The Chair Blocking the Basement Door

[Jolamom]

You've just highlighted one of many problems with BDI. Within the same theory it bounces back and forth between scenarios, jumps into rabbit holes it cant escape, and then it wants you to believe "it answers all questions" and "makes the most sense".

Now its got Jonbenet not only trying to open these gifts herself, but also dragging a chair in there to conveniently open what's on the verge of becoming her own tomb. But if this doesn't make sense to the reader and is on the verge of them realizing it doesn't fly, it can quickly morph back to Burke doing this part and they can magically become Christmas presents again!

Like I said in the other thread, on its razor thin surface it sounds possible and "makes sense" as they say. Once any digging into the theory starts, it all unravels to the point it needs multiple scenarios going on simultaneously in an attempt to keep it afloat.

One of BDI's biggest advocates here now says "the case looks PDI" yet at the same time says "PDI is dead in the water".

It doesn't compute.

Since the beginning, BDI's biggest problem of all is PDI in general. It cant explain away Patsy being all over this crime scene so it attempts to turn her into a background character. She's ignorant. She's asleep. She's not talking to him. It doesn't work. Patsy's head keeps appearing in the story telling them they're going down the wrong path...

Its like that old game whack-a-mole. As BDI goes over its theory, Patsy's head continually pops up and they have to hit her with a mallet to keep her out of the equation but she keeps popping back up. She'll always keep popping back up no matter how big the attempt to marginalize her and/or make it appear as if Burke outshines everyone else in the case.

It also uses this tactic with John. He is completely clueless and it offers two scenarios(that sometimes intertwine):

He's in on the coverup with Patsy

He is completely clueless to the unfolding events until he finds her body even though he's been doing some basement spring cleaning hours earlier

Follow the evidence as they say. No need to jump through hoops with a basket on your head while working a Rubix cube in each hand while riding a unicycle.

UK....





Its already crashed and burned.

I thought BDI said it answers all questions? All its doing is raising more questions than it answers. As it continues to dig holes it cant possibly get out of, it starts burying itself in questions that can never be answered and simply leads to more questions. Now some BDI say no matter which DI is true, Burke's in on it somehow.

The theory is quickly smothering itself in its outlandish scenarios.

I think you are jumping to the conclusion that the idea that JonBenèt may have opened the packages was anything more then a slight possibility bantered about as nothing more then another idea. Since none of us were there, we just throw out the various possibilities. It doesn't mean we are suggesting that as a fact, or even a likely scenario. You can not accept Patsy's version of events as the truth either so when she states she opened the presents, that may or may not be the truth. We do have a history of inconsistencies and outright lies from her to look back on. When we look at what Kolar suggests, we have to give it a bit more credibility since he has no real reason to be giving us anything other then the facts as he knows them. He has also been backed up by Beckner in his AMA. You have to wonder why both parents would willingly go along with this staging/coverup for years if they did not both have a mutual goal in mind. At the point of Patsy's death, there was an out for all of them, why didn't they take it?

 

[Userid]

You have to keep in mind you are trying to use the words of Patsy as though they are facts when you have no way of knowing whether they are the truth or not. You have only her word she bought both Birthday and Christmas gifts. Only her word she unwrapped them herself in order to figure out what gifts to give Burke. We know from other statements she has given she has not always been honest or forthcoming with the truth. She also has a tendency to change her story when the need arises. Now according to Kolar, Burke has also taken responsibility for opening the packages. So, you are back to square one. How do you know anything Patsy has stated is the truth? Logic says a child would be more likely to open an unopened gift then an adult. Also, an adult would be careful to unwrap them at taped places so as not to rip the paper for easy re wrapping. They would also most likely immediately rewrap them in order not to have unwrapped gifts laying around. Especially since, following your theory, Patsy would have also unwrapped gifts she was going to give Burke for Christmas and need to rewrap them right then in order to have them ready to go!

No, I'm simply thinking about it logically. Again, a company as popular as FAO Schwarz would make the gift wrapping procedure as seamless and streamlined as they could, especially during Christmas time.

If I'm assuming this one tidbit is true, do you assume that every single thing she said in the interviews is false? You don't know that all the same, so your point is moot. She wouldn't have to "lie" about things that are completely irrelevant to the murder -- did that ever occur to you?

 

[Userid]

Userid,

Nope, the implication is an inference you made. All Patsy needs to remember is the long tall gifts will be Burke's. i.e. not every gift so to make that distinction.

