Page 6 of 35 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 417
  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Wow. I'm back b/c I just found a blurb for the book on the Denver Hose website, which I am stuck on today b/c of the shooting in Aurora (shooter's apartment is about 10 minutes away by car from my old neighborhood). I came here IMMEDIATELY to find out what is going on. I pray that this will really bring the truth to light.

    It looks, from just a quick skim of this thread, that the suspicion might end up on Burke after all.

    Glad you all are still here.
    Good to see you, heymom. You've been missed.

    I don't know what I'll think by the end of the book. But I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Burke is completely innocent in all this, his parents managed to make him a suspect for life with their behavior.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Oh, thanks for sharing that. You can be our official comparison guide, as I've been thinking I'm going to have to re-read Thomas' book after this one. I know Thomas wrote about a lot of this, as well.

    Honestly, it's the small details that Kolar includes that are so important. Also, a lot has happened since Thomas wrote his book.

    I will say that there is so much which is shocking...I've kind of thrown my hands up thinking people will really just have to read the book to get it all.
    I'm quite happy to be the official comparison guide

    It's very interesting to read the Steve Thomas book completely cold, as it were. I hadn't really read anything about the case in a couple of years - in fact, probably since that last visit I made here in October 2010 just before my daughter was born. When I originally got the book, I was visiting this forum regularly and reading a lot about the case. I knew so much about it and I knew what was coming, I suppose. Now that I'm reading it fresh I realise there is so much that I have forgotten.

  3. #63

    Default

    In the chapter "Lou Smit for the Defense" Kolar says this:

    Page 109:

    Smit discounted observations made by the investigators and CSIs who had processed the scene shortly after the murder: the sheets on JonBenet's bed reeked of urine.
    Kolar had mentioned this earlier in the book, as well.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brenk View Post
    I haven't had a chance to read any today, still on pg 151.
    But, to answer your question about changing my mind (so far)
    about Doug spending the night was, Barbara Fenie asking why
    Burke was still sleeping and it wasn't like him to be sleeping he's a early riser
    like Doug.

    So, I think if Doug was there that night the R's would have told the
    F's what the boys did.

    I don't think she would have brought it to everyones attention that it was unusual and not normal Burke still sleeping.

    I think Burke staying bed looked very suspicious.


    Sorry, if you thought I had read something else.
    brenk
    It just hit me what's been bothering me about this: Doug is the name of the Stine's son.

    Luke is the name of the Fernie's son.

    It's a simple mistake to make, as I looked up the passage you referred to and it only mentions Barbara Fernie's "son," but no name is used. Kolar doesn't use the names of children who aren't germane to the case, so far.

    Kolar doesn't mention the names of various people in this book when discussing peripheral elements, like people who were minor suspects at one time or another but cleared, only the circumstances.

    Edited to add: I found the Barb Fernie passage, page 87:

    Over the course of interview, conducted on January 1, 1997,
    Barb Fernie shared a concern that had raised a question for her.
    As things were developing in the house on the morning of
    December 26th, she had begun to ask if Burke had awakened
    yet. She was aware that like her son, Burke was an early riser
    and typically got up in the morning around 5:30 a.m. She and her
    husband had been at the house for a while, and like others,
    were beginning to wonder if Burke was sitting up in his bedroom,
    awake and alone, while all of the commotion was going on
    downstairs.

    She pointed out a discrepancy that created some additional
    concern for her. She told the investigators that Patsy Ramsey had
    told her on the morning of December 26th that she had just “given
    the ransom note to John,” after finding it on the spiral staircase.

    More importantly, however, Mrs. Fernie stated that she didn’t
    know Patsy had screamed out for her husband that morning.
    She apparently was under the impression, based on her conversation
    with Patsy on the morning of the kidnapping, that she had
    somehow just handed off the note to her husband. Several days
    later, it didn’t make sense to her that Burke would not have been
    awakened when Patsy screamed John’s name.

    Mrs. Fernie had been pondering the question: If John
    Ramsey had been able to hear Patsy scream from his bathroom on
    the 3rd floor of the house, why not Burke? His bedroom was just
    down the hall.
    We have heard in the past the Barb Fernie began to suspect Patsy after a time. I think this is based on Linda Arndt's testimony at her lawsuit trial, but I'd have to look that up to be sure. I just read it somewhere this morning...ACandyRose.com, probably.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Good to see you, heymom. You've been missed.

