Holly Smith's Recollections of Crime

Holly Smith's Recollections of Crime

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#1 Aug 16, 2012
The following is a write-up concerning Holly Smith's recollections of her observations when she went to the Ramsey home and viewed JonBenet's room and her comments about the crime in general:
**********

JonBenet Investigator Talks Exclusively to Fox 31 News
Created: Monday, 13 Nov 2006, 9:29 PM MST
JonBenet Ramsey
DENVER --
The tenth anniversary of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey is rapidly approaching. The whirlwind surrounding the arrest and release of John Mark Karr shows it's a mystery that continues to capture the nation’s attention.

Fox 31 News and Investigative Reporter Julie Hayden have received new information as one of the investigators talks for the first time about her experiences with the case.

Holly Smith recently wrote a book about her 20 years with the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team. She left out the chapter about the Ramsey case, but is now revealing her part of the investigation exclusively to us.

A Memory Forever Engrained

Holly Smith remembers walking up the steps to the Ramsey home: the big candy canes more jarring than festive considering the circumstances. The house was lavishly decorated.
Smith recalls, "It was big and it was meandering and it was schmanzy fancy."

It was the third day of the investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team and has been called into the investigation, as she says, "to consult about some of the dynamics and some of the things people suspected might be going on with this case."

She started, as always, with a visit to the child’s bedroom.
"That's a really important piece of getting a real feel for a family," Smith explains.

With portfolio pictures galore and closets full of JonBenet’s elaborate pageant outfits, Smith says she had a hard time getting a fell for who the little girl really was, even in her bedroom.
She recalls, "I just had a sense the type of decor in her bedroom was not really a child's decor."

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.

It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all.

Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything.

Continued~~

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#2 Aug 16, 2012
Continued~~

"There was a lot of territoriality around the case,” she says.
Smith says she also saw things in the Ramsey investigation that she's seen in other cases, like the factor that money played in it.
"No one is exempt but people with money are able to keep themselves more cushioned,” she says.

She says she also saw a reluctance to even consider the issue of child sex abuse.

Says Smith, "It’s just not a place where you know it's so abhorrent to people that they can't even do it, they can't even wrap their heads around it but it's more common than we think. The sexual violation of children has been around for a long time."

Smith believes all of them involved with the case lost their way.
She concludes, "In all the hyper-personalization around this case, everybody wanting a piece of it, everybody wanting to be the hero understandably and wanting to find out what happened to this little girl, our purpose really got lost. We lost sight of this child."

In her writing, Smith describes seeing a picture of a smiling JonBenet, taken Christmas morning and tells how distressing it was to realize the child would die what she called a hideous death that very day.

A lawyer for the Ramsey family did not return our phone calls. But the Ramseys have always denied that JonBenet suffered any kind of prior abuse and point out her pediatrician never saw anything indicating abuse, either.
**********

In the article above, the following comment relates to Smith's observations about the box of chocolates:

"One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy."

It's strange to me that she didn't mention a thing about this "red satin box" being smeared with fecal matter -- something that someone in her position would have noted and pointed out first off.

I therefore have to wonder where Kolar got his information about the box of chocolates. I'd also wonder if there was a crime-scene photo of this "fecal-smeared box of chocolates" since if it was factual there should have been one taken. Yet, I don't recall such a photo. Does anyone?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#3 Aug 16, 2012
There are probably many many photos, transcripts, etc. that we the public have never seen. We know there are the photos taken at the Whites that have not been seen either, we know there are reports about the DNA, etc. that we the public have never seen

I therefore also wonder why the soiled, stained underwear was never brought up by Smit or anyone pulling for the Ramseys and also have to wonder why the actual police video of the basement was never shared before and the only photos the public originally saw and continued to see were not at all as the basement really was

We can all wonder why the information has not been made public before, but the fact is that the investigators have a lot of things that the public is unaware of or haven't seen or heard.

Maybe Smith saw the box with the lid off and didn't see it. Or maybe she saw it and assumed it was chocolate smears considering she called it "a secret stash".

It doesn't make it non existent or not factual when it does become public. Like I said, I doubt very much that Kolar and Carol McKinley were going to risk their reputation, careers and possible charges printing information that doesn't really exist

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#4 Aug 16, 2012
Ole South wrote:
Continued~~
In the article above, the following comment relates to Smith's observations about the box of chocolates:
"One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy."
It's strange to me that she didn't mention a thing about this "red satin box" being smeared with fecal matter -- something that someone in her position would have noted and pointed out first off.
Thanks for posting all this information or us, Ole South. It's VERY strange to me too that she made no mention whatever of this "faecal smeared" box of candy or chocolates or whatever it was.
Ole South wrote:
I therefore have to wonder where Kolar got his information about the box of chocolates.
Right out of his thumb?
Ole South wrote:
I'd also wonder if there was a crime-scene photo of this "fecal-smeared box of chocolates" since if it was factual there should have been one taken. Yet, I don't recall such a photo. Does anyone?
I've never ever heard anyone say they've seen such a photo, OS. Believe me, there isn't one. If there was, why wasn't it shown in his book?

