jbrunsolved

[jbrunsolved]

In my opinion, the killer is NOT:

1. Someone who intended to commit this crime for financial gain. Initially, it had appeared that way seeing it was believed to be a kidnapping for Ransom. I don't see this as a kidnapping gone wrong. If they entered the house, they could've easily exited the house WITH JonBenet in tow. And they would've asked for more money. Why stop at 118k? If it was true that the kidnapping had gone wrong, all they had to do was drop everything and run out of the house. Not head to the basement with JonBenet.

2. Some angry resentful enemies of the Ramseys (they didn't have any) who felt wronged by them somehow and wanted revenge. They felt this murder would be their punishment. If that were the case, they would enter the house, kill JonBenet, and leave quickly. Mission accomplished. There is no need for the song and dance about everything else. (hiding the body, garrotting, staging, redressing, assaulting, the ransom note).

3. Jealousy/Envious of the Ramseys's success and lifestyle. Yeah, people don't usually kill because of this. This would be a stretch. But if it were, as in the example above, killing the child would suffice.

JonBenet was murdered for the killer's gratification. She was the target. It had nothing to do with the other members of the Ramsey family. Their m.o. or goal was pain and torture. After the killing, the killer would cover and redress the victim. It was not sexually motivated. The vaginal trauma inflicted with an object seemed to be more of a punishment. In many sex crimes, the victim is left half-undressed or naked. They would just strangle their victim with their hands after sexually assaulting them. It would be easy to strangle a child.

This crime screams of a serial killer. I lean towards this killer being in his 20s. Alternatively, it could certainly be a more mature experienced middle-aged man. Who is a loner?

This house and this family were targeted. They wanted to kill THIS CHILD on that day. They had been watching them, and watching the house, and planning this. How would the person know about this family and this child? Were there any articles written about this family that were printed in the newspaper or televised? For example, articles or interviews about John's place of business or of the pageants? I think they lived nearby and/or even knew the Ramseys. did they attend the pageants? How could they not be certain the dog wouldn't be in the house that day or that John hadn't decided to activate the house alarm that day?

They'd been in that house before and in particular the basement. The Ramsey house was open for tours during the Christmas Holiday a few years before (can't remember the year atm). Thousands of people toured inside that house with no room off limits (afaik). In any case,

I think it has be someone from the Boulder area. Could it be someone who watched TV a lot or read newspapers? There were lines in the ransom note that seemed to be taken from MOVIES. (SEE BELOW).

IS THIS A MOVIE? Another reason the note was not composed after the murder as part of a parental cover-up: "There are quite a few movie references in the note. “You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don’t try to grow a brain, John” corresponds to “You know that I’m on top of you. Do not attempt to grow a brain,” lines delivered by the Dennis Hopper extortionist character in Speed, which was out on video at the time of the murder. “Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded” corresponds to “Do not involve the police or the FBI. If you do, I will kill her” from Ransom. “If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies” sounds like “If I even think you’re being followed, the girl dies,” and “That’s the end of the game. The girl dies,” from the Clint Eastwood hit Dirty Harry. The phrases “Now listen to me carefully” and “Now listen. Listen very carefully” also come from Dirty Harry, as does “It sounds like you had a good rest. You’ll need it.” Compare that to the note’s “The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested.” Does this sound like something Patsy would have written immediately after killing her child? 3 PAGES???"

[jbrunsolved]

The oversized underwear

Q. (By Bruce Levin) Okay. What we are trying to understand is whether -- we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it.

A. I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on.

I mean, if you have ever seen these little panties, there is not too much difference in the size. So, you know, I'm sure even if they were a little bit big, they were special because we got them up there, she wanted to wear them, and they didn't fall down around her ankles, that was fine with me.

...They were just in her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all of her clean panties in a drawer and she can help herself to whatever is in there.

Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm sorry. Do you recall making a decision then not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet express an interest in them; therefore, you didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --

A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I think I bought them with the intention of sending them in a package of Christmas things to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that together, so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game.

[jbrunsolved]

[jbrunsolved]

Dr. John Meyer, The Boulder County Coroner and Forensic Pathologist.

Dr. Meyer, who conducted the initial autopsy concluded there was evidence of acute trauma but not ongoing prior/chronic sexual abuse. The day of the autopsy, he called a medical specialist from Children’s Hospital in Denver [Dr. Sirotnak] to help examine JonBenét’s body. Both agreed that there had been penetration but no rape, and there was no evidence of prior violation.

Dr. Michael Dobersen, Coroner, Forensic Pathologist

"Page 4 of the autopsy report provides a detailed description of the external genitalia of JonBenet Ramsey. This description is consistent with acute injury which was sustained a short time prior to her death. No reliable evidence of chronic injury was found. It should be noted that irregularities of the hymenal ring cannot be reliably used to indicate chronic abuse. Microscopically, the vaginal mucuso showed evidence of vascular congestion and focal epithelial erosion. Focal interstitial chronic inflammation once again, does not necessarily indicate previous sexual abuse."

Dr. Leon Kelly, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner in El Paso, Colorado. Expert on abused children.

"The exam reveals no evidence of healing, or prior injuries. No evidence of scarring. No evidence of other changes or findings which forensic pathologists look to to indicate prior sexual abuse.

Much has been made about a few lines of information where the pathologist describes some chronic inflammation. Some have extrapolated that to mean 'well, we've got chronic injury, therefore we've got chronic sexual abuse.' In fact, that's not what those few words of text mean. Vaginitis, which is a very nonspecific term for inflammation, is very common in children and can be due to things as simple as irritation from soap or poor wiping. So common to the point that it's essentially a normal finding. And to extrapolate someone else's guilt as far as inflicting sexual abuse, that's not based in science."

Some of the "experts" called to weigh in who believe there WAS sexual abuse weren't pathologists.

Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Werner Spitz

Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the University of Colorado School of Medicine and a nationally known child-abuse expert. Director of the Kempe Child Abuse Center [Krugman]. Dr. Richard Krugman is one of the preeminent experts and scholars in the field of child abuse and neglect in this country and a protégé of Dr. Kempe himself.

