James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

[twinkiesmom]

If you think about that, does it really sound like something done by an adult?
.

Yes, if the child was being groomed for further activity when she was older and bigger.

Yes, if the perp was getting his kicks on the asphyxiation part of it while torturing her slowly.

 

[FairM]

Hm. Good point, but actually, it does sound like an adult to me.

Because very early in this case, I'm talking about when we found out that the child had a "paintbrush" inserted into her like that, I immediately thought there HAD to be something going on there other than sexual abuse.

I may be wrong, of course, but it seemed like a desperation, an attempt to cover up the prior sexual injuries by a someone who in fact couldn't bear to use his/her own hand to defile the child like that

See, here's the problem: if someone were sexually assaulting her that night with a PAINTBRUSH, why would this person do that?

I can see why someone so determined as Smit to believe these "good Christians" couldn't have possibly committed such a thing on their own child came up with OH! It must have been a sadistic pedophile! It does seem quite cruel.

But since I see no significant evidence any intruder came into the home that night, I asked myself why, looking at the three remaining suspects who were in the house, would parents do such a thing to a child they clearly loved?

Let's say it wasn't Burke, just for the sake of argument, so it was a parent inserting that paintbrush so cruelly into the child. What would be the benefit?

If the child had already been sexually abused that night, then she was already bleeding, already had vaginal injuries that would show up at autopsy.

So why do such a cold, brutal thing to her dying body?

To cover up PREVIOUS vaginal injuries, of course. Injuries that happened before that night. Which is why in this theory, there was no sexual abuse going on THAT particular night. That's why the paintbrush was needed to inflict fresh injuries: to cover up the older abuse.

So if you're following: once the head blow was struck, once the child was dying, whatever caused someone in that family to decide she had to be strangled with a ligature, what also had to be covered up was THE PRIOR MOLESTATION.

If this is the way the logic went that night, then that person KNEW about the prior molestation.

And Patsy Ramsey did, IMO, because of the phone calls to Dr. Beuf after hours on Dec. 17; because of the fact that there would have been bleeding Patsy would have seen in JB's underwear; because JB might have decided to tell on someone; because friends were already noticing something had changed in JB and the change wasn't good, described by more than one as JB looking burned out; and finally because Patsy told her good friend Pam Archuleta that JB was "flirting" and "too friendly."

This child was murdered. She was sexually assaulted in a very strange way the night she was brutally killed. Maybe I'm just a cynic myself at this point in six decades of living among human beings, but I find the fact that she had chronic vaginal injuries TOO COINCIDENTAL to believe this was somehow unrelated.

Maybe it's because the Ramseys and their excusers have never stopped denying THE FACT that she had vaginal injuries prior to the night she was murdered. Maybe it's because the evidence is too strong that Patsy wrote the note. Maybe it's because there is too much evidence that leads straight to the family, and they have been running from it ever since.

But there is only one way I can see an intruder in that home, that night: he would have to have been a genius of crime and misdirection and the luckiest killer in history as the family did every single thing they could to appear guilty and help him escape from justice.

Of course it's just my opinion, and I can make other arguments with other theories as you suggest: that Burke used the paintbrush on his sister, and he struck the head blow, and possibly was the one who also strangled her with the ligature.

Because in actual fact, there was none of the three in the home that night who was not capable of committing every element of this crime, except for writing the note: that was clearly Patsy.

The insertion of the paintbrush would appear to be evidence of the "signature" of the perp, i.e something done to the victim over and above what was necessary to kill her.

If you look at other reported cases you will see that there are a number of sexually motivated homicides that involve the insertion of foreign objects into the victim's vagina, it is a form of sexual deviance which is expressed by sexually motivated killers....the object can take many forms ranging in one case I know of , of a shot gun !

If you look at this case from the view of IDI then this action of inserting the paintbrush would fit in with this aspect of the crime by a stranger ...imo.

The site Practicalhomicide.com has a section on "Signature aspect in criminal investigation" that provides examples of crimes where foreign obejcts have been inserted into the victim.

 

[cynic]

The insertion of the paintbrush would appear to be evidence of the "signature" of the perp, i.e something done to the victim over and above what was necessary to kill her.

