News 2006

[Brefie]

Uh, my post says I doubt.

 

[Voice of Reason]

This isn't exactly what everyone is looking for, but it gives a little more insight into why Kolar didn't meet with the Ramseys beyond the "I was in court" excuse...

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_4435316,00.html

Jim Kolar, chief investigator at the Boulder County District Attorney's Office and lead supervisor of the Ramsey case, said Wednesday that he knew the couple was in town but had no plans to meet with them.

"I haven't seen them," he said.

Kolar, who took over the investigation last year, said there are no significant developments in the case.

"I'm still looking at leads that come in, and I'm still getting up to speed on all the documents," he said.

 

[BlueCrab]

Nehemiah and why_nutt,

Thank you for catching the Kolar sentence in the Rocky Mountain News article, version 1, that was redacted before most readers had a chance to view it. Version 2 of the article, cleansed to hide the truth, is the only link now available.

Post #5: I posted at 12:42 AM on 2/3/06 (today). The link in the article was Version 1.

Post #6: tipper posted at 10:55 AM today. The link in the article was Version 2.

The faux pas in The Rocky Mountain News and the prompt cleansing of the article satisfies me that Jim Kolar is likely nothing but a figurehead in the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. In fact, there is no investigation. Kolar is supposed to be the expert on the case and therefore should be briefing Lacy, not the other way around.

Tipper, this wasn't your fault -- you simply didn't know the article was Version 2. It appears the Boulder authorities got to Charlie Brennan in the early AM to create Version 2 and thus preserve the government coverup. But some Websleuthers beat him to it.

IMO this is an important break in the case. It's evidence Kolar was put on Lacy's staff merely to make it look like an investigation was taking place. But there hasn't been an active investigation for years, nor has any money been budgeted for an active investigation.

Therefore, the case may have been solved years ago, but the Colorado Children's Code and the court's gag order has kept everything under wraps. It has apparently forced everyone who knows who killed JonBenet, including the media, to keep their mouths shut under penalty of criminal penalties. A Boulder government coverup is in progress.

BlueCrab

 

[BlueCrab]

This isn't exactly what everyone is looking for, but it gives a little more insight into why Kolar didn't meet with the Ramseys beyond the "I was in court" excuse...

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_4435316,00.html

Voice of Reason,

Thank you for that link. Please note that the Daily Camera article sort of contradicts the Rocky Mountain News article in regard to Kolar's excuses for not meeting with John and Patsy Ramsey.

The Daily Camera quotes Jim Kolar as saying he had no plans to meet with the Ramseys. The Rocky Mountain News states Kolar was in court and he hadn't been briefed by Mary Lacy as the reasons Kolar and the Ramseys didn't meet.

BlueCrab

 

[Camper]

I didn't save the first version but now wish I had. Tipper, you copied the revised version. Like BlueCrab, I initially found it odd that Kolar didn't attend, PLUS it initially stated that he had not been briefed by Mary as of Thursday afternoon. Interesting that they redacted that part. Maybe they are reading here?

Odd you say, you would really have had a special moment, if you had seen Kolars face up close and personal on the local TV news. Oh my sides, hee hee, rofl. It was like someone had come in to his office when his back was turned, and the person was not announced, OOPS hello.:laugh: :laugh: :chicken:
Would you not think that a person who sits in his chair would have indeed been briefed on a murder case of major global interest?
Was he --> OR ---> just not enough hours in the day to cover
all of the crime in Boulder. I know the Boulder city library took down the American flag around the 4th of July, then we had the 'ART display in the library, next to the childrens area. The ART display was a colorful display of dildoes hanging on a clothesline in the lobby. The military veteran that personally took them down, and was arrested. busy, busy -->your government at work.

We saw the backs of what was purported to be the Ramseys, wearing dark dark clothes and walking through the glass door of the county temple, a telephoto lens moment.

I was surprised that the older son was/is ?. living in Boulder.

On the other hand Colorado can not prosecute a person that is 10 years old for criminal conduct.

Sad case all around.



.




.

 

[tipper]

I didn't save the first version but now wish I had. Tipper, you copied the revised version. Like BlueCrab, I initially found it odd that Kolar didn't attend, PLUS it initially stated that he had not been briefed by Mary as of Thursday afternoon. Interesting that they redacted that part. Maybe they are reading here?

Alternatively, perhaps they learned he had been briefed by Mary as of Thursday afternoon.

 

[sandraladeda]

Shouldn't RDI be asking why the article has the DA standing with the R's on the DNA issue. Isn't the DNA a problem for RDI?

Yes, and we know what an effective DA's office Boulder has....:angel:

 

[BlueCrab]

Alternatively, perhaps they learned he had been briefed by Mary as of Thursday afternoon.

tipper,

That's irrelevant. The point is Kolar shouldn't have to be briefed by Lacy; it should be the other way around. It proves Kolar is in charge of the investigation in name only and doesn't know the case. When this info inadvertently got into the RMN article it was purged immediately (but not before WS picked it off). The original link (Version 1) still shows nothing but a blank page and some advertising.

How did this kind of info get into the RMN article? It was probably a side note scibbled by Charlie Brennan for another purpose and that wasn't intended to be published, but was mistakenly included into the article by a typist.

It's importance is highlighted by the fact the whole article was redacted and run again word-for-word the next day minus the Kolar/Lacy briefing sentence.

IMO the Ramsey case was solved years ago and Boulder authorities, the courts, and the media are covering up the truth. It's a formidable conspiratorial group, especially when supported by statute and court order.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

tipper,

That's irrelevant. The point is Kolar shouldn't have to be briefed by Lacy; it should be the other way around. It proves Kolar is in charge of the investigation in name only and doesn't know the case. When this info inadvertently got into the RMN article it was purged immediately (but not before WS picked it off). The original link (Version 1) still shows nothing but a blank page and some advertising.

How did this kind of info get into the RMN article? It was probably a side note scibbled by Charlie Brennan for another purpose and that wasn't intended to be published, but was mistakenly included into the article by a typist.

It's importance is highlighted by the fact the whole article was redacted and run again word-for-word the next day minus the Kolar/Lacy briefing sentence.

IMO the Ramsey case was solved years ago and Boulder authorities, the courts, and the media are covering up the truth. It's a formidable conspiratorial group, especially when supported by statute and court order.

BlueCrab

I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot but why don't you write Charlie Brennan and ask him what happened?

 

[narlacat]

More news.
But nothing new.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3470571

 

[BlueCrab]

I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot but why don't you write Charlie Brennan and ask him what happened?

tipper,

Why would I want to write to Charlie Brennan? I'm not interested about how the statement on Jim Kolar got into the article. What's important is what the article said and what was done to make it appear that the statement never existed. The whole episode proves to me the Boulder government, the court, and certain segments of the media, are involved in a coverup to hide the identity of JonBenet's killer.

The article said Jim Kolar didn't meet with the Ramseys because Mary Lacy hadn't briefed him. Kolar is supposed to be the expert on the case, so why does Lacy have to get him up to speed? It reveals to me that Kolar doesn't know the case and is on Lacy's staff solely to make it appear the JonBenet Ramsey murder is being actively investigated, when it isn't.

Why isn't it being actively investigated? IMO it's because the crime has been solved since 1999 but Colorado law prevents it from being publicly revealed without violating the legal rights of a child who was involved in a serious crime.

The Rocky Mountain News went through the extraordinary procedure of redacting the entire article of Feb. 3 and replacing it on Feb. 4 with the same article minus the "Kolar briefing" sentence. That alone convinces me the Kolar flap was significant and could upset the government's nine-year-long full-court-press to keep its coverup under the radar.

BlueCrab

 

[trixie]

Bluecrab, I don't get it. So if they solved it and Burke is the guilty party but cannot be prosecuted then did they tell John and Patsy that at some point in the past? Did they tell them that they know what happened but since the perp is too young their hands are tied, so might as well go on your merry way since they couldn't prove who did what in the cover-up? Or are the Ramseys still in the dark about it all, thinking they are the only suspects still? And if that were the case why would they waltz into the DA's office, without a lawyer? I don't get your theory. It involves way too much conspiracy among too many people, many of whom couldn't keep their mouths shut throughout the investigation. Someone would have leaked this info by now. I don't see the DA putting someone on the payroll just to give the appearance the case is still being investigated. That is taxpayer money that has to be accounted for somehow. Can't you see FW would be soooo all over THAT? I dunno, I just can't make sense of your theory. Maybe some day you'll post something and the light bulb will go off in my head but so far, it's pretty dark in here.

 

[Jayelles]

Lin Wood is the media source. This is a PR thing. The Ramseys dropped by Mary Lacey to find out how the invesitgation is going. They didn't drop by Jim Kolar who is actually investigating.

Again - a status thing. The ramseys rub shoulders with the top dogs - not a mere investigator.

So IMO this is the series of events:-

1. Lin Wood contacts CharlieBrennan to give him the press release - that his clients turned up in person to check on the progress of the investigation.

2. Charlie Brennan calls Jim Kolar and asks if they met with him.

3. Kolar says "eh? The Ramseys are in Boulder?"

4. Brennan asks "Has Mary Lacey not told you about this?"

5. Kolar "Ehm.... nope"

6. Charlie brenan writes article 1.

7. Dring dring, dring dring in Kolar's office. mary Lacey on the line. "Do you realise what you've done? Now we look stupid. The Ramseys are furious and Woodyboy has already been on the phone. Hey, I have an idea. Didn't you go to court yesterday? Right, leave it to me". Click.

8. Dring, dring, dring dring in Brennan's office. mary Lacey on the line. "Charlie - I want that article changed. Kolar was in court. I don't care if it can't be edited - pull it and replace it. I want Woodyboy off my back.

8. Article 2 appears.

 

[BlueCrab]

Lin Wood is the media source. This is a PR thing. The Ramseys dropped by Mary Lacey to find out how the invesitgation is going. They didn't drop by Jim Kolar who is actually investigating.

Again - a status thing. The ramseys rub shoulders with the top dogs - not a mere investigator.

So IMO this is the series of events:-

1. Lin Wood contacts CharlieBrennan to give him the press release - that his clients turned up in person to check on the progress of the investigation.

2. Charlie Brennan calls Jim Kolar and asks if they met with him.

3. Kolar says "eh? The Ramseys are in Boulder?"

4. Brennan asks "Has Mary Lacey not told you about this?"

5. Kolar "Ehm.... nope"

6. Charlie brenan writes article 1.

7. Dring dring, dring dring in Kolar's office. mary Lacey on the line. "Do you realise what you've done? Now we look stupid. The Ramseys are furious and Woodyboy has already been on the phone. Hey, I have an idea. Didn't you go to court yesterday? Right, leave it to me". Click.

8. Dring, dring, dring dring in Brennan's office. mary Lacey on the line. "Charlie - I want that article changed. Kolar was in court. I don't care if it can't be edited - pull it and replace it. I want Woodyboy off my back.

8. Article 2 appears.

Jayelles,

Excellent post. Well written and funny.

However, I'm certain the case was solved by the grand jury in 1999 and, due to Colorado law and the court gag order, it can't be publicly revealed. As a result, Boulder authorities have been scratching the dirt for nine years trying to keep the feces covered up. But they're running out of dirt.

Larry Schiller, author of PMPT, has practically admitted he knows who killed JonBenet but has been allowed to publish only about 10 percent of what he knows about the case. Charlie Brennan did most of the investigating and much of the writing for PMPT, so he also likely knows who killed JonBenet.

Therefore, Brennan also knows that Jim Kolar is on Mary Lacy's staff as a normal garden variety investigator, not as a special investigator heading up the Ramsey murder investigation. Kolar is part of the government's coverup.

The danger of this legal coverup, which is properly protecting children, is: ARE THEY ALSO ALLOWING AN ADULT KILLER TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS? In my opinion there was a fifth person in the house that night, invited in by a Ramsey. Who was he and what was his age at the time?

BlueCrab

 

[Nehemiah]

I think you hit the nail on the head. And then there's one more important thing....da lawsuit! LLW has that hanging over Mary and there's always that trump card to play.

 

[BlueCrab]

I think you hit the nail on the head. And then there's one more important thing....da lawsuit! LLW has that hanging over Mary and there's always that trump card to play.

Colorado Statute of Limitations 13-80-102:

Actions against any public or governmental entity or employee of a public or governmental entity:

O notice 180 days

O suit 2 years

BlueCrab

 

[Voice of Reason]

BlueCrab,

I think you are going way over the top with this one. This is the press; this is the Ramsey case. The press mischaracterizes and misstates things ALL THE TIME! The fact that it involved the Ramsey case is no surprise that they rushed to correct it. They didn't want BAD press and they didn't want Lin Wood calling them on it.

But let's say, for sake of argument, that Kolar is just a namesake, and that's the reason for this whole debacle. Fine. But it still doesn't suggest the massive coverup you imagine. This is a high profile cold case that has resulted in many civil lawsuits. The DA has Kolar "working on it." Have you ever thought that it is just a political move, not because of some massive coverup, but because the DA does not want to look like they're doing nothing? This is a perfectly reasonable scenario in virtually any DA's office. Nobody wants to get caught standing around.

And finally, while I find your theory of the crime interesting (although I do not subscribe to it), I find your theory of the government coverup off the wall. If you ever have had the occasion to work in government, media, the courts, or any of the organizations that would have to be involved in this, you would realize just how impossible such a scenario would be.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

And finally, while I find your theory of the crime interesting (although I do not subscribe to it), I find your theory of the government coverup off the wall. If you ever have had the occasion to work in government, media, the courts, or any of the organizations that would have to be involved in this, you would realize just how impossible such a scenario would be.

Voice of Reason,

The government had no choice -- it had to follow Colorado law and the court order covering the case. IOW, it's a legally permissable coverup.

The law states the public identification of children involved in a major crime must be guarded, and the court backed it up with a gag order.

ANYONE, in or out of government, in violation of the law protecting children and the court order specifically covering the JonBenet Ramsey case would surely be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

IMO, that's why, even though a good number of people likely know who killed JonBenet, none of them are standing in line anxiously waiting to spill the beans.

BlueCrab

 

[Voice of Reason]

Voice of Reason,

The government had no choice -- it had to follow Colorado law and the court order covering the case. IOW, it's a legally permissable coverup.

The law states the public identification of children involved in a major crime must be guarded, and the court backed it up with a gag order.

ANYONE, in or out of government, in violation of the law protecting children and the court order specifically covering the JonBenet Ramsey case would surely be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

IMO, that's why, even though a good number of people likely know who killed JonBenet, none of them are standing in line anxiously waiting to spill the beans.

BlueCrab

I think you should check the law on this one. While it may be against Colorado law to prosecute those under 10, see if you can find the law that says it's against the law to reveal information that shows that is what happened in a particular case. Those types of laws are entirely different. The state can protect the names of juveniles and try to stop their publication, but I'm not entirely sure that they can criminally prosecute someone who reveals a name. It may be an ethical violation to publish, and a reporter may be legally prohibited from accessing the information, but if they can get the information through lawful means, they can usually publish it. Again, I'm not positive of the law on this, but I think you're suggesting a law that is extremely over-broad...

 

[capps]

"The government had no choice -- it had to follow Colorado law and the court order covering the case. IOW, it's a legally permissable coverup.
The law states the public identification of children involved in a major crime must be guarded, and the court backed it up with a gag order.
ANYONE, in or out of government, in violation of the law protecting children and the court order specifically covering the JonBenet Ramsey case would surely be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

I respectfully diasagree with this statement.

The courts did have a choice -- by simply stating to the media that the suspect is being identified as a juvenile. That is legal,and they are not breaking any laws,because they are not identifying anyone. Period.

The courts don't care that the public may deduce that the juvenile may be BR or DS or FW (the third),or even little Bobby down the street.The courts,media.etc., job is done,the case is closed,they did nothing illegal.

Also,why would the people involved with this crazy charade,which they hoped would finally put the whole Ramsey murder "to bed",be the same people who bring it up again,by stating a new DA has been brought in to actively work on the Ramsey case? It couldn't have been the Boulder residents giving them pressure,because it seems the residents are the people who really do want the Ramsey case to go away.

Something doesn't fit.