Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,585
» Forum posts: 5,046

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 24 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 24 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
118 - What could it be?
Forum: 118 thousand dollar ransom
Last Post: jameson245
02-22-2020, 03:32 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 329
In the beginning
Forum: FBI involvement
Last Post: jameson245
02-22-2020, 11:31 AM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 8,956
Scott Gibbons - North
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
02-22-2020, 11:16 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 3,043
beuf records from TimeLin...
Forum: Prior sexual abuse
Last Post: jameson245
02-22-2020, 10:27 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 5
from the TimeLine
Forum: Judith Phillips
Last Post: jameson245
02-22-2020, 09:45 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 124
names Police Chief
Forum: Police Chief Carey Weinheimer
Last Post: jameson245
02-22-2020, 09:30 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
Linda Arndt on GMA
Forum: good primer, perhaps
Last Post: jameson245
02-21-2020, 08:47 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 97
The Final Suspects
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: Dave
02-18-2020, 12:57 PM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 743
from Steve Thomas depo
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
02-14-2020, 04:46 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,970
Fleet quotes
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
02-13-2020, 04:43 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 18

 
  Steven Pitt
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-23-2017, 05:09 AM - Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note - Replies (3)

From Beckner deposition in Wolf v Ramsey

80
1 Q There was -- you know who Steven Pitt is?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What was his role?
4 A He was a forensic psychologist that
5 assisted us in the case.
6 Q What would a forensic psychologist bring
7 to the table?
8 A Well, he brings a lot in terms of
9 analyzing behavior, demeanor, statements, advice on
10 how to conduct interviews, advice on what questions
11 to ask, those areas.
12 Q Would he have been involved in a strategy
13 to bring public pressure on a given individual who
14 was under suspicion?
15 MR. MILLER: Objection

long discussion on this - interesting since he appears later in documentaries....

Print this item

  Was Beckner BORG?
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-23-2017, 05:02 AM - Forum: BORG theories and BORG people of note - No Replies

from his deposition:

21 Q Would one of the factors in removing Chris
22 Wolf from under the umbrella of suspicion be the fact
23 that the Boulder Police Department had concluded that
24 it was probable that John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey
25 were involved in the death of their daughter?

70
1 A No, I don't think so.
2 Q For example, if you as the chief of police
3 or as the commander in charge of the Ramsey
4 investigation state to your investigator or
5 investigators, members of your detective team, I
6 believe Patsy Ramsey killed JonBent, would you
7 expect that to have an impact on how that
8 investigator or detective would approach another
9 possible individual under suspicion such as Chris
10 Wolf?
11 A Would I expect it to? No.
12 Q Well, why not? I mean when the chief says
13 I believe Patsy Ramsey did this, how could that not
14 impact the efforts to investigate others?
15 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the
16 question. Misstates testimony.
17 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Well, maybe I didn't lay
18 the foundation. Have you ever made that statement to
19 another detective in this case?
20 A I don't know, to be honest with you,
21 whether I have said that.
22 Q Well, Steve Thomas says in his book that
23 you did.
24 A Well, I don't know that I have.
25 Q Well, do you deny that?

71
1 A No. I don't know whether I have or not.
2 Q Well, does it sound like something that
3 you would have said to another detective?
4 A It may have been something that was said.
5 We've had, you know, hundreds of conversations about
6 hearings about this case. Maybe, I don't know. I
7 don't recall saying that specifically.
8 Q Well, I mean, Chief, that's not an
9 insignificant statement to come from the chief of
10 police or from the commander of the investigation. I
11 mean is it possible that you may have made similar
12 comments about other individuals?
13 A Sure.
14 Q That you believe some other person other
15 than John or Patsy might have been involved?
16 A Sure.
17 Q Do you have a recollection of doing that?
18 A I have a recollection of challenging
19 detectives in terms of some of the evidence and what
20 it means, sure.
21 Q But I'm really looking more for the
22 specific statement. I mean maybe that's the way, if
23 Thomas is accurate and says that Mark Beckner said I
24 believe Patsy Ramsey killed JonBent, would that have
25 been -- should that be interpreted as a statement of

72
1 your actual belief or is that a way that you might
2 challenge some findings or some information from a
3 detective? I'm not sure I'm following you.
4 A Yeah, because to this day I haven't come
5 to any conclusions on that. So what I would say is
6 it would probably be in the context of discussing
7 different theories about the case.
8 Q Because to this day, you have not
9 concluded yourself that Patsy Ramsey killed JonBen t?
10 A That's correct.

