Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ram...

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#277 Feb 10, 2014
Or fascinating.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#278 Feb 10, 2014
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

#279 Feb 10, 2014
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

#280 Feb 10, 2014
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

#281 Feb 10, 2014
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

#282 Feb 10, 2014
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

#283 Feb 10, 2014
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

#284 Feb 10, 2014
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

#285 Feb 10, 2014
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

Location hidden

#286 Feb 10, 2014
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

#287 Feb 11, 2014
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

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.

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
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 13 min stoned luck aka ... 243
Sig 1 hr Just Wondering 20
Radaronline FOIA - JonBenet Ramsey case 1 hr Just Wondering 19
Questions RE Burke's involvement.... (Dec '11) 14 hr stoned luck aka ... 335
Suspect Randy Simons! (Dec '07) 17 hr stoned luck aka ... 318
Think family...helter skelter type of family 23 hr stoned luck aka ... 19
It Is a FELONY to Harass, Stalk, or Even Annoy ... (Mar '10) Thu stoned luck aka ... 39
More from around the web