Anyway, maybe they were marked on the sales receipt with a code against each item which was then duplicated on the gift wrapping?

There is more going on here than our debate over how Patsy identified the gifts.

She says she opened them, Burke says he opened them, who do you vote for and why?

.

You don't know that every gift BR received was "long and tall." Because again, you don't know all the gifts that were bought. We have pictures that show a plethora of sized gifts. Your premise is bunk. You're assuming BR is the only person in the family to receive gifts that were long and tall, which is also something you have no proof of knowing with certainty.

 

[otg]

James Kolar never interviewed, questioned, or even so much as spoke with Burke at any time. Kolar was brought into the investigation after the DA’s office (under Mary Lacy) took over the case from BPD investigators. During the course of his review of the evidence, he looked at interviews and statements made by each of the “witnesses.” Here is what he wrote in FF about the presents found in the basement (bbm for emphasis):

There had been another discrepancy in one of Patsy Ramsey’s law enforcement interviews that caught my attention. Investigators had noted that the wrapping paper on a pair of Christmas presents observed in the Wine Cellar at the time of the discovery of JonBenét’s body had been torn. She told the detectives that she couldn’t remember what was contained in the presents, and hence (Kolar’s sly humor in his choice of words here?) the need to tear back part of the paper.

I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this. Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke’s upcoming January birthday.

I didn’t give much thought about the presence of the Christmas presents in the room at the time, but would later think these played a role in some of the events that took place on Christmas day.
​

In the photo shown of these presents, Kolar is referring to three gifts (shown earlier in this thread). The one unwrapped Lego box was (according to Patsy) intended for Burke’s upcoming birthday. It had never been wrapped. The other two (smaller) wrapped gifts had the ends of their wrapping paper undone to reveal what they were. According to Patsy, it was she who unwrapped the the ends of these two presents. Kolar doesn’t state how it was that he “learned, over the course of (his) inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day.”

 

[Jolamom]

No, I'm simply thinking about it logically. Again, a company as popular as FAO Schwarz would make the gift wrapping procedure as seamless and streamlined as they could, especially during Christmas time.

If I'm assuming this one tidbit is true, do you assume that every single thing she said in the interviews is false? You don't know that all the same, so your point is moot.

My point is you can't be certain about anything Patsy says. Once someone has practiced deception, you can not assume anything they say is the truth. It might be but you can never tell what part is and what part isn't so how valuable is anything they say? You are putting far too much stock into what Patsy has stated. Especially when you are now given evidence that someone else is now contradicting her statements.

 

[UKGuy]

You've just highlighted one of many problems with BDI. Within the same theory it bounces back and forth between scenarios, jumps into rabbit holes it cant escape, and then it wants you to believe "it answers all questions" and "makes the most sense".

Now its got Jonbenet not only trying to open these gifts herself, but also dragging a chair in there to conveniently open what's on the verge of becoming her own tomb. But if this doesn't make sense to the reader and is on the verge of them realizing it doesn't fly, it can quickly morph back to Burke doing this part and they can magically become Christmas presents again!

Like I said in the other thread, on its razor thin surface it sounds possible and "makes sense" as they say. Once any digging into the theory starts, it all unravels to the point it needs multiple scenarios going on simultaneously in an attempt to keep it afloat.

One of BDI's biggest advocates here now says "the case looks PDI" yet at the same time says "PDI is dead in the water".

It doesn't compute.

Since the beginning, BDI's biggest problem of all is PDI in general. It cant explain away Patsy being all over this crime scene so it attempts to turn her into a background character. She's ignorant. She's asleep. She's not talking to him. It doesn't work. Patsy's head keeps appearing in the story telling them they're going down the wrong path...

Its like that old game whack-a-mole. As BDI goes over its theory, Patsy's head continually pops up and they have to hit her with a mallet to keep her out of the equation but she keeps popping back up. She'll always keep popping back up no matter how big the attempt to marginalize her and/or make it appear as if Burke outshines everyone else in the case.

It also uses this tactic with John. He is completely clueless and it offers two scenarios(that sometimes intertwine):

He's in on the coverup with Patsy

He is completely clueless to the unfolding events until he finds her body even though he's been doing some basement spring cleaning hours earlier

Follow the evidence as they say. No need to jump through hoops with a basket on your head while working a Rubix cube in each hand while riding a unicycle.

