Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 160
  1. #37

    Default

    I wonder if the feces on the candy box is the DNA-X Beckner wouldn't talk about when he was on the stand in the Chris Wolf trial? He said it wasn't found on Jonbenets body or clothing but it was at the crime scene.

  2. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Sorry, I posted something similar before reading your excellent post.
    I think your excellent post was more on-target: that Patsy was certainly involved and was prosecutable, and more would be discovered during her criminal charging, arrest, and trial. He was right in that. I feel certain that Patsy could have been cracked wide open with the proper interrogation, lawyers be damned. And at trial, many witnesses could be called to the stand.

    Well, in any case, that didn't happen and will never happen. I am almost finished with the book, and while I am extremely disappointed that Kolar cannot give us his final scenario (it's rather like reading a murder mystery where the detective never calls the suspects together for the denouement), there are many aspects of the case that we have not known, that are included in the book.

    Burke's affect after his sister's murder is very disturbing. Very disturbing.
    "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!

  3. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    I wonder if the feces on the candy box is the DNA-X Beckner wouldn't talk about when he was on the stand in the Chris Wolf trial? He said it wasn't found on Jonbenets body or clothing but it was at the crime scene.
    Don't think so. I think DNA-X was the mitochondrial DNA from the arm hair found on the blanket.
    Last edited by fr brown; August 2, 2012, 10:06 am at Thu Aug 2 10:06:39 UTC 2012.

  4. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    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.
    But it's up to the DA to make decisions about prosecuting. It's the police's responsibility to gather and present the evidence to the DA. And apparently the DA did have access to this candy box evidence. Kolar worked for the DA, remember.

    Maybe the police did ask John and Patsy about the candy box and that was edited out of the transcripts available to the public.

    Didn't Michael Kane say there were dozens of secrets the public doesn't know about? I thought he must be exaggerating, but now I'm not sure.

  5. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    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.
    In California in 1996 a six-year-old boy was charged with attempted murder. But in Colorado a kid under 10 couldn't even go to juvenile court no matter how grave the offense? It must be the thin air there. Hypoxia.

  6. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    But it's up to the DA to make decisions about prosecuting. It's the police's responsibility to gather and present the evidence to the DA. And apparently the DA did have access to this candy box evidence. Kolar worked for the DA, remember.

    Maybe the police did ask John and Patsy about the candy box and that was edited out of the transcripts available to the public.

    Didn't Michael Kane say there were dozens of secrets the public doesn't know about? I thought he must be exaggerating, but now I'm not sure.
    I have a feeling that Kolar dealt with that point in the information he DIDN'T give us at the conclusion of the book. DA Garnett got it, though. And will do nothing with it, of course.

    "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!

  7. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    But it's up to the DA to make decisions about prosecuting. It's the police's responsibility to gather and present the evidence to the DA. And apparently the DA did have access to this candy box evidence. Kolar worked for the DA, remember.

    Maybe the police did ask John and Patsy about the candy box and that was edited out of the transcripts available to the public.

    Didn't Michael Kane say there were dozens of secrets the public doesn't know about? I thought he must be exaggerating, but now I'm not sure.
    Yea, Kane did state that. I always thought that was the case since Karr was let go. I never did buy that Karr was let go only on DNA evidence. No way they're going to let a confessor go on that microscopic touch DNA evidence alone. Karr concocted his story on the publicized evidence in this case and he was released, IMO, because his story didn't jive with unpublicized evidence.

    At any rate, Kolar's book sure brings out a few things that the public didn't know, for sure.

  8. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Don't think so. I think DNA-X was the mitochondrial DNA from the arm hair found on the blanket.
    I thought they finally traced that to Patsy. I know they first thought it to be Melindas?

    I don't think that's DNA-X at all.

  9. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Won't happen as long as Boulder remains Boulder. This would be a state case, not the purview of the federal government, and the politics are consistent all the way up and down the chain. So there are no whistle-blowers to be found.

    Sorry. Sorry for JonBenet, after all this time, she will still not get her justice.

    Praying that someday, she will.

    Just when John Ramsey thought he had it made, writing another book; getting married again etc. WHAM! Chief James Kolar's book is published,
    giving us a more accomplished set of facts. This has to make you feel a bit better, heymom.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  10. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Just when John Ramsey thought he had it made, writing another book; getting married again etc. WHAM! Chief James Kolar's book is published,
    giving us a more accomplished set of facts. This has to make you feel a bit better, heymom.
    Well....yes, a bit, and no, quite a bit. I am praying that Kolar gets more coverage in the press and that his book catches on FIRE with the public! There is a lot of detail in the book that we have not known for sure. A few things that will make us all go

    One omission is that Kolar doesn't spend a lot of time on Pam's Evidence Run through the house. The only time he mentions it is when he is documenting red flags, and that is because John asked for his golf clubs to be brought out of the house. But Pam removed a hell of a lot more than just JonBenet's things! He does say that Pam was prevented from going down to the basement and so she could not get the golf clubs.

    Knowing what happened would only mean that people like us could put this case down forever, and go on with our lives. It wouldn't change the fact that no one will ever be prosecuted for the crimes against JonBenet.

    After Patsy had died, if she really had been the one who killed JonBenet, John could have come forward and told the truth. I think he would have, if only to raise his stock on the speaking circuit. But he continues to protect...who? Burke.
    "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. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Well....yes, a bit, and no, quite a bit. I am praying that Kolar gets more coverage in the press and that his book catches on FIRE with the public! There is a lot of detail in the book that we have not known for sure. A few things that will make us all go

    One omission is that Kolar doesn't spend a lot of time on Pam's Evidence Run through the house. The only time he mentions it is when he is documenting red flags, and that is because John asked for his golf clubs to be brought out of the house. But Pam removed a hell of a lot more than just JonBenet's things! He does say that Pam was prevented from going down to the basement and so she could not get the golf clubs.

    Knowing what happened would only mean that people like us could put this case down forever, and go on with our lives. It wouldn't change the fact that no one will ever be prosecuted for the crimes against JonBenet.

    After Patsy had died, if she really had been the one who killed JonBenet, John could have come forward and told the truth. I think he would have, if only to raise his stock on the speaking circuit. But he continues to protect...who? Burke.
    heymom,

    What's jumping out at me right now is John Ramsey having the audacity to ask for his golf clubs. I find this strange as many others have! Nothing was ever discovered relating to them. Was he thinking of his next game of golf, In the same way he was thinking about leaving for a business meeting with his youngest daughter dead? This is one cold callous businessman!

    Kolar's book has set the posts on fire here, and the fact his book was out of stock at Amazon tells me John Ramsey will never have any peace hm.

    I feel the coverup was to protect their son, Burke who was maybe unaware he had killed his sister accidentally with the flashlight. This would explain the great lengths they went to with the coverup. They overdid it, but Patsy Ramsey's scheme worked. Fifteen years later, her husband and son are still free!

    I wonder why Kolar didn't spend some time with Pam's raid on the house? Seems odd, doesn't it?
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  12. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    I thought they finally traced that to Patsy. I know they first thought it to be Melindas?

    I don't think that's DNA-X at all.
    I came to the conclusion that it was the arm hair DNA, based, I think, on something I read on another forum. For one thing, DNA-X was sent to the FBI lab where the mitochondrial DNA testing was done and that would be the kind of testing done on hair.

    Wood and Beckner go a few rounds about the results of the testing during Beckner's deposition. Though Beckner refuses to answer directly, I infer that the police did get a result back that made further comparisons unnecessary. And I've read somewhere that the hair belonged to Patsy.
    Last edited by fr brown; August 2, 2012, 5:06 pm at Thu Aug 2 17:06:03 UTC 2012.



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
  •