-romantic, recreational activity, much the way we view such body-contact sports as football or hockey.
The American Experience With Sex Education, William K. Kilpatrick

The media too, including books, music, films, and television, increasingly portray young people as precocious and present them in more or less explicit sexual or manipulative situations. Such portrayals force children to think they should act grown up before they are ready.
The Hurried Child by David Elkind, page 15

These young students merely learned the lessons they were taught by the value-free educational system Their teachers taught them in sex education classes that there is nothing right or wrong, no standard for moral judgment.
Children at Risk, James C. Dobson, Gary Lee Bauer, page 292

The short answer to this post is that you need to read Nehemiah's post immediately preceding yours.

I do agree that it's taking things too far to say Kolar may be misleading in this, or other areas. Any author is entitled to make a mistake or two, or perhaps it's better just to call it a weak analysis. I do not know the context in which Kolar presents these books, but it is clear from the Amazon reviews, and Nehemiah's comments that these books are very general and that no behavior problems can be adduced simply because the books were given to the Rs. Your scenario about an overweight child is not on point because these books are not, apparently, about SBPs, bedwetting, fecal smearing, jealousy, anger management, etc. IOWs they are not specific to any problem that BR/JBR are known to have, thought to have, or imagined to have.

You are trying way too hard to defend this. Junebug99 may have overstated her case by saying that Kolar was misleading. But she does have a valid point - as does Nehemiah -that the books are very very general, written for a very broad audience, and are not specific to the problems the Ramsey kids may have had.

I will be getting Kolar's book. I am not going to waste my money on the 3 books mentioned by junebug99. I am satisfied, by my reading of the reviews of these books on Amazon, that nothing about the kids can be adduced from the existence of these books in the home.

You may as well adduce that the kids had sexual behavior problems because the family owned a bible, which is commonly used to teach morals, including matters of sex.

Nothing in junebug's post diminishes any other evidence of behavior problems in the Ramsey kids. It does not diminish any theory of the case. It is simply that the books are of such a general nature that nothing may be inferred from their existence in the Ramsey home.

 

[cynic]

The short answer to this post is that you need to read Nehemiah's post immediately preceding yours.

I did read his post. I'm not in the habit of skimming threads.

I do agree that it's taking things too far to say Kolar may be misleading in this, or other areas.

The post was misleading, and without proof, cast suspicion on the remainder of Kolar's book.

Any author is entitled to make a mistake or two, or perhaps it's better just to call it a weak analysis.

True, but there is no evidence in my opinion that he made a mistake.

I do not know the context in which Kolar presents these books, but it is clear from the Amazon reviews, and Nehemiah's comments that these books are very general and that no behavior problems can be adduced simply because the books were given to the Rs.

I completely agree that the books may have been given for reasons other than to address any specific problem involving Burke and I believe that that is clear from my post and my analogy. It is at least equally probable that they were given to address a problem.
Moreover, Kolar does not state that this was conclusively the reason that the books were given. That's why I'm outraged with that post. This is what Kolar says:
I readily admit that I am not a trained psychologist – psychiatrist, having taken only the most basic of courses during my college studies. But these observations pointed to indicia of some type of behavioral issue that had been taking place in the Ramsey household, and they appeared to have been taking place over some period of time. Incidents like these would not likely have become known to those outside the family, but could have been an underlying reason for the grandparent’s purchase of the childhood behavioral books discussed previously.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 371

Your scenario about an overweight child is not on point because these books are not, apparently, about SBPs, bedwetting, fecal smearing, jealousy, anger management, etc. IOWs they are not specific to any problem that BR/JBR are known to have, thought to have, or imagined to have.

Just as books on diet and nutrition would not deal with obesity in their entirety, it would be mentioned
What I'm referring to and you didn't mention is the area that I specifically mentioned as being addressed in all three books. That area is early sexual behavior and trouble discerning between right and wrong.
Someone had sexual contact with JonBenet prior to the night she died.
That someone could have been Burke.
As i said in my previous post:
"All of the books mention the issue of the potential for early expressions of sexuality and inability to discern right from wrong."

You are trying way too hard to defend this. Junebug99 may have overstated her case by saying that Kolar was misleading. But she does have a valid point

No she doesn't, as I said, the post was misleading as it totally excluded Kolar's context.

- as does Nehemiah -that the books are very very general, written for a very broad audience, and are not specific to the problems the Ramsey kids may have had.

I have no problem with Nehemiah's post, he readily admits to not having read Kolar's book. Also, it would be far easier to walk into a common book store and find books that deal with Burke's problem in a general fashion as opposed to going to a college or university book store to find a text book that would really get into specifics. Today it's not that difficult to get strongly academic text books from a number of online sources including Amazon, but not so back then.

I will be getting Kolar's book. I am not going to waste my money on the 3 books mentioned by junebug99. I am satisfied, by my reading of the reviews of these books on Amazon, that nothing about the kids can be adduced from the existence of these books in the home.
You may as well adduce that the kids had sexual behavior problems because the family owned a bible, which is commonly used to teach morals, including matters of sex.
Nothing in junebug's post diminishes any other evidence of behavior problems in the Ramsey kids. It does not diminish any theory of the case. It is simply that the books are of such a general nature that nothing may be inferred from their existence in the Ramsey home.

Burke's issue was mentioned in all of these books if he is the one responsible for the chronic sexual abuse of JonBenet. This would then be a sexuallity problem and, clearly a problem discerning right from wrong.

 

[Chrishope]

I did read his post. I'm not in the habit of skimming threads.
The post was misleading, and without proof, cast suspicion on the remainder of Kolar's book.
True, but there is no evidence in my opinion that he made a mistake.
I completely agree that the books may have been given for reasons other than to address any specific problem involving Burke and I believe that that is clear from my post and my analogy. It is at least equally probable that they were given to address a problem.
Moreover, Kolar does not state that this was conclusively the reason that the books were given. That's why I'm outraged with that post. This is what Kolar says:
I readily admit that I am not a trained psychologist – psychiatrist, having taken only the most basic of courses during my college studies. But these observations pointed to indicia of some type of behavioral issue that had been taking place in the Ramsey household, and they appeared to have been taking place over some period of time. Incidents like these would not likely have become known to those outside the family, but could have been an underlying reason for the grandparent’s purchase of the childhood behavioral books discussed previously.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 371
Just as books on diet and nutrition would not deal with obesity in their entirety, it would be mentioned
What I'm referring to and you didn't mention is the area that I specifically mentioned as being addressed in all three books. That area is early sexual behavior and trouble discerning between right and wrong.
Someone had sexual contact with JonBenet prior to the night she died.
That someone could have been Burke.
As i said in my previous post:
"All of the books mention the issue of the potential for early expressions of sexuality and inability to discern right from wrong."
No she doesn't, as I said, the post was misleading as it totally excluded Kolar's context.
I have no problem with Nehemiah's psst. It would be far easier to walk into a book store and find books that deal with Burke's problem in a general fashion as opposed to going to a college or university book store to find a text book that would really get into specifics. Today it's not that difficult to get strongly academic text books from a number of online sources including Amazon, but not so back then.

Burke's issue was mentioned in all of these books if he is the one responsible for the chronic sexual abuse of JonBenet. This would then be a sexuallity problem and, clearly a problem discerning right from wrong.

Burke's problem is mentioned in the bible too. Do you figure the existence of the family bible adds even more weight to Kolar's analysis ?

 

[KoldKase]

Burke's problem is mentioned in the bible too. Do you figure the existence of the family bible adds even more weight to Kolar's analysis ?

I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree on this as I don't particularly care for the title of this thread, which I think is misleading, as well.

Let me add on edit: What I'm addressing here involves boundaries. These books mentioned are about boundaries. Call it "values" or whatever you choose, the bottom line is we, as a society, in different ways, set boundaries: with laws, with religion, with community standards and practices.

This murder is about boundaries that got crossed so often, they flew out of control entirely on Dec. 25/26th, 1996.

Here's a boundary that is being crossed, IMO:

Usually when someone uses another's ideas and work, they give credit by providing the name and where to find it. Junebug left that out of his/her "credit" post on purpose, IMO, because that forum spends more time running down RDI, Tricia, and WS than discussing the evidence. And not in a nice way.

I personally think people who trash Tricia and have so little respect for her have a lot of nerve coming here and joining her forum.

So I'm putting out up front that I am having a hard time being unbiased myself with this thread and topic. But that's me, and I'm not trying to push my own "boundaries" on anyone.

If people decide Kolar's theory and investigation are wrong without even reading the book, fine. I'm not their mama and I won't be giving them a test.

But cynic's point is valid: the books mentioned were a small part of a much larger issue. We've discussed books from the Ramsey library many times. In fact, in the '98 DA interviews with the Ramseys they were asked about these books, as well, brought up before Kolar came on board, and with Team Ramsey running interference.

The main point Kolar makes about Burke, the case evidence, and unanswered questions is that obtaining medical records for Burke with a Grand Jury subpoena could "move the case forward." When investigating such a brutal death, including sexual assault on a six year old, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect relevant evidence to be gathered by case investigators.