If you look at other reported cases you will see that there are a number of sexually motivated homicides that involve the insertion of foreign objects into the victim's vagina, it is a form of sexual deviance which is expressed by sexually motivated killers....the object can take many forms ranging in one case I know of , of a shot gun !

If you look at this case from the view of IDI then this action of inserting the paintbrush would fit in with this aspect of the crime by a stranger ...imo.

The site Practicalhomicide.com has a section on "Signature aspect in criminal investigation" that provides examples of crimes where foreign obejcts have been inserted into the victim.

Who then is responsible for the chronic abuse of JonBenet?

Dr. Meyer was concerned about JonBenét’s vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians in the days following her autopsy. Dr. Sirontak, a pediatrician with Denver Children’s Hospital, had recognized signs of prior sexual trauma but neither he nor Dr. Meyer were able to say with any degree of certainty what period of time may have been involved in the abuse.
Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertion of the foreign object that had created the injury at the time of her death.
It was their opinion that the type of injury present with the hymen suggested that several different contacts had been made in the past and that digital penetration was consistent with this type of injury. The physicians were unable to date the previous injury or specifically quantify the number of times JonBenét had been assaulted, but were confident in their opinions that she had been subjected to sexual contact prior to the day of her murder.
This particular information suggested that someone close to JonBenét had been responsible for abusing her in the weeks or months preceding her murder.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 63 - 64

 

[wonderllama]

I have to say I'm not sure I agree that you can classify the paintbrush as a signature.
The reason I say this is that signatures are generally the hallmarks of someone who has committed more than one crime.

There is no evidence the killer ever killed before or since...especially if we're looking for the signature you are referring to.

Also, from all the books I have read, there is generally some significance to a signature, something which seems unlikely given the opportunistic nature of the use of the paint brush.

Signatures are impossible to define after one crime, and if it's not the first or last, where are the rest?

 

[dodie20]

Could Burke of been sexually abused and he was acting out on JonBenet?

If there was any intruder why didn't they just rape her then and there? She had the head bash and there was nothing to stop them. Would they of waited, listening to see of anyone heard her screaming to see what was going on? and then just killed her and leave? After assaulting her with something and changing her clothes? To me that makes it someone in that household.

I saw on FFJ photos of a man that had gone to the Ramsey's home looking around. He said he could of climbed up to JonBenet's balcony. Why if someone was watching the home to take her for a ransom did she end up in basement and then placed in the wine cellar dead?

Could the touch DNA of been transferred from one of the boy's playing at the Ramsey's home before they went to the Whites?

John talked about the breakfast that they had that morning. The annual Christmas morning breakfast feast.

Could the pineapple been left out from that morning. Did they eat at the breakfast bar? Did John or Pasty clean up afterwards?


In Kolar's book (been reading at FFJ) he mentions that the minister was heating a glass in the microwave when Fleet White came up yelling for someone to call 911. Could that of been the glass with the teabag? When were photo's taken of the bowl and glass? In the south we made a pitcher of tea and not by the glass. Pasty was from the south.

In the interview between BR and the psychologist, she mentioned him bedwetting, so I wondered if was abused...but knowing that his sister was being abused, might have the same effects, because abuse would surely have negative effects on siblings. MOO.

 

[dodie20]

I can't wait for all to read and post about what jonbenet may have said to her friends and ezpecially abouf santa visiting again. I'm still convinced of sexual abuse but not that all was done by a ramsey though. I'll probably be off the fence by the time everyone gets through the book. Also there is still the opinion by some that jonbenet was bein g physically abused instead of sexual. Jonbenet could ha e suffered both physical abuse from rough cleaning and sexual abuse done by a child.

IMO, most people are creatures of habit, so if staging was done in order to cover prior abuse, (which is what a lot of people believe), then what's to say, staging wasn't done before? In other words, was the rough cleaning done for the purpose of cleaning, or to cover signs of abuse? That would require a certain calculation, but if a person was scared of getting caught, or determined to keep a family together, I could see it. PR reportedly telling her friends about the rough cleaning habits, (did she really do this?), was a red flag, IMO...kind of a cover of a cover. To me, it seemed like something somebody would say out of necessity, in case something came up...so there would be witnesses to back up a non molest excuse for injuries. MOO.

 

[otg]

KoldKase, I suppose it comes down to which of the two scenarios makes the most amount of sense to the person trying to figure out what happened that night, dealing with what we know and what we have to suppose. Based on your life experiences, you believe one or both of the parents to be aware of the prior molestations, and the paintbrush was used that night (and that night only) to hide them. But I think this is where you started leaning toward the parents because, as you said,

...I asked myself why, looking at the three remaining suspects who were in the house, would parents do such a thing to a child they clearly loved?

(bbm)
This is where you only considered the parents and forgot about the other one of the three, and you assumed that they knew about the prior molestations.

You also are thinking they wanted to cover them up by pointing to a fresh molestation. Why then would they have done all they did to hide the sexual part of what happened that night (the cleaning, changing clothes, masking the purpose of the paintbrush), and somehow know that a small piece of the wood would be found by the coroner? Why not leave the paintbrush inserted instead of disposing of the end of it?

I OTOH, think it more plausible that the parents were not aware of the extent of the prior molestations, but were beginning to see signs of it leading up to that night, and maybe they had some suspicions. If (as I think) they were not aware of them, they wouldn’t have known what would show up by a coroner’s examination. I don’t know if they were even aware that a genital examination would still be done as a routine part of the autopsy if they could remove all the evidence of molestation that they were aware of.
I don’t know what it says about me (and I hope there’s not too much speculation about that here), but I tend to think all of the sexual aspects of this point to a preadolescent child’s awakening precociousness over a parent using an old paintbrush to do this.

And BTW, on the subject of the paintbrush... Do you think it possible that the paintbrush didn't really belong to Patsy? Look at the condition of the remains of that brush and compare it to the other paintbrushes in her tray. She said in one of her interviews she wouldn't keep an old brush -- she said she's just throw it away and get new ones. In fact, she acted almost insulted that the police would have suggested she would use an old paintbrush like that, and she probably was. KK, what do you do with old things like that? Do you just throw them away, or would you maybe give them to your kids to use? Kids are so rough on toys anyway, and they lose them. Why give them new? Notice also that different parts of the paintbrush in the pictures have what appears to be old breaks and new? Maybe even some whittling was done on the handle? Just a thought, if you get my drift.

But again, we simply see things differently based on our prisms, and I can’t say that your scenario doesn’t fit with what we know. We do agree on most points: Patsy wrote the RN, and they both conspired to deflect suspicion.
.

 

[Chrishope]

Hm. Good point, but actually, it does sound like an adult to me.

Because very early in this case, I'm talking about when we found out that the child had a "paintbrush" inserted into her like that, I immediately thought there HAD to be something going on there other than sexual abuse.

I may be wrong, of course, but it seemed like a desperation, an attempt to cover up the prior sexual injuries by a someone who in fact couldn't bear to use his/her own hand to defile the child like that

See, here's the problem: if someone were sexually assaulting her that night with a PAINTBRUSH, why would this person do that?

I can see why someone so determined as Smit to believe these "good Christians" couldn't have possibly committed such a thing on their own child came up with OH! It must have been a sadistic pedophile! It does seem quite cruel.

But since I see no significant evidence any intruder came into the home that night, I asked myself why, looking at the three remaining suspects who were in the house, would parents do such a thing to a child they clearly loved?

Let's say it wasn't Burke, just for the sake of argument, so it was a parent inserting that paintbrush so cruelly into the child. What would be the benefit?

If the child had already been sexually abused that night, then she was already bleeding, already had vaginal injuries that would show up at autopsy.

So why do such a cold, brutal thing to her dying body?

To cover up PREVIOUS vaginal injuries, of course. Injuries that happened before that night. Which is why in this theory, there was no sexual abuse going on THAT particular night. That's why the paintbrush was needed to inflict fresh injuries: to cover up the older abuse.

So if you're following: once the head blow was struck, once the child was dying, whatever caused someone in that family to decide she had to be strangled with a ligature, what also had to be covered up was THE PRIOR MOLESTATION.

If this is the way the logic went that night, then that person KNEW about the prior molestation.

