James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

madeleine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
4,973
Reaction score
82
Good question. I can see BR being responsible for whatever happened to JBR (intentional or accident) and PR/JR basically get involved after the fact.

Either they know he did it on purpose or they think that no one will believe it was an accident based on the circumstances (maybe there's a sexual element they are concerned about being public?) and so they decide to try and protect their son by staging a charade.

If they are unaware of the fact that BR couldn't be charged, or believe he will be branded 'crazy' and locked up in an institution/sent away, I can definitely see them panicking and trying to protect him.

@bold
but Bynum was there right from the start and he probably knew the laws regarding minors?he would have said something,I mean,you gotta be a bit crazy to risk taking the fall and go to jail for BDI/accident?
 

horatio

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
76
Reaction score
1
But he wasn't there at the time of the incident/staging phase. The R's are on edge, wondering if people are buying into this ruse (PR peeking through her hands at Ardnt). Do they really turn to their lawyer that very same day and go "By the way, BR did it." Highly unlikely. Even if they do confess to him at a later stage, they are now in it DEEP by covering up after the fact. Bynum would probably tell them that they'd definitely be charged with hindering the investigation, if not some other more significant charges. My guess is they realized that there was no turning back without serious repercussions and so the plan became "carry on at all costs".
 

Chelly

Always Remember Teghan Skiba
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
15,220
Reaction score
36,728
But he wasn't there at the time of the incident/staging phase. The R's are on edge, wondering if people are buying into this ruse (PR peeking through her hands at Ardnt). Do they really turn to their lawyer that very same day and go "By the way, BR did it." Highly unlikely. Even if they do confess to him at a later stage, they are now in it DEEP by covering up after the fact. Bynum would probably tell them that they'd definitely be charged with hindering the investigation, if not some other more significant charges. My guess is they realized that there was no turning back without serious repercussions and so the plan became "carry on at all costs".

BINGO!
imo
 

madeleine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
4,973
Reaction score
82
But he wasn't there at the time of the incident/staging phase. The R's are on edge, wondering if people are buying into this ruse (PR peeking through her hands at Ardnt). Do they really turn to their lawyer that very same day and go "By the way, BR did it." Highly unlikely. Even if they do confess to him at a later stage, they are now in it DEEP by covering up after the fact. Bynum would probably tell them that they'd definitely be charged with hindering the investigation, if not some other more significant charges. My guess is they realized that there was no turning back without serious repercussions and so the plan became "carry on at all costs".

IF BDI maybe they had no clue about the sexual abuse/games?Cause I don't think they would have covered for him risking for JR to be thrown under the bus for it?
 

madeleine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
4,973
Reaction score
82
IF BDI maybe they had no clue about the sexual abuse/games?Cause I don't think they would have covered for him risking for JR to be thrown under the bus for it?

BUT this would mean BR was the one who wiped her off and redressed her which IMO is a bit unlikely?
 

horatio

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
76
Reaction score
1
IF BDI maybe they had no clue about the sexual abuse/games?Cause I don't think they would have covered for him risking for JR to be thrown under the bus for it?

At the time, they are a family with high social status and JR is an important figure/pillar in the community. I believe they would risk a cover up to avoid being known as the family who's son sexually molested and murdered their daughter. The scandal would have destroyed their social lives and ruined BR's future life.

BUT this would mean BR was the one who wiped her off and redressed her which IMO is a bit unlikely?

I agree it's unlikely, which is why I believe JR & PR did that. See the above answer for why.
 

questfortrue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
129
But he wasn't there at the time of the incident/staging phase. The R's are on edge, wondering if people are buying into this ruse (PR peeking through her hands at Ardnt). Do they really turn to their lawyer that very same day and go "By the way, BR did it." Highly unlikely. Even if they do confess to him at a later stage, they are now in it DEEP by covering up after the fact. Bynum would probably tell them that they'd definitely be charged with hindering the investigation, if not some other more significant charges. My guess is they realized that there was no turning back without serious repercussions and so the plan became "carry on at all costs".

Yes, attorneys were not present during the staging. However, because phone records (cell phone iirc) were not available, one can’t know if an attorney was called early before the 911 call was placed. Some details regarding attorney engagement are appropriate to understand and why many question whether the R’s knew or did not know about the age factor regarding BR.

