In-Depth Discussion of Kolar's Book "Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?"

I find this a difficult one, but I agree with, DeeDee, plus for starters the child would probably be asleep if taken from bed so how can the child protest? Confusion is setting in for me with this term kidnapping, DeeDee, when a mother normally has to sometimes go after the child for many normal routines (?).

 

• The kidnapping statute in Colorado reads as follows:
Knowingly, forcibly or otherwise seizing and carrying any person from one place to another without their consent, and without lawful justification.

• Regarding consent:
Incapacity of the victim must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in relation to the very acts in question, before criminal liability may be imposed. The general rule is that child under the age of 14 years is presumed as incapable of consenting.
http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/eleme...ect-of-incapacity-to-consent-child-as-victim/

• Some case law that should clarify the issue:

The Senior court explained that although generally "a parent entitled to custody cannot be liable for kidnapping . . . , we are persuaded that such a parent is liable for kidnapping if he or she exercises custodial rights for an illegal purpose."
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...2016.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr&SizeDisp=7

Unless we recognize that the victim must be moved for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent, every time a person picks up and moves a child, he or she could be charged with kidnapping. That is why in Oliver, faced with these same concerns, we held that an individual could be guilty of kidnapping an unresisting infant or child “only if the taking and carrying away is done for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent.†(Oliver, supra, 55 Cal.2d at p. 768,)
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...Gu_oEQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrNiRAj-nak6UTWGLLusr42Xh2Q

The Court of Appeal here recognized that "an analytical problem arises when the person taken, for example a baby, lacks free will." How can a baby's will be overborne? We confronted this problem in Oliver, supra, 55 [23 Cal. 4th 857] Cal. 2d 761. There, the defendant was convicted of kidnapping and lewd conduct with a two-year-old child. So far as the evidence showed, "the baby went willingly with defendant" (id. at p. 764), but we also noted that "the baby was too young to give his legal consent to being taken by the defendant." (Ibid.) In this situation, we were concerned that a defendant might be convicted of kidnapping a person unable to give consent even if the defendant acted for a good purpose such as carrying the person to safety. (Id. at pp. 765-766.) Accordingly, we concluded that "section 207, as applied to a person forcibly taking and carrying away another, who by reason of immaturity or mental condition is unable to give his legal consent thereto, should ... be construed as making the one so acting guilty of kidnapping only if the taking and carrying away is done for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent." (Id. at p. 768.)
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/23/853.html

 

Oh good grief, cynic, I don't think if I was young enough to study, I would want to become a criminal lawyer. Thank you for helping me with all this information. My head is going round and round in circles!

 

