Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ram...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#63 Aug 13, 2013
Hate to burst your balloon but I am questioning it. It's more plausible she or Nedra saw the movie and picked the 'dramatic' sequence from there. This wasn't a literate family of prolific readers, they were more akin to circus performers.

Thatís as lame as claiming Jonbenet spent Christmas in Hawaii because she had pineapple in her gut.

If Patsy had read and understood the underlying lesbianism theme in The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie she would have never uttered a word from the book in public let alone on a stage. Nedra was dumb and Patsy was clueless because neither ever read the book.
BrotherMoon

Arvada, CO

#64 Aug 13, 2013
And that pretty much defines your ability to contribute to the discussion.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#65 Aug 13, 2013
"Patsy's High School forensics class" ???? That's interesting.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#66 Oct 3, 2013
candy wrote:
Where Kolar's book is VERY STRONG, is in his emphasis on the totality of the evidence, so excludes "the intruder theory" as to make it virtually impossible. He dismantles the idea that ANYONE let alone a small, foreign faction entered that basement that night. Over and over he goes back down there. WHERE'S THE POINT OF ENTRY THEN? The whole literary device at the beginning of the book of how a small, foreign faction would have had to carry out this crime was VERY SHREWD, again next to impossible, let alone the more than one killer, the more likely someone will tell someone else, etc. Plus the huge revelation of the train tracks as the real cause of the marks on JonBenet's back is a huge revelation, again dismanteling what they call intruder evidence. So thanks to Kolar, it's all down to the DNA on the panties and an the waistband. And you can't blow that evidence off until you know who it belongs to, but as my DNA expert told me, you can only get a partial reading of identity from that partial, 10 marker sample:
"10 markers do not provide sufficient resolution to surname prediction but can might shed light on the ethnic origin of paternal line of the originator."
Am I correct in thinking that a mother, due to pregnancy, can actually have her daughter's DNA cells in her own body? Could that explain the female DNA that was found under Jonbenet's fingernails? The report stated that it was possibly Jonbenet's own DNA? Also, with all of the different cancer treatments Patsy received, could Chimerism be responsible for the unidentified DNA on the undies and the long john bottoms? If so, sounds to me like Kolar has shot holes through the intruder theory.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#67 Oct 3, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I correct in thinking that a mother, due to pregnancy, can actually have her daughter's DNA cells in her own body? Could that explain the female DNA that was found under Jonbenet's fingernails? The report stated that it was possibly Jonbenet's own DNA? Also, with all of the different cancer treatments Patsy received, could Chimerism be responsible for the unidentified DNA on the undies and the long john bottoms? If so, sounds to me like Kolar has shot holes through the intruder theory.
The fingernail DNA was just called contaminated, as far as I know. The panty/longjohn DNA is straight up male.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#68 Oct 4, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>Could that explain the female DNA that was found under Jonbenet's fingernails? The report stated that it was possibly Jonbenet's own DNA? Also, with all of the different cancer treatments Patsy received, could Chimerism be responsible for the unidentified DNA on the undies and the long john bottoms?
According to Kolar, Patsy's DNA (via TDNA collection) was present on the nightgown in the wine cellar. So, you're proposing that 3 different DNA profiles came from 1 person? No.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#69 Oct 21, 2013
I remember that Kolar cites feces-stained pajama bottoms in JonBenet's room as evidence of Burke's alleged mental problems. These "pajama bottoms" weren't collected and I believe that Kolar concluded they belonged to Burke because they were too big for JonBenet.(I'm not sure how he determined that they were too big for her.) But in Patsy's 1998 interview, Patsy seems to be saying that they do belong to JonBenet. Either that or JonBenet's floor was littered with poopy pants.

TOM HANEY: How about 378?

PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her pants.

TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular pants, when she would have worn those last?

PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably recently because they are dropped in the middle of the floor, but I don't remember exactly.

TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It appears they are stained.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet had a problem with?

PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#70 Oct 21, 2013
I think those were regular pants Haney was pointing out in the pictures, and not the pajama pants to which Kolar was referring.
Fr_Brown wrote:
I remember that Kolar cites feces-stained pajama bottoms in JonBenet's room as evidence of Burke's alleged mental problems. These "pajama bottoms" weren't collected and I believe that Kolar concluded they belonged to Burke because they were too big for JonBenet.(I'm not sure how he determined that they were too big for her.) But in Patsy's 1998 interview, Patsy seems to be saying that they do belong to JonBenet. Either that or JonBenet's floor was littered with poopy pants.
TOM HANEY: How about 378?
PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her pants.
TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular pants, when she would have worn those last?
PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably recently because they are dropped in the middle of the floor, but I don't remember exactly.
TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.
PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It appears they are stained.
PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet had a problem with?
PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#71 Oct 21, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I think those were regular pants Haney was pointing out in the pictures, and not the pajama pants to which Kolar was referring.
Why? Does Haney ask Patsy about the pajama bottoms somewhere?
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#72 Oct 21, 2013
Patsy underwent several different treatments for her cancer which could have transmitted the donor's DNA to Patsy. I do not know if male DNA can be retained by a female. If it is possible, then the DNA evidence collected can be called into question.

There were SEVERAL samples of unknown foreign DNA linked to the crime scene. So I have to wonder, how many people does it take to kidnap, bludgeon, molest, and strangle a small child? And yet, like magic, these MULTIPLE donors managed to enter and leave the home through a small window without leaving any of their DNA or clothing fibers on the window sill and without disturbing the cobweb hanging there.

My only point is that there can be several reasons for the DNA. That alone does not prove there was an intruder that night. Especially when one considers that Jonbenet had been sexually violated on an ongoing basis.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#73 Oct 21, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Does Haney ask Patsy about the pajama bottoms somewhere?
I don't recall Patsy being asked about the pajama bottoms, but from what I remember, the pants she was being questioned about were not pajama bottoms. It will be interesting to know whether the pajamas Kolar alluded to were discussed during the GJ hearings.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#74 Oct 21, 2013
Not that I know of - which was my point.

That information came from Kolar.
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Does Haney ask Patsy about the pajama bottoms somewhere?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#75 Oct 21, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
I don't recall Patsy being asked about the pajama bottoms, but from what I remember, the pants she was being questioned about were not pajama bottoms. It will be interesting to know whether the pajamas Kolar alluded to were discussed during the GJ hearings.
It's possible that there are two feces-smeared articles of clothing in JonBenet's room, but why would Haney ask about one of them and not the other?(I'm not sure that he doesn't; I didn't see it.) Kolar, it turns out, is going on something written by the CSIs who describe some clothes as pajama bottoms and say they might be too big for JonBenet. Unless Kolar discusses it somewhere else besides p.370, he didn't check it out any further.(Kolar doesn't say the alleged pajama bottoms were found on the floor. I'm not sure where I got that from.)

We don't know that the clothes Patsy's asked about aren't pajama bottoms. Haney describes them as pants, but that can mean anything that goes over your legs. And we don't know that the CSIs were accurate in describing the clothes they were talking about as pajamas. Maybe they were simply soft material.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#76 Oct 21, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
Either that or JonBenet's floor was littered with poopy pants.
Multiple pairs were found at the crime scene. The first pair of 'poopy pants' was Jonbenet's underwear with feces on her bathroom floor found with a pair of her pants turned inside out. These have been known about for some time.

The second sighting was a seperate pair of Burke's pj bottoms not described as merely 'stained' but actully had feces in them. This information was first revealed in Kolar's book. There are pictures of Burke that morning in pjs so I wonder if it was those bottoms.

How did the parent's not smell this? Is this the 'decay' odor Linda Arndt talked about? I'd be looking for a dead corpse on the premises with that the kind of stench yet to the Ramsey's nothing was unusual or out of place. Even Pam never mentioned it odd.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#77 Oct 21, 2013
moonjack wrote:
Multiple pairs were found at the crime scene. The first pair of 'poopy pants' was Jonbenet's underwear with feces on her bathroom floor found with a pair of her pants turned inside out. These have been known about for some time.
The second sighting was a seperate pair of Burke's pj bottoms not described as merely 'stained' but actully had feces in them. This information was first revealed in Kolar's book.
Possibly the transcript is wrong, but the underpants I think you are talking about are described by both Haney and Patsy simply as "pants" on "JonBenet's floor." It's not clear to me that they're talking about the bathroom floor at that point. Maybe they are.

