Was Burke Involved # 5

[Tadpole12]

I reckon once John leaves us, more will be revealed, Burke will get offers to do anniversary interviews etc, eventually he will slip up and we will find out who was responsible. - UK

Could be? JR mentioned clarity for his grand children, so who knows, lots of future possibilities for 'a family secret' to be revealed.

 

[watcher9]

With so many different threads on this case, I may have missed it but has the DNA found at the crime scene ever been resubmitted and run through the national database again since originally in Dec 2003? Was it only used to compare against known suspects like John Mark Karr and the parents? Back then, if it didn't match across the board, it wasn't considered a match.

DNA testing has progressed so much since then.
Seems like this would be a good case for the new DNA technology used at Parabon Labs or the ancestry tracing.

JonBenet Ramsey Murder Fast Facts - CNN

 

[apabld]

I should clarify I meant accidental as in not pre-meditated; not an intent to kill.

 

[UKGuy]

With so many different threads on this case, I may have missed it but has the DNA found at the crime scene ever been resubmitted and run through the national database again since originally in Dec 2003? Was it only used to compare against known suspects like John Mark Karr and the parents? Back then, if it didn't match across the board, it wasn't considered a match.

DNA testing has progressed so much since then.
Seems like this would be a good case for the new DNA technology used at Parabon Labs or the ancestry tracing.

JonBenet Ramsey Murder Fast Facts - CNN

watcher9,
Yes, BPD said they were going to analyze the dna again, but no more has transpired. It's one of those cases where it seems everyone has a motive to stall the case.

On the dna front, the interesting thing is that there has been no release regarding the records of any dna samples being lifted from JonBenet's clothing, i.e. specifically Burke's, as according to John and Patsy's version of events their dna should be on JonBenet.

.

 

[Tadpole12]

Thinking back, BPDs most recent statement was
regarding a tabloid suspect.
No real progression wrt JBRs case.

 

[UKGuy]

Thinking back, BPDs most recent statement was
regarding a tabloid suspect.
No real progression wrt JBRs case.

Tadpole12,
Its obvious someone does not want a full dna analysis out in the public domain. Even the Judge at the last hearing sealed some of the evidence, so there is patently something nasty being withehld?

.

 

[neednewhobbie]

How did I miss this big fat lie from Patsy? Steve Thomas is asking her about the swiss army knife found in the basement; once again she is trying to steer things away from Burke. Patsy is the only one to say Burke's knife had his name on it. So of course this unnamed knife, connected with the murder, could not possibly be Burke's! The house keeper didn't mention this important fact when she hid the knife!?
Liar Liar pants on fire!

PR: Right. He had one we had gotten him in Switzerland, it had his mane (sic) on it. Does this have his name on it?

( wait, what? Patsy remembered a detail about her life- remarkable!)

ST: I don’t know.

PR: You don’t know, OK

 

[fr brown]

Holly Smith said it was a red satin box (with a secret stash of candy).
If the box was in a drawer with the underwear, an investigative note might read like this: "...feces-stained underwear and red satin box...." Kolar might then interpret "feces-stained" as modifying both "underwear" and "box." I suppose that would be justified: (I was taught by some world-class grammar nazis to put an "a" in front; in this case, in front of "red satin box," to avoid that situation.) Don't know if that's what happened.

If a CSI/Smith rolled in on the third day, JonBenet's feces-stained velvet pants would already have been collected. Could the CSI/Smith have been looking at a photograph with its description and then written something like "velvet pants, feces-stained, too big for 6yo girl? Pajamas Burke?" Again, don't know if that's what happened. The "Burkian pajamas" don't seem to have made it into the Kolar tv program.

From an interview with Holly Smith of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team on Fox 31 News: "One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet's secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet's dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."

So it was the stained underwear and not the candy box that raised a red flag. That suggests to me that the candy box didn't have feces on it because that would have raise a huge red flag in Smith's mind and apparently it didn't. In any case, I can't find any indication that Kolar pursued the topic with Smith or others. And you would, wouldn't you, especially if you were writing a book which relied on this "evidence"?


From James Kolar's AMA:

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."

 

[neesaki]

From an interview with Holly Smith of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team on Fox 31 News: "One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet's secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet's dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."

So it was the stained underwear and not the candy box that raised a red flag. That suggests to me that the candy box didn't have feces on it because that would have raise a huge red flag in Smith's mind and apparently it didn't. In any case, I can't find any indication that Kolar pursued the topic with Smith or others. And you would, wouldn't you, especially if you were writing a book which relied on this "evidence"?


From James Kolar's AMA:

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."

All I can say is, there sure seemed to be some sick goings on in that family.

 

[fr brown]

All I can say is, there sure seemed to be some sick goings on in that family.

The opposite of my point as it applies to Burke, but unassailable, I'd say, as it applies to Patsy.

My real point, though, is what a bad investigator Kolar appears to have been.

 

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

The opposite of my point as it applies to Burke, but unassailable, I'd say, as it applies to Patsy.

My real point, though, is what a bad investigator Kolar appears to have been.

If you don't mind my asking, how so?

 

[fr brown]

If you don't mind my asking, how so?

I asked Kolar two questions during his AMA, one about the "pajamas thought to belong to Burke," one about the "feces-smeared candy box." (See recent post of mine on this thread.)

He wasn't sure where these "pajamas" were located therefore he hadn't bothered to look for them in a crime scene photo. He didn't know if they or the candy box had been collected. His sole information about these items came, it appears, from a crime scene note.

Though Kolar implies that multiple investigators noted these objects, there appears to be only one "odd observation." Was that the one by Holly Smith? Did Kolar contact her? His answer suggests he didn't.

From her interview excerpted above, Smith found the box of candy "poignant," but it was the skidmarked underwear that raised a red flag. Had there been feces on the candy box, I think she would have found that alarming rather than touching.

I was surprised that Kolar had so little curiosity about items crucial to a theory he wrote a book about.

I don't think the "Burkian pajamas" made it into the TV program. It seems like they, at least, could have used more scrutiny.

 

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

I asked Kolar two questions during his AMA, one about the "pajamas thought to belong to Burke," one about the "feces-smeared candy box." (See recent post of mine on this thread.)

He wasn't sure where these "pajamas" were located therefore he hadn't bothered to look for them in a crime scene photo. He didn't know if they or the candy box had been collected. His sole information about these items came, it appears, from a crime scene note.

Though Kolar implies that multiple investigators noted these objects, there appears to be only one "odd observation." Was that the one by Holly Smith? Did Kolar contact her? His answer suggests he didn't.

From her interview excerpted above, Smith found the box of candy "poignant," but it was the skidmarked underwear that raised a red flag. Had there been feces on the candy box, I think she would have found that alarming rather than touching.

I was surprised that Kolar had so little curiosity about items crucial to a theory he wrote a book about.

I don't think the "Burkian pajamas" made it into the TV program. It seems like they, at least, could have used more scrutiny.

Thank you for the prompt reply. I don't know if this changes my view on Det Kolar, however, it does make me scratch my head and wonder why.

 

[fr brown]

Thank you for the prompt reply. I don't know if this changes my view on Det Kolar, however, it does make me scratch my head and wonder why.

Me too.

In FF he did indicate why he settled on Burke as the perpetrator: no evidence of an intruder; Patsy was a loving mother who wouldn't kill JonBenet over a bedwetting incident. In an interview Kolar said that John slept through the night. That left Burke.

And a skirmish over pineapple and poking with train tracks went from possible scenarios to "what really happened" in a way that I find baffling.

 

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

Me too.

In FF he did indicate why he settled on Burke as the perpetrator: no evidence of an intruder; Patsy was a loving mother who wouldn't kill JonBenet over a bedwetting incident. In an interview Kolar said that John slept through the night. That left Burke.

And a skirmish over pineapple and poking with train tracks went from possible scenarios to "what really happened" in a way that I find baffling.

You've given me something to think about and in fact, prompted me to purchase FF on kindle. I look forward to discussing it with you in the future.

 

[Tobiano8th]

on the DNA, wasn't it really small trace amounts for a possible intruder?..... wouldn't there be all kinds of DNA from an intruder?.............. PR's DNA was all over the place. she does live there but i think it was on the tape, which is not good

 

[fr brown]

You've given me something to think about and in fact, prompted me to purchase FF on kindle. I look forward to discussing it with you in the future.

Regarding the "pajamas" and the box of candy, there's no more meat on the bones than what I've presented here.

The chapter on SBP seems to be based on one book Kolar read. As I recall, he did go around and interview the author. Imo, his time would have been better spent checking out the evidence room, talking to people who had been at the crime scene, and looking at crime scene photos.

Kolar spends almost no time on the ransom note, which is my main interest.

But I'm sure you'll find people to discuss it with you.

 

[Tobiano8th]

what is FF?

i read the Kolar book not that long ago... and i recently read the "detective's guild" book very recently (mostly PR wrote the note.. not that much else)

i just order steve thomas book. read many years ago. probably more than once...

 

[Tobiano8th]

i think "if there was no ransom note" that JBR murder doesn't have its own forum on this site.

 

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

Regarding the "pajamas" and the box of candy, there's no more meat on the bones than what I've presented here.

The chapter on SBP seems to be based on one book Kolar read. As I recall, he did go around and interview the author. Imo, his time would have been better spent checking out the evidence room, talking to people who had been at the crime scene, and looking at crime scene photos.

Kolar spends almost no time on the ransom note, which is my main interest.

But I'm sure you'll find people to discuss it with you.

The note, Yikes. What is it that intrigues you the most about the book I mean Ransome note.

For me, these days it's the Affluenza that plagues our society and the need to know why rich children are less valuable than poor kids. I've been researching this phenomenon for about a year now.

Well good luck with your research.