In his Primetime interview with Diane Sawyer in Sept. 1997 family friend and attorney MBsaid that it had not occurred to JR to seek legal representation until after he learned the police were holding JB’s body for ransom in exchange for interviews with the R’s. (That unfortunate turn of phrase “ransom the body” was coined by PH of the DA’s office and then this phrase was used by MB.) In point of fact Commander Eller simply wanted to hold the body to make sure there weren’t some other tests that should be done. It was something Eller discussed on the 28th, but as one notes from the sequence of this hiring of attorneys in Kolar’s book, there were already attorneys involved. Kolar learned that R attorneys were working on behalf of the family as soon as Friday morning. – the 27th, before the autopsy of JB was even underway.

Timing of attorney engagement:
Follow-up police interview: Dec. 27, 1996 R friend/attorney MB was present at the Fernie residence that evening Dec. 27 and wouldn’t permit an interview to take place at the police department. It was then when according to Bynum in advising JR and receiving JR’s permission, that he engaged the big law firm.

Contradiction: This does not jive with the fact that FW had been contacted by R attorneys on the afternoon of the 26th, to arrange an interview first thing on the morning of the 27th.

Additional contradiction from JR: In TOSOS JR claims he received a tip from an employee at Access Graphics on the 27th, that someone “inside the system” had called to warn JR that the police were out to get him. . .that they think he murdered JB.” It was at that point that JR said he hired attorneys.

My question is: who called the R attorneys who were trying to reach FW on the afternoon of the 26th. And when were they called?
 

InstantProof

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
353
Reaction score
66
There was said to be a dictionary in the house open on the word Incest, so there may have been fear over the stigma attached to that, on top of sexual and physical abuse. Yes he's 10 and there's laws but who's not going to pass judgment on all of that?
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
But he wasn't there at the time of the incident/staging phase. The R's are on edge, wondering if people are buying into this ruse (PR peeking through her hands at Ardnt). Do they really turn to their lawyer that very same day and go "By the way, BR did it." Highly unlikely. Even if they do confess to him at a later stage, they are now in it DEEP by covering up after the fact. Bynum would probably tell them that they'd definitely be charged with hindering the investigation, if not some other more significant charges. My guess is they realized that there was no turning back without serious repercussions and so the plan became "carry on at all costs".

Actually it's highly likely that JR and PR would tell their attorneys if it was BDI. Whatever they tell the attorney is protected by lawyer-client privilege. Not telling their lawyers everything the can puts them at a disadvantage in being defended. And remember, by staging a phoney kidnapping that made themselves appear to be responsible for the murder, JR and PR were on track to be indicted.

The could probably blame at least some staging on BR. Then the face charges of conspiracy/obstruction of justice. But that is infinitely preferable to being charged with murder. The law doesn't go easy on first time murderers. It may well have gone easy on first time offenders who did some staging. No question in my mind that if it was BDI they'd have told their lawyers that the same day or the next day at the latest.

Its amazing the mental gymnastics needed to keep BDI theory alive. People do not prefer to be charged with murder as opposed to evidence tampering.
 

horatio

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
76
Reaction score
1
Actually it's highly likely that JR and PR would tell their attorneys if it was BDI. Whatever they tell the attorney is protected by lawyer-client privilege.

Except if they told their attorney under the guise of attorney-client privilege, he would have immediately had to tell the police what they did.

The crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime, tort, or fraud.

I think staging a phony kidnapping would qualify for that.

People do not prefer to be charged with murder as opposed to evidence tampering.

Unless it's a murder they know they didn't commit vs evidence tampering which they know they did.

Why admit something like that up front if there's a chance they'll get away with it? The murder would never stick, the evidence tampering would.
 

JaimeInLA

Team Juan
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,143
Reaction score
2,099
Do we know where Burke is today? What is he doing with his life?
 

ozazure

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
168
I see Burke being responsible as a main reason they may have got so much support to keep it under wraps. If he was a troubled child with a treatable mental illness and there was no longer any risk to smaller siblings in the home, this is a scenario I imagine outsiders could find palatable in keeping official justice at bay. Certainly in comparison to it being an adult molesting and murdering their own child when there is another child vulnerable in the home.
 

questfortrue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
129
Small correction with all due respect- the Colorado statute mentioned regarding attorney-client privilege being moot refers to future commission of a crime or future fraud. I personally doubt JR or PR revealed anything about what happened to anyone. (Maybe with the possible exception of one of PR’s sisters.) The R’s had gone too far with lawsuits on behalf of BR to risk any information.

But as has been mentioned regarding people keeping things under wraps, others who may have known something about a BDI weren’t prepared to fight off aggressive investigators of the JR law firm, nor expensive lawsuits.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
Except if they told their attorney under the guise of attorney-client privilege, he would have immediately had to tell the police what they did.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that if JR and/or PR told their lawyer that BDI, the lawyer would have to tell the police BDI? I don't think that's the case. Or were you trying to say something else?

] I think staging a phony kidnapping would qualify for that.
A crime already committed cannot be furthered.


Unless it's a murder they know they didn't commit vs evidence tampering which they know they did.

Why admit something like that up front if there's a chance they'll get away with it? The murder would never stick, the evidence tampering would.


How could they be sure the murder charge wouldn't stick? It looks pretty much like one or both killed JB. It's a pretty big risk to take, with devastating consequences.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
Defense attorneys are not required to inform police of their clients' guilt, should they have knowledge of it. They are also not required to ASK their clients whether they are guilty or have knowledge of who is. But if they DO ask and are told the truth, they do not have to disclose that to anyone not do they have to admit that they know.
However, they MAY confer with prosecutors to discuss their clients' guilt if they are aware of it, and seek a plea bargain.
 

horatio

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
76
Reaction score
1
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that if JR and/or PR told their lawyer that BDI, the lawyer would have to tell the police BDI? I don't think that's the case. Or were you trying to say something else?

No, that's what I was trying to say, but I'm not certain as to whether I'm correct.
 

horatio

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
76
Reaction score
1
Defense attorneys are not required to inform police of their clients' guilt, should they have knowledge of it. They are also not required to ASK their clients whether they are guilty or have knowledge of who is. But if they DO ask and are told the truth, they do not have to disclose that to anyone not do they have to admit that they know.
However, they MAY confer with prosecutors to discuss their clients' guilt if they are aware of it, and seek a plea bargain.

I understand that the killing would be relevant under attorney-client, but couldn't the staging/RN constitute an ongoing crime? I mean isn't that lying to the police/fraud/obstruction of justice? I'm legitimately asking as I don't know.

If the defense attorney knows the kidnapping was/is a sham, are they allowed to continue their duties, knowing their clients' testimony to the police/prosecution is false? That seems like it would be against some sort of Bar regulation or something. Again, I don't know.
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
I understand that the killing would be relevant under attorney-client, but couldn't the staging/RN constitute an ongoing crime? I mean isn't that lying to the police/fraud/obstruction of justice? I'm legitimately asking as I don't know.

No. The staging/RN are complete once police are called. The crime is over.

If the defense attorney knows the kidnapping was/is a sham, are they allowed to continue their duties, knowing their clients' testimony to the police/prosecution is false? That seems like it would be against some sort of Bar regulation or something. Again, I don't know.

Yes, of course the defense attorney is allowed to continue his duties. It doesn't matter if the defense atty knows the client is guilty, or has lied to the police.

The whole point of Attorney-client privilege is that it encourages people to be honest with their attorney so he can best represent them.
 

horatio

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
76
Reaction score
1
No. The staging/RN are complete once police are called. The crime is over.

Yes, of course the defense attorney is allowed to continue his duties. It doesn't matter if the defense atty knows the client is guilty, or has lied to the police.

The whole point of Attorney-client privilege is that it encourages people to be honest with their attorney so he can best represent them.

But wouldn't maintaining the lie constitute ongoing crimes? That is to say, every time someone is interviewed and claims that they didn't stage the crime scene, they are lying to the police/obstructing justice? Shouldn't that be a new crime/charge?

I always thought attorney-client privilege worked on the principle of the attorney has to believe you're innocent, or at least be uncertain of your guilt. However, once they know about your guilt (through a confession or otherwise) they have to make that information known or recuse themselves from the case.

Isn't there something in the legal oath about not creating/encouraging a miscarriage of justice? I can't remember the exact words, but I'm not sure they can legally defend their client if they are certain of their guilt.
 
Top