In-Depth Discussion of Kolar's Book "Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?"

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. Kelly

    Kelly Member

    Just curious if anyone knows of any punishment Burke received after this happened. He went to school, played with friends, very protected by his parents. Was there a time we know of when he may have been punished for this tragedy? If, he did it.
  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    More information:

    The Gospel According to Patsy -- 1998

    There's more! Here's Patsy from her 1998 police interview:

    PATSY RAMSEY: There were some shelves back in behind the train area. If you come down the steps and there is like a landing space here, and go through a door, there is the train room setup there, come back around there, back by the window that broke.

    "The window that broke." NOT the window JOHN broke, just the window that broke. Maybe it broke itself?

    TOM HANEY: What was your usual method though for coming in?

    PATSY RAMSEY: Garage door opener, go in, and then the inside garage door was unlocked. I had never used the house key ever.

    Patsy never used the house key. But John needed to crawl in the window because he forgot his key.

    TRIP DEMUTH: What observations did you make about the window when you cleaned up the glass or about that whole area?

    PATSY RAMSEY: Well, there was one of the panes was broken. I don't remember what it was, but I had asked -- that was another one of the odd jobs to have Linda Huffman (phonetic) and her husband do. He was going to do the odd jobs. I think I asked him to repair that, too, but I don't remember. I don't know whether they did that or not.


    Footnote: Here's what the housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann Pugh had to say about the basement window in an interview with the Star, June 20, 2000:
    Another thing that made me think Patsy had staged the whole crime was the broken window in the basement. I used to clean their house three times a week. If something was broken, Patsy had me clean it up. On the morning of the murder, police found a broken window in the basement, just a few feet from the room where JonBenet's body was found. John Ramsey told the police that he had broken the window to get into the house months before when he was accidentally locked out. But I think that is a lie. If there had been broken glass in the basement, Patsy would have told me to clean it up. Another thing didn't make sense. John claimed he was locked out on that day when he supposedly broke the window. But he never used a key to come in the front or side door of the house. He always opened the garage door from his car with his remote and came in through the garage entrance. I think Patsy broke that window herself on the night she killed JonBenet to make the police think there had been an intruder, and John concocted the story about breaking the window.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2012
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    I personally have never read anything relating to Burke being punished, Kelly.
  4. Karen

    Karen Member

    Ahhh yes, the statue Pierre.
    Perhaps that's where "beheaded" came in too. The guillotine.
  5. heymom

    heymom Member

    He was punished by having to grow up as a Ramsey.
  6. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Thanks for the links to this crucial info, Elle.
    Very interesting also that the housekeeper Linda Hoffmann Pugh states that Patsy never told her to clean up glass from a broken basement window.

    For this contradicts Patsy's story (bolding mine):

    From Patsy's April 1997 interview:

    TT: Okay. Any reason why that one wasn’t replaced or the pane wasn’t fixed or anything?
    PR: No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that, um, I remember when I got back, uh, in the fall, you know . . .
    TT: Um hum.
    PR: . . .uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass.
    TT: Okay.
    PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. I mean I picked up every chunk, I mean, because the kids played down there in that back area back there.
    TT: Um hum.
    PR: And I mean I scoured that place when, cause they were always down there. Burke particularly and the boys would go down there and play with cars and things and uh, there was just a ton of glass everywhere.
    TT: Okay.
    PR: And I cleaned all that up and then she, she vacuumed a couple of times down there.
    TT: To get all the glass.
    PR: In the fall yeah cause it was just little, you know, pieces, big pieces, everything.
  7. wombat

    wombat Member

    It's not a scrape!

    The smudge below the window well. Sigh.


    This is a water stain from water infiltrating from the bottom of the window well into the concrete basement wall and then leaching to the interior surface of the wall. I have seen this particular situation in five thousand basements over the years. It's been painted over it still "reads."

    In a dry climate like Boulder, basements have fewer water infiltration problems, but this window well would have collected water in heavy rainstorms. Whatever waterproofing existed when the window was created had deteriorated by 1996 and had not been fixed. Also, the drainage from the well could have been blocked at times over the years (all that crap we see in the photos), allowing the water to enter the wall.

    I've written about it in the past. All they had to do was take a core sample or two of the wall and send it to a lab, and check out the well drainage/waterproofing, and this would have been a nonissue years ago.

    When I first saw Detective Lou creeping in the window and pretending that was a scrape mark, I knew this was bullsmit, and he was making everything up.
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    It's good you understand the full situation when you look at this Wombat. Being an engineer helps. So the investigators didn't take a core sample and send it to the lab? I cannot see John Ramsey slithering in that window either, Wombat. I agree with rashomon who is surprised at Chief Skolar believing it. I feel the same!
  9. Elle

    Elle Member

    Pleased to help you out rashomon. I know you have contributed many hours to this case, as all the other dedicated posters here have.
  10. wombat

    wombat Member

    Elle, BPD either didn't test, or they did and have held it back for grand jury or investigation reasons. It would be negligence now if a law enforcement department acted in this manner, in my opinion. Also, at any point between January 1997 and this very day, they could take samples and get some answers, unless there's a new foundation. Of course now the house is all swanky and no one would allow it, unless there were a search warrant.

    When Loosemitt threw this up as a plausible event, BPD or the district attorney should have investigated including testing. Instead they debated it over photos, or something. Which is why I "sigh."

    Good to talk to you, Elle.
  11. Elle

    Elle Member

    It seems although Kolar's book is eliminating the intruder theory, no charges against John Ramsey will be made. If this is the case, I personally feel everyone of us here now knows there was no intruder and somehow we will all feel better knowing this.

    It's good to talk to you too, Wombat. Are you in Australia? Using Wombat as your ID, I wondered(?).[​IMG]
  12. wombat

    wombat Member

    I live in New Jersey and Florida. I used to have a big fat cat, a real cuddle-kitty, we called the Wombat, hence the ID.

    I don't know that I feel better after Kolar's book. I think a conclusion we can draw is that a person may very well be living his life having killed someone when he was a child, but this was never addressed by the judicial or state child support systems. Another conclusion is that someone was a sexual abuser in 1996, and we don't know exactly who that was, and if they stopped offending, or if they have spent their life with access to children. The third conclusion: Law Enforcement and other powerful people in Colorado did everything they could to prevent affluent, influential, repulsive people from being tried in a court of law.
  13. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Wombat, those are very powerful conclusions. They do sum up what is so VERY VERY wrong with this whole case.
  14. heymom

    heymom Member

    Just one more conclusion to add:

    That, here on earth, because of the 3rd conclusion above, there will never be justice for JonBenet.

  15. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    There is a local murder case trial just beginning here close to where I live. It is of interest to me, because my wife worked with the lady who was brutally murdered, seemingly, by her own son.

    To make a long story short. After being stabbed multiple times on the arms, face, and head, she was strangled with a ligature, so tightly that it was embedded in her neck.

    Her son's DNA was found on the ligature. Now. Because of Kolar's book, we know the JBR ligature was tested for DNA. I'm going to have to look again tonight but, as I recall, there was some DNA found on the ligature but it did not match the other unknown DNA in the case. If I recall, correctly, Kolar doesn't address whether or not it matched anyone in the house but, for argument's sake, I'm assuming it did not.

    Therefore. The one who tied the ligature was wearing gloves at that time. I think this excludes BR because I do not believe he would have put gloves on in a rage attack. The ligature would have contained the perp's DNA if the perp wasn't wearing gloves. I think we can safely assume that BR did not tie the ligature unless his DNA is there and Kolar isn't saying.
  16. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    One of the more vexing aspects of this case is that some things seem to have been done wearing gloves and some were not. When you think about it- there were prints on the pineapple bowl, which was NOT a part of the staging and only is linked to the crime because pineapple was found in her stomach. So obviously no gloves there.
    But things that were directly part of the crime or staging do not seem to have any prints that were lifted- the tape, and the part of the brush that was used to make the garrote. I had long ago that a PARTIAL PRINT was able to be lifted from JB's body, but the coroner decided not to make a note of it. Yet when I read Kolar's book, he did say that the autopsy was interrupted so that the process by which prints can be lifted could be performed. I think they spray something like super glue in a confined space (like a plastic bag) and that will reveal prints on things that would ordinarily not yield them. But Kolar said that nothing was found. I am wondering if he was aware of it, having not been there himself, or if those present at the autopsy agreed not to mention the partial print.
  17. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Good question about that partial print. It seems as if the stager was wearing gloves throughout when you consider, as you mention, the tape, stick, etc., not having prints. Also, we have a flashlight, ransom note pages, etc., without fingerprints except for those who handled it post 911 call.

    Kolar mentions the brown fibers found on the duct tape and other areas which indicate the stager was wearing brown cloth gloves. Kolar also clarifys the information about Patsy's jacket fibers being all over the sticky part of the duct tape. I was reading last night that lab personnel applied sticky duct tape to the blanket, which was wrapped around JBR's body, and was able to pick up a few of those jacket fibers to see if secondary transfer could explain them being there. They picked up a few, Kolar explained, but the lab personnel said there were way too many on the actual duct tape to explain secondary transfer. They felt that the sticky part of the duct tape had come into contact with Patsy's jacket at some point. Did she tear a piece and stick it on her jacket while doing something else.

    At any rate, this overwhelming fiber evidence (on the tape, on the carpet in front of the wine cellar door, in the paint tray) sure makes an overwhelming case that Patsy was at the scene. You would think she could have been hauled in on this evidence alone!

    So. We have Patsy at the scene, wearing gloves, probably the same gloves used to write the ransom note. The only thing we have to possibly place John at the scene are those fibers found in the crotch of JBR's underwear that supposedly matches his shirt???
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Ah! I see! We do get attached to them, don't we? We had one too! One can always talk to a cat. I would have happily had another one, but my husband and the cats hiss at each other, so it's not worth it![​IMG]

    I thought from all the hoopla I was hearing about Kolar's book, that maybe LE would really turn everything around, but it's just wishful
    thinking. Then I'll just settle for reading all the good posts here making me feel better.
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Oh how sad for your wife, Learnin, knowing someone as close as that being brutally murdered by her son. I wonder what brought this on(?).
    I take it they have the son in custody. You won't be spending a lot of time solving that one! So it's back to the Ramseys! We need you! [​IMG]
  20. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Thanks Elle. Yea, my wife and her co-workers were shocked. It took over a year for any details to emerge because of the nature of the crime and they're coming out now as the preliminary hearings are under way. It has all the makings of a crime novel and I would be shocked if it doesn't garner some national attention at some point. Yes, the son is now in custody but it took a while for the police to arrest him because they wanted to build a open and shut case.

    I do remember, Elle, telling my wife that it was the son as soon as the news broke.
  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