James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

[dodie20]

Thank you, Mr. Kolar.
The most helpful items (for me) in Kolar’s book were the discussion of the touch DNA- exposing how ridiculous it was to rely on it for proof of an intruder plus the sequence of the injuries discussed by Dr. Werner Spitz. For those of you without the book here is the sequence of injuries per Spitz listed in the book pp 65-66 .

“1.This first injury sustained by JonBenet was believed to have been the constriction marks on the sides and front of her throat. He believed that her assailant had grabbed her shirt from the front and twisted the collar in their fist. The cloth from the edge of the collar had created the discolored, striated bruising and abrasions on the sides of her neck, and the knuckles of the perpetrator had caused the triangular shaped bruise located on the front side of her throat.
“2. JonBenet reached up to her neck with her hands to attempt to pull away the collar causing some nail gouges/abrasions with her fingernails on the side of her throat.
“3. Released from the grasp of the perpetrator, JonBenet turned and was struck in the upper right side of her head with a blunt object.. . . JonBenet’s head injury continued to bleed internally until her strangulation.
“4. The blow would have rendered JonBenet unconscious and accounted for the absence of any additional defensive wounds on her body. (Dr. Meyer had noted during autopsy no further signs of struggle, i.e. broken fingernails, bruising on her hands or fingernail scrapes on her face near the duct tape.)
“5. Inflicted perimortem with her death, was the insertion of the paintbrush handle into JonBenet’s vaginal orifice. The presence of inflammation and blood in the vaginal vault indicated that she was still alive when this assault took place, but it was believed that this took place at or very near the actual time of that death.
“6. The last injury sustained was the tightening of the garrote around JonBenet’s throat that resulted in her death by strangulation/asphyxiation.”

From Delmar England’ letter to MKeenen (ML), the information which was promoted by Lou Smit was that the kidnapper applied the garrote first, tightened it and this asphyxiated JB and then did the head blow for good measure. In his police interview JR wonders: JR: "I mean, there's just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say - I just, that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her."

Why does he wonder something which undermines his defender Lou Smit’s intruder theory? Could it be because he had something to do with the cord (garrote)?? MOO
Makes you go hm…..

and if you think about this from a parent's perspective, JR's response is even weirder. Why would the order of methods mean a thing to him? The bottom line was that JB was dead. If I were an innocent parent and knew nothing about my daughter's murder, wondering what came 1st wouldn't mean a hill of beans. If anything, I might find a certain relief in knowing that she was unconscious when she was strangled with a garotte, (horrors), but I sure wouldn't debate how something besides what investigators discovered, might have caused her death. This really is weird.

 

[midwest mama]

and if you think about this from a parent's perspective, JR's response is even weirder. Why would the order of methods mean a thing to him? The bottom line was that JB was dead. If I were an innocent parent and knew nothing about my daughter's murder, wondering what came 1st wouldn't mean a hill of beans. If anything, I might find a certain relief in knowing that she was unconscious when she was strangled with a garotte, (horrors), but I sure wouldn't debate how something besides what investigators discovered, might have caused her death. This really is weird.

BBM. Very astute observation, Dodie!

Note also that JR minimizes the blow by calling it a "head injury". If he can convince himself that the 'injury' caused the death, then it would take the guilt for the final ajudged cause of death being strangulation, away from his thoughts, and possibly afford him a cleaner conscience.

It was interesting he made the reference of "they" regarding the strangulation, when how many times did we hear of both him and Patsy refer to JB's perpetrator as "he, or the monster, or the killer" - singular, not plural.

You're right, to whitewash the strangulation from being the final cause of death, and divert from a singular perpetrator, is weird!

 

[dodie20]

BBM. Very astute observation, Dodie!

Note also that JR minimizes the blow by calling it a "head injury". If he can convince himself that the 'injury' caused the death, then it would take the guilt for the final ajudged cause of death being strangulation, away from his thoughts, and possibly afford him a cleaner conscience.

It was interesting he made the reference of "they" regarding the strangulation, when how many times did we hear of both him and Patsy refer to JB's perpetrator as "he, or the monster, or the killer" - singular, not plural.

