Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Jul 20, 2012.
No problem, DeeDee, I'll take your word for it. Anything goes these days!
Acrylic fleece! :floor:
I have a red plaid fleece jacket I purchased from ORVIS this year. It's one of those go to jackets you can wear in or outdoors. Where I live they are very popular, because of the changing weather and you can wear a t-shirt or turtleneck under it. It does "shed" little flecks, which it leaves on my dark colored pants.
I like your ID celticthyme just because Celtic was a football team I heard mentioned for many years in Scotland. It was always Scotland v Rangers every Saturday. Seems like a hundred years ago! Of course here in Canada, it's called Soccer!.
OK, I stand corrected, NOW I have seen one (thanks DeeDee for the better description so I could look it up).
I never thought of these as fleece...my bad! I have several made of this material, but too warm to wear indoors for me.
I also don't picture PR as wearing this with dress slacks - but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I am sure the style she had would have been different.
Just correcting an error in my previous post because the edit button time had elapsed.
The lining sure looks like you skinned a sheep, Moab. :rolling:
Moab, that is very similar to the Old Navy Performance Fleece. The Old Navy is thinner, maybe more like a shirt than a jacket. If you have Old Navy near you, they always have Performance Fleece on sale before Christmas.
The Essentials jacket that Patsy had (and like the one I had) was also a bit thinner and did not have a fleece lining like this plaid jacket. But at least you get an idea of the fabric of Patsy's jacket. The acrylic fleece doesn't shed the way chenille does, but fibers will shed off any fabric, and certainly one with "fuzzy" type nap like acrylic fleece.
I have several vests made of this stuff, and they are thinner too, so thanks again for the head's up!
Actually I think that lining was made from someone I banned years ago...
Performance Fleece (?). Would this be a sheep rolling in the hay, Moab? :rolling:
Oh jeez! I just needed to laugh today, Moab, forgive me! No need for details!
No- performance fleece would be a sheep singing opera. :clap:
Ha,ha,ha! I love that one DeeDee!:clap:
Ewe, that was so ba-a-a-a-d! :rolling:
I wonder if they got a standing ovine-ation. (badoom-ching!)
B-a-a-a B-a-a-a- B-l-a-a-a-c-k Sheep!
H-a-a-a-v-e y-o-u a-n-y w-o-o-l?
Y-e-s-s-i-r Y-e-s-s-i-r t-h-r-e-e- b-a-g-s f-u-l-l!:rolling:
Kolar's View of the case as a "kidnapping"
Did anyone else find it odd that Kolar was adamant in likening the case as an official kidnapping? I don't remember if it's in the book, but in the interview/podcast that many of you participated in, I specifically remember Kolar voicing his opinion that the case was technically a kidnapping, with the line of reasoning being that she was taken from her bedroom to the basement against her will (or something to that effect).
I find this interesting because if those on the case in the early stages had subscribed to this argument, and even pushed it, then the FBI could have intervened and claimed jurisdiction to pursue the case and subsequent prosecution. With that being said, we know how the FBI felt about the case and who the prime suspect(s) were; honestly I think it's a shame that this wasn't argued, or perhaps even thought about as an avenue for gaining the necessary jurisdiction, as I think the case would have turned out much differently. Even then, I suppose it would have been a pretty tough fight - I'm not sure about the case law in Colorado or elsewhere that could have set the precedent for the FBI taking over the case. The Ramsey attorney's probably wouldn't have let it happen anyway, perhaps the fact that it was a homicide would have taken the front seat over the notion of a kidnapping anyway - I'm not sure, I'm just going off the top of my head here and wanted to mention this in here.
Nonetheless, hindsight is obviously 20/20, and I just thought that I'd open the topic for discussion.
I believe it has more to do with what is presently left in terms of prosecuting a Ramsey for the crime.
First a bit of background on kidnapping:
Although the portrayal in television and movies can demonstrate a portion of what the crime of kidnapping includes it doesnâ€™t get into the more technical legal elements.
