James Kolar's new book! It's what we have been waiting for! Daily Beast article!

I'm running very low on time, so this will be a hit and run post.
The relevant passage is the following.
Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.
What this means is that cells commonly associated with acute inflammation are not evident, but those associated with chronic inflammation are.

 

One thing troubles me. From what I've read of the doctor's evidence, they were all in agreement little JonBenét Ramsey was being sexually abused on a regular basis; therefore I think of the immediate family. The doctors had spotted the signs of previous sexual action but couldn't pinpoint when (?).
If it was on a regular basis, it had to be within the family.

It was Christmas night. I doubt a stranger would have broken into their home to see if JonBenét was there? Therefore to me, this points to Burke or John (?). I have problems thinking it could be John (?). We all know the cover-up story! I don't know how Patsy Ramsey could have avoided seeing her little daughter was being abused. I'm stymied with this! However, if she was ill, she had to leave it to someone else - who would this someone else be? Her housekeeper. Linda?

I remember reading some posters thought because of Patsy's cancer returning, and not being able to be with her husband in the same sexual way, that John could have slipped up and Jonbenét was abused. I can't believe John Ramsey would have stooped this low (?). This leaves Burke, and I also have problems with him too being so young!

 

Elle, I regret that you and others are having to wait for your books. So many details of Kolar's truly professional and profoundly skilled and dedicated work on the evidence in this case is written about in this book that you simply have to read it to take it all in.

It will take your breath away.

But here is something that will burn you up, as it did me, when you see the arrogance, the obstruction of justice, not only deliberately practiced by Lacy, but "IN YOUR FACE" flaunted by her.

By A. James Kolar: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?

Pages 380-84:

That development was the final solution to what caused the marks on the body of JonBenet Ramsey that were the cornerstone of the "Lou 'stun gun' Smit intruder theory": the train tracks were matched perfectly to the marks by one of Kolar's professional associates who happened to know toy train tracks. It was brilliant work.

Brilliant.

But Mary Lacy was chasing DNA artifact.

I wish I could say this was the watershed moment to renewing actual, legitimate investigation in this case by the BPD, but alas it was not. Even as a member of the so-called "Cold Case" Task Force, Kolar's important and unparalleled work on this case was ignored.

Clearly Boulder and its citizens have no interest in equal justice under the law, in pursuing corruption in its law enforcement system, and in prosecuting anyone who broke the law in this case--especially the Boulder DAs who cleary did just that, IMO.

So Kolar turned to publishing.

Anyone who who wants to know the truth of who killed JonBenet and how that person got away with it should read this book.

Anyone who reads it and still refuses to see the truth about why this murder case has ended so disastrously does not want to know the truth.

 

And Mary "'touch' DNA" Lacy's response to Kolar's steadfast and unprecedented work in this case?

Pure hatred.

It's so unbelievable these Boulder DAs actually get away with this hypocritical BS. From the AZZHAT who falsely claimed to the public repeatedly she wanted to solve this case while she abused and threatened the one investigator who had made some headway on it (get your barf bag ready):

By A. James Kolar: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?

Pages 499-501:

Guess "Hair Curtains" Lacy never heard of Lou Smit's and Michael Tracey's PR machine, based on all the materials Smit originally stole straight out of the case files he copied while EMPLOYED BY ALEX HUNTER FOR THE PEOPLE OF BOULDER COUNTY? Clearly that's not a problem with her.

The woman has no concept of reality and could not care less about justice in this case.

And by the way, Tom Bennett and others in Boulder LE had already expressed their dismay to Kolar about old Hair Curtains' EPIC FAIL in this case.

If you read Kolar's detailed, documented, and carefully constructed review of the evidence, including his INDEPENDENT analyses which actually prove or disprove important elements of the case evidence, there is no way anyone with brain stem function can doubt the man worked hard and did what those "in charge" of this investigation had failed to do for the last 10 years: put to rest the "stun gun" nonsense, the "basement window entry" red herring, and reviewed with a clear eye evidence proving the Ramseys covered up the crime, lied to LE and the public many times, as well as obstructing the investigation into their daughter's murder, revealing their culpability every step of the way.

And Kolar has finally investigated the one suspect heretofore considered off limits, who was in the home that night.

 

Yeah, and Whitson says that 90% of his book was written by Lou "I never even looked at the police reports" Smit - so you KNOW that was all soooo accurate. NOT.

So, according to Mary "Don't bring me evidence, bring me an intruder" Lacy, it's okay for Lou Smit to parade Ramsey case files around in public, and it's okay Michael Tracey to use case files promoting Ramsey innocent, but she has to nerve to threaten Kolar with a lawsuit for writing a book?

 

I am stunned after reading Mary Lacy's letter to Kolar. What a Beotch she is. I think she is the one who should pay for assisting to barricade the Ramseys from further investigation within the Ramsey family.

I sincerely hope she cannot have James Kolar prosecuted KK. What about the staff who backed her up? Is Chief Kolar truly safe from prosecution. KK?

 

Well now this is a little embarrassing for me. I PM'd koldkase to ask her if this fact I was reading was new or did everybody else already know it except me. She told me yeah, she thought maybe everybody already knew. So I guess I missed out when this came out.

Anyway, what everybody knew and I apparently did not was that that large triangular spot under the cord on JB's neck is a bruise. I did not know that! For some reason I have thought all along that it was a part of the petichial hemorrhaging and just a spot where the blood had pooled. To find out now that it is a BRUISE just totally throws me!

Kolar writes a theory from Dr. Spitz as to what may have caused it. But it makes me wonder if somebody was swinging at JB with the blunt object and connected there where the bruise is and then pulled back and connected with the head. Multiple swings. Darn it, why am I so behind with this information!!!??

If this has been discussed what was the consensus?

Does everybody remember Dr. Spitz' theory about that neck bruise? If not I can post what Chief Kolar wrote in his book.

 

I remember a discussion we had about that bruise. I believe it was KK or Cherokee who found a photo on the net of someone who had been strangled with a scarf, and a very similar bruise was seen on the same area of the neck of that victim. There is some anatomy in that area that can cause it. I can't remember what part of the neck it is, but maybe the ligature can "catch" on it and then slip upward? I'm sure one of our regular posters will explain it.

I do not believe that she was hit on the neck, personally. I think there would have been much more than surface damage if that had been the case. I think the bruise was caused by the ligature slipping upward from lower on her neck. It would have been good if Dr. Meyer had explained that in his findings, but he may never have done one of these cases before. We can be grateful he found the prior vaginal changes and asked for a 2nd opinion and help from the task force that he did.

 

In the autopsy report, the triangular spot is listed as "abrasion" though:

 

I think you said you had the book? When you get to the chapter about what her injuries mean or something like that, that's where he says it was a bruise and he even gives an example how it might have happened. But he says Dr. Meyer said it was a bruise.

 

I got the book yesterday and have not yet had the time gone through it in detail. Have to log out now, but I'll look up the passage asap.
Kolar says Dr. Meyer called it a bruise, but why does Meyer list it as abrasion in the autopsy report?
The triangular abrasion is described as "parchment-like"; it is somewhere in the back of my mind that post-mortem abrasions have parchment-like texture, but I don't remember the source of this info.

 

We have a case library here with the photos in it which might help in this question of the "brusing" on the anterior left neck.

If you go to post #11 on the autopsy thread at the following link, you will see the bruises left from the ligature, seen after it was removed. Compare those which were left by the ligature, UNDER it on the neck, with the triangular bruise.

You will see they are the same color.


Warning: these are graphic autopsy photos!

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9784

Now go to the second page, and that's where the graphics are which demonstrate that the cylindrical shape of the neck, with the protrusion of the large arteries, created the conditions which caused the triangular bruise as the ligature was tightened more and more as it rolled up the neck.

Remember the chain of the necklace with the crucifix also rolled up into the ligature. I believe this is pretty good proof that the ligature found embedded into her neck rolled up with the cord, from the lower part of her neck to its final location.

I believe the chain links and metal cross may have caused the marks which look like gouges into the skin, but I'm guessing.

Anyway, maybe this helps explain, maybe not. I think the "erotic asphyxiation" theory has complicated this case for a very long time when the ligature was what it appears on its face: a cord tied onto the neck with a slip knot, then pulled from behind as it tightened and rolled up the neck until it strangled the child to death.

But she was already dying from the almost certainly fatal head injury, so either way, she was not going to survive that night.

This is just my theory, though.

 

I don't have the book yet, but I'd be very interested in hearing what he has to say about the mark. I had speculated on the cause some time ago at WS as being an ecchymosis restrained within the boundaries of the carotid triangle. As to the terminology (abrasion vs. bruise):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5923772&postcount=1

 

koldkase,

This is the part which I have more trouble with than anything else related to this case.

I prefer to think little JonBenét Ramsey was not alive when this false garrote was placed around her neck. I feel she was already dead by the blow to her head; that the garrote was added as part of the puzzle; The actual extent of the blow to her head was not visible until the autopsy, but it had to be obvious to the perpetrators this was the fatal blow which had killed her; therefore they proceeded to make it look like some distorted sex killing.

I honestly thought the garrote was placed there as a sexual tool which is often used in kinky sex, to make it look like it was some sexual pervert who had committed the crime as opposed to a family Ramsey member.

No, Koldkase, I don't read kinky sexy books, or watch kinky sexy movies! Ech! I have just come across a few articles where asphyxiation is very common with kinky sex, so here I am plucking up the courage and posting it to see if any of you might think this was the plan the perpetrators wanted us all to think(?).

 

Elle, I know it's hard to think about a member of her own family pulling that noose tight when she was still alive, but the autopsy determined that the cord was the actual cause of her death. She may have been minimally alive, showing only a faint pulse, but she was still breathing to some extent. The little capillaries in her eyes and around her eyes which burst when she was choked prove that she was.