Evidence of "mild trauma" around the vagina "is not diagnostic of sexual abuse," Krugman said. The vaginal injuries can be caused by trauma such as an infection, irritation from a bubble bath or in connection with abuse.

Krugman was asked by Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to consult on the Ramsey case. He studied the full autopsy report and several other documents.

Krugman said he told Hunter basically what he said Monday, that "there is nothing here that is specific that this was a child who was sexually abused." Instead, Krugman said, "I see a child who was physically abused and is dead."

(“is a sign of trauma, [but] it’s not a sign of sexual abuse necessarily.”)

COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?

KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.

COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?

KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.

COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?

KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.

Krugman was asked by Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to consult on the Ramsey case. He studied the full autopsy report and several other documents.

Krugman said he told Hunter basically what he said Monday, that "there is nothing here that is specific that this was a child who was sexually abused." Instead, Krugman said, "I see a child who was physically abused and is dead."

Thomas Henry, MD, Coroner, Chief Medical Examiner for the City of Denver,��

From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia. There is no indication of healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that area.

Dr, Andrew P. Sirotnak, Child Abuse Pediatrics.

"My scholarly work is focused on the effective treatment of child abuse trauma, the education of professionals to help them identify and prevent abuse in clinical practice, and on advocacy for all effected by the issues of child maltreatment."

Dr. Sirotnak along with the coroner, [Meyer], a forensic pathologist examined the body of JonBenet and agreed that there had been penetration but no rape, and there was no evidence of a prior violation.

Dr. Francesco Beuf, M.D. Pediatrician

Jon Benets pediatrician. No evidence of prior sexual abuse.

Books:

Lawrence Schiller, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town."

The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police.

Paula Woodward, "We Have Your Daughter"

Even though JonBenét’s pediatrician [Francesco Beuf], the Boulder County Coroner [John Meyer], an expert from Denver’s Children’s Hospital [Andrew Sirotnak] and the Director of the Kempe Child Abuse Center in Denver [Richard Krugman] had stated there had been no ongoing sexual abuse of the child (BPD Reports #9-110, #26-182), two new stories were deliberately put into motion just when momentum on the case publicity had begun to abate. The stories were about incest. (p. 187)

The Boulder Police Department initially suspected John of incest, but there was no prior evidence for that, according to JonBenet's pediatrician [Beuf], the coroner [Meyer] and the specialist he brought in from Children's Hospital in Denver [Sirotnak], and the director of the Kempe Child Abuse Center [Krugman]. (p. 232)

Did Patsy learn John was assaulting their daughter that night and hit her daughter for this reason? Not according to the evidence. JonBenet's pediatrician [Beuf], the coroner [Meyer] and a colleague of the coroner with firsthand knowledge of JonBenet's physical condition [Sirotnak] all said there had been no ongoing sexual abuse. (p. 313)

The coroner [Meyer], a forensic pathologist, was specifically trained in examining bodies in suspicious circumstances. The day of the autopsy, he called a medical specialist from Children’s Hospital in Denver [Sirotnak] to help examine JonBenét’s body. Both agreed that there had been penetration but no rape, and there was no evidence of prior violation. (p. 381)

Paula Woodward: Add'l comment in reference to Mark Beckners false statements on his AMA.

Both of these answers from Beckner are false. No physician who examined JonBenet's body or consulted with the Boulder County Coroner said she had been sexually violated other than during the time period when she was killed. The coroner who conducted the autopsy wrote about her genitalia: "The upper portions of the vaginal vault contain no abnormalities. The prepubescent uterus measures 3 x 1 x 0.8 cm and is unremarkable. The cervical os contains no abnormalities. Both fallopian tubes and ovaries are prepubescent and unremarkable by gross examination." (p. 381)

[jbrunsolved]

What the Victims Advocates had to say

x

[jbrunsolved]

The pineapple

[jbrunsolved]

The Head Injury - like falling from a third floor story building.

A.....I believe very strongly, along with others, that JonBenet was strangled, and the last thing that was done to her was a severe blow to the head.

Q. How severe?

A. Pardon?

Q. How severe?

A. I have been told and I have also observed these type of injuries. It is like a fall from a three-story building and landing on your head. The picture you are going to see is a very severe fracture to her skull.

This photograph shows that, during the autopsy, the skull cap is removed from the victim.

Q. Is this, in fact, an autopsy photograph of JonBenet Ramsey's skull cap that was removed at the time of the autopsy?

A. Yes. This is a photograph of the skull cap. And I, towards the front, I have marked that this would have been the front of the face of JonBenet. This is the rear where the larger portion is broken out of the skull.

Between the front and even the broken portion is approximately eight and a half inches of a very severe fracture of the skull. 

Q. Almost the entire right side of her skull was fractured? 

A. Yes. And, also, there is even a very large displaced fracture where the bone was actually broken down into the brain. Whoever delivered this blow delivered it with a great deal of force. This was not an accidental doink on the head. Somebody really hit this child. And it had to be a very coordinated blow by a very strong person. Whoever killed JonBenet meant to kill her

[jbrunsolved]

Letter from Macy to Kolar

January 25, 2007

Chief James Kolar

Telluride Police Department

P.O. Box 372

Dear Chief Kolar;

I have reviewed your presentation on the JonBenet Ramsey Murder Investigation.  It has also been reviewed by first assistant district Atty. Peter Maguire, Assistant district Atty. Bill Nagel and Chief Investigator Tom Bennett. We have spent substantial time examining your Investigative Report, Summary Report and PowerPoint presentation. We have independently arrived at the same conclusions.

I hired you as my Chief Investigator in July 2005. At that time, we discussed your role regarding the Ramsey case. I was clear in my direction to you that we would follow up leads from law enforcement and other credible sources that had indicia of reliability. That decision was based upon history that involved Chief Investigator Bennett having to spend an inordinate amount of time responding to leads from marginal at best. We made a deliberate decision to put our investigatory priorities on recent cases. You obviously disregarded my direction. You proceeded without my approval and without consulting with me. You are clearly acting outside of your defined role.

