Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 160
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar; pages 367-70:

    ------------------

    Quote:

    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.

    There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. 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.

    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.

    I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in his sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms of scatological behavior associated with SBP.

    I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenét’s candy would have been smeared with human excrement.


    --------------------

    Now we know that Burke had more problems than possible Asperger's Syndrome, a type of high-functioning autism. We've never had access to any of this information until Kolar's book, and it's obvious, the Ramseys wanted to keep it that way. Their attorneys insistence that Hunter sign a paper declaring Burke a non-suspect, and Burke's continued refusal to talk with investigators, all makes sense in view of the evidence coming to light.

    The Ramseys used that piece of paper from Alex Hunter to sue any media organization that tried to report on Burke and keep a lid on the evidence ... but now Pandora's Box has been opened.
    Oh good grief, I missed this one, Cherokee! Oh this sounds like Burke had some sort of serious problem. Almost shows a sign of hatred towards JonBenét. One can see why the Ramseys wanted Burke left out of the
    investigation.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Thank you, Koldkase, Cherokee and Cynic for the time taken for all of you to post these excerpts from Kolar's book, while we wait for our books to arrive. I now understand why Tricia was anxious for all this news to come out.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  3. #27

    Default

    I'm curious about why the cops didn't question the Ramseys about the candy box. I'm pretty sure you can DNA-type feces so whose was it?

    Why did Steve Thomas let Burke off the hook? I never understood why Burke was out of the running, but it was clear that he was.

    Things aren't adding up for me.

  4. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I'm curious about why the cops didn't question the Ramseys about the candy box. I'm pretty sure you can DNA-type feces so whose was it?

    Why did Steve Thomas let Burke off the hook? I never understood why Burke was out of the running, but it was clear that he was.

    Things aren't adding up for me.
    Steve Thomas found a theory that fit what he thought was all the evidence. There was no evidence for Burke being at the scene of the crime. Also, at age 9 3/4, Burke could not have been prosecuted in any case. He was below the age of reason as determined by Colorado. But Thomas had a theory about Patsy. He's not necessarily right about that.

    There was no hard-liner in the BPD to interview the Ramseys, and if there had been, their lawyers would have refused the interview. Police were treating them with kid gloves because they lawyered up and because if they weren't coddled to some extent there would be no further interviews.
    "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!

  5. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Steve Thomas found a theory that fit what he thought was all the evidence. There was no evidence for Burke being at the scene of the crime. Also, at age 9 3/4, Burke could not have been prosecuted in any case. He was below the age of reason as determined by Colorado. But Thomas had a theory about Patsy. He's not necessarily right about that.

    There was no hard-liner in the BPD to interview the Ramseys, and if there had been, their lawyers would have refused the interview. Police were treating them with kid gloves because they lawyered up and because if they weren't coddled to some extent there would be no further interviews.
    Burke's fingerprints were on the dish with the pineapple and it appears Kolar thinks Burke smeared feces on the candy box in JonBenet's room. And then there was the Hi-TEC bootprint where the body was found. Thomas didn't know it belonged to Burke, but he knew it was a possibility. All of those things would arouse suspicion.

    Unless Thomas is clueless about what the rest of the detectives thought, none of them thought Burke was involved. At the conclusion of the detectives' major presentation to the DA and the FBI, this is part of what Thomas has to say:

    "Hunter himself was all over the map. He propped his chin on his fist and asked aloud, "I wonder if Burke [Ramsey] is involved in this?" We looked at each other in disbelief. It sounded as if he had not attended our presentation."
    Last edited by fr brown; August 1, 2012, 5:40 pm at Wed Aug 1 17:40:13 UTC 2012.

  6. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Burke's fingerprints were on the dish with the pineapple and it appears Kolar thinks Burke smeared feces on the candy box in JonBenet's room. And then there was the Hi-TEC bootprint where the body was found. Thomas didn't know it belonged to Burke, but he knew it was a possibility. All of those things would arouse suspicion.