And Patsy Ramsey did, IMO, because of the phone calls to Dr. Beuf after hours on Dec. 17; because of the fact that there would have been bleeding Patsy would have seen in JB's underwear; because JB might have decided to tell on someone; because friends were already noticing something had changed in JB and the change wasn't good, described by more than one as JB looking burned out; and finally because Patsy told her good friend Pam Archuleta that JB was "flirting" and "too friendly."

This child was murdered. She was sexually assaulted in a very strange way the night she was brutally killed. Maybe I'm just a cynic myself at this point in six decades of living among human beings, but I find the fact that she had chronic vaginal injuries TOO COINCIDENTAL to believe this was somehow unrelated.

Maybe it's because the Ramseys and their excusers have never stopped denying THE FACT that she had vaginal injuries prior to the night she was murdered. Maybe it's because the evidence is too strong that Patsy wrote the note. Maybe it's because there is too much evidence that leads straight to the family, and they have been running from it ever since.

But there is only one way I can see an intruder in that home, that night: he would have to have been a genius of crime and misdirection and the luckiest killer in history as the family did every single thing they could to appear guilty and help him escape from justice.

Of course it's just my opinion, and I can make other arguments with other theories as you suggest: that Burke used the paintbrush on his sister, and he struck the head blow, and possibly was the one who also strangled her with the ligature.

Because in actual fact, there was none of the three in the home that night who was not capable of committing every element of this crime, except for writing the note: that was clearly Patsy.

If the prior molestation was digital wouldn't it be very difficult to trace to a particular perpetrator? There might be skin cells, but that might be explained by "rough" wiping or washing. There would be no semen, saliva, or blood, except JB's blood if the penetration were rough enough.

What I'm getting at is IF she was killed to hide prior abuse the real danger was in her talking, not in what the coroner or ER doctor might find.

As it turns out, the coroner (actually the team that was assembled) could tell there was prior abuse anyway.

 

[KoldKase]

The insertion of the paintbrush would appear to be evidence of the "signature" of the perp, i.e something done to the victim over and above what was necessary to kill her.

If you look at other reported cases you will see that there are a number of sexually motivated homicides that involve the insertion of foreign objects into the victim's vagina, it is a form of sexual deviance which is expressed by sexually motivated killers....the object can take many forms ranging in one case I know of , of a shot gun !

If you look at this case from the view of IDI then this action of inserting the paintbrush would fit in with this aspect of the crime by a stranger ...imo.

The site Practicalhomicide.com has a section on "Signature aspect in criminal investigation" that provides examples of crimes where foreign obejcts have been inserted into the victim.

So you think the intruder was just lucky that someone was already sexually abusing JonBenet for some time before he got there?

That's an amazingly lucky coincidence for that old intruder.

As for this being a serial killer with signatures in play, good thing he had no need to use other elements of this crime to repeat for his sick fantasies.

In fact, I don't know of another child murder before or after this one involving a paintbrush, ligature strangulation, head blow, staging in the home, and a ransom note which Patsy wrote just for him.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase, I suppose it comes down to which of the two scenarios makes the most amount of sense to the person trying to figure out what happened that night, dealing with what we know and what we have to suppose. Based on your life experiences, you believe one or both of the parents to be aware of the prior molestations, and the paintbrush was used that night (and that night only) to hide them. But I think this is where you started leaning toward the parents because, as you said, (bbm)
This is where you only considered the parents and forgot about the other one of the three, and you assumed that they knew about the prior molestations.

You also are thinking they wanted to cover them up by pointing to a fresh molestation. Why then would they have done all they did to hide the sexual part of what happened that night (the cleaning, changing clothes, masking the purpose of the paintbrush), and somehow know that a small piece of the wood would be found by the coroner? Why not leave the paintbrush inserted instead of disposing of the end of it?

I OTOH, think it more plausible that the parents were not aware of the extent of the prior molestations, but were beginning to see signs of it leading up to that night, and maybe they had some suspicions. If (as I think) they were not aware of them, they wouldn’t have known what would show up by a coroner’s examination. I don’t know if they were even aware that a genital examination would still be done as a routine part of the autopsy if they could remove all the evidence of molestation that they were aware of.
I don’t know what it says about me (and I hope there’s not too much speculation about that here), but I tend to think all of the sexual aspects of this point to a preadolescent child’s awakening precociousness over a parent using an old paintbrush to do this.

And BTW, on the subject of the paintbrush... Do you think it possible that the paintbrush didn't really belong to Patsy? Look at the condition of the remains of that brush and compare it to the other paintbrushes in her tray. She said in one of her interviews she wouldn't keep an old brush -- she said she's just throw it away and get new ones. In fact, she acted almost insulted that the police would have suggested she would use an old paintbrush like that, and she probably was. KK, what do you do with old things like that? Do you just throw them away, or would you maybe give them to your kids to use? Kids are so rough on toys anyway, and they lose them. Why give them new? Notice also that different parts of the paintbrush in the pictures have what appears to be old breaks and new? Maybe even some whittling was done on the handle? Just a thought, if you get my drift.

But again, we simply see things differently based on our prisms, and I can’t say that your scenario doesn’t fit with what we know. We do agree on most points: Patsy wrote the RN, and they both conspired to deflect suspicion.
.

You certainly have some good points here. I can't say who did what to a 100% degree of certainty, except that I believe 100% that Patsy wrote the note.

I think some of what you're saying may be supported by Kolar's later revelations in the book about Burke and some evidence we haven't heard before:

The pj bottoms on the floor of JB's bedroom with "skid marks" in the undewear inside those--too big for JB; so Kolar says they may have belonged to Burke.

Burke had a feces-smearing episode on the wall of a bathroom when he was 7 or 8, during the time Patsy's first cancer treatments were underway.

There was a box of chocolates in JB's bedroom smeared with feces.

Though it appears, from Kolar's own questions about who might have done that--appears this wasn't ever tested for DNA, and how tragic would that be--he does disclose all this during a chapter on disturbing "Sexual Behavior Problems" in children, specifically having done some research on studies of sexually aggressive children.

Turns out the Paughs gave the Ramseys more than one book on problem behaviors in children, too.

 

[CanManEh]

So was the big wait in this case all about a cobweb lol...

 

[KoldKase]

So was the big wait in this case all about a cobweb lol...

Nope.

 

[UKGuy]

You certainly have some good points here. I can't say who did what to a 100% degree of certainty, except that I believe 100% that Patsy wrote the note.

I think some of what you're saying may be supported by Kolar's later revelations in the book about Burke and some evidence we haven't heard before:

The pj bottoms on the floor of JB's bedroom with "skid marks" in the undewear inside those--too big for JB; so Kolar says they may have belonged to Burke.

Burke had a feces-smearing episode on the wall of a bathroom when he was 7 or 8, during the time Patsy's first cancer treatments were underway.

There was a box of chocolates in JB's bedroom smeared with feces.

Though it appears, from Kolar's own questions about who might have done that--appears this wasn't ever tested for DNA, and how tragic would that be--he does disclose all this during a chapter on disturbing "Sexual Behavior Problems" in children, specifically having done some research on studies of sexually aggressive children.

Turns out the Paughs gave the Ramseys more than one book on problem behaviors in children, too.

KoldKase,

The pj bottoms on the floor of JB's bedroom with "skid marks" in the undewear inside those--too big for JB; so Kolar says they may have belonged to Burke.

If substantiated, then it brings BDI into play. So you have feces in her bathroom and on a box of chocolates, that is interesting, because it might place BR in JonBenet's bedroom. e.g. not an intruder.


.

 

[dodie20]

Would a child be flirty and too friendly if another young child was abusing her? it would seem most likely to happen if a child were being groomed and molested by an adult.

