Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) - from James Kolar's book about Ramsey case

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    • Offenders lack compassion, empathy, and exhibit inadequate
    social skills.



    beep, beep
     
  2. Karen

    Karen Member

    Yep. There are way too many of those bullet points that koldkase posted that describe what we have read and heard about Burke.
    I have never seriously had a BDI scenario. Now after all these years, with this much evidence made public with ST's book PMPT, and FF, among others, in hindsight it seems to me like this scenario was something I would glance at but then quickly look away and try to make the pieces fit some other way. And they never did entirely. But now, what I'm reading now, is making everything fall into place. I just don't see how it could be any other way.

    With this book I think all the attention will turn to Burke now. I'm so glad Chief Kolar didn't accuse him or do anything else to define who his suspect is. He just lays out the evidence and let
    s the reader make up his own mind. He is soooo intelligent. He can't be sued for the way this is all presented but he actually leaves little doubt about what he really thinks. I guess the key is just don't say it outloud or put it in print. We will forever owe him for finally showing us how the puzzle pieces fit together to make sense in this crime.

    I fully expect JR and LW to come out swinging eventually. I think that even though Burke is an adult now and should be fighting his own battles JR will always to try shield him and protect him like he has all of his life because I think that is a pact he and Patsy made that night. What was it he had inscribed on Patsys headstone? Something about "faithfulness"?
     
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    KK,

    Surely the American Government will have to step in here somewhere to correct this HUGE FOUPA and reprimand ex DA's Hunter and Lacy for not controlling an honest investigation into a little girl's murder while they were in control of this case?
     
  4. heymom

    heymom Member

    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.
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    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.
     
  6. Elle

    Elle Member

    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.
     
  7. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    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.
     
  8. heymom

    heymom Member

    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.
     
  9. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    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: Aug 1, 2012
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    Came across this fr brown
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.
     
  12. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    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: Aug 2, 2012
  13. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Thanks, Elle. I couldn't remember if his prints were on the glass or not.
     
  14. heymom

    heymom Member

    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...

    :no::unreal:

    nothing could be done.

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

    Learnin Member

    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.
     
  16. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Sorry, I posted something similar before reading your excellent post.
     
  17. Karen

    Karen Member

    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.
     
  18. heymom

    heymom Member

    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.
     
  19. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Don't think so. I think DNA-X was the mitochondrial DNA from the arm hair found on the blanket.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
  20. fr brown

    fr brown Member

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