Kolar misleading.

[Mama2JML]

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

Yes, Mr. Kolar provides a disclaimer after his analysis and inquiries. Unfortunately, he does not provide this disclaimer at the beginning of the book, bolded and underlined as you have. What a difference that could make in an unbiased reader's perception of Kolar's many and varied (should be) scientific analyses...

 

[SapphireSteel]

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:


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

~rsbm~

^^^That right there is important.

There is no evidence of what is claimed. You can say anything if you use "reportedly" or "alleged" in front of it.

Right away the detail of the books becomes totally irrelevant. That one word means this statement is just an unsubstantiated rumour so cannot be relied on at all.

I have never, will never believe BDI (being almost physically impossible IMO), and it is unfortunate that Kolar has chosen to use Burke as his "hook", as everything else had already been done to death. I believe he has something to add but has skewed his viewpoint to make the most money which is tragic, and means I take his opinions with a grain of salt.

It seems this little girl just keeps getting used.

:cow:

 

[redheadedgal]

why is it physically impossible BDI? i posted an article a few months ago where a 7 yr old killed another 7 yr old with a jr sized golf club...

 

[UKGuy]

~rsbm~

^^^That right there is important.

There is no evidence of what is claimed. You can say anything if you use "reportedly" or "alleged" in front of it.

Right away the detail of the books becomes totally irrelevant. That one word means this statement is just an unsubstantiated rumour so cannot be relied on at all.

I have never, will never believe BDI (being almost physically impossible IMO), and it is unfortunate that Kolar has chosen to use Burke as his "hook", as everything else had already been done to death. I believe he has something to add but has skewed his viewpoint to make the most money which is tragic, and means I take his opinions with a grain of salt.

It seems this little girl just keeps getting used.

:cow:

SapphireSteel,
Your analysis comes over as rather cynical, but you might be justified given $$ that are to be made?

I reckon there is already prima facie evidence suggesting a concern by others around JonBenet's behaviour.

So why not Burke?

The use of reported or alleged can also be employed to avoid litigation.

And if it is BDI then how else is Kolar to tell us his thoughts, since he is bound by state and federal law to protect a minor etc.

Burke might be a bit-part player in a bigger play, the child protection laws might be contrived to mask something bigger, hence the staging.

Remember no staging was required, JonBenet could have been left lying on her bed the victim of an intruder!


.

 

[rashomon]

You're missing the point, owning those books mean nothing except they were trying to be the best parents they could be.

But it was not the parents who baught those books.
So the Paughs who gave the books to John and Patsy probably had the feeling that JonBenet and Burke were at risk, and that the parents' eyes were not open enough to those risks.

 

[midwest mama]

SapphireSteel,
Your analysis comes over as rather cynical, but you might be justified given $$ that are to be made?

I reckon there is already prima facie evidence suggesting a concern by others around JonBenet's behaviour.

So why not Burke?

The use of reported or alleged can also be employed to avoid litigation.

And if it is BDI then how else is Kolar to tell us his thoughts, since he is bound by state and federal law to protect a minor etc.

Burke might be a bit-part player in a bigger play, the child protection laws might be contrived to mask something bigger, hence the staging.

Remember no staging was required, JonBenet could have been left lying on her bed the victim of an intruder!


.

Hammer down. Kolar had to make all of us aware that there was more sexual dysfunction in that family that had been realized. It's quite obvious that BOTH JB and Burke were above and beyond the normal patterns for childhood experimentation. But JB was the up and coming star, wasn't she? Daddy's girl, his little angel.

The medical records of BOTH children could have revealed enough to have authorities question what the parents involvement (or lack of it) was in treating their children appropriately. One child with sexual behaviors beyond their age (allowed molestation by JB, documented by autopsy) could have been understood, but two children with sexual disorders?

From the start, some of us picked up on Kolar's complete coverage of everything related to JR, and the fact he does not pursue involvement of Patsy. Is the intent of Kolar's book to help us understand how Burke could have been involved in perpetuating the molestation, and to then lead us to see that JR could have been angry enough at Burke for this, not only because Burke was messing with his precious angel, but angry enough to make Patsy think Burke had killed JB??

Remember the "reference daggers" that come into a full chapter in his book? Kolar points out all the suspicious behaviors of JR connected to the crime. But, Kolar also had to bring Burke into greater light for his behavior, so we might be able to understand why JR could have successfully let Burke become his fall guy - rage: at Burke, and at JB for participating, at Patsy for not succeeding at keeping them apart.

And yes, it is strictly MY OPINION that JR would have been completely capable of using Burke, convincing Patsy, and then going right on and getting Burke treated by high dollar doctors 'of his choice' who would have been able to pull Burke through without even Burke realizing what had really happened.

Chief Kolar knows there is very little chance anyone will ever really pursue this case to prosecution. But he has presented his Theory of Prosecution into the hands of those who could do it. I guess the rest will be up to Colorado Law Enforcement.

 

[Roy23]

Yes, Mr. Kolar provides a disclaimer after his analysis and inquiries. Unfortunately, he does not provide this disclaimer at the beginning of the book, bolded and underlined as you have. What a difference that could make in an unbiased reader's perception of Kolar's many and varied (should be) scientific analyses...

Yep! And welcome to the forum. There is a big reason why Garnett and Beckner ignored him and we and Kolar don't know why that is.

 

[midwest mama]

Yep! And welcome to the forum. There is a big reason why Garnett and Beckner ignored him and we and Kolar don't know why that is.

Is it your opinion that Kolar's Theory of Prosecution must have contained too much subjective anaylsis, without having factual substantiation? If so, I respectfully disagree, and here is why, from Kolar's own comment regarding his Theory, pg 423 of the book:

"The actions of each of the family members in the home that night were fleshed out in a story-telling fashion that was based upon, and supported by information found in the investigative files I had reviewed up to that point in time...........I found the totality of the circumstances comprising the investigative theory to be rather disquieting, and too disturbing, in my opinion, to express in a public forum............Some portions of the theory regarding the behavioral aspects of the crime were of a highly speculative nature, and I felt they are better reserved for a presentation to a trained law enforcement audience."

If Kolar complied his Theory based upon the case information available to him, wouldn't that have been a respectful basis worthy of consideration by Garnett and Beckner, even if it was not presented in a format of which they approved? Was is the 'story-telling' fashion that has bode with disapproval? Was it the circumstances of the 'disturbing' information that made it too difficult to consider?

My interpretation of Chief Kolar's statement about a 'presentation' of the Theory to a trained LE audience leads me to believe that he realizes due to the nature of this crime, and his lack of complete expertise, the Theory should be available for consideration to a group beyond just Garnett and Beckner before any final decisions would be made to move forward.

But without Garnett and Beckner agreeing to move the document forward, the only choice Kolar has is to wait in frustration while those two individuals determine whether or not a man with 30+ years of experience in a field where facts and subjective interpretation have had to be used hand in hand in a distinguished career, should have his information deemed worthy as a fresh review of the case.

Travesty. :banghead: