Best book for facts and details?

[Cottonstar]

Why do you post in such a dishonest way? The excerpt I included from that same deposition says this:

"Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did they say they could smell urine?

A [Thomas]. I have been told that CBI says, yes, those sheets which are still in evidence smell urine stained."

That's an opinion from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation that the sheets have urine on them. That's evidence that the sheets have urine on them. According to Thomas there was no presumptive test for urine, so it's basically the smell test. That JonBenet wet her turtleneck can be inferred by it being found on the bathroom vanity when Patsy told LE that she had put JonBenet to bed in that turtleneck.

Again, JBR had plastic covering her mattress. This plastic covering I’m sure smelled like urine.

 

[Cottonstar]

Please provide additional instances of "scatological behavior"on Burke's part for those of us not as knowledgeable. To save your blushes, you can just limn them and provide book and page number. I can find them from that.

Look, and you shall find.

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, it cannot be inferred. It wasn’t wet and there is no evidence that it was. I posted the interview. Thomas isn’t sure of anything because he doesn’t know. It’s like Lou Smit saying, “Well someone could of come through the window”.

Cottonstar,
I agree. Steve Thomas is merely reciting his fallback theory, e.g. bedwetting rage, etc. Reading his book carefully and cross referencing the interviews suggests BPD had another theory which was suppressed, e.g. Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stated she had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation, possible evidence of abuse. She was later dropped from the case and the chapter in her book relating to JonBenet was redacted. Its Kolar who informs us, not Holly Smith, that a red satin candy box smeared with fecal material was found in JonBenet's bedroom.

.

 

[fr brown]

This forum is almost as bad as the one on topix, troll-wise. It's worse, really, because it has, or had, the veneer of credibility.

 

[fr brown]

From James Kolar's AMA, which apparently was as recently as March 2015:

From Fr_Brown:

1. Where in JonBenet's room were the feces-smeared pajama bottoms "thought to belong to Burke" found? If they were in plain sight, is there a crime scene photograph of them? Were they collected?
   
   
2. Was the "feces-smeared candy box" collected? If not, do you know why not?
   

• Response by James Kolar, 13 points 3 years ago:
  
  "It is my recollection that the pj bottoms were on the floor but I didn’t see that they or the box of candy were collected. It was an odd observation noted by investigators, but I don’t think they grasped the significance of those items at the time. Interviews were still being conducted with family employees and friends during and well after the completion of the execution of the search warrants."
  

AND from a different questioner:

"Do you believe he [John Ramsey] had not known it [JonBenet's body] was down there before this discovery?"
Response by James Kolar, 14 points 3 years ago:

"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.
Arndt had her hands full with the house packed with friends, and with Patsy, who was extremely distraught, puking and crying.."
​

So as recently as three years ago, 18 years after the crime, James Kolar thought that John Ramsey only became an accessory to JonBenet's murder when he found her body around 11am and failed to report that to LE.

The "feces-smeared pajama bottoms thought to belong to Burke" were not mentioned in Kolar's television program (to the best of my knowledge). If that item, so important to Kolar's theory, was omitted, I think we can assume that those "pajama bottoms" (or whatever) could not be characterized as belonging to Burke.

 

[Cottonstar]

From James Kolar's AMA, which apparently was as recently as March 2015:

From Fr_Brown:

1. Where in JonBenet's room were the feces-smeared pajama bottoms "thought to belong to Burke" found? If they were in plain sight, is there a crime scene photograph of them? Were they collected?
   
   
2. Was the "feces-smeared candy box" collected? If not, do you know why not?

• Response by James Kolar, 13 points 3 years ago:
  
  "It is my recollection that the pj bottoms were on the floor but I didn’t see that they or the box of candy were collected. It was an odd observation noted by investigators, but I don’t think they grasped the significance of those items at the time. Interviews were still being conducted with family employees and friends during and well after the completion of the execution of the search warrants."

AND from a different questioner:

"Do you believe he [John Ramsey] had not known it [JonBenet's body] was down there before this discovery?"
Response by James Kolar, 14 points 3 years ago:

"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.
Arndt had her hands full with the house packed with friends, and with Patsy, who was extremely distraught, puking and crying.."
​

So as recently as three years ago, 18 years after the crime, James Kolar thought that John Ramsey only became an accessory to JonBenet's murder when he found her body around 11am and failed to report that to LE.

The "feces-smeared pajama bottoms thought to belong to Burke" were not mentioned in Kolar's television program (to the best of my knowledge). If that item, so important to Kolar's theory, was omitted, I think we can assume that those "pajama bottoms" (or whatever) could not be characterized as belonging to Burke.

<modsnip - personalized>

It doesn’t matter if the box was collected or not. It is evidence in this case and is in the official police files. CSI’s made the observation and added it to their reports. It exists.

Let’s say BR did have major scat problems. You think Patsy killed JBR, so why does it matter either way, if he did or didn’t have scat issues?

Why did Patsy lie about opening the presents in the wine cellar? Why would she have to lie and cover for her son BR, who told investigators that he was the one that peeled them back, in the wine cellar on Christmas Day?

Why do you also need the Hi-Tec boot print to go away? Why did the Ramseys lie and not tell investigators that their sons, BR and JAR, had Hi-Tec boots? Why did they send Ollie Gray on a wild goose chase to find a pair of Hi-Tec boots that they could turn into police and mislead investigators. If your PDI-ALL theory is sound than why does it matter if BR owned Hi-Tec boots?

So, in 2016, after he and the investigative team reinvestigated the case, Kolar states on national television his thoughts on the cover-up. You read it. He now believes John was involved in the cover-up from the get go. That’s what the evidence says. I laid out at least ten evidentiary items in a post a few months ago, detailing how John was involved prior to 5:52am. The need for disappearing phone records and

“We’re not speaking to you” is two of the most damning ones.

<modsnip - personalized>

 

[fr brown]

I guess I can understand some of Kolar's thinking: no sign of an intruder; Patsy is a nice lady; John is sleeping upstairs; only Burke could have done it so let's cobble together some evidence against Burke. But at some point after 2015 Kolar apparently decided that John was awake that night. That makes him available to commit the murder. Since an adult male is at least as likely as a 9yo boy to be a molester, that should have triggered a re-evaluation of the evidence. How do fibers from John's shirt in JonBenet's underwear stack up against some "pajamas thought to belong to Burke" lying on the floor? (Actually Kolar has a bifurcated theory of motive. Though he hints heavily that Burke is a deviant, he doesn't think molestation triggered the crime. He speculates that Burke hit JonBenet on the head with a flashlight because she took a piece of pineapple, probably during their all-night poker game. I made that last part up, but it could have happened that way, right? I'm sure there was a deck of cards in the house.)

So Kolar's new theory of who was awake in the house should have occasioned a good hard look at his best (sole, really) piece of evidence against Burke: those supposed pajamas. Kolar hadn't really done that before. We know that because at the time of his AMA, he wasn't sure they had been found on the floor. That means he never even located them in a crime scene photo.

I don't think those "pajamas" made it into the TV show so I guess someone researched them and decided they weren't solid enough to make the cut. That left essentially no evidence against Burke, but things must have been too far along in a shared hallucination.

(Thomas didn't think Patsy was a nice lady. That's another difference between him and Kolar.)

 

[Cottonstar]

I guess I can understand some of Kolar's thinking: no sign of an intruder; Patsy is a nice lady; John is sleeping upstairs; only Burke could have done it so let's cobble together some evidence against Burke. But at some point after 2015 Kolar apparently decided that John was awake that night. That makes him available to commit the murder. Since an adult male is at least as likely as a 9yo boy to be a molester, that should have triggered a re-evaluation of the evidence. How do fibers from John's shirt in JonBenet's underwear stack up against some "pajamas thought to belong to Burke" lying on the floor? (Actually Kolar has a bifurcated theory of motive. Though he hints heavily that Burke is a deviant, he doesn't think molestation triggered the crime. He speculates that Burke hit JonBenet on the head with a flashlight because she took a piece of pineapple, probably during their all-night poker game. I made that last part up, but it could have happened that way, right? I'm sure there was a deck of cards in the house.)

So Kolar's new theory of who was awake in the house should have occasioned a good hard look at his best (sole, really) piece of evidence against Burke: those supposed pajamas. Kolar hadn't really done that before. We know that because at the time of his AMA, he wasn't sure they had been found on the floor. That means he never even located them in a crime scene photo.

I don't think those "pajamas" made it into the TV show so I guess someone researched them and decided they weren't solid enough to make the cut. That left essentially no evidence against Burke, but things must have been too far along in a shared hallucination.

(Thomas didn't think Patsy was a nice lady. That's another difference between him and Kolar.)

You brought up JR Israeli wool sweater fibers that were found in the crotch area of the way oversized bloomies. If this evidence is true(Levin used a peculiar phraseology when posing this to JR and Wood in 2001), that would nullify any chance of PDI-ALL.

 

[Cottonstar]

That left essentially no evidence against Burke, but things must have been too far along in a shared hallucination.

Are you referring to the same case I am?

 

[fr brown]

You brought up JR Israeli wool sweater fibers that were found in the crotch area of the way oversized bloomies. If this evidence is true(Levin used a peculiar phraseology when posing this to JR and Wood in 2001), that would nullify any chance of PDI-ALL.

No, it doesn't even prove John's his garment was there.

We know from his diary that the unabomber included a hair he picked up in a public restroom in one of his bombs to mislead the police. It's possible that something similar was happening here. Or it could have been transfer.

 

[fr brown]

Are you referring to the same case I am?

Probably not.

 

[fr brown]

Why do you also need the Hi-Tec boot print to go away? Why did the Ramseys lie and not tell investigators that their sons, BR and JAR, had Hi-Tec boots? Why did they send Ollie Gray on a wild goose chase to find a pair of Hi-Tec boots that they could turn into police and mislead investigators. If your PDI-ALL theory is sound than why does it matter if BR owned Hi-Tec boots?

I'm not sure why you're saying this. I think that Burke probably owned Columbus Hi-TEC boots. I picked up a pair of child-size 5 Columbus boots a few years ago. I've been interested in whether or not those kind of boots could have left the mark in the wine cellar and if they did, what significance can be attached.

These boots were manufactured for the 500th anniversary of Columbus's discovery of America. The boots I own look very different when viewed from the rear. One of them doesn't even seem wearable. I think they were kind of a stunt boot.

If his Columbus boots fit Burke in 1992, they probably didn't in 1996.

 

[Cottonstar]

No, it doesn't even prove John's his garment was there.

We know from his diary that the unabomber included a hair he picked up in a public restroom in one of his bombs to mislead the police. It's possible that something similar was happening here. Or it could have been transfer.

Seriously? But, of course that is what you have surmised. Patsy did not try and frame JR. If anything, JR was the one that left Patsy out in the cold.

 

[Cottonstar]

I'm not sure why you're saying this. I think that Burke probably owned Columbus Hi-TEC boots. I picked up a pair of child-size 5 Columbus boots a few years ago. I've been interested in whether or not those kind of boots could have left the mark in the wine cellar and if they did, what significance can be attached.

These boots were manufactured for the 500th anniversary of Columbus's discovery of America. The boots I own look very different when viewed from the rear. One of them doesn't even seem wearable. I think they were kind of a stunt boot.

If his Columbus boots fit Burke in 1992, they probably didn't in 1996.

Ya, we’ve already argued this on another forum and still your argument doesn’t hold up. BR didn’t have Hi-Tec boots in 1992 when the Columbus model came out. But, you already know that.

 

[fr brown]

Seriously? But, of course that is what you have surmised. Patsy did not try and frame JR. If anything, JR was the one that left Patsy out in the cold.

Spoken like one who was there.

That Patsy planted those particular fibers is a possibility. Seriously.

 

[fr brown]

Ya, we’ve already argued this on another forum and still your argument doesn’t hold up. BR didn’t have Hi-Tec boots in 1992 when the Columbus model came out. But, you already know that.

I'm no longer interested in the boot so I don't remember all the details about them. Kids that age change shoe size at least every year.

I get it. You're a troll. I have no interest in arguing about boots or anything else with you. If people want to look at photos of the logo impression, they can go to FFJ.

 

[UKGuy]

This forum is almost as bad as the one on topix, troll-wise. It's worse, really, because it has, or had, the veneer of credibility.

fr brown,
Standards must be dropping, unless of course, one is a seminarian.

Kolar also states in his book that Burkes penknife and a boot print from his Hi-Tech boots that his parents finally admitted he owned were both found in the wine-cellar along with JonBenet's dead body and a bloodstained pink barbie nightgown that contained deposits of Burke Ramsey's touch-dna.

Kolar also says that Burke admitted to being in the wine-cellar on Christmas Day Afternoon and that he opened the Partially Opened Gifts.

So that might explain the boot print, but the penknife and Burke's touch-dna, on a crime-scene object that only the killer should really have access to as the wine-cellar is, well, kinda secluded?

.

 

[Cottonstar]

Spoken like one who was there.

That Patsy planted those particular fibers is a possibility. Seriously.

As could an intruder.

 

[fr brown]

I didn't watch much of Kolar's tv program, but from what I saw it omitted a critical element of his theory: the feces-smeared "pajama bottoms thought to belong to Burke." These are necessary to tie feces-smearing in Burke's bathroom years earlier to the feces-smeared candy box [as rumored] in JonBenet's room. The idea is that the feces on the (uncollected) candy box belonged to crazy Burke. With "Burke's pj's" mysteriously gone, no connection can reasonably be made.

But there was a feces-smeared garment in the bedroom: JonBenet's velvet pants. In the absence of other information, we might suspect that feces on the candy box belonged to JonBenet and may have been connected to the feces in her pants. Perhaps an enraged Patsy wiped JonBenet's soiled pants on her candy box when she was undressing her?

Is the notion that JonBenet had poop smeared on the walls of her bedroom during Christmas of 1996 an honest (or dishonest) confusion with the earlier incident? I don't remember anything about JonBenet's bedroom walls in Kolar's book. The condition of her walls doesn't seem to be part of the famous "CSI note."

 

[fr brown]

Look, and you shall find.

I did seek and I did find. On a now-closed websleuths thread you quoted from what I will call an "elephant in the room" post on reddit. The person who made those two scurrilous reddit posts (same for both, I think) appears to have deleted his name. Not surprising.

I stand by what I've said in this thread.