Why not very much blood?

[Kaly]

Was luminol used to look for blood in the house at all?

Steve Thomas' book said they were surprised that there was not much blood around or on JonBenet's body. I saw an autopsy photo somewhere of her neck, and she had a huge, deep gash in it that the garrot covered up. Also, that head wound would have made a large quantity of blood. So where is it all?

(Forgive me if my question has been covered before; I'm new to reading about this case). Thanks.
Kaly

[RedChief]

Kaly (May I call you Kaly? I certainly hoe pso),

I'm not new to reading about the case but have been inactive as a poster for some years. Now, you know exactly who I am; I'm that poster who's been inactive for some years.

The gash you refer to isn't a gash, it's a ligature pressure groove which remained when the cord around the neck was removed. There was no blood in or around the groove because neither the skin nor the flesh was cut. There were, however, so-called petechial hemorrhages-bleeding within the tissue as a result of too much back-pressure on the veins while the arteries were pressurized by the pumping of the heart. These hemorrhages occur at the capillaries, which respond to excessive pressure by leaking. While the blood is flowing, the pressure is OK, as with any properly designed system for the conveyance of liquids. Probably, similar hemorrhaging could also occur post mortem, if the tissure were squeezed sufficiently, as with blood blisters (not technically petechiae). I doubt that the professionals would refer to such "bleeding" as either hemorrhaging or petechiae, however.

Some have questioned whether the cord was applied before or after JBR died. I think there can be little doubt that it was applied before she died, as petechial hemorrhaging on the face and the conjunctiva of the eyes requires a beating heart. Furthermore, the ME listed one of the two causes of death as asphyxiation.

It interests me that asphyxia doesn't require choking (blocking of the airway); it only requires preventing sufficient oxygen to reach the brain, as with occlusion of the arteries, usually the carotid/s, and/or occlusion of the jugular/s, either of which could prevent the requisite oxygenation (recall that the blood has to circulate). Of course, asphyxiation also occurs when breathing is unobstructed while the air contains insufficient oxygen, as when mountain climbers succumb to high altitude; in that case a more precise term, hypoxia (insufficient oxygen), is ordinarily used; or when the air contains too much of a poisonous gas or any gas which has displaced the oxygen, such as carbon dioxide or halide. Among the many ways to produce asphyxiation is one known as "Burking." Can you believe it! It entails sitting on the chest and covering the mouth, I think. I have often wondered whether JBR's trachea was occluded. There is no mention of that in the post-mortem. It's possible that it was not, as the cord was evidently not tight enough to bruise neck strap muscles or break the hyoid, injuries which often accompany strangulation. Much more tension in a ligature is required to cause choking than is required to occlude the neck vasculature. Did you know that restricting the flow of blood to the brain, as in strangulation, can produce unconsciousness in a matter of seconds (rarely death), whereas death usually does not occur for a matter of four or five minutes? It's not unusual for persons (victims) who've been strangled, to revive, because the perps leave off strangling them prematurely-they pass out and the perps think they're dead. That's why savvy "stranglers" follow up with a bang on the head for good measure or some other means of "finishing them off" such as drowning, which was the fate of the strangulation victim in "Silent Witness."

There was no bleeding from the head wound, because the scalp was not cut. I recall that at least one expert, who conducted experiments on a cadaver, believed the head injury could have been caused by a blow with a heavy flashlight. I assume LE thoroughly examined the flashlight which they took into custody for signs of such impact. Do you suppose the instrument had been wiped to remove such signs or to remove fingerprints or both? Or did a policeperson wipe both the instrument and it's batteries clean to remove his/her fingerprints, thus explaining why it was unaccounted for (missing from the property room) during a certain period of time? A baseball bat would probably also have produced such an injury. I think we can rule out any object that had sharp or semi-sharp edges or was of small diameter, such as a fireplace poker or chunk of small diameter galvanized water pipe, as such weapons would most likely have produced a laceration. I wonder if it's possible that the ME simply overlooked scalp trauma (bruising) due to the livor mortis which had set in on the right side of the head/face. I recall that he mentioned in the post-mortem that livor mortis made identification of petechiae on that side of the face difficult. I believe impact with a large-diameter object or a flat or semi-flat object, including any hard, unyielding surface such as a tile or concrete floor could have produced this injury, given sufficient impact.

In short, there was no external bleeding because there were no lacerations, and there was little internal bleeding because she didn't live long enough after the attack (or accident) for it to occur.

I once dreamed that I was dreaming...seriously. It was the darndest thing! What would be your interpretation of such a dream? I sometimes kick the wall or hit it with my fist while dreaming. Don't think THAT doesn't wake me up! Ouch! I think I should move my bed away from the wall...or quit dreaming. But dreaming is so much fun and dreams so interesting.

I once had a very strong impression, early on, that youngsters were involved in JBR's death...seriously. Does that mean I'm psychic? Time will tell.

Stop me before I dream more....

[trixie]

RedChief,
How's it going over there just across the pond?

post-mortem (UK)
autopsy (USA)

The "dreams" part of your post is just a leeeetle bit creepy. No offense.
I do still enjoy reading your posts.

[RedChief]

trixie or tricky?

Sometimes I say post-mortem just to be different. I live in the U.S., very near where I was born, within a long day's drive of Boulder, but have never been there.

Yeah, I'm hard to sleep with; just ask my cat.

In one of my recent dreams, I was in possession of a file folder with a cotton string attached to it. Also, in the same dream, I saw some unique flowering plants with blossoms consisting of multiple disparate florets; e.g., rose, lilly, geranium sharing the same stem. Most of my dreams contain fragments of what I've experienced during the waking state. After viewing Pet Sematary, I dreamed that I was walking in a field of huge boulders which were shifting under my feet and on the verge of rolling down a mountainside. It seems that the neurons conspire at night to create stories around certain sensory events which occurred during the day. There's probably nothing very symbolic about my dreams; just interesting nonsense.

Strangely, I've never dreamed about the Ramsey case, though I have wished to in order to wake up some morning knowing who did it.

Time for bed. To sleep, perchance to dream.....

[Kaly]

The gash you refer to isn't a gash, it's a ligature pressure groove which remained when the cord around the neck was removed. There was no blood in or around the groove because neither the skin nor the flesh was cut. Yes you may call me Kaly. Nice to meet you. But now I'm totally confused. I could swear that in the photo I saw the skin was cut and there was a huge gash. Darn. I can't remember where I saw that photo. Maybe I wasn't looking at one of JonBenet! This is going to drive me batty until I figure it out.

P.S. Go get a book by or about Carl Jung on dreams. You may find out that none of what comes out of your unconscious is meaningless. :-)

[trixie]

Kaly, read the autopsy report. It has answers to your questions. :)

[Kaly]

You know what, I found out I was looking at the wrong autopsy photo!! I found the correct ones last night. I sure don't know who's picture I ended up looking at. Anyway, thanks I will read the autopsy report. I'm new to reading about this case, sorry, I was just repeating what Steve said in the book.

Great answer, Red Chief!

[AuntieKaren]

The answer is simple--
The blow to the head came when she was near death or already dead from the ligature strangulation, therefore, the bloodflow was stopped or significantly slowed down when the blow was administered.
Karen

[Kaly]

It's not unusual for persons (victims) who've been strangled, to revive, because the perps leave off strangling them prematurely-they pass out and the perps think they're dead. That's why savvy "stranglers" follow up with a bang on the head for good measure or some other means of "finishing them off" such as drowning, which was the fate of the strangulation victim in "Silent Witness."(What case is "Silent Witness" about?) I agree with your statement, because of what I've read about Gary Ridgeway, the Green River killer. He usually finished the victims off some other way because he was aware that strangling wasn't enough. Sometimes he would even step on their neck. Well then, why wouldn't the Boulder cops have thought of that? I'm coming along very late in the study of this case, but it seems to me that this is a convincing argument for the intruder theory. Has it been argued to death already or not, do you know? This is the very first time I've questioned seriously that maybe Patsy didn't do it.

[RedChief]

It's about the murder of Karla Brown, which occurred in Jan of '78 in Wood River, Illinois. Another interesting aspect of this case is that the culprit, John Prante, was among the first to be interviewed by the police. It was not until four years or so later that he was arrested and charged with the murder. It seems that he mentioned in casual conversation that the victim had been bitten on the shoulder. This fact had not been made public. The body was exhumed and the bite marks found and impressions made. They matched those of John Prante. He had been partying with some friends next door to the house where she was found murdered. She and her newlywed husband were just in the process of moving in, but he was at work and she was alone. She was attractive and resisted his advances, and you can guess the rest. He strangled her with an electrical cord and, I think, cracked her skull, but neither of those measures killed her; she drowned when, after having been rendered unconscious, he stuffed her head into a bucket of water and left her in a kneeling position. What is even more amazing about this story is that it was the coroner (a lady) who performed the second autopsy (on the exhumed body), who determined that the cause of death was drowning. The first examiner (a man) ruled cause of death as strangulation. If memory serves, he hadn't even discovered the head trauma.

As for who killed JBR, I'm undecided; guess I lean a little toward some juvenile. I admit, I'm awful hard to convince.

"God knows who you are, and we will find you."

[Kaly]

Wait a second, are you guys playing with me? I just found out that the Boulder police estimated that "between 10 and 45 minutes passed between the time JonBenet sustained her head wound and the time she was strangled" (Schiller). I found this quote in a 2003 article from Crime Magazine.

[RedChief]

Last question first: not playing.

Second question second: Schiller's book is presented chronologically and is a good overview of the case as it stood at the time of publication; however, it contains some factual errors, speculation and mischaracterization. Experts couldn't agree as to which of the injuries came first and the interval of time between each. Some said blow first; some said strangled first. Even the medical examiner wasn't sure. We are still arguing about those matters to this very day. Schiller made mention of the hymenal tissue that remained, implying that some of it had been obliterated at one time or another. The medical examiner made no such comment in the autopsy report. Also, Schiller was mistaken about who went to the basement when. Yes, do consult the autopsy report. It is the uncertainty about so much of the evidence that is what is so maddening about this case. Just when you think you KNOW that this or that is the case, you find out that this or that may not be the case. There are even factual mistakes in Thomas' book. For example, he remarked that "the skull had been crushed by some enormous blow that left a well-defined rectangular pattern." According to the autopsy report, there was an "extensive area of hemorrhaging"; there was no mention of any pattern of any kind. Moreover, there was no mention of a crushed skull. The examiner described the fracture as "linear to comminuted" with a "displaced fragment." Also, both Thomas and Schiller misspelled hymenal; they spelled it thus: "hymeneal", which refers to marriage rather than to a body part. Also, Thomas said the brain had "massively hemorrhaged." Baloney! Many, if not most, experts were puzzled by the SMALL amount of bleeding that had occurred in the brain. Obviously, there must have been some pressure in the veins, and especially the arteries to drive the scalp and brain hemorrhage. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that heart continued to pump for some time after the vasculature was compromised. My view is that we need to PIN DOWN all the important facts in this case. A fact isn't a fact until it's a fact.

First question last: What was it?....oh, a whole lot of arguing has gone on, and probably a whole lot of arguing will continue; and when the case is brought to trial, if ever, a whole lot of arguing will ensue. So hang in there! You may be the one who cracks this case.

"There's somebody out there!"

Edited for SU

[BrotherMoon]

Facts; the skin on the head was not lascerated, there was no external swelling, there was bruising on the neck below the position of the cord., there was a small rectangular displacement of the skull.

Beliefs; the bleeding in the skull was small.

My conclusions; the strangulation came first, the head was covered or the object that was used was padded, the final position of the cord was not for strangulation. The final postion of the neck cord matches the purpose of the wrist cords; staging and or the posing of a body part. Most importantly, the head blow, the position of the body and the position of the cords, had meaning for the perp. The initial strangulation was functional only.

The small amount of internal bleeding and the lack of swelling indicate a lack of blood pressure when the head blow was delivered. The petechial hemorrhaging indicates blood pressure when the strangulation occured.

[RedChief]

Facts; the skin on the head was not lascerated, there was no external swelling, there was bruising on the neck below the position of the cord., there was a small rectangular displacement of the skull.

Beliefs; the bleeding in the skull was small.

My conclusions; the strangulation came first, the head was covered or the object that was used was padded, the final position of the cord was not for strangulation. The final postion of the neck cord matches the purpose of the wrist cords; staging and or the posing of a body part. Most importantly, the head blow, the position of the body and the position of the cords, had meaning for the perp. The initial strangulation was functional only.

The small amount of internal bleeding and the lack of swelling indicate a lack of blood pressure when the head blow was delivered. The petechial hemorrhaging indicates blood pressure when the strangulation occured.

The skin on the head was not lacerated: Apparently not, so no sharp-edged object was employed or involved. FACT I agree.

There was no external swelling of the head: FACT I agree.

Rectangular displacement of skull: FACT I agree.

Strangulation came first: yes, I think so too.

The head was covered or the weapon padded: I might agree with this if it weren't for the fact of the displaced fragment. It seems to me the displaced fragment suggests no padding; however, if you can explain to me how the fragmentation could have occurred with the padding, I will concede, and be delighted. Considering that the displaced fragment (DF) occurred toward the back of the skull, where the radius of curvature is smallest, it's possible that the bulk of the impact (highest perpendicular pressure) occurred elsewhere; e.g., along the crack, and the fragment was expelled outward when the skull distorted. Do you know whether the fragment was expelled outward or pushed inward? If it was pushed inward, I'm more inclined to think the impacting surface was hard and like that of a baseball bat, flashlight, banister or some such thing. It interested me to read, in Patsy's deposition of 98', that when Haney posed the question regarding the possibility that the child might have been pushed down the stairs (the accident theory), she answered, "I.......don't know." As an aside, as much or more damage can be done to the brain (more extensive) with a padded device and/or with a padded head (folded towel) as can be done in the absence of padding, because with no padding, some of the energy of the blow is expended in tissue damage and bone fracture. In short, a person can succumb to brain damage without any visible sign of scalp damage or fracture. In JonBenet's case, the brain directly underneath the fracture was bruised along the entire length of the fracture and we know that arteries were torn, because she hemorrhaged subdurally and subarachnoidally. We also know that some scalp arteries were torn, apparently along the fracture, because an "extensive area of hemorrhaging", which bordered the fracture, was noted.

The final position of the cord was not for strangulation: I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean by this. What was the position of the cord prior to it's final position? I note that there are abrasions on the front and sides of the neck that aren't explained by the cord in it's final position.

The purpose of neck cord matches the purpose of wrist cord: What was the purpose of the wrist cord? Symbolic bondage? If so, why wasn't the neck cord also symbolic? If it had been, no strangulation would have occurred, right? Or are you suggesting that stunning, binding (sort of), strangling and clubbing satisfy a deep psychological need for this perp? That's interesting.