At least, outside of Ramseyland and the Republic of Boulder, it doesn't.

But Team Ramsey can rest easy, because Hunter, Lacy, Garnett, Beckner, and the Governor have made it rather clear it's not going to happen. They want this case solved like they want to be waterboarded for R & R every day.

 

[Chrishope]

I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree on this as I don't particularly care for the title of this thread, which I think is misleading, as well.

Yes, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Let me add on edit: What I'm addressing here involves boundaries. These books mentioned are about boundaries. Call it "values" or whatever you choose, the bottom line is we, as a society, in different ways, set boundaries: with laws, with religion, with community standards and practices.

This murder is about boundaries that got crossed so often, they flew out of control entirely on Dec. 25/26th, 1996.

No argument there.

Here's a boundary that is being crossed, IMO:

Usually when someone uses another's ideas and work, they give credit by providing the name and where to find it. Junebug left that out of his/her "credit" post on purpose, IMO, because that forum spends more time running down RDI, Tricia, and WS than discussing the evidence. And not in a nice way.

I personally think people who trash Tricia and have so little respect for her have a lot of nerve coming here and joining her forum.

So I'm putting out up front that I am having a hard time being unbiased myself with this thread and topic. But that's me, and I'm not trying to push my own "boundaries" on anyone.

I have no idea who junebug is, or what the other forum is. I'm not interested in these little running feuds. I do appreciate the info though, as it helps me understand the responses better.

If we didn't have junebug's post, we'd still have Nehemiah's, which says much the same thing w/o accusing Kolar of being misleading.

If people decide Kolar's theory and investigation are wrong without even reading the book, fine. I'm not their mama and I won't be giving them a test.

I have not decided anything about Kolar's book, and I'm looking forward to buying it in a month or two. I have decided something about the 3 books mentioned by Kolar, and I've decided on the basis of reviews that I've read. The books are very general and written for a general audience. IMO they'd be of little value in dealing with specific problems, unless, as you've alluded to, one thinks talking about boundaries, religion, and very general advice would be helpful. On that we can agree to disagree.

Please don't misunderstand and think that I'm putting down religion. I just don't think these books are much help with specific problems.

But cynic's point is valid: the books mentioned were a small part of a much larger issue. We've discussed books from the Ramsey library many times. In fact, in the '98 DA interviews with the Ramseys they were asked about these books, as well, brought up before Kolar came on board, and with Team Ramsey running interference.

If cynic's point is that valid inferences about specific family dynamics and the children's behavior problems can be made, based on the possession of these very general books, then his point is not valid.

That's why I asked about the bible. Almost every Christian household has a bible, and almost every Christian would cite the bible as the source of moral authority. In a very general way, the bibles teachings might apply to just about any problem in life. Yet, nothing can be inferred about family dynamics or particular behavior problems based on the mere possession of a bible.

The main point Kolar makes about Burke, the case evidence, and unanswered questions is that obtaining medical records for Burke with a Grand Jury subpoena could "move the case forward." When investigating such a brutal death, including sexual assault on a six year old, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect relevant evidence to be gathered by case investigators.


At least, outside of Ramseyland and the Republic of Boulder, it doesn't.

No argument there.

But Team Ramsey can rest easy, because Hunter, Lacy, Garnett, Beckner, and the Governor have made it rather clear it's not going to happen. They want this case solved like they want to be waterboarded for R & R every day.

Sadly true.

 

[Amalie]

I think it is beyond bizarre that the Paughs would purchase these books for the Ramseys. Put this way... it is one thing IF I bought the books to be a better parent but to purchase these to give to my sister...would almost be an insult and it would be an admission that I thought something was wrong with her parenting skills.

I also seem to recall Nedra making a statement that JBR was "just a little bit molested" or something like this??

 

[cynic]

Burke's problem is mentioned in the bible too. Do you figure the existence of the family bible adds even more weight to Kolar's analysis ?

If cynic's point is that valid inferences about specific family dynamics and the children's behavior problems can be made, based on the possession of these very general books, then his point is not valid.
That's why I asked about the bible. Almost every Christian household has a bible, and almost every Christian would cite the bible as the source of moral authority. In a very general way, the bibles teachings might apply to just about any problem in life. Yet, nothing can be inferred about family dynamics or particular behavior problems based on the mere possession of a bible.

That not what I understood from KK’s post, and it’s not my point, definitely.

Perhaps it’s time to revisit the first post which I believe we’ve now lost sight of.
(My comments in blue.)
The title of the thread is, “Kolar misleading”

The post says the following:
“This is very telling, talk about misleading”
In other words, just in case there was any doubt, Kolar is leading you down the wrong path.