    Unless Thomas is clueless about what the rest of the detectives thought, none of them thought Burke was involved. At the conclusion of the detectives' major presentation to the DA and the FBI, this is part of what Thomas has to say:

    "Hunter himself was all over the map. He propped his chin on his fist and asked aloud, "I wonder if Burke [Ramsey] is involved in this?" We looked at each other in disbelief. It sounded as if he had not attended our presentation."
    Came across this fr brown
    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...ofiled/15.html

    Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary

    Based on the condition of the recovered pineapple, experts estimated that JonBenét had eaten within hours of her death. The parents denied that JonBenét had any pineapple when she was home and apparently none was served at the party they had attended earlier that evening. However, crime scene photographs taken the day the body was recovered show a bowl with pineapple in it next to a glass with a tea-bag in the kitchen. Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints were found on the bowl and Burke's fingerprints were recovered from the bowl and the glass. No DNA testing was done on any of these items.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  7. #31

    Default

    Kolar goes into some detail about the thinking regarding Burke in 1996.

    Pretty much, he was so protected by his parents, Ramsey lawyers, Hunter's obstruction, and the same old perception we've seen for years: that good children of nice, Christian parents aren't capable of this behavior, much less a child who hasn't reached 10 years of age. Burke was taken off the radar before any possibility of his involvement was even investigated.

    Kolar goes into the statistics of actual crimes, violence, and sexual assault committed by children in the U.S. in 1996, approx.

    The way Kolar lays it out, it does appear that Patsy and John went to some lengths to take the suspicion off of Burke.

    Maybe that's why Patsy wrote the note.

    And maybe that's why she "staged" the ligature...which in fact killed JB.

    Because it's Patsy's and Burke's DNA on the Barbie gown, as well as on the bowl of pineapple.

    Just brainstorming here.

    As for Thomas, I see him as a very good detective who had his eye on the ball. He knew full well that Patsy was the person in the house that night that all the evidence pointed to, which was most likely to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Because Patsy wrote that note. I have no doubt about that. If our justice system is so diluted it can't even prove what a simple citizen like me can see with my own eyes and language comparisons, then we may as well pack it in.

    "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.

  8. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Kolar goes into some detail about the thinking regarding Burke in 1996.

    Pretty much, he was so protected by his parents, Ramsey lawyers, Hunter's obstruction, and the same old perception we've seen for years: that good children of nice, Christian parents aren't capable of this behavior, much less a child who hasn't reached 10 years of age. Burke was taken off the radar before any possibility of his involvement was even investigated.

    Kolar goes into the statistics of actual crimes, violence, and sexual assault committed by children in the U.S. in 1996, approx.

    The way Kolar lays it out, it does appear that Patsy and John went to some lengths to take the suspicion off of Burke.

    Maybe that's why Patsy wrote the note.

    And maybe that's why she "staged" the ligature...which in fact killed JB.

    Because it's Patsy's and Burke's DNA on the Barbie gown, as well as on the bowl of pineapple.

    Just brainstorming here.

    As for Thomas, I see him as a very good detective who had his eye on the ball. He knew full well that Patsy was the person in the house that night that all the evidence pointed to, which was most likely to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Because Patsy wrote that note. I have no doubt about that. If our justice system is so diluted it can't even prove what a simple citizen like me can see with my own eyes and language comparisons, then we may as well pack it in.
    I would have thought that a feces-smeared chocolate box would have blown that good, normal, nice facade to bits. And the more the Ramseys tried to deflect suspicion from Burke, the more suspicious the detectives would become. That's what I would think, anyway.

    Hunter could charge Burke or not and charge Patsy however he wanted to, but the detectives had the responsibility to lay out what they thought happened and I think that would include possible involvement of Burke if they thought he had anything to do with it. (Hell, maybe they did include that. The Thomas excerpt could be read that way, I suppose.) Even if Burke weren't criminally charged, would you really want a kid who brained his sister just running around in the general population? What if he brained one of his classmates? If it came out that the police buried evidence, heads would roll.

    But if that's the explanation Kolar gives then that's what we're left with, I guess, unless Thomas or one of the other detectives wants to weigh in.

    Just as an aside, Burke had lots of strep infections according to Patsy. I don't know if you can believe her, but she hits this information pretty hard in one of her interviews. Reportedly, strep can trigger obsessive-compulsive disorder in children. And encopresis is sometimes associated with OCD (as well as ASD). I'm not saying he has OCD. It's just something I think about when I read that part of the transcript.
    Last edited by fr brown; August 2, 2012, 8:29 am at Thu Aug 2 8:29:09 UTC 2012.

