Kolar misleading.

[KoldKase]

Kolar has an entire chapter discussing Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) in children younger than 10 to 12.

It is in this context he mentions the three books. He doesn't state they prove anything. He simply brings them up as he brings up a lot of evidence in this case. What weight you give to it, or whether it's even related, he leaves to the reader's interpretation.

He discusses SBP and sexually aggressive behavior in children under 10-12 in terms of research he read and specialists with whom he spoke. He quotes many sources about violence and sexually aggressive behavior in children, particularly in 1996, including statistics.

The point he really seems to be making, and I think it's rather clear to me, at least, is that Burke was capable, at his age, of committing the elements of this violence and sexual assault on JB.

Kolar does not state that he did. He goes over his own thoughts and investigation into the many issues brought up by the Ramsey's post murder behaviors: hampering the investigation; hiring lawyers; lying about so many things, so much evidence, so many times, in many situations; changing their stories so many times.

But most eye-opening in his investigation into this case is how the Ramseys inexplicably didn't ask Burke questions that morning, claimed many times they never even talked to him about the case--except when they changed their story to fit claims he knew nothing, and refused, time and again, to allow Burke to be questioned by LE, starting with that morning when JR rushed Burke out the door, telling the detective he didn't know anything because he was asleep. Except he wasn't, they told a tabloid. But they never asked Burke if he saw or heard anything, because he was asleep. Except when they did ask him, Patsy told LE, as that's how she knew he didn't do it. And he was asleep. But not.

This is not something we've missed all these years, either. Kolar just lists the contradictory statements from the Ramseys over various issues, again and again, with the eye of a professional detective.

Kolar does a brilliant job of asking simple questions about why the Ramseys would say certain things, deny some things, lie about others, and what those statements indicate to a trained, experienced investigator.

Many times while reading this book, I was amazed at the skill of his ability to track issues I had not even thought of before.

Kolar is anything but misleading, IMO. He's thrown more light on this case than we've seen since Thomas' book in 2000 and the appearance of the Ramseys' LE interview transcripts in the National Enquirer book and online years later.

 

[UKGuy]

Kolar has an entire chapter discussing Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) in children younger than 10 to 12.

It is in this context he mentions the three books. He doesn't state they prove anything. He simply brings them up as he brings up a lot of evidence in this case. What weight you give to it, or whether it's even related, he leaves to the reader's interpretation.

He discusses SBP and sexually aggressive behavior in children under 10-12 in terms of research he read and specialists with whom he spoke. He quotes many sources about violence and sexually aggressive behavior in children, particularly in 1996, including statistics.

The point he really seems to be making, and I think it's rather clear to me, at least, is that Burke was capable, at his age, of committing the elements of this violence and sexual assault on JB.

Kolar does not state that he did. He goes over his own thoughts and investigation into the many issues brought up by the Ramsey's post murder behaviors: hampering the investigation; hiring lawyers; lying about so many things, so much evidence, so many times, in many situations; changing their stories so many times.

But most eye-opening in his investigation into this case is how the Ramseys inexplicably didn't ask Burke questions that morning, claimed many times they never even talked to him about the case--except when they changed their story to fit claims he knew nothing, and refused, time and again, to allow Burke to be questioned by LE, starting with that morning when JR rushed Burke out the door, telling the detective he didn't know anything because he was asleep. Except he wasn't, they told a tabloid. But they never asked Burke if he saw or heard anything, because he was asleep. Except when they did ask him, Patsy told LE, as that's how she knew he didn't do it. And he was asleep. But not.

This is not something we've missed all these years, either. Kolar just lists the contradictory statements from the Ramseys over various issues, again and again, with the eye of a professional detective.

Kolar does a brilliant job of asking simple questions about why the Ramseys would say certain things, deny some things, lie about others, and what those statements indicate to a trained, experienced investigator.

Many times while reading this book, I was amazed at the skill of his ability to track issues I had not even thought of before.