Then a further damaging and completely baseless assertion:
“Makes me wonder what else in the book is misleading.”

This is followed by an out of context quote from the book:

"I had also found it interesting that the Paugh's had reportedly purchased several books on childhood behavior for the Ramsey family. The titles of the books were intriguing:

*The Hurried Child--Growing Up Too Fast, by David Elkind
*Children at Risk, Dobson/Bauer
*Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong, Kilpatrick

When exploring the nature of the content of these three books, I wondered what might have been taking place in the house that prompted the grandparents to purchase these types of childhood behavioral books for the family

All of this is then followed by publisher’s reviews of three books mentioned by Kolar.

Conveniently excluded, and Kolar’s final thought regarding the books is:

I readily admit that I am not a trained psychologist – psychiatrist, having taken only the most basic of courses during my college studies. But these observations pointed to indicia of some type of behavioral issue that had been taking place in the Ramsey household, and they appeared to have been taking place over some period of time. Incidents like these would not likely have become known to those outside the family, but could have been an underlying reason for the grandparent’s purchase of the childhood behavioral books discussed previously.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 371

In context and within the backdrop of troubling behavior that Kolar presents regarding Burke, I ask again, how is this misleading?
Not one, but three books are purchased by family members in whom Patsy may have confided.
All of these books relate to issues surrounding childhood behavior.
These books refer to accelerated sexuality and difficulty with differentiating between right and wrong.
These books could be utilized by any parent for general help with raising children which is the point of Nehemiah’s post, and I agree. There is no evidence that Kolar would disagree with that either.
Your point about the Bible being a source of moral authority is true but Kolar’s point is specifically about what might have prompted people that Patsy may have confided in to purchase books that, as I’ve repeatedly said, do deal with, among other things, behavioral issues, accelerated sexuality and difficulty discerning right from wrong.
As I’ve suggested previously, if, for example, Patsy had found Burke in some sort of inappropriate situation with JonBenet and she confided in her parents, it would be quite conceivable that they may have attempted to help with the purchase of these books.
Nowhere does Kolar say that this was the definitive reason for the purchase of these books, he was merely “thinking out loud” on paper and quite clearly said that it “could have been an underlying reason” I don’t think anyone could argue that these books COULD HAVE been used to address a problem that Patsy may have shared with her parents.
The first post is no more than a BLATANT attempt to set up a “straw man” to knock down and in the process attempt to tarnish the remainder of the book.
A dictionary would also, ordinarily, be irrelevant to this or any case, but I’m sure you are aware that in this case a dictionary is relevant:
When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first-floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members.
JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 293

At this point I have already begun repeating myself and there’s not much more that I can say. All of us here are free to reach their own conclusions, and as KK said, sometimes there comes a time when it’s simply best to agree to disagree.
It’s unfortunate, Chris, that you will have to wait a couple of months to read Kolar’s book but I am sure you will enjoy it when the time comes.

 

[cynic]

I also seem to recall Nedra making a statement that JBR was "just a little bit molested" or something like this??

That quote has been on various forums for years, although I’m not sure that that is the actual quote. It may have simply “evolved.”
The only source for Nedra commenting on JonBenet being molested was the reference she made to a producer for the Geraldo show and later brought to light in Schiller’s book.
There may be a further source out there, but there isn’t one that I’m aware of.

When Nedra mentioned the crime, it was in a string of half-completed thoughts and seeming nonsequiturs: “I didn’t know that she had been mole…molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn’t know that. And somehow I hoped that she had died very quickly, and I think that she did. I…I really do believe that whoever has done this strangled her, because I’m sure that she put up a tremendous fight. Although she had tape on her mouth, she couldn’t scream. But I knew she had fought.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 512 - 513

 

[ozazure]

This post is very interesting. I've gone back and forth on who I thought did what, so I guess I'm officially on the fence, except I do believe somebody in that house is responsible for JonBenet's death, and I think that same person more than likely authored the note, maybe with some help. Right now, I guess I lean towards the obvious. I recently relistened to the 911, and it's hard for me to correlate that PR, with the person who thought and then wrote about beheading her daughter. I don't remember where I heard the enhanced tape, but I remember JR's cold, stern voice when talking to BR, and since this call may have happened only minutes after the note was finished, it's MOO, that it was he, not PR, who had the demeanor, that I personally find necessary, to think and write words like that. Unless PR had some major hidden acting skills, she was an emotional wreck. Also, there were certain 'bragging' words and phrases that I associate more with JR's arrogance than PR...like the ransom sum and fat cat. Words like beheading, execution, proper burial, the use of percentages, IMO, seem cold and masculine, not traits that I associate with PR at all. And after the phone was hung up, why would PR stay in character, wailing for Jesus? If she was putting on an act, wouldn't she have instead, focused on her son? or cleaned up feces? or done something constructive? but there on the sidelines, within earshot of the phone, was JR, cool as a cucumber, sternly talking to B. IDK what happened, but a case could be made against any of these 3, and that's where the trouble lies. MOO

When Patsy hung up, she was asking for Jesus to help HER. Not her missing daughter.

