I know who the killer is.

[David Rogers]

Anyone known if this report is true?

‘I’ll tell the whole world’

 

[Dragognosis]

Garnett has gone on to bigger things like fabricating accusers of Kavenaugh. I mean literally coaching a woman to accuse him of sexual abuse. When that went bust he disappeared into the Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck labrynth.

 

[fr brown]

Looking at the references to Garnett in "Foreign Faction," Kolar thought he had him convinced. Kolar even gave Garnett a 20-page "theory of prosecution" and an opening statement, which I've considered evidence of Kolar's lunacy. Now it seems like they may have met several times, so maybe Garnett did buy in to some extent.

 

[Dragognosis]

Garnett met with Kolar to make sure he wasn't a threat to his stonewalling of the case.

 

[fr brown]

I'm not sure how Kolar persuaded anybody. He didn't seem to know much about his evidence against Burke. He wasn't sure where the "pajamas thought to belong to Burke" were found so it seems he'd never even bothered to locate them in a crime scene photo. He wasn't sure if they'd been collected (but he thought not). How would he know the "pajamas" were too big for JonBenet? If he's taking a CSI's word, how would he/she know? (My daughter used to roll up the cuffs on her pajamas. She liked them long and loose.) Kolar didn't answer my question about where the box of candy was found; he didn't think it had been collected. He seems only to have read a crime scene note (or notes). It was all so vague. I was hoping that the lawsuit would generate more information about these notes and whether or not Kolar had done any follow-up. Hoping but not expecting.

Kolar's chapter on SBP seemed thoroughly researched, but when I started looking at the references, they all seemed to be from one book. I would argue that that stuff is irrelevant anyway since there is really no reason to think that any of it applies to Burke.

So maybe Kolar actually had more? At this point, I have to appeal to Mary Lacy's opinion, taken with the obligatory grain of salt. Having watched his 8-hour PowerPoint presentation for law enforcement, she wrote: "Your [original] conclusions are based upon suppositions and inferences with absolutely no support in evidence or in the record. Your presentation lacks the fundamental substantive factual basis from which reasonable minds cannot differ." And she advises him that since he's no longer employed by the DA's office, he no longer has immunity from civil litigation. She saw that coming.

 

[Tadpole12]

I'm not sure how Kolar persuaded anybody. He didn't seem to know much about his evidence against Burke. He wasn't sure where the "pajamas thought to belong to Burke" were found so it seems he'd never even bothered to locate them in a crime scene photo. He wasn't sure if they'd been collected (but he thought not). How would he know the "pajamas" were too big for JonBenet? If he's taking a CSI's word, how would he/she know? (My daughter used to roll up the cuffs on her pajamas. She liked them long and loose.) Kolar didn't answer my question about where the box of candy was found; he didn't think it had been collected. He seems only to have read a crime scene note (or notes). It was all so vague. I was hoping that the lawsuit would generate more information about these notes and whether or not Kolar had done any follow-up. Hoping but not expecting.

Kolar's chapter on SBP seemed thoroughly researched, but when I started looking at the references, they all seemed to be from one book. I would argue that that stuff is irrelevant anyway since there is really no reason to think that any of it applies to Burke.

So maybe Kolar actually had more? At this point, I have to appeal to Mary Lacy's opinion, taken with the obligatory grain of salt. Having watched his 8-hour PowerPoint presentation for law enforcement, she wrote: "Your [original] conclusions are based upon suppositions and inferences with absolutely no support in evidence or in the record. Your presentation lacks the fundamental substantive factual basis from which reasonable minds cannot differ." And she advises him that since he's no longer employed by the DA's office, he no longer has immunity from civil litigation. She saw that coming.

frbrown, what's the source for the ML quote? JK's book?

 

[fr brown]

frbrown, what's the source for the ML quote? JK's book?

It's in the back of Kolar's book. She says that she, ADAs Peter Maguire and Bill Nagel, and Chief Investigator Tom Bennett reviewed his Investigative Report, Summary Report and PowerPoint and had reached the same conclusion, that the last quarter (presumably the stuff about Burke) was based on pure conjecture, at times approaching pure flights of fantasy.

Kolar says the letter was redacted, but doesn't say what or where.

 

[David Rogers]

Anyone known if this report is true?

‘I’ll tell the whole world’

Did Garnett really say this? Is there any other conformation of this story?

 

[fr brown]

Did Garnett really say this? Is there any other conformation of this story?

The 2016 story is still up. That's a clue. If Garnett gave an interview to that reporter, he undoubtedly read the story after it was released.

You could write the reporter.