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

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Tricia, Jul 18, 2012.

  1. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    @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?
     


  2. horatio

    horatio New Member

    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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".
     
  3. Chelly

    Chelly Always Remember Teghan Skiba

    Messages:
    14,881
    Likes Received:
    34,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BINGO!
    imo
     
  4. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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?
     
  5. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    BUT this would mean BR was the one who wiped her off and redressed her which IMO is a bit unlikely?
     
  6. horatio

    horatio New Member

    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

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

    questfortrue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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?
     
  8. InstantProof

    InstantProof Active Member

    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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?
     
  9. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. horatio

    horatio New Member

    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 think staging a phony kidnapping would qualify for that.

    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.
     
  11. JaimeInLA

    JaimeInLA Team Juan

    Messages:
    2,139
    Likes Received:
    2,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do we know where Burke is today? What is he doing with his life?
     
  12. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,763
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He's working for a tech company in Indianapolis.
     
  13. ozazure

    ozazure Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  14. questfortrue

    questfortrue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  15. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?

    A crime already committed cannot be furthered.



    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.
     
  16. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  17. horatio

    horatio New Member

    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, that's what I was trying to say, but I'm not certain as to whether I'm correct.
     
  18. horatio

    horatio New Member

    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. horatio

    horatio New Member

    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice