Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ram...
Heloise

Barnsley, UK

#289 Feb 11, 2014
Fr_Brown wrote:
Thinking about that candy box, why, if it had feces on it, wasn't it collected and tested for DNA? Criminals often leave feces at the scene of the crime--and not always in the toilet.
I believe that Steve Thomas confirmed when he was on Tricia's show that it wasn't tested. I know extracting DNA from faecal material wasn't possible as soon as other forms of DNA testing but I don't know whether it was available in 1996. I know from an English case that is wasn't available in 1993 for child murder case.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#290 Feb 11, 2014
Heloise wrote:
I believe that Steve Thomas confirmed when he was on Tricia's show that it wasn't tested. I know extracting DNA from faecal material wasn't possible as soon as other forms of DNA testing but I don't know whether it was available in 1996. I know from an English case that is wasn't available in 1993 for child murder case.
Good point. I think you'd still collect it, though. And it wasn't, right?
Ranger

Austin, TX

#291 Feb 11, 2014
I don't think the case is complicated or unsolvable. If you have children, you know that they can fight and fight HARD especially if one is jealous of the other!

Several months after the crime, I was listening to a call tv show and one man commented that neither parent would have protected the other if either one had KILLED JB. But the parents would have agreed to protect Burke! burke was awake that morning early during the 911 call, his voice is on the recording. Now why did they say he was asleep and in fact HOW did they get him to go to sleep. Drug him>he wasn't removed from the house until much later.

John seemed pretty calm altho tense and upset that morning according to Linda Arnt. She missed him for 1.5 hrs! he must have been searching the house, because she she saw him next he was extremely agitated. So what happened? he either talked to Burke and realized Burke DID it, was going to say he did it and how do they keep the child from admitting it? OR JR found the body.

The parents did not do it. It was the brother! he had already clocked her in the face with a golf club. So for him to swing that flashlight in anger or grab a convenient golf club is not far fetched. I have seem my grandchildren fight and they can get very upset and somebody always ends up crying.

The only other thing is Patsy herself may have caused the injury by pushing JB in the bathroom or even down the stairs. An accident which she would not be punished for. but she panicked and lied. What else she was trying to hide I would love to know.

Investigate the relationship between Burke and JBR. that is where the answers are. If there was NOTHING to hide, they would have allowed burke to be interviewed.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#292 Feb 11, 2014
Heloise wrote:
I believe that Steve Thomas confirmed when he was on Tricia's show that it wasn't tested. I know extracting DNA from faecal material wasn't possible as soon as other forms of DNA testing but I don't know whether it was available in 1996. I know from an English case that is wasn't available in 1993 for child murder case.
It was new (and not very reliable) in 1996. See "DNA typing from human faeces," Hopwood et al., 1996.

But even though testing wasn't routine, I think it would be collected if it might belong to the perpetrator or be connected to the crime.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#294 Feb 12, 2014
Does anyone know for sure whether or not this candy box was collected?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#295 Feb 14, 2014
This is well-trodden ground, but it was news to me: Holly Smith, a sexual abuse investigator, went into JonBenet's bedroom on the third day of the investigation and found a red satin box containing candy. This find is described as "poignant." Smith also found JonBenet's dresser full of underpants that had been soiled with "fecal material." The underpants raised red flags for Smith.

Kolar says that an investigator found a "box of candy" in the bedroom during the execution of "search warrants" so the timing would be right for this to be the same box of candy Smith is talking about.(There were search warrants issued on Dec. 26, 27 and 29.) Except that there apparently wasn't any feces on this box of candy.

Kolar also tells us that at some point in time pajamas were found containing "fecal material" in the bedroom. One thing I know from tracking down Kolar's references in the SBP chapter is that he likes to use the same language as his sources. "Fecal material" might just be the phrase all CSIs use, but then again maybe he is simply referencing Smith's report here. Did Smith also find pajamas in that dresser? Don't know, but that would explain why they're not in the crime scene photos.

So assuming there was only one "box of candy" in Jonbenet's room, can we explain how it could come to be described as smeared with human excrement if it wasn't? Something like the following maybe?

"underpants, fecal material in box, red satin with candy"

We know that commas save lives. Maybe semi-colons save reputations.

And just a thought, if Jonbenet was suffered from urinary tract infections, she might wear pajama bottoms that were over-sized. Ditto if she was accustomed to wear Pull-ups underneath them.
Ranger

Austin, TX

#297 Feb 14, 2014
I know for a FACT that kids will hide evidence of soiling underwear from their parents. under the bed, in the closet, in the trash, especially if it is an uncommon occurrence but something that mom would get upset over!

So yeah, JB could hide her soiled undies, just sayin.

As for Burke being the perp, why is this soooo hard for people to believe or accept? I heard this theory on a call in talk show on FOX many many years ago. a man called in and said neither parent would cover for the other indefinitely or even stay married had either mom or dad done it. But both parents would fight tooth and nail to protect Burke who was only 10 years old.

If Burke did it, he certainly didn't mean to kill her but he sure meant to hurt her or stop her from doing something he didn't want her to do! Otherwise why the blow?

Burke and JB had an altercation years before where he hit her in the FACE with a golf club. Since he did it once, why not again> John Ramsey made sure his golf clubs were taken out of the house when they left for Atlanta. Seriously? he is going to be playing golf? I don't think so.

Yes, the flash light could have been used, but why NO fingerprints on the flashlight? If hair or blood was on it, you wash that off. But the light belongs to the family, so if the parents prints are on it, so what? Cleaning it sends up the red flag. So the only reason to clean it of all prints is someone's prints are on it that could point to them USING it to hit JB. that would be little Burke.

Patsy ultimately killed her daughter herself, because JB was not dead after the head trauma. Burke and JB were excited about Christmas, they went downstairs and patsy gave JB pineapple. The kids are playing and something happens and Burke loses it and either hit her with a driver, or the flashlight. I think Patsy was upstairs or doing laundry and heard this going on. When my children were young I could be in another room and hear the screaming or fighting and I would go running prepared to end it.

in this case, she finds JB on the floor unconscious and knows Burke hit her. they send Burke to bed, probably with a sleeping agent, and Patsy proceeds to cover it all up. how stupid in hindsight because the BPD would never had publicized it all and wouldn't have punished Burke for an accident.

Something else was on Patsy's mind. The only thing I can think of is previous vaginal trauma? Or the stigma of a brother killing his sister? She could see her beautiful life going down the drain.

As for the clothes, either she had not changed before it happened, or if she had changed, she did all the work to cover it up and being distraught the next morning, just picked up the clothes lying there and put them back on. Never dreaming anyone would think anything of that.

The only other scenario that works since Patsy did write the note, is patsy herself causing JB to fall. Listen it can happen and so fast. usually kids dont' get hurt from a little tumble or stumble, but if fall against a tub or the corner of a cabinet or even on a ceramic floor, you will die, or be horribly hurt. The same plans would apply had Burke or PR done it.

I think it was revealed in the secret grand jury due to some of the Ramsey Team investigators revealing what they believe or even what they were told. how would the DA handle it, if it was Burke? He'd have to refuse to indict and then let the family be reviled for years to come.

Since: Aug 09

Round Rock, TX

#299 Sep 20, 2014
BrotherMoon wrote:
Yes, you can hear the air go out of the room when Kolar says John found the body at a11 am.
If the sheets reeked of urine, then how was it she was killed by an intruder during the night? At one point did she wet the bed? And the intruder got her out of bed to do his dirty work? And did the intruder also grab the pullups out of the closet and leave them askew?

if you stop and think for half a minute, this is a typical scenario between a mom and a bed wetting child. Patsy feeds them pinapple and then puts them to bed. JB wakes up at some point crying from being wet and Patsy may or may not be sleeping. Could have still been up packing tho. She goes in,sees the mess, and grabs a pullup and JB to take her to the bathroom. JB is still groggy and stumbles and hits her head either on the tub or corner of counter. and the blow is severe.

But is it enough to kill her? Patsy must think so, and if there is little blood that means the brain is swelling and bleeding is on the inside. Death will occur soon. Patsy is the only one awake and she totally loses it. Is she a sociopath? No. just a human being overwhelmed at the moment and she makes a rash decision to cover it all up.

In her world, she thinks she is smarter than everyone else and can make people believe it is a kidnapping. that is why the note is so ludicrous, and the way she does it just screams Patsy wrote it.
It is not the work of a criminal.

As for JB discovering the body early on before he reveals it, that is what Linda Arndt thought in hindsight. John was acting beside himself but around 11 after searching he comes in, makes a private phone call and behaves completely differently. He has something on his mind. When Linda says search again, John is back with the body in a minute!! How did he know where to go? When he found the body initially he was so shocked he wasn't sure what the police would do. Arrest them?
but he made a phone call to arrange to LEAVE town before the body was even discovered. Once he discovered it, he had their plans already made. That is when he knew what happened.
Just Wondering

Mount Hope, WV

#300 Sep 21, 2014
I think Patsy suspected that her two children may have been experimenting with each other in a sexual manner. Whether or not it was consensual, who can say? That would have been the ultimate reason she opted for a cover-up. An accident could have been explained simply enough, perhaps. But she knew there would have been questions about sexual molestation and that is why she had to opt to include a sexual predator in the scenario she constructed.
Carmen

