The carpet outside of the wine cellar with urine stains

[otg]

otg,

In one of his Interviews with Tricia Kolar says, paraphrasing: JonBenet was whacked in the breakfast bar and take down to the basement. When asked to expand he cites litigation issues as to why he cannot expand any further.

And without an explanation, I can’t accept it as fact. This is what he has speculated based on his buying the false “facts” offered by Spitz. Spitz is demonstrably wrong on some of his “facts.”

The points of interest are, if Kolar thinks it began in the breakfast bar, why are they removing squares of carpet from JonBenet's bedroom, and if JonBenet was killed just outside the wine-cellar door where she voided her bladder, potentially staining the carpet, hence another square of carpet removed, does this suggest the use of the white blanket was a last minute decision?

No, it simply means that early on in the investigation they didn’t know what was or was not relevant, so they collected everything that might have provided useful evidence. Even then, they missed the bludgeon that caused the skull fractures (IMO). Kolar didn’t come on-board in the investigation until after Mary “Peakaboo” Lacy took over the investigation.

I'm guessing the carpet samples have been taken in case there are any semen deposits therein, or blood drops from JonBenet? The latter might show JonBenet was in her bedroom but was relocated to the basement, as per the IDI?

I think they simply took carpet samples that might have anything on or in them for lab analysis.

Also how much prepubescent was Burke Ramsey, was he capable of producing seminal fluid as distinct from spermatozoa?

Without getting into a discussion that some might consider too graphic or inappropriate, I think the answer to the question as you stated it is “yes.”

Would we be told if any was found, how would it be categorized, e.g. touch-dna?

As I understand the term “touch-DNA,” it’s a misnomer. It’s what has been so designated because it is a method of collection (scraping or taping) that is sensitive enough to pick up only a few cells (regardless of their origin) -- so few cells that it might pick up the skin cells left behind because of as little as a “touch.” Like other things, the same thing that makes this kind of evidence compelling is the same thing that makes it problematic -- the fact that it is too sensitive.

I'm not saying it never happened but Kolar's breakfast bar scenario does not do it for me. Why is anyone assaulting JonBenet in a semi public setting when there are bedrooms available?

On that we agree, my friend. I don’t buy the breakfast bar either -- too many unexplained holes in it.

Seems as if Kolar is confirming that a patch of carpet from the basement was tested for urine and yielded a positive. Hence his assumption JonBenet was killed there, IMO: asphyxiated by Patsy?

And yet he has also stated that he thinks she was bludgeoned in the breakfast bar area because of Spitz’s belief that it was because of an argument over pineapple (which wasn’t in the breakfast bar area anyway). I think he bases that on the location of the Maglite.

Maybe its the bedroom results that he cannot reveal as they possibly suggest BR or/and JonBenet were present in her bedroom?

Perhaps. That’s beyond my knowledge.

Consider his remarks about the fecally soiled pajama bottoms which he thinks belonged to BR.

Yet he doesn’t know how long those PJs might have been there. How would that be related to something specific to that night and not simply Burke’s continuing scatological problems?

The upshot being scary stuff was going on in JonBenet's bedroom including the possibility that BR had defecated and then indulged in some kind of smearing ritual, territory marking?

I don’t think it was confined only to her room. You’ve read Patsy’s interviews and seen the photo of the basement toilet area

If BPD have forensic samples of the fecal deposits they can analyze them and compare with BR's DNA?

DNA is really not in my wheelhouse. Seems like I remember reading somewhere that the problem with DNA testing of fecal matter is that it degrades quickly because of the bacteria.

I think it was Holly Smith,head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, who said there were fecal deposits present on a candy box in JonBenet's bedroom.

She didn’t specifically state that. Your quote:

Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, stated had found fecal staining in all of JBR’s panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: “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….While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

What’s interesting though is that in the original article this quote came from, right before that paragraph about the fecal staining in her panties, she spoke about discovering a “poignant find” of a“red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.” Intentional placement for a hint? Since the article is no longer available online, here’s a post where the entire article is reprinted:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227384-Feces&p=10013860#post10013860

Is it coincidence that she had the Ramsey section of her autobiography redacted and Kolar is silent on any possible CSI results from JonBenet's bedroom, mmm?

