Comments
261 - 280 of 281 Comments Last updated Feb 14, 2014

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fr_Brown wrote:
Apparently Mary Lacy, her ADAs and Tom Bennett rolled their eyes while watching the last quarter of Kolar's PowerPoint presentation.
Why are you constantly trying to kill the messenger? If you didn't learn anything new from his book, do as Capricorn suggested, put it on eBay and sell it, and move on.

If you did learn something new (amounts of DNA for instance) quit trying to kill the messenger of that information, and add another few pieces of the puzzle to your arsenal.

Apparently Mary Lacy isn't the brightest crayon in the box with her handling of the case, and I am surprised someone of your intelligence continues to defend her actions. JMK indeed!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

You keep acting like it was only Mary Lacy and her office who looked at Kolar's presentation. You leave out Mark Beckner, Stan Garnett, Gov. Owens and thirty assorted local, state and federal law enforcement professionals. I only know Mary Lacy's reaction for sure.

But I can tell from Kolar's own words that there is something seriously amiss.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#276
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

And why would I sell the book? The last chapter or two is facinating.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#277
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Or fascinating.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fr_Brown wrote:

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.
Maybe if you discussed the book content and not just the author? Just a thought.
With you since the book came out it has been Kolar this and Kolar that - we get it - you don't like him - now try discussing the content and consider leaving the author (Kolar) as only the vehicle which afforded you the information.

I normally like your posts and discussions, but I have to admit, I am tired of hearing you berate him while pretending to discuss the book.

What I don't want to see is this thread threatened or removed because all you can see fit to do is slam the author. Too many people have put a lot of work into this thread.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#279
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Legal__Eagle wrote:
Maybe if you discussed the book content and not just the author? Just a thought.
With you since the book came out it has been Kolar this and Kolar that - we get it - you don't like him - now try discussing the content and consider leaving the author (Kolar) as only the vehicle which afforded you the information.
I normally like your posts and discussions, but I have to admit, I am tired of hearing you berate him while pretending to discuss the book.
What I don't want to see is this thread threatened or removed because all you can see fit to do is slam the author. Too many people have put a lot of work into this thread.
Are you kidding? Everything I've talked about is in his book except for for the part about Lacy and company rolling their eyes. That comes from an interview with her.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

And Kolar I don't care about one way or the other, except that I thought he was the author of the book I'm discussing. Am I wrong about that?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#281
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

You know, if we were told by the author of _Foreign Faction_(whoever that might be) the actual wording of the CSI report(s) regarding the alleged pajamas with poop in them and the feces-smeared candy box, and if we knew what Vodicka actually said about poop in Burke's bathroom, we could discuss those things without referring to Kolar.

But everything he tells us about Burke and SBP is filtered through his perceptions and what he did or failed to do to verify his information so we have to assess Kolar's reliability to get a bead on that evidence.

I'm inclined to accept the DNA results he tells us about because those seem tied to black-and-white facts. Unfortunately, SBP/Burke is part of the package and can't just be ignored.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you kidding? Everything I've talked about is in his book except for for the part about Lacy and company rolling their eyes. That comes from an interview with her.
Ever heard of the phrase "it isn't what you say it is how you say it"?

A few of your discussing the topics and not the man:

My point is that it was Kolar's job to test his favorite pieces of evidence to see if they stood up to scrutiny and not give in to his passion for confirmation bias.
He didn't come close to proving the first--or even showing it was probable--and he couldn't know the second.
I think Kolar did exactly what he said he did--he read a report, a report that had a reference to pajamas (probably) with poop in them on her floor. But I did something he apparently didn't do: I went looking for evidence of these pajamas in the crime scene photos and the interviews and I didn't find anything.
He repeats the same stuff over and over. You'd think he'd get bored.
I don't have any reason to think that his curiosity extended to figuring something out about this item of clothing.
I see myself as being in the moral mainstream, but I seem to be the only person in the world who's shocked by Kolar publishing such innuendoes about Burke with almost nothing to back them up.
One shudders to think what Kolar *can't* tell us considering how much he's already told us that's merely speculation.
How many cops would presume to write an opening statement for a district attorney?

If you are just discussing the book, mea culpa! I mistook that for you taking any shot possible at Kolar, LMAO!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Legal__Eagle wrote:
Ever heard of the phrase "it isn't what you say it is how you say it"?
A few of your discussing the topics and not the man:
My point is that it was Kolar's job to test his favorite pieces of evidence to see if they stood up to scrutiny and not give in to his passion for confirmation bias.
He didn't come close to proving the first--or even showing it was probable--and he couldn't know the second.
I think Kolar did exactly what he said he did--he read a report, a report that had a reference to pajamas (probably) with poop in them on her floor. But I did something he apparently didn't do: I went looking for evidence of these pajamas in the crime scene photos and the interviews and I didn't find anything.
He repeats the same stuff over and over. You'd think he'd get bored.
I don't have any reason to think that his curiosity extended to figuring something out about this item of clothing.
I see myself as being in the moral mainstream, but I seem to be the only person in the world who's shocked by Kolar publishing such innuendoes about Burke with almost nothing to back them up.
One shudders to think what Kolar *can't* tell us considering how much he's already told us that's merely speculation.
How many cops would presume to write an opening statement for a district attorney?
If you are just discussing the book, mea culpa! I mistook that for you taking any shot possible at Kolar, LMAO!
Thanks for making my point: that's all about trying to figure out what Kolar did to ascertain if Burke actually suffers or suffered from Sexual Behavior Problems. The answer appears to be "nothing." Ascertaining that would be the first and necessary step. But Kolar seems to have skipped that and constructed an elaborate and "highly speculative" (his phrase) edifice on nothing.

And I'm still shocked, but now I think I have a better idea about what's going on.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Actually, I made my point not yours, sorry you missed that. You are continually taking potshots, but you are doing it wherever you post not just here, so I guess it is sort of ingrained in everything you say. Maybe the thread can get back on course now.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#285
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Legal__Eagle wrote:
Actually, I made my point not yours, sorry you missed that. You are continually taking potshots, but you are doing it wherever you post not just here, so I guess it is sort of ingrained in everything you say. Maybe the thread can get back on course now.
Meow! Though I have to say I don't know what you're talking about.(That's OK, I don't care.)

If Kolar writes a book, he can expect to be critiqued. He's a big boy; he can take it. He expects Burke to swallow what he says about him and that's much, much worse.

Yes, let's get the thread back on track: stop telling me to stop making legitimate points.

Since: Jan 12

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#286
Feb 10, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fr_Brown wrote:
You know, if we were told by the author of _Foreign Faction_(whoever that might be) the actual wording of the CSI report(s) regarding the alleged pajamas with poop in them and the feces-smeared candy box, and if we knew what Vodicka actually said about poop in Burke's bathroom, we could discuss those things without referring to Kolar.

But everything he tells us about Burke and SBP is filtered through his perceptions and what he did or failed to do to verify his information so we have to assess Kolar's reliability to get a bead on that evidence.

I'm inclined to accept the DNA results he tells us about because those seem tied to black-and-white facts. Unfortunately, SBP/Burke is part of the package and can't just be ignored.
Kolar Misrepresents the evidentiary DNA too. During an interview w/Tricia, he confirmed the the first three profiles listed in his book, were from the 1997 DNA results. These profiles showed only consistencies among the markers identified, but Kolar calls them each unique.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#287
Feb 11, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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.
Heloise

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#289
Feb 11, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#290
Feb 11, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#292
Feb 11, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#294
Feb 12, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Does anyone know for sure whether or not this candy box was collected?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#295
Feb 14, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jonbenet's "Secret Santa..." 7 hr Just Wondering 25
Note-odd detail? 7 hr Just Wondering 406
What kind of instrument yields this type of wound? 7 hr Just Wondering 59
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) Thu JTF 7,467
Doc Miller to be on Boyles 2/1/13 (Feb '13) Thu Rupert 33
Jason Midyette (Dec '07) Aug 19 Legal__Eagle 1,320
The Jonbenet Ransom note and Dirty Harry Aug 18 Note 17

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
•••