When you departed from the employment of the Boulder District Attorney's Office in March of 2006, your wall as an investigator with this office terminated. The Ramsey case is still under my control. You have continued to proceed outside the limits of your jurisdiction. It appears that you have utilized confidential information that should legally have remained under the control of my office. This is quite concerning to me and tonight management staff to place their trust in your professionalism.

I am going to address your presentation although it galls me to respond to what I consider to be an abuse of authority. Chief investigator Tom Bennett, first but just assistant district attorney Peter Maguire, assistant attorney Bill Nagel and myself are in agreement, reached independently, as to the value of your theory. We are in agreement that the first portion of your presentation is based on the Boulder Police Department’s Case Summary and facts that have been previously documented and debated. There is nothing new in terms of evidence in this presentation. The last quarter of your PowerPoint presentation which is the final 70+ frames are not based on facts supported by evidence. Your theory is based upon conjecture, which at times approaches pure flights of fantasy. Your 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.

I must repeat, there is no substantive basis to your theory. It is almost pure speculation as to what could've happened rather than evidence as to what did happen.

You requested in your communication of January 5 that your presentation be shared with certain entities in law enforcement. It will not be shared with them. We will not be part of this mockery you are trying to market. We take our jobs and our role with regard to this case seriously. When and if we have a serious suspect based upon substantial evidence, we will work closely with all appropriate agencies. This is not that time.

I am requesting the return forthwith any and all information you obtained while under the employment of the Boulder District Attorney's Office as it applies to the Ramsey investigation. You were not granted permission to remove any such information from this office. This includes all reports, documents, photographs, CDs or other materials and anything prepared using such documents.

Finally, I need to remind you that as of the date of your resignation from the Boulder District Attorney's Office, you're no longer protected by any immunity from civil litigation based on your conduct as investigator. I recommend that you discuss your unauthorized activities with the City of Telluride Risk Management Office to determine what if any liability your current employer might have as a result of your activities.

Mary T. Lacy

District Attorney

Twentieth Judicial District

Cc: Attorney General John Suthers

       Deputy Attorney General Jeanne Smith

[jbrunsolved]

Dr. Werner Spitz Concludes: Brother Killed JonBenet Ramsey. (He was sued).

A team of investigators, including Dr. Spitz, 89, a retired Wayne State University professor and world-renowned forensic pathologist, examined evidence in the 1996 slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey and concluded Monday night that brother Burke did it.

The conclusion came on the CBS docu-series "The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey." 

CBS Detroit reports:

On Monday night’s premiere of the series “The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey,” Spitz forwarded a theory that Ramsey was killed by a heavy flashlight that was seen in crime scene photographs on the family’s kitchen counter top the next day. He showed through demonstrations on the CBS special that the fatal injury to the 6-year-old’s skull matched the flashlight’s outer rim, though no DNA was ever discovered on the device.  

The team included retired FBI profiler Jim Clemente and criminal behavioral analyst Laura Richards.

The team believes the parents concocted a story to cover for their son. 

“If you really, really use your free time to think about this case, you cannot come to a different conclusion,” Spitz told CBS Detroit. “It’s the boy who did it, whether he was jealous, or mentally unfit or something … I don’t know the why, I’m not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here. And the parents changed the scene to make it look like something it wasn’t."

x

[jbrunsolved]

lin wood interview with westworld Part Two

Obviously, those efforts on my part failed. CBS abandoned all of its journalistic principles in airing this show, and I think CBS will have to pay a severe penalty in terms of monetary damages for what it's done to this young man.

I've been practicing law for many years, and in the last twenty years, since the Richard Jewell case, I have handled a number of high-profile, public-figure-plaintiffs libel cases, and I also clearly keep up with the area in terms of other cases. I've never seen a case this egregious. And for it to have occurred under the CBS brand, with its reputation for integrity, makes the defamation and the accusation that much more egregious. This young man will live the rest of his life with people going onto Google and finding headlines saying, "CBS proved Burke Ramsey killed his sister." CBS. It's unbelievable.

When was the last time you communicated with CBS?

After the series, I sent a demand for litigation hold to CBS — which is a demand that they preserve all documentary evidence, including electronic evidence, related to the broadcast. I followed up with another letter — a formal retraction demand, which under California law must be sent within twenty days of the broadcast. California law gives CBS thirty days to correct.

Related

West Colfax Gets $250,000 to Counter Rising Homelessness, Crime Issues

I have no expectations that CBS is going to see the light and correct its error. I've never found media defendants to be that smart. So I would expect a lawsuit will be filed at the end of October or the beginning of November.

So the only reason you went forward with the current lawsuit against Dr. Spitz but didn't file concurrently against CBS is because of the California law requiring what is essentially a waiting period?

Correct. Michigan law only provides that you must allow a reasonable time period, which has been defined as being as short as five-plus days. So a retraction demand was sent to Werner Spitz. His lawyer did write me and told me that he had no interest in retracting, so we went ahead and prepared the lawsuit against him — and we did not have the time constraints we have in California. That explains why Spitz was filed first. It doesn't mean to give him any greater role in the defamation. But what Spitz did do — Spitz gave an interview to CBS Detroit and explicitly made the accusations, directly as a statement of fact, that Burke killed JonBenét. That's a separate accusation beyond his role in the CBS docuseries. So I was able, under law, to get that lawsuit filed, but I would have sued him separately for that interview anyway. He'll also be a party to the CBS case for defamation arising out of the docuseries itself.

There's been speculation that your comments about a planned lawsuit wouldn't result in an actual filing because of concern that the discovery process would result in the release of material the Ramsey family wouldn't be comfortable putting out in public. Was that ever a consideration?

Related

Police Across Colorado Ticketing Expired Plates This Week

The idea that there would be any hesitation in suing over this case because of fear of the discovery process is utter nonsense. I have already filed and successfully pursued three cases on behalf of Burke Ramsey, all those years ago. I have also filed defendant cases for John and Patsy Ramsey. They have been deposed. There is absolutely no concern whatsoever in engaging fully in the discovery process.