If I was Christian and I had been involved in what she may have been that night, I'd be pleading for his help myself also.

 

[RANCH]

I also seem to recall Nedra making a statement that JBR was "just a little bit molested" or something like this??

That quote has been on various forums for years, although I’m not sure that that is the actual quote. It may have simply “evolved.”
The only source for Nedra commenting on JonBenet being molested was the reference she made to a producer for the Geraldo show and later brought to light in Schiller’s book.
There may be a further source out there, but there isn’t one that I’m aware of.

When Nedra mentioned the crime, it was in a string of half-completed thoughts and seeming nonsequiturs: “I didn’t know that she had been mole…molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn’t know that. And somehow I hoped that she had died very quickly, and I think that she did. I…I really do believe that whoever has done this strangled her, because I’m sure that she put up a tremendous fight. Although she had tape on her mouth, she couldn’t scream. But I knew she had fought.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 512 - 513

Thanks cynic. While I still had to look up who Nedra is (Patsy's mom Nedra Paugh), you gave me the answer to my question when I read Amalie's post.

Would someone really say something ridiculous like "just a little bit molested"? Apparently not in this case.

 

[UKGuy]

Chrishope,

If cynic's point is that valid inferences about specific family dynamics and the children's behavior problems can be made, based on the possession of these very general books, then his point is not valid.

You must demonstrate why cynics claims are invalid, mere assertion is redundant.

That's why I asked about the bible. Almost every Christian household has a bible, and almost every Christian would cite the bible as the source of moral authority. In a very general way, the bibles teachings might apply to just about any problem in life. Yet, nothing can be inferred about family dynamics or particular behavior problems based on the mere possession of a bible.

Cynic is not citing any books as a reference to moral authority, so why should you? Of course something can be inferred from the possession of a bible, that you wish to infer nothing might be a reflection of your moral values, and not those enunciated in the bible?

Of course as a matter of elementary reasoning, one might ask, are the Ramsey's Christian? Ownership of a book does not compel the owners to adhere to its rules.

So returning to the subject, if every Christian household has a bible, and only a few households possess the books cited by cynic, then I think you make cynics point for him. Also presumably the households possessing the bible purchased it themselves, and did not have it purchased for them! The distinction matters, particularly for us looking on externally.

That other Ramsey relatives purchased these books for the Perfect Family suggests something was not quite right.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,


You must demonstrate why cynics claims are invalid, mere assertion is redundant.


Cynic is not citing any books as a reference to moral authority, so why should you? Of course something can be inferred from the possession of a bible, that you wish to infer nothing might be a reflection of your moral values, and not those enunciated in the bible?

Of course as a matter of elementary reasoning, one might ask, are the Ramsey's Christian? Ownership of a book does not compel the owners to adhere to its rules.

So returning to the subject, if every Christian household has a bible, and only a few households possess the books cited by cynic, then I think you make cynics point for him. Also presumably the households possessing the bible purchased it themselves, and did not have it purchased for them! The distinction matters, particularly for us looking on externally.

That other Ramsey relatives purchased these books for the Perfect Family suggests something was not quite right.


.

No, the existence of these books infers absolutely nothing. They were sold in the millions, and you cannot infer that every family in possession has children with problems. The books are too general for that.

If a family had a book about children who wet the bed, I'd find that odd if the family did not have a child wetting the bed. But to find a family with very general parenting books does not infer anything at all except perhaps that the family is literate and they, or the gift givers, might have a subscription to the book of the month club.

The reason for speaking of the moral authority of the bible is because cynic was indeed speaking of the same thing. He believes that these very general books which speak to permissiveness and secularism might be helpful to the parents of children with very specific disorders. Likewise, the general advice of the bible might be equally useful, if one views general advice as being useful for specific problems.

And of course, many bibles are given as gifts.

I think it's well established that the Rs are Christian, but your point is valid - one can't adduce Christianity by mere possession of a bible. Likewise one may not adduce family problems by mere possession of these 3 books.