    I don't know what I'll think by the end of the book. But I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Burke is completely innocent in all this, his parents managed to make him a suspect for life with their behavior.
    Why thank you KK! You are too kind. I will be here now for the forseeable future. I wonder what is going to happen next. We will see, we will see. I expect lawsuits to be filed, if they haven't already. I'm sure Team Ramsey tried to keep the book from being published.

    That NE interview was horrendous! Patsy really was insane, at least by that point, if she wasn't before (but I kind of think she always was).

    Someone was abusing JonBenet, that's for sure. Was it John or Burke? Someone killed her. Or tried to kill her but didn't succeed. And someone decided to protect that person by making up a kidnap scenario. Frankly, I am in doubt that Patsy really would protect John, but she would protect Burke. And her own image.

    Imagine what would have happened if the police had been called when JonBenet was struck...She would have died, the person who hit her would have gone to jail and possibly prison. Patsy's world would have been destroyed. Couldn't have had that. But would John Ramsey have protected Burke? Would he have gone along with Patsy's plan? Who actually tightened that ligature?

    Maybe he would have - after all, his life would have also crumbled if the killer had gone to jail. Although in retrospect, his life crumbled anyway.

    It's all so sad.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Why thank you KK! You are too kind. I will be here now for the forseeable future. I wonder what is going to happen next. We will see, we will see. I expect lawsuits to be filed, if they haven't already. I'm sure Team Ramsey tried to keep the book from being published.

    That NE interview was horrendous! Patsy really was insane, at least by that point, if she wasn't before (but I kind of think she always was).

    Someone was abusing JonBenet, that's for sure. Was it John or Burke? Someone killed her. Or tried to kill her but didn't succeed. And someone decided to protect that person by making up a kidnap scenario. Frankly, I am in doubt that Patsy really would protect John, but she would protect Burke. And her own image.

    Imagine what would have happened if the police had been called when JonBenet was struck...She would have died, the person who hit her would have gone to jail and possibly prison. Patsy's world would have been destroyed. Couldn't have had that. But would John Ramsey have protected Burke? Would he have gone along with Patsy's plan? Who actually tightened that ligature?

    Maybe he would have - after all, his life would have also crumbled if the killer had gone to jail. Although in retrospect, his life crumbled anyway.

    It's all so sad.
    Good questions, all, heymom. Only John can answer them, though.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Good questions, all, heymom. Only John can answer them, though.
    And possibly Burke. I will be very interested to see how the book might affect the opinions of the people on this forum.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  8. #68

    Default

    I know you've been posting some of the DNA information from the book at WS, cynic, but I haven't seen that here?

    Here is a section on the fingernail DNA that's rather astonishing, considering how long we've debated this, clearly without the full picture:

    Pages 127, 128:

    Autopsy protocols in this type of investigation
    calls for the collection of fingernail scrapings
    that might help identify trace evidence that would link a suspect
    to the crime. In many instances, a struggling victim may have
    scratched a perpetrator during the assault, and skin cells or blood
    from the assailant is left beneath the fingernails.

    Scrapings from the fingernails of JonBenét’s hands revealed
    miniscule samples of DNA that belonged to two different male
    subjects, and one unidentified female. The samples were too small
    to identify their biological origin, i.e. blood or skin cells, and
    investigators came to theorize that the unknown DNA samples
    had been transferred from contaminated fingernail clippers used
    in the post-mortem examinations of other bodies processed
    through the morgue prior to her homicide.

    Investigators were able to obtain the DNA samples from eight
    (8) of the autopsy examinations that preceded that of JonBenét.
    These samples were analyzed, but none of these matched
    the unknown male and female samples collected from JonBenét’s
    fingernails. Perhaps more disappointing, was the fact that the
    unknown samples lacked sufficient identifying markers that
    permitted their entry into the state and national DNA databases.
    Kolar goes on to explain the database for DNA collection we know as CODIS. I learned some new things about that and how profiles qualify and the various categories there are.

    He also documents discovery of the DNA from the Bloomies and its history, and then puts it into perspective for us with these stats:

    This partial DNA profile has been entered into the
    ever-growing national database of felony offenders. Weekly comparisons
    are run against new, known samples of convicted and
    arrested offenders, and other unidentified forensic samples
    collected from unsolved crime scenes around the country.

    As of February 2012, this sample has been cross-checked
    against 10,560,300 known DNA offender profiles located in the
    CODIS data base.

    There are now 417,200 unknown forensic profiles in the
    database. Monster’s partial DNA profile is one of these, and thus
    far, the contributor of this genetic material has not been identified.

