Was Burke Involved? #6

Tricia

Owner Websleuths.com
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
38,188
Welcome to thread # 5 of "Was Burke Involved?"

It will be interesting to read how many of you have changed your opinion of Burke after watching two out of the three interviews with Burke and Dr. Phil.

What a lot of people came away with (myself included) is how in the world could Lin Wood or John Ramsey allow Burke to be interviewed?

Burke is an adult so perhaps there was nothing they could do to stop him. However, I got the impression that Burke would rather be anywhere else in the world than with Dr. Phil answering questions.

Continue posting and thank you for participating.

Tricia

Was Burke Involved ? # 1


Was Burke Involved ? # 2

Was Burke Involved? # 3

Was Burke Involved? # 4

Thread #5
 
Last edited by a moderator:

proust20

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
370
Reaction score
583
In Kolar's FF, there is a photograph of the torn Christmas presents on page 340 (photo 27). According to the caption, the wrapping is the same as on the the children's presents as seen in the Christmas day pictures, which I take to mean as being the FAO Schwarz wrapping. There is also shown the unwrapped Lego set supposedly meant for BR's birthday.
Given PR's lack of credibility, her claim that she was the one who tore the wrapping can be dismissed readily. Kolar states that BR tore the paper on Christmas Day. Therefore, it can be inferred that PR was once again trying to distance BR from being in the basement.
Assuming that the presents in the WC are part of the staging, I am once again puzzled by the point of arranging them there. What about this suggests a kidnapping gone wrong? A way to reconcile this confusion is to think of the staging as a disorganized effort. The Rs could have been changing their minds as they did it, or different people may have been responsible for various aspects of the staging.
Also, as the Lego set is unwrapped, how could BR be surprised when receiving it later in January? Since his train room was in the basement, he'd have come across it easily.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,441
In Kolar's FF, there is a photograph of the torn Christmas presents on page 340 (photo 27). According to the caption, the wrapping is the same as on the the children's presents as seen in the Christmas day pictures, which I take to mean as being the FAO Schwarz wrapping. There is also shown the unwrapped Lego set supposedly meant for BR's birthday.
Given PR's lack of credibility, her claim that she was the one who tore the wrapping can be dismissed readily. Kolar states that BR tore the paper on Christmas Day. Therefore, it can be inferred that PR was once again trying to distance BR from being in the basement.
Assuming that the presents in the WC are part of the staging, I am once again puzzled by the point of arranging them there. What about this suggests a kidnapping gone wrong? A way to reconcile this confusion is to think of the staging as a disorganized effort. The Rs could have been changing their minds as they did it, or different people may have been responsible for various aspects of the staging.
Also, as the Lego set is unwrapped, how could BR be surprised when receiving it later in January? Since his train room was in the basement, he'd have come across it easily.

proust20,
Also, as the Lego set is unwrapped, how could BR be surprised when receiving it later in January? Since his train room was in the basement, he'd have come across it easily.
Exactly.

According to the caption, the wrapping is the same as on the the children's presents as seen in the Christmas day pictures, which I take to mean as being the FAO Schwarz wrapping. There is also shown the unwrapped Lego set supposedly meant for BR's birthday.
Well put, now Kolar hints that Burke opened the gifts intended for Patsy's niece Jenny, i.e. size-12's?

Now does it matter how these were wrapped, e.g. FAO Schwarz wrapping, Bloomingdale's wrapping, Other Christmas Themed wrapping?

Kolar is implying Burke knew about the size-12's long before they set out for the White's Christmas party, along with all the other gifts?

I reckon its not so much the gifts are in the wine-cellar as part of the staging, but that they are not say in JonBenet's bedroom, they were likely dumped in the wine-cellar to break any links to upstairs along with a cover story about Burke's birthday?

How about JonBenet opening Burke's gifts and he goes postal over this?

.
 

Herlock5

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
31
Reaction score
164
In Kolar's FF, there is a photograph of the torn Christmas presents on page 340 (photo 27). According to the caption, the wrapping is the same as on the the children's presents as seen in the Christmas day pictures, which I take to mean as being the FAO Schwarz wrapping. There is also shown the unwrapped Lego set supposedly meant for BR's birthday.
Given PR's lack of credibility, her claim that she was the one who tore the wrapping can be dismissed readily. Kolar states that BR tore the paper on Christmas Day. Therefore, it can be inferred that PR was once again trying to distance BR from being in the basement.
Assuming that the presents in the WC are part of the staging, I am once again puzzled by the point of arranging them there. What about this suggests a kidnapping gone wrong? A way to reconcile this confusion is to think of the staging as a disorganized effort. The Rs could have been changing their minds as they did it, or different people may have been responsible for various aspects of the staging.
Also, as the Lego set is unwrapped, how could BR be surprised when receiving it later in January? Since his train room was in the basement, he'd have come across it easily.
Put this together with the pineapple evidence and it becomes more and more clear.
 

Chocopops

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Messages
96
Reaction score
46
Given PR's lack of credibility, her claim that she was the one who tore the wrapping can be dismissed readily.

Do you have the source for Patsy having claimed to have been the one who tore the wrapping? Thanks.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,441
Do you have the source for Patsy having claimed to have been the one who tore the wrapping? Thanks.

In the following excerpt Patsy is viewing crime-scene photographs of the wine-cellar and answering related questions.

Chocopops,

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth
14 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. It is hard to sort of
15 figure out where all of these pictures are taken, but
16 there is another package over here.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh.
18 TRIP DEMUTH: Does that look out of place or
19 in the proper place?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I had -- you know, I
21 stacked up some packages along there (inaudible).
22 Kicked (inaudible) or something. I kind of have it
23 backed up here.
24 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. So the packages in 146,
25 it looks like it is out of place to you?

0392
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh. Yeah. See, that
2 looks -- the door would be here.
3 TRIP DEMUTH: It is hard.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: So that would be back in here
5 somewhere. I was right in front of the door.
6 TRIP DEMUTH: No. Here are the screens. You
7 see the screens over here, the small screens, so it is
8 more back in this.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I would tuck them
10 there.
11 TRIP DEMUTH: I guess the point is, there
12 wasn't one that was off by itself. They should have
13 all been together.
14 The location in picture 148 is the correct
15 place for all of the packages to have been?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
17 TOM HANEY: Before we go on, could we just
18 talk briefly about the packages, these were presents
19 for whom, the ones that were left in there?
0392
20 PATSY RAMSEY: I believe for, you know, I
21 held some back for Burke's birthday which is in
22 January.
23 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
24 TOM HANEY: So that could have been that.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I don't remember what

0393
1 was in them.
2 TOM HANEY: Would any of these packages be
3 opened?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably. Well, see, these
5 came up, I was at FAO Schwartz in New York when
6 JonBenet and I were up there for a trip, and I had them
7 sent back to Boulder and they wrapped them, free gift
8 wrapping.
9 So like right here it looks like I kind of
10 peeled a little back to see what was in it because I
11 couldn't remember what was in them.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: If the wrapping has been undone
13 partially, that was --
14 PATSY RAMSEY: I probably would have done
15 that to peek to see what was in there.
16 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
17 TOM HANEY: Where did you do the bulk of your
18 Christmas shopping, the items you put in there?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, all of this stuff right
20 here was from FAO Schwartz in New York. JonBenet got a
21 bicycle that year. I got a university bicycle, and she
22 got a twin doll which I mail ordered, and --
23 TOM HANEY: Did she get to ride her bike?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: She got to ride her bike.
25 TOM HANEY: Christmas day?

Note John in an earlier account states that Patsy did not know anything about the gifts in the wine-cellar, i.e. only John did.

James Kolar in his book that Burke Ramsey opened the gifts:
James Kolar, Foreign Faction, Excerpt
I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this. Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke's upcoming January birthday.

So there you go. It was Burke, John and Patsy who opened the gifts?

All different accounts, which raises the question: if the Ramsey version of events is kosher then why do they all claim to have opened the gifts?

IMO, the opened gifts are like the size-12's, a red flag!

.
 

Swirlz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
15,452
Reaction score
7,322
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.

[AMAA ANNOUNCEMENT] James Kolar on Saturday, March 6th @ 11 AM MST
 

Tadpole12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
7,810
Reaction score
12,157

"For the occasion, Chief Kolar has given us permission to share with you his newly released commentary on the Grand Jury indictments. This is an update that was meant to go into the second edition of Foreign Faction, which Chief Kolar currently has no plans to publish. It discusses the 1999 grand jury indictments of John and Patsy Ramsey which were not made public until 2013."

Afterword, Grand Jury indictment, pdf:
Afterword I Feb162021.pdf
 
Last edited:

Rain on my Parade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
1,222
It’s a real shame the conclusion Kolar came to. I have voiced the same conclusion in this case.
Does this mean we are here merely to speculate. Looks like it.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,441
It’s a real shame the conclusion Kolar came to. I have voiced the same conclusion in this case.
Does this mean we are here merely to speculate. Looks like it.

Rain on my Parade,
Does this mean we are here merely to speculate. Looks like it.
No, because we can uncover the truth.

Note where Kolar refers to two jurors telling Charlie Brennan that the parents had been hit with a Child Abuse Count.

This process of revelation will simply multiply into the future. Kolar must be thinking along these lines as his analysis of LHP's attempts to publish her story suggests.

I reckon LHP's story will eventually be published even if its postmortem or via kindle publishing.

With Kolars latest remarks it appears the case is BDI, else why would the courts continue with sealing evidence, etc.