UK....





Its already crashed and burned.

I thought BDI said it answers all questions? All its doing is raising more questions than it answers. As it continues to dig holes it cant possibly get out of, it starts burying itself in questions that can never be answered and simply leads to more questions. Now some BDI say no matter which DI is true, Burke's in on it somehow.

The theory is quickly smothering itself in its outlandish scenarios.

singularity,

I thought BDI said it answers all questions?

Nope, that's fake news, you should read here more often. What I've said in the past and stand by, is that BDI answers more questions than any other theory including PDI. BDI is more consistent than any other RDI theory, and helps explain more of the evidence, it should be your default theory.

We have Burke telling police officers to look in the house for JonBenet because she is still here. You have Burke's voice on the 911 call. You have Burke lying about being asleep until awakened by an officers flashlight, duh. You have Burke telling Kolar he opened the gifts in the wine-cellar?

Now those gifts are critical forensic evidence. Why would Burke Ramsey want to inject himself into the case by claiming to have been in the wine-cellar the same day JonBenet was killed and dumped in there?

I dont buy all of Kolar's theory, consider this feature:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Unresolved...ef_marshall_james_kolar_ama/?ref=search_posts

An evaluation of the statement made by John, which I considered to be a spontaneous utterance that formed criminal culpability, suggests that he was not aware that her body was downstairs until he went roaming after the 1000 am ransom failed to come.

He became an accessory to crime when he failed to tell Det. Arndt that he had discovered the body. His beeline to the basement later with Fleet was thought to be a ruse.

This means Kolar, who is better read on this case than anyone else on this forum, does not think JR was involved until late that morning!

That limits the case to stuff we already know, particularly Patsy's participation. Looks like Kolar is saying Patsy staged away a bona fide Murder in the First Degree by Burke?

That would explain away all those personal comments in the RN, and JR coming out with stuff like Its an inside job.

Kolar thinks BR did it all including the ligature asphyxiation and possibly the redressing. He reckons BR exhibited Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) which was part motivation for the crime.

I'm not a 100% on that, then again I've not seen all the evidence Kolar has.

.

 

[Userid]

My point is you can't be certain about anything Patsy says. Once someone has practiced deception, you can not assume anything they say is the truth. It might be but you can never tell what part is and what part isn't so how valuable is anything they say? You are putting far too much stock into what Patsy has stated. Especially when you are now given evidence that someone else is now contradicting her statements.

I'll ask again: has it ever occurred to you that she (or JR for that matter, but I digress) wouldn't have to lie about things that are completely irrelevant to the murder?

Kolar never even specifies how he finds out his theory, so there isn't "evidence" against it that is concrete.

Do I believe PR was 100% truthful in her interviews? Absolutely not, so please stop trying to paint me as such. The difference is, unlike you evidently, I don't believe there would be a reason for her to lie about things even when said things have absolutely zero relevance to the murder.

 

[otg]

otg,

I clearly remember your theory on the [accidental] hanging of JonBenet. However, I don't recall your explanation for the severe skull/brain injury. Do you have your theoratic report handy regarding the skull injury to share once again? It is your own opinion on the cause of the injury that I am seeking. I understand your precise explanation of the injury itself.

Thank you.
Happy Memorial Day weekend!

Not sure exactly what you're looking for DeDee. I think you're asking for a single post that I might have explained my thoughts about the TBI. You know me though, I can't put everything into a single post without it becoming so long the reader falls asleep before finishing it. :giggle:

I think you must be asking about the thread I tried to determine the size and shape of the object that caused the skull injuries. It took a while (about six months) to get through all the posts I numbered to illustrate it because it was a work-in-progress when I began it. I really didn't know where it would end up when I began it. That would be this thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?194041-JonBenet-s-Skull-Fractures-The-Weapon



If you want to look only at the series without the comments and discussions, I did bookmark them. Here is the list:

Part-1: I believe the depressed fracture is a fingerprint of the weapon that caused it.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8660347&postcount=2

Part-2: Understanding a little about the scalp.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8660364&postcount=3

Part-3: Changing direction on the weapon.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8660366&postcount=4

Part-4: Defining the shape of the hole (and trying to remember my geometry).
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8660370&postcount=5

Part-5: Finding the right model... and demonstrations.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8916670&postcount=213

Part-6: The linear fracture.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8937833&postcount=221

Part-7: Geometry.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9524713&postcount=343

Part-8: Algebra.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9524807&postcount=344

Part-9: Accessibility of the Weapon.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9541573&postcount=398


[BTW, you probably remember this, DeDee, but I did later find a picture taken after BPD finished their evidence collection where the exact type of object I theorized was shown in the background.]