Kolar is anything but misleading, IMO. He's thrown more light on this case than we've seen since Thomas' book in 2000 and the appearance of the Ramseys' LE interview transcripts in the National Enquirer book and online years later.

KoldKase,
Interesting points, particularly relating to the SBP. I was watching some documentary about an Italian Serial Killer, and one of the detectives was running through all the stuff that has to be put on the table to assist in tracking down the killer.

One element stood out for me, and that was stuff that is missing, there might be an innocent reason why its absent, then again it might be absent because it relates directly to the case?

This got me to thinking about all the stuff we do not know about Burke that morning, what he said to DS, or in his interviews, that there is no BR forensic evidence in that wine-cellar. At multiple points of coincidence where Burke and the investigation intersect, we get nothing?



.

 

[wonderllama]

Methinks it is time to interview all children of the Ramsey's friends to see what they can offer up.

 

[DeeDee249]

Methinks it is time to interview all children of the Ramsey's friends to see what they can offer up.

It'll never happen. Remember, in this country no one can be compelled to talk to police. Even a suspect in custody cannot be forced. That is the first thing told to a suspect-they are read their "Miranda rights". "You have the right to remain silent....etc". LW and the RST would lean on those kids (all grown adults now) so hard, none would have the courage (or the money) to stand up to them.

 

[wonderllama]

You have the RIGHT to remain silent, not the compulsion.

 

[Chris_Texas]

These books.,to me, show people who are religious minded and blame everything that might go wrong with their kids on society instead of themselves. Also ignoring real possible immediate problems while turning to experts who think they have all the answers. The ramseys seemed to be the type to turn to everything and everyone instead of themselves. Patsy reading books and turning to faith healing and john probably turned to books after all his problems. I doubt if any of them even compared the pageants with kids growing up too fast.

This is my opinion as well.

 

[pistolina]

snipped

Why would grandparents give as gifts books that, basically, are summed up as books giving advice on how to prevent your child from developing a personality disorder(s). Maybe it is JonBenet with the problems...maybe not.

I’m not sure why the books were given but it could be more about the Paughs and Patsy than about the Ramsey children. Maybe Momma and Daddy saw issues with Patsy that they didn’t want her to pass onto their grandchildren and the “nice” way to “help” her was to give her some books to read.

The books alone mean nothing. The books + a murdered child, yes, that might mean something.

 

[Noodles]

Maybe I've missed it, but does anyone know where in the house these books were found?

I think that could be telling as to the importance of them. Were they hidden away on a shelf in a bedroom? Or perhaps in the den or livingroom in plain view? I ask because Patsy seemed quite fond of entertaining and if her kids did have a problem I cant see her wanting friends, guests, Christmas groups touring the home, etc. to see them and possibly speculate.

 

[Chrishope]

Kolar included the books for a reason and it is reasonable to assume they are connected with other data Kolar furnished in his book. It isn't like he is commenting on the weather because someone reading his book might be interested in weather reports as filler.

Why would grandparents give as gifts books that, basically, are summed up as books giving advice on how to prevent your child from developing a personality disorder(s). Maybe it is JonBenet with the problems...maybe not.

And what is invalid is your statement above that I bolded because you *are* arguing that they could not have been given for exactly that reason else you would not have said another poster's inference was invalid. Circular reasoning, illogic, fallacy, call it what you will. UKGuy made a valid inference based on the knowledge known by him. You are making the major mistake new investigators and researchers often make ... you seem to be coming to a conclusion based on only one statement or one piece of information.

I'm not coming to a conclusion at all. I'm just trying to show that UKGuy can't come to a conclusion either, but he thinks he can. There are multiple (well at least 2) possibilities as to why the Paughs bought these books. Again, they are written for a general audience. It might be that the Paughs like books which rail against secular humanism, and they thought their daughter would like them as well.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not coming to a conclusion at all. I'm just trying to show that UKGuy can't come to a conclusion either, but he thinks he can. There are multiple (well at least 2) possibilities as to why the Paughs bought these books. Again, they are written for a general audience. It might be that the Paughs like books which rail against secular humanism, and they thought their daughter would like them as well.