The initial strangulation was functional only: yes, to render her unconscious, but what is the evidence for this initial strangulation?

Small amount of bleeding: What about the extensive area of hemorrhaging in/of the scalp? I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

Lack of swelling of the brain: I'm inclined to agree with you on this also. Some swelling is usually seen with strangulation. Some have speculated that the swelling in JBR's brain-apparently minimal-indicated that she had been alive some minutes (10-40) prior to death. That lended credence to the blow-first theory.

Bruising on the neck below the position of the cord: This was described as abrasion, I think.

Thanks, BrotherMoon!

"We need the one phone call to this number..."

[Kaly]

Well then if strangulation happened first, then it couldn't have hardly been an accident. I was really hoping that the 2003 Crime Magazine article, Solving the Jon Benet Case by Ryan Ross was true. The solution of an accident/coverup is so much less anxiety-producing than to to think she was purposely murdered.

P.S. I did find an autopsy report online but it was impossible to read. I think it was at acandyrose.com. I'm sure there must be one elsewhere. I don't know if I can stomach it or not though.

[BlueCrab]

Well then if strangulation happened first, then it couldn't have hardly been an accident.


Kalypso,

The strangulation COULD have been an accident. That device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was not designed as a garrote. It ended up being used as a garrote, but IMO it was designed for erotic asphyxiation.

Garrotes are simple killing devices that usually consist of a piece of wire or rope about 36" long that has two handles, one at each end. The intent is for the killer to sneak up behind the victim, throw the garrote over the victims head, cross the hands, and strangle the struggling victim by pulling like hell on the handles.

The device on JonBenet had only one handle, and it had an adjustable ligature on the opposite end. It's a classic design for employing erotic asphyxiation, a dangerous masturbation breath control game. The FBI estimates up to 1,000 people die accidentally each year in the U.S. while using erotic asphyxiation (using a partner to control the ligature while masturbating the subject) and autoerotic asphyxiation (controlling the ligature and masturbating by oneself).

Hands bound together and tied over the head is another clue as to its being an EA device. The hands are tied to prevent the subject, whose body will spontaneously try to save itself as the air supply is cut off, from involuntarily loosening the ligature at the wrong time, thus ruining the enhanced orgasm.

Even John Ramsey has admitted that EA was likey used on JonBenet. In describing the perp, John said, "He is a pedophile with a preference for little girls. He is a sociopath experienced with autoerotic asphyxiation, the use of garrotes to enhance sex".

So what could have started out as a sex game, could have ended up as an accidental death by strangulation.

BlueCrab

[Kaly]

Well I thought it looked awful complicated for a normal person to know how to create. I wondered how Pasty would know how to tie something like that. Which book(s) put forth your theory? I'm sure I can find a thread here on it, too.

Also, I cannot find an answer to my question anywhere as to if the cops used Luminol (sp?) and found any blood anywhere. (I am stuck on that because I watch CSI twice a day). I just read Steve Thomas' book, and now I'm reading DOI.

Thanks.

[RedChief]

Kaly,

I concur with BlueCrab that the apparatus wasn't technically a garotte. It was a noose with a stick tied to the free end. Now, here's a question: Was it the sort of noose that would require that it's free end be held taut until it's purpose was served-whether for AES or to kill or incapcitate the person around whose neck it was installed, or was it the sort of noose that, once tightened, would remain tight once the free end was released? The answer to that would be in the knot.

Here is what has always bothered me about the snuff sex theory: I believe snuff sex requires two consenting participants. One of them has the cord around his neck and the other tightens and loosens the cord. They agree upon a prearranged signal which is used by the snuffee to tell the snuffer to back off (release the tension in the cord). Now, supposedly both participants get some sort of psycho-sexual thrill out of this-the snuffer's thrill may be mostly (but not necessarily only) psychological, whereas the snuffee's thrill may be mostly (but not necessarily only) sexual-he'll experience a heightened climax, if he doesn't die first, but what could be more thrilling than that!

There's a famous case of a married guy who got his thrills by engaging in this sort of activity with homosexual males; he played the role of the snuffer. It is not clear whether the many men he killed in this manner were killed intentionally. He eventually committed suicide, presumably to avoid prosecution. He'd bury the victims in his own back yard unbeknownst to his wife and kids. For some people, killing is thrilling.

If you believe that JBR was accidentally killed during such sex play, you must think that, as a consenting child, she was enjoying it-being masturbated (a little rough, don't you think?) and being brought to the brink of death by having her neck constricted; perhaps she forgot the signal, or passed out before she could communicate it, or her partner ignored it? Who was getting the thrill, JBR or the snuffer? I can't imagine that JBR was a consenting participant; so, where does that leave us? How did the snuffer manage to install the noose around the little girl's neck while she was alive, kicking and objecting strenuously? Oh, I forgot; he first incapacitated her with a stun gun. Then he ROUGHLY installed the breath control device including the stick handle, and the wrist ligature, but he forgot that the hands must be bound BEHIND the snuffee. Then he waited until she regained consciousness, because snuff sex with an unconscious partner is no fun; besides, in an unconscious state she couldn't give him the signal. Then he proceeded to tighten the noose. He had to act quickly because she was beginning to squirm and show signs of reluctance. When her eyes popped out, he figured he'd ought to slack off, but it was too late-she never came to. This was none too thrilling for him either. He then whacked her over the head, tenderly wrapped her body in the white blanket, wrote and deposited the ransom note, and high-tailed it out of there.

Of what need is enhanced orgasm to a little 6-year-old girl? For that matter, of what need is unenhanced orgasm? I think it's safe to say that we can rule out asphyxiophilia gone sour as the cause of death.

Naturally, John Ramsey would light upon snuff sex involving a perverted, pedophilic kidnapper as the answer.

Act 2: Enter the sexual sadist...

Edited just for the fun of it.

[BlueCrab]

Well I thought it looked awful complicated for a normal person to know how to create. I wondered how Pasty would know how to tie something like that. Which book(s) put forth your theory? I'm sure I can find a thread here on it, too.

Also, I cannot find an answer to my question anywhere as to if the cops used Luminol (sp?) and found any blood anywhere. (I am stuck on that because I watch CSI twice a day). I just read Steve Thomas' book, and now I'm reading DOI.

Thanks.


Kalypso,

The only book I know of that suggested erotic asphyxiation was used on JonBenet is Cyril Wecht's "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?"

In regard to the use of luminol, the JonBenet murder was a near bloodless crime, so luminol probably wasn't needed. A black light was used on the body and uncovered some blood on the thighs that had been wiped off by the perp. The only bleeding was from the vagina, and that was very little and was trapped in the underwear.

BlueCrab

[Kaly]

Kaly,

I concur with BlueCrab that the apparatus wasn't technically a garotte. It was a noose with a stick tied to the free end. Now, here's a question: Was it the sort of noose that would require that it's free end be held taut until it's purpose was served-whether for AES or to kill or incapacitate the person around whose neck it was installed, or was it the sort of noose that, once tightened, would remain tight once the free end was released? The answer to that would be in the knot.
I am wondering if any expert that knows a lot about AES has examined the whole noose or whatever? Why didn't Steve Thomas note that theory in his book? Did it come along afterward? Of course all this assumes the intruder theory to be correct and it ignores all the fiber evidence and the ransom note.

I've always thought that if it were an intruder, it would be some pedophile who attended the pageants and targeted JB. They couldn't run checks on every audience member and what a bounty for a pedophile that would be.

[Kaly]

The only book I know of that suggested erotic asphyxiation was used on JonBenet is Cyril Wecht's "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?"
Thanks, Blue Crab. Unsolved cases really get to me, as I had a pretty young cousin who has been missing out of her apartment for twenty years and I don't think that the cops got right on it like they should have. At least that is what I hear. They suspect foul play but now nothing could re-open that cold case except finding the bones, probably.

[RedChief]

Kalyopsis:

Why ST didn't note that theory in his book: For the simple reason that he was obssessed with the idea that the killing was an inside job from the very beginning?

Did it come along afterward?: It's not a new theory, by any means. Wecht, for one, expressed it right off the bat.

Did AES expert examine noose?: There was a fellow from Canada who came down and examined the knot; he was not an AES expert to my knowledge, but he was a knot expert. I'm not aware that his finding was ever made public. The F.B.I. examined the evidence and offered their opinion. I don't believe they championed the AES theory.

Assumes intruder theory to be correct: Not necessarily; I think Wecht's sex-play theory embraced the father.

Ignores fiber evidence and ransom note: Fiber evidence, maybe; ransom note, no. The most authoritative intruder theory, that of Lou Smit, has the intruder/kidnapper/pedophile writing the ransom note. The main troubles with that theory are that there was no glaring evidence of an intruder, and kidnappers don't usually grab kids for both sex and ransom money, not to mention leave their collateral behind.

Your guess is as good as anyones.

At the risk of inviting criticism, I advise you to read the Douglas book, Cases That Haunt Us. It contains a section about the Ramsey case. He makes some interesting observations.

Back to Steve Thomas: he says, in his book, that the tape was applied over blood that came from the mouth; yet the coroner said of the stuff which had come from her mouth that it didn't appear to be hemorrhagic, i.e. blood. Maybe Thomas meant to say that the tape had been applied over the stuff that had come from her mouth; assumed it was blood. He also said that the tape must have been applied after she'd died or while she was unconscious and approaching death, because there was no evidence that she had tried to reject it with her mouth or tongue-"there was a perfect lip impression." It would be one thing to be certain that the tape had been applied over the stuff that had come from her mouth, and another thing to be certain that it had been applied after her death. If the latter, then that would leave two possibilities: (1.) staging or (2.) some psychological need of the perp. Incidentally, Patsy said, that in her opinion, it was not duct tape; it wasn't sticky enough. BTW, duct tape can be rejected by movements of the mouth and pressure applied to it by the tongue. Except that it is readily available in the stores, it has little to recommend it. Surgical tape would be much better suited to the purpose. Don't try this at home.

pedophile: I don't know. Are pedophiles attracted to little girls who look like adults? Do you know one that we could ask?

"I can assure you that there is no killer roaming the streets of Boulder looking for little girls."

[Catfish]

The main troubles with (the intruder) theory are that there was no glaring evidence of an intruder, and kidnappers don't usually grab kids for both sex and ransom money, not to mention leave their collateral behind.
RedChief,

I am very impressed with your knowledge of the case material and command of the facts available in JonBenet's death. You list persuasive reasons, in this post and in the "SBTC" thread, that an intruder did not kill JonBenet.

You also have eliminated John being involvled in JonBenet's death and the staging -
Here is a guy who is admitting to LE, at least implicitly, that it looks like an inside job, as well as admitting to LE explicitly that he didn't think anyone had entered the house that night via any window in the basement. Furthermore, he told LE that he was pretty sure that all the many doors had been locked. Do you get the impression, from the foregoing, that John killed JBR or that John participated in a cover-up? If so, pray tell, how??????

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18003&page=2&pp=25 (Post #38)
If you've already posted what you believe happen that night, I apologize that I've missed it. If you have not posted your theory, how do you believe JonBenet died?

[Miss Daisey]

Kaly,

I concur with BlueCrab that the apparatus wasn't technically a garotte. It was a noose with a stick tied to the free end. Now, here's a question: Was it the sort of noose that would require that it's free end be held taut until it's purpose was served-whether for AES or to kill or incapcitate the person around whose neck it was installed, or was it the sort of noose that, once tightened, would remain tight once the free end was released? The answer to that would be in the knot.

Here is what has always bothered me about the snuff sex theory: I believe snuff sex requires two consenting participants. One of them has the cord around his neck and the other tightens and loosens the cord. They agree upon a prearranged signal which is used by the snuffee to tell the snuffer to back off (release the tension in the cord). Now, supposedly both participants get some sort of psycho-sexual thrill out of this-the snuffer's thrill may be mostly (but not necessarily only) psychological, whereas the snuffee's thrill may be mostly (but not necessarily only) sexual-he'll experience a heightened climax, if he doesn't die first, but what could be more thrilling than that!

There's a famous case of a married guy who got his thrills by engaging in this sort of activity with homosexual males; he played the role of the snuffer. It is not clear whether the many men he killed in this manner were killed intentionally. He eventually committed suicide, presumably to avoid prosecution. He'd bury the victims in his own back yard unbeknownst to his wife and kids. For some people, killing is thrilling.

If you believe that JBR was accidentally killed during such sex play, you must think that, as a consenting child, she was enjoying it-being masturbated (a little rough, don't you think?) and being brought to the brink of death by having her neck constricted; perhaps she forgot the signal, or passed out before she could communicate it, or her partner ignored it? Who was getting the thrill, JBR or the snuffer? I can't imagine that JBR was a consenting participant; so, where does that leave us? How did the snuffer manage to install the noose around the little girl's neck while she was alive, kicking and objecting strenuously? Oh, I forgot; he first incapacitated her with a stun gun. Then he ROUGHLY installed the breath control device including the stick handle, and the wrist ligature, but he forgot that the hands must be bound BEHIND the snuffee. Then he waited until she regained consciousness, because snuff sex with an unconscious partner is no fun; besides, in an unconscious state she couldn't give him the signal. Then he proceeded to tighten the noose. He had to act quickly because she was beginning to squirm and show signs of reluctance. When her eyes popped out, he figured he'd ought to slack off, but it was too late-she never came to. This was none too thrilling for him either. He then whacked her over the head, tenderly wrapped her body in the white blanket, wrote and deposited the ransom note, and high-tailed it out of there.

Of what need is enhanced orgasm to a little 6-year-old girl? For that matter, of what need is unenhanced orgasm? I think it's safe to say that we can rule out asphyxiophilia gone sour as the cause of death.

Naturally, John Ramsey would light upon snuff sex involving a perverted, pedophilic kidnapper as the answer.

Act 2: Enter the sexual sadist...

Edited just for the fun of it.
RedChief, this post reads like a "user manual" AES. Far too graphic for editing "just for the fun of it"

IMO

[BlueCrab]

The most authoritative intruder theory, that of Lou Smit, has the intruder/kidnapper/pedophile writing the ransom note. The main troubles with that theory are that there was no glaring evidence of an intruder, and kidnappers don't usually grab kids for both sex and ransom money, not to mention leave their collateral behind.

RedChief,

I too am impressed with your knowledge of the case and your reasoning with respect to the evidence.

IMO you are correct in regard to the note not being written by an intruder.

No one would be able to break into the occupied house, somehow get JonBenet to willingly go downstairs to snack on pineapple with him (while he drinks a glass of iced tea), then sexually assaults her, then kills her, then cleans her up and redresses her in clean underwear (size 12-14), then stays in the house for at least another hour to write a three-page ransom note, and then escapes without leaving any evidence of his having been there.

So common sense tells us that three people are left in the house who could have been involved in the killing, in the staging, and in the writing of the ransom note -- John, or Patsy, or Burke.

The six qualified document examiners, appointed by the CBI to examine 73 possible writers of the ransom note, eliminated John as the writer and came very close to eliminating Patsy as the writer. However, the QDE's could not eliminate Burke as the writer.

The information about Burke not being eliminated as the writer of the RN has been kept out of the media, except for early in the case. For instance, an article in the Daily Camera on 11/22/97 stated:

"Handwriting analyses conducted prior to the March search revealed John Ramsey did not write the ransom note, that it was "probable" Burke did not write the note,and possible that Patsy wrote it, according to documents released Friday."

The documents the article is referring to is the police warrant to search the Ramsey's Charlevoix house in Michigan.

Since then we know for sure that John was eliminated as the writer and Patsy was very close to being eliminated and (contrary to what Steve Thomas was falsely spreading around) a bunch of the 73 who were tested by the CBI could also not be eliminated -- including Burke.

IMO, based on the simple process of elimination, Burke likely wrote the childish-sounding ransom note.

BlueCrab

[Camper]

As Mrs. Doubtfire would say.

Hmmm, long time no see Blue Crab.

Yes, the self use of an erotic device crossed my mind over the past years, and in dicussing on Yahoo chat with MJenn, we collectively wondered if the handle was long enough to throw over a plumbing pipe in the basement, to accomodate a lone individual using it by themselves.

The best detective thingie that could have happened on the morning of December 26th would have been for the FIRST detective on scene to have THOROUGHLY SEARCHED THE HOUSE, and to have found the body and upon finding it, called for a blood hound and an experienced handler.

The Christmas holiday caught the BPD with their alertness down.

I would have suspected that the scent of the original adult ?, user of that device might have been found sniffed out in the Ramsey house IF IF they were still there. IF they were gone, why didn't they take their pet rope with em, cuz how did they know they would ever find such a great handle again as PR's personal paint brush handle was, hmmm.?

I do think the person who broke the paint handle was scooted outta Dodge Christmas night in a self owned plane. I also wonder if the BPD found a brush of the same size and brand, and practiced breaking one? Our very own store sold high quality art supplies and BRUSHES, and a brush of that size would take a GARGANTUAN amount of strength to break. Was there a vice in the basement, anyone know?

I need some help on this, did WE ever know if the break on the brush handle was a fresh break?

The BPD did call in a Canadian Mountie expert on knot tying, whom I would have thought should have been well schooled on detecting scents found on such rope.

Lest we forget, JR Jr's semen stained blankie in the obscure suitcase, was found in the basement.



.

[BlueCrab]

[QUOTE=Camper]

Yes, the self use of an erotic device crossed my mind over the past years, and in dicussing on Yahoo chat with MJenn, we collectively wondered if the handle was long enough to throw over a plumbing pipe in the basement, to accomodate a lone individual using it by themselves.[QUOTE]



Camper,

There's a possibility that, before being "cut down" (John Walsh), JonBenet had been grotesquely posed.

The 1/4 " white nylon cord was in two sections when JonBenet was carried from the basement. But at one time it could have been a single length of cord extending from the stick on one end, to the ligature around the wrists, and back down to the ligature around the neck.

If this was the case, I'd guess that JonBenet was posed with her sitting on the floor leaning against the back of a chair. The cord at the wrists would have been draped over the back of the chair keeping the body in the sitting position, with legs apart, arms over her head, and the head bent to the right to make room for the cord between the neck and the back of the chair.

In this theory John would have found her early in the morning and cut her down, as John Walsh stated. The cut created two separate pieces of cord.

BlueCrab

[RedChief]

Miss Daisy,

Pleased to meet you!

I beg to differ. AES stands for auto-erotic stimulation. My comments were in regard to "snuff sex."

Far too graphic? Well, if John Ramsey can talk about it, we can talk about it. We'll never get to the bottom of this matter by skirting certain aspects because they are gruesome or disgusting or hard to talk about; besides, the answer to the question, who did it?, could very well be in the gruesome details.

Take the strangulation, for example; how much time was involved in that? How long did the perp have to maintain tension in the noose? Did he just tighten it and walk away, or did he have to stay there, pulling on the cord, until she was dead? My guess is the former, but it is only a guess. These are important questions because the answers to them may shed light on the perp's motives, intentions and personality. Furthermore, the answers to questions such as these-one must pose them first-could assist in ruling out some of the suspects. We can't know ahead of time where this will all lead, but we can hope it will lead us to the killer.

In short, the more we can know about this case in every minute detail, the more likely we are to know who was involved in the child's death. Either we're going to study it, investigate it and talk about it, or we're not. Which is it?

Thanks for your comment.

PS: I love to edit; it's my job.

[RedChief]

Catfish,

Pleased to meet you.

I feel a special kinship with you; I subsisted one summer many moons ago almost entirely on catfish and fresh vegetables from my garden. Walking to and fro between my house and the river enabled me to get into pretty good physical shape also-good diet, good exercise.

I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that I haven't posted a theory on the website as to how she died; nor am I able to tell you at this moment with certainty. That's largely why I'm here at this website-to find out.

I'm leaning a little toward the "inside job" hypothesis these days. I'm pretty sure John wasn't involved, so whom does that leave? But, honestly, when I read books like Cases That Haunt Us and listen to Lou Smit and watch 48 Hours-Mystery, they do give me pause.

There was a time when I was pretty sure it wasn't a Ramsey-I'd have bet you money on it-but after studying the case for some time, I began to consider their involvement a possibility; then, I became almost convinced that Patsy did it-I could have written Thomas' book, his thinking and ideas were so similar to mine. Frankly, the Grand Jury's decision not to indict was a big letdown, and I felt a little ashamed for suspecting the Ramseys. Also, I was a little disappointed with the Thomas book (the factual errors, mischaracterizations, etc.) and with myself for advancing the same theory. But, after carefully considering all the additional evidence and discussion that is available to me these days via the internet, not to mention this website-quite a lot more information than I could access in the early days-I'm finding the accident theory somewhat more attractive-mother and son; God help me! You know there is just something about "the boy did it and the mom is protecting him" that I find worth considering. What puzzles me most about that scenario, though, is the severity of the head injury. If you can demonstrate that it was accidental and fits with the strangulation, you've got the cat in the bag. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the other way around. I keep thinking that Christmas figures into this somehow. Did JonBenet lay waste to one of Burke's toys? She was known to be a little ornery that way. Did that set him off? Did Patsy get a stun gun for Christmas? BTW, who was the strolling Santa in the Mall that year? It wasn't McReynolds. Whose lap did JonBenet sit in that year and go down her list of wished-for presents that year? Who filmed her performance in the Christmas pageant (was that also in the Mall?) that year-the one which won her the Santa Bear? And, there was those hours they were away at the White's. You see, even at this late date, I have all these questions. When it becomes known that a little girl who was murdered on Christmas day confided to a friend's mother that Santa was going to visit her after Christmas and it was a SECRET, that has to be thoroughly investigated, doesn't it?

I reserve the right to change my mind without prior notice.

[Miss Daisey]

Miss Daisy,

Pleased to meet you!

I beg to differ. AES stands for auto-erotic stimulation. My comments were in regard to "snuff sex."

Far too graphic? Well, if John Ramsey can talk about it, we can talk about it. We'll never get to the bottom of this matter by skirting certain aspects because they are gruesome or disgusting or hard to talk about; besides, the answer to the question, who did it?, could very well be in the gruesome details.

Take the strangulation, for example; how much time was involved in that? How long did the perp have to maintain tension in the noose? Did he just tighten it and walk away, or did he have to stay there, pulling on the cord, until she was dead? My guess is the former, but it is only a guess. These are important questions because the answers to them may shed light on the perp's motives, intentions and personality. Furthermore, the answers to questions such as these-one must pose them first-could assist in ruling out some of the suspects. We can't know ahead of time where this will all lead, but we can hope it will lead us to the killer.

In short, the more we can know about this case in every minute detail, the more likely we are to know who was involved in the child's death. Either we're going to study it, investigate it and talk about it, or we're not. Which is it?

Thanks for your comment.

PS: I love to edit; it's my job.Beg pardon, Redchief. I missed your title of "snuff sex" ("user manual"). It's just that it's so discriptive and gone over so many times....it's just a bit creepy and.........

Welcome to the WS.......and carry on.

[RedChief]

Greetings, BlueCrab,

Don't be fooled-I really don't know very much. What I lack in knowledge, I make up for in analysis.

Hasn't the fundamental problem with this case always been that the evidence in it's entirety doesn't fit perfectly with any of the plausible scenarios?

Does anyone honestly believe that Patsy clobbered the child, then made a hasty decision to finish her off with a noose and stage a cover-up? I can't see her doing this unless went she off the deep end and became totally wacko. According to the experts she'd have had no more than 40 minutes from the time of the head injury to the time of the asphyxiation; plus she'd have had to deliberately injure the child's vagina which no mother is apt to do no matter how desperate the circumstance. Plus she'd have had to do all this without her husband's and Burke's knowledge; no small feat.

If it is a fact that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket, then it's reasonable to conclude that the mom or the dad were involved at some point and to some degree. Since it doesn't appear that John was involved (if he was, he's too clever by half), which parent does that leave? It's hard to imagine that a stranger/intruder would show this much tenderness; however, it's remotely possible that, though a stranger to us, and perhaps even to the parents, an intruder known only to JBR was involved-someone who cared for the girl, even loved her, in his own sick way. I've read that when some of these weirdos are spurned by the object of their affection, they react violently. Perhaps you psych experts could weigh in on this one (probably already have).

I don't think Burke composed the note; though it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that he could have penned it. He may also have been consulted. Douglas (in TCTHU) said that to him it appeared to have been written by a younger person, perhaps a teenager, who had viewed a lot of techno-thriller movies (I paraphrase). He said it appeared to him that the writer was uncertain and insecure and that this uncertainty and insecurity could account for the lengthy note with it's many dire admonitions. He pointed in particular to the phrase, "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction." He said he could imagine a young person repeating something he had heard in a movie, like "we represent a foreign faction." He also pointed out that the youth and inexperience of the perpetrator could account for his failure to remove his captive from the house. Further, youngsters are more apt to bluff than are adults. I have no idea what Burke's IQ was at the time, nor how well he could write, nor whether he could put two words together to form a sentence, let alone compose a little masterpiece. I have a faint recollection that someone once said that he was precocious. I have always thought, like Foster, that the quality of the writing was above average even for an ordinary adult and showed signs of intelligence and cleverness.

The intruder: how did he get in? What Smit saw, from viewing photos, as evidence of someone having entered through the broken basement window, I can see as evidence that the window had been open for some time-days, months-and the ledge swept clear of the sort of debris that had piled up in the corners and in front of the other two adjacent windows. What Lou Smit saw as evidence of entry through that window-the leaves and debris on the floor under it-I can see as evidence that when a window is left open, crap like that can be swept inside by wind currents. What Lou Smit sees as evidence of someone moving around in the basement that night by virtue of the plastic packing peanut found in the wine cellar, I can see as evidence that at some point prior to the night of the murder, an occupant of the house-not to mention others whose presence from time to time was authorized-tracked the peanut into the cellar during the normal course of human events. And so on and so on.

Do you really think someone who entered the house with the intention of kidnapping JonBenet, and leaving a ransom note, would fail to bring one with him? He remembered the cord, and the duct tape, and the stun gun, but he forgot to bring a note; so, he composed one on the scene? Balderdash! Well, don't forget that the Chicago Lipstick Murderer composed a ransom note on the scene in a spur-of-the-moment kidnapping maneuver during a burglary of the child's apartment while mom and dad were present in the house. He snatched the sleeping child (JonBenet's age, I think) out of her bed and removed her through a window and down a ladder. BTW, she didn't cry out and he hadn't gagged her nor taped her mouth. However, he wrote a proper note: have your kid, want x amount of money, don't notify the police.

I think no one intended to kill this child. But I could be wrong. Perish the thought!

[cappuccina]

there was not much blood as the major injury to JBR while traumatic and fatal was more of a "closed head injury" type of thing, and so the blood did not seep out the way it would have if someone were shot, for example...The hematoma she had would not bleed the same way as a gunshot wound...

The other injuries she had were more abrasions than anything else, and, again, would not produce huge amounts of blood..

Yes, I do see PR striking out at her daughter in a fit of rage, and then staging this cover-up.I do not beleive that the initial blow was premeditated, but was the culmination of a terrible set of circumstances..My guess is that this child was verbally and physically abulsed before this, however...The cover-up was clearly done by someone who was related to this child and had a lot of feelings for her. The entire crime/crime scene contains almost all of the elements LE looks for when a doemstic homicide with "staging" occurs, that is, when a family member is killed by another, and then an attempt is made either to cover up the crime, or to divert the blame onto a "stranger"...

All of this is just my opinion, of course..

[sissi]

Everyone always brings up the "fact" that no scenario is complete. The missing piece to the puzzle..the fitting square pegs into lalala...
As much as I don't quite believe this, I am going to say it again, the LHP family scenario fits in every way, adds all of the needed "pieces" yet we don't believe it. Why should we ever believe any scenario?
She had a key
her hubby and other family members had been in that room at Thanksgiving
she was distraught over money
a check was to be left on the counter for her
she is the one that hid the knife
she showed paper pads and pens taken from the Ramseys to the cops
she cleaned there, knew the amount shown on the stubs
"BEST" on the 26th when police arrived Mervin said (in a drunken state) "did they strangle her"
Just what doesn't fit here??

[Nehemiah]

I agree with you. If that family were involved in any way, I tend to lean toward the older kids. Some of them had helped with the Christmas decorating and had been all thru the house. But then I go back to the DNA, and if the RST say the DNA belongs to the killer, then I have to believe that it was checked against the Pughs'. So...that should eliminate them, by RST standards. That leads me right back to an accident and cover-up.

[Miss Daisey]

IMO, the "pieces" (evidence) at the crime scene were deliberatly scrambled to confuse the circumstances of the death of JBR. That's why we "sleuths" keep scratching our heads.:waitasec: All the pieces don't fit by design.

The evidence, developed by the grand jury, for an indictment is sealed by the court with a gag order firmly in place.

IMO, the only chance for prosecution would be brought by the US Justice Dept. as a civil rights case as in the Rodney King case in CA...where, you'll recall, the defendants were aquitted in the criminal trial but found guilty of violation of his civil rights. Some of the defendants went to federal prison.

Even if there was an indictment in federal court, there's a good chance there wouldn't be a successful prosecution because the crime scene and evidence were so trampled...contaminated....too many people were allowed into the house between 6:00am and 1:30-2:00pm on Dec 26th...and possibly on days following when family members were allowed inside to remove personal belongings.

_______________
IMO

[sissi]

Nehemiah, yes, "but", if we are using that dna to solve the crime then we must eliminate any possibility of a Ramsey ,as well?!
I don't recall the number of children LHP had, it rings a bell something like six or so? Would we be correct in expecting the BPD to have checked each ,along with their spouses..dates..friends? Arianna was swabbed TWO years after the murder, is this a bit telling of how the BPD handled that family?

BrotherMoon..belated Happy VD day to you too:-)

[BrotherMoon]

BrotherMoon..belated Happy VD day to you too:-)

I'm glad you aren't hypersensitive and insecure like some some posters here.

[RedChief]

"Everyone always brings up the "fact" that no scenario is complete."

sissi: My guess is that your comment alludes to my remark about the evidence not perfectly fitting the proposed scenarios. Since you have enclosed the word, fact, in quotes, I take it that you mean SUPPOSED facts. I didn't say that it was a fact that no scenario was complete. In fact, I posed the remark as a question. Even if I had asked, isn't it a fact that no scenario explains all the evidence, that would not be the same as declaring it a fact. That would be asking whether it was a fact or not. I am a stickler for the facts. People often say that this or that is a fact, when this or that is NOT a fact. I am keenly aware of that.

Regarding the Pughs: Yes, I have often thought they should be considered prime suspects; in fact, LE DID consider them prime suspects at first, but after interviewing them, analyzing their handwriting, checking their alibis, collecting DNA and hair samples, etc., put them on a back burner, where they have remained, insofar as I know, for lo these many years. Have they been cleared by DNA?

Now, here are some things I just thought of, and they're questions: Do you consider it a fact that the note was written on sheets of paper (pages) torn (or otherwise removed) from the infamous notepad which John Ramsey reportedly gave to the detective when samples of the Ramseys' handwriting were requested? Do you consider it a fact that the note was written by the perpetrator that night while he was in the house, either before or after the crime was comitted? Do you consider it a fact that there was evidence of a "practice" note? What are the facts, as you see them, regarding the pen, the pad and the note?

Now, here is an observation regarding what we may suppose are facts: That the note was written on paper which had at one time been a component of the notebook, assuming you consider that a fact, does not demand that the note was written in the house that night, nor does it demand that it was written by the person who killed the girl. What it does demand is that the note was written by a person (or a trained monkey) who had access to the notepad, and what it allows is that the paper may have been removed from the pad AND the house by some person who had access to the pad at some time prior to when the note was "found." The evidence seems to suggest, though, that when the note was written, the paper it was written on, at least the last page, page 25 of the pad (not the note), was attached to (a component of) the pad (there was bleedthrough to page 26) , implying that someone had flipped open the pad and written the note. It can't be known whether, at the time the note was written, assuming that the foregoing is correct, the pad or the paper (initially a component thereof) was in the house or someone had removed it from the house in order to write the note, or for some other initial purpose. But, the fact, if you consider it so, that the sharpie which was used to write it was found in the penholder in the house, seems to suggest that the writing occurred in the house. However, it is possible that the pen, also, at some point, had been removed from the house by either the perpetrator or someone associated with the perpetrator who did the actual writing, then returned it to the house. It would be helpful to know when Patsy last wrote in the pad, as that might indicate that the note was written after that, but we couldn't be certain even of that, because it is possible to go into the "middle" of a pad and remove blank pages, without anyone who uses the pad, afterward, knowing that it has been done, providing doing so doesn't leave a noticeable gap in the tablet as a whole. I'm not aware that any of the Pugh's fingerprints were found on the note or the pad. Also, didn't they fail the handwriting analysis? Do you suspect a conspiracy involving one or more Pughs and one or more non-Pughs?

What is the upshot of all this? Well, of course, LHP and company or perhaps just company, could have been involved in this crime. She had unlimited access to everything in the house that wasn't placed under lock and key or hidden away where even God couldn't find it. She admitted to having borrowed stuff from Patsy-including notepads. She could have known about the $118,000 bonus. She had remarked that JonBenet might be kidnapped ("Aren't you afraid...") so the thought had crossed her mind. She and her family weren't well to do. Her husband was a souse and not working. They were behind in their rent. But do you think she'd have admitted this to Patsy and then asked for an advance on her salary, then turned around and grabbed the girl?? That's hard to believe. But what about the company? Family members, including the husband, had been in the house, even the wine cellar, on more than one occasion; had even been asked to clean windows, so could easily have known about the broken and unlocked window in the train room. She had a key, could have used it or left a door ajar. Lots of possibilities. Well how DO you fit all this together? Give us a scenario, carefully explain it and leave out no details, that involves LHP and company or just company. Please! Why did they strangle her, abuse her and bash her head in and leave her behind in the cellar? Objection! Misstates the evidence.

Does anyone know whether any of the stuff (cord, tape, etc.) turned over by the Pughes matched any of the stuff found at the crime scene? I can't imagine that LE didn't scrutinize it carefully. Did LHP ever write a book? If not, why not? If so, what's the title?

Haven't I cautioned that we need to PIN DOWN the facts?

Thanks, sissi! Inquiring minds want to know.

Yours truly, George Johnson

[RedChief]

Camper,

My understanding is that at least one of the breaks was fresh; they found splinters near the paint tray/tote/tree where what remained of the brush had been deposited. I've often wondered whether both breaks were fresh; but, why bother to break the brush? I've asked this question before on more than one occasion. If the perp just needed something he could use as a grip, wouldn't the entire brush have fit the bill? I have always thought that this twice-broken brush is suggestive of staging. Guess the brush was made in Korea, huh?

The devil is in the details and his DNA is in her underwear.

[UKGuy]

Staging of the crime scene is a specific type of precautionary act that is done to deflect suspicion away from the offender

Staging often involves the addition of, removal of, and manipulation of objects in the crime scene to change the apparent "motive" of the crime (Turvey 1999).

JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal.

The paintbrush handle was likely added to the staging. It needed to be broken to satisfy the twisting motion that would secure it to her neck as evidenced by strands of her hair caught up in the knotting, also to break it on two sides requires a lot of strength. Try it yourself one side is easy, the thicker side not so.

So you may ask why? Re-dressing can be excused on grounds of modesty, but creating and adding what can be interpreted as an AEA device is another matter.

I would suggest this was done deliberately to add the idea of a signature to JonBenet's staging. This was done by someone who had done some background reading in this area and had a good understanding of the required elements.

Attaching the paintbrush suggests its the tool of a sexual sadist!

There is evidence that JonBenet's body was relocated at least twice and possibly three times. She was similarly redressed at least twice.

So it appears she was asphyxiated, then possibly regained conciousness, only to be bludgeoned to death by a blow to her head. Applying Occams Razor, removes the AEA explanation since it requires evidence and accomplices external to the published evidence. That leaves any one of an Intruder, John, Patsy or Burke available as prime suspects.

To view JonBenets murder as a Staged Homicide and not a Sexual Homicide helps to eliminate some potentially confusing elements.

[UKGuy]

If it is a fact that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket, then it's reasonable to conclude that the mom or the dad were involved at some point and to some degree.
RedChief,
Hello there, your posts are quite illuminating. Now your phrase - wrapped "papoose-like" - Do you have a source for it? Since I have read many variations on this theme including the premise: "that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket".

There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket.

Who knows other than Fleet White, who touched her cold feet, or John Ramsay who lifted her up. Whether the blanket lay over her, lay under her, or was wrapped "papoose-like" around her?

[RedChief]

Hi, UKGuy,

Two sources for papoose-like: PMPT and '98 interview of John by LE. The latter you can download from acandyrose. I don't have the exact conversation in my files. I think one of the interrogators asked (I paraphrase), like a papoose? and John said yeah. She was lying ON the blanket, and the blanket was folded AROUND her.

This is contrary to what John Douglas was told. I don't remember if that was by John or by his attorney. He was told that the blanket was draped over her, and he drew his conclusions from that. This is in Cases That Haunt Us.

Hope this helps.

R.C.

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

Thanks for that reply. I'll check JR out again.

[RedChief]

Staging of the crime scene is a specific type of precautionary act that is done to deflect suspicion away from the offender

Staging often involves the addition of, removal of, and manipulation of objects in the crime scene to change the apparent "motive" of the crime (Turvey 1999).

JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal.

The paintbrush handle was likely added to the staging. It needed to be broken to satisfy the twisting motion that would secure it to her neck as evidenced by strands of her hair caught up in the knotting, also to break it on two sides requires a lot of strength. Try it yourself one side is easy, the thicker side not so.

So you may ask why? Re-dressing can be excused on grounds of modesty, but creating and adding what can be interpreted as an AEA device is another matter.

I would suggest this was done deliberately to add the idea of a signature to JonBenet's staging. This was done by someone who had done some background reading in this area and had a good understanding of the required elements.

Attaching the paintbrush suggests its the tool of a sexual sadist!

There is evidence that JonBenet's body was relocated at least twice and possibly three times. She was similarly redressed at least twice.

So it appears she was asphyxiated, then possibly regained conciousness, only to be bludgeoned to death by a blow to her head. Applying Occams Razor, removes the AEA explanation since it requires evidence and accomplices external to the published evidence. That leaves any one of an Intruder, John, Patsy or Burke available as prime suspects.

To view JonBenets murder as a Staged Homicide and not a Sexual Homicide helps to eliminate some potentially confusing elements.

Hey, thanks for all the above.

Just a few points concerning which I require clarification: You say the perp broke the paintbrush handle to satisfy a twisting motion that would secure it to her neck. What twisting motion? Do you refer to the wrapping of the cord around the stick? I once postulated that the handle had been broken to produce a short enough piece that would be easy to apply half hitches to. But, frankly, I don't know how long the original unbroken paintbrush was, do you? I agree, nonetheless, that the hair became entwined during the operation that was used to fasten the cord to the piece of handle. I can readily see that a twisting motion, rather than half-hitching could be employed; if that were the case, at some point some means of preventing the cord from unwinding from the stick had to be employed-some sort of reverse twist or a knot of some kind. The suggestion has been made that this "knot" at the stick (means of fastening) is a particular kind of knot that boy scouts might be taught. I believe there is a photo of it among the material that is attributed to "cutter", at one of the URL's that the moderator supplied. I'm going to have to dig into that further. Were both hands needed to fasten the cord to the stick?

You're the second person to point out that breaking the handle isn't so easy. In order to try it myself, I'd need to know exactly which brush to experiment on. How can I come by this information?

What were the stager's intentions? I don't see that the girl's sexual injuries, and the ligatures are consistent with a kidnapping attempt. I'm aware that kidnap victims are sometimes (all too often) killed, but what fool (perp or investigator) would be pursuaded that killing this particular victim, in this particular manner with this particular apparatus constitutes clear evidence of a kidnapping attempt? There is nothing other than the tape over her mouth and the stun marks, if such they are, to suggest a failed kidnapping attempt. Whereas binding the victim could reasonably be deemed to be a kidnapping element, this victim wasn't properly bound; in a sense, she was virtually unbound. As John Ramsey himself pointed out in DOI, the cord was tied around each wrist [loosely] but her hands were free to move (15 inches of slack). What was the point or purpose of that? We seem to have elements of BOTH kidnapping (possibly) and sexual sadism. The ransom note is the goofiest piece of evidence.

"JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal."

Would you mind rephrasing the foregoing? Who is it that's dwelling on the staged aspects? The perp? You mean by "dwelling" that he's taking the time to do them? Why does that make the evidence equivocal? Is this the perp's intention also? What makes the evidence equivocal, by definition, is that it doesn't clearly point to kidnapping or to snuff sex or to sexual sadism.

The paintbrush handle as staging: You seem to be suggesting that a piece of the paintbrush handle, as staging, would be more convincing than the paintbrush in it's entirety. Why is that? Obviously, assuming that the handle was hard to break, the perp must have had some very good reason for breaking it. You've suggest two reasons. I'm always skeptical of multiple reasons for one piece of evidence.

"Redressing" excused on grounds of modesty: Yes, if in fact, redressing occurred. But, how is redressing to be reconciled with kidnapping?????

Which device are you interpreting as an AEA device? AEA=?

Done to add the idea of a signature: The signature being?????? The broken paintbrush?

"There is evidence that JonBenet's body was relocated at least twice and possibly three times. She was similarly redressed at least twice."

What is/are your source/s? Please elaborate on this!

If the AEA evidence hadn't been removed through the application of Occam's Razor, who then would be the prime suspects?

Just so we're clear on this (to summarize), please list the elements of staging and distinguish them from the elements of homicide. Also, which potentially confusing elements are eliminated by viewing this as a staged homicide?

Are we making any progress?

[RedChief]

RedChief,
Hello there, your posts are quite illuminating. Now your phrase - wrapped "papoose-like" - Do you have a source for it? Since I have read many variations on this theme including the premise: "that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket".

There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket.

Who knows other than Fleet White, who touched her cold feet, or John Ramsay who lifted her up. Whether the blanket lay over her, lay under her, or was wrapped "papoose-like" around her?


"There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket."

Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to the foregoing? John Douglas said the perp may have intended to use the blanket to carry JBR. He based this on being told that the blanket had been draped over her rather than wrapped around her.

John knows and he has spoken.

[BlueCrab]

"There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket."

Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to the foregoing? John Douglas said the perp may have intended to use the blanket to carry JBR. He based this on being told that the blanket had been draped over her rather than wrapped around her.

John knows and he has spoken.


From the 1998 interviews:

MIKE KANE: "All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it like -- "

JOHN RAMSEY: "It was like an Indian papoose."

MIKE KANE: "Okay."

JOHN RAMSEY: "You know, the blanket was under her completey. It was brought up and folded over like that."

[Camper]

Here is a link fromt the Rocky Mountain News that is a goldmine on the case.

Scroll about halfway down the page and there are several pictures of the device handle. The break on the brush portion shown looks OLD to me, but the picture does not have good close up detail enough to be positive.

As a matter of fact it appears to me that looking on the right side of the picture, that the brush had perhaps been cut to an approximate half distance through the handle and THEN broken the rest of the way.

This might indicate a young whittler with a pocket knife, rather than a professional pervert.

Here is the link. Takes a bit to load, but well worth the wait for people new to this discussion.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html



.

[BrotherMoon]

This might indicate a young whittler with a pocket knife, rather than a professional pervert.


I think you underestimate the professional perverts, they are, after all, professionals.

[Nehemiah]

Nehemiah, yes, "but", if we are using that dna to solve the crime then we must eliminate any possibility of a Ramsey ,as well?!

That's true. It's either all or nothing.

[BlueCrab]

As a matter of fact it appears to me that looking on the right side of the picture, that the brush had perhaps been cut to an approximate half distance through the handle and THEN broken the rest of the way.

This might indicate a young whittler with a pocket knife, rather than a professional pervert.





Camper,

I agree with you the wooden handle on one end was likely cut with a knife before being broken the rest of the way. The grain of the wood runs the length of the handle and would not have broken so cleanly.

The opposite end of the paint brush handle is missing and appears to have been completely whittled off. It was just the tip. It would have been close to impossible to have manually broken such a short piece off the handle without a vise and pliars -- it had to have been whittled off with a sharp knife. But WHY?

The shards from the whittling were on the floor just outside of the wine cellar door. The handle appears to be about 1/2" to 5/8" in diameter, when compared to the white cord, which we know is 1/4" wide. The whittling off of such a short piece of the handle obviously wasn't necessary to the design of the ligature handle. The whittling seemed instead to be motivated by a desire to destroy possible evidence on the tip of the handle. But what evidence?

[cappuccina]

...fingerprints, perhaps?

Now, one would wonder why PR wouldn't just wipe the paintbrush in a similar manner to the flashlight...unless some fingerprints dried in paint were on there from previous use...Although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the brush came from in the first place...

Just my opinion...

BrotherMoon...your humor is very dry, very funny, and eerie at the same time!

[BrotherMoon]

BrotherMoon...your humor is very dry, very funny, and eerie at the same time!

I'll take that as a compliment.

[RedChief]

Camper,

I agree with you the wooden handle on one end was likely cut with a knife before being broken the rest of the way. The grain of the wood runs the length of the handle and would not have broken so cleanly.

The opposite end of the paint brush handle is missing and appears to have been completely whittled off. It was just the tip. It would have been close to impossible to have manually broken such a short piece off the handle without a vise and pliars -- it had to have been whittled off with a sharp knife. But WHY?

The shards from the whittling were on the floor just outside of the wine cellar door. The handle appears to be about 1/2" to 5/8" in diameter, when compared to the white cord, which we know is 1/4" wide. The whittling off of such a short piece of the handle obviously wasn't necessary to the design of the ligature handle. The whittling seemed instead to be motivated by a desire to destroy possible evidence on the tip of the handle. But what evidence?

BlueCrab,

Thanks for furnishing that excerpt from the '98 John interview.

Camper,

Thanks for leading us to that "goldmine" webpage. Looks like Lou Smit has it all figured out.

Regarding the stick: In the autopsy report, conducted by John Meyer, the medical examiner, it says, "This wooden stick is irregularly broken at both ends and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Painted in gold letters on one end of the stick is the word "Korea".

Apparently, the stick had not been whittled on nor any portion cut with a knife. Also, apparently, the "shards" that have been mentioned as being evidence of the whittling are likely splinters.

Possible evidence of sexual sadism: (1.) The apparent visciousness of the killing, (2.) The vaginal injury, which was apparently inflicted prior to her death (I believe this is the concensus of the experts) with some object such as the missing piece of paintbrush handle, (3.) The stun marks, (4.) The garotte, (5.) The wrist ligature, and (6.) The tape over the mouth.

Possible evidence of staged homicide: (1.) The piece of broken paintbrush handle with the word "Korea" printed on it, which was attached to the tailing end of the ligature possibly to simulate a garotte, (2.) The ransom note which referred to a foreign faction which had no qualms about killing, (3.) The location of the body when it was found-on the premises, and (4.) The tape covering the mouth. Note: The apparent wiping of the pubic area of the body, in this scenario, might have been done in an attempt to hide the "fact" that sexual injury had occurred. Granted, that this injury had occurred, would be likely to be discovered by investigators anyway; but, panic or naivete may apply here, and perhaps the perp thought it was worth a shot. Also, the over-sized panties (were there others in her drawer with Wednesday printed on them?) might indicate that the panties they replaced contained evidence of sexual injury; i.e., blood or the perp's DNA. I think I've heard it postulated that the perp put those too-big panties on her inadvertently, because he was unfamiliar with her clean underwear supply (where things were kept). So, maybe, in this scenario, she was sexually injured, wiped, redressed and then, at some point, wet herself. Seriously, I think this dog could hunt. Allow me to add: the blood (several red areas of staining) found in the inner aspect of the crotch of the too-big panties might have been deposited (leaked out) when John picked her up and brought her upstairs. It might not have been present on the panties until he moved the body that morning. I have reason to believe it was deposited after she urinated. You know, blood first coagulates, then becomes watery as it decomposes (the serum dominates).

Possible evidence of a kidnapping attempt gone sour: (1.) The stun marks, (2.) The ransom note, and (3.) The duct tape. Note: Not much evidence of this. Allow me to add: There appear to be mixed messages here (ambiguity) regarding the evidence. Even if you see evidence of staging, you have to ask, what did the perp (the stager/s) want us to think-that she died in a kidnapping attempt, or that she had been sexually abused by a vicious sadist? I'm inclined to think the he/they wanted us to think she had been viciously murdered (executed, as the note warned) in a kidnapping attempt.

Now, where does all this leave us? Aside from deciding which of the above scenarios is correct, it leaves us to explain what appeared to be tenderness on the part of the perp or his/her accomplice-the body having been wrapped in the white blanket "like an Indian papoose." Of course, we have to consider that this, too, may have been staging. It doesn't seem to really fit with any of the aforementioned scenarios. Rather than a sign of tenderness (affection toward the body), it might be more of a sign of remorse. Now, if the body had simply been unceremoniously wrapped, we might speculate that the perp did so to avoid transferring his hairs, clothing fibers and/or DNA to the body.

What is your take?

[Camper]

I am in a hurry now have to be somewhere soon this AM, will reflect more later today.

HOWEVER, I doubt that the Medical Examiner has ever tried to break a large artists brush before or his report might have read a bit differently.

I am still of the opinion that the device handle appears to have been cut part way through then broken in two. I would like to see the back side of that area to see it, there should be a long piece missing behind the cut area on the side that we see, IF IF my thoughts are correct.




.

[trixie]

BlueCrab,

Thanks for furnishing that excerpt from the '98 John interview.

Camper,

Thanks for leading us to that "goldmine" webpage. Looks like Lou Smit has it all figured out.

Regarding the stick: In the autopsy report, conducted by John Meyer, the medical examiner, it says, "This wooden stick is irregularly broken at both ends and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Painted in gold letters on one end of the stick is the word "Korea".

Apparently, the stick had not been whittled on nor any portion cut with a knife. Also, apparently, the "shards" that have been mentioned as being evidence of the whittling are likely splinters.

Possible evidence of sexual sadism: (1.) The apparent visciousness of the killing, (2.) The vaginal injury, which was apparently inflicted prior to her death (I believe this is the concensus of the experts) with some object such as the missing piece of paintbrush handle, (3.) The stun marks, (4.) The garotte, (5.) The wrist ligature, and (6.) The tape over the mouth.

Possible evidence of staged homicide: (1.) The piece of broken paintbrush handle with the word "Korea" printed on it, which was attached to the tailing end of the ligature possibly to simulate a garotte, (2.) The ransom note which referred to a foreign faction which had no qualms about killing, (3.) The location of the body when it was found-on the premises, and (4.) The tape covering the mouth. Note: The apparent wiping of the pubic area of the body, in this scenario, might have been done in an attempt to hide the "fact" that sexual injury had occurred. Granted, that this injury had occurred, would be likely to be discovered by investigators anyway; but, panic or naivete may apply here, and perhaps the perp thought it was worth a shot. Also, the over-sized panties (were there others in her drawer with Wednesday printed on them?) might indicate that the panties they replaced contained evidence of sexual injury; i.e., blood or the perp's DNA. I think I've heard it postulated that the perp put those too-big panties on her inadvertently, because he was unfamiliar with her clean underwear supply (where things were kept). So, maybe, in this scenario, she was sexually injured, wiped, redressed and then, at some point, wet herself. Seriously, I think this dog could hunt. Allow me to add: the blood (several red areas of staining) found in the inner aspect of the crotch of the too-big panties might have been deposited (leaked out) when John picked her up and brought her upstairs. It might not have been present on the panties until he moved the body that morning. I have reason to believe it was deposited after she urinated. You know, blood first coagulates, then becomes watery as it decomposes (the serum dominates).

Possible evidence of a kidnapping attempt gone sour: (1.) The stun marks, (2.) The ransom note, and (3.) The duct tape. Note: Not much evidence of this. Allow me to add: There appear to be mixed messages here (ambiguity) regarding the evidence. Even if you see evidence of staging, you have to ask, what did the perp (the stager/s) want us to think-that she died in a kidnapping attempt, or that she had been sexually abused by a vicious sadist? I'm inclined to think the he/they wanted us to think she had been viciously murdered (executed, as the note warned) in a kidnapping attempt.

Now, where does all this leave us? Aside from deciding which of the above scenarios is correct, it leaves us to explain what appeared to be tenderness on the part of the perp or his/her accomplice-the body having been wrapped in the white blanket "like an Indian papoose." Of course, we have to consider that this, too, may have been staging. It doesn't seem to really fit with any of the aforementioned scenarios. Rather than a sign of tenderness (affection toward the body), it might be more of a sign of remorse. Now, if the body had simply been unceremoniously wrapped, we might speculate that the perp did so to avoid transferring his hairs, clothing fibers and/or DNA to the body.

What is your take?


RedChief, you did not include the heart drawn in her palm in your evidence. What is your take on that?

[BrotherMoon]

Sex had very little to do with the crime. Lou Smit is delusional.

[RedChief]

Camper et al,

This is an argument (whittling, etc.) that I had with some posters many moons ago. I will tell you what I told them. The coroner saw this broken piece of paintbrush with his own eyes. There was no need for him to attempt to break it or another like it in order to ascertain that it had been broken (not whittled). Also, splinters (not shards) were found near the tray, on the ligature and elsewhere. A shard is not a splinter, and a splinter is not a shard; but a rose is a rose is a rose.

Though they are informative, those photos are not high resolution, to put it mildly; consequently, it is possible for you and I and others to "see" all sorts of stuff that isn't there, and to miss stuff that is. I would much rather rely on what the coroner (and others) saw in the autopsy room that day, than what we can "see" in fuzzy photos.

I do value your opinion, however, and wish to thank you again for leading us to that webpage-the best overview of the evidence I've seen.

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft' interred with their bones."--WS

[RedChief]

RedChief, you did not include the heart drawn in her palm in your evidence. What is your take on that?

trixie,

Rest assured that if I'd known you'd require that, I'd sure as heck of said sumpin' about it.

Actually, from looking at the fuzzy photos, that red drawing (how do you know it was drawn?) on her hand looks to this ole boy more like a kidney; and, as such, is apt to be the most important clue in this entire riddle.

I can't imagine this little girl drawing a kidney in her hand (her left hand) unless she was trying to draw our attention to the mysterious twin skin lesions on her left lower back. Obviously, at that point in time, she was conscious and communicative.

But, on a slightly more serious note, I wasn't aware that there was a "palm in my evidence". It's good that you pointed that out, 'cuz now that I've been made aware of it, what excuse could I possibly offer for not commenting on it. Well, it WAS smeared, and so of little evidentiary value. Still, I'd rather have a palm in my evidence than a fly in my soup.

But, on an even slightly more serious note, I've heard it postulated that either the girl drew it herself (she was right-handed, according to John, who, when he pointed that out, hastened to add that, of course, he didn't know which palm contained the "heart") or one of her little friends drew it. It could also have been stamped.

What's your take? 50/50?

[sissi]

Sorry Red Chief , I wanted to respond , but may have to do so in little bits and pieces over the day.
I am NOT convinced the LHP group had anything to do with this murder, I do however believe , perhaps because she had the same access to the house as the Ramseys, coupled by far more in depth knowledge of just where everything was placed (only because it was her job to organize and put things away), that she and hers can not be dismissed so quickly.
Her first interviews with Schiller seemed to contain far more in the way of "alibi speak" than necessary.
In her way, she covered for the pineapple bowl, using the ovaltine jar as the reference. She did the same for explaining away the nightgown/blanket issue, insisting it could be static cling in a later interview. On and on, she seemed to touch on every piece of evidence, with a little anecdote.
Maybe I am reading too much into her interviews?
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02181999lindapughstorypmpt.htm


You had asked if I believed the pad and pen used in the writing of the ransom note were the same as found in the house. We can only believe Steve Thomas and his Ubowski quotes, in that the pages were torn and matched to tears. Do I REALLY believe this, NO, because unless the person tearing the pages actually tore them, there would be no differences in pages torn from one glued top of a pad of paper to another, nothing scientific there..jmo. Is the paper identical to other pads of paper, Yes of course. If it is ,indeed, one of several pages missing from that pad, could it not indicate it was written elsewhere by someone who helped themselves to a chunk of that pad?
Do I believe the sharpie was the ONE!? No, in my experience no one purchases ONE sharpie, they are purchased in packs, 6-8 or 12. Each and every one coming out of that pack is likely identical to the others.

I would suggest the pads and pens the Pughs had "borrowed" from the Ramseys were just as identical to those used in the ransom noteas the ones John handed over.

The red fibers from Patsy's jacket being identical to the four found on the tape is a questionable finding imo ,as well. A tri-colored jacket dropping four fibers of only one color is interesting if nothing else.
The animal hairs in her hands,and this may sound way off but Lou Smit said, "we will find this wolf" which I believe was a slip and perhaps telling that the fur was from perhaps a wolf dog. Who in this group of suspects owned a wolf dog?

[RedChief]

Sorry Red Chief , I wanted to respond , but may have to do so in little bits and pieces over the day.
I am NOT convinced the LHP group had anything to do with this murder, I do however believe , perhaps because she had the same access to the house as the Ramseys, coupled by far more in depth knowledge of just where everything was placed (only because it was her job to organize and put things away), that she and hers can not be dismissed so quickly.
Her first interviews with Schiller seemed to contain far more in the way of "alibi speak" than necessary.
In her way, she covered for the pineapple bowl, using the ovaltine jar as the reference. She did the same for explaining away the nightgown/blanket issue, insisting it could be static cling in a later interview. On and on, she seemed to touch on every piece of evidence, with a little anecdote.
Maybe I am reading too much into her interviews?
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02181999lindapughstorypmpt.htm


You had asked if I believed the pad and pen used in the writing of the ransom note were the same as found in the house. We can only believe Steve Thomas and his Ubowski quotes, in that the pages were torn and matched to tears. Do I REALLY believe this, NO, because unless the person tearing the pages actually tore them, there would be no differences in pages torn from one glued top of a pad of paper to another, nothing scientific there..jmo. Is the paper identical to other pads of paper, Yes of course. If it is ,indeed, one of several pages missing from that pad, could it not indicate it was written elsewhere by someone who helped themselves to a chunk of that pad?
Do I believe the sharpie was the ONE!? No, in my experience no one purchases ONE sharpie, they are purchased in packs, 6-8 or 12. Each and every one coming out of that pack is likely identical to the others.

I would suggest the pads and pens the Pughs had "borrowed" from the Ramseys were just as identical to those used in the ransom noteas the ones John handed over.

The red fibers from Patsy's jacket being identical to the four found on the tape is a questionable finding imo ,as well. A tri-colored jacket dropping four fibers of only one color is interesting if nothing else.
The animal hairs in her hands,and this may sound way off but Lou Smit said, "we will find this wolf" which I believe was a slip and perhaps telling that the fur was from perhaps a wolf dog. Who in this group of suspects owned a wolf dog?

sissi,

I can't disagree with anything you've put in the above-quoted post. It's all quite good, except for those parts with which I find myself in agreement (tongue in cheek). I find your reasoning sound and hope others will carefully consider what you've posted here.

I haven't trusted Thomas much from the beginning, and now that I've read his deposition, I trust him even less. I think he was bent on nailing Patsy from early on. That is not to say she's been cleared.

OK, not to argue, but don't you think it would be kinda dumb for LHP to use an identical pad (containing identical paper) or pen borrowed from the Ramseys? Further, don't you think it would be kinda dumb for LHP to hang onto other identical pads and pens (those found in her home)? Now, please do correct me if you find errors of fact or analysis. I have no wish to mislead anyone. Is LHP a clever woman? It is also possible that the ransom note sheets and pen didn't come from either household. They weren't collectors' items, were they?

Of course, if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the alleged Ubowski finding is correct, that wouldn't eliminate LHP, but would it make you less suspicious? As for the likelihood that the three-page note had come from the Ramsey pad, doesn't the three-page gap between page 26 (the so-called practice note; why hadn't that been torn out also?) and page 30 suggest that it had, or is that just a coincidence? The note can't be dated so we can't know when it was written. But the cirmcumstantial evidence is fairly strong: note written on identical paper (whether you subcribe to tear pattern analysis); note written with identical ink (for sure) and style of pen (apparently) if not THE same pen as that alleged; pad belonging in house and provided to LE by John Ramsey has several (three would be enough) pages missing (between the last doodle sheet and the "practice" sheet) and THREE (the same amount as in the note) missing between the "practice" sheet (which began, Mr. and Mrs I) and the remaining unused sheets in the tablet.

Her Schiller interviews are located at the URL you provided?

Yeah, the red fibers and the animal hairs, not to mention numerous other fibers of unknown source. I find it interesting that the FBI disagreed with CBI about the source of the fibers that CBI thought had come from the fabrics within the suitcase. Which lab is more likely to be correct? Are the items found in the suitcase of any significance to you?

Well, I gotta go for a walk and try to shed some pounds. Besides, there is a report of some Eurasian doves in the area-a rarity.

[sissi]

I hope it's okay to paste this? If not, yell and I will delete.

The following is from the book, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town"
by Lawrence Schiller (Pages 198 through 202)

Linda Hoffman-Pugh Story

I was born in Lyons, Kansas, and my dad was a poor wheat farmer. I had three brothers and one sister. I'm the youngest, and one of my brothers is twenty-three years older than me. He's a welder, with his own construction business in Fort Morgan, Colorado.

When I was thirteen we moved to Fort Morgan because my dad wasn't doing well. He went to work for my brother as a ditch digger. My dad was an alcoholic. He died in 1986. My mother was forty-one when she had me. I have six living kids. Ten grandchildren. And a paper route.

I have my ladies, the women I work for. I have a doctor's wife in Greeley, and a lawyer. I was working for a bonded agency called Merry Maids when I met Patsy. I started with her one day a week. I was dumbfounded, the place was so huge. It was too much for one person. Soon we had four people, once a week.

Patsy was warm and kind. Just a sweet person. But she had a hard time keeping up the laundry. She was doing lots of charity work and was involved with her children's schooling.

Then I went to work for her three days a week, $72 a day. Monday, Wednesday, Friday. I'd get there at 9:00 in the morning and be gone by 3:00. That's when my daughter Ariana gets out of school. Sometimes I worked for Patsy on Saturdays and holidays. She gave me a $300 bonus at the end of my first year. That was October 27, 1996

Patsy was afraid she wasn't going to live, that her cancer would come back and she'd never live to see the children grow up. She read a lot about illness and healing. Every three months she had a checkup. She believed if she prayed, everything would be all right. Patsy admired John. He accomplished a lot. She told me that when they started out they had nothing, and they worked themselves up to where they were now.

I first met JonBenet when she was in preschool. She was home, like, half a day. Patsy called her Jonnie B. I spent half my time picking up after her. She and her brother would just leave everything on the floor-their socks, their shoes, toys, books, just everything. They were never trained to put things away properly.

I always came in the side door, and I'd walk right into the kitchen and not know where to start. Dishes all over. If they had Ovaltine, the jar would still be open. I always had to wipe the peanut butter off the counter. "I think we ought to get a hamper," I told Patsy.

"Yeah, that sounds good," she answered. But we never got one.

"Linda is not here to pick up," Patsy's mother would say.

"She's here to clean. How do you expect her to do a good job if she's picking up?"

"OK, Mom, I'll work it out."

Patsy's clothes went into the laundry chute. I never had to pick up after John. Maybe once- a pair of shoes. Patsy changed purses once a week. She'd lay her purse ON THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE and I'd clean it out and put it in the closet. She had maybe forty of them , and even more pairs of shoes. I think the problem with the children was they didn't have any responsibility. They were spoiled.

Burke had this red Scout knife and always whittled. He'd never use a BAG or paper to catch the shavings. He'd whittle all over the place. I asked Patsy to have a talk with him. She answered, "Well I don't know what to do other than take the knife away from him." After Thanksgiving I took that knife away from him and hid it in the cupboard just outside JonBenet's room. That's how that problem was solved.

These weren't naughty children. They dressed themselves, and Patsy did JonBenet's hair. All her daughter's clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes.

"Just go away and leave me alone," JonBenet said when I tried to help her with her boots. Sometimes she acted like A SPOILED BRAT.

"No, don't you answer the door," she'd say when someone went to open it at a luncheon Patsy gave. "I'm answering the door."

JonBenet spent a lot of her time sitting on her bed watching Shirley Temple movies on her VCR. She loved them all.

She also loved being in pageants. If she didn't want to go, Patsy didn't make her. Nedra used to bring lots of things for JonBenet to wear. Nedra did most of the pageant planning. JonBenet would have to practice singing and dancing. Nedra and Patsy's sister, Pam would decorate JonBenet's shoes, her gloves, put sequins on her hats. Some dresses were made from scratch, but they had fun altering most things. They prepared differently for each pageant. Sometimes it would take a month. They were always reworking something.

JonBenet played a lot with Daphne, the White's little girl. They were real close. And Burke had his friends, the Walker and Stine children. When the Ramseys traveled, I started taking the children's dog, Jacques home with me. It would always yip, yip, yip, and I couldn't take it. Joe Barnhill, the elderly neighbor from across the street started watching Jacques, and they got attached to each other. before long the dog was always running across the street to the Barnhill's house. Jacques started staying over there, and when JonBenet wanted to see her dog, she went over and played with him.

In the summer of "96, JonBenet started wearing those diaper-type underpants-Pull-Ups. She even wore them to bed. There was always a wet one in the trash. By the end of the summer, Patsy was trying to get her to do without them. Then JonBenet started wetting the bed again. Almost every day I was there, there was a wet bed. Patsy said she wasn't going to use Pull-Ups again. She just put a plastic cover on the bed. No big deal to her. By the time I'd come in the morning, Patsy would have all the sheets off the bed and in the laundry. JonBenet's white blanket would already be in the dryer. The Ramseys had two washer-dryers-one in the basement and a stackable unit in a closet just outside JonBenet's room.

Patsy started taking a painting class, and JonBenet drew a lot with crayons and MARKERS. People and flowers. They had a big easel, but most of the time JonBenet painted on a card table in the butler's kitchen. Patsy had her paints and brushes in a white paint tote. Sometimes she asked me to take her paints down to the basement. "I don't want to see it." On the day of the Ramseys' Christmas party, I took the paint tote downstairs.

Evenings were for the family. They did homework and had dinner together. Patsy worked on school projects with the kids. She was always doing something for the children on her computer. She read to them at bedtime. Sometimes she asked me to baby-sit if she couldn't find a sitter. Patsy spent a lot of time ALONE in the house while John was away on business. She never kept a baseball bat under the bed, or Mace. Never even set the alarm. She didn't like it, because it went off accidently and it drove the police crazy.

The last month I was there, NOTHING WAS DIFFERENT. Patsy went to New York with her family and some friends. JonBenet even ice skated at Rockefeller Center. When they came back, they got ready for another pageant. Patsy was always putting things off until the last minute.

On December 23, JonBenet was playing with makeup.

"JonBenet, you are not going anywhere with all that on," Patsy told her. "You take some of it off." JonBenet did.

At one o'clock she went to play with some friends and was back by four o'clock. Late that afternoon she didn't want to wear a dress for their Christmas party. Patsy got a little agitated. Finally, JonBenet put on a velvet one with short sleeves.

I stuck around with my daughter Ariana to see Santa. We hadn't planned to stay, so Ariana wasn't dressed up. Patsy gave my daughter a Christmas sweater and a vest. Even lent her a pair of her shoes. At the last minute, Patsy wrote a little verse about Ariana for Santa to read.

At 5:30 P.M. Santa showed up. By then the Barnhills, the Fernies, the Stines, Pinky Barber, and the Whites, who came with Priscilla's parents, had all arrived. maybe eight couples and their children. Most of the men gathered by the spiral staircase. John made drinks for everybody from the butler's kitchen. The kids played in the livng room by the big christmas tree. That's where Santa read his litle verses about everyone. This year, Mrs. Claus was there too, Santa looked kind of sick.

I was supposed to come back the next day, December 24, and clean up. I called Patsy and said I couldn't. I told her I had a fight with my sister and needed some money to pay the rent. I asked Patsy for a $2,000 loan. I told her I would pay it back $50 each week. She didn't hesitate. "Sure." Said she'd leave it for me on the kitchen counter for my next regular visit on December 27.

The more I think about it, JonBenet could not have been killed by a stranger. I didn't even know THAT ROOM was there. How could a stranger know to go there? How in the world did this happen?

-Linda Hoffman

[Seeker]

I am in a hurry now have to be somewhere soon this AM, will reflect more later today.

HOWEVER, I doubt that the Medical Examiner has ever tried to break a large artists brush before or his report might have read a bit differently.

I am still of the opinion that the device handle appears to have been cut part way through then broken in two. I would like to see the back side of that area to see it, there should be a long piece missing behind the cut area on the side that we see, IF IF my thoughts are correct.
.

Wait a minute Camper...the autopsy report says nothing at all about the diameter of the paintbrush...just the length.
Besides it's not the coroner's job to ascertain how or if the implement was broken or if it worked in the way sumrised by others (like the ligature). The coroner's only job is to examine the body and determine the cause of death.

[UKGuy]

JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal."

Generally but not always, in a homicide case the crime scene evidence is usually unequivocal, that is most people will agree the crime was committed this way or that, that is the evidence suggests a particular interpretation to the exclusion of others.

In JonBenet's case this does not apply, it is open to many whodunnits. The predominating reason for this is that the discovered crime scene was an unfinished staging. Ideally the stager, who may not be the killer, wanted to portray JonBenet as removed from her bed, bound, sadistically sexually assaulted and killed in the basement.

I'm not suggesting that you should ignore or discount the staged evidence, simply dont give it the weight the stager intended you to aportion to it.

We can all agree that JonBenet was asphyxiated and suffered a head trauma.

This is likely to have occurred upstairs, ie sometime after her snacking session.

I "think" an accident scene was staged upstairs which included JonBenet being redressed in the red top, having her hair done in pigtails, along with other elements long since overlooked.

Alternatively this staging may not have been, its possible JonBenet was being dressed in a manner, lets say, pageant style, to satisfy someone elses wishes. And what we see is the remains of a cleanup.


"Redressing" excused on grounds of modesty: Yes, if in fact, redressing occurred. But, how is redressing to be reconciled with kidnapping?
The ransom note is obviously the rationale for another staging ie a kidnapping. This points out staging was taking place, and all is not what it appears.

JonBenet's bed appeared unslept in, it had clean "Beauty and the Beast" sheets, but Linda Hoffman-Pugh stated she changed JonBenet's bed two-days prior to her murder with pink-and-white checked sheets. The white thermal blanket that was normally under those sheets was "over" her dead body! That is like her body it had been relocated to the basement.

When JonBenet was found in the basement she was wearing no socks, white pullups, white gap shirt, size-12 panties, gold neck chain with cross and additionally Two ponytails, a cloth hair tie, and Two blue elastic bands, and her pink barbie nightgown was lying close by, in her hair was a green substance from the garland on the spiral staircase, and a white thermal blanket was "over" her body. These additional items originate from upstairs. Also there were no marks from the gold chain with the cross, on her neck such as you might expect from a violent strangulation.

The basement staging was likely done in incremental stages, possibly by two different people. BlueCrab has suggested John discovered her posed indecently elsewhere in the basement, and he may have partially redressed her, even adding some staging elements.

It is not unknown for relatives to behave like this in a homicide, and could explain the Ramsey's many ambiguous statements.

The Paintbrush:
A pencil or a pen would have done the same job as the resulting paintbrush, as part of the staging, a paintbrush is just that a paintbrush, refashioned it becomes an artifact. It draws attention to itself. I suspect the paintbrush was used to initially sexually assault JonBenet, whether as part of the staging, or deliberate I am not 100% certain. If there was any semen/sperm on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush may have come in contact with it.

So was the paintbrush added so to remove forensic evidence, along with the stager understanding its significance as a signature? A full length painbrush does not lend itself to being easily manipulated whilst JonBenet lies lifeless. Either way a replica can quickly be improvised by snapping one end in your hands and place the remainder on the floor against the wall and lean on it with your foot, done properly it breaks, sometimes cleanly, other times partially with splinters. Also a full length paintbrush knotted in the middle and held above pendulum style functions well as part of an AEA device.


White Blanket:
If JonBenet's body was relocated from upstairs to downstairs via the spiral staircase, then wrapping her in a blanket seems to minimise evidence transfer, or was she simply naked? This is why in staging terms I would distinguish between the placement. "Below" suggests sexual staging, "Above" suggests hiding or covering, "Wrapping" suggests protection from evidence transfer.

Red Heart:
The orientation of the red heart, if I am correct was, normal and north to south, drawn on her left hand. This is what you might expect if she had drawn it herself. Someone else may have drawn it south to north, or upside down, with her palm facing his/her. Unless that is, if JonBenet was left-handed? Red-hearts were found elsewhere drawn on some trade magazine John had in his office.

[sissi]

I believe you are wrong about the heart drawing. Years ago, I asked every kid in this house to draw a heart on their hand, and NOT ONE faced the direction of Jonbenet's. Draw one on yourself then ask another person to draw one on you, there is ,indeed, a difference.

http://www.acandyrose.com/threepagenote.jpg
does anyone see "tears" on the tops of these pages?

[UKGuy]

Sissi,

I dont mind being wrong. Just the orientation should vary if its not self-drawn.

[Seeker]

Does anyone else remember an interview or something similar where Patsy mentioned she often drew a heart on JB's hand when she (Patsy) was really ill? I remember her saying she did this...but can't find the reference.

[Seeker]

I believe you are wrong about the heart drawing. Years ago, I asked every kid in this house to draw a heart on their hand, and NOT ONE faced the direction of Jonbenet's. Draw one on yourself then ask another person to draw one on you, there is ,indeed, a difference.

http://www.acandyrose.com/threepagenote.jpg
does anyone see "tears" on the tops of these pages?
Really? JonBenet's could have easily been drawn by her....
http://zyberzoom.com/heartonhand.jpg

[sissi]

UK..I can't seem to locate a picture at the moment of the "heart in hand". It would be best if we had it to view while discussing. Could anyone link it?
IMO at the time it did seem awkwardly placed if drawn by the child.

Edit...THANKS SEEKER!!
Okay,now I remember, I had asked the kids to draw a heart in their hand, and each time the heart humps faced the side by the thumb, then I drew one in one of their hands, and it had the humps by the wrist, so I put one child on my lap and leaned over and drew the heart, then it was exactly placed as Jonbenet's.

[BlueCrab]

Sex had very little to do with the crime. Lou Smit is delusional.


BrotherMoon,

It was a sexual crime. Please re-read the autopsy report which describes acute and chronic injuries to the vagina. No one of authority contends there was no sexual abuse. How do you think JonBenet's blood got into her underwear?

The sexual abuse is verified by the panel of doctors assigned to the case to make that determination. They were Dr.'s:

David Jones
James Monteleone
John McCann
Cyril Wecht
Ronald Wright
Richard Krugman
Werner Spitz

[Camper]

Check this link out, we carried a lot of different Grumbacher art supplies AND BRUSHES, they are my favorite.

http://www.grumbacherart.com/sanford/consumer/grumbacher/brushes.htm

Look at the wood colored brush on the far right, I am estimating the device handle most likely was this type and size brush.

This type of brush is used to do washes on the canvas before paint is ever applied, OR can be used for large background colors. The brush width is quite wide, and I dare any Ghengis Khan types reading here to JUST break this brush with their bare hands, they would need gargantuan strength to do so.

My educated opinion, nothing more nothing less.

The old fellow who still appears on PBS with his painting instruction, even though he has passed away, uses a regular old paint the walls brush, about 2 to 3 inches wide. He did all of his paintings on the TV show with the same old brush.

Remington, did his paintings with a chewed up match stick, when he was out with the cattle on his horse etc. Your painting ability has more to do with your artistic ability than with the brush, most often than not.

With all of that painting equipment, seems like Patsy could be rolling in money doing more painting than politics. It would be therapeudic too.

DNA testing of the entire Asian group would be a start, and expensive, and probably prohibited without explicit 'cause'.
BlueCrab, do you think any judge would allow it?



.





.

[BlueCrab]

DNA testing of the entire Asian group would be a start, and expensive, and probably prohibited without explicit 'cause'.
BlueCrab, do you think any judge would allow it?




Camper,

I don't think that would be a problem. Most people would willingly allow a mouth swab to be taken. Those who refuse, if any, would be running up a red flag.

[sissi]

Have we discussed the blood on the barbie nightgown?
Was it Jonbenet's or dna x?

[RedChief]

You don't consider ligature strangulation vicious? You don't consider massive head trauma vicious? (scratching my head)

[BrotherMoon]

BrotherMoon,

It was a sexual crime. Please re-read the autopsy report which describes acute and chronic injuries to the vagina. No one of authority contends there was no sexual abuse. How do you think JonBenet's blood got into her underwear?

The sexual abuse is verified by the panel of doctors assigned to the case to make that determination. They were Dr.'s:


I thought you had learned not to direct posts at me.

[Camper]

BOO - as in a Halloween BOO, not a derogatory BOO.

:blowkiss:Have a nice day.



.

[Camper]

Check this link out, we carried a lot of different Grumbacher art supplies AND BRUSHES, they are my favorite.

http://www.grumbacherart.com/sanford/consumer/grumbacher/brushes.htm

Look at the wood colored brush on the far right, I am estimating the device handle most likely was this type and size brush.

This type of brush is used to do washes on the canvas before paint is ever applied, OR can be used for large background colors. The brush width is quite wide, and I dare any Ghengis Khan types reading here to JUST break this brush with their bare hands, they would need gargantuan strength to do so.

My educated opinion, nothing more nothing less.

The old fellow who still appears on PBS with his painting instruction, even though he has passed away, uses a regular old paint the walls brush, about 2 to 3 inches wide. He did all of his paintings on the TV show with the same old brush.

Remington, did his paintings with a chewed up match stick, when he was out with the cattle on his horse etc. Your painting ability has more to do with your artistic ability than with the brush, most often than not.

With all of that painting equipment, seems like Patsy could be rolling in money doing more painting than politics. It would be therapeudic too.

DNA testing of the entire Asian group would be a start, and expensive, and probably prohibited without explicit 'cause'.
BlueCrab, do you think any judge would allow it?

===================================
Wanted to add some stuff, that should have been included in my post above.

I did some reflective thinking after I did this post. I do remember now that I personally did break off my brush of this approximate size to leave a shorter 'handle' because the original handle length was TOO long. It was unwieldy for painting backgrounds OR doing a wash on the canvas. I am coming NOW to the conclusion that Patsy must have broken the brush for that same reason some time PRIOR to JonBenets death.

Breaking the end off was a tough tough job, but did make the painting and prepping of the canvas MUCH FASTER to do.

I am also doubting that she would have broken the tiny end off. I am also thinking that the broken wash brush would have been something just laying in the paint tote.

So if no painting had been done for some time, the broken brush might have gone to the bottom of the paint tote, being superceded by brushes used to paint the picture. So what perp/or person doing the COVER/ransom letter, would have known to find a 'device' handle/broken brush that was in the tote. My thinking leads me to think that only the tip end was broken the night of the murder. Just thinking, hmmm.



===================================
RedChief your post #54, I quote

"Thanks for leading us to that "goldmine" webpage. Looks like Lou Smit has it all figured out."


---->>>I think a LOT of people have it nearly all figured out, at least in their minds, with the limited information that WE all have.

I think all of us have pieces of the murder puzzle, but no one has a suntan from sitting in the Jail House Spa, YET.



.

[RedChief]

Camper,

Roger that. I couldn't agree more.

The solution is in these postings scattered all around.

Your point about the brush possibly having been broken previously for some legitimate purpose is a good one. Smit did say the tip end of the handle MAY have been used; it's nowhere to be found. One is more comfortable with one's speculations about missing evidence, not so? Who can rebut them?

I still say we need to compose a list of incontrovertible facts and keep them distinctly separate from suppositions, assumptions and inferences.

Tally Ho!

[RedChief]

Wow, blood on the barbie nightgown? Say it isn't true. Tell me more!



Have we discussed the blood on the barbie nightgown?
Was it Jonbenet's or dna x?

[RedChief]

Two whom it may concern:

I think the livor mortis implies that the body HAD NOT been moved post mortem, at least not for a "long" time; and if, on the contrary, it HAD been moved after a "long" time, the perp/stager had been careful (or lucky) not to change it's orientation; i.e., not to reposition it with respect to the gravitational field, which, even in Boulder, is most likely approximately vertical.

"Sometimes I feel like a motherless child..."--anonymous

[BlueCrab]

Two whom it may concern:

I think the livor mortis implies that the body HAD NOT been moved post mortem, at least not for a "long" time; and if, on the contrary, it HAD been moved after a "long" time, the perp/stager had been careful (or lucky) not to change it's orientation; i.e., not to reposition it with respect to the gravitational field, which, even in Boulder, is most likely approximately vertical.



RedChief,

In one of my BDI theories I suggest that JonBenet likely died at around 1:18 A.M. (time of death was recorded by the killer as $118,000 in the RN), and John found her around 4:00 to 4:30 A.M. or so (about 3 hours later). Lividity sets completely in an adult after 4-12 hours after death (it sets quicker in heat), except in a child it would set sooner.

Therefore, if John found JonBenet 3 hours after death in that warm basement, lividity could have been completely set and the body could be moved without livor mortis on the body disclosing that she had been moved.

BlueCrab

[RedChief]

BlueCrab,

Interesting observation!

What are some ways in which one might determine that a body has been moved, other than through lividity? If it were covered in mud, but had the proper lividity, would you conclude that it had been moved?

Why is it important to know whether the body had been moved? A stranger/intruder could have moved it just as easily as could a family member. Also, it could have been moved right away, from where the killing took place, to where the body was discovered, or it could, as you postulate, have been moved quite some time later after lividity had become established.

If we could know that it had been moved, what would that tell us?

Is it your belief that it was hidden, to some degree, by virtue of it's having been deposited in the wine cellar behind a closed and latched door, and, if so, what's your explanation for that?

[RedChief]

Allow me to weigh in:

I think we're having a semantical argument. If the perp/stager inflicted a sexual injury would you consider this a sexual assault? I would. It's a sexual assault by definition. A body part having to do with a primary sex characteristic, namely the vagina, was injured. The sexual injury, alone, doesn't mean the perp/stager was sexually attracted to JBR, nor does it mean that he/she inflicted it sadistically. If it were inflicted as staging, it's a sexual assault nonetheless, but, in that case, to be clear, one might more precisely refer to it as a STAGED sexual assault. If it were a staged sexual assault, then maybe as someone has observed, "sex had nothing to do with it."

Then there are the matters of alleged chronic abuse and unmistakable acute injury. Acute, in the context of injuries to the child's reproductive organ, simply means lasting a short time; there was evidence (the blood and abrasions) that some injury to the hymen and vaginal wall had been recent and of short duration. Chronic, in the context of the above injuries, simply means having a relatively (as compared to acute) long duration; in this case long enough for the child's immune system (loosely speaking) to attempt to make repair (to effect healing). The chronic pathology was the interstitial inflammation. Many experts (if not most) felt that this inflammation was attributable to her enuresis and less than salutory hygiene.

Don't overlook the hyperemia in and around the vestibule. It could have been caused by recent rubbing; and hence indicative of recent corporal punishment. There are also alternative explanations. Also, the labia were bruised.

Are we making any progress?

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by sissi
Have we discussed the blood on the barbie nightgown?
Was it Jonbenet's or dna x?Wow, blood on the barbie nightgown? Say it isn't true. Tell me more!
It isn't. There was no blood on the nightgown. It was only "near" the body. There was no blood on the white blanket either.

[BlueCrab]

Why is it important to know whether the body had been moved?



RedChief,

If the body wasn't in the wine cellar when Fleet White opened the door and looked in at 9:20 A.M., as he says it wasn't; and the body WAS there when John opened the door at 1:05 P.M. later that day, as we know it was; then the body had been moved to its last position between those two times.

John was in the basement alone at about 10:00 A.M. If the body was moved, then John had to have been the one who moved it.

John admits in the interviews he didn't know Fleet White had been in the basement earlier that morning. IMO this is at the crux of the dispute between John and Fleet. FLEET KNOWS JOHN MOVED THE BODY. If Fleet knows it, then the cops know it too, and that's one of the reasons the Ramseys will never come from under the umbrella of suspicion.

BlueCrab

[RedChief]

BlueCrab,

Very good! Your logic is unassailable.

This may very well be the crux of the dispute. Didn't John look into the wine cellar some hours after White did? Maybe the lighting was better when John looked than when White looked. Maybe John can see in the dark, better than White. Maybe White, himelf, moved the body early that morning, and John moved it back. Maybe the body wasn't wrapped in the luminous white blanket when White looked and WAS wrapped in the white blanket when John looked. Maybe John was the one who wrapped it with a blanket he removed from the basement dryer. Maybe John knew about White's inquisitive nature and waited until after White had gone there to put the body there. If so, why invite him in the first place? Some have conjectured that John didn't intend to disobey the note, but that Patsy threw a wrench into his plan when she called 911; or vice versa with John insisting that she call 911. She says it was his decision. Maybe.....

John initially estimated the time of his first excursion to be at least an hour or so earlier than 10 AM, and when reminded by his interviewer that he was supposed to have been waiting by the telephone for the call that "morning" between 8 and 10, he revised his estimate.

Weren't the police just as suspicious of Fleet as of John early on; torn between two accounts?

The police have interviewed White, haven't they, so, if White told them he was sure there was no body there when he looked early that morning, why didn't they detain John immediately thereafter? I believe White also contradicted John with his account of what he noticed about the window-open or shut, latched or unlatched. It was sure great of White to mess with the crime scene wasn't it. Were prints found on the tape, I've forgotten. Oh, dear!

What do you make of John's assertion that he searched for JBR in the walk-in refrigerator? I believe he is also reported to have looked under a dust ruffle on one of the beds in her room (officer Reichenbach was present and cautioned him not to touch anything). If this is true, then he must have been entertaining the idea, at those junctures, that the note was not to be taken at face value. Maybe, by then he was suspecting an "inside job"; maybe expecting to find her alive and on the premises or thinking it was a prank. What does that imply?

"To err is human, to forgive is unforgiveable."--RC

[Seeker]

RedChief,

If the body wasn't in the wine cellar when Fleet White opened the door and looked in at 9:20 A.M., as he says it wasn't; BlueCrab

That is incorrect BC. Fleet never said the body was not in there, he said he didn't see anything in there because it was so dark and that he couldn't find the light switch.

[sissi]

Wolf vs Ramsey

JonBenet had black duct tape covering her mouth, a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head in front of her: she was covered by a light-colored blanket. ( SMF 38: PSMF 38.) A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.) Mr. Ramsey ripped the duct tape off JonBenet's mouth and attempted to untie her hands. {SMF 39; PSMF 39.} He then carried her body upstairs. {SMF 39: PSMF 39.} It was only upon the discovery of JonBenet's body that the Boulder police began to secure properly the home as the crime scene. (SMF 53: PSMF 53.)

I believe in the Beckner deposition there was mention of the dna x, slightly suggesting dna found on that nightgown as well..the dna x


Oops..a little edit ..a question to BC..was this room warm? If so why did they choose a warm room to store wine?

[Seeker]

Wolf vs Ramsey
A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.)

Sissi, where did you find this? This is the only time I've ever seen anything regarding "blood" being on the nightgown. Oh and we all know it was a WHITE blanket, not a light colored blanket...

Seems someone has gotten their info mixed up.

[jubie]

When John carried JonBenet upstairs weren't her arms stiff above her head? How could she be wrapped like a cocoon if her arms are rigid above her head?

