I think most people Are trying to be objective, but the chocolates are shocking. Since it has been said that JBR had fecal problems, I'm leaning towards the mess being hers. omgosh, this is bizarre and sickening, and I can't imagine what would cause kids to behave like this. And as far as these messes go, I do Not believe they went unnoticed by the parents. What did they think and do about it? I'm a little lost about the pajamas. How much too big were they?
James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
No evidence?
I had reviewed an investigators report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mothers first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.
Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 370
Do we know that the feces wasn't checked, because you're right about that. If it was checked, and it belonged to one of the kids, I can understand why it wasn't made public. But, IMO, it was probably checked, because how could something so wrong, be ignored? Also, since I'm thinking it was checked, I'm guessing it was identified, because if it hadn't been, certain intruder theorists, would have jumped all over it, and rightfully so. MOO.
wonderllama
Registered Snoozer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 349
Without pointing at anyone, poo is poo, and it at no time should end up on a box of chocolates.
The fact that smeared poo was on a box of chocolates sounds intentional.
I can't think of a reason for it to be there aside from a soiled item of clothing being rubbed against or left on top and then dragging a bit when being lifted off.
So it sounds intentional.
And when someone starts intentionally smearing faeces on stuff, you know things aren't quite right.
The fact that smeared poo was on a box of chocolates sounds intentional.
I can't think of a reason for it to be there aside from a soiled item of clothing being rubbed against or left on top and then dragging a bit when being lifted off.
So it sounds intentional.
And when someone starts intentionally smearing faeces on stuff, you know things aren't quite right.
Angelsunday
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 69
Fecal smearing is quite common- almost a "given"- in kids in abuse/neglect/trauma situations. I discovered this academically during foster parent/adoption training and experientially as a foster parent. Within the group of foster parents iny area every single foster parent has had one or more foster children who engaged in such behavior. A very off-putting behavior (and intentionally so).
SyraKelly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 106
Yes-He goes through a checklist of Sexually Aggressive Children or Sexual Behavioral Problems this is one of the behaviors
Really! If bedwetting would cause a rage, what would this do? And if the mess belonged to BR, why would PR rage on JBR? And why in the heck wasn't this mess cleaned up? whether they staged the scene or not, and whether they wrote the note or not, wouldn't a parent remove this kind of evidence??? Honestly, as a parent, I think I'd remove it, if for no other reason than to save my children humiliation.... unless it belonged to the intruder, but if that's the case, why didn't the parents make an issue of it?
Not sure I really buy ST's bed wetting - rage theory, just saying if bed wetting would send someone through the roof, what would fecal smearing do? It must either have been JB's, or PR thought it was JB's, if this was the source of the rage.
txsvicki
Active Member
Jonbenet had been wiped down with something. If she soiled herself in the room the the cloth could have been placed or sat on the candy box. The soiling could have been accidental or from getting a head injury if it happened t hat night. It could show that the head in jury happened upstairs along with the clean up. Reports of soiling., stained panties., bladder infections., and vaginitis along with this candy and the assault is just awful.
SyraKelly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 106
This was not mentioned in the book that I can recall
txsvicki
Active Member
I don't have the link but they were interviewed and asked who used that toilet and john said the neighbor boy had used it or so he thought. He also said his own kids had probably used it since they played down there. He also told of a little neighbor boy trying to look up jonbenet's dress. He did not say the boy had used it that day or at least i don't think he did.
people arn't objective here......if you don't have a RDI or BDI theory you get jumped on........
everyone is off and running assuming it is Burke's ! it must be Burke's ! he has to be guilty! it all fits blah blah blah
FairM,
You know something, IDI is dead in the water, since there is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey house.
Thats why people appear less objective than on other forums, its pretty obvious that the Ramseys staged the wine-cellar crime-scene, forensic evidence at the scene links them to aspects where there should be no familial evidence.
And the latest revelations regarding fecal matter just make the case weirder, most RDI assumed it was all an accident, well now its all up in air again.
.