Discovery in this case is going to support my client's position. Because his position is based on fact and evidence. On the other hand, discovery is going to expose Dr. Spitz in his case and CBS in its case. It's going to expose the utter lack of evidentiary foundation for the accusations against Burke Ramsey. And it's going to, I believe, prove by clear and convincing evidence that this accusation was manufactured in order to produce big ratings during September sweeps and get the CBS docuseries off to a good start with an intent to avoid CBS's internal standards. That's because they did not allow this broadcast to be produced by 48 Hours. 48 Hours is the arm of CBS that produces true-crime programs in what might be generally described as the entertainment area. 48 Hours has done at least three shows on the JonBenét Ramsey case. They were, in fact, supposed to produce the twentieth-anniversary segment. But it was pulled by CBS Entertainment to give the show to Critical Content. And in so doing, it allowed the show to be produced outside CBS's internal standards. They were allowed to have greater freedom to make this false accusation against Burke, which no other show has made against this young man.

Is it your hope, since there are still more than two months before the twenty-year mark of this crime, that the lawsuits will dissuade other producers or news agencies from going down this particular path?

I want to be diplomatic, okay? In my view, only a damned fool would accuse Burke Ramsey of the murder of his sister. I am not in the business of chilling speech. I am in the business of holding entities and individuals accountable for false accusations. And I will certainly aggressively do so if anyone makes this same accusation against this young man.

Related

Denver Woman Gets Probation, Community Service for Attack Against Young Skateboarders

I can't tell you in strong enough words: There is absolutely not one iota of physical evidence that links this young man to the murder of his sister.... It's not even a matter of exonerating him. It shows that he is not even a legitimate suspect, as acknowledged by law enforcement authorities publicly in 1998 and 1999. So in order to accuse this young man, you've either got to intentionally misrepresent the evidence, intentionally ignore the evidence, or manufacture evidence to come up with the sensational, for-profit headline that Burke Ramsey was somehow involved in the murder of his sister.

I call it outrageous, but it's really hard to find the right word to adequately describe CBS and any other member of the responsible media who would make this type of accusation against this young man. For the past twenty years, since age nine, Burke Ramsey has lived with the burdens of his sister being murdered, his mother and father accused periodically in national media frenzies, and being investigated — his parents being investigated for the murder, and his mother dying. This young man has had a lot on his shoulders this past twenty years. And yet he has been able to successfully maintain his private life. He's a good, fine young man, a graduate of college, gainfully employed and trying to live as normal a life as he possibly can under these extraordinary circumstances. And for CBS to now add to that young man's burdens.... The fact is, he'll live the rest of his life knowing that people Googling him will see that he has been falsely been accused of murder, to see that he has been falsely portrayed as a killer since age nine. That will impact every business and social relationship this young man will ever engage in.

It is unconscionable conduct that CBS would openly defy the findings of legitimate law enforcement authorities, would ignore actual evidence in the case, would manufacture evidence, and would go out and pay money to these television expert whores such as Werner Spitz and Henry Lee, to come onto their air to give some kind of feigned credibility to these false accusations.

If you can't tell how pissed off I am, I am not apparently able to adequately express myself. I didn't fall off the truck yesterday. I've been around the block with some of the largest media companies in the country in significant libel cases. This one is, among those I've represented, the most egregious libel case I've ever seen. I can't imagine what a judge or a jury's reaction would be. I think I know. I think I got a taste of it in the earlier cases I filed on behalf of Burke. But those defendants had the good sense to promptly settle their cases with Burke and not repeat the foolishness, the unlawful accusations.

Related

Aurora Police Share Details About Gang in Viral Video: One Arrested, Five Wanted

You'll notice that I sued Spitz for $150 million. It's not by coincidence that was the verdict in the Hulk Hogan-versus-Gawker case. And that message was intentional. Let me assure, the CBS case is going to be for a hell of a lot more than $150 million.

Will you take similar actions if news organizations come forward and accuse John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey should they definitively say one or both of them did it?

Patsy Ramsey — this is one of the tragedies of our legal system. Once Patsy Ramsey died, any cause of action for future defamation expired, was lost, at her death. In other words, a lawsuit cannot be brought by someone's estate for defamation. So if a member of the credible mainstream media wants to make an accusation against Patsy, despite the public exoneration from the Boulder District Attorney's Office, I can't bring action against them. I wish I could. If I could, I would. But I cannot.

If someone accuses John Ramsey, that's a different story. I'm not going to sit idly by and let John Ramsey be falsely accused of the murder of his daughter. Nor am I going to sit by and let John Ramsey be accused of an unlawful cover-up of his daughter's murder, which would include the accusation that John Ramsey lied to police. So CBS is likely going to be on the other end of a lawsuit in the near future filed by John Ramsey. Because the docuseries clearly accuses John Ramsey of a cover-up of this false accusation related to Burke killing his sister. At least for the present time, the focus will be on the case filed by Burke. But at some point in the foreseeable future, John Ramsey will also file a lawsuit against CBS.

Related

"Boyz in Aurora": Rapper Writes Response to Donald Trump

I do want to say this. I understand the public's need to know. And I understand the public's curiosity and interest in the JonBenét Ramsey case. And I have a healthy respect for the First Amendment when it is properly exercised. So I don't mean to discourage a robust discussion of the facts of this case and the evidence in this case. I would encourage it to the extent that it remains a matter of public interest. What I will not encourage and I will not tolerate is a media individual or a media entity, in discussing the evidence, taking the additional step of accusing Burke Ramsey of murdering his sister, because there is no evidence to support that accusation. Zero evidence. And it defies the public statements by law enforcement about this young man not even being a possible suspect in this case. So talk about the case. Talk about it accurately. Debate the evidence. But that doesn't require, nor does it justify, accusing an individual like Burke Ramsey, or even his father, John Ramsey, when we know as a matter of fact that Burke has never been considered a suspect and John Ramsey has been exonerated.

If there was any evidence to base a charge against John Ramsey over these twenty years, that charge would have been made.

As we know, a grand jury was ready to indict John Ramsey at one point.

Be careful when you talk about what the grand jury was ready to do. I've seen the recommendation of the grand jury, and it certainly didn't involve Burke Ramsey. It talked about assisting someone in the first-degree charge of murder. That wouldn't apply to Burke.

Related

Strip Search: After Regaining Power, Denver Labor Issues First Subpoena

A district attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Now, that grand jury sat for eighteen months. What we don't know are all the other recommendations that were submitted to that grand jury by the district attorney's office. I'm sure, if you saw them, that you would find things that said Patsy Ramsey should be charged with first-degree homicide. They obviously answered no, or they didn't answer. So those recommendations themselves are internally confusing, if not contradictory. I suspect you had a grand jury that was so confused after eighteen months of being pushed hard by the Boulder police to make some recommendation that it finally came up with these nonsensical, contradictory recommendations that Alex Hunter, in the proper exercise of his prosecutorial duty, knew he could never sustain beyond a reasonable doubt. And he did the right thing by not bringing the charge.

Guilt or innocence is not determined by a grand jury recommendation. And it certainly is not determined when that recommendation is rejected by the district attorney's office. It doesn't take much to make out a prima facie case. It takes a lot to make out a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is no evidence that would support that charge against John and Patsy.

I've always said it would be nice if the entire grand jury procedure was released to the public. All of the testimony. All of the recommendations submitted to the grand jury. When you pull out a small piece of a puzzle developed over eighteen months, it doesn't give you the context to understand what that one piece of the puzzle really means and where it fits. Somebody decided to leak that, and then it was affirmed by a judge that it should be released. They should have released the whole thing. I have long advocated, on behalf of the Ramsey family, that all of the evidence should come out, all of the testimony given to the grand jury, so the public can draw its only conclusions. Put the evidence out there, and people can look at the real evidence. The only conclusions that have been drawn from the real evidence so far is that John and Patsy Ramsey have been exonerated by the district attorney based on DNA evidence, and it was deemed in 1998 and 1999 that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect. So I don't have any fear of people drawing their own conclusions as long as they are doing it based on a full and accurate representation of the evidence. It's the misinformed accusations, the uninformed accusations, the speculative accusations for profit that get my attention when it comes to filing lawsuits against individuals or entities.

There are many observers out there who would dispute your use of the word "exonerated" when it comes to what the district attorney's office said about John and Patsy Ramsey. Tell me why "exonerated" is the right word from your perspective.

Related

Teenage LoDo Shooter Pleads Guilty to Attempted Murder

Don't make it my word. Go back to what the district attorney's office said. They said going forward, the Ramseys would be treated as victims, because that's what they are. That's their role in this case. An apology was issued to the family for the years of accusations and media coverage they'd had to endure. That 2008 statement by Mary Lacy cannot be reasonably interpreted as anything other than a public and official exoneration.

Now, can people disagree with Mary Lacy? Yes, provided those people are basing their disagreement of an informed review of the accurate evidence.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, though between the Ramsey case and the Jewell case, I sometimes feel as if I was a quasi-criminal lawyer. But what I've learned, which I think is consistent with common sense — and I think most people who rushed to accuse the Ramseys in this case literally checked common sense at the door — but what I can say is that we know as a matter of fact under the actual evidence that DNA, likely saliva, not touch DNA, was found in the blood spot in the crotch of JonBenét's underwear. And that DNA was found under her fingernails. We know that DNA was not Ramsey [DNA]. The police department knew that within a couple weeks of the murder, but didn't bother to report it to the district attorney's office for months. But we know that the markers were sufficient in the underwear to be certified for the CODIS database. And while the fingernail DNA didn't have enough markers for the database, the markers that were discovered were consistent with the DNA found in her underwear.

Then, along in 2008, with the new technology of touch DNA, it was found that there was DNA found on both sides of the waistband of her pajama bottoms. That DNA is tested and guess what: It matches the DNA found in her underwear, which was consistent with the DNA found under her fingernails. No legitimate law enforcement individual would ever look for an innocent explanation of foreign DNA found on the body of a murder victim. The fact that the Boulder Police Department attempted to try to justify the DNA somehow being there from the manufacturing process in Asia is laughable. It defies any legitimate use of DNA evidence connected with a crime.

So what do you have? You have evidence that does not support a charge against the family. You have DNA evidence found in three areas on the body of the victim that matches. You find the person's DNA, you match the DNA to an individual. One and one equals two. You're going to solve this murder. This is a DNA case, and only those people who have a longstanding conviction that the Ramseys were involved, only those people obsessed with Ramsey guilt, will try to explain away the clear, hard evidence that exonerates the family.

Unfortunately, many of the opinions that were shaped in this case were shaped early. And then it becomes what's called confirmation bias, where you view everything through the prism of what belief you had previously formed. The public was deceived in this case, intentionally by the Boulder Police Department leaking false and accusatory information to the media about this family. We know that as a matter of sworn testimony.

So do I understand that there are people who want to twist Mary Lacy's public exoneration into something other than what it clearly was? Yes. Do I understand that people want to continue to defy the evidence and make some accusation against the Ramseys? I understand that, too, because the false information leaked by the police was so overwhelmingly against this family that there were conclusions drawn by the public that are very, very difficult to change. I'm sure there are still people who continue to believe that Richard Jewell bombed the Olympics even though Eric Rudolph pled guilty to the crime. That's what happens, because the whisper of innocence never overcomes the shout of guilt.

I understand it. But when it comes to someone with credibility in the media making the accusation, I'm going to deal with it. And I'm going to teach them a legal lesson they will not forget.

[jbrunsolved]

L. wood excerpt to Westword

Westword: Why have you decided to file suit in this case, particularly given that over the course of twenty years, lots of people have made wild accusations against members of the Ramsey family?

Lin Wood: Since 1999 and 2000, when I successfully suedStar magazine, the New York Post and Court TV for falsely accusing Burke Ramsey of the death of JonBenét, no member of the mainstream media or even the tabloid media has dared to make that accusation against this young man again. He was officially and publicly cleared — being described as not being a suspect or a possible suspect by the Boulder Police Department in May of 1998 and the Boulder District Attorney's Office in May of 1999. And there has been no evidence developed in the case since then other than DNA evidence developed in 2008 that was used by then-district attorney Mary Lacy to exonerate the entire family. Burke had already been exonerated. So other than, as you say, wild accusations that have floated around in the Internet world over the last twenty years, no credible attack has ever been made against Burke Ramsey since the foolishness in 1999 and 2000.

Jim Kolar's book was published a few years ago. It was self-published. It had no credibility. No mainstream publisher would touch it. I know for a fact that Jim Kolar approached a number of members of the mainstream media in New York seeking interviews to publicize the book, and they refused to interview him. They refused any attempt to give publicity or credibility to his book, Foreign Faction. And that book is the cornerstone of the CBS docuseries that was recently broadcast. So while Jim Kolar was not worth a lawsuit a few years ago, because I did not feel he had any credibility and I did not want to give him the appearance of credibility that would publicize his book by filing a lawsuit against him, obviously things have changed now, because CBS used this book as part of its script for the docuseries.

ou've probably seen me quoted as saying this series was a fraud. There was no new investigation by a new team of experts. This was a scripted show, primarily off of Jim Kolar's book

Did you know in advance of the CBS docuseries' airing that this was going to be a theme? And did you reach out in any way to producers to try to present a different point of view or to let them know that litigation would be forthcoming if they followed that particular route?

The answer is yes to both questions. I had received information in the early part of the summer that CBS intended to air a docuseries based on true crime, clearly trying to build on the success about the true-crime series about O.J. Simpson and the program The Making of a Murderer. And I understood they were going to be relying on Jim Kolar's theories. So I was relatively confident they were going to make the mistake of using Burke Ramsey. And I did reach out to CBS before the broadcast, and I did inform them that if they did in fact make those accusations against Burke, a lawsuit would be filed. Which should come as no surprise to them.

I had agreed for Burke to be interviewed by Dr. Phil McGraw. And that was because I understood the accusations were likely going to be made, and I felt like it had reached the point where Burke, who has been silent for the last twenty years and has not given any interviews, should exercise what the law refers to as his right of reasonable response. I had also hoped that good judgment would prevail and CBS might even at the last minute reconsider the error of its ways when Burke gave the interview, which also discussed a lot of evidence in the case. I hoped that CBS might reconsider and not make the accusations against Burke.

x

[jbrunsolved]

Video clip - L. Wood in court on behalf of Burke

[jbrunsolved]

Ramsey v CBS Complaint (Burke)

N. Defendants Pronouncement that Burke Killed JonBenét

After Defendants presented the limited “evidence” they could muster against Burke, Defendants announced the conclusion of their “complete reinvestigation” in rapid-fire succession.

The inescapable false and defamatory conclusion of this final segment is that Burke killed JonBenét.

Defendants began this segment with Clemente proclaiming their goal: Now that we’ve been investigating for months, we’ve been working together as a team, I think we need to actually try to piece together everything that happened. Anybody who does a legitimate investigation will look at all the evidence and see where that evidence takes you. So we have to test every theory and the ones that remain, are the ones that are supported by the evidence.

Defendants first agreed quickly and with little examination—correctly—that neither John or Patsy killed JonBenét.

Defendants then declared that there was no intruder: “I don’t think the evidence that stands up to scientific or behavioral scrutiny indicates that somebody came in from outsidethat home and killed JonBenét.”

Defendants falsely attacked the intruder theory by proclaiming “that the DNA evidence in this case is totally erroneous” and there is “really no sexual assault here.”

Richards then invited Kolar to share what he believes happened that night, as though she did not already know: “James, I’m interested to know what exactly you think happened in the house that night.”

Kolar then stated the grand accusation against Burke—the same one from Foreign Faction:

My hypothesis was that I think the Ramseys came home around 9:30, 10:00 o’clock. I think JonBenét was asleep. I think John did carry her upstairs. Patsy remained downstairs with Burke and served him the tea and the pineapple. I think that accounts for the physical evidence as well as the latent prints. Then I think she got JonBenét up to make sure she used the toilet so she didn’t wet the bed that night. JonBenét was up, she may or may not have brushed her teeth. That stuff was out on the counter. And then I think she was up and awake enough, but she maybe was still hungry and went downstairs. In the meantime, Patsy continued packing for the Michigan trip. I think if Burke was upset about circumstances or Christmas presents, he probably would’ve been upset about her trying to snag a piece of pineapple. Out of anger he may have struck her with that flashlight.

Without further discussion, the remaining five Pseudo-Experts unanimously agreed with Kolar’s accusation that Burke killed JonBenét with the Flashlight over a piece of pineapple: Spitz: “I think we all agree on that.” Clemente: “Yeah.

Fitzgerald: “Yes.” Richards: “Absolutely.” Lee: “Sure, yeah, I agree with that.” Spitz: “Okay.”

As Kolar sets forth Defendants’ accusation, the Documentary flashes fictional reenactments designed to bolster and support Defendants’ false accusations.

Defendants openly and falsely accused Burke of fatally bashing JonBenét over the head with the Flashlight. And Defendants offered no other alternative for who may have murdered JonBenét. To the contrary, Defendants attempted to negate all other possibilities.

Consistent with their marketing, Defendants portrayed that they “solved it.”

Defendants then provide a motive for John and Patsy for a cover-up: “[Patsy] said she would have nothing left to live for if she lost Burke.”

Defendants then openly conclude, without clearly explaining any connection between John and Patsy and the cover-up, that John and Patsy covered up Burke’s crime: Mixed motives make it pretty clear that both parents are involved. . . . And I think that’s what we have here in the language utilized as well as the crime scene itself, the body and everything else. Within an hour of this crime being committed, there’s probably a cover-up starting with whatever they did to the body and certainly the writing of this letter, the 9-1-1 call, everything that happened later. But I don’t think Burke was involved in the cover-up.

But as far as the cover-up itself, I would say primarily, it’s John and Patsy who were involved in that. I think the most likely probability is that adults in that family, John and Patsy Ramsey—and this is consistent with what the grand jury wanted to indict them for—staged this to look like a monster predator had come in their house and killed their daughter. It’s my opinion that the Ramsey family did not want law enforcement to resolve this case and that’s why it remains unsolved.

100% agree. . . . I think in the end this was about two parents [who] deeply cared for the daughter they lost and wanted to protect the child they had remaining.

Defendants’ false accusation against Burke was accepted as true by millions of viewers who were convinced that it was based on a legitimate reinvestigation by legitimate experts and based on truthful and complete information broadcast by CBS.

The viewers did not know that the Documentary was a purposeful fraud, built around Kolar’s Burke-did-it accusation. The Documentary was not a “complete reinvestigation” of JonBenét’s murder by a panel of seven independent “experts.” It was a fraudulent charade that merely repackaged Kolar’s false accusations and decades of debunked theories in a manner intended to deceive the viewers into believing that the information was real. It was all a lie. But a lie that will haunt and harm Burke for the rest of his natural life.

[jbrunsolved]

Ramseys v CBS Complaint - Section about the pineapple theory.

M. Defendants Set the Stage for Their Preposterous Theory that Burke Killed JonBenét for Taking His Pineapple

Defendants absurdly claim that Burke knew that the pineapple is the smoking gun for this crime, and that he then successfully deceived law enforcement as to his knowledge.

The false and defamatory gist of this section is that Burke killed JonBenét after becoming enraged when she took a piece of his pineapple without asking, lied to investigators, and was complicit in the cover-up of JonBenét’s death.

Defendants attempt to support this preconceived gist by reviewing pre-selected excerpts from Burke’s interview with Boulder PD Detective Schuler eighteen months after JonBenét’s death (the “Schuler Interview”).

Defendants use the Schuler Interview to set the stage for their knowingly false, defamatory, and purely speculative accusation that Burke killed JonBenét over a piece of pineapple and then stabbed her with his toy train track. These theories are taken straight from Foreign Faction. See, e.g., pp. 65, 343, 384-385.

Defendants go so far as to make the inherently improbable assertion that during the Schuler Interview, Burke is “aware that that piece of pineapple in JonBenét’s stomach actually creates a major problem in terms of the timeline of when and how she was killed.”

Defendants knowingly fail to disclose that they have no basis whatsoever to assert that Burke, at eleven-years-old, is playing a high-stakes game of cat and mouse with Detective Schuler.

In this segment, Defendants continue to cast a shadow over Burke’s alleged improper behavior during interviews.

For instance, Clemente claims that Burke is “acting like a smart aleck here, like I’m smart and I’m proud of myself.” Clemente’s knowingly false and defamatory implication is that Burke is proud of himself for outsmarting law enforcement by hiding that he killed JonBenét.

Clemente also falsely accuses Burke of deception because he “oversell[s]” when he states “I always sleep really deeply and I can never hear anything.”

Defendants then use two topics raised by Detective Schuler as a springboard for two key aspects of their version of events: the purported pineapple in JonBenét’s lower intestine and Burke’s toy train track.

For instance, Defendants show an excerpt of Burke responding yes to Detective Schuler’s question about JonBenét liking pineapple, and then Defendants pounce. Defendants make the false and defamatory accusation that Burke lost his temper and bludgeoned JonBenét with a flashlight because she at a piece of his pineapple.

Defendants then preface their wildly false and speculative conclusion by stating that the pineapple issue “might look quite innocuous and inconsequential but it also tells us a lot about what probably went on” that night.

Defendants knowingly and falsely claim that the pineapple “gives us a possible timeline,” because “the pineapple was ingested subsequently” to the Ramseys returning homefrom dinner at the Whites.

Defendants conjecture is particularly far reaching in this segment. Spitz extrapolates from his “three children” in order to accuse Burke of killing JonBenét: Clemente: But it’s certainly reasonable to believe that JonBenét may have snatched one piece. Spitz: Right, directly with her fingers. For estimating time of death, this is important. Clemente: Isn’t it possible that JonBenét came down and saw that Burke was eating this, and took one piece? She didn’t touch the bowl, she didn’t touch the spoon— Spitz: You know, I have three grandchildren myself. Kids will do that. They’ll go by and pick out a piece with their fingers.

To convince their audience that their rampant speculation is accurate, Defendants splice in a clip of a blonde girl stealing a piece of pineapple from a young boy, who, in turn, violently grabs the girl by the wrist.

Upon information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge and failed to disclose that a Boulder PD analysis after the autopsy determined that JonBenét’s small intestine had the remnants cherries, grapes, and pineapple—common fruit cocktail ingredients. Yet, because the presence of cherries and grapes completely undermines Defendants’ series of events, Defendants consciously fail to share their knowledge with the viewer. Instead, Spitz merely asks “Did the pathology report indicate what the pineapple looked like, or the gastric contents?”

Further, Spitz is aware that the presence of the fruit cocktail in JonBenét’s stomach does not establish a concrete timeline from which investigators may glean her time of death, and that the minimum amount of time it would require for the fruit to get to JonBenét’s lower intestine undermines the theory that it “started the cascade of the rest of events that happened on the day she died.”

Defendants also knowingly failed to disclose that the amount of time it would have taken the pineapple to travel to JonBenét’s small intestine is fundamentally inconsistent with the Burke-did-it accusation.

Defendants then note that while Burke and Patsy’s fingertips are on the bowl of pineapple, JonBenét’s are not. This is explainable, Defendants speculate, because she must have only taken “one piece” but “didn’t touch the bowl” or “touch the spoon.”

Defendants have no factual basis for speculating that JonBenét took a piece of Burke’s pineapple, much less that her fingerprints are not present on Defendants’ purported smoking gun because she only “snatched one piece.”

The fact JonBenét’s fingerprints are not on the bowl of pineapple or the spoon is actually strong evidence that she did not eat the pineapple from the bowl.

Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there was more than one piece of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.

Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there was more than one type of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.

Defendants next use a clip of Burke affirming that he had an electric train set to Schuler as an opportunity to replace the stun gun with Burke’s toy train. “It was an incredible discovery, to find a toy in the house that could have been responsible for these injuries. . . . An adult would have been calling 9-1-1 for an ambulance.”