Print this item

  info from ...
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-23-2017, 04:56 AM - Forum: Prints - finger and palm - Replies (1)

from Mark Beckner's deposition in Wolf v Ramsey

3 Q (BY MR. WOOD) You indicated, Chief
4 Beckner, that in 1997 with respect to -- late 1997,
5 you submitted some handwriting and possibly some
6 fingerprints to CBI with respect to Chris Wolf.
7 We've covered the handwriting, haven't we, that we
8 talked about earlier that Chet Ubowski gave reports
9 on a couple of occasions?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Now, what about -- you say possibly some
12 fingerprints. Did you in fact obtain fingerprints
13 from Chris Wolf?
14 A Again, I just want to clarify I'm going by
15 memory from almost four years ago. But yes, I recall
16 that we had fingerprints from Chris Wolf.
17 Q And were they submitted to CBI?
18 A Yes.
19 Q For comparisons to what?
20 A To evidence taken at the scene. Any
21 fingerprints that we had, any prints whatsoever that
22 we had at the scene.
23 Q Okay. And did you ever -- well, you go on
24 to say you obtained some handwriting exemplars in
25 1998. That would have been different from the

59
1 initial handwriting?
2 A I believe so. I'm, you know --
3 Q And some palm prints --
4 A -- the best of my recollection.
5 Q Okay. Do you remember what the results
6 were that came back on the fingerprints from CBI with
7 respect to Mr. Wolf?
8 A No match.
9 Q Would I be safe then to say that across
10 the board that would be true?
11 A Yes.
12 Q If you had a match from someone you
13 wouldn't have expected to be in the house, we would
14 probably all know about it.
15 The palm print, again, you took a palm
16 print left and right from Mr. Wolf, submitted those
17 to CBI?
18 A I know we took palm prints.
19 Q Were they submitted to CBI?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Again, for comparison to what you believe
22 were palm prints taken from the crime scene?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Did you take both the left and the right
25 hand palm print from Mr. Wolf?

60
1 A I don't know for sure.
2 Q Do you know what you would have expected
3 to be done in that regard?
4 A Both, I would have expected.

Print this item

  COMPARE THE IMAGES! CBS LIED!
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 05:30 PM - Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million - Replies (3)

           

Print this item

  COMPARE THESE TWO IMAGES!
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 05:27 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - Replies (1)

       

This shows just how far CBS, Kolar and the others went to mislead the public!

Print this item

  Gurule and Dorrance - 2010
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 03:43 PM - Forum: Boulder crimes - Replies (1)

Men arrested in Boulder burglary could be linked to many more over 15 years
By Vanessa Miller Camera Staff Writer
Posted:   04/07/2010 08:42:11 PM MDT


[Image: 20100407_115753_NicholasDorrance_200.jpg]
Nicholas Dorrance (Boulder County Sheriff's Office)
Two men recently arrested on suspicion of breaking into a north Boulder home may have been behind dozens of residential burglaries in the city and other parts of the Denver metro area over the past 15 years, according to police.
Nicholas Dorrance, 46, and James P. Gurule, 45, were arrested March 27 on suspicion of second-degree burglary after witnesses saw them leaving Nassau Place in a white 2000 Ford Expedition about the same time a home on the street was burglarized, according to police.
The department issued an alert for the vehicle, and Westminster police and the Colorado State Patrol helped officers stop the men on U.S. 36 near Wadsworth Boulevard. Investigators found evidence in the SUV that linked the men to the break-in, and detectives suspect they've been committing burglaries for years.
[Image: 20100407_115836_JamesGurule_200.jpg]
James P. Gurule (Boulder County Sheriff's Office)
"We feel like this is going to be a significant arrest that allows us to give homeowners some answers in a lot of different cases," said Boulder police spokeswoman Sarah Huntley.
Detectives have found hundreds of items believed to be stolen, including jewelry, weapons and electronics.
Officers have matched up some of the found property with victims of previous burglaries. As for the rest of the items, officers are photographing them and plan to post the images on the department's Web site by the end of the week so victims can be reunited with their property, Huntley said. So far, the department has photographed more than 400 items, she said.
Advertisement