We all know the parents were hit with GJ Counts, so if one unsigned Count was Murder In The First Degree, why can we not all see that?

The clue lies with Kolars footnote on this subject:
Afterword, Ventus Publishing, 2021 Excerpt
What comes to mind as a possible explanation for the entirety of the information being redacted is that the probable causes narrative made references to an unindicted minor child who was in the residence at the time of the death of JonBenet.

An additional complication is that these indictments were never prosecuted by the District Attorney's Office.
Above BBM: Now for JonBenet afficionados the important word there is unindicted.

Which I suspect must mean both parents were hit with Murder In The First Degree, as they formed part of a conspiracy to evade detection, e.g. Count VII, Accessory to a crime

This explains why both parents had similar counts?

The case being BDI explains why it was never going to court and why Hunter did what he did, along with all the other lukewarm interviews undertaken by BPD investigators, they knew the case was going nowhere?

Kolar has read up on much of the case evidence including the GJ testimony, so his opinion on many fronts are really facts he cannot claim as such, due to his legal duty of non-disclosure.

We should all support Kolar in his efforts, make sure his book is well known as this will encourage him to reveal more nuggets of information as time passes, and will secure Justice for JonBenet.

.
 

root661

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
155
Rain on my Parade,

No, because we can uncover the truth.

Note where Kolar refers to two jurors telling Charlie Brennan that the parents had been hit with a Child Abuse Count.

The case being BDI explains why it was never going to court and why Hunter did what he did, along with all the other lukewarm interviews undertaken by BPD investigators, they knew the case was going nowhere?

Kolar has read up on much of the case evidence including the GJ testimony, so his opinion on many fronts are really facts he cannot claim as such, due to his legal duty of non-disclosure.

We should all support Kolar in his efforts, make sure his book is well known as this will encourage him to reveal more nuggets of information as time passes, and will secure Justice for JonBenet.

.

I believe this is also why the GJ member who spoke out also says that despite his belief that "they" (the GJ) believe they know what happened he didn't believe that Alex Hunter could get a conviction. Conviction or not, the truth should be told for JonBenet and for all those that have been falsely accused or sued by the Ramsey machine.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,441
I believe this is also why the GJ member who spoke out also says that despite his belief that "they" (the GJ) believe they know what happened he didn't believe that Alex Hunter could get a conviction. Conviction or not, the truth should be told for JonBenet and for all those that have been falsely accused or sued by the Ramsey machine.

root661,
Yes, but possibly what the GJ member did not know was that the GJ was simply being used as the assumed safest way of engineering the case through the legal justice system, so ending up with a pre-planned outcome. Just MO?

Conviction or not, the truth should be told for JonBenet and for all those that have been falsely accused or sued by the Ramsey machine.
This is why I post. Many folks were flung under the bus by the Ramsey's, consider LHP, poor woman and her family were left bereft by the Ramsey accusations.

So the truth should be told. We can all make a contribution to this process by cataloging the facts and publishing them on the internet.

The case will not go away, evidently more GJ Members will come forward, they will do interviews on the talk shows, witnesses will want their testimony to be heard, not that of the Ramsey's, so there is much more to come.

,
 

Rain on my Parade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
1,222
root661,
Yes, but possibly what the GJ member did not know was that the GJ was simply being used as the assumed safest way of engineering the case through the legal justice system, so ending up with a pre-planned outcome. Just MO?


This is why I post. Many folks were flung under the bus by the Ramsey's, consider LHP, poor woman and her family were left bereft by the Ramsey accusations.

So the truth should be told. We can all make a contribution to this process by cataloging the facts and publishing them on the internet.

The case will not go away, evidently more GJ Members will come forward, they will do interviews on the talk shows, witnesses will want their testimony to be heard, not that of the Ramsey's, so there is much more to come.

,

UKGuy,
What is the event that will get the wheels turning?
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,441
UKGuy,
What is the event that will get the wheels turning?

Rain on my Parade,

One of two events:

1. As Tadpole12 suggests John Ramsey passes on?

2. A GJ Juror or BPD case investigator is charged with illegal disclosure of sealed information, thus sparking a media storm and prompting witnesses currently sitting on the fence to come forward, so breaking the case?

John Ramsey can simply replace Lin Wood with any other suitable attorney.

.
 

Rain on my Parade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
1,222
Rain on my Parade,

One of two events:

1. As Tadpole12 suggests John Ramsey passes on?

2. A GJ Juror or BPD case investigator is charged with illegal disclosure of sealed information, thus sparking a media storm and prompting witnesses currently sitting on the fence to come forward, so breaking the case?

John Ramsey can simply replace Lin Wood with any other suitable attorney.

.

UKGuy,
Replacing LW is a given. What will happen to a Grand Juror and BPD investigators should they decide to be charged with illegal disclosure?
 
Top