  9. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Came across this fr brown:
    Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints were found on the bowl and Burke's fingerprints were recovered from the bowl and the glass.
    Thanks, Elle. I couldn't remember if his prints were on the glass or not.

  10. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I would have thought that a feces-smeared chocolate box would have blown that good, normal, nice facade to bits. And the more the Ramseys tried to deflect suspicion from Burke, the more suspicious the detectives would become. That's what I would think, anyway.

    Hunter could charge Burke or not and charge Patsy however he wanted to, but the detectives had the responsibility to lay out what they thought happened and I think that would include possible involvement of Burke if they thought he had anything to do with it. (Hell, maybe they did include that. Thomas's excerpt could be read that way, I suppose.) Even if Burke weren't criminally charged, would you really want a kid who brained his sister just running around in the general population? What if he brained one of his classmates? If it came out that the police buried evidence, heads would roll.

    But if that's the explanation Kolar gives then that's what we're left with, I guess, unless Thomas or one of the other detectives wants to weigh in.

    Just as an aside, Burke had lots of strep infections according to Patsy. I don't know if you can believe her, but she hits this information pretty hard in one of her interviews. Reportedly, strep can trigger obsessive-compulsive disorder in children. And encopresis is sometimes associated with OCD (as well as ASD). I'm not saying he has OCD. It's just something I think about when I read that part of the transcript.
    But I just don't know what LE could have done. They could have removed him from the home, maybe put him into some kind of treatment, but no criminal charges, so I'm not sure what good it would have done. They'd have had to have really good evidence that he was going to be a danger to society or his family or something. I don't know how juvenile cases go - maybe CPS should have been called in - but the Ramseys had already circled the wagons and hired all the lawyers. I really don't know what could have been proved. Patsy would say that JonBenet had the problem with toileting and then...



    nothing could be done.

    Interesting about the OCD. I had heard that before but it's supposed to be very rare.
    "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!

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I'm curious about why the cops didn't question the Ramseys about the candy box. I'm pretty sure you can DNA-type feces so whose was it?

    Why did Steve Thomas let Burke off the hook? I never understood why Burke was out of the running, but it was clear that he was.

    Things aren't adding up for me.
    I wondered the same thing as I was reading ST's book several years back, FB. The only thing my mind could come up with is that he felt Patsy wrote the note (which makes her at least an accessory), she was deceptive, lied, and she was an adult. In other words, she was prosecutable in the case. So, IMO, the thought was: "Let's prosecute PR and the truth will out."

    I'm not saying ST didn't think PR struck the first blow, I'm just saying he had prosecutable evidence against PR as covering up the crime, so let Burke slide (he couldn't be charged under Colorado law) and let's get the one we know for sure was involved. Just my opinion.

  12. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Steve Thomas found a theory that fit what he thought was all the evidence. There was no evidence for Burke being at the scene of the crime. Also, at age 9 3/4, Burke could not have been prosecuted in any case. He was below the age of reason as determined by Colorado. But Thomas had a theory about Patsy. He's not necessarily right about that.

    There was no hard-liner in the BPD to interview the Ramseys, and if there had been, their lawyers would have refused the interview. Police were treating them with kid gloves because they lawyered up and because if they weren't coddled to some extent there would be no further interviews.
    Sorry, I posted something similar before reading your excellent post.



Similar Threads

  1. DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: April 15, 2017, 11:03 am, Sat Apr 15 11:03:06 UTC 2017
  2. Jim Kolar – 45 minute video discussing the JonBenet Ramsey Case
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: February 21, 2013, 3:25 pm, Thu Feb 21 15:25:23 UTC 2013
  3. 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
  4. James Kolar's new book! It's what we have been waiting for! Daily Beast article!
    By Moab in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: August 14, 2012, 10:11 pm, Tue Aug 14 22:11:18 UTC 2012
  5. Listen to James Kolar talk about new book on Tricia's show tonight! (July 18, 2012)
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 19, 2012, 8:43 pm, Thu Jul 19 20:43:59 UTC 2012

Posting Permissions

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