"The items likely come from burglaries that occurred in Boulder and other parts of the metro area, possibly stemming back from 15 years ago," Huntley said.
The suspected burglars are believed to have already sold many of the high-end items, Huntley said. But, she said, many of the items that police hope to reunite with their owners might have sentimental value.
One of the items, for example, is a bracelet that has charms on it seeming to signify children's ages, she said.
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said his department recently created a task force to focus on catching the residential burglars. He couldn't say how many crimes Dorrance and Gurule are suspected of being involved in, but he said their arrests were "satisfying" for the officers.
Both men have posted $20,000 bonds to be released from the Boulder County Jail. They couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday. They're due back in a Boulder County Jail courtroom today for the filing of charges.
Both Gurule and Dorrance have lengthy criminal histories in Colorado, according to court records, including previous arrests for theft, drugs and alcohol violations.

Print this item

  Discussion
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-22-2017, 01:11 PM - Forum: Burke sues CBS for 750 million - Replies (6)

Got this in email, was asked to post and say it is from "Dave"  (an old-time poster)

I watched the CBS hatchet job on Burke. This was nothing more than a
huge exercise in group confirmation bias --- as you yourself may have
concluded.

snip

post from a contributor, if you would be so kind. Please feel free to
say it's from "Dave" if you wish.

-------------------------------

On the CBS television show The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, “pseudo-expert”
Henry Lee [1] performed DNA tests on some brand new underwear fresh off
the shelf. The test consisted of:

1) Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that
contained organic material.

2) Cutting out the identified regions.

3) Submitting the cuttings for DNA testing.

It was reported that female DNA was found.

This is an incompetently designed test.

What should have been done instead:

1) Randomly drop colored solution or other easily identifiable markings
no larger than 0.5 inches in diameter on the crotches of the underwear
--- no more than a few such drops per piece of underwear, similar in
size and distribution as the blood spots found on JonBenét's underwear.

2) Cut out these identified regions.

3) Submit the cuttings for testing for the presence of male DNA, not
female DNA.

Spraying the underwear with chemicals to locate regions that contain
organic material is a stupid mistake that shows the sloppiness that
“pseudo-expert” Henry Lee brings to many of his cases. The relevant
question is not: “Can we find DNA somewhere on these panties?” but
rather: “How likely is it that a spot of blood would land on a region
that contains DNA?”

Claiming that finding female DNA somewhere on the panties is significant
to the case is just another stupid and unfounded conclusion of
“pseudo-expert” Henry Lee. Throughout the history of the garment
industry, females dominate production. The likelihood of male DNA
landing on garments compared to the likelihood of female DNA is far, far
lower. Again, the question isn't “Can we find DNA somewhere on these
panties?” but rather: “How likely is it that any DNA found on the fresh
underwear is male?”

Even though this test is incompetently designed, the approximate
likelihood of finding male DNA in a region of 0.5 inches in diameter
that is randomly chosen can be confidently stated as ZERO, based on the
information provided in the show regarding this irrelevant test.
Nevertheless, now that this incompetently designed test has been not
only performed, but publicized in the popular press, it should be
replaced by a relevant test like the one that I have described above,
performed by competent personnel at an independent laboratory.

[1] The label "pseudo-expert" is an accurate description, in my opinion,
of Henry Lee from: STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 3RD CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
COUNTY OF WAYNE
BURKE RAMSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CBS CORPORATION, CRITICAL CONTENT, LLC, JIM CLEMENTE, LAURA RICHARDS, A.
JAMES KOLAR, JAMES R. FITZGERALD, STANLEY B.BURKE, WERNER U. SPITZ, and
HENRY C. LEE, Defendants.