IMO, no. She was told she had to delete that section of her book because it had information about an “open and active investigation.” Kolar isn’t silent on it, he simply stated the PJ bottoms were not taken into evidence.

 

[UKGuy]

And without an explanation, I can’t accept it as fact. This is what he has speculated based on his buying the false “facts” offered by Spitz. Spitz is demonstrably wrong on some of his “facts.”


No, it simply means that early on in the investigation they didn’t know what was or was not relevant, so they collected everything that might have provided useful evidence. Even then, they missed the bludgeon that caused the skull fractures (IMO). Kolar didn’t come on-board in the investigation until after Mary “Peakaboo” Lacy took over the investigation.


I think they simply took carpet samples that might have anything on or in them for lab analysis.


Without getting into a discussion that some might consider too graphic or inappropriate, I think the answer to the question as you stated it is “yes.”


As I understand the term “touch-DNA,” it’s a misnomer. It’s what has been so designated because it is a method of collection (scraping or taping) that is sensitive enough to pick up only a few cells (regardless of their origin) -- so few cells that it might pick up the skin cells left behind because of as little as a “touch.” Like other things, the same thing that makes this kind of evidence compelling is the same thing that makes it problematic -- the fact that it is too sensitive.


On that we agree, my friend. I don’t buy the breakfast bar either -- too many unexplained holes in it.


And yet he has also stated that he thinks she was bludgeoned in the breakfast bar area because of Spitz’s belief that it was because of an argument over pineapple (which wasn’t in the breakfast bar area anyway). I think he bases that on the location of the Maglite.


Perhaps. That’s beyond my knowledge.


Yet he doesn’t know how long those PJs might have been there. How would that be related to something specific to that night and not simply Burke’s continuing scatological problems?


I don’t think it was confined only to her room. You’ve read Patsy’s interviews and seen the photo of the basement toilet area


DNA is really not in my wheelhouse. Seems like I remember reading somewhere that the problem with DNA testing of fecal matter is that it degrades quickly because of the bacteria.


She didn’t specifically state that. Your quote:



What’s interesting though is that in the original article this quote came from, right before that paragraph about the fecal staining in her panties, she spoke about discovering a “poignant find” of a“red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.” Intentional placement for a hint? Since the article is no longer available online, here’s a post where the entire article is reprinted:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227384-Feces&p=10013860#post10013860


IMO, no. She was told she had to delete that section of her book because it had information about an “open and active investigation.” Kolar isn’t silent on it, he simply stated the PJ bottoms were not taken into evidence.

otg,

IMO, no. She was told she had to delete that section of her book because it had information about an “open and active investigation.” Kolar isn’t silent on it, he simply stated the PJ bottoms were not taken into evidence.

Nah, your a clever guy otg, not taken into evidence means: zero evidence, redaction also means zero evidence.

I think they simply took carpet samples that might have anything on or in them for lab analysis.

I agree.

Yet he doesn’t know how long those PJs might have been there. How would that be related to something specific to that night and not simply Burke’s continuing scatological problems?

Because LHP would have something to say about it. Its not guaranteed but its likely those are Burke's pajama bottoms. Relevant to that night, again LHP, and indirectly Patsy's domestic lazyness?

For RDI old timers those pajama bottoms suggest a scatological issue that is one reason why there is an island of privacy surrounding BR's medical records.

The bottom line is that BDI is in play and PDI looks like an attempt by the R's to write BR out of the script.

As per Kolar:

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.

.

 

[SandyQLS]

SandyQLS, Well on the PDI here are some observations: if JonBenet wet her bed then she more or less emptied her bladder. yet downstairs in the basement she again emptied her bladder wetting her size-12's and Burke's long johns. We can infer JonBenet was killed after being wiped down, and redressed. Presumably the white blanket was a last minute addition as it was not urine soaked? So if the standard PDI is correct JonBenet must have drank a lot of fluids prior to being killed, say one hour, as fluid moves quickly through a childs body. Now if the carpet in the basement was stained with urine, as per Kolar, then you have more urine entering the carpet in addition to that in her clothing, some volume? Something that would not have happened if JonBenet had been wrapped in a blanket, so could it have happened this way, i.e. two evacuations of JonBenet's bladder? It could have, but I doubt it, seems more probable her basement evacuation was the only one? .

LOL. There is urine all over the place. I have no better idea than anyone, including you, have posted over the years. How about a question instead? If any killer or stager carried JBR anywhere (PR from 2nd floor, BR from main floor, JR from basement hallway to WC, any scenario), why are their clothes not also urine soaked and smelly?

 

[UKGuy]

LOL. There is urine all over the place. I have no better idea than anyone, including you, have posted over the years. How about a question instead? If any killer or stager carried JBR anywhere (PR from 2nd floor, BR from main floor, JR from basement hallway to WC, any scenario), why are their clothes not also urine soaked and smelly?

SandyQLS.
Think aha, clothes urine soaked relate to their location? Not simply to their relation to JonBenet.

.

 

[k-mac]

BoldBear,
Yup and thats why I seriously doubt PDI.

Thomas' book is based on the then known forensic evidence. We have moved on, JR and PR faced GJ charges. I reckon all the public stuff about the JonBenet case is about leaving BR out, everything else is in.

.

we've moved on??
excuse me?

pr and jr did not face grand jury charges thanks to their corrupt friend alex hunter.
a grand jury chose to indict them.
lets keep to facts.
so no sorry nobody has moved on.

your right there uk...Thomas 's book is based on the forensics of the time. he wasn't there unfortunately till about day4. he can not be crucified for the mistakes of the previous days.
however I find his work thorough and he sort many experts opinion .
the 5 child abuse experts he sort agreed that toilet rage was absolutely possible and likely.
the boulder detectives and "dream team" lawyers were on the right page.
so was the grand jury.

 

[DeDee]

Thomas really got run over the coals in his deposition about the sheets. Were they wet? Did you see them? Who reported that there were urine stains on the bed? How big were the stains? He couldn't report on any of it because he didn't know. He thinks he may have heard it from someone.

In his book he doesn't actually say, "urine stained sheets". He uses the term, "the urine stains."

Here is my truth of the matter. The entire second floor of that home reeked of human excrement, urine and hair dye. Both children wet their beds for years. The stench of urine stains coupled with feces in unusual places is a chemical mixture that is repulsive to human smelling senses. Theses offensive odors were both present in JBRs room even days later. More was in the unflushed potty in JBs bathroom.

Another bedding accident occurred after the housekeeper departed to cause the white blanket not to be made on and the edges tucked into the end of JBs bed on the 26th. In other words, when examining the CS images, the sheets are on her bed along with the bedspread being folded back about halfway. No sign of showing the blanket being removed from her bed.

It has been speculated the white blanket came from the clothes dryer in the basement. It's been speculated that the Barbie nightgown was "clinging to" the blanket. Well, her blood drops were still present on the nightie whereas the blanket was apparently clean.

BRs tDNA was also found on her Barbie gown. I think the Barbie gown was worn on Dec. 23rd the night after the impromptu Christmas party when JB didn't feel pretty. Blood was also on JBs pillowcase as they asked PR is she endured a nosebleed. No.

Based on the blood matter, can we infer something violent happened in her bed that involved that pink Barbie nightgown and her pillowcase?

 

[Ambitioned]

Here is my truth of the matter. The entire second floor of that home reeked of human excrement, urine and hair dye. Both children wet their beds for years. The stench of urine stains coupled with feces in unusual places is a chemical mixture that is repulsive to human smelling senses. Theses offensive odors were both present in JBRs room even days later. More was in the unflushed potty in JBs bathroom.

And the basement bathroom. How in the SAM HILL did people not notice during parties or the previous home tour? I'm guessing it was cleaned up for those days. Or maybe because money talks, they didn't care.

 

[archieil]

archieil,
Nope I reckon you are 100% correct. PDI is the default theory, i.e. it explains stuff, but its not the whole story.
.

Am I right the door to her room was closed for the whole time?

There was a topic with information the door was sealed by a police later but was the door closed all the time? for like 12 hours?

I can imagine they vented the house before the party but closed door of the room and heat on in the house would change the perception of someone who freshly entered the house.

[edit]
Boulder 5,430 feet (1,655 m) above sea level. Winter.
Most people do not understand the importance of these details.

 

[UKGuy]

Am I right the door to her room was closed for the whole time?

There was a topic with information the door was sealed by a police later but was the door closed all the time? for like 12 hours?

I can imagine they vented the house before the party but closed door of the room and heat on in the house would change the perception of someone who freshly entered the house.

[edit]
Boulder 5,430 feet (1,655 m) above sea level. Winter.
Most people do not understand the importance of these details.

archieil,
Yes, you could be right. her bedroom was closed as suggested.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*It has been speculated the white blanket came from the clothes dryer in the basement. It's been speculated that the Barbie nightgown was "clinging to" the blanket. Well, her blood drops were still present on the nightie whereas the blanket was apparently clean.*snip*

1. The nightgown was said to be on the floor next to the blanket.

https://adriaen22.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/jonbenet-pink-nightgown-e1424939633723.jpg

2. The blanket had a bloodstain on it.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4182&stc=1&d=1288982748

 

[DeDee]

1. The nightgown was said to be on the floor next to the blanket.

https://adriaen22.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/jonbenet-pink-nightgown-e1424939633723.jpg

2. The blanket had a bloodstain on it.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4182&stc=1&d=1288982748

Thank you, icedtea4me. It does not surprise me that blood was found on the white blanket even if my eyes cannot read the blurry lab report. Is it a very small amount? JB had tiny droplets of blood on her, on her clothing, on the blanket, on the pink gown, and on the pillowcase. What does that mean when there is not a large amount of blood present but it is present in very small amounts in multiple places?

Eons ago, a fellow member suggested the pink gown clung to the blanket if it came from the clothes dryer as a way of explaining its presence. I'm not certain of the significance of the Barbie gown presence in the WC since JB had on clothing but I lean toward the nightgown being there on a separate occasion, if BDI. I do not think it was tossed into the WC because it was her "Favorite" nor explained as a way of "undoing" their crime.

During interrogations, Patsy is looking at the picture of JBs bed and the mauve bow on the draperies is untied or untidy. Without provocation, Patsy blurts out: But, there is not any blood on it. [paraphrased] PR had to know there was blood involved in her daughter's death, in her own bedroom, to be so bold and confident in stating the fact about the draperies without a question being posed.

 

[singularity]

During interrogations, Patsy is looking at the picture of JBs bed and the mauve bow on the draperies is untied or untidy. Without provocation, Patsy blurts out: But, there is not any blood on it. [paraphrased] PR had to know there was blood involved in her daughter's death, in her own bedroom, to be so bold and confident in stating the fact about the draperies without a question being posed.

TRIP DEMUTH: Let me ask you about this in 125.

PATSY RAMSEY: That is the (inaudible).

TRIP DEMUTH: Is that unusual to be hanging over the door?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. Usually they are kind of tucked back.

TRIP DEMUTH: Five and four.

PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

TOM HANEY: That is the material that pulls the drapery, it pulls it back.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I don't see any blood or anything, do you?

TOM HANEY: We skipped ahead to 134. We can come back to these, but other than what we talked about on 122, three and four, five, you don't have any thoughts at this time from what you have noticed?

---

Yeah it was a genuine gotcha moment that LE didn't even acknowledge. The statement is completely out of context and they should've jumped on it immediately. Instead.....they "skip ahead".

 

[UKGuy]

Don't go there pal!

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

Thomas 's book is based on the forensics of the time. he wasn't there unfortunately till about day4. he can not be crucified for the mistakes of the previous days.
however I find his work thorough and he sort many experts opinion .
the 5 child abuse experts he sort agreed that toilet rage was absolutely possible and likely.

There was only one of the "experts" who thought this was the result of "toilet rage." That doctor (Richard Krugman), who was contacted by the DA's office, said that “the JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage." It just so happened that he had also written about such cases and was considered an authority. Like Kolar and Spitz, Thomas believed Krugman was right and developed his theory around it.


"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." -Abraham Maslow

 

[otg]

(bbm)

LOL. There is urine all over the place. I have no better idea than anyone, including you, have posted over the years. How about a question instead? If any killer or stager carried JBR anywhere (PR from 2nd floor, BR from main floor, JR from basement hallway to WC, any scenario), why are their clothes not also urine soaked and smelly?

Because of the way he was described as carrying her body: "...at arm's length in front of him." Perhaps he had already made that mistake earlier during the night. :lol:

 

[k-mac]

(rsbm)There was only one of the "experts" who thought this was the result of "toilet rage." That doctor (Richard Krugman), who was contacted by the DA's office, said that “the JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage." It just so happened that he had also written about such cases and was considered an authority. Like Kolar and Spitz, Thomas believed Krugman was right and developed his theory around it.