In general, kidnapping consists of unlawful movement or confinement of another individual, perhaps with a further offensive motive or some other aggravating factor.
It is a very serious crime and can lead to a life sentence
Two â€œtechnicalâ€ elements which are somewhat surprising and even shocking entail
1. Seemingly insignificant movement of an individual
2. Simple restraint of an individual with or without movement.
Examples of movement considered to be kidnapping:
In State v. Coleman, a man emptied the cash register then ordered the attendant into the back room and raped her at gunpoint.
The additional movement or confinement 1) prevented the victim from summoning help; 2) lessened the risk of detection; 3) created a significant danger or increased the victimâ€™s risk of harm. In the present case the act of dragging victim 30 feet after the initial assault was beyond that necessary to complete sexual battery. His movement lessened the risk of detection which increased the victimâ€™s risk of harm.
In a recent criminal case near Jacksonville, FL, the defendant became angry with the victim, hit her with a chair, dragged her by her hair into the next room, beat her until she was unconscious and dragged her outside and continued to beat her. The entire incident lasted approximately seven minutes. The defendant was charged with and convicted of kidnapping and attempted second degree murder. The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant tried to have his conviction for kidnapping reversed based on the fact that the movement of the victim was not independently significant to the attempted murder charge and was only slight and incidental to that charge. However, the appellate court disagreed and found that these facts were sufficient to establish a kidnapping conviction.
Faison was convicted of five offenses committed during the course of separate sexual attacks on two women. After discovering that the only employee present in a small contractor's office was the receptionist, Faison entered the office and attacked the young woman. To do so, he dragged her from her desk in front of a large window to the rear of the office where he sexually assaulted her. He then forced her into a nearby restroom and raped her again.
About ten minutes later, the receptionist spotted Faison across the street, and her employer attempted to stop him. Faison escaped into a residential area and broke into the home of another young woman. He attacked her and violently dragged her from the kitchen down a hallway into the bedroom. The two continued to fight until the woman was nearly unconscious; Faison then sexually assaulted her.
The jury convicted Faison of two counts of kidnapping, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of first-degree burglary.2 The court sentenced him to three consecutive 99-year prison terms for the kidnappings and burglary and suspended the sentence on the two sexual battery convictions.
Although the following does not involve movement of a victim it falls under the â€œrestraintâ€ and unlawful denial of the liberty of the victim and is considered â€œkidnapping.â€ This is another example of a more â€œtechnicalâ€ element of kidnapping and one that does not typically come to mind when we think of what kidnapping is, however, OJ Simpson is not in jail for murder currently (although he should be) he is in jail for this very reason, (among others,) that is, for his role in restraining and thereby depriving a man of his liberty in a Las Vegas hotel room.
Restraint means to restrict a personâ€™s movement without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the personâ€™s liberty, bu moving the person from one place to another. Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by force, intimidation, or deception.
Taylor came up to Professor Hortense after class and demanded that she remain in the classroom after all the students left. She resisted doing so, at which point Taylor told her, "Look, I have a loaded pistol in my back pack. If you don't stay here for another 10 minutes or so, I will shoot you." The professor remained for 10 minutes while Taylor yelled at her about her poor teaching. After 10 minutes, Taylor allowed her to leave.
Did Taylor kidnap the professor?
Yes, the kidnapping was complete very soon after Professor Hortense remained in the room against her will. While Taylor will raise a number of fairly serious points in response to the prosecution, none will succeed. It is true that the professor was forced to remain in the room rather that required to move to another location. Kidnapping, however, involves either the removal of the victim or her confinement. Moreover, the fact that the confinement took place in a public area is of no import. The key to the crime is that the defendant has forced the victim to move, or not move, against her will. Finally, the mere fact that the confinement was limited to a ten-minute period does not matter. Essentially, any period of unlawful movement or confinement is sufficient for the purpose of the crime of kidnapping. While some modern statutes have degrees of the crime, linked to the time of the movement/confinement, these laws do not usually redefine the crime; they simply alter the punishment depending on the seriousness of the offense.