Burke Ramsey vs. The Globe, a look back

Interesting reading in light of Kolar’s revelations

BURKE RAMSEY, a minor, by his )
next friends and natural parents, )
JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
CIVIL ACTION
v. )
)
FILE NO. 1-00-CV-1164 GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and )
GLOBE COMMUNICATIONS CORP., )
)
Defendants. )
[SNIP]
On the night of December 25, 1996 or during the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, while Plaintiff Burke Ramsey was sleeping in his family's home in Boulder, Colorado, his six-year-old sister, JonBenét Ramsey, was brutally murdered. At the time of his sister's murder, Plaintiff Burke Ramsey was nine (9) years old.
Since the date of her death, the murder of JonBenét Ramsey has been the subject of an intensive investigation by law enforcement officials in the State of Colorado, including members of the City of Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office.
The investigation of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey has included a grand jury investigation in Boulder County, Colorado, commencing in September of 1998 and ending in October of 1999 without criminal charges or indictments being brought against any individual. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, no criminal charges have been filed against any individual in connection with the tragic, untimely and brutal death of JonBenét Ramsey.
Since the date of her death, the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and the investigation into her murder have been the objects of local, national and international print and broadcast media coverage of an unparalleled magnitude. Since the date of her death, GLOBE has published over 100 items related to the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and the investigation into her murder.
[SNIP]
On the cover of its November 24, 1998 issue, GLOBE published a picture of Plaintiff Burke Ramsey and his sister, JonBenét Ramsey, accompanied with the following sensational, banner headline: NEW JONBENET CHARGE: BROTHER, 11, IS THE KILLER And Burke will NEVER stand trial!
The November 24, 1998 GLOBE cover story headline was libelous in falsely accusing Plaintiff Burke Ramsey of killing his sister. A true and correct copy of the November 24, 1998 cover of GLOBE is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. [SNIP]
The November 24 story published a picture of Plaintiff Burke Ramsey along with the following sensational, banner headlines: JONBENET 'It's clear the boy was hiding something...he would cover his face & cower' and INVESTIGATORS' SHOCKING CHARGE: CUB SCOUT BROTHER BURKE, 11, IS KILLER
The November 24 story headlines were libelous in falsely accusing Plaintiff Burke Ramsey of hiding something and being the killer of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey.
A true and correct copy of the November 24 story is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by reference made a part hereof.
The gist of the November 24 story was that Plaintiff Burke Ramsey was a disturbed child who killed his sister, JonBenét Ramsey, in connection with an act of sexual molestation. The gist of the November 24 story was false and libelous.
The November 24 story was libelous in its entirety and by virtue of the following false and defamatory statements, among others, published therein: IN a shocking new twist on the sensational JonBenet Ramsey murder, cops are now trying to piece together a case that the girl's brother Burke killed the 6-year old beauty queen, reveal sources. Police are investigating a scenario that one or both of the children's parents aided the then-9-year-old boy by covering up a heinous crime with a phony kidnapping story and ransom note, say well-placed sources. Insiders close to the case tell GLOBE that Boulder, Colo.,cops plan to use the power of the grand jury, convened on Sept. 15, to probe the murder to try to dig up evidence confirming their suspicion that Burke, now 11, is the killer. . . .
Initially, cops looked to JonBenet's parents Patsy and John, publicly stating that the mother and father were "under the umbrella of suspicion." But the focus of the investigation shifted as the probe progressed, say insiders.
And voice detection expert Martin Markowitz, who spent 35 hours poring over a tape of John and Patsy Ramsey's 1997 interview with CNN, concluded that the then 9-year-old is responsible for JonBenet's death.
"Burke did it - there's no doubt in my mind," Markowitz said.
After reviewing video tapes of Burke as he was questioned about his sister's death, one source inside the investigation told GLOBE the boy's behavior seemed odd and it was possible he was involved in the killing. "I decided it was indeed possible," he said. "My first impression of Burke was that he was 'squirrely.'
"There were certain questions, particularly those directly dealing with JonBenet's death, where he would hide his face, cower away, duck or look away and shrug. It was clear he was hiding something."
The source was also convinced that Patsy, the 41-year-old former Miss West Virginia, was not being truthful. If the cops' belief about Burke is on target, then she, or John, or both are probably accessories to the crime, say sources. . . . As GLOBE revealed last week, the police have built up a file on Burke and are convinced that he has not told all he knows, say sources.
Insiders say the facts that have aroused their investigation are:
Within days of JonBenet's death, sources say Burke told cops a knife was involved. But that wasn't known publicly until 21 months later, when GLOBE revealed that the boy's Swiss Army knife was used to cut duct tape that gagged the little princess.
Although his parents said he was in bed when Patsy first made a frantic call to police on Dec. 26, an enhancement of the 911 tape proved he was in the background, asking questions.
Shortly after the call and immediately after his attorney friend Mike Bynum told John to get legal counsel for himself and Patsy, Burke's dad took the boy into a room for a private meeting.
Sources say Burke played "doctor" with JonBenet and, according to other sources, showed signs of being disturbed when he smeared feces in his bathroom.
Injuries to JonBenet's genitals were consistent with her being molested by a finger, rather than a penis, say sources, something that experts say might have been done by a prepubescent boy. . . . One scenario discussed by investigators is that Burke and JonBenet - who, as sources recently told GLOBE, were sometimes caught playing doctor by house guests - were using a garrote in a "choking game" that went too far. . . .

On pages 8 and 9 of the November 24, 1998 issue of GLOBE, Defendants also published a second story related to Plaintiff Burke Ramsey (hereinafter "the second November 24 story") under the following headline: CHILD EXPERT BARES CHILLING PROFILE OF KIDS WHO KILL
The gist of the second November 24 story was that Plaintiff Burke Ramsey murdered his sister, JonBenét Ramsey, because he suffered a rage disorder.
The gist of the second November 24 story was false and libelous.
The second November 24 story was libelous in its entirety and by virtue of the following false and defamatory statements, among others, published therein: A BOY is perfectly capable of killing his younger sister in an act of rage, child abuse investigator David McCall tells GLOBE.
The author of the book Crimes Against Childhood believes Burke, now 11, could have flown into a white-hot fury and murdered his 6-year-old sister.
"Don't let Burke's rich family and affluent lifestyle fool you:" says the North Carolina expert. "This type of thing can happen in the best of families. "Burke could suffer a rage disorder. "It's been documented that he once accidentally hit his sister with a golf club.
"He may have blown up at JonBenet - and his rage cost the little girl her life."
Therapist Dr. Lillian Glass says that if Burke is the killer, it would explain the reluctance of his parents to help police solve the case.
"It would put a lot of pieces in this strange puzzle in order," says the psychologist. "Their lives were torn to shreds when JonBenet died, and they don't want to lose another child."

Plaintiff Burke Ramsey did not murder his sister, JonBenét Ramsey.
Plaintiff Burke Ramsey did not sexually molest his sister, JonBenét Ramsey or engage in sex games with her.
Plaintiff Burke Ramsey and his sister JonBenet were not using a garrote in a choking game that went too far.
Plaintiff Burke Ramsey has never suffered a rage disorder.
Plaintiff Burke Ramsey did not blow up at his sister JonBenet and kill her and did not fly into a white-hot fury and kill her.
The law enforcement officials investigating the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were never trying to piece together a case that Plaintiff Burke Ramsey killed his sister.
The law enforcement officials investigating the murder of JonBenet Ramsey never held a suspicion that Plaintiff Burke Ramsey was the killer of his sister and never planned to use the grand jury to try to dig up evidence to confirm any such suspicion.
Prior to the publication of the November 24, 1998 issue of GLOBE, officials with the City of Boulder Police Department had publicly stated that Plaintiff Burke Ramsey was a witness, not a suspect, in connection with the investigation into the murder of his sister.
Prior to the publication of the November 24, 1998 issue of GLOBE, no employee of GLOBE attempted to contact the City of Boulder Police Department or officials in that department to seek confirmation as to the truth of the defamatory headlines, stories and statements published about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey.
Prior to the publication of the November 24, 1998 issue of GLOBE, no employee of GLOBE attempted to contact the Boulder County District Attorney or officials in his office to seek confirmation as to the truth of the defamatory headlines, stories and statements published about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey.
Subsequent to the publication of the November 24, 1998 issue of GLOBE, the Boulder County District Attorney issued a public statement that Plaintiff Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in the death of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey, and was not being looked at as a possible suspect.
Plaintiff Burke Ramsey has been formally and officially cleared by the City of Boulder Police Department and the Boulder District Attorney in connection with the death of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey.
Defendants negligently published the false and defamatory headlines, stories and statements about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey. Defendants knowingly published the libelous headlines, stories and statements about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey without any reliable, trustworthy or credible sources for said statements.
Defendants published the false and defamatory headlines, stories and statements about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey with actual malice in that they published said headlines, stories and statements with actual knowledge of falsity or with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of said headlines, stories and statements.
Defendants intentionally published the libelous headlines, stories and statements about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey in an effort to increase sales of GLOBE and increase corporate profits by falsely sensationalizing GLOBE's coverage of Plaintiff Burke Ramsey's role in the investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
By letter dated November 18, 1998, legal counsel for Plaintiff Burke Ramsey demanded that Defendants correct and retract the November 24, 1998 libelous headlines, stories and statements in full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements of O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11.
Defendants failed to correct and retract the libelous headlines, stories and statements as required by law.
The false and defamatory headlines, stories and statements published about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey proximately caused permanent injury to his reputation.
The false and defamatory headlines, stories and statements published about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey proximately caused held him to be exposed to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
By virtue of the subject matter of the false and defamatory headlines, stories and statements published about Plaintiff Burke Ramsey, their publication by Defendants constitutes libel per se.
Plaintiff Burke Ramsey is entitled to recover actual damages from Defendants for his injuries.
The conduct of Defendants establishes actual malice and demonstrates willful misconduct and that entire want of care which raises a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.
Defendants' exploitation of and accusations of murder against a 9-year-old child for corporate profit demand the recovery of significant punitive damages to punish these corporate tabloid publishers and deter them from ever again sensationally publishing false headlines, stories or statements accusing children of committing heinous crimes in order to increase profits.
Plaintiff Burke Ramsey is entitled to an award of punitive damages from Defendants in order to punish, penalize and deter Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Burke Ramsey, by and through his next friends and natural parents, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demands:
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Globe International, Inc. and Globe Communications Corp., jointly and severally, for actual damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00);
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Globe International, Inc. and Globe Communications Corp., jointly and severally, for punitive damages in an amount not less than Twenty Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000.00) to punish and penalize Defendants and to deter Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct; and
(c) That all costs of this action be assessed against Defendants.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED.
WOOD & GRANT
L. Lin Wood Ga. State Bar No. 774588
Suite 2140 The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 404/522-1713
Attorneys for Plaintiff Burke Ramsey and His Next Friends and Natural Parents, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey

 

Would these tabloid articles be the ones written from the Bonita Papers, sold to them by her nephew, allegedly?

It is in interesting in hindsight, cynic.

Here is something else: back in those days, I NEVER, EVER read tabloids. It actually took me a few years into this case before I started doing so, based on the amazing inside info the tabloids clearly had in this case, when no other media seemed to have this stuff. I learned about all of this when I came online in 2000, after Thomas' book was published.

Ironic, isn't it? It took the Ramseys to sell me tabloids.

And once Spade shared the Bonita Papers and that story, how the tabs knew so much made sense.

Of course, Alex Hunter had something to do with that, as well, we learned from Thomas.

And the Ramseys sued and got paid when they settled out of court...again...meaning none of them had to sit for depositions under oath and they didn't have to give over personal information in discovery, which I'm sure the tabloid lawyers knew they never would go that far.

Pathetic, isn't it?

 

Hello

Happy New Year!

I bought Jim Kolar's book just before Christmas and I am planning to start reading it very soon. Will pop back soon.

:thumbsup:

 

Well, look what the Vikings dragged in. :viking:

Happy New Year to you, Scottish Wench!

 

Thanks for replying KK *clink*.

Well I've read the book. First chapter was a bit hard going but I "get" the point of it. After that it was a page turner.

What grabbed me the most was how much I'd forgotten about the case. I'm rubbish with names anyway and the one I struggled most to dig out of the recesses was Michael Kane lol. I was trying to remember "Now, what was he? Good guy or w*nk?" (reference to Glasgow comedy TV programme called "Chewing the Fat" where the world is observed to be divided into "good guys" and "w*nks").

It's fascinating to read about the case from different perspectives and Jim Kolar certainly gave a fresh perspective from the POV of not being personally involved in the early days but then gaining access to the full and updated files. He confirmed a lot of the rumours and added a few new factoids (for me anyway) such as the recording gear found on the investigtors' visit to the house and a bit of clarification on the lawyering-up scenarios. Also about Patsy wanting the police officer to remove his jacket and gun during the early hours of waiting. What was that about? That would certainly be a red flag to me.