United States

#301 Oct 26, 2014
It's possible Burke killed his sister, but, not probable in my opinion. Why? A few things. First, there was evidence that JonBenet was being sexually abused. Any psychologist will tell you most of the time the abuser is an adult not another child. Yes. It's possible but not probable. Second, Burke was heard on the 911 tape ask if they found anything and John Ramsey tell him no one was talking to him. If Burke murdered his sister, that would not be the conversation taking place. Third, Patsy Ramsey never changed clothes that night which indicates that what ever happened, happened not long after they got home. Fourth, John Ramsey deliberately contaminated the crime scene, so that forensics could not determine what was what. He not only touched his daughter, but literally moved her body knowing full well what he was doing. He was in charge... and I truly believe the ransom note clearly mentions the killer, and I think Patsy, the author wrote it that way. "Mr. Ramsey" "You stand a 99% chance of Killing Your Daughter!

Second,
Just Wondering

Mount Hope, WV

#302 Oct 26, 2014
If John were in charge of the cover-up why would he let Patsy indict him by using only his name in the ransom note?

Thinking rationally, if all three of the Ramseys were awake at the time of the 911 call (which the tape has proved they were), then both parents had to be involved in the staging and the cover up and Burke was involved in the murder. Otherwise, the parents would have had no prompting to be complicit in lying to the police about Burke being asleep through the entire ordeal. What reason would they have had to lie to the police about Burke's whereabouts if they and he were entirely innocent of Jonbenet's murder? There would have been NO reason to lie. Period. They, one or all, were guilty of this child's murder and the subsequent coverup and staging.

Since: Aug 09

Round Rock, TX

#303 Oct 30, 2014
Yes, Just Wondering, I have thought too that it was so odd for Burke's voice to be on the 911 tape asking "what DID you find?" Almost like he did it, got scared when she wouldn't wake up and he went on to bed hoping that no one would blame him too much.

My question is this: Did Patsy realized as soon as she saw JB what happened? The neighbor heard a blood curdling scream. Was that JB screaming when she got hurt or was that Patsy herself screaming when she found her daughter?

One thing puzzles me though. Reports say that the sheets reeked of urine. That implies that JB did go to bed with her red turtleneck on because that was found in the bathroom wadded up inside out like it had been taken off. So if JB and Burke were up playing and she got hurt, when did the wet sheets occur?

it doesn't work for Burke to be the perp unless JB was still in wet clothes when she and burke went to play.
Just Wondering

Mount Hope, WV

#304 Oct 31, 2014
Carmen wrote:
It's possible Burke killed his sister, but, not probable in my opinion. Why? A few things. First, there was evidence that JonBenet was being sexually abused. Any psychologist will tell you most of the time the abuser is an adult not another child. Yes. It's possible but not probable. Second, Burke was heard on the 911 tape ask if they found anything and John Ramsey tell him no one was talking to him. If Burke murdered his sister, that would not be the conversation taking place. Third, Patsy Ramsey never changed clothes that night which indicates that what ever happened, happened not long after they got home. Fourth, John Ramsey deliberately contaminated the crime scene, so that forensics could not determine what was what. He not only touched his daughter, but literally moved her body knowing full well what he was doing. He was in charge... and I truly believe the ransom note clearly mentions the killer, and I think Patsy, the author wrote it that way. "Mr. Ramsey" "You stand a 99% chance of Killing Your Daughter!
Second,
Yes, it may be possible, but not probable that the child was the molester. However, it DOES definitely happen. I am aware personally of a case where a thirteen year old molested and impregnated his younger sister. Granted the sister was just entering puberty and was older than Jonbenet. But we have to ask exactly when his abuse towards his sister actually began and why the parents weren't alerted to the situation until the girl ended up pregnant. So experts may agree all they wish, there are always exceptions to their expert opinions and data.
Just Wondering

Mount Hope, WV

#305 Oct 31, 2014
Rangette wrote:
Yes, Just Wondering, I have thought too that it was so odd for Burke's voice to be on the 911 tape asking "what DID you find?" Almost like he did it, got scared when she wouldn't wake up and he went on to bed hoping that no one would blame him too much.
My question is this: Did Patsy realized as soon as she saw JB what happened? The neighbor heard a blood curdling scream. Was that JB screaming when she got hurt or was that Patsy herself screaming when she found her daughter?
One thing puzzles me though. Reports say that the sheets reeked of urine. That implies that JB did go to bed with her red turtleneck on because that was found in the bathroom wadded up inside out like it had been taken off. So if JB and Burke were up playing and she got hurt, when did the wet sheets occur?
it doesn't work for Burke to be the perp unless JB was still in wet clothes when she and burke went to play.
Perhaps Jonbenet did go to bed as Patsy had claimed. I can't for the life of me imagine a mother putting her child, who tends to wet her bed on a regular basis, to bed without waking her to use the bathroom FIRST. However, let us say that is how it happened. Jonbenet is in bed, wets her bed, comes downstairs bemoaning the situation, and then the argument between Burke and she begins. Teasing because she wet the bed, stealing a piece of Burke's snack--why wasn't she awakened to enjoy a snack, too--many scenarios as to how this played out. That could account for the wet sheets.(Was it reported that the sheets were actually wet or just that they reeked of urine? Could have been from the night before?)

Also, Rangette, as a mother, do you find it a little strange that the Ramseys are leaving early for the airport, and yet, Patsy walks right past her daughter's room without peeping in to see if Jonbenet and her sheets need to be cleaned up? I think, if bed wetting occurs on a regular basis, one would tend to try to stay on top of the situation.
Just Wondering

Mount Hope, WV

#306 Oct 31, 2014
When one considers that Patsy stopped to check out an article of Jonbenet's clothing to see if it needed to be treated before washing--I believe that was what Patsy claimed--why wouldn't she peek in to check on whether or not Jonbenet had wet the bed before she made her trek down the stairs to put up coffee?

Since: Aug 09

Round Rock, TX

#307 Nov 1, 2014
I agree with all you said Just Wondering. I always check the kids during the night and in the morning. It gets weirder and weirder.
whadoouno

United States

#308 Nov 12, 2014
The assertion that neither Ramsey would cover for the other "indefinitely" is interesting. It may even be true, but wouldn't they turn on each other after they were arrested? If they thought they were going to trial, they'd have a reason. As it was, the difficulty of proving who did what was a major barrier to prosecution. It wasn't in either of their interests to remove it.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#309 Nov 12, 2014
whadoouno wrote:
The assertion that neither Ramsey would cover for the other "indefinitely" is interesting. It may even be true, but wouldn't they turn on each other after they were arrested? If they thought they were going to trial, they'd have a reason. As it was, the difficulty of proving who did what was a major barrier to prosecution. It wasn't in either of their interests to remove it.
Aaron Thompson never flipped on Shely Lowe in the Aarone Thompson case, even after she had a heart attack and died before trial, but that didn't stop a jury from RIGHTFULLY convicting him of child abuse leading to death, which is exactly what both Ramsey parents were INDICTED for, and both Midyette parents.

Molly Midyette stuck like glue to her rotten husband Alex, until the jail door slammed behind HER, and Mr. not wonderful began cheating on her. Then, and only then, did she try to come up with a story saying for a lot of reasons she believed HE did it (she could not inculpate herself OF COURSE), but it was too little, too late. She was a CONVICTED FELON who would NOT BE BELIEVED so she put up some of her cokehead friends as "witnesses", who were basically useless and easily impeached on their drug use.
whadoouno

United States

#310 Nov 13, 2014
candy wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaron Thompson never flipped on Shely Lowe in the Aarone Thompson case, even after she had a heart attack and died before trial, but that didn't stop a jury from RIGHTFULLY convicting him of child abuse leading to death, which is exactly what both Ramsey parents were INDICTED for, and both Midyette parents.
Molly Midyette stuck like glue to her rotten husband Alex, until the jail door slammed behind HER, and Mr. not wonderful began cheating on her.
You're kind if making my point. If the best evidence against Burke is that the Ramseys wouldn't cover for each other, that's not strong at all. John was Patsy's meal ticket. It's less obvious what she provided for him, but that may argue for John not being sure what had happened on the morning of Dec. 26. If they had been charged, they might gave started finger-pointing at each other.
whadoouno

Walnut Creek, CA

#311 Nov 13, 2014
That should be "have started finger pointing," of course.

Speculation about motives is interesting, but motivation can be complex, can't it? John might cover for Patsy because he thought her medication made her crazy or because he was having an affair and felt guilty about it or because she had something on him. Or because he just wasn't sure what the hell was going on when he first got up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Burke's DNA found on white blanket? 13 min Dedred 3
Note-odd detail? (Jul '14) 53 min Just Wondering 2,427
Forensic reliablity in the JB case 56 min Just Wondering 21
Undr vs. The Kolar Theory 2 hr Undrtheradar 54
history of abuse... or her story of abuse (Aug '15) 6 hr Anonymous 31
In the Navy 8 hr Anonymous 6
Hot Tea In Glasses (May '08) 8 hr Anonymous 280