Print this item

  JonBenet Ramsey's brother sues Dr. Werner Spitz; case to be heard in Michigan court
Posted by: Summer Dawn - 03-22-2017, 10:09 AM - Forum: Burke sues Werner Spitz for $150,000,000.00 - No Replies

JonBenet Ramsey's brother sues Dr. Werner Spitz; case to be heard in Michigan court


Defamation lawsuit filed over what Spitz said in CBS documentary

By Nick Monacelli - Reporter , Dave Bartkowiak Jr.
Posted: 7:26 AM, March 22, 2017Updated: 8:46 AM, March 22, 2017


DETROIT - JonBenet Ramsey's brother, Burke Ramsey, is suing Dr. Werner Spitz for what he said in a CBS documentary about who killed the 6-year-old girl back in 1996. 
Burke Ramsey's defamation lawsuit against the esteemed pathologist seeks $150 million. The case goes before a judge in Wayne County on Wednesday. The judge will have to decide if this will go to trial. 
"It's nonsensical. It's outrageous. It will not stand," said L. Linn Wood, attorney for Burke Ramsey. 

During part of the documentary, Spitz accuses Burke Ramsey of JonBenet's murder, saying, "You cannot come to a different conclusion. It's the boy who did it. Whether he was jealous or mentally unfit or something ... I don't know the why."

Burke Ramsey's attorney said Spitz is unqualified to make such claims. 

"He never examined the child. He's never spoken to the forensic pathologist. He's never been to the crime scene. He's never firsthand examined a single piece of actual evidence. And yet he goes out and says, 'Oh it was the flashlight in the hands of the son in the kitchen. It's like he's playing the game of Clue," said Wood. 

Burke Ramsey was 9 years old at the time of JonBenet's murder. He's about 30 now. While police never identified a murder weapon, Spitz claimed the weight and shape of a flashlight found on the Ramsey family's kitchen counter was consistent with the skull injury which killed the young beauty queen. 

The day after the documentary first aired, Burke Ramsey's attorney demanded a retraction. Spitz refused. 
The lawsuit claims Spitz's theory has deeply harmed Burke Ramsey. 

"I have no fear of Burke Ramsey clearing his name against the false accusations of Werner Spitz in a court of law," said Wood. 

Burke Ramsey also field a lawsuit against CBS for $750 million. CBS said they stand by what was said and the broadcast. The media company will defend it in a court of law if necessary. 
In court documents, Spitz's attorneys said he should be covered by the First Amendment regardless of what he said. 

About Dr. Werner Spitz
Spitz is often recognized as one of the most respected forensic scientists worldwide. After 45 years of work, he said he is still up to the challenge of helping solve some of the most mysterious cases. He currently works as a professor of pathology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. 

[Image: Dr-Werner-Spitz-testifies-in-Wafer-trial...40_360.png]

[/url]

Before a long career in several high-profile cases, Spitz served on two prestigious panels that investigated the death of President John F. Kennedy. He said he immediately ruled out any notion of a conspiracy in Kennedy's death because the president's neck wound proved the bullet was fired from behind him.


More recently, Spitz testified in the Casey Anthony murder trial. During the trial Spitz told the jury he thought it was a shoddy investigation and that the autopsy conducted by the Orlando medical examiner was flawed. He said he believes the examiner's office staged photos of Caylee Anthony's skull and that duct tape was placed on her skull after the body had decomposed.

After about a half century of cases, Spitz said there are two Detroit-area cases that definitely stick with him: The 
Oakland County Child Killer case from the 1970s and the crash of Northwest Airlines flight 255, which crashed in Romulus in 1987, killing all aboard except one 4-year-old passenger -- the deadliest sole-survivor plane crash in U.S. history.

Print this item

  Broken Windows and spider web crime scene photos
Posted by: Summer Dawn - 03-21-2017, 06:41 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - Replies (8)

Check these crime scene photos...


First one is the window RIGHT to the middle window..

Please click on it to see a bigger picture!!!



Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Print this item

  Lawsuit part 2
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-21-2017, 04:48 PM - Forum: The CBS suit - Replies (2)

M. Defendants Set the Stage for Their Preposterous Theory that Burke Killed
JonBenét for Taking His Pineapple
640. Defendants absurdly claim that Burke knew that the pineapple is the smoking gun
for this crime, and that he then successfully deceived law enforcement as to his knowledge.
Page 95 of 108
641. The false and defamatory gist of this section is that Burke killed JonBenét after
becoming enraged when she took a piece of his pineapple without asking, lied to investigators,
and was complicit in the cover-up of JonBenét’s death.
642. Defendants attempt to support this preconceived gist by reviewing pre-selected
excerpts from Burke’s interview with Boulder PD Detective Schuler eighteen months after
JonBenét’s death (the “Schuler Interview”).
643. Defendants use the Schuler Interview to set the stage for their knowingly false,
defamatory, and purely speculative accusation that Burke killed JonBenét over a piece of
pineapple and then stabbed her with his toy train track. These theories are taken straight from
Foreign Faction. See, e.g., pp. 65, 343, 384-385.
644. Defendants go so far as to make the inherently improbable assertion that during
the Schuler Interview, Burke is “aware that that piece of pineapple in JonBenét’s stomach
actually creates a major problem in terms of the timeline of when and how she was killed.”
645. Defendants knowingly fail to disclose that they have no basis whatsoever to assert
that Burke, at eleven-years-old, is playing a high-stakes game of cat and mouse with Detective
Schuler.
646. In this segment, Defendants continue to cast a shadow over Burke’s alleged
improper behavior during interviews.
647. For instance, Clemente claims that Burke is “acting like a smart aleck here, like
I’m smart and I’m proud of myself.” Clemente’s knowingly false and defamatory implication is
that Burke is proud of himself for outsmarting law enforcement by hiding that he killed
JonBenét.
Page 96 of 108
648. Clemente also falsely accuses Burke of deception because he “oversell[s]” when
he states “I always sleep really deeply and I can never hear anything.”
649. Defendants then use two topics raised by Detective Schuler as a springboard for
two key aspects of their version of events: the purported pineapple in JonBenét’s lower intestine
and Burke’s toy train track.
650. For instance, Defendants show an excerpt of Burke responding yes to Detective
Schuler’s question about JonBenét liking pineapple, and then Defendants pounce. Defendants
make the false and defamatory accusation that Burke lost his temper and bludgeoned JonBenét
with a flashlight because she at a piece of his pineapple.
651. Defendants then preface their wildly false and speculative conclusion by stating
that the pineapple issue “might look quite innocuous and inconsequential but it also tells us a lot
about what probably went on” that night.
652. Defendants knowingly and falsely claim that the pineapple “gives us a possible
timeline,” because “the pineapple was ingested subsequently” to the Ramseys returning home
from dinner at the Whites.
653. Defendants conjecture is particularly far reaching in this segment. Spitz
extrapolates from his “three children” in order to accuse Burke of killing JonBenét:
Clemente: But it’s certainly reasonable to believe that JonBenét may have snatched one
piece.
Spitz: Right, directly with her fingers. For estimating time of death, this is important.
Clemente: Isn’t it possible that JonBenét came down and saw that Burke was eating this,
and took one piece? She didn’t touch the bowl, she didn’t touch the spoon—
Spitz: You know, I have three grandchildren myself. Kids will do that. They’ll go by and
pick out a piece with their fingers.
Page 97 of 108
654. To convince their audience that their rampant speculation is accurate, Defendants
splice in a clip of a blonde girl stealing a piece of pineapple from a young boy, who, in turn,
violently grabs the girl by the wrist.
655. Upon information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge and failed to
disclose that a Boulder PD analysis after the autopsy determined that JonBenét’s small intestine
had the remnants cherries, grapes, and pineapple—common fruit cocktail ingredients. Yet,
because the presence of cherries and grapes completely undermines Defendants’ series of events,
Defendants consciously fail to share their knowledge with the viewer. Instead, Spitz merely asks
“Did the pathology report indicate what the pineapple looked like, or the gastric contents?”
656. Further, Spitz is aware that the presence of the fruit cocktail in JonBenét’s
stomach does not establish a concrete timeline from which investigators may glean her time of
death, and that the minimum amount of time it would require for the fruit to get to JonBenét’s
lower intestine undermines the theory that it “started the cascade of the rest of events that
happened on the day she died.”
657. Defendants also knowingly failed to disclose that the amount of time it would
have taken the pineapple to travel to JonBenét’s small intestine is fundamentally inconsistent
with the Burke-did-it accusation.
658. Defendants then note that while Burke and Patsy’s fingertips are on the bowl of
pineapple, JonBenét’s are not. This is explainable, Defendants speculate, because she must have
only taken “one piece” but “didn’t touch the bowl” or “touch the spoon.”
659. Defendants have no factual basis for speculating that JonBenét took a piece of
Burke’s pineapple, much less that her fingerprints are not present on Defendants’ purported
smoking gun because she only “snatched one piece.”
Page 98 of 108
660. The fact JonBenét’s fingerprints are not on the bowl of pineapple or the spoon is
actually strong evidence that she did not eat the pineapple from the bowl.
661. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one piece of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.
662. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose that there
was more than one type of fruit in JonBenét’s digestive tract.
663. Defendants next use a clip of Burke affirming that he had an electric train set to
Schuler as an opportunity to replace the stun gun with Burke’s toy train. “It was an incredible
discovery, to find a toy in the house that could have been responsible for these injuries. . . . An
adult would have been calling 9-1-1 for an ambulance.”
664. Pseudo-Expert Kolar then repeats his entirely speculative accusation, discussed
above, that Burke used one of his train toys to inflict the supposed stun gun injuries on JonBenét.
See Foreign Faction, pp. 384-385.
N. Defendants Pronouncement that Burke Killed JonBenét
665. After Defendants presented the limited “evidence” they could muster against
Burke, Defendants announced the conclusion of their “complete reinvestigation” in rapid-fire
succession.
666. The inescapable false and defamatory conclusion of this final segment is that
Burke killed JonBenét.
667. Defendants began this segment with Clemente proclaiming their goal:
Now that we’ve been investigating for months, we’ve been working together as a
team, I think we need to actually try to piece together everything that happened.
Anybody who does a legitimate investigation will look at all the evidence and see
where that evidence takes you. So we have to test every theory and the ones that
remain, are the ones that are supported by the evidence.
Page 99 of 108
668. Defendants first agreed quickly and with little examination—correctly—that
neither John or Patsy killed JonBenét.
669. Defendants then declared that there was no intruder: “I don’t think the evidence
that stands up to scientific or behavioral scrutiny indicates that somebody came in from outside
that home and killed JonBenét.”
670. Defendants falsely attacked the intruder theory by proclaiming “that the DNA
evidence in this case is totally erroneous” and there is “really no sexual assault here.”
671. Richards then invited Kolar to share what he believes happened that night, as
though she did not already know: “James, I’m interested to know what exactly you think
happened in the house that night.”
672. Kolar then stated the grand accusation against Burke—the same one from Foreign
Faction:
My hypothesis was that I think the Ramseys came home around 9:30, 10:00
o’clock. I think JonBenét was asleep. I think John did carry her upstairs. Patsy
remained downstairs with Burke and served him the tea and the pineapple. I think
that accounts for the physical evidence as well as the latent prints. Then I think
she got JonBenét up to make sure she used the toilet so she didn’t wet the bed that
night. JonBenét was up, she may or may not have brushed her teeth. That stuff
was out on the counter. And then I think she was up and awake enough, but she
maybe was still hungry and went downstairs. In the meantime, Patsy continued
packing for the Michigan trip. I think if Burke was upset about circumstances or
Christmas presents, he probably would’ve been upset about her trying to snag a
piece of pineapple. Out of anger he may have struck her with that flashlight.
673. Without further discussion, the remaining five Pseudo-Experts unanimously
agreed with Kolar’s accusation that Burke killed JonBenét with the Flashlight over a piece of
pineapple:
Spitz: “I think we all agree on that.”
Clemente: “Yeah.”
Page 100 of 108

Print this item