In all, the book is very well written considering it is self-published. IMO, if Kolar gets a publisher there won't be a lot of editing to be done because he's done a darned good job. He comes across as intelligent, logical and self-effacing. It's just a great pity that there isn't a superior, impartial body who could take the case away from Boulder completely and do a proper cold case review of it. It's just wrong that politics can get in the way of justice for a murdered child.

The information about the DNA was very interesting. DNA on her clothing from five different males and one female? All unidentified.

Kolar presents a compelling case for family involvement. However, I'd like an explanation for the SAME unidentified male DNA being in the crotch of her underwear, the seams of her underwear and the waistband of her long johns. Were these garments checked all over? i.e. was the leg hems of the longjohns tests? The knees? Is there any other explanation for this DNA other than by touch? I'm asking as a complete ignoramus as to the processes of this science. Could DNA be transferred (for example) during the laundry process?

It is very compelling that the touch DNA was found on those places on her clothing where a sexual attacker would place his fingers in order to arrange/disarrange her clothing. It would be less compelling if the same DNA were also found on the knees and leg hems and all over the garments for that matter. This is the point I am trying to make.

Is there any way to pose that question to the author?

Re the train tracks. It was the darndest thing that when I was reading the book and reading about the train room that I had the very thought about the marks being caused by a piece of train track! We recently had our attic insultated and it had to be emptied. Down came stuff from decades ago and of course, mother (me) had the job of sorting it all out. I do not "do" attics on account of being crap with heights (As Columbo would say - "I don't even like being this tall...") so this was fair enough. One of the items which came down was my son's train set. It's domain had been the attic and I carefully packed it all away into bags. When I was reading Kolar's book about the train room, I thought about the train set lying in my study and the two little prongs at the end which you need to be careful of. My son's train set is Hornby and it was my opinion that the distance between his track prongs would be considerably less than the "stun gun marks" but I made a mental note to check it today. I couldn't remember if it had ever been discussed before on any of the forums. However this morning, I read the relevant chapter in Kolar's book and there it was! A different type of track from my son's by matching nevertheless. Great job!

I've now ordered Smit's book because I always think it's important to hear both sides of the argument when you are trying to form an opinion. It should come within the week since Amazon UK have it in stock.

I think Jim Kolar should consider kindlising his book to make it accessible to a larger audience. It's not hard to do and I have absolutely no doubt that it would sell well. A friend of mine self-published her first novel and it sold over 50,000 copies in the first year. I didn't get the impression that Kolar was doing this for profit, but rather that he is hoping to garner support for another Grand Jury. His book is quite expensive (the downside of self-publishing to hardback) so I think a Kindle version would definitely be the way forward in raising awareness for the apathy which seems to afflict the powers that be.

As Kolar says, the statute of limitations has run out now for some of the charges which could be brought about. My main concern would be that the people who are involved aren't getting any younger. The longer it is left, the more likely it will be that crucial witnesses will have died, be in an unfit state to co-operate or simply be unable to remember. Patsy and Santa are already dead.

The world watched in dismay as the investigation was hampered in the early stages. We watched in further dismay as in-fighting and political interference continued throughout changes in management. Egos and careers were given higher priority than finding the brutal killer of a defenseless child. We watched and we criticised, but it seems that whilst everyone was in agreement that the case has been a veritable shambles, the people in a position to actually do something about it, aren't leaning a thing.

Incidentally, if Kolar is planning a Kindle version of the book, he will have the opportunity to update it. His coverage has been very thorough and comprehensive, but I noted that he didn't mention the Ramsey about-turn re Burke being awake. Nor did he mention one of the things which really stood out in my mind from reading one of the interviews (I think it was the 2000 interviews). Both Ramseys were asked on Day 2 if they had discussed their interviews with the other. Patsy said no and John said yes...

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Jayelles.

As you undoubtedly recall reading, Kolar is of the opinion that the DNA found on the Bloomies is the result of a biological “contribution†from a sweatshop worker.
You may have missed one sentence where Kolar explains how the DNA on the two articles of clothing came to match.
“Cloth to cloth†transfer could be responsible for this new evidence.
Page 427
Keep in mind that ALL of the DNA profiles found in this case are partial profiles with the strongest consisting of ten markers, (from Distal Stain 007-2, the bloodstain in the Bloomies.)
The question is, how many markers were found in the DNA samples from the long johns?
Curiously, Kolar and other task force members were given specifics with respect to the number of markers in all of the TDNA samples EXCEPT for that which was found on the long johns. Andy Horita simply indicated that it was weaker than Distal Stain 007-2.
Why? I say it’s because he was ashamed, but I could be wrong. After all, if the match was with only a few markers, say 3, as an example, it would mean that the “match†and consequent exoneration of the Ramseys by Lacy based on that “match†was more of a farce than any of us could have imagined.
There is a thread on the issue that you might find to be of interest.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10137

Here is a bit more from the book:
Additionally, by the time I arrived on the investigative scene, the FBI laboratory had already conducted random DNA tests on underwear purchased off the shelf. They determined that DNA samples could be obtained from new, unopened packages of children‘ s underwear, suggesting the possibility that the genetic material deposited there had come from the manufacturing / packaging end of the line.
I thought it would be a small step from there to conduct additional tests that simulated a coughing, sneezing, spitting seamstress / handler of similar items to verify this type of DNA could be collected from fresh off-the-shelf clothing articles.
Under those circumstances, I believed that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.
Pages 272 – 273
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article
Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion.
We talked about some other aspects of the case, and he pointed out that he was only a scientist and not familiar with the details of the investigative side of the case.
It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop. Sweatshops have historically employed child labor, and as there is currently no scientific method available that allows us to determine the age of a contributor, I had thought it feasible that the unknown forensic sample of male DNA found in JonBenét’s underwear could belong to a Taiwanese boy.
Furthermore, there is no scientific method to determine when a biological specimen was placed at the scene of a crime.
Under those circumstances, I believed, as did many of the other investigators working the case, that that there may have been a plausible explanation for the DNA found in the underwear and that its presence may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of JonBenét.
The presence of this DNA is a question that remains to be resolved, but it continues to be my opinion that this single piece of DNA evidence has to be considered in light of all of the other physical, behavioral, and statement evidence that has been collected over the course of the investigation.
Pages 304 – 305

With respect to getting an answer from Kolar regarding a specific question you may have, good luck.
You could try through Tricia’s True Crime radio show via online chat when she happens to have Kolar as a guest.
or
The Telluride Marshal's Department has contact information through which, in theory at least, you MIGHT be able to get a reply.
http://www.coloradotown.com/busines...e.cfm?cityid=100&pagenameid=8&businessID=8323
or
Through Kolar’s Linkedin profile, again, good luck.

And finally, TDNA will not survive a trip through the laundry process.

I can tell you that Kolar is definitely currently working on an ebook version.

Just an FYI, Tricia has told us:
“This man took his retirement money out and published the book at great personal risk.â€
“Kolar used his own money to publish this book, to hire lawyers, to do everything. He will not make his money back.
Plus there is the very real possibility he will be sued which will cost him a lot. Although you can't win a lawsuit when someone is telling the truth it doesn't mean it won't stop a lawsuit. Just can't win it.â€
If he manages to recoup the money he has spent on the project, further proceeds, if there are any, will go to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US

 

I have spent over an hour reading these posts this morning about DNA cynic; also the posts in July,1912. I came across one of mine stating I was confused with this DNA. I'm afraid I still am! It's a lot to retain! Mary Lacy depended on her staff to help her understand it. Will she never be challenged about releasing the Ramseys not knowing enough about DNA herself?