 

[Jolamom]

I'll ask again: has it ever occurred to you that she (or JR for that matter, but I digress) wouldn't have to lie about things that are completely irrelevant to the murder?

Kolar never even specifies how he finds out his theory, so there isn't "evidence" against it that is concrete.

Do I believe PR was 100% truthful in her interviews? Absolutely not, so please stop trying to paint me as such.

I am not suggesting that you find Patsy 100% truthful. I am suggesting that it is hard to tell when she is being truthful and when she is not so everything she says has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The difference is, unlike you evidently, I don't believe there would be a reason for her to lie about things even when said things have absolutely zero relevance to the murder.

I agree with your theory, which is why would she lie if there is no connection to the murder. My problem with it is understanding how you know what is and is not relevant? Until we know what happened, don't we have to consider everything possibly relevant and in which case, can't she then be lying possibly at any point in time? Of course not always but how are we to know when? For example, if the presents being opened are not relevant, then she might be telling the truth, however, if they are somehow connected to the murder, then maybe she is lying in order to cover up the crime. How can you possibly know with any certainty?

 

[Userid]

I am not suggesting that you find Patsy 100% truthful. I am suggesting that it is hard to tell when she is being truthful and when she is not so everything she says has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree with your theory, which is why would she lie if there is no connection to the murder. My problem with it is understanding how you know what is and is not relevant? Until we know what happened, don't we have to consider everything possibly relevant and in which case, can't she then be lying possibly at any point in time? Of course not always but how are we to know when? For example, if the presents being opened are not relevant, then she might be telling the truth, however, if they are somehow connected to the murder, then maybe she is lying in order to cover up the crime. How can you possibly know with any certainty?

None of us can know anything of any certainty in this case -- I'll agree with you there. You are guessing the partially opened gifts are relevant; I am guessing they are not, because other than being in the same room as the body, there is absolutely nothing definitively connecting them to the crime itself. There was a cigar box located in that room also -- so someone can just as easily concoct a theory that the cigar box was some sort of catalyst for the crime. Why I think this isn't relevant, is because we know the facts: BR's birthday was the next month. That's indisputable. It's beyond likely to me, that any mother with a child's b-day that close to Christmas would kill two birds with one stone in terms of shopping. I've also stated why I believe it's irrelevant with my reasoning that FAO Schwarz would make the gift-wrapping process as seamless and streamlined as possible, and that it would be understandable for PR to partially unwrap gifts in order to see what's what. So if you're asking how I can know with any certainty, like everyone here, I can't -- I (we) can only deduce whether something is relevant or not by using our reasoning, which I've used and tried to explain for a while now, pertaining to this particular subject.

The only reasoning deduced that these gifts were somehow involved as a catalyst that's been given thus far, is the fact that Kolar (without ever providing his own reasoning) states they were. That's it. To me, that isn't enough reasoning to deduce that this is relevant and not simply a red herring he's concocting to fit his own book's theory.

 

[singularity]

singularity,

Nope, that's fake news, you should read here more often.

No it isn't "fake news". BDI was parroting that very statement for months during the hoopla. Maybe its not parroted to the extent that it was because they've dug a bit deeper on the issue.

Speaking of fake news, this interview of Burke conducted by Kolar that you keep mentioning that doesn't actually exist would qualify as fake news. You should read here more often.

What I've said in the past and stand by, is that BDI answers more questions than any other theory including PDI.BDI is more consistent than any other RDI theory, and helps explain more of the evidence, it should be your default theory.

Even you claim this case "looks PDI" so I don't see how it answers more questions than any other theory and explains more of the evidence when you admit that most of this evidence is linked to Patsy.

We have Burke telling police officers to look in the house for JonBenet because she is still here.

Wait....what?

You have your supposed murderer telling police to look for his murder victim in the house?

You have Burke's voice on the 911 call.

If this is proof of guilt, I guess all three of them were in on it together.

You have Burke lying about being asleep until awakened by an officers flashlight, duh.

Obviously nobody was sleeping that night/morning. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

You have Burke telling Kolar he opened the gifts in the wine-cellar?

Fake news.

Why would Burke Ramsey want to inject himself into the case by claiming to have been in the wine-cellar the same day JonBenet was killed and dumped in there?

That is a good question. Why would a supposed murderer tell people he was in the same room as his murder victim the same day, tell people he went downstairs around the time of the murder, and supposedly told cops to look for his murder victim in the house?

Think it might be because he's not her murderer?

If he played in the basement on a regular basis, going in or near the wine cellar wouldn't be a big deal either way.

This means Kolar, who is better read on this case than anyone else on this forum, does not think JR was involved until late that morning!


I'm not a 100% on that, then again I've not seen all the evidence Kolar has.

Kolar is not the only person to see all the evidence. There were many. Kolar is the only one that is BDI.

That would explain away all those personal comments in the RN,

Nothing in the ransom note points towards BDI. Nothing.

and JR coming out with stuff like Its an inside job.

So John said that in an attempt to point the finger at his nine year old son?

Kolar thinks BR did it all...

I'm well aware of that. It simply doesn't add up.

 

[Jolamom]

Singularity, you ask why a murderer would place himself at the scene of a crime? The answer is simple. It would be because he wants to be able to explain any traces of himself at the scene of the crime. Why would Burke put himself in Downstairs at night by himself? Most likely because he was downstairs and there is most likely evidence of him being there. Maybe something as simple as the pineapple and tea that he needs to be able to account for. Who knows until you actually have answers to how the crime occurred. By the way, I am it necessarily suggesting that Burke putting himself downstairs makes him the murderer, I am suggesting it does seem to suggest he wants to account for any traces of himself downstairs that night.

 

[Jolamom]

Userid, I am not guessing that the presents are relevant, I am suggesting that we don't know. And because of that, you have to be careful weighing the answers you get. Until you know for certain that the presents are not involved in the crime, you have to take any answers you get about them as possibly being purposely misleading or possibly being simply the truth. In this case, what Kolar said is a statement. He is not a suspect, he is a detective. He has no reason to be dishonest. He could be telling you things in order to sway your opinion BUT if they were not truthful, he would blow his whole theory apart if caught. So why risk it? If you allow his statement to stand, it comes down to the simple fact you have Burke POSSIBLY taking responsibility for the open packages and you have Patsy doing the same thing. Which sounds more logical? You think a child taking responsibility for something he did not do sounds more logical then an adult doing the same thing. I disagree. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[UKGuy]

Singularity, you ask why a murderer would place himself at the scene of a crime? The answer is simple. It would be because he wants to be able to explain any traces of himself at the scene of the crime. Why would Burke put himself in Downstairs at night by himself? Most likely because he was downstairs and there is most likely evidence of him being there. Maybe something as simple as the pineapple and tea that he needs to be able to account for. Who knows until you actually have answers to how the crime occurred. By the way, I am it necessarily suggesting that Burke putting himself downstairs makes him the murderer, I am suggesting it does seem to suggest he wants to account for any traces of himself downstairs that night.

Jolamom,
BBM: Nicely put. Patently BR knows more than he lets on, without Patsy covering for him it could simply have been circumstance, it looks more like BR smoothing the edges and polishing his story, even JR has revised his version of events regarding the flashlight.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Userid, I am not guessing that the presents are relevant, I am suggesting that we don't know. And because of that, you have to be careful weighing the answers you get. Until you know for certain that the presents are not involved in the crime, you have to take any answers you get about them as possibly being purposely misleading or possibly being simply the truth. In this case, what Kolar said is a statement. He is not a suspect, he is a detective. He has no reason to be dishonest. He could be telling you things in order to sway your opinion BUT if they were not truthful, he would blow his whole theory apart if caught. So why risk it? If you allow his statement to stand, it comes down to the simple fact you have Burke POSSIBLY taking responsibility for the open packages and you have Patsy doing the same thing. Which sounds more logical? You think a child taking responsibility for something he did not do sounds more logical then an adult doing the same thing. I disagree. We shall have to agree to disagree.

Jolamom,
Of course there is the possibility that neither BR or PR opened the gifts but both realize a credible explanation is required to mask the events that really took place?

.

 

[Jolamom]

Jolamom,
Of course there is the possibility that neither BR or PR opened the gifts but both realize a credible explanation is required to mask the events that really took place?

.

