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

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. heymom

    heymom Member

    Steve Thomas gave us the PDI scenario where JonBenet was slammed against a toilet edge or the bathtub, even the faucet of the bathtub. To him, that seemed the most plausible, but then he may not have considered the physics of that scenario. Those of us who have a tiny bit of experience or knowledge think that it would be difficult to the point of impossibility to gain the kind of force, at the angle and location of JonBenet's depressed fracture, to accomplish that kind of injury in that way.

    It is sickening to realize that JonBenet was struck over the head with some sort of weapon. That it was less of an accident and more a crime of passion committed by one of the 3 people who were supposed to love her the most in the world. And thinking that a 10 year old boy did that to his sister is just too much for many people to grasp.
     
  2. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Patsy's prints were on the note? News to me--they found them on the pad of paper but not the note to the best of my recollection.

    Heymon--yes I am saying people who were on the Ramsey's side went and tattled. Susan Stien did it all the time. She even contacted posters under fake names--she thought it was funny.

    Elle--the Ramseys changed their story several times regarding the note. The last I recall, John moved the note from one place to another BUT never picked it up.
     
  3. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    You're right, Bob. Patsy's fingerprints were found on the pad of paper which was used to write the ransom note, but her prints WERE NOT FOUND on the ransom note itself. John's prints were not found on it either.

    Very suspicious. So the Ramseys had to make up a scenario where they didn't pick up the ransom note, and the "spread out on the stairs" story was born. In some versions, John admitted to moving the pages. In other versions, the ransom note seems to move around on its own. As usual when backed into a lie, Patsy claimed she didn't remember if she picked up the ransom note or not.

    I believe that in the beginning, the Ramseys were careful NOT to leave prints because without the "intruder's" fingerprints, it would look suspicious for their prints to be the only ones on it. They weren't thinking at the time about about how suspicious it would look for them to have supposedly read the ransom note and NOT leave prints. That would have been innocent transfer, but when you have a guilty conscience and are trying to cover all your bases, you sometimes "out think" yourself.

    I have always thought Patsy wore some kind of gloves when she wrote the ransom note. Besides not leaving fingerprints, it helped disguise her handwriting.

    More on the lack of fingerprints on the ransom note:

    http://www.acandyrose.com/04102000gma.htm

    Vargas: Were John and Patsy Ramsey's fingerprint on the ransom note?

    Thomas: No.

    Vargas: No?

    Thomas: No.

    Vargas: (VO) But if they found the note and picked it up, Thomas asks why their fingerprints were not on it. Did they say whether or not they had picked it up to read it?

    Thomas: I tried to pin Patsy Ramsey down at the time of our first interview with them. Did you grab the note? Did you pick up the note? Did you clutch it in your hand and read it and run upstairs with it? Who moved it to the hardwood floor? And I couldn't get an answer to that. She didn't recall.

    Vargas: Is it possible that the parents could have handled the note and not left their fingerprints? Or that the paper for some reason didn't retain that kind of print?

    Thomas: Certainly. But then I think the argument can be made, then when the sergeant touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. When the CBI examiner touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. Patsy had left previous fingerprints on that pad, five that we identified. So that remains one of the mysteries in this case. How come there's no identifiable fingerprints on this thing if one or both parents handled and grasped it that morning?

    Vargas: Do you find that suspicious?

    Thomas: Well, suspicious. It's just a big question mark that we'll — we'll never have an answer to, absent somebody confessing in this case.
     
  4. heymom

    heymom Member

    Well, in addition his other qualifications, John must have been a master at levitating objects then, if he could move something from one location to another without picking it up!

    :coffeeup:
     
  5. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Thanks for the clarification, C. I'm not senile after all!

    Heymom--the absurdity of the whole thing would be laughable if grown-ups in the DA's office didn't actually buy into it.

    You find a ransom note, you pick it up and read it. It is not rocket science.
     
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Gosh, I've missed you, wombat! This is exactly what we need to know.

    And I will never understand why Boulder LE never figured this out, if in fact they didn't. They'll drag a man half way around the planet because of Michael Tracey's sick obsession with him, but they won't pin down one of the two weapons used on the child that night?

    If they don't still have the skull, guess what? THEY COULD EXHUME THE BODY AND GET IT FOR MORE TESTING!

    Ha. Yeah, that's going to happen.

    I have said this many times: for the child to sustain that fracture on her head in a fall or "throw," she would have to have been traveling at a rather astonishing velocity. Some people speculate that she "fell" in some way, but there are no injuries to the body to support either of those scenarios.

    For example: you can look up damage done to a body in a vehicle accident. The velocity of the vehicle when an impact occurs does devastating damage to a human body. One of the reasons is the body doesn't stop when the car impacts. The body is inside the vehicle and the impact which stops the vehicle isn't what tears up the human body; it's the impact of the body on the vehicle. These impacts happen over a period of time, maybe seconds, but not all in one instant.

    So the vehicle and body don't all stop at once, even if the object hit is stationary, like a brick wall (for the concept, not a factual argument). A head may hit the steering wheel first; the chest may impact it a split second later; arms and legs may slam into gears, windows, dashboards, then ricochet back into a seat or side door panel. These don't happen simultaneously. (Hello. Wear your seatbelts.)

    I know I'm doing this badly, (DeeDee or anyone, please feel free to jump in any time :yes:) but think about a contrecoup brain injury, which JB actually had from the force of the impact on her skull. From an impact or shaking, for example, the head is accelerated at a high rate of speed, but the neck and spinal column quickly stop the sudden, violent motion. However, the brain inside the skull is suspended in fluid and lining; we're talking a tiny space, but it's significant because the brain doesn't accelerate or stop precisely when the skull accelerates or stops, but a fraction of a second later, when, with enough force, it slams into the inner skull wall. That can cause bruising when the brain slams into the skull, as well as tearing and bleeding on the opposite side of the brain where it is connected to tissue. Blood begins to fill the crowded skull, causing pressure on the brain, as well. It's what babies often die of with "shaken baby syndrome." Their skulls aren't broken, but their brains are severely damaged. Imagine an egg inside its shell, being violently shaken but its shell not broken. Like that?

    So if the child had been thrown, her body would have landed at different times against some kind of surfaces, right? Whether it was the bathroom fixtures or floor, or walls or furniture? More than her head would have been involved in this high speed impact.

    This is the point I'm trying to make: there would be bruising and/or injuries on other body parts from that violent of an impact; her neck might even have been broken, from the weight of her own body impacting the surfaces around it a split second later than her head, which was first slammed against a surface and had stopped before her body impacted.

    But I have never seen any other injury found on her body indicating it was from a high velocity impact besides the skull and head injuries.

    So wombat, and DeeDee, as well, can you clean up my clumsy attempt to explain this? If you have time and inclination, of course. And thanks in advance.
     
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Here's a very simple, quick video with graphic illustration of something similar to what I was trying to describe with contrecoup injuries. It's not exact to this case, but it is the general idea, and it's not gross as it uses drawn illustrations.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=AD16-wwt9p0

    It's interesting at the end where the loss of connectivity to brain cells is demonstrated: this results in permanent brain damage, which is what JB would have experienced if she'd been able to survive her head injury--which is doubtful.

    So back to fall/throw vs bludgeoning: I can't see any support for a fall or violent throw which would cause this kind of devastating skull injury without leaving other telltale injuries to the body. Surely medical examiners with any experience would have looked for and recognized the difference. And all the inside info we have from various sources is that it was a blow; otherwise, why would they focus on that Maglite so long?

    [These youtube instructional videos about brain injury are pretty informative, so I'm going to take this up on the thread about the golf club, as cynic and otg might be able to apply the diagrams to their graphics on the skull fractures, compared with the autopsy descriptions.]
     
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    This has always been the one huge advantage the Ramseys had in getting away with what happened that night: nobody wants to "believe" they could have done such awful things.

    So we've seen so many ridiculous scenarios and intruders paraded around to appease the sensitivity of those of us who are unable to accept that the Ramseys, a seemingly decent family, outwardly appearing to be loving and moral, could do to a child what they did to JonBenet.
     
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    So are you thinking that the wool fibers from JR's shirt were only inside in the panties, not in the genital area, on the skin?

    I'm thinking that would be odd. For those fibers to be inside the Bloomies, but not on the skin...not even one fiber managed to transfer to the skin from the Bloomies?

    So how are you proposing the fibers got into the Bloomies, but not on the skin? Because I guess I've always thought the fibers were on the skin first, from wiping, and then transferred onto the Bloomies.

    But this gives me pause....
     
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    There's a huge problem with the idea that LE was "misleading" JR in the Atlanta interview. I don't believe they even did that in the DA interviews in 1998. And here's why:

    If you look up the Colorado Bar Code of Ethics online--or some "title" close to that, as it's been quite a few years since I did--you can read it. It's not that long or hard to understand, amazingly enough. In that document, which all lawyers who take the bar in Colorado take an oath to uphold, there is a section wherein the conduct of lawyers is clearly laid out.

    The part that is critical to this argument is where it states lawyers are expressly forbidden from LYING TO or DELIBERATELY MISLEADING other lawyers or their clients. Period.

    So it would have been a violation of their Code of Ethics for either Kane or Levin, from the BDA's Office, to lie to or mislead the Ramseys or THEIR LAWYER LIN WOOD in the Atlanta interviews in 2000.

    Is there ANYONE here who believes that Lin Wood would not have nailed them if they had actually lied to him or the Ramseys to trap them?

    With cops, there is a different standard, obviously. But Levin and/or Kane were present during the questioning of Patsy and John in Atlanta, so even if they weren't directly asking the questions, they still would have been held responsible for anything misleading or false in those interviews.

    But I believe Counselor Levin was the one asking the question when the fibers of JR's shirt were brought up...though I'll have to look that up to be certain.

    I can exactly picture your last paragraph. You know Patsy so well.

    I've had another, nagging image in my mind for many years, and nothing I have seen has erased it yet: in the dark basement, by the paint tray, I see JR over the child, who is lying on her stomach; he's kneeling, pulling on the ligature; Patsy is at the child's head, facing JR, holding her down on the back of her shoulders.

    I'm not claiming to be psychic, of course, or that this is what happened. But I have never been able to get that picture out of my mind. Still waiting for the evidence to erase it.
     
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Just found this, heymom--sorry to inundate the thread with posts, but I'm trying to catch up.

    In response to the idea that Burke used the paintbrush on JB after strangling her--which someone was speculating about:

    I can't imagine the paintbrush being broken and then used to sexually assault the child.

    I know it's a guess, but it seems more likely that the paintbrush would have been used before it was broken, if that was what caused the injuries to the child's vagina and genitals that night.

    It has been speculated it was a straight up molestation, with the perp having a piece of birefrengent on his/her hand from breaking the paintbrush and then inserting a finger, leaving the material in the vagina. That's usually an IDI speculation, but it could have been any of the people in the home, if that were what happened.

    So all I was saying is if the paintbrush was used to inflict the vaginal injuries that night (probably to cover up prior sexual assault, IMO), it would seem more likely this was done before it was broken into shorter, sharper pieces, which would have been harder to insert, as well. There were other paintbrushes in the tray, also. So why break it and then use the remaining pieces to inflict injury?

    Does that explain better? I actually was attempting in my other response not to be so overly detailed, but see where that gets me. :blush:
     
  12. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    From Patsy's Aug 28/2000 interview [bolding mine]

    "Two other areas" probably means that the black wool fibers from John's shirt had been found both in JonBenet's crotch area and in the size 12 underpants.

    These are probably the fibers described in the Bonita Papers: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4502
    The Bonita papers also list dark blue cotton fibers:
    In addition, brown cotton fibers were also found, which is why the Ramseys were asked if they owned brown work gloves.

    So it looks like three different types of fibers were found in this area:
    - Black wool fibers (which could be matched to John's shirt)
    - Dark blue cotton fibers
    - Brown cotton fibers which seemed to originate from work gloves.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2012
  13. heymom

    heymom Member

    Which would fit perfectly with John wearing his black shirt, using a blue towel to wipe JonBenet's body, while wearing brown work gloves.
     