"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." -Abraham Maslow

that's not quite how I interpret their findings.
they all agreed it couldn't be discounted.
and ubove that McCann was on board as per other thread discussed.

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you, icedtea4me. It does not surprise me that blood was found on the white blanket even if my eyes cannot read the blurry lab report. Is it a very small amount? JB had tiny droplets of blood on her, on her clothing, on the blanket, on the pink gown, and on the pillowcase. What does that mean when there is not a large amount of blood present but it is present in very small amounts in multiple places?

Eons ago, a fellow member suggested the pink gown clung to the blanket if it came from the clothes dryer as a way of explaining its presence. I'm not certain of the significance of the Barbie gown presence in the WC since JB had on clothing but I lean toward the nightgown being there on a separate occasion, if BDI. I do not think it was tossed into the WC because it was her "Favorite" nor explained as a way of "undoing" their crime.

During interrogations, Patsy is looking at the picture of JBs bed and the mauve bow on the draperies is untied or untidy. Without provocation, Patsy blurts out: But, there is not any blood on it. [paraphrased] PR had to know there was blood involved in her daughter's death, in her own bedroom, to be so bold and confident in stating the fact about the draperies without a question being posed.

DeDee,

Thank you, icedtea4me. It does not surprise me that blood was found on the white blanket even if my eyes cannot read the blurry lab report. Is it a very small amount? JB had tiny droplets of blood on her, on her clothing, on the blanket, on the pink gown, and on the pillowcase. What does that mean when there is not a large amount of blood present but it is present in very small amounts in multiple places?

The pillow case and White blanket are very important, since we can accurately infer one preceded the other, e.g. no urine stain on the blanket, yet we have a bloodstain?

The bloodstains might support Richard Krugman's Toilet Rage theory at least lend support to the vaginal cleansing thesis?

Coroner Meyer opines JonBenet was wiped down, removing blood from her genital region. This more than likely caused blood drops to be transferred. Blood on the pillow case suggests one of two options, the pillow case was brought to JonBenet or she was present in her bedroom for the blood to be transferred?

Its likely the Pink Nightgown is what JonBenet was wearing to bed, i.e. she made it to bed, e.g. those hair ties. The White blanket which in forensic terms appears redundant, might simply be an anti contamination device to buffer JonBenet from one or both of the parents?

Blood on all these items suggest close proximity at some point and a point in time when JonBenet was bleeding, and that another Ramsey might also be bloodstained?

Eons ago, a fellow member suggested the pink gown clung to the blanket if it came from the clothes dryer as a way of explaining its presence. I'm not certain of the significance of the Barbie gown presence in the WC since JB had on clothing but I lean toward the nightgown being there on a separate occasion, if BDI. I do not think it was tossed into the WC because it was her "Favorite" nor explained as a way of "undoing" their crime.

A per Occam, best explanation is this is what JonBenet was wearing prior to being assaulted?

During interrogations, Patsy is looking at the picture of JBs bed and the mauve bow on the draperies is untied or untidy. Without provocation, Patsy blurts out: But, there is not any blood on it. [paraphrased] PR had to know there was blood involved in her daughter's death, in her own bedroom, to be so bold and confident in stating the fact about the draperies without a question being posed.

Yes, no blood does not mean there was never any blood. This is where Patsy falls down. The absence of blood can simply mean she cleaned it all away.

Patsy is wanting everyone to know she goes along with the IDI, as there is no blood on the draiperies, i.e. homicide took place in the basement.

.

 

[archieil]

Do you know where the panties (pack) without Wednesday one was found?

 

[UKGuy]

Do you know where the panties (pack) without Wednesday one was found?

archieil.
Nope, They magically appered found in a packing case.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second Floor

The size-12 issue shows the parents fixing the evidence, BR likely hid the size-12's with JonBenet's bloodstained size-6 underwear, so the parents had to create size-12's, e.g. demonstrate proof of existence?

.

 

[archieil]

Map of the 2nd floor shows that moving between the cellar and JonBenet room was like moving in some other house.

like a highway.

Pillow could be in the cellar and brought back to her room.

Hmm... 1st time I think it would be nice to talk with a Burke for a while.
Bad I am not Dr Phil :-(.