Of course that is also a possibility. Again, we will never know unless this crime is solved. I do wonder why, according to Patsy's story, she would keep unwrapped presents in the basement along with wrapped ones if either child had access to the basement? The lock on the door would not have kept a curious child out, it wasn't meant to. Especially a nine year old boy who from all accounts like to play in the basement and felt free to roam the house.

 

[singularity]

I think you are jumping to the conclusion that the idea that JonBenèt may have opened the packages was anything more then a slight possibility bantered about as nothing more then another idea. Since none of us were there, we just throw out the various possibilities. It doesn't mean we are suggesting that as a fact, or even a likely scenario.

I'm aware of that. I was just pointing out how outlandish these BDI theories start to get once someone starts going deeper into it.

You can not accept Patsy's version of events as the truth either so when she states she opened the presents, that may or may not be the truth. We do have a history of inconsistencies and outright lies from her to look back on.

When is someone allowed to consider something she says truthful or lies? BDI claims nothing she's ever said can be taken seriously.....until its something they need for their theory.

If its all hogwash...then its all hogwash and theories should not be using any of her statements.

I know that Patsy's all over the map in those interviews and yeah....she's inconsistent. There's a lot of info in her interviews and it doesn't need to be glossed over.

When we look at what Kolar suggests, we have to give it a bit more credibility since he has no real reason to be giving us anything other then the facts as he knows them.

He's pushing a theory. We keep being reminded that Kolar has seen all the evidence. He's not the only one. There were many. Thomas saw all the evidence and he was there from jump street. Obviously he's not BDI. So how credible is Thomas? He was much closer to this case than Kolar ever was.

He has also been backed up by Beckner in his AMA.

Beckner is BDI?

You have to wonder why both parents would willingly go along with this staging/coverup for years if they did not both have a mutual goal in mind. At the point of Patsy's death, there was an out for all of them, why didn't they take it?

The mutual goal is covering their *advertiser censored*. This is true no matter who killed her. I don't understand why BDI believes BDI would be the only reason these people would want to stay out of prison.

Patsy's death isn't an out for any of them. If John admits Patsy killed her, he is still in deep doo doo. Patsy's corpse cannot save the day.

Singularity, you ask why a murderer would place himself at the scene of a crime? The answer is simple. It would be because he wants to be able to explain any traces of himself at the scene of the crime. Why would Burke put himself in Downstairs at night by himself? Most likely because he was downstairs and there is most likely evidence of him being there. Maybe something as simple as the pineapple and tea that he needs to be able to account for. Who knows until you actually have answers to how the crime occurred. By the way, I am it necessarily suggesting that Burke putting himself downstairs makes him the murderer, I am suggesting it does seem to suggest he wants to account for any traces of himself downstairs that night.

He doesn't have to go out of his way to explain his presence at the crime scene the way a typical murder suspect would. He lives at the crime scene. There's nothing odd about his presence there.

 

[Jolamom]

Singularity, Burke and the rest of the Ramseys for that matter would have to explain their DNA or other trace evidence of themselves on things, even in their own home, on things that shouldn't be there. A good example would be Burke's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple that is sitting out on on the table where no one in the family is willing to account for it. It also contains the pineapple that was found in the digestive system of the victim which appears to have been eaten shortly before she died. Now Burke needs to be able to explain why his fingerprints are on that bowl when no one in the family can explain why the bowl is there. Great reason for him to suddenly now have remembered coming down stairs and maybe have gotten a snack.

As for Beckner being BDI, no I never said that. I said if you read Beckner's AMA, he said he agreed with much of what Kolar said. It is hard, I guess, to disagree with the facts! We were not discussing Kolar's theory, only Kolar's reporting of the facts.

Personally, I don't think you can take too much of what any of the Ramsey's say as fact. I think you should take it as you would any other suspect in any other murder case. You listen to what is said and you record it all down. Then you look to see what you can factually back up as the truth and what you can pick apart as nonsense. And somewhere, underneath it all, you MIGHT find the truth. But you have to dig for it.

 

[icedtea4me]

James Kolar never interviewed, questioned, or even so much as spoke with Burke at any time. *snip*

So, what UKGuy stated in post #84

Just imagine Burke Ramsey was questioned regarding the wine-cellar and according to Kolar BR admitted being in the wine-cellar Christmas Day afternoon and to opening those gifts.

is a lie?

 

[TeaTime]

Well, they got away with it.