Chrishope,
It is interesting that you seem to know my own mind by telling other people that I cannot arrive at a particular conclusion.

You declined to demonstrate why Cynic's claims were invalid, and similarly you have not demonstrated why my reasoning is invalid?

Mere assertion is not fact!

Do you know which rule of inference I used, if so, why was it invalid?




.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
It is interesting that you seem to know my own mind by telling other people that I cannot arrive at a particular conclusion.

You declined to demonstrate why Cynic's claims were invalid, and similarly you have not demonstrated why my reasoning is invalid?

Mere assertion is not fact!

Do you know which rule of inference I used, if so, why was it invalid?




.

I've demonstrated it in several posts. You just don't seem to catch on.

I'm not saying you in particular can't reach a certain conclusion, I'm saying no one can reach that conclusion, validly. You can suppose that it might be as you suggest, and it might indeed. But you can't say for sure -IOWs you can't conclude that, because there are other explanations for why the Paughs may have bought the books. I can't make it plainer than that.

 

[UKGuy]

I've demonstrated it in several posts. You just don't seem to catch on.

I'm not saying you in particular can't reach a certain conclusion, I'm saying no one can reach that conclusion, validly. You can suppose that it might be as you suggest, and it might indeed. But you can't say for sure -IOWs you can't conclude that, because there are other explanations for why the Paughs may have bought the books. I can't make it plainer than that.

Chrishope,

I've demonstrated it in several posts. You just don't seem to catch on.

I was always slow on the uptake at school.

I'm saying no one can reach that conclusion, validly.

Really, are you the only person who knows this?

You can suppose that it might be as you suggest, and it might indeed. But you can't say for sure

I do not need to be sure for an inference to be valid.

because there are other explanations for why the Paughs may have bought the books.

But these other explanations cannot invalidate my conclusion, can they?



.

 

[Chrishope]

UKGuy,

First I'd like to apologize for the snide comment in my previous post. You have been an intelligent poster with some good insights.

As to our debate, I don't know what else to say. Either you are right and I'm wrong, or vice versa, or we are not using the same meanings for words and therefore not getting across to each other. I don't know, but I don't have anything more to say on this particular point. There are other things to talk about re: Kolar's book.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

First I'd like to apologize for the snide comment in my previous post. You have been an intelligent poster with some good insights.

As to our debate, I don't know what else to say. Either you are right and I'm wrong, or vice versa, or we are not using the same meanings for words and therefore not getting across to each other. I don't know, but I don't have anything more to say on this particular point. There are other things to talk about re: Kolar's book.

Chrishope,

Either you are right and I'm wrong, or vice versa

We could both be correct.

we are not using the same meanings for words and therefore not getting across to each other.

This is I suspect the reason. In my understanding of reasoning, the form of the logical inference can be described as invalid not the conclusion, which can be false or true.

The two main forms are deductive and inductive, with a sub-category classicly described as syllogisms.

The one potential error in my original inference was assuming that the books were purchased individually. As the main thrust of my argument was inductive.

There are other things to talk about re: Kolar's book.

Sure, lets move on with discussing Kolar's book.


.

 

[LadyL]

I'm in the RDI camp and the books mean squat AFAIC. Maybe they're relevant, maybe not but I personally doubt it.

I don't even know what many of the books in my library are about because it's either been so long since I've looked at them or I've never read them. Oh and most of the unread ones were gifts.

A family member buying books on child-rearing is not unusual to me but what is the context? Were they bought at Christmas-time? Because we all know family makes the best choices for gifts when in a rush at Christmas. :what: Were they bought second-hand at a yard sale? Just sayin ...