 

Hi Cynic, thank you for responding.

Re the "cloth to cloth" transfer.

If it could be proved that the DNA from someone handling one piece of cloth could be transferred to another piece of cloth through contact, then I suppose a case could be argued that a Taiwanese worker had handled the Bloomies by the crotch and waistband for packaging and that the waistband DNA got transferred to the longjohn waistband through contact. It's a bit of a longshot though and I think a defense attorney would haveplenty of scope for argument - especially since they don't have the Taiwanese worker available for a DNA test!

I will say that if I were folding these Bloomies, I would have to touch the waistband and the crotch. The crotch is folded up and the sides are rolled inwards as I recall.

The matching DNA artefacts on the very places which would be handled during dressing would be reasonable doubt for RDI for me if I were a juror, unless a more compelling argument could be made for transference.

OTOH, if it transpired that thus artefact was all over the garments, and that they hadn't just tested the places which a dresser would have to handle, then the intruder DNA argument weakens.

 

I would think most mothers would fold up underwear the way you stated here, Jayelles, both for girls and boy's underwear after washing them. I'm sure the same method would apply to workers in a factory anywhere. It really would complicate things, that's for sure!

 

Koldkase,

I was reading over some of the posts on this thread and came across this part from your post#251.

My thoughts on this broken paintbrush was the perpetrator did try to cover up prior sexual assault as you stated. The broken edges of the brush would have camouflaged some of the previous evidence.

 

Hi Elle. I found the Bloomies. This is how they are folded. Apologies for the quality of the images, I got a new camera for Christmas last year and I think I need to go on a course to learn how to use it! :-



My Smit book arrived yesterday - not at all what I expected! It's large and seems to be a compilation of various analyses. I shall have to psyche myself up to read it I think!

 

Thanks for the photos Jayelles. I guess the workers do handle the same parts
when folding the underwear up, and their DNA could be present if the underwer had never been washed. Sure complicates things I'm way behind with the reading of my books while all you younger ones are still full steam ahead. More power to all of you!

 

Hot country, sweaty hands... I vaguely remember there being a discussion about the lack of Ramsey pawprints on the note and one argument being that they'd just showered.

I imagine that hot, sweaty hands would be more likely to leave traces of themselves than freshly washed hands.

 

Yes, I believe sweaty hands would leave more evidence than freshly washed ones, Jayelles.

More than likely, Patsy used gloves when writing the ransom note,
There are times when I can't imagine John Ramsey condoning the writing of the War and Peace ransom note. It went on forever! They were not friendly with each other during the time the policewoman was left alone with the Ramseys and the neighbours. I feel if John Ramsey had been involved, he would have chosen a shorter version in the usual manner - about half a page!

Here I am all these years later, now wondering if Burke was involved and the Ramseys saved their son (?). I have listened to Chief Kolar, Koldkase and Cherokee on Tricia's radio broadcast and they have all contributed greatly.
Chief Kolar got us all going again with his book. It would be wonderful if the true culprit could be found. Sad little JonBenét Ramsey's life was taken away from her.

It is a good feeling to have contributed, but the members here are very talented with graphics and who knows they may just find something important (?).

 

The train track abrasions

Were on JonBenet's left lower back. Did Burke use one of his train tracks to poke her and see if she would wake up after the blow to her head? I think he might have done that, and the same with the mark on her cheek. What else did he do with JonBenet lying there unconscious? Was any of Burke's DNA found on the cord or the paintbrush handle? Or any aspect of JonBenet's body or anything on her body?

 

Nothing has ever been said about any of BR's DNA found on JB's body, clothing, cord, tape, etc. This doesn't mean there WASN'T any...it means because of his age IF THERE WAS they could not say it. There has been a report of BR's DNA being found on the pink nightie that was on top of the white blanket in the wine cellar.

 

I'm wondering DeeDee, all these years later, if the DNA will still be
on the nightie (?).