You're right, to whitewash the strangulation from being the final cause of death, and divert from a singular perpetrator, is weird!

yes, because a 'head injury', is a lot different than a massive blow to the head. A 'head 'injury' could be explained by a rage, or even better, an accident. I think this is where JR was trying to go with this...that way if they were ever charged, they could blame an accident or even JB herself, and say the rest was panicked staging... and as horrible as it looked, it was beside the point, because a fall or whatever, is what actually caused her death. There was a discussion awhile back, and parents blaming accidents for abuse was brought up,

 

[Darlene733510]

Does anyone remember any of Burke's interview? Do you know if he was asked about the pineapple, and the tea bag? I would imagine he would have been asked about what time they bad the snack. If he and JB were both there, were the parents in the kitchen also. If this has been discussed, I guess I missed it, or would his interview, and questions be denied to the public because of his age? We've heard conflicting tales about events after they came home from FW's house. He was questioned at Fleet's house, and I don't think the parents had time to coach him. If he was questioned without the presence of Atty. or the parents, would this be null and void?

 

[UKGuy]

yes, because a 'head injury', is a lot different than a massive blow to the head. A 'head 'injury' could be explained by a rage, or even better, an accident. I think this is where JR was trying to go with this...that way if they were ever charged, they could blame an accident or even JB herself, and say the rest was panicked staging... and as horrible as it looked, it was beside the point, because a fall or whatever, is what actually caused her death. There was a discussion awhile back, and parents blaming accidents for abuse was brought up,

dodie20,
Sure but the R's did not take this route! They took the staging route, there was sexual abuse to hide, both acute and chronic, so JonBenet had to be redressed to conform to the R's version of events.

You might consider an occam approach to JonBenet's death, i.e. someone sexually assaulted her, and in this process she complained or screamed etc. So her assailant grabbed her by the throat or her shirt collar in an attempt to silence her, resulting in coma.

So the R's have another feature that requires staging, i.e. her neck. Meantime the R's took the decision that a 911 call and an accident explanation would not work. So JonBenet was denied medical assistance!

Next up an R took the decision to murder JonBenet, so they whacked her on the head with some blunt object. They waited and deliberated, oops, this never worked so they then decided to tweek things and asphyxiated JonBenet adding the paintbrush handle as an additional flourish of fetish.

That I reckon is the minimal bare bones theory as to how JonBenet was killed?

There appears to be three distinct phases to the staging, the final one resulting in the ransom note and wine-cellar deposits.

Criminals can be profiled by the method they use to kill. So manual asphyxation is attributed to lesser skilled people, while poisoning to those more skilled.

Another example is Ted Bundy he used a plaster cast both as a blunt force weapon and a visual cue to lull his victim into a false sense of security.

The above examples demonstrate that no intruder killed JonBenet employing some particular MO, since Coroner Meyer cites two causal factors contributing to the death of JonBenet not one.

Now the big question is this: whichever R sexually assaulted JonBenet would they tell the other R's?

1. I molested JonBenet?

2. I asphyxiated JonBenet?

Or would the R concerned attempt some form of staging then inform the other R's?

The theory you prefer might flow from the answers to the latter questions.



.

 

[dodie20]

dodie20,
Sure but the R's did not take this route! They took the staging route, there was sexual abuse to hide, both acute and chronic, so JonBenet had to be redressed to conform to the R's version of events.

You might consider an occam approach to JonBenet's death, i.e. someone sexually assaulted her, and in this process she complained or screamed etc. So her assailant grabbed her by the throat or her shirt collar in an attempt to silence her, resulting in coma.

So the R's have another feature that requires staging, i.e. her neck. Meantime the R's took the decision that a 911 call and an accident explanation would not work. So JonBenet was denied medical assistance!

Next up an R took the decision to murder JonBenet, so they whacked her on the head with some blunt object. They waited and deliberated, oops, this never worked so they then decided to tweek things and asphyxiated JonBenet adding the paintbrush handle as an additional flourish of fetish.

That I reckon is the minimal bare bones theory as to how JonBenet was killed?

There appears to be three distinct phases to the staging, the final one resulting in the ransom note and wine-cellar deposits.

Criminals can be profiled by the method they use to kill. So manual asphyxation is attributed to lesser skilled people, while poisoning to those more skilled.

Another example is Ted Bundy he used a plaster cast both as a blunt force weapon and a visual cue to lull his victim into a false sense of secirity.

The above examples demonstrate that no intruder killed JonBenet employing some particular MO, since Coroner Meyer cites two causal factors contributing to the death of JonBenet not one.

Now the big question is this: whichever R sexually assaulted JonBenet would they tell the other R's?

1. I molested JonBenet?

2. I asphyxiated JonBenet?

Or would the R concerned attempt some form of staging then inform the other R's?

The theory you prefer might flow from the answers to the latter questions.



.

I see your point, but by the time JR made these statements, LE wasn't following their script, kwim? So, for him to back up and try to plant the idea of an accident, doesn't surprise me. If, on the other hand, LE had followed their script and fully accepted the psycho intruder theory, I don't think JR would have made these statements. IMO, they were self serving and he was trying to self preserve and look out for their future...kind of a covering all bases approach. Anyway, JR bringing up this possibility, reeks of desperation, and IMO, it looks like he wanted the head bash to be considered as the actual murder. Why would he think that she was strangled After she was dead? That would be pointless. But, strangling her to finish her off, does make sense. So, I'm back to wondering if the head bash was premeditated too. moo

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Are you suggesting JonBenet was hung? The phrase strangulation victims is a generalisation, do you consider JonBenet was hung or manually strangled?

NO I am NOT suggesting she was hung, nor does my comment infer that in any way at all. As a matter of fact it you go back and re-read it, you will see IMMEDIATELY after the word "hanging" you will see the word STRANGULATION. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THIS KIND OF MARK IS COMMON IN HANGING AND STRANGULATION VICTIMS.

 

[DeeDee249]

Does anyone remember any of Burke's interview? Do you know if he was asked about the pineapple, and the tea bag? I would imagine he would have been asked about what time they bad the snack. If he and JB were both there, were the parents in the kitchen also. If this has been discussed, I guess I missed it, or would his interview, and questions be denied to the public because of his age? We've heard conflicting tales about events after they came home from FW's house. He was questioned at Fleet's house, and I don't think the parents had time to coach him. If he was questioned without the presence of Atty. or the parents, would this be null and void?

BR's interviews with police have not been made public (because of his age), so we have no way of knowing whether he was asked about the pineapple or tea.
In view of how much the police let slide when they questioned the parents, I'd be surprised if they did ask. And there is always the possibility that at the time they questioned him, they had not gotten back the report finding his prints on the tea glass and pineapple bowl. ONLY his prints were on the glass- his and Patsy's were on the bowl.
A while back, police asked to speak to BR again. This time, he is an adult, so his testimony might have been made public (not sure how Colorado's child crime laws affect testimony given as an adult regarding a crime that occurred when he was a child). However, as we know, BR refused to talk to police (via his attorney, LW).

 

[UKGuy]

NO I am NOT suggesting she was hung, nor does my comment infer that in any way at all. As a matter of fact it you go back and re-read it, you will see IMMEDIATELY after the word "hanging" you will see the word STRANGULATION. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THIS KIND OF MARK IS COMMON IN HANGING AND STRANGULATION VICTIMS.

DeeDee249,
Oh my, upper case, does that mean you are correct? We must parse your post then ...

Had a shirt been twisted around her neck first, there would have been evidence to suggest that- I would hope the coroner would have noted it.

Did the Coroner note it? Or are you assuming absence of evidence is an indicatation that there is no crime?

The large, red triangular abrasion near the front of her throat is a very common mark found on hanging and strangulation victims- and represents blood pooling under the skin at a pressure point.

Your and statement generalises from hanging victims to strangulation victims, so to explain the blood pooling.

Why do you exclude manual strangulation as a causal factor of the blood pooling in JonBenet's neck?


You see, staging has a intersting effect on people, they tend to infer what the stager intended.

I reckon JonBenet was manually asphyxiated, but it failed, but when hours later, when the R's realized they had to stage JonBenet's death, they required something which masked the manual asphyxiation so came up with the ligature *advertiser censored* paintbrush handle. It is so obvious it could pass for an attempt as a faux dissertation on criminology.





.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Oh my, upper case, does that mean you are correct? We must parse your post then ...



Did the Coroner note it? Or are you assuming absence of evidence is an indicatation that there is no crime?


Your and statement generalises from hanging victims to strangulation victims, so to explain the blood pooling.

Why do you exclude manual strangulation as a causal factor of the blood pooling in JonBenet's neck?


You see, staging has a intersting effect on people, they tend to infer what the stager intended.

I reckon JonBenet was manually asphyxiated, but it failed, but when hours later, when the R's realized they had to stage JonBenet's death, they required something which masked the manual asphyxiation so came up with the ligature *advertiser censored* paintbrush handle. It is so obvious it could pass for an attempt as a faux dissertation on criminology.





