Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ram...
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.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#312 Nov 13, 2014
All three Ramseys who were still alive conspired to cover up what happened. John knew, Patsy knew, and Burke knew. All three can be heard on the 911 tape. Both John and Patsy lied about the circumstances around the 911 call, and because of his age, Burke was never questioned in detail about it. The 911 call is proof of collusion before the first policeman arrived.
whadoouno

Walnut Creek, CA

#313 Nov 14, 2014
gotgum wrote:
All three Ramseys who were still alive conspired to cover up what happened. John knew, Patsy knew, and Burke knew. All three can be heard on the 911 tape. Both John and Patsy lied about the circumstances around the 911 call, and because of his age, Burke was never questioned in detail about it. The 911 call is proof of collusion before the first policeman arrived.
That's quite a leap of logic there. All three can be heard on the 911 recording so they all knew what happened? "What did you find?" seems like an inevitable question when people are screaming about a ransom note. "We're not talking to you" is something I used to say all the time to my kid when I was upset about something and was too busy to explain.

Both Ramseys lied about a lot of things when they sat down for their formal interviews. By that time at least John probably had a pretty good idea of what had transpired, but it doesn't follow from that he knew on the morning of December 26.

Since: Aug 09

Round Rock, TX

#314 Nov 15, 2014
Most likely what Burke "knew" is whatever his part of the death was. Did he hit JB? So many people now believe it, but at the time most believed it was all Patsy. I never thought it pointed to an intruder once we got a look at the ransom note.

And what random kidnapper would take a child from a urine soaked bed, take off her sweater in the bathroom, dress her in her favorite gown? Seriously? That is the actions of a mom or dad, not a stranger.

Patsy covered it up all that night. Whether John helped or was informed when he got up, no one will ever know. As for Burke, yes he went along with it. he was old enough to be threatened. However, the only reason we don't know what really happened is they kept him from being questioned long enough for him to get old enough to realize what could happen if he told the truth.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#315 Nov 20, 2014
Rangette wrote:
Most likely what Burke "knew" is whatever his part of the death was. Did he hit JB? So many people now believe it, but at the time most believed it was all Patsy. I never thought it pointed to an intruder once we got a look at the ransom note.
And what random kidnapper would take a child from a urine soaked bed, take off her sweater in the bathroom, dress her in her favorite gown? Seriously? That is the actions of a mom or dad, not a stranger.
Patsy covered it up all that night. Whether John helped or was informed when he got up, no one will ever know. As for Burke, yes he went along with it. he was old enough to be threatened. However, the only reason we don't know what really happened is they kept him from being questioned long enough for him to get old enough to realize what could happen if he told the truth.
If I remember correctly, the nightgown was wrapped up in the blanket around JonBenet. She was found in the white top she'd worn to the Whites'. According to Steve Thomas, Patsy originally told the police that JonBenet was put to bed wearing the red turtleneck which was found near the sink in her bathroom. Patsy changed her story later.

The housekeeper suggested that the blanket was taken out of the dryer and the nightgown was simply bound up in it due to static cling .

I agree with the points you made. Personally, I don't see any evidence of involvement on Burke's part. It's possible he heard Patsy beefing with JonBenet over her bed-wetting. She wasn't planning on killing her so why would she keep her voice down? Burke told police that his sister's bed-wetting was a big problem.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#316 Nov 22, 2014
whadoouno wrote:
<quoted text>
That's quite a leap of logic there. All three can be heard on the 911 recording so they all knew what happened? "What did you find?" seems like an inevitable question when people are screaming about a ransom note. "We're not talking to you" is something I used to say all the time to my kid when I was upset about something and was too busy to explain.
Both Ramseys lied about a lot of things when they sat down for their formal interviews. By that time at least John probably had a pretty good idea of what had transpired, but it doesn't follow from that he knew on the morning of December 26.
I don't really think it's a leap of logic as much as a simplification to save writing a longer post. Each line taken by itself can be explained in an infinite number of ways. However, taken in context with the entire situation, it's not too much of a leap (IMO) to make a few assumptions and draw some conclusions.

If you listen to the 911 recording for yourself, notice what is left out (as far as I know) of all transcribed versions of the conversation. Here is what they typically report:

PR:(inaudible) police.
911:(inaudible)
PR: 755 Fifteenth Street.
911: What's going on there ma'am?
PR: We have a kidnapping... Hurry, please.

Here is what I suggest is said and transcribed simply as "(inaudible)":

Unidentified Voice:...-one?
911: 911 emergency...
PR: Hon', we need 'em...(pause, change in tone of voice) POLICE!
911: What's going on...
PR: 755 Fifteenth Street.
911: What's going on there, ma'am?
PR: We had a kidnapping. Hurry, please.

If you listen to the recording, notice the change in tone of voice of Patsy. She's not talking to the 911 operator when the recording starts. She's answering the person who asked her why she's calling nine-one-one. This is all very subtle, and some of the sentences are almost spoken over one another, but it's there. Listen to it for yourself.
whadoouno

United States

#317 Nov 23, 2014
gotgum wrote:
<quoted text>I don't really think it's a leap of logic as much as a simplification to save writing a longer post. Each line taken by itself can be explained in an infinite number of ways. However, taken in context with the entire situation, it's not too much of a leap (IMO) to make a few assumptions and draw some conclusions.
If you listen to the 911 recording for yourself, notice what is left out (as far as I know) of all transcribed versions of the conversation. Here is what they typically report:
PR:(inaudible) police.
911:(inaudible)
PR: 755 Fifteenth Street.
911: What's going on there ma'am?
PR: We have a kidnapping... Hurry, please.
Here is what I suggest is said and transcribed simply as "(inaudible)":
Unidentified Voice:...-one?
911: 911 emergency...
PR: Hon', we need 'em...(pause, change in tone of voice) POLICE!
911: What's going on...
PR: 755 Fifteenth Street.
911: What's going on there, ma'am?
PR: We had a kidnapping. Hurry, please.
If you listen to the recording, notice the change in tone of voice of Patsy. She's not talking to the 911 operator when the recording starts. She's answering the person who asked her why she's calling nine-one-one. This is all very subtle, and some of the sentences are almost spoken over one another, but it's there. Listen to it for yourself.
So they were all awake, so what?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#318 Nov 23, 2014
whadoouno wrote:
<quoted text>
So they were all awake, so what?
It just goes toward the point that the Ramseys lied about them all being awake. They claimed Burke was asleep in his room; otherwise it would be no big deal if they were all awake

There was no reason to lie about it unless...

Eventually it came out that Burke was awake but the question remained as to why they lied about it

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#319 Nov 23, 2014
whadoouno wrote:
<quoted text>
So they were all awake, so what?
I think it is important because whenever they got questioned about the kids they always said they were asleep.

They said JBR was asleep when they got home from the Whites, and that of course offsets the "when did she eat pineapple?" question.

Then they said BR was asleep during the 9-1-1 call so he wouldn't be questioned.

It all goes to patterns in the coverup.
whadoouno

Walnut Creek, CA

#320 Nov 23, 2014
Capricorn wrote:
It just goes toward the point that the Ramseys lied about them all being awake. They claimed Burke was asleep in his room; otherwise it would be no big deal if they were all awake
There was no reason to lie about it unless...
Eventually it came out that Burke was awake but the question remained as to why they lied about it
Of course, but gotgum's point was that since all three could be heard on the 911 call, all three "knew." (Talking about the murder, I assume.) I suggested that this wasn't necessarily so. In response gotgum said that during the phone call to the police Patsy said "Hon, we need them" to either John or Burke. That suggests that someone asked her what she was doing. Doesn't sound like a co-conspirator to me; it sounds like how you'd address someone who is not really clear about what's happened.

Whether or not there's any evidence that Patsy said that, I don't know. I suspect not.

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
Welcome to ...My Hell Hole 2 min KCinNYC 10
News JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect to be named (Feb '17) 4 min Right44 21
Very Dramatic Change in Behavior 7 min Right44 4
Body disposal 10 min Right44 5
There IS milk/cream in the bowl (Aug '13) 16 min Right44 40
John Andrew Ramsey Said What?? (Nov '16) 22 min PelicanBreefs 255
Hey, CBS Lawyers...Listen Carefully! (Mar '17) 41 min KCinNYC 15
More from around the web