Pseudo-Expert Kolar then repeats his entirely speculative accusation, discussed above, that Burke used one of his train toys to inflict the supposed stun gun injuries on JonBenét. See Foreign Faction, pp. 384-385

[jbrunsolved]

PATSY DID NOT DO IT!

why people think Patsy did it (reddit comment that covers the gist)

People ignore it because Patsy wrote the Ransom Letter. Patsy was wearing the same clothes from the night before when the police arrived. Patsy’s sweater fiber’s were found in the knotted cord around JBRs neck. Patsy’s paintbrush was wrapped around JBR’s neck. Patsy’s notepad and Patsy’s pen were used to write the Ransom Letter. Patsy was seen physically punishing JBR in the bathroom for bed-wetting on more than one occasion. Patsy was clearly involved in the evening’s events. It was not an Intruder. The Intruder theory was put forward by the Ramsey’s and their Investigator, Lou Smitz. The Intruder theory was a concoction made up to distract from the fact that Patsy killed JonBenet.

[jbrunsolved]

BDI's and the excrement issue

via reddit.

A post about excrement

I have come to the conclusion that some of you really enjoy talking about shit- so I made a post about it.

There is only one incident relayed by a previous disgruntled housekeeper involving poop smears potentially left by Burke. Here’s the statement Geraldine supposedly made:

”I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny–housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess”. (Kolar)

This is the ONLY event involving smeared feces and could’ve easily been a young child’s solution to no toilet paper. If you must associate it with a child acting out, why is it never suggested that it could be due to a child watching their mother battle stage 4 cancer?

In an attempt to push his ‘scatological SBP’ theory, Kolar goes on to state:

”CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke”.

Below is a portion of Patsy’s interview with the police where they discuss the pants that were turned inside out and found on JonBenet’s bedroom floor:

TOM HANEY: How about 378? PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her pants. TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular pants, when she would have worn those last? PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably recently because they are dropped in the middle of the floor, but I don't remember exactly. TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out. PATSY RAMSEY: Right. TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It appears they are stained. PATSY RAMSEY: Right. TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet had a problem with? PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job. TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed to just bed wetting? PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

To again bolster his SBP theory, Kolar states:

”Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenét’s body”.

Kolar mentions this box of chocolates but has never included a source or CSI’s actual findings. The box of candy is not listed on any of the available lab reports. He only states what supposedly one person thought they saw. What’s more likely- melted chocolate from children eating a box of chocolates or poop? It’s just ridiculous to assume anything else... unless there’s an actual report stating otherwise.

In an attempt to give even more credence to his theory, Kolar says the following:

”As noted previously, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh had also mentioned finding fecal material in JonBenét’s bed sheets. It raised the question as to who may have been responsible for the deposit of that material in her bed–had it been JonBenét or was it Burke?”

(So ridiculous)

When Linda told police about JonBenet wetting the bed, she added this:

”She told the police that the problem also extended to JonBenét soiling the bed, and recalled once finding fecal matter the size of a grapefruit on the sheet”. (Thomas)

Linda clearly stated it was JonBenet who had an accident in her bed and not Burke. Her having an accident has been attributed to a bout of diarrhea while sick. Why Kolar would even suggest that Burke crawled into JonBenet’s bed and took a shit is just plain stupid and the fact that so many buy into his nonsense is frankly, kind of sad.

Additionally, I’d like to add the following for all of you that carry on about Burke’s supposed ‘mental health issues’. One of Kolar’s main talking points suggesting potential behavior problems with Burke is finding out that Patsy’s mother bought her the following books.

Kolar says:

”I had also found it interesting that the Paughs had reportedly purchased several books on childhood behavior for the Ramsey family. The titles of the books were intriguing: ‘The Hurried Child–Growing Up Too Fast’, by David Elkind; ‘Children at Risk’, by Dobson / Bruer and ‘Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong’, by Kilpatrick.

”When exploring the nature of the content of these three books, I wondered what might have been taking place in the home that prompted the grandparents to purchase these types of childhood behavioral books for the family.”

Later on, he once again references them stating:

”could have been an underlying reason for the grandparent’s purchase of the childhood behavioral books discussed previously.”

Here are the actual descriptions of each book which can be found on Amazon:

”The Hurried Child–Growing Up Too Fast”, by David Elkind

With the first two editions of this landmark work, Dr. David Elkind eloquently called our attention to the dangers of exposing our children to overwhelming pressures, pressures that can lead to a wide range of childhood and teenage crises. Internationally recognized as the voice of reason and compassion, Dr. Elkind showed that in blurring the boundaries of what is age appropriate, by expecting-or imposing-too much too soon, we force our kids to grow up far too fast. In the two decades since this groundbreaking book first appeared, we have compounded the problem, inadvertently stepping up the assault on childhood in the media, in schools, and at home. Taking a detailed, up-to-the-minute look at the world of today's children and teens in terms of the Internet, classroom culture, school violence, movies, television, and a growing societal incivility, Dr. Elkind shows a whole new generation of parents where hurrying occurs and why and what we can do about it.

”Children at Risk”, Dobson / Bruer

In this hard-hitting and empowering book, James Dobson and Gary Bauer expose the cultural forces endangering today's children and show what you can do to defend your family, your faith and your traditional values. A national bestseller revised and expanded for even more knowledge to protect your most precious gift-your children.

”Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong” by Kilpatrick

A hard-hitting and controversial book, WHY JOHNNY CAN'T TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG will not only open eyes but change minds. America today suffers from unprecedented rates of teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, suicide, and violence. Most of the programs intended to deal with these problems have failed because, according to William Kilpatrick, schools and parents have abandoned the moral teaching they once provided. In WHY JOHNNY CAN'T TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG, Kilpatrick shows how we can correct this problem by providing our youngsters with the stories, models, and inspirations they need in order to lead good lives. He also encourages parents to read to their children and provides an annotated guide to more than 120 books for children and young adults.

These are parenting books regarding opinions on how to properly raise your child… Something a parent who wants the best for their children would read! They are clearly not ‘behavioral books’. Kolar either did not explore the nature of them as he claimed to or, is once again purposely misleading the reader.

[jbrunsolved]

Books published