I don't think the Ramsey(s) were thinking of making the scene one of sexual perversion. I do think they may have already believed her to be dead when they placed the cord and tightened it. But they had to know when her bladder released that she had been alive even if minimally.

The damage to her vagina was either done to cover up previous sexual abuse, or, as yet another way to hurt her. It was either done by the abuser, or one of the Ramseys who knew about the abuse.

But one way or another, she was alive when the cord was tightened. I'm sorry. It's a very brutal case.

 

I'll throw in my two cents here and I could easily be wrong. I was on the fence about this triangular bruise and what caused it. After reading Kolar's book, however, I lean now toward Spitz's explanation. I think it more probable that it was caused by someone's knuckle and the marks below the ligature furrow was caused by the tightening shirt collar. I always thought those were caused by the ligature and this is why I was on the fence about what caused the triangular bruise.

Here's why I tend to lean this way, now. There has always been this question lingering. If the first injury, sustained by JBR that night, was the head injury, why not just call 911 and report a fall? There was some injury, evidently, which happened before the head injury which couldn't have been explained away by a fall. It could have been the vaginal injury but why did the stager try to hide that injury by cleaning the blood off her crotch and thigh? Answer. In order to stage a kidnapping gone wrong scenario.

Why stage a kidnapper scenario instead of a sexual sadistic murder scene if there was a vaginal injury? Because a kidnapper implies intruder when a sexual murder still leaves open the possibility of a family member. At any rate, the stager thought he or she could hide the vaginal wound and the head wound could not be seen so this leaves only the neck bruise which kept 911 from being called after the head wound was sustained.

 

I think this is what I think too. lol! I'm only half way through the book so I'm not sye what I think yet. I think if her collar was grabbed and twisted causing a knuckle to grind into her lower neck where the bruise is she was probably wearing the red turtleneck. That's one reason to ball it up like it was found. Hide the stretched out neck material maybe? I don't see Patsy doing that but I can picture Burke doing it.

Kolar doesn't say, (so far anyway) that it's his theory about the neck bruise. He is relating what Dr. Spitz thinks. It makes sense to me.

 

I have now looked it up in Kolar's book (page 55).
There is also (on page 56) a black-and-white photo showing the triangular spot.
Below the photo, Kolar writes:

Since Kolar lists the bruise under 'neck abrassions', he doesn't seem to make a sharp terminological distinction between 'bruise' and 'abrasion'. Whereas Dr. Meyer (who, during the autopsy also examined the underlying neck tissue), identified the triangular shaped spot as "abrasion" in the autopsy report.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996jonbenet03.gif

 

Assuming it was Burke who, during a fierce sibling fight, grabbed and twisted JonBenet's collar - when it comes to later actively camouflaging evidence of the streched-out neck section of the red turtleneck, I lean more toward Patsy thinking of this than Burke.

If it was the red turtleneck that was twisted around her neck, then JonBenet must have put it on after arriving home since she did not wear it to the Whites' party.
Patsy does mention the turtleneck but presents a different timeline - (from her perspective, she had to, since her story was that JonBenet had already been fast asleep on arriving home) - stating that she and JonBenet had a tiff over what her daughter was to wear to the Whites' party, and that she did not want to put on the red turtleneck, but insisted on wearing the white top instead.

Kolar's book has a b/w photo showing the turtleneck (on p. 125). It doesn't really look "balled up" to me, more like simply discarded on the counter.
But then this section of the photo is a bit undistinct and doesn't seem to show the whole garment.
What do you (or others that have the book) think?

 

To my mind, the reason that 911 wasn't called that night is that at least 2 people in the house (not including JonBenet) knew about her prior sexual abuse. The perpetrator, who may have been the one that inflicted the blow, and at least one of the parents. They recognized that when she was examined at the hospital, that abuse would likely be found, if not right away, then during a post-mortem exam. It was important that the perpetrator NOT be prosecuted, so the staging was done, rather haphazardly, IMO. John Ramsey knew that he could hire lawyers to do the rest. He very nearly got his family out of Colorado the night of 12/26!

I'm not sure when the vaginal injury happened. In one scenario, there is sexual abuse taking place, JonBenet resists, gets gouged by the paintbrush, screams, and gets hit on the head, collapsing on the spot. Her scream has been heard and the other members of the house come and find her, and the staging is carried out. But there is a problem with this scene.

JonBenet was not tazed that night, but there are marks on her cheek and back which were put there that night. Was she awake when this was done? Unlikely - it looks as though she'd have had pain in that case, especially on her face. There are no signs of struggle to suggest that she tried to fight off this kind of attack. So perhaps this was done once she had collapsed from the head wound. Maybe the attacker was trying to see if she would respond to pain.

That would mean that there was no scream to alert the other family members. And that the attacker was not too concerned about JonBenet's condition, if he/she took time to poke something into her back and cheek. Maybe he also pushed something down onto her neck at that point.

I no longer believe in Steve Thomas' Patsy did it theory.