.

The coroner would have noted any findings that indicated she had been strangled with something other than the cord. That includes marks from a hand or shirt, which would look different than the ligature furrow from which the cord was cut. The thin cord would have made a very poor choice to hide or cover marks made by either a hand or thicker piece of fabric.
Side by side comparative photos of JB and another strangulation victim show identical triangular red marks. The site may be gone now, but it used to be on ACR in the Ruthee section of "Other People's Pages". It's been posted here from time to time.

 

[Darlene733510]

Wasn't there a wire on the floor in the wc next to JBR's body? I came across this when I was reading last night. They used to use thin wire to decapitate people. This made me think of the statement in the RN that JB would be beheaded if the JR didn't do as he was instructed.

 

[midwest mama]

Wasn't there a wire on the floor in the wc next to JBR's body? I came across this when I was reading last night. They used to use thin wire to decapitate people. This made me think of the statement in the RN that JB would be beheaded if the JR didn't do as he was instructed.

In fact, there were two wires listed on the evidence lists:

Wire Wire tied in knot 1 5 BAH
Wire Wire near body 1 7 KKY

 

[midwest mama]

The coroner noted absolutely NO evidence of scratch marks or any other defensive mark made on her throat by JB. The marks seen in the autopsy photos were noted as petechial hemorrhages. Spitz never examined JB's body and was not present at the autopsy, nor did he speak to the coroner who did.

This is a misconception that has been around for years- that she struggled or tried to grab her throat. She did not. Nor was there ANY of her own blood or skin found under her fingernails- both would HAVE to be present if she scratched or dug into her skin.

There was nothing at all noted by the coroner to suggest that she was strangled with anything other than the cord found around her neck. Had a shirt been twisted around her neck first, there would have been evidence to suggest that- I would hope the coroner would have noted it. The large, red triangular abrasion near the front of her throat is a very common mark found on hanging and strangulation victims- and represents blood pooling under the skin at a pressure point. Had there been knuckles pressing into her- there would be bruising that indicated that.

I am confused. I re-read the autopsy report, and page 1 clearly states that there were abrasions (note: plural) and petechial hemorrhages, neck and page 3 states that the skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow includes petechial hemorrhages and abrasions in a 3" x 2" area, and that the area of abrasion and petechial hemorrhage of the skin of the anterior neck includes on the lower left, just to the left of midline, the triangular mark you reference considered to be pooling of the blood.

My interpretation is that some of the marks in this 3" x 2" area above and below the furrow are abrasions and some are petechial hemorrhages. And that the triangular mark is considered to be one of these marks, but not the only abrasion noted.

Also, according to Kolar's book, here is a remark about findings from JB's fingernail clippings:
DNA testing involving fingernail scrapings from both hands revealed JonBenet’s genetic profile on both sides.

So, am I alone in thinking that some of those marks on JB's necks were possibly made by her in an attempt to fight off a strangulation? Perhaps, as UKGuy suggests, a strangulation done during consciousness first, which required the blow to the head to quash a struggle, and ultimately required the garrote strangulation to complete the too slow death?

 

[UKGuy]

The coroner would have noted any findings that indicated she had been strangled with something other than the cord. That includes marks from a hand or shirt, which would look different than the ligature furrow from which the cord was cut. The thin cord would have made a very poor choice to hide or cover marks made by either a hand or thicker piece of fabric.
Side by side comparative photos of JB and another strangulation victim show identical triangular red marks. The site may be gone now, but it used to be on ACR in the Ruthee section of "Other People's Pages". It's been posted here from time to time.

DeeDee249,
Your reliance on the coroners determinitation is patently self serving. The thin cord you cite as a poor choice, is only required to obsfucate or mask the prior manual strangulation, not to replace it.

.

 

[wengr]

So, am I alone in thinking that some of those marks on JB's necks were possibly made by her in an attempt to fight off a strangulation? Perhaps, as UKGuy suggests, a strangulation done during consciousness first, which required the blow to the head to quash a struggle, and ultimately required the garrote strangulation to complete the too slow death?

No you are not alone. Imo it makes no sense to not consider the cord as a cover up of previous strangulation. There were one, two, or three people in the house bent on manipulating the scene and masking the true nature of the crime.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Your reliance on the coroners determinitation is patently self serving. The thin cord you cite as a poor choice, is only required to obsfucate or mask the prior manual strangulation, not to replace it.

.

The thin cord actually exits. It WAS found around her neck. The scarf/shirt as an instrument of strangulation is speculation only and may or may not be reality. The width of the cord is much narrower than the fabric of either a scarf or the neck of a turtleneck. It would be impossible to cover/hide marks from either a scarf, shirt or hands with that cord.
Why would you call it self-serving? I have no interest in anything other than the facts. And the facts are that a cord WAS used and the other things have not been proven to have been.
You're getting a little snarky, aren't you? And I don't think I deserve it. I ask only the treatment I give to you.

 

[BOESP]

DeeDee249,
Your reliance on the coroners determinitation is patently self serving. The thin cord you cite as a poor choice, is only required to obsfucate or mask the prior manual strangulation, not to replace it.

.

What prior manual strangulation? Meyer's autopsy report states ligature strangulation. The autopsy photos indicate ligature strangulation. Even if JonBenet had be jerked around and choked by someone grabbing her garment at the neckline it still wouldn't be manual strangulation.

 

[midwest mama]

What prior manual strangulation? Meyer's autopsy report states ligature strangulation. The autopsy photos indicate ligature strangulation. Even if JonBenet had be jerked around and choked by someone grabbing her garment at the neckline it still wouldn't be manual strangulation.

There is no doubt the white cord ligature was what took the final breath from JonBenet. Also, there is no doubt she was bashed on the head hard enough to crack her skull, which must have rendered her unconscious immediately as well as permanently.

Since she was bashed on the top, back right side, it would be conceivable that a right-handed person (JR stated in DOI that both he and Patsy were right-handers) might have grabbed her by a shirt collar with the left hand from the rear, tightening the shirt collar briefly enough to constrain her. I can visualize her being restrained by a tightened collar from the rear, while the ligature was slipped over her head. Perhaps JB feared the ligature was going to be used viciously, which could have prompted her to scream and attempt to break free - grabbing at her throat area briefly as the perpetrator then reached for the bash weapon as a means for effective control of both the struggle and the screaming. The bash would have kept her struggle and attempts at grabbing for her throat constrictions at a minimum, rendering her unconscious immediately.

Next might have been the non-reactive vaginal injury, which was said to have occurred near the time of death. Continued unconsciousness would have allowed for clean up and a redressing. The final ligature strangulation would have followed when the perpetrator completed the heinous act. :moo:

I guess I want to think that from the time JB might have screamed in terror, any pain she experienced was very quickly replaced with her unconscious and final transition to her heavenly home.

 

[wengr]

There is no doubt the white cord ligature was what took the final breath from JonBenet.

Well, I can't say that I doubt it, but I sure consider it as possibly incorrect.
Some reasons:

Imo, the cord around the wrists served no purpose other than staging and misdirection. So it makes sense to me to suspect that the same cord used to make the faux garrote might be seen in the same light.

Also, imo the faux garrote really served no real purpose beyond what a plain piece of cord would have done. I feel that each occupant of the house was physically capable of strangling an unconscious six year old girl without the need for knots and a handle. AND, even if they did need a handle, there is no need to break the paintbrush as the full paintbrush would serve the exact same purpose.

And what evidence does Meyer show that the ligature that he was presented with was the very same ligature that killed JB? None that I see. Of course it would seem apparent at the time, but in retrospect I feels it's worthy of consideration because as I said before there were people in the house actively trying to conceal the true nature of what happened. They did it with the wrist bindings, the wipedown, the paintbrush, the tape over mouth, the note etc. Yet for some reason we are to assume that the faux garrote is the genuine article?
How do we know that a similiar cord, cable, etc was actually used and was replaced with the garrote? Maybe someone felt that the nature of the cord used somehow implicated the killer. How do we know that whatever it was did'nt walk with the blunt instrument, tape, and notepad pages?

 

[midwest mama]

Point taken, WENGR, especially with the consideration that the ligature furrow did leave it's own embedded mark quite clearly once the knot was tied securely and some swelling might have occured, while there are also wider circumferential bruise marks shown in the autopsy photos.

Past speculation has asked us to infer the wider bruise marks happened as a result of the ligature cord having rolled some before it was fully tightened and became deeply embedded.

I defer to the possibility that there was another type of final strangulation device used, then removed and soon replaced by the white ligature. :moo: