When I read Kolar's book I could certainly imagine his version of events taking place, and I respect his knowledge. However, the whole poop smearing thing and poo on the chocolates just don't seem to make much sense to me. Like everything about this case, it has could go in many directions. How do we know that the poop is even Burke's? Poo on the wall of a toilet can happen with kids and a 'smear' could mean an accidental swipe with loaded paper, or a deliberate mess. Both scenarios could just as easily come from JonBenet. Sadly, her underwear had stains and it sounds like toileting was still an issue for her, so it's just as easy to believe that the pj pants were worn by her even if they were too big. (I often wore my big sister's clothes, she being two years older than me - and had many 'hand me downs'.) Totally see where Kolar was going with this; the pj pants were worn as means of transport for the poop on the chocolates, but I'm not convinced the chocolates did have poop on them. If BDI and the parents covered for him, surely you would think they would at least stick their head in her room to scan for any incriminating evidence. One sniff and you'd be flushing those chocs quick smart.
So do you think the paintbrush assault occurred before she was hit on the head? Perhaps it did, making her cry out in pain (and bleed) so then the head whack occurred to quieten her? What sort of anger would JR hold toward to Burke on discovering what had happened, if this was the case? Especially as he had lost Beth not so many years ago.
Thanks for posting the interviews. Did Patsy know what was going on? It's hard because we lose so much by not being able to read the body language, eye movement, tone etc. There certainly seemed to be some anger towards John in the ransom note, and they weren't exactly very loving towards each other on the day. Why was there so much 'Patsy' all over the scene? Why did John hand the police the very pad that the ransom note had been written on? Why on earth do we have to keep visualising John in his underpants quite so much? *shudder*
Yes, well I agree it's not likely PDI... it's just working out which of the two remaining is Mr Guilty.
Veronica Lodge,
If BDI and the parents covered for him, surely you would think they would at least stick their head in her room to scan for any incriminating evidence. One sniff and you'd be flushing those chocs quick smart.
At many points in the various rooms or crime-scenes, depending whose version of events is playing out, the parents at particular junctures are evidently ignorant with regard to specific forensic details, e.g. you cite the fecal material, another is the pineapple in breakfast bar, there are others. All suggesting the parents were not totally aware of the events that took place, or even possibly the location of JonBenet's death?
This is indirect, circumstancial evidence for ruling out JDI, i.e. he would know what to cleanup?
Did Patsy know what was going on?
Oh, yes. Remember her answer stating that JonBenet and Burke regularly shared a bedroom, last significantly on Christmas Eve, which Patsy framed as due to bedwetting, but there may have been another more intimate reason which Patsy was keen to ignore.
Why did John hand the police the very pad that the ransom note had been written on? Why on earth do we have to keep visualising John in his underpants quite so much? *shudder*
Its John playing the innocent by handing over what was in
Plain Sight anyway, and those underpants, well thats Johns attempt at being authentic,
Hey I just got out of bed, you know Boulder Hippy Wealth Chic etc.
The thing is this, the Ramsey's had two or three attempts maybe more at staging JonBenet's death, and they failed on all accounts.
Although they succeeded in one staging objective, i.e. evading a court case, everyone and their dog knows one of them was responsible for JonBenet's death.
IMO the case is BDI, its only the details and motive that evade us. I find BDI All a bit too much to swallow, yet years ago I used to consider BDI an extreme outlier, now after years of reviewing the evidence and ruling out both parents on the grounds they would never have staged JonBenet's death as found unless circumstance forced their hand, this leaves the only other person to dream up size-12 underwear, a sexual assault, and a blood-stained Pink Barbie Nightgown, i.e. Burke's replacement for the pink pajama bottoms?
Should mention at this point, this is where the parents made a mistake, i.e. they should have left JonBenet naked from the waist down and blamed an intruder. Wiping JonBenet down and redressing her is not the work of a considerate psychopathic intruder.
The GJ offers a perspective here since it was open to Hunter to present the True Bills and charge one or both of the parents with JonBenet's death, e.g. there was enough forensic evidence linking both parents to the wine-cellar, this he declined, why: because the case is BDI, Burke was underage and filing against the parents who are patently culpable would only reveal this aspect in a public court case.
So in conclusion Mr Guilty is Burke Ramsey aided and abetted by his parents, the outstanding question is: was it BDI All, with the parents simply tweaking the evidence?
.