    Additionally, there have been 173,500 CODIS “hits” through
    February 2012, and this information has assisted law enforcement
    in over 166,700 criminal investigations.

    All things considered, DNA profiling is still thought to be
    a relatively new science and technology is continuously being
    developed and refined. The DNA database continues to grow in
    numbers, and by comparison, there are over 71,000,000 fingerprints
    on file with the FBI for criminal arrests that date back
    to the early 1920’s. Inked, or electronically scanned, fingerprints
    continue to be collected from nearly every person arrested in the
    United States, and are used as a primary means of identification by
    law enforcement agencies across the nation.

    It may only be a matter of time before DNA databases catch up
    to the number of fingerprints on file, and perhaps one day the
    DNA profile of an intruder who murdered JonBenét will be
    collected during an arrest, or from another crime scene.

    If we can one day identify him, then maybe we could
    also learn the identity of other purported co-conspirators who
    participated in this crime.
    If that last sentence leaves you scratching your head, remember he starts the book with a failed kidnapping by a theoretical foreign faction, with six members working in teams. If you listened to Tricia's podcast interview with Kolar, cynic and he discussed six different unidentified profiles taken from the crime scene. The upshot is that if one unidentified DNA profile equals one intruder, six must equal six intruders.

    So the infamous "touch" DNA is brought into perspective as far as being evidentiary proof of an "intruder."

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarifier View Post
    I'm quite happy to be the official comparison guide

    It's very interesting to read the Steve Thomas book completely cold, as it were. I hadn't really read anything about the case in a couple of years - in fact, probably since that last visit I made here in October 2010 just before my daughter was born. When I originally got the book, I was visiting this forum regularly and reading a lot about the case. I knew so much about it and I knew what was coming, I suppose. Now that I'm reading it fresh I realise there is so much that I have forgotten.
    Perspective is everything, isn't it? One thing about living long enough to see this repeated many times: as we live and learn, we can look back and see things much more clearly than when we first encountered them.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #70

    Default

    Oh good Lord!

    Bedsheets reeking of urine!
    Feces covered box of candy!

    What in the world did Jonbenets room smell like????

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    Oh good Lord!

    Bedsheets reeking of urine!
    Feces covered box of candy!

    What in the world did Jonbenets room smell like????
    Don't forget the blood on the pillowcase and the "skid marks" in the underwear found in pants lying on the floor.

    Also the toilet wasn't flushed.

    Now we're back to oooky stuff....

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Ha ha! I bet John has said that so many times in private.

    I have to say I can't believe the NE would make up stuff or even tweak it from the Ramsey interview. This interview was part of a "settlement" agreement from their lawsuit against the parent company of the NE, which also owns the Globe.

    Don Gentile wrote a lot of NE articles about this case long before this one. He was no rookie to this game the Ramseys played.

    All to say the following is yet ANOTHER change in the Ramseys' story. How many times did we hear John and Patsy say they NEVER suspected each other...NEVER CROSSED THEIR MINDS?

    But Patsy admits this to THE NE? Must have been impossible to keep her lies straight by this time:
    During The ENQUIRER interview, Patsy admitted she considered and rejected the possibility that John was sexually abusing JonBenet. She openly admitted that during her struggle to defeat ovarian cancer between 1993 and 1994, John and Patsy's sex life suffered. She totally rejects the notion of John abusing JonBenet, but her reasoning is odd.

    She said her mother "came to take care of the kids (when I had cancer). She slept in the other bed in JonBenet's room. I mean, if John was coming in to molest JonBenet, you know that's not going to happen 'cause Grandma was right there every night."


    Not that John was not capable of molesting his own daughter, no. Just that he would not have had the opportunity at that time. My God, she may as well have said, "Yeah, he's a molester!"
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!



Similar Threads

  1. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? is now available in Kindle edition!!!
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 10, 2013, 2:18 pm, Mon Jun 10 14:18:49 UTC 2013
  2. Where to buy James Kolar's book: "Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet"
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 18, 2012, 12:35 pm, Sat Aug 18 12:35:36 UTC 2012
  3. New Book - "120 Clues That Show Who Killed JonBenet" by Sam McDonough
    By Elle_1 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: November 18, 2007, 6:20 pm, Sun Nov 18 18:20:57 UTC 2007
  4. Announcing Tom Miller's New Book - "JonBenet Ramsey: Prostitution of Justice"
    By Cookie in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: August 13, 2007, 10:46 am, Mon Aug 13 10:46:53 UTC 2007
  5. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •