Dr. Phil Interviews Burke Ramsey (9/12 & 9/13 2016)

[TexMex]

I thought JonBenets stained undergarments were the result of poor wiping (aka skid marks).

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

I have diagnosed BR with nothing. I'm simply going on the reports of several people in the Rs life. Who by the way did say he was smearing feces on bathroom walls. Your right it could have been JBRs fecal ball, but no one has said she played with hers. All reports were on BRs smearing. I dont think he was on the spectrum, I think he was a victim as a child. For what its worth, I do have experience with a child who was abused and having jealousy and abandonment issues. I see a lot of BR as a boy in my 6 year old son (adopted, mine none the less)

I have never stated one way or another what DI I am. For the record I'm RDI, all three of them have something to do with what happened that night and the hindrance of justice to this day.

On Phils show, my opinion of BR is based on what I saw and heard for myself. I have eyes and intuition that have served (ME) well over the years. I stay true to myself and not what some other unknown person thinks I should feel or believe. But hey, thats the great thing about these forums and the posters in them, diversity of opinion.

Nobody here knows if they are right or wrong until we have a confession or a conviction. Until then, its all personal opinion and like butt holes we all have one.

In Bold came off as rude when I was going for satire. I'm sorry for that.

 

[Ambitioned]

That's just crappy!

Seriously though I really cannot see JB playing with a ball of feces. I'm well aware I could be wrong though but I don't see it.

I really feel for the housekeeper(s) with all the clutter, feces, and unflushed toilet in the basement. :shame:

 

[questfortrue]

You're correct about all except the feces-soiled pants (BBM):

There was one pair of JB's 'play' pants on the bathroom floor with fecal stains (PR '98 interview with Haney). And thanks for the direct quote, OliviaG1996, yes, there was also the pajama bottoms Kolar references, thought to belong to BR and containing fecal matter.

btw, Frigga, the household was indeed a Petri dish both psychologically and physically.

The red top which was mentioned by PR and JR as causing some consternation between JB and PR is balled up (damp) on the counter. PR had planned that JB would dress like her for the Ws' Christmas party. JB wanted to wear the white top with the sequined star. Since the kids' clothes were never put away, it seems possible that JB may have worn the red top during the day, and it could have then become wet or soiled. No way to tell of course, but I don't believe PR would have rinsed it out from a bedwetting incident that night.

 

[BBB167893]

Wow, this is turning into a s**t show!

 

[Annapurna]

I don't think the "grapefruit sized" piece of fecal matter was shaped like a grapefruit, aka a ball. It seems likely it was exactly what is said, that SIZE.

This is icky, so I apologize in advance. My mom was out of town and I was feeding her dogs. My dad thought since he hadn't fed the dogs, no one did and he fed them both a massive amount... well one of the pups slept in my room and left a pile that can be aptly described as grapefruit sized (or bigger...) as in a large pile.

Unless the child had some kind of issue, fecal matter should be like 70% water, it's not easy to shape, it's not like clay but much softer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sunshine4Me]

Was the feces ever brought up in the Dr Phil interview? I'm interested to know what Burke would have said. Probably, "Who can remember 20 years ago right?" I read through PositiveLights transcripts but didn't see it, could have missed it. I know Dr Phil brought up bedwetting.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

 

[k-mac]

Was the feces ever brought up in the Dr Phil interview? I'm interested to know what Burke would have said. Probably, "Who can remember 20 years ago right?" I read through PositiveLights transcripts but didn't see it, could have missed it. I know Dr Phil brought up bedwetting.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

i didnt see it either.

dont think they would aknowledge it though.....
while ever they dont discuss it team ramsey claims inuendo.
enough important people (LHP, KOLAR CLEMENTE etc ) have stated on record for me to believe it.

 

[Sunshine4Me]

i didnt see it either.

dont think they would aknowledge it though.....
while ever they dont discuss it team ramsey claims inuendo.
enough important people (LHP, KOLAR CLEMENTE etc ) have stated on record for me to believe it.

Thanks, I believe it too, I was just wondering if I missed it in the interview. Maybe Dr Phil thought it too disturbing to bring up, or was unaware of it. If he'd only been talking to the Ramsey's and their lawyers and not read any of the information we have he may not have known. If that's the case he should have done some more digging, a lot more. Not that it would have mattered, he obviously sold his soul.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Wow, this is turning into a s**t show!

SuperDave,
Catastrophically scatological for certain. It sure seems like Burke and JonBenet had toileting issues, nearly all families have a phase of someone not quite following the script.

For some light relief and as an interesting contrast for those that missed another posters message, I found this on my travels.

Bull 2016

BULL stars Michael Weatherly as Dr. Jason Bull in a drama inspired by the early career of Dr. Phil McGraw, the founder of one of the most prolific trial consulting firms of all time. Brilliant, brash and charming, Dr. Bull is the ultimate puppet master as he combines psychology, human intuition and high-tech data to learn what makes jurors, attorneys, witnesses and the accused tick. Bull employs an enviable team of experts at Trial Analysis Corporation to shape successful narratives down to the very last detail. They include his quick-witted brother-in-law, Benny Colón, who plays a defense attorney in mock trials; Marissa Morgan, a cutting-edge neurolinguistics expert from the Department of Homeland Security; former NYPD detective Danny James, the firm's tough but relatable investigator; haughty millennial hacker Cable McCrory, who is responsible for gathering cyber intelligence; and Chunk Palmer, a fashion-conscious stylist and former All-American lineman who fine-tunes clients' ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5827228/


So maybe it was a trial run for BR after all?

.

 

[andreww]

i didnt see it either.

dont think they would aknowledge it though.....
while ever they dont discuss it team ramsey claims inuendo.
enough important people (LHP, KOLAR CLEMENTE etc ) have stated on record for me to believe it.

They say the intruder left it [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoldBear]

And Cartman turned the walls brown--South Park Bible

James Kolar didn't report that every chocolate in the box was coated with fecal material. The pajama bottoms contained fecal material. No reports of the quantity so this could have been from poor wiping habits. The room wasn't painted with it. (And yes, I know of the time when Burke was younger. He covered a wall. I've heard plenty of those stories involving other children, but Burke did that years before.)

"Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces."

Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Location 4785). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

JB had poor wiping habits. We know that because all of her underwear was stained and we know how she wanted help wiping. What wasn't noted was if the box had accidently been touched or if it was done intentionally. There's a big difference from accident to intent. I am disappointed with how sloppy the investigation was done, but I also think an intentional act would have been noted. An intentional act would have pointed directly at Burke and we would have been able to avoid all this nonsense of blaming an intruder or the mother and the father. If any of this is as obvious as it's being portrayed here, the investigators would have seen it.

I don't think that Patsy was very good at teaching good potty habits. She may have avoided it. It makes me wonder if Patsy wouldn't touch the sheets when JB left feces in the bed. Did she intentionally leave that for LHP to clean up? That's disturbing I wish I wouldn't have thought that. I could never leave something like that for someone else to clean up.

 

[Heymom]

Was the feces ever brought up in the Dr Phil interview? I'm interested to know what Burke would have said. Probably, "Who can remember 20 years ago right?" I read through PositiveLights transcripts but didn't see it, could have missed it. I know Dr Phil brought up bedwetting.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

"Did you leave poop in a pair of your pajamas in JonBenet's room?" "Absolutely not!"

"Did you smear your poop on candies in JonBenet's room?" "Maaaaayyyybeeee..." LOL

 

[Heymom]

And Cartman turned the walls brown--South Park Bible

James Kolar didn't report that every chocolate in the box was coated with fecal material. The pajama bottoms contained fecal material. No reports of the quantity so this could have been from poor wiping habits. The room wasn't painted with it. (And yes, I know of the time when Burke was younger. He covered a wall. I've heard plenty of those stories involving other children, but Burke did that years before.)

"Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces."

Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Location 4785). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

JB had poor wiping habits. We know that because all of her underwear was stained and we know how she wanted help wiping. What wasn't noted was if the box had accidently been touched or if it was done intentionally. There's a big difference from accident to intent. I am disappointed with how sloppy the investigation was done, but I also think an intentional act would have been noted. An intentional act would have pointed directly at Burke and we would have been able to avoid all this nonsense of blaming an intruder or the mother and the father. If any of this is as obvious as it's being portrayed here, the investigators would have seen it.

I don't think that Patsy was very good at teaching good potty habits. She may have avoided it. It makes me wonder if Patsy wouldn't touch the sheets when JB left feces in the bed. Did she intentionally leave that for LHP to clean up? That's disturbing I wish I wouldn't have thought that. I could never leave something like that for someone else to clean up.

Just a reminder that we don't know everything in the case files. We've only seen snippets of Burke's interviews, for example. There could be whole reams of material that we will never have access too. We are left to guess b/c we don't know.

 

[johnjay]

Just a reminder that we don't know everything in the case files. We've only seen snippets of Burke's interviews, for example. There could be whole reams of material that we will never have access too. We are left to guess b/c we don't know.

How did we get the Burke child interviews that we have? Did the Ramsey's put these in the public?

 

[Heymom]

How did we get the Burke child interviews that we have? Did the Ramsey's put these in the public?

I doubt it. They were probably leaked by the LE agencies. I wish we could see all of them. Especially the psychiatrist interview. But the police interviews would be just as juicy, I think.

 

[kanzz]

And Cartman turned the walls brown--South Park Bible

James Kolar didn't report that every chocolate in the box was coated with fecal material. The pajama bottoms contained fecal material. No reports of the quantity so this could have been from poor wiping habits. The room wasn't painted with it. (And yes, I know of the time when Burke was younger. He covered a wall. I've heard plenty of those stories involving other children, but Burke did that years before.)

"Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces."

Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Location 4785). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

JB had poor wiping habits. We know that because all of her underwear was stained and we know how she wanted help wiping. What wasn't noted was if the box had accidently been touched or if it was done intentionally. There's a big difference from accident to intent. I am disappointed with how sloppy the investigation was done, but I also think an intentional act would have been noted. An intentional act would have pointed directly at Burke and we would have been able to avoid all this nonsense of blaming an intruder or the mother and the father. If any of this is as obvious as it's being portrayed here, the investigators would have seen it.

I don't think that Patsy was very good at teaching good potty habits. She may have avoided it. It makes me wonder if Patsy wouldn't touch the sheets when JB left feces in the bed. Did she intentionally leave that for LHP to clean up? That's disturbing I wish I wouldn't have thought that. I could never leave something like that for someone else to clean up.

BBM
While I can appreciate what you're saying, I have different thoughts. Although JB indeed did have a history of asking people to wipe her, she didn't have a history of scatolia; but BR did. For the material on the candy box to be described as smeared with or covered in feces, it would be more than an accidental touch, imo. And it doesn't seem to me that a child who doesn't even want to wipe herself would have a sufficient quantity on her hand to contaminate a surface enough for it to be notable in those terms.

It is truly disappointing that the investigation was so sloppy and lacking in so may ways, but the fact that the investigators made mention of these things says to me that they thought it was significant and perhaps intentional. I'm not convinced, however, that they would have necessarily thought it was BR.. Maybe they should have, but they missed a lot of other red flags, after all.

In all my years as an ER nurse, the one thing I always taught newbies was, "Assume the worst first." e.g. If somebody says, "My chest kinda hurts." - It's a heart attack until it's proven otherwise. If you take this approach, and then start ruling things out, you can't go wrong. You cover your bases as you go. You tackle the big issues and move on. Everybody in that house was guilty until proven otherwise. If these cops would have used this approach, they would have gotten to the bottom of this case in nothing flat.