 

[BOESP]

I'm not coming to a conclusion at all. I'm just trying to show that UKGuy can't come to a conclusion either, but he thinks he can. There are multiple (well at least 2) possibilities as to why the Paughs bought these books. Again, they are written for a general audience. It might be that the Paughs like books which rail against secular humanism, and they thought their daughter would like them as well.

Taken in context with Kolar's book the three gifted books surely have meaning in JonBenet's case. Kolar didn't just throw in information without thought. The man's a Chief of Police and former investigator...I seriously doubt he put in print anything he can't back up with primary evidence or that he would write something that wasn't relevant.

Pistolina brought up an interesting theory a few posts above about perhaps Nedra saw advice in the books that Patsy might apply to improve her parenting skills. That fits with what I've read about Patsy's Boulder lady friends wanting to approach Patsy after Christmas about the "mega-JonBenet thing."

Regardless, the autopsy shows some type of physical contact. Whether injuries from an unknown individual for sexual gratification or injuries from corporal cleansing from a parent is the question. I'd say Steve Thomas made a good case and I've always wondered if a digital application of Desitin by Patsy to JonBenet's privates might have caused the physical damage and pinkish liquid found in JonBenet's vaginal vault and, perhaps, even the birefringent material we've guessed about. One of the investigator's asked Patsy directly about Desitin.

I'd say there are several candidates.

 

[DeeDee249]

Taken in context with Kolar's book the three gifted books surely have meaning in JonBenet's case. Kolar didn't just throw in information without thought. The man's a Chief of Police and former investigator...I seriously doubt he put in print anything he can't back up with primary evidence or that he would write something that wasn't relevant.

Pistolina brought up an interesting theory a few posts above about perhaps Nedra saw advice in the books that Patsy might apply to improve her parenting skills. That fits with what I've read about Patsy's Boulder lady friends wanting to approach Patsy after Christmas about the "mega-JonBenet thing."

Regardless, the autopsy shows some type of physical contact. Whether injuries from an unknown individual for sexual gratification or injuries from corporal cleansing from a parent is the question. I'd say Steve Thomas made a good case and I've always wondered if a digital application of Desitin by Patsy to JonBenet's privates might have caused the physical damage and pinkish liquid found in JonBenet's vaginal vault and, perhaps, even the birefringent material we've guessed about. One of the investigator's asked Patsy directly about Desitin.

I'd say there are several candidates.

Vaseline might have the same effect.

I agree about the autopsy. Someone touched JB.

As for the books- I saw a copy of a book "How To Raise Difficult Child" on my daughter's nightstand the last time I stayed there. It was no surprise to me. My 5-year old grandson can be challenging, though he is very bright, and her pediatrician had recommended it. From seeing that book in a home, anyone would infer (correctly) that a child in that home has some issues.
Books like that aren't random reading. No one usually buys a book on specific problems if they do not have, know, or take care of someone who has the problem. I'd say the books raise suspicion just like the dictionary in the parents' bedroom with a page folded back to point to the word "incest". To me, that indicated a problem with inappropriate contact and the word was looked up to educate someone as to the meaning. Most adults know the meaning- a child would not.

 

[UKGuy]

Vaseline might have the same effect.

I agree about the autopsy. Someone touched JB.

As for the books- I saw a copy of a book "How To Raise Difficult Child" on my daughter's nightstand the last time I stayed there. It was no surprise to me. My 5-year old grandson can be challenging, though he is very bright, and her pediatrician had recommended it. From seeing that book in a home, anyone would infer (correctly) that a child in that home has some issues.
Books like that aren't random reading. No one usually buys a book on specific problems if they do not have, know, or take care of someone who has the problem. I'd say the books raise suspicion just like the dictionary in the parents' bedroom with a page folded back to point to the word "incest". To me, that indicated a problem with inappropriate contact and the word was looked up to educate someone as to the meaning. Most adults know the meaning- a child would not.

