James Kolar's new book! It's what we have been waiting for! Daily Beast article!

Good morning Elle_1! I've never read anywhere that Jonbenet climbed in her brothers bed on a regular basis. Do you mean when she would wet the bed and get in the twin bed in her own room or the twin bed in Burkes room? I know the only info we have is from Patsy, a known liar, but I honestly can't see JB crawling into her brothers bed with him when there is a perfectly good twin bed both in her room and his. Maybe I missed this info, since I have missed info before.

ETA:The reason I said those were Burkes pj's is because in Kolars book he says the CSI's at the scene in JB's room who collected the pj's said they were too big for JB and they assumed they were Burkes. I would imagine, although I don't know of course, that they may have looked like boys pj's : brown or blue as opposed to pink for instance. They said there was fecal material in them and since that description is so vague I've seen it called everthing from poop in the pj's to a skidmark in the pj's. I wish Kolar hadn't been so vague about some important items of evidence but I suppose he had to be for legal reasons.

 

Those quotes were from current movies - Although the linguistics expert did say that the note showed latent hostility toward the person it addressed, which, knowing that Patsy wrote it, does make you wonder.

OK, if Burke were a normal kid, then I would perhaps think that John may have been molesting his daughter and Patsy knew about it, thus they were both blackmailing each other in a way. But Burke was far from normal as we now know. That incident where Burke hit JonBenet in the face with a golf club, when he was 6, may have been a precursor to the night she died. Patsy mentioned it and tried to downplay it, but it may have been intentional.

 

Somebody wiped JonBenet's pubic area with John's Israeli wool shirt, the one he wore Christmas night. Assuming he didn't do it himself, he wouldn't have known this had been done, but why was it done? Of all things, why use that? She must have been framing the guy. She overestimated the police here, though. They failed to collect the shirt.

And it does seem like there are some threats in the ransom note. The number of people who knew the amount of John's bonus were few and didn't include Patsy (according to her). And Patsy went out of her way to tell the police that the person who left the ransom note knew she came down the spiral stairs in the morning. So that means the person who committed the crime both knew John's bonus and her habits in the morning. That pretty much narrows the field to one.

I think the "John did it" scenario was just her fallback. Plan A was an intruder did it.

(Also, if John was caught unawares that morning, he couldn't be sure that Burke was not involved.)

 

I didn't see this until I already detailed my reasons in an answer to Learnin, but now that you mention it, I'm uncomfortable assuming that a parent wouldn't protect someone who killed a child. You see this happening every day in the news. Women are forever protecting mere boyfriends who kill their children.

You're assuming that both parents were involved in the staging. Personally, I think that if that were so, they would both have greeted Officer French in their PJs. After you'd spent hours making it look like an intruder had been in your house while you were sleeping, wouldn't you make it look like you'd been sleeping? It was only 6am. Instead Patsy looked like she'd never gone to bed and John was freshly dressed. Thomas thinks (and this makes sense to me) that Patsy ran out of time. Once John was up and about, her hand was forced.

I do think that John and Patsy didn't care much for each other.

 

I usually read posts backwards so I sometimes end up responding backwards. I apologize.

I'm not sure just when John realized what had happened. He must have suspected that Patsy had been up all night when he first saw her. He undoubtedly heard yelling and crying (all that slinging around by the turtleneck) which he ignored. Patsy and John gave varying statements about what happened Christmas night which suggests that they didn't get their stories together before the police arrived. Arndt says that John was more or less composed in the morning, smiling and joking, up until the time he disappeared for a while. When he reappeared (after finding the body), he was nervous and lost in thought. Maybe he didn't really know for sure until sometime afterwards. By then he would be following his attorney's advice.

As far as the jab in the vagina goes; staging of a sexual assault, covering up a messed-up vagina. Either or both.

As far as the wiping goes, it was done with John's Israeli wool shirt, the one he wore Christmas night. I can't think of a better way of incriminating him.

 

If the box was closed, different story! Smeared does mean spread out!
It may well have been done deliberately. I could see Burke being ticked off with JonBenét crawling into his bed at night; especially if she was wet or soiled. I don't think I want to go there!(?).

 

Good points. BDI is my number one theory and has been since I read Thomas' book. I use Ockham's Razor and this theory has the least amount of obstacles to overcome. But, I never close my mind to other theories that include family involvement.

 

Thinking about that red turtleneck, Patsy at first said that JonBenet went to sleep in it. (I assume that Kolar doesn't dispute this.) But in the Ramseys' written response to Arndt's fax, the answer to the question of what JonBenet wore to bed is given as a polo shirt, no color mentioned. (A polo shirt has short sleeves and a collar with some buttons near the throat.) I've always been a little puzzled by this. Because Patsy told the cops that she put JonBenet to bed without changing her, "red turtleneck" was clearly the wrong answer and needed to be changed, but why change it to "polo shirt"?

Certainly by the time the Ramseys and their attorneys answered those written questions, they all knew what JonBenet wore to the Christmas party so the right answer was "long-sleeved collarless white top with a rhinestone star on the front." Patsy and JonBenet had had a huge fight over this very top the day of her death so the answer really should have been a no-brainer.

So why did they give the wrong answer when the "right" answer was obvious and would have been better? The reason that comes to mind is that Patsy couldn't quite remember if she re-dressed JonBenet in that white top or not. (I'm assuming that they didn't yet have the autopsy report.)

By the time Patsy sat down with police she was crystal clear about the white top with the rhinestone star.

 

Good thoughts. If John was caught by surprise, I think the ransom note should have removed Burke from his supect list but maybe not. But let's say he did have suspicions about Burke.

 

Thank you for this explanation hm! This sounds like retaliation of some kind, doesn't it? He had to put up with Patsy and JonBenét with the pageant action, and he may have retaliated. I remember reading he played with one of those handheld games for hours on end. I think he was neglected!

I think I remember reading this in Steve Thomas' book if my memory serves me right a very long time ago (?).

 

Patsy may have doted on Burke, and he was the only child for 4 years. And then his reign was over when JonBenet was born. That can be tough for some kids to take. All the attention was shifted to his sister, and then Patsy got sick, too. So no one was available to take care of Burke. Those factors could have played into his mental state. Not sure it was ONLY those factors, but certainly Burke's life had already been full of stress and he was only 9.

 

There's a reason that expert witnesses are called "whores of the court." Spitz, Baden, Lee have all spouted nonsense on the stand. They must justify it by telling themselves that accused people are entitled to a defense. And then, of course, there's all that lovely lolly.

Schiller aims to please everybody. He often speaks from Smit's point of view, but Thomas was talking to him as well and that's in there too. I think my original point was simply that Thomas didn't come by his hypothesis by pulling it out of thin air. He had some medical authority for it, but he didn't provide it in his own book (that I can recall). I had to go to Schiller to fill in some details.

I hope to get Kolar's book soon. As I understand, the scribes are still copying it.

 

I addressed "1." and "2." in an earlier post, but this morning I started thinking about the dictionary page with the corner folded to point to the word incest. Thomas thinks that a family member had been looking up the word, had marked the entry for easy reference and left it open to that page. Uh, who would that have been? John, Patsy don't know the meaning of that word? I guess that would leave Burke....

Now, if I needed to mark a word in a Chinese dictionary, I might fold the corner of the page (in a paperback dictionary), but in English we have that alphabet thing going on and it makes life a lot easier, believe me. Once you know how to spell a word, you don't need to mark it. And if you're nine and maybe not a good speller, you wouldn't advertise to your parents that you're looking up bad words by leaving the dictionary open to that page with the word sticking out like a sore thumb. I mean, that's why you marked it to begin with, so you could close the book and find the word again.

To me, the dictionary open and pointing to the word incest smells more like Patsy's elaborate staging. It's the kind of clue that you might find in a detective story, but real detectives probably don't read them. Patsy might. She had a framed Death on the Nile poster. Was she was an Agatha Christie fan?

God knows what other "clues" she left lying around that everybody was too thick to pick up on.

 

And it occurs to me that Patsy might have jabbed JonBenet's vagina and made her bleed just so she could wipe the blood off on John's wool shirt.

 

Wow, you must really believe that Patsy had it in for John! And would take it out on her little pageant princess JonBenet. Nope, I'm not buyin what you're sellin.

 

I hadn't heard that blood was found on JR's wool shirt. Was this another revelation from Kolar's book? Unfortunately I have to wait till Labor Day to order the book.
If that is accurate, then we now know what was used to wipe her. There were dark fibers found on her body. And it also explains how the wool shirt fibers got in the panty crotch. After wiping her, JR pulled the panties on her.

 

There is absolutely nothing in Kolar's book about John's wool shirt or any blood being found on it.

It is NOT a reported fact from any source that JonBenet's blood was found on John's wool shirt.

All we know for certain is that John was questioned about fibers from his wool shirt possibly being found in the crotch of JonBenet's panties.

 

No, I don't see anything about blood being found on JR's shirt. I don't know where that information would have been given. I think fr. brown is making things up now. Why would JR or PR wipe JonBenet with John's shirt? It makes no sense at all.

 

Hm. I see the problem. I didn't actually say that blood had been found on John's wool shirt. The Ramsey lawyers didn't turn it over until January 1998. I'm sure it had been dry cleaned by then. Probably a lot.

In John Ramsey's 2000 interview, Levin and Kane go over what John did with the shirt after he took it off. Did he put it down the laundry chute? I think it's safe to say they want to know where someone besides him would have gotten hold of it.

I was responding to Learnin's question, "Why clean up the blood?" I am assuming for the purposes of my speculation that the small dark fibers Thomas says were found in JonBenet's pubic region were also from this shirt. If Kolar gives the source of them or says that they weren't from this shirt, I'm happy to take his word.

 

There are over 13,000 views of this thread!

That's amazing, lots of interest from people who are not responding!