 

[s(he) be(lie)ve(d)]

i didnt see it either.

dont think they would aknowledge it though.....
while ever they dont discuss it team ramsey claims inuendo.
enough important people (LHP, KOLAR CLEMENTE etc ) have stated on record for me to believe it.

I agree with you. They have seen more evidence then we have. They saw enough to believe someone had a problem, so it couldn't have been just little bits now and then. Its a significant factor in the theory they have developed. As other posters have pointed out, some of it could have been JBRs.

Both Thomas and Kolar have seen enough evidence to lead them to the conclusion that potty was a big issue.

 

[PositiveLight]

I took the findings to be the play pants were a skid mark in JonBenets. The pj pants had fecal material ( maybe more than a smear and they were too big for JonBenet) and the grapefruit sized amount if feces that the housekeeper found was just to give an amount. Not that it was shaped like it. As in someone squatted and took a dump then covered it with the sheets to shock JonBenet. The fecal matter on the candy box was fecal matter. The CSI I doubt seriously would state that if they didn't know for sure if it was or not. It probably smelled. I am sure too that they did DNA- on the fecal matter to discern whose it was. That may be part of the evidence not known to us. But Kolar who had his hands on all the evidence probably new this part that we the readers don't. Let's give some credit to those who are trained in their field. If the CSI said it was fecal material, it was. It makes sense if you think about it. BR pops a squat to poo a little then uses it to wipe on her box of candy. Leaves his pants on the ground in her room. I would venture to guess that he did it after they opened gifts that morning. He was probably mad he didnt get a bike too. This is how I see it occurring and it's just my opinion. But the least we can do is give some credit to the CSI team and Kolar for knowing what they were looking at. That the proper tests probably were done to figure out who it belonged to. Because it is a major crime scene and the perp was Unknown at the time and it would be VERY important to do this testing. Remember we haven't seen all the evidence. If the pj pants, play pants, and box of candy are still in evidence it can be retested to prove it if it wasn't done already. But I would think that it was already tested. JMOO. BR showed signs of scatological behavior before her death. More than one housekeeper said so. JonBenet had issues cleaning herself. So skid marks wouldn't be a surprise to me. It was in most of her panties too. Stains from previous bad wiping. Or she was holding it to the last second before finally going to potty like a lot of kids do. They don't want to stop playing to go poop. That is common. What BR displayed was not common. JMOO

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[PositiveLight]

BBM
While I can appreciate what you're saying, I have different thoughts. Although JB indeed did have a history of asking people to wipe her, she didn't have a history of scatolia; but BR did. For the material on the candy box to be described as smeared with or covered in feces, it would be more than an accidental touch, imo. And it doesn't seem to me that a child who doesn't even want to wipe herself would have a sufficient quantity on her hand to contaminate a surface enough for it to be notable in those terms.

It is truly disappointing that the investigation was so sloppy and lacking in so may ways, but the fact that the investigators made mention of these things says to me that they thought it was significant and perhaps intentional. I'm not convinced, however, that they would have necessarily thought it was BR.. Maybe they should have, but they missed a lot of other red flags, after all.

In all my years as an ER nurse, the one thing I always taught newbies was, "Assume the worst first." e.g. If somebody says, "My chest kinda hurts." - It's a heart attack until it's proven otherwise. If you take this approach, and then start ruling things out, you can't go wrong. You cover your bases as you go. You tackle the big issues and move on. Everybody in that house was guilty until proven otherwise. If these cops would have used this approach, they would have gotten to the bottom of this case in nothing flat.

AMEN. I think that is why I always assume the worst too then go from there. I'm a nurse too so it's ingrained in me to think that way and notice all of the small things at once too and take that into consideration. Follow your gut instinct and cover your a$$. Better to assume the worst and test for it then you know you DID do everything you needed to before moving on to lesser things.