IMO Mr Koliar has one vivid imagination!

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#5 Aug 16, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for posting all this information or us, Ole South. It's VERY strange to me too that she made no mention whatever of this "faecal smeared" box of candy or chocolates or whatever it was.
<quoted text> Right out of his thumb?
<quoted text> I've never ever heard anyone say they've seen such a photo, OS. Believe me, there isn't one. If there was, why wasn't it shown in his book?
IMO Mr Koliar has one vivid imagination!
A legitimate question Lynette

Are you seriously stating that the information is coming directly from "imagination" and doesn't really exist?

Again, a simple yes or no will do

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#6 Aug 16, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for posting all this information or us, Ole South. It's VERY strange to me too that she made no mention whatever of this "faecal smeared" box of candy or chocolates or whatever it was.
<quoted text> Right out of his thumb?
<quoted text> I've never ever heard anyone say they've seen such a photo, OS. Believe me, there isn't one. If there was, why wasn't it shown in his book?
IMO Mr Koliar has one vivid imagination!
Also, since Smith was very precise when she stated,

"...most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."

Notice she didn't say, "stains" or "tracks" -- she used the word, "material", which connotes "fecal matter" rather than just stains or tracks.

And since she was so precise in her description of the condition of the panties, I can see no reason for her not being just as specific in describing the box of candy. Therefore, had it been smeared with fecal matter, I'm confident that she would have noticed it and pointed it out in her description.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#7 Aug 16, 2012
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that most every pair of underwear in JBR's drawers had lumps of fecal material on them?

Really? The whole room must have reeked.

I wonder why Smit never said anything about any of that?

Isn't it possible Ms. Smith meant stains?

We also have to remember that if she was there on the 3rd day of the investigation, she wasn't privy to anything that had been removed from the crime scene, or the previous placement in the room.
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, since Smith was very precise when she stated,
"...most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."
Notice she didn't say, "stains" or "tracks" -- she used the word, "material", which connotes "fecal matter" rather than just stains or tracks.
And since she was so precise in her description of the condition of the panties, I can see no reason for her not being just as specific in describing the box of candy. Therefore, had it been smeared with fecal matter, I'm confident that she would have noticed it and pointed it out in her description.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#8 Aug 16, 2012
The red satin box of candy isn't necessarily the fecal smeared box of chocolates. Could be there was more than one box of candy in the child's bedroom. We always got lots of candy in our Christmas stockings.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#9 Aug 16, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that most every pair of underwear in JBR's drawers had lumps of fecal material on them?
Really? The whole room must have reeked.
It seems all the underwear was severly stained, and not from skidmarks. I think the overhead light was removed and the fan installed to deal with the stench. That's was Patsy's speciality, covering things up.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#10 Aug 16, 2012
As I have intimated for years, if Patsy did indeed bleach Jonbenet's hair on the toilet there is no way in hell she would have sat there to poop.

Since: May 11

#11 Aug 16, 2012
moonjack wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems all the underwear was severly stained, and not from skidmarks. I think the overhead light was removed and the fan installed to deal with the stench. That's was Patsy's speciality, covering things up.
ROTFL!!! Don't go to any trouble like BLEACHING the dirty underwear, just take out the overhead light and install a fan instead! LOL that's too funny:D
If feces was literally clumped in all her underwear the entire house would reek, and an overhead fan would only distribute the odor. They'd need hazmat, not old Linda Pugh.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#12 Aug 16, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that most every pair of underwear in JBR's drawers had lumps of fecal material on them?
Really? The whole room must have reeked.
I wonder why Smit never said anything about any of that?
Isn't it possible Ms. Smith meant stains?
We also have to remember that if she was there on the 3rd day of the investigation, she wasn't privy to anything that had been removed from the crime scene, or the previous placement in the room.
<quoted text>
Actually, I was just quoting the article. "...most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."
So I cannot state for a fact what she meant by "most" of the panties -- "most ALL"? Does "most" imply "most all?" I would say so. So it's possible she DID mean stains.

I even wonder if Patsy was aware of the panties in the dresser since her clean panties were kept in the bathroom cabinet drawers. So IMO it's possible that JonBenet herself took off the soiled panties and placed them in the dresser drawers -- in an attempt at hiding them. It's also possible that after having been treated with chemo, Patsy could not smell. A lot of people in her situation lose their sense of smell and since she wouldn't have looked in the DRESSER for clean panties, she never found them.(No telling how long they had been there.)

I was just trying to figure out why Smith would not have said anything about the candy box if IT had been smeared, too. But like MJ said, it might not have been the ONLY box of candy she had.

I did look through the evidence lists but could find no mention of a box of candy -- fecal smeared or otherwise -- but there was at least one item that had been redacted. But with so many items on the long lists of evidence, what are the chances that the redacted item was the box of fecal smeared candy?

So, I was simply trying to figure out why Smith would not have mentioned the box of candy that Kolar described since it seems they were in disagreement on whether the candy box was soiled. I, too, wonder why Smit nor anyone else mentioned it since it would IMO draw the attention of all the investigators and for no one to say anything about it for almost 15 years is atypical in a case in which there were so many "leaks".

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#13 Aug 16, 2012
Why the heck was Steve Thomas so bent out of shape about bedwetting when feces were part of the picture? Urine dries and is no big deal, poop on the other hand is disgusting. I can't see rage over Jonbenet being wet but can see it over the feces issue. Not that I think that's what happened at all but it does denote there were behavior problems and all sorts of pathology within the family and that does relate to why Jonbenet is dead.

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#14 Aug 16, 2012
There was no evidence of a rage attack. There was no evidence of an accident. There was no cover-up, no staging for police. That was Thomas' supposition, his attempt to explain how a normal person could do such things to their child.

That was his mistake, assuming normality and not understanding that psychopathology is often masked by normal behaviors.

He had to reach to avoid what was staring him in the face. Ironically, he did the same thing that John did. They both had to stretch to manufacture a scenario that included normalcy for Patsy.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#15 Aug 16, 2012
moonjack wrote:
Why the heck was Steve Thomas so bent out of shape about bedwetting when feces were part of the picture? Urine dries and is no big deal, poop on the other hand is disgusting. I can't see rage over Jonbenet being wet but can see it over the feces issue. Not that I think that's what happened at all but it does denote there were behavior problems and all sorts of pathology within the family and that does relate to why Jonbenet is dead.
I thought the same (about Thomas making such an issue out of bedwetting if there was feces all over the room.)

To me, there is something here that's not adding up. At least not adding up to what different investigators have said...or NOT said.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#16 Aug 16, 2012
Could just because he was a guy and never changed diapers or cleaned a butt, that's women's work.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#17 Aug 17, 2012
Why did Thomas make such a big deal out of bedwetting? BECAUSE IT HAPPENED THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER. The sheets were urine stained, Kolar CONFIRMS.(Jameson tried to deny that FOR YEARS). It's something that happened that night that could account for a rage attack on JonBenet.

Why did Patsy FIRST SAY to the police that JonBenet was put to bed in a RED SWEATER, that was later found in the bathroom, in a ball near the sink, and later CHANGED HER STORY to say JonBenet was wearing the white sweater with the star she found dead in? WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT IN THAT RED SWEATER?
candy

East Lansing, MI

#18 Aug 17, 2012
No doubt those feces covered box of chocolates was seized as evidence before Holly Smith even saw JonBenet's room. I believe Kolar 100 percent on that info. It is DAMNING and that's why the pro-Rams are trying to say it isn't true, etc.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#19 Aug 17, 2012
candy wrote:
No doubt those feces covered box of chocolates was seized as evidence before Holly Smith even saw JonBenet's room. I believe Kolar 100 percent on that info. It is DAMNING and that's why the pro-Rams are trying to say it isn't true, etc.
I'm sorry, Candy, but I'm not trying to say it isn't true. I'm trying to find something to back up what he is saying. It's kind of like when someone makes a statement on a forum and others ask for a source. You have to remember that this is BIG and it's been kept secret for 15 years. I suggest you re-read the following parts of my post, above:

"I did look through the evidence lists but could find no mention of a box of candy -- fecal smeared or otherwise -- but there was at least one item that had been redacted. But with so many items on the long lists of evidence, what are the chances that the redacted item was the box of fecal smeared candy?

"So, I was simply trying to figure out why Smith would not have mentioned the box of candy that Kolar described since it seems they were in disagreement on whether the candy box was soiled. I, too, wonder why Smit nor anyone else mentioned it since it would IMO draw the attention of all the investigators and for no one to say anything about it for almost 15 years is atypical in a case in which there were so many "leaks"."

I agree with you that it's possible it had already been removed as evidence and that's why I looked through the evidence lists for it. If you or anyone can find it there, I'll be happy to concede that I overlooked it (which is possible).

But since this IS so HUGE, wouldn't you agree that it would be good to find SOMETHING to back up his statement?

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#20 Aug 17, 2012
candy wrote:
No doubt those feces covered box of chocolates was seized as evidence before Holly Smith even saw JonBenet's room. I believe Kolar 100 percent on that info. It is DAMNING and that's why the pro-Rams are trying to say it isn't true, etc.
Also, Candy, I wonder why Steve Thomas didn't mention this in HIS book?

Surely he didn't care about keeping something this big secret -- not with his animosity toward the BPD.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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
I don't know how I missed this 3 min Spraguestephens 49
My theory 8 min wendyj 180
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 44 min DedRed 627
jameson - address the issue of handwriting 55 min Latisha 115
John Andrew Ramsey Said What?? 57 min Latisha 79
The smallest bit of information could be the bi... 2 hr Just Wondering 6
McMenamin's book 3 hr Just Wondering 196
...infinitesimal chance.....(!) 4 hr Just Wondering 65
Ramsey grand jury indictment: ACCESSORY to Fir... 5 hr Spraguestephens 43
More from around the web