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

[Chrishope]

Nope! As usual OTG, you're the sharpest tack in the box! I totally missed that! Certainly sounds like someone tried to wash the blood out. No other reason to have "semiliquid thin watery red fluid" present IMO. If that's the case, then how much blood was there to start with? Wiped off of her legs, washed from inside her....sounds like a heck of a lot of blood to me, and only one way I can think of to accomplish that. IMO, I don't see any way to find PR innocent of any involvement considering this fact. Certainly not something JR, BR, or an "intruder" would ever do.

I don't see any reason JR wouldn't do this. The female anatomy isn't exactly unknown to JR. I would think the perp, whoever the perp is, would do this. Male or female makes no difference, as far as I can see.

 

[Chrishope]

Sorry, Nom. I hinted at it before and no one questioned it. I believe that's what the AR tells us where it says, "A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault." I can think of no other reason for there to be a thin watery red fluid in that location other than there being an attempt to clean the blood out of her vagina. Exactly how that attempt was made we can only speculate, but I can think of no other explanation.

You?

Your interpretation of the AR seems to make sense. So my question isn't meant to argue against your point, it's just that something isn't making sense to me.

What is "semiliquid" ? Something not quite fully a liquid? Something like a gel? A condensing vapor? I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I find the term strange, coming from a medical man. Is there some generally accepted medical meaning?

It's clear enough that thin red watery fluid is a liquid, but why call it a semiliquid? Is he saying it has the properties of both a fluid and a solid?

 

[Nom de plume]

I don't see any reason JR wouldn't do this. The female anatomy isn't exactly unknown to JR. I would think the perp, whoever the perp is, would do this. Male or female makes no difference, as far as I can see.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I know it doesn't fit into the DocG theory for PR to be involved, but come on. You really think JR would even THINK to do something like that? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

I think we agree on most everything, with the exception of PR's knowledge and participation, but to me, this is just something only a woman would even THINK of doing.

 

[Chrishope]

I have to disagree with you on this one. I know it doesn't fit into the DocG theory for PR to be involved, but come on. You really think JR would even THINK to do something like that? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

I think we agree on most everything, with the exception of PR's knowledge and participation, but to me, this is just something only a woman would even THINK of doing.

Maybe I'm not reading carefully, or have somehow missed something. I think we are talking about washing out the vaginal vault. It seems an obvious thing to do if one wants to try to hide the evidence of a SA which caused bleeding. I'm at a loss to understand why JR wouldn't think of this, or do it.

That's not to preclude the possibility of PR doing it. I just don't see why it's gender specific.


I'd agree that the interior of the vagina might have been mysterious to BR and that he probably wouldn't have done it. He'd probably concentrate on what's visible outside.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

You know, I've been thinking about your theory....
Did PR and JR ever their medical records looked at, particularly their mental health (if there was any?)

Good question. I don't recall if their records were obtained. I doubt it, physician-patient confidentiality and all. It was revealed that Patsy had panic attacks though. And her condition; Borderline Persoanlity Disorder, has symptoms that are recognized as problematic not pathological always.

 

[Nom de plume]

Maybe I'm not reading carefully, or have somehow missed something. I think we are talking about washing out the vaginal vault. It seems an obvious thing to do if one wants to try to hide the evidence of a SA which caused bleeding. I'm at a loss to understand why JR wouldn't think of this, or do it.

That's not to preclude the possibility of PR doing it. I just don't see why it's gender specific.


I'd agree that the interior of the vagina might have been mysterious to BR and that he probably wouldn't have done it. He'd probably concentrate on what's visible outside.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. All I can tell you is that it's just one of those feelings you were talking about in the other thread. I won't go so far as to say there's no way he would have done it, but it just doesn't seem like something a man would think of doing because it's not something men do. I might be 100% wrong, but it seems so much more likely that it would be something a woman would think of right away because it IS something she's used to doing, and without getting graphic, for the same basic reason (not covering up a SA).

 

[questfortrue]

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. All I can tell you is that it's just one of those feelings you were talking about in the other thread. I won't go so far as to say there's no way he would have done it, but it just doesn't seem like something a man would think of doing because it's not something men do. I might be 100% wrong, but it seems so much more likely that it would be something a woman would think of right away because it IS something she's used to doing, and without getting graphic, for the same basic reason (not covering up a SA).

When I read your idea that it would be a woman who would consider clean up of blood from the vaginal vault, that is probably true for the most part but not always. But then apply SuperDave’s quote from DOI from PR, “JR was quite squeamish about blood.” Adds more depth to your "feelings" about who would have been more likely to do this cleaning, imo.

 

[Venom]

Your interpretation of the AR seems to make sense. So my question isn't meant to argue against your point, it's just that something isn't making sense to me.

What is "semiliquid" ? Something not quite fully a liquid? Something like a gel? A condensing vapor? I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I find the term strange, coming from a medical man. Is there some generally accepted medical meaning?

It's clear enough that thin red watery fluid is a liquid, but why call it a semiliquid? Is he saying it has the properties of both a fluid and a solid?

Semiliquid
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semiliquid

"having the qualities of both a liquid and a solid"

Synonyms for semiliquid: (copied from thesaurus.com)
Synonyms for semi-liquid
muddy, spongy, squishy, gelatinous, jelled, mashy, pastelike, pulpous, pulpy, slushy, squashy

Could he (Meyer) have meant that the blood was almost coagulated or clotted?

 

[otg]

Your interpretation of the AR seems to make sense. So my question isn't meant to argue against your point, it's just that something isn't making sense to me.

What is "semiliquid" ? Something not quite fully a liquid? Something like a gel? A condensing vapor? I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I find the term strange, coming from a medical man. Is there some generally accepted medical meaning?

It's clear enough that thin red watery fluid is a liquid, but why call it a semiliquid? Is he saying it has the properties of both a fluid and a solid?

I can't answer that one, Chris. It baffles me as well. I know what "semiliquid" means, and we can look up the word to confirm that it means a substance that is somewhere between liquid and solid -- the conclusion being that it is a thick, gel-like fluid. But that lies in complete contradiction to the next two words in his sentence: "thin" and "watery". So maybe on a degree of liquidity, it was only slightly thicker than water.

I'll venture a guess as to why he wrote that -- and that's all it is. Anyone's guess is just as good as mine.

The natural fluid inside the vaginal vault being a somewhat thick mucous, if mixed with blood would still be a rather thick fluid. Both being thick, they would not mix well and (I would think) would instead be kind of streaked between the clear mucous and the opaque red blood. (Have you ever blown your nose and looked at the Kleenex to see blood streaked through the nasal mucous?) But if you add water to this, the water would dilute both so they could more easily blend together with the water and become thin and watery in comparison to their natural viscosities. I doubt Dr. Meyer thought this all out when he observed it -- he was simply describing what he saw. And what he saw was a fluid that was thinner in viscosity than blood or mucous, but not quite as thin as water. Nor was this fluid as deep a color as the red in blood. This could be another reason he described it as watery -- to indicate the degree of deepness in color. All-in-all, it is not a very good choice of words for the description, but nevertheless it conveys (I think) what was present inside her that was not normal. When he wrote it, he fully expected he would be able to explain exactly what he meant in court. (Too bad he never got the chance.)

 

[Nom de plume]

I can't answer that one, Chris. It baffles me as well. I know what "semiliquid" means, and we can look up the word to confirm that it means a substance that is somewhere between liquid and solid -- the conclusion being that it is a thick, gel-like fluid. But that lies in complete contradiction to the next two words in his sentence: "thin" and "watery". So maybe on a degree of liquidity, it was only slightly thicker than water.

I'll venture a guess as to why he wrote that -- and that's all it is. Anyone's guess is just as good as mine.

The natural fluid inside the vaginal vault being a somewhat thick mucous, if mixed with blood would still be a rather thick fluid. Both being thick, they would not mix well and (I would think) would instead be kind of streaked between the clear mucous and the opaque red blood. (Have you ever blown your nose and looked at the Kleenex to see blood streaked through the nasal mucous?) But if you add water to this, the water would dilute both so they could more easily blend together with the water and become thin and watery in comparison to their natural viscosities. I doubt Dr. Meyer thought this all out when he observed it -- he was simply describing what he saw. And what he saw was a fluid that was thinner in viscosity than blood or mucous, but not quite as thin as water. Nor was this fluid as deep a color as the red in blood. This could be another reason he described it as watery -- to indicate the degree of deepness in color. All-in-all, it is not a very good choice of words for the description, but nevertheless it conveys (I think) what was present inside her that was not normal. When he wrote it, he fully expected he would be able to explain exactly what he meant in court. (Too bad he never got the chance.)

You beat me to it OTG! I was just going to comment about what an oxymoron the description was. I think your explanation makes perfect sense, and is most likely what he was trying to say. Thanks for taking the time to explain that!

 

[Chelly]

Was a sample of that semiliquid substance analyzed in the police lab?

 

[otg]

Was a sample of that semiliquid substance analyzed in the police lab?

From the AR:

EVIDENCE: Items turned over to the Boulder Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and hair from clothing and body surfaces; ligatures; clothing, vaginal swabs and smears; rectal swabs and smears; oral swabs and smears; paper bags from hands; fingernail clippings; jewelry; paper bags from feet; white body bag; samples of head hair, eyelashes and eyebrows; swabs from right and left thighs and right cheek; red top and purple top tubes of blood.
​

 

[BOESP]

Everything was done by Patsy for Patsy.

Blue Bottle, while I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, I will say it certainly makes more sense than an Intruder did it.

 

[BOESP]

Your interpretation of the AR seems to make sense. So my question isn't meant to argue against your point, it's just that something isn't making sense to me.

What is "semiliquid" ? Something not quite fully a liquid? Something like a gel? A condensing vapor? I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I find the term strange, coming from a medical man. Is there some generally accepted medical meaning?

It's clear enough that thin red watery fluid is a liquid, but why call it a semiliquid? Is he saying it has the properties of both a fluid and a solid?

Someone else may have already answered this by now but I see it as either congealed blood mixed with whatever; or possibly some type lubricant and/or medicinal cream that could have been used.

The medical examiner couldn't possibly state positively what it was without lab analysis. He described what he saw. It is up to the lab to determine what it was. Then the ME, after reading lab reports, if called to testify, can state, for example, it was "congealed blood mixed with a liquid consistent with blah-blah-blah."

ETA: I see otg gave a terrific answer earlier. I'm lagging behind today.

 

[BOESP]

Good question. I don't recall if their records were obtained. I doubt it, physician-patient confidentiality and all. It was revealed that Patsy had panic attacks though. And her condition; Borderline Persoanlity Disorder, has symptoms that are recognized as problematic not pathological always.

BBM: This is the first I've heard Patsy had BPD. Is it speculation or a substantiated diagnosis?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Good question. I don't recall if their records were obtained. I doubt it, physician-patient confidentiality and all. It was revealed that Patsy had panic attacks though. And her condition; Borderline Persoanlity Disorder, has symptoms that are recognized as problematic not pathological always.

Where is proof of this diagnosis? I bet she had panic attacks. Having cancer will mess you up.

 

[DeeDee249]

At the time of the autopsy, JB had been dead over 30 hours. Blood gels in a corpse. That is why they don't actually bleed. The red fluid could have been "semi-liquid" for no other reason than this. However, the theories that she was washed or even douched (earlier that evening before her death because she may have soiled herself) also are plausible.
But at that early stage of decomposition you would expect to see blood that is not completely liquid.

 

[questfortrue]

snipped. . . Early on in discussions on other boards that don’t even exist anymore (BNF - Boulder News Forum, Joshua-7, JusticeWatch), any suggestion of juvenile involvement was met with a great deal of resistance -- and even ridicule. Over the years, posters who saw things that way (myself included) tended to get discouraged and simply posted less and less, or simply stopped participating. It hasn’t really been until after Kolar’s book came out that more and more people have begun to see the possibility of what hadn’t been revealed publicly until then. I still am a little cautious about what I post simply as a conditioned habit.

Perhaps this is why I’m a little more tolerant (usually) about opposing views -- as long as I feel the poster is sincere. But sometimes people who claim to be unconvinced or uncommitted reveal themselves with the phases they use. I use terms like “the Ramsey hellhole” referring to their home, or “lawyering up” for their hiring attorneys (as they are entitled to do) -- but I make no claim to impartiality -- I think the Ramseys are responsible. But when a poster claims to be impartial and then uses a phrase like “holding the body for ransom” in referring to the police wanting not to release that part of the evidence prematurely... Well, I think the language we use reveals how we really feel, regardless of what we may state.

I hope one anecdote is permitted here and offends no one. Good friend of mine happens to be a lead attorney in the local federal defender’s office. For those who don’t know the federal defender’s office are the folks who provide defense in the case of capital crimes which may carry a death penalty if convicted. I sat down for lunch with her one day a few months ago and while she doesn’t like to discuss the law (and never discusses her job) she listened to me describe my interest in the JB case, and I explained to her how the behavior clues threw me in several directions. This attorney has decades of experience. I respect her. Her investigators talk to family, forensic psychiatrists, any associates to build a good defense for the client. When I’d finished explaining, she calmly looks up from her salad and says, “the brother is involved, but the parents are responsible.” That was her succinct (and only) take on a case she had scant recollection about. moo

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I hope one anecdote is permitted here and offends no one. Good friend of mine happens to be a lead attorney in the local federal defender’s office. For those who don’t know the federal defender’s office are the folks who provide defense in the case of capital crimes which may carry a death penalty if convicted. I sat down for lunch with her one day a few months ago and while she doesn’t like to discuss the law (and never discusses her job) she listened to me describe my interest in the JB case, and I explained to her how the behavior clues threw me in several directions. This attorney has decades of experience. I respect her. Her investigators talk to family, forensic psychiatrists, any associates to build a good defense for the client. When I’d finished explaining, she calmly looks up from her salad and says, “the brother is involved, but the parents are responsible.” That was her succinct (and only) take on a case she had scant recollection about. moo

Smart lady, moo.

 

[BOESP]

When I’d finished explaining, she calmly looks up from her salad and says, “the brother is involved, but the parents are responsible.”

I think that's probably what James Kolar was saying too, imo.