I think a 6 year old being abused by her 9 year old brother, would react completely different than a 6 year old being abused by an adult. The intimidation, fear, trauma, etc...would be different...and although it would be bad either way, I don't think a 9 year old would wield the power that seems to have been in place here. Honestly, I think JonBenet would have told on BR, and PR would have put a stop to it. Probably in a quiet, private way, but still stopped it...got intervention, and kept JonBenet from ever being alone with him. And if JonBenet hadn't told, I think PR would have picked up the signals. BR was 9 years old, how sneaky could he have been? Because this was bad enough to end in murder, so some weird stuff was going on, and I don't think it was 'playing doctor'. I just don't think PR would have let it reach that point, regardless of how torn she was. As for this seeming like a childish assault and murder...I've known a few adult male molestors, and they've all, without exception, been immature. It's like their sexual and emotional growth was stunted. One man was in his 60s, was very successful and made a good living, but I always noticed that he seemed to prefer the company of young kids. Anyway, in a case like this, I don't think the normal standards should be used for distinguishing adult behavior from child behavior, because adult molestors aren't normal! The same goes for the language in the ransom note. I don't think JR should be eliminated from writing or dictating, based on him being a billion dollar businessman. The childish, immature references and the effiminate style of language, should be seen as a totally separate element. I admit that the ransom sum, seems like something a kid would be impressed with, but who knows...maybe a man who was very full of himself, thought it was impressive too. just a thought, based on MOO, that the RN was written by someone in that house.

 

[Chrishope]

You certainly have some good points here. I can't say who did what to a 100% degree of certainty, except that I believe 100% that Patsy wrote the note.

I think some of what you're saying may be supported by Kolar's later revelations in the book about Burke and some evidence we haven't heard before:

The pj bottoms on the floor of JB's bedroom with "skid marks" in the undewear inside those--too big for JB; so Kolar says they may have belonged to Burke.

Burke had a feces-smearing episode on the wall of a bathroom when he was 7 or 8, during the time Patsy's first cancer treatments were underway.

There was a box of chocolates in JB's bedroom smeared with feces.

Though it appears, from Kolar's own questions about who might have done that--appears this wasn't ever tested for DNA, and how tragic would that be--he does disclose all this during a chapter on disturbing "Sexual Behavior Problems" in children, specifically having done some research on studies of sexually aggressive children.

Turns out the Paughs gave the Ramseys more than one book on problem behaviors in children, too.

The pj bottoms on the floor of JB's bedroom with "skid marks" in the undewear inside those--too big for JB; so Kolar says they may have belonged to Burke.

?? It should be rather obvious whether they are girl's panties or boy's briefs. ??

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

On aCandyrose are the warrants to search the house for cloth type string and they were looking for missing shoelaces and/or clothes missing drawstrings. So did whoever tied her up and strangled her to death use the drawstring off a pair of sweats? What did John usually wear to bed?

Pasty sure did dress her a lot in black and white, but then again her paganet costumes were black and white,but then again Pasty wore a lot of black. I came across a photo once of JonBenet and her haircut was more for an adult than a little girl.

It also said that Det Michael Everett, that search the basement after JonBenet was brought up, saw two blankets on the floor of the wine cellar.

 

[UKGuy]

?? It should be rather obvious whether they are girl's panties or boy's briefs. ??

Chrishope,
There is not a lot of information on that underwear. If those are Burke's pants then its open season on Burke, also it might make more sense, since points of reference to Burke, are nearly non-existent. Consider his bedroom, bed made, all tidied up.

That is once out of the house there is very little linking him to anything at all. And not many questions in the interviews relate to Burke, they seem to just ignore stuff that now seems so obvious.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
There is not a lot of information on that underwear. If those are Burke's pants then its open season on Burke, also it might make more sense, since points of reference to Burke, are nearly non-existent. Consider his bedroom, bed made, all tidied up.

That is once out of the house there is very little linking him to anything at all. And not many questions in the interviews relate to Burke, they seem to just ignore stuff that now seems so obvious.



.

If those are Burkes undies, it's strange. My understanding is the black pants are JBR's - is that your understanding?

 

[UKGuy]

If those are Burkes undies, it's strange. My understanding is the black pants are JBR's - is that your understanding?

Chrishope,
Yes I have always assumed they were JonBenet's. From memory, Patsy suggested JonBenet left them there after changing either to go out and play on her new bike, or when she returned, getting ready for the White's.

On specific details Patsy had amnesia. If they are Burke's then this explains why there was no further questioning. Since Patsy is not definitive in her answers.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Yes I have always assumed they were JonBenet's. From memory, Patsy suggested JonBenet left them there after changing either to go out and play on her new bike, or when she returned, getting ready for the White's.

On specific details Patsy had amnesia. If they are Burke's then this explains why there was no further questioning. Since Patsy is not definitive in her answers.


.

Thank you.