Hopefully the above examples have shown that there are lesser known, technical legal elements involved in the charge of kidnapping and that a prosecutor could use one of these to serve as an underlying felony on the road to a felony murder charge in the JonBenet case.
It has been mentioned that a parent has the autonomy to be able to move their own child around without their consent, that is, of course, true.
That autonomy does not extend to movement for unlawful purposes.
Parents have been charged with kidnapping and are in prison serving time for the crime.
Most typically it involves a custody dispute and one parent snatching a child away, but I mention it to show that a parent is criminally liable when it comes to UNLAWFUL movement of their child.
In this case, if, for example, JonBenet was moved after being struck on the head to another location and at that location she was asphyxiated, she was kidnapped under the technical legal definition of kidnapping.
The movement would have been for no lawful purpose and would have served to further endanger and ultimately end her life.
What needs to be understood is that presently there is no other possible charge against John Ramsey other than felony murder with the underlying felony of kidnapping.
Note that in the interview with Peter Boyles, James Kolar says the following with respect to the issue of whether kidnapping occurred in the JonBenet case:
Peter Boyles: You call the book, Who Really Kidnapped, was there a kidnapping at all Jim?
James Kolar: Well I think if you look at what I interpret as the evidence, I think she was struck in the kitchen, or the dining room where the pineapple was being consumed and then moved downstairs afterword and if you move one person from one room to another even in the same home or apartment thatâ€™s considered a kidnapping when itâ€™s against their will.
(Above quote can be found at 2:51 below.)
A murder charge (not felony murder) would fail because there would be no way to point the finger exclusively at John. There is simply no way to know who did what and that would have to be the case in order to prove a charge of murder.
The statute of limitations has been exceeded on all other possible lesser charges.
As I indicated in a post on a different thread (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=191473&postcount=67,) the â€œbeautyâ€ of felony murder is that is that it removes the need to know who specifically did what, as long as their involvement can be shown.
When Darnay Hoffman and members of the so called â€œDream Teamâ€ speculated on felony murder as an option they based it on the underlying felony of sexual assault.
Although that is still a possibility, the revelations in Kolarâ€™s book relating to Burkeâ€™s possible involvement would make this a very challenging issue in court, IMO.
That leaves kidnapping as the only remaining viable option as an underlying felony, although, it also would not be without its share of problems.
For example, the defense would only need to hint that the head blow and asphyxiation occurred in the same place. Therefore, there is no kidnapping and consequently felony murder becomes unprovable
(This would, of course, be in addition to the reasonable doubt that they would attempt to introduce by way of the intruder theory.)
I do not think this applies to a parent/child relationship. After all, a parent would be "kidnapping" their own child for putting them to bed, giving them a bath, taking them to school, the doctors, etc. if it was against the child's will. A parent with full custodial rights may take a child anywhere they wish, regardless of whether the child wants to go.
As to whether it is for a good or evil purpose, I don't think that has any bearing on the classifying it as kidnapping.
In the cases mentioned, one seems to be an intruder, and in the other it is not clear if the victim knew her assailant, or was related or not, but they are all adults.
With a minor child that has not been emancipated, the custodial parent or guardian has the right to make decisions about the welfare of the child, including moving the child about in the home and outside it.
It seems counterintuitive but it is does involve a technical legal element that does make it kidnapping nonetheless, and Kolar is correct when he describes it as such.
Proving it is another matter, but itâ€™s highly probable that JonBenet was kidnapped that night.
The law varies slightly in wording depending on the jurisdiction, but, in general, there is always a reference that reads something like â€œcarried or detained and without lawful excuse.â€
There are a great many acts that fall within â€œlawful excuseâ€ with respect to parental interaction and movement of their child.
Moving a child with the purpose of ultimately ending their life by tightening ligature around its neck in a remote area of the home is most definitely outside of the realm of any â€œlawful excuse,â€ and is unquestionably kidnapping.
Separate names with a comma.