  14. Karen

    Karen Member

    I wonder if a patterned towel,or washcloth, with both brown and blue colors could have been used?

    I also wonder about the big purple bruise on the outer labia. We talk a lot about the bleeding and damage done in the vagina and hymen but there is also a big bruise on the outside. I wonder how that got there?
     
  15. wombat

    wombat Member

    Well thanks, KoldKase!

    I get where you are going - if she was swung around, she would have had different injuries, from bouncing back from the tub into the toilet, for example.

    She had four types of injuries - a cracked skull, a strangled neck, vaginal trauma, and a bunch of pokes and scrapes on her skin. Each "type" comes from a different motivation, and IMO only the strangled neck shows an intent to murder. The cracked skull was spur of the moment, and the scrapes/bruises on her skin were from poking, dragging, bumping while she was dying. The vaginal trauma - covering up for past sin.

    In regard to the fibers that may have come from JR's shirt, when he was asked about that in the 2000 Atlanta interview, Mr. Wood, Esquire, went absolutely batcrap:

    This is too much, right? Lin almost yells "SHUT THE HECK UP" at Bruce Levin, blathers on about this information getting leaked, and almost diverts the entire interview, and then his client gives bad testimony anyway - "your shirt" and "your daughter" - that doesn't answer the question, dude.

    Those fibers were from John's shirt.
     
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    That's an interesting breakdown of the injuries, wombat. When you put it that way, it focuses the injuries.

    For example, if you believe there were drag marks among those injuries, then that's back to Burke, isn't it?

    Old Woody must have about blown a gasket during these interviews. I'd bet money he took blood pressure meds before he left home those mornings. He pranced and danced and cued and clued his clients in on what to answer and how the entire time.

    You know what I'd love to see happen in this case? I mean besides it being solved by LE at long last?

    I'd love to see the Ramseys have to cough up the dough they made with old Woody, suing people helter skelter over "libel" when they knew darn good and well what they did to JonBenet.

    I'm demented, aren't I? :angeldev:
     
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Lou Smit claimed ON TV that the dark fibers were from the duvet in the suitcase, according to CBI, he said. That's part of his "the intruder put her in the suitcase to try to take her out" fantasy, if you remember.

    Not that you can believe anything Lou Smit said....

    But now that y'all have broken it down into numerous locations and fibers, maybe some were from John's wool shirt and some from the duvet?

    About the outer bruise on the labia: I wonder if it was from the paintbrush being shoved into her and moved around?

    Though I have to say, there was a Dr. Seuss book in that suitcase with that duvet, and Team Ramsey has guarded the title of that book jealously...or wickedly.

    I used to wonder if someone took JB to the basement more than once, laying the duvet out and reading her the Dr. Seuss book...for more nefarious purposes. The duvet does have JAR's semen on it; so in addition to Team Ramsey being so sneaky about the book, it does give one pause.

    If some fibers on the body, in the underwear or on the genitalia in particular, do actually match the duvet, I think that would be important. How did they get there THAT NIGHT?
     
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Now that's interesting.

    I'm wondering if LE has any photos taken of the property where things like garden tools, auto tools, or just plain tools can be seen.

    I don't remember any reference to Patsy gardening, ever.

    But I do remember that JR claimed to be quite handy as a carpenter. He said he was going to do the work on that Charlevoix "cottage" they bought after they sold the other house there. Then there was the Tennessee cabin they bought so long ago.

    Also, in the TV interview with his newest wife in Charlevoix, they were in the middle of a remodel, too.

    I'm thinking of the brown gloves, of course. Work gloves for these types of jobs.
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    To me, Wombat, the strangling shows a poor effort to make it look like someone strangled her. She was at death's door when the garrote came into the picture to make it look like this.
     
  20. heymom

    heymom Member

    The "bruise" on her labia is described as "a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring one inch by 3/8 of an inch." Meyer cut into it but no hemorrhage was revealed. He did not call it a contusion or an abrasion. Not really sure what that was.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice