Was Burke Involved? #6

[Whatsunderthenighttable96]

Whatsundertheniggttable96,
Its all about the sexual assault. Because the case went global so anyone connected to the case usually had media, journalists on their doorstep, nobody wants to talk.

Just think on the rumors spawned by any hint of involvement, what it might mean for other children, never mind their parents, so Boulder encircled the wagons and nobody wants to talk anymore.

With the medical personnel, police, legal attorney's, prosecutors, etc. None could comment on any child related to the case as Colorado State Statutes forbid this.

Which is possibly why Alex Hunter elected to form a Grand Jury, it does a nice job on keeping stuff confidential, whilst allowing the prosecution to filter the evidence placed in front of the GJ members?

.

Yup, Agree. That’s so true. Still for women and children everywhere, no?

 

[Whatsunderthenighttable96]

Whatsundertheniggttable96,
Its all about the sexual assault. Because the case went global so anyone connected to the case usually had media, journalists on their doorstep, nobody wants to talk.

Just think on the rumors spawned by any hint of involvement, what it might mean for other children, never mind their parents, so Boulder encircled the wagons and nobody wants to talk anymore.

With the medical personnel, police, legal attorney's, prosecutors, etc. None could comment on any child related to the case as Colorado State Statutes forbid this.

Which is possibly why Alex Hunter elected to form a Grand Jury, it does a nice job on keeping stuff confidential, whilst allowing the prosecution to filter the evidence placed in front of the GJ members?

.

You are so right. Process it and grieve privately, make it go away, keep your kids safe and try to raise them with normalcy.

 

[Tadpole12]

I AM JAMES KOLAR - AMAA
March 13, 2021

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/m4bebr/i_am_james_kolar_amaa/

 

[Whatsunderthenighttable96]

I AM JAMES KOLAR - AMAA
March 13, 2021

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/m4bebr/i_am_james_kolar_amaa/

Shame we didn’t get clarity on the Suess book...

 

[Tadpole12]

^ JK didn't reply to the question of the title of the adult Dr. Seuss book,
but did comment wrt JAR's twitter,
"I'm aware that he has an account but I haven't seen it" - JK


wrt feces, candy box and pj bottoms, observations were documented in police reports :

Question "From u/AdequateSizeAttache:

Chief Kolar, there is a small but vocal contingent of online followers of the Ramsey case that is doubtful about the veracity of some of the feces-related evidence presented in your book -- namely, the feces-smeared candy box and larger-sized boys’ pajama bottoms that contained feces. From what I gather, this is due to the scarcity of detail surrounding these items plus their not having been physically collected and/or tested.

How would you address these feces-evidence skeptics?

He didn't have time to reply to this, but since it was an advanced question I can reply with the answer he provided in advance"

JK: "I reviewed police reports that documented the observation of these items. So, this was not a matter of speculation or fabrication. As items already belonging in the residence, it was not likely that this physical evidence would have been left by an intruder, or help to identify the perpetrator(s).

I believed this was evidence of behavioral aspects possibly involved as a part of the motivation for the events that took place that evening. Again, a piece of the puzzle but a matter of theoretical speculation."

 

[Tadpole12]

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/m4bebr/i_am_james_kolar_amaa/

JK : 2) "The third unaired episode of the CBS special, as far as I know, was going to contain interviews with some of the other people who had spoken on other programs.. I was under the impression that CBS had lined them up first but had no agreement in place that prevented them from speaking on programs aired earlier than theirs. I could be wrong about that, but that was my impression and the two episodes that were shown were condensed to make it work."

 

[Tadpole12]

^At this point in time JK was unable to answer questions wrt BR's appearance on Dr. Phil

AJamesKolar:
"With regard to Dr. Phil's interview of Burke, I am considering another Afterword paper that deals with that program and the new information that was revealed through it. So, I'll have to wait to comment on this particular question until a later time. Thanks"

ETA,
JK: "... Further, I believe there is an explanation for the numerous DNA sample present in this crime and they will never identify the person or persons responsible. More to possibly follow in additional Afterword papers."

 

[fr brown]

^ JK didn't reply to the question of the title of the adult Dr. Seuss book,
but did comment wrt JAR's twitter,
"I'm aware that he has an account but I haven't seen it" - JK


wrt feces, candy box and pj bottoms, observations were documented in police reports :

Question "From u/AdequateSizeAttache:

Chief Kolar, there is a small but vocal contingent of online followers of the Ramsey case that is doubtful about the veracity of some of the feces-related evidence presented in your book -- namely, the feces-smeared candy box and larger-sized boys’ pajama bottoms that contained feces. From what I gather, this is due to the scarcity of detail surrounding these items plus their not having been physically collected and/or tested.

How would you address these feces-evidence skeptics?

He didn't have time to reply to this, but since it was an advanced question I can reply with the answer he provided in advance"

JK: "I reviewed police reports that documented the observation of these items. So, this was not a matter of speculation or fabrication. As items already belonging in the residence, it was not likely that this physical evidence would have been left by an intruder, or help to identify the perpetrator(s).

I believed this was evidence of behavioral aspects possibly involved as a part of the motivation for the events that took place that evening. Again, a piece of the puzzle but a matter of theoretical speculation."

Which doesn't add anything to what he said in his book. Does the crime scene really have two sets of inside-out feces-smeared pants-pajamas? Patsy comes close to identifying the inside-out feces-smeared pants-like object on JonBenet's bathroom floor as the black velvet pants JonBenet wore to the Whites', but she stops herself. They're inside out, but you can see a solid black leg seam. Are pajamas typically lined? Maybe the CSI made a mistake about them being pajamas, and he/she would obviously have been guessing about which child they belonged to. (But come to think of it, don't they look a little small for a 10yo?)

Are there two candy boxes, one described as "poignant" by Holly Smith in an interview, and one feces-smeared?

Even if the objects are as Kolar imagines, what would that mean? He said that he didn't think an adult would smear feces on a candy box. What's that based on?

Neither the "pajamas" or the candy box made it into the tv program, as far as I know.

I don't care one way or another, I'd just like to know.

 

[Tadpole12]

Yes, JK didn't add much.

White pants in JBR's bathroom:
JBR bathroom floor pants

Yes it's confusing as to the number of stained pants.

 

[Whatsunderthenighttable96]

Yes, JK didn't add much.

White pants in JBR's bathroom:
JBR bathroom floor pants

Yes it's confusing as to the number of stained pants.

Ugh yeah you get the sense no one was helping them change, wipe/ wash up, brush their teeth, settle them in bed, it’s like where was Mom? It’s Christmas with a trip the next day. It feels neglectful to have toileting issues that are not at least scraped into the toilet and put in a slop sink in the basement. Like it’s gross and neglectful to leave that around unless they all happened late that night and death and coverup were a priority. I feel like Pr left the house again? Or was completely preoccupied with something else...

 

[fr brown]

Yes, JK didn't add much.

White pants in JBR's bathroom:
JBR bathroom floor pants

Yes it's confusing as to the number of stained pants.

The "pajamas" and candy box were critical evidence against Burke, really Kolar's only evidence against Burke, so it's odd he didn't investigate more. Locate in crime scene photos, talk to the investigators who wrote the notes--he apparently didn't do any of that.

And as far as adults not smearing feces around, January 6 in the Capitol....

 

[UKGuy]

Which doesn't add anything to what he said in his book. Does the crime scene really have two sets of inside-out feces-smeared pants-pajamas? Patsy comes close to identifying the inside-out feces-smeared pants-like object on JonBenet's bathroom floor as the black velvet pants JonBenet wore to the Whites', but she stops herself. They're inside out, but you can see a solid black leg seam. Are pajamas typically lined? Maybe the CSI made a mistake about them being pajamas, and he/she would obviously have been guessing about which child they belonged to. (But come to think of it, don't they look a little small for a 10yo?)

Are there two candy boxes, one described as "poignant" by Holly Smith in an interview, and one feces-smeared?

Even if the objects are as Kolar imagines, what would that mean? He said that he didn't think an adult would smear feces on a candy box. What's that based on?

Neither the "pajamas" or the candy box made it into the tv program, as far as I know.

I don't care one way or another, I'd just like to know.

fr brown,

Even if the objects are as Kolar imagines, what would that mean?

It might mean Kolar was framing the situation from a fecal perspective as this was the best publicly available evidence, there is reportly much more sealed from the public?

Here is Patsy on the bathroom floor pants.
BPD 1998 Patsy Interview Excerpt

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her
18 pants.
19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular
20 pants, when she would have worn those last?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably
22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the
23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.
24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
0457
1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It
2 appears they are stained.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet
5 had a problem with?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at
7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you
8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.
9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you
10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed
11 to just bed wetting?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That
13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you know how long those
15 would have been in that position in 378 on the floor in
16 there?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It depends when she wore them
18 last.
19 TOM HANEY: Again, do you recall?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.
21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that
22 bathroom at all?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say
24 for sure.
25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,
0458
1 would you have done something with them?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that
3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out
4 of that bathroom.
5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in
6 there.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
8 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing those on the
9 floor that night when you got the --
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
11 TOM HANEY: -- underwear.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: They could have been there. I
13 don't know.
14 TOM HANEY: Could have.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been there, yes.
16 Don't know for sure.
17 TOM HANEY: Is it possible that some point
18 during the night she would have gotten up and put those
19 on or thrown them down there or changed in some way;
20 trying to account for those being there.
21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine
22 that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out
23 asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she
24 had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.
25 What she had on earlier that day, I just
0459
1 can't remember. It might have been those. I just
2 can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know,
3 gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left
4 them there.
5 TOM HANEY: When she was out riding her bike,
6 do you remember, think back, look back at what she was
7 wearing.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Can't remember. (Inaudible).
9 Envelope.

Ramnesia strikes again.

There are currently only really three crime-scene objects of concern:

1. Pants lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor.

2. Pajama Bottoms lying on JonBenet's bedroom floor.

3. Red Satin Box in her bedroom.

Holly Smith on the Candy-Box
Fox 31 News, Nov 13, 2006

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 feel 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.

Here is Kolar's summary of his fecal framing
Foreign Faction by James Kolar, Excerpt

"I had reviewed an investigator’s 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 mother’s 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.

There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.

Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenét’s body.

I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in his sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms of scatological behavior associated with SBP.

I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenét’s candy would have been smeared with human excrement."

Then we have Rev Holverstock saying

The next thing he knew, he was standing in the foyer area near the top of the basement stairs, and John Ramsey had his daughter in his hands. It was Holverstock's recollection that Ramsey blurted out, "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket," or that "she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."

"I don't think he meant to kill her,
So is John referring to BR here, for it cannot be himself?

So 1. 2. & 3. have been corroborated. From memory the parents were shown images of the pajama bottoms, but Ramnesia kicked in on this subject.

Corroboration:
1. CSI Examiner and Patsy.
2. CSI Examiner and the Parents.
3. CSI Examiner and Holly Smith

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Here is Patsy on the bathroom floor pants.
BPD 1998 Patsy Interview Excerpt

Ramnesia strikes again.
Here is Patsy on the bathroom floor pants.
BPD 1998 Patsy Interview Excerpt

Ramnesia strikes again.

Do you expect for Patsy to have been following everyone around the house with a stopwatch making notes of every time an item of clothing was dropped on the floor? Patsy: "Note to self- JonBenet left these pants on her bathroom floor at 3:40:17 p.m.".

<snip>Here is Kolar's summary of his fecal framing
Foreign Faction by James Kolar, Excerpt

Burke was six years old- same age as JonBenet was when she was said to not be wiping that well. It hasn't occurred to you nor another of the other BDIers that maybe he didn't wash his hands well at that young age, there was no towel, and wiped his fingers- crude as it is- on the walls. As far as we know there was that one incident, but you BDIers act like he's done it every single solitary time he's defecated for the rest of his life.

Then we have Rev Holverstock saying


"I don't think he meant to kill her,
So is John referring to BR here, for it cannot be himself?<snip>

Are you saying that it's impossible for John to have referred to himself in the third person singular?

 

[UKGuy]

Do you expect for Patsy to have been following everyone around the house with a stopwatch making notes of every time an item of clothing was dropped on the floor? Patsy: "Note to self- JonBenet left these pants on her bathroom floor at 3:40:17 p.m.".



Burke was six years old- same age as JonBenet was when she was said to not be wiping that well. It hasn't occurred to you nor another of the other BDIers that maybe he didn't wash his hands well at that young age, there was no towel, and wiped his fingers- crude as it is- on the walls. As far as we know there was that one incident, but you BDIers act like he's done it every single solitary time he's defecated for the rest of his life.




Are you saying that it's impossible for John to have referred to himself in the third person singular?

icedtea4me,

Do you expect for Patsy to have been following everyone around the house with a stopwatch making notes of every time an item of clothing was dropped on the floor? Patsy: "Note to self- JonBenet left these pants on her bathroom floor at 3:40:17 p.m.".

No, but being in the same room, and not observing them is relevant just like when Patsy was asked if the intruder could have brought underwear with him?

As the R's have offered a timeline of events from the White's to everyone bedding down.

Burke was six years old- same age as JonBenet was when she was said to not be wiping that well. It hasn't occurred to you nor another of the other BDIers that maybe he didn't wash his hands well at that young age, there was no towel, and wiped his fingers- crude as it is- on the walls. As far as we know there was that one incident, but you BDIers act like he's done it every single solitary time he's defecated for the rest of his life.

Fair comment. I do not place much emphasis on his earlier behavour precisely for this reason.

Are you saying that it's impossible for John to have referred to himself in the third person singular?

No, if this was the case then JR's grammar engine was working fine amid all the chaos!

.

 

[proust20]

At least, the questions which Kolar evaded or did not answer provide a clear indication of what is still impermissible to discuss in the case. Also, there may be hints to what the GJ had seen.

Personally, what I got out of what he did say was that when PR stated that she had ripped the basement gift packages, her motive in doing so was to cover up that BR and another boy had done it. He seemed less forthcoming as to why the kids' activities should present a problem.

 

[Mimsy2]

At least, the questions which Kolar evaded or did not answer provide a clear indication of what is still impermissible to discuss in the case. Also, there may be hints to what the GJ had seen.

Personally, what I got out of what he did say was that when PR stated that she had ripped the basement gift packages, her motive in doing so was to cover up that BR and another boy had done it. He seemed less forthcoming as to why the kids' activities should present a problem.

I got that too. I also wonder why their activities from earlier in that day (he states on Christmas day) would be relevant to what happened later that night. The other boy that he states was with BR at that time is also interesting IMO.

 

[fr brown]

At least, the questions which Kolar evaded or did not answer provide a clear indication of what is still impermissible to discuss in the case. Also, there may be hints to what the GJ had seen....

I think he just doesn't know. Because he didn't investigate.

 

[fr brown]

In his book James Kolar tells an interesting story about himself. He was giving his presentation to law enforcement, something he had lobbied for wholeheartedly. Presumably he was trying to put his best foot forward and make the best case for his thesis. We know he had created an 8-hour PowerPoint so he wasn't speaking off the cuff.

At some point, he found himself holding up two pictures: iirc, a psychic's drawing of the perpetrator and a photo of John Mark Karr. "Where was he hiding?" he asked the room. There was silence. (Embarrassed, puzzled silence?) Kolar even tells us he had no idea why he was holding up those pictures and didn't figure it out until he was off walking by himself later. (As I recall, it was something about a chair and a door and getting out the basement window.)

Imagine being in an audience when the presenter goes into some sort of fugue state....

 

[fr brown]

In his book James Kolar tells an interesting story about himself. He was giving his presentation to law enforcement, something he had lobbied for wholeheartedly. Presumably he was trying to put his best foot forward and make the best case for his thesis. We know he had created an 8-hour PowerPoint so he wasn't speaking off the cuff.

At some point, he found himself holding up two pictures: iirc, a psychic's drawing of the perpetrator and a photo of John Mark Karr. "Where was he hiding?" he asked the room. There was silence. (Embarrassed, puzzled silence?) Kolar even tells us he had no idea why he was holding up those pictures and didn't figure it out until he was off walking by himself later. (As I recall, it was something about a chair and a door and getting out the basement window.)

Imagine being in an audience when the presenter goes into some sort of fugue state....

Actually, Kolar said (according to him), "Where were they hiding?" which must have really perplexed his audience.

 

[proust20]

If BR and another child were in the basement on Christmas Day, then they'd have access to PR's paintbrushes, which were said to have been moved there for the Dec. 23 party.