DeeDee249,
So who do you think communicated either the word or its concept to a child? Could any of the Paughs books played a role here?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
So who do you think communicated either the word or its concept to a child? Could any of the Paughs books played a role here?


.

I suppose. Nedra was known to speak frequently about BR's penis- there has long been suspicions on the forums that DP molested Patsy and/or her sisters. He was said to be in Boulder around Christmas but supposedly flew standby home before Christmas Day.
I think it more likely that BR was known to have been "playing doctor" with his sister, and the word was used to explain to him that sexual activity between siblings is wrong.

 

[Mama2JML]

Wanted to add that this was pointed out on another website, by a poster other than me. Not trying to take credit for someone elses work.

Thanks, Junebug99, for bringing the book descriptions here. Below, is my OP, in it's entirety. I made a similar post @ Topix in response to another poster's assertion that Mr. Kolar states "facts" and does not provide innuendo. This is a notion with which I strongly disagree...

My OP:
Immediately prior to the excerpt below, Kolar questions whether envy, sibling rivalry or jealousy played a role in the events leading up to JonBenet's death...

Excerpt from Foreign Faction, by James Kolar:
(p. 370)
"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 Elkund
*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." (Kolar, 2012)

One might first consider that Kolar phrases his statement carefully through use of the term "reportedly", unfortunately he is successful in conveying, to his audience, a damning judgement. We cannot be certain that the Ramseys owned these books based on "reported" information when the source(s) responsible for "reporting" said information is not disclosed.

Hypothetically, if we assume the Ramseys did own these books, one still cannot responsibly ascertain that this would lend credence to the notion that any of the Ramsey children had behavioral problems nor that the family was dysfunctional and in need of psychological intervention(s).

Did Mr. Kolar truly explore the contents of each book? If so, how did he arrive at his inquiry? The fact is none of the three books mentioned are "self-help" type books published for parents with troubled children. Below are official descriptions, provided by at Amazon.com, for each book:

The Hurried Child--Growing Up Too Fast, David Elkind

"With the first edition of The Hurried Child, David Elkind emerged as the voice of parenting reason, calling our attention to the crippling effects of hurrying our children through life. He showed that by blurring the boundaries of what is age appropriate, by expecting--or imposing--too much too soon, we force our kids to grow up too fast, to mimic adult sophistication while secretly yearning for innocence. In the more than two decades since this book first appeared, new generations of parents have inadvertently stepped up the assault on childhood, in the media, in schools, and at home. In the third edition of this classic (2001), Dr. Elkind provided a detailed, up-to-the-minute look at the Internet, classroom culture, school violence, movies, television, and a growing societal incivility to show parents and teachers where hurrying occurs and why. And as before, he offered parents and teachers insight, advice, and hope for encouraging healthy development while protecting the joy and freedom of childhood. In this twenty-fifth anniversary edition of the book, Dr. Elkind delivers important new commentary to put a quarter century of trends and change into perspective for parents today."


Children at Risk, Dobson/Bauer
"In this hard-hitting and empowering book, James Dobson and Gary Bauer expose the cultural forces endangering today's children and show what you can do to defend your family, your faith and your traditional values. A national bestseller revised and expanded for even more knowledge to protect your most precious gift-your children."

Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong, Kilpatrick
"A hard-hitting and controversial book, WHY JOHNNY CAN'T TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG will not only open eyes but change minds. America today suffers from unprecedented rates of teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, suicide, and violence. Most of the programs intended to deal with these problems have failed because, according to William Kilpatrick, schools and parents have abandoned the moral teaching they once provided. In WHY JOHNNY CAN'T TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG, Kilpatrick shows how we can correct this problem by providing our youngsters with the stories, models, and inspirations they need in order to lead good lives. He also encourages parents to read to their children and provides an annotated guide to more than 120 books for children and young adults."

Kolar, J. (2012). Foreign faction: Who really kidnapped jonbenet?. Telluride, Colorado: Ventus Publishing, llc.