As far as "Burke's pj bottoms" go, Kolar seems to be going solely on CSI speculation about who an article of clothing might belong to. It's an important part of his theory so you'd think Kolar would try to nail this down.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#78 Oct 21, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly the transcript is wrong, but the underpants I think you are talking about are described by both Haney and Patsy simply as "pants" on "JonBenet's floor." It's not clear to me that they're talking about the bathroom floor at that point. Maybe they are.
As far as "Burke's pj bottoms" go, Kolar seems to be going solely on CSI speculation about who an article of clothing might belong to. It's an important part of his theory so you'd think Kolar would try to nail this down.
Perhaps we will learn more about the pj's Kolar described this week in the testimony of the housekeeper. Would they have questioned her about the children's toilet irregularities in order to establish a case for sexual abuse?

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#79 Oct 21, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
Perhaps we will learn more about the pj's Kolar described this week in the testimony of the housekeeper. Would they have questioned her about the children's toilet irregularities in order to establish a case for sexual abuse?
You're talking about the grand jury? Probably they would have asked her.

Steve Thomas gives a fairly good account of what LHP had to say to the police in his book.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#80 Oct 26, 2013
A great thing is Chief Kolar has been interviewed quite a lot in the last two days, including yesterday, Saturday, 10/26 on CNN:

Transcript: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1310/26/cn...

You Tube link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=J qqXU9PY3Y4

Chief Kolar will be on Tricia's True Crime radio tonight 10/27 also. ANYTHING he has to say on this case is worthwhile listening to.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#81 Oct 27, 2013
candy wrote:
A great thing is Chief Kolar has been interviewed quite a lot in the last two days, including yesterday, Saturday, 10/26 on CNN:
Transcript: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1310/26/cn...
You Tube link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=J qqXU9PY3Y4
Chief Kolar will be on Tricia's True Crime radio tonight 10/27 also. ANYTHING he has to say on this case is worthwhile listening to.
This news is getting a LOT of press here in NYC also and that is always a good thing. Opening up a discussion and putting nationwide, if not worldwide pressure on Boulder being in the spotlight AGAIN, may result in others opening up a bit with information that may not have been known prior.

I'm hoping that someone on the GJ will eventually be persuaded within the boundaries of the law, to be open to a conversation about their theories based on the evidence presented to them.

We already know that they didn't know who did what, but I'd like to know where they were leaning and what "theory" THEY had

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#82 Nov 1, 2013
Fr_Brown wrote:
Possibly the transcript is wrong, but the underpants I think you are talking about are described by both Haney and Patsy simply as "pants" on "JonBenet's floor." It's not clear to me that they're talking about the bathroom floor at that point. Maybe they are.
As far as "Burke's pj bottoms" go, Kolar seems to be going solely on CSI speculation about who an article of clothing might belong to. It's an important part of his theory so you'd think Kolar would try to nail this down.
Replying to my own post here to mention that Linda Hoffman-Pugh was shown the crime scene photos by Kane, Levin and Harmer and asked to comment. I don't know if she was asked about the pants discussed by Haney and Patsy, but Schiller mentions that she was asked about a "garment with stains."

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
New DNA tests? Asking BPD for approval. 41 min robert 11
RDI'z- - -Ransom Note Questions 1 hr robert 10
MODERATOR SHOW YOUR BLUE CARD ..Step in here i... 1 hr robert 13
Blood choke or air choke 2 hr Revelations 3
Music for the soul 2 hr Anti-K 358
News 'Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery' rev... 3 hr Revelations 166
Caylee Anthony`s Body Found (Dec '08) 3 hr Revelations 22
Officer French Field Report 3 hr KCinNYC 159
More from around the web