If an intruder did it he would have had to hang around for some time for rigor to set in and then wrap her up, either that or John wrapped her on one of his trips downstairs and he's lieing about it....


I'v been glued to this thread, thanks so much for all the great sleuthing!!


Jubie

[sissi]

Seeker ...

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:21Uki-t49WkJ:www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm+carnes+barbie+nightgown+blood&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

it appears to be a smf..statement of material fact

[Kaly]

IMO, based on the simple process of elimination, Burke likely wrote the childish-sounding ransom note.
I just got the book, Mother Gone Bad, and it has a picture of the ransom note. That definitely does not look like a 9-year old kid wrote it. It looks like a woman's handwriting to me.

[Seeker]

Carnes? Well that explains all the incorrect facts doesn't it?
Like this one...JonBenet's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrotte attached to her body. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 19; SMF163; PSMF 163.) The slipknots and the garrote are both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. (SMF 161, 164; PSMF 161, 164.)

Her body was "bound"? Her body was not bound at all. Complicated rope slipknots? Where? WHERE? Puleaze!!! None of this is correct and is fabricated to make it seem more complex than it was and to make the Ramsey's look like complete idiots that couldn't even tie a knot. " No evidence exists that either defendant knew how to tie such knots. "

Give me a forkin break already! John was in the military, NAVY to be precise. He knew how to tie knots, even complicated ones. He'd have to. He knew and he tied "complicated" knots while owning and sailing his own boat! This info trying to make the Rams seem like innocent ignorant little morons came from John Ramsey, a known liar. It's been vomited back up by Hoffman to help support his ignorant claims.

Carnes is a dupe and an idiot IMO. She relied on information from Wood, Ramsey and the ultimate moron Hoffman without having any firsthand knowledge or having ever seen any of the factual evidence.

PSMF=Darnay the Uber Moron Hoffman who was suppose to be representing Chris Wolf but only used Chris' name to further his own personal vendetta against Patsy. He was the real "plaintiff" in this case, not Wolf. Wolf was a dupe, used and thrown aside when his usefulness was depleted. Uber Moron didn't even show up for the appeal he requested...

There is no other reference anywhere but in this worthless document full of inaccuracies and fabrications that there was ever any blood found on the Barbie nightgown.

There is nothing in Beckner's depo about it either.

[RedChief]

How can anyone read this and come away believing that the Ramseys murdered their daughter????

Don't know how factual it is though, but, in any event, let us not shrink from the facts.

Thanks for the URL, sissi. This is quite a well-written overview, I might add. Succinct!

All those fibers and animal hairs not sourced to the house. hmmmmmm Food for thought.

Maybe Smit knows what he's talking about?

[UKGuy]

If the size-12 panties that JonBenet was wearing when her body was discovered, were a pair she herself had worn say to the Whites party. Then those pants will have fibers from her black velvet pants on them, and since they are new from bloomingdales, right out of the packet, there is likely to be NO prior fiber evidence to be found on them.

So the question as to whether she was redressed can be answered definitively.

All the elements suggesting a bedroom abduction were found in the basement. In terms of what it sets out to portray it is neatly ordered, there is no sign of a struggle, no scattered forensic evidence just JonBenet wrapped up in a blanket!

This is in contrast to the scene upstairs both in her bedroom and bathroom. Where there are items on the floor, items that belong in the bathroom on the bedroom floor. The bed has possibly been remade or never been slept in. Depending on what you decide determines where you think she may have met with an "accident" or been "sexually assaulted".

Picture John seated in his office wearing his Blue Bath Robe, was she sitting on Johns lap, whilst he practised drawing red hearts on a trade magazine, or was it her, did he then draw a red heart on her hand? John denied ever seeing the magazine before!

Why would Burke need rope and a re-fashioned paintbrush to indulge in sexual activity with JonBenet?

JonBenet regularly slept in Burkes bed, intimacy was not an issue with her.


Why would you relocate her body downstairs to the basement, if there were external accomplices, why did they not take the body with them on exiting as per the ransom note rationale?

If the ransom note points outwards from the ramsay house, and we know she was found in the house. Then what does the discovery of her body in the basement point away from?

[RedChief]

Which elements are suggestive of a bedroom abduction other than the white blanket and the Barbie nightgown and, possibly, her attire?

Who has suggested that Burke would need a cord and a re-fashioned paintbrush to engage in sexual activity with JBR?

Yes, why didn't they take the body with them? Good question! Also why would you transport her body to the basement? Another good question!

The discovery of her body in the basement seems to point away from a kidnapping attempt. This is what I've always maintained.

There's no evidence that John practiced drawing red hearts on the magazine. There was one person's photo circled (not a heart). Am I mistaken about this? Blue fibers? Where?

"So the question as to whether she was redressed can be answered definitively." Perhaps, providing we know what fibers, if any, were found on the underwear, especially the panties.

Good work, UKguy.

[Nehemiah]

So, what evidence have we definitely come up with?

[RedChief]

Which elements are suggestive of a bedroom abduction other than the white blanket and the Barbie nightgown and, possibly, her attire? Not that these aren't sufficient in and of themselves.

Who has suggested that Burke would need a cord and a re-fashioned paintbrush to engage in sexual activity with JBR?

Yes, why didn't they take the body with them? Good question! Also why would you transport her body to the basement? Another good question!

The discovery of her body in the basement seems to point away from a kidnapping attempt. This is what I've always maintained.

There's no evidence that John practiced drawing red hearts on the magazine. There was one person's photo circled (not a heart). Am I mistaken about this? Blue fibers? Where?

"So the question as to whether she was redressed can be answered definitively." Perhaps, providing we know what fibers, if any, were found, or not found, on the underwear, especially the panties.

Good work, UKguy...still there is this to be addressed: Granted that the scene doesn't satisfy one's expectations for kidnapping gone awry-what scene involving a body on the premises would?-one must nevertheless explain why the body was transported to the basement and "hidden" in the wine cellar. Leaving it in plain view would have aroused less suspicion, because the questions provoked by hiding it would never have arisen. The only explanation I can come up with so far is that the mysterious perp needed to keep the death a secret until others could be unwittingly summoned to the scene to reinforce his/her contention that the child had been kidnapped. Of course, the note was quite helpful in this regard.

I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but I'm worried about that rumbling noise.

[UKGuy]

The Ramsays account of putting Jonbenet to bed, then John discovering her dressed in her longjohns and white gap top suggest she went from her bed to the basement. But if you consult the evidence and witness statements you will find it contradictory.

But the staging was unfinished since she was really meant to be dressed in her barbie gown, and its quite likely her longjohns would have ended up in the washing machine.

Its part of BlueCrab's well reasoned BDI that Burke and an accomplice were engaging in AEA activity with JonBenet. Thats where the cord and the paintbrush come in!

But given her age I would claim the cord on its own would be sufficient.


So as a kidnapping gone wrong, you can see thats just staging. Look closer at the elements in the basement and it also becomes apparent that it also is staged. Why secret JonBenet down to the basement to commit a sadistic sexual assault then murder her. But then continue to run up and down the stairs to fetch a white blanket, barbie gown, her cross and necklace, her size-12 panties, her longjohns etc. Restyle her hair because it had become a mess during some kind of struggle? Why must this "bedroom abduction" staging be enacted?

What kind of killer is so interested in JonBenets deportment and fashion accessories. Why remove forensic evidence by wiping her down etc, but leave the paintbrush handle, just a little oversight by a psychopathic pedophile?

Speculation:
There was nothing to stop the Ramsays removing JonBenet from the house and dumping her body somewhere outside. I would have done that, then done exactly what they did , and phoned my buddies and asked them round knowing full well they would mess up the forensics! Did something go badly wrong, did someone not keep their part of the deal?

[Catfish]

...one must nevertheless explain why the body was transported to the basement and "hidden" in the wine cellar. It could have been left in plain view without altering one's perceptions. The only explanation I can come up with so far is that the mysterious perp needed to keep the death a secret until others could be unwittingly summoned to the scene to reinforce his/her contention that the child had been kidnapped. Of course, the note was quite helpful in this regard....
Imagine a family member has accidently/purposefully killed JonBenet. What do they do? Open the front door and leave it open, call the police, tell the police they heard a noise/scream, found JonBenet dead, and show the police the front door was wide open. Simple.....

"...explain why the body was transported to the basement and "hidden" in the wine cellar. "

Could it be that the perpertrator's natural reaction to any event in her/his life was to create a calculated perception, a drama?

[UKGuy]

Could it be that the perpertrator's natural reaction to any event in her/his life was to create a calculated perception, a drama?
Is this not part of what BrotherMoon suggests wrt Patsy?

[RedChief]

BlueCrab, you wrote--"In one of my BDI theories I suggest that JonBenet likely died at around 1:18 A.M. (time of death was recorded by the killer as $118,000 in the RN), and John found her around 4:00 to 4:30 A.M. or so (about 3 hours later). Lividity sets completely in an adult after 4-12 hours after death (it sets quicker in heat), except in a child it would set sooner."

Isn't that interesting! I once theorized the EXACT SAME THING and got the idea from a scene containing a digital clock in the movie, Nick of Time. At one point in the movie there was a brief shot of this clock, just as it "struck" 1:18. At first I thought this was just another reference in the note to a movie. There were many such references. But, later that it was a means of recording time of death, DRAMATICALLY and for posterity, occurred to me.


Betcha I thought of it first!

[Camper]

I need some cracks filled in.

Red Chief, quotes you as posturing this:

"BlueCrab, you wrote--"In one of my BDI theories I suggest that JonBenet likely died at around 1:18 A.M. (time of death was recorded by the killer as $118,000 in the RN), and John found her around 4:00 to 4:30 A.M. or so (about 3 hours later)"

Explain to me, I may have missed it, how you determined that John found her around 4:00 to 4:30 AM, how did you arrive at that thought.

Thank you.


.

[RedChief]

When John carried JonBenet upstairs weren't her arms stiff above her head? How could she be wrapped like a cocoon if her arms are rigid above her head?
Jubie


jubie,

Good point. She couldn't. A cocoon is an envelope that entirely encapsulates it's passenger.

I think John said she was wrapped like an Indian papoose. Interestingly, John may have referred to her when she was a baby and/or toddler as his papoose. I've seen one picture where they are hiking and he's carrying her in a pouch strapped to his back. I remember reading a transcript of some of his comments, maybe delivered before a student audience at some college, when he started to say something--"pa..." in reference to JBR then corrected himself. Maybe some of the posters here can enlighten us on that. Once upon a time, perhaps at the same venue, he also corrected himself when he was talking about the time of the killing. He said "night" and corrected that to "morning", or vice versa, my memory is foggy about that. It was as if he knew for sure which it was and it slipped out. A virus got into my computer and I had to rebuild the hard drive; lost everything.

Although the child was wrapped in the blanket, according to John, when he found her, her head, arms and feet were protruding, he said. If memory serves, all that is protruding from the swaddling of a papoose is the head, so his description wasn't entirely accurate.

Can anyone explain why JBR's arms were thrust into the air (as it were); i.e., above her head? That is not a very comfortable posture for a supine, living human being; try it.

Hope this helps.

[Nehemiah]

John Walsh saying that John (Ramsey) "cut her down" has always made me believe that her arms were positioned above her head because she was either hanging, or sitting propped up with her arms hanging onto something. How that can all fit into lividity--I don't know. But the position of her arms certainly would lend to her being in the position I just described.

[RedChief]

John Walsh saying that John (Ramsey) "cut her down" has always made me believe that her arms were positioned above her head because she was either hanging, or sitting propped up with her arms hanging onto something. How that can all fit into lividity--I don't know. But the position of her arms certainly would lend to her being in the position I just described.

Nehemiah,

Roger that. I remember when I first saw the movie, Ransom, thinking that the position of JBR's arms and the cord around the wrists might have been to simulate the posture of the kidnap victim (the boy restrained on the bed) in the movie, but still couldn't figure out how JBR's arms were kept in that position long enough for them to be frozen thus in rigor mortis. That something had been pulling on them as you describe may just fit the bill.

I'm still unclear whether both wrists were tied when John found her. When he brought her upstairs there was no cord around the left (wasn't it?) wrist; this despite his having said that he tried to get the cord undone but couldn't. There's still some mystery surrounding this wrist ligature. Also he said they were tight, so tight that her wrists had swollen in proximity to them; yet, the coroner said he was able to slip the ligature off her right wrist easily. I've also heard it reported that the knots at the wrists were slip knots. If that is so, then they might only be tight when tension is applied to the cord; when the cord is relaxed the loops may loosen. So, even though they may have been the sort of loops that could rather easily be removed from the wrists (why did John have so much trouble?) while the cord was slack, they may have been effective as restraints while the cord was under tension; i.e., while she was hanging or otherwise restrained. There was no mention of any evidence of "hanging injuries" to her wrists however.

Is it your understanding that the arms were straight as if they had been under tension for some while, or were the elbows bent to some degree? These are things I've always wondered about.

[BlueCrab]

Explain to me, I may have missed it, how you determined that John found her around 4:00 to 4:30 AM, how did you arrive at that thought.




Camper,

I don't think the timeline from when the Ramseys say they got up, 5:30 A.M., to when they had to be at the airport, 6:30 A.M., was enough time.

It was a 20-minute drive to the airport, so they had to be leaving from their driveway by 6:10 A.M. And when Patsy says she found the ransom note, allegedly around 5:45 A.M., she admitted she was on her way to the kitchen to make coffee. And the children hadn't even been woken up yet. I don't believe them. It just doesn't make sense to purposely plan ahead of time and create a time-crunch like that.

Therefore, I think they planned for and got up earlier -- probably 4:00 - 4:30 A.M., to be at the airport by 6:30.

[BrotherMoon]

Can anyone explain why JBR's arms were thrust into the air (as it were); i.e., above her head? That is not a very comfortable posture for a supine, living human being; try it.


Some describe crucifixion as "hanging apon a stake", arms above the head, hands together.

It's also a position of praise. The Paugh sisters got together that day and chanted verses of forgiveness, swaying with their arms raised.

If the garrote handle is pulled up, behind the head, it comes to the same level as the wrists, with arms raised, on a child that size.

The broken end of the paint brush handle could have fit into a hole, with the other end sticking out for the wrist cord to be wrapped around. The brush handle could have been broken and the end left in the hole.

[RedChief]

Wolf vs Ramsey

JonBenet had black duct tape covering her mouth, a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head in front of her: she was covered by a light-colored blanket. ( SMF 38: PSMF 38.) A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.) Mr. Ramsey ripped the duct tape off JonBenet's mouth and attempted to untie her hands. {SMF 39; PSMF 39.} He then carried her body upstairs. {SMF 39: PSMF 39.} It was only upon the discovery of JonBenet's body that the Boulder police began to secure properly the home as the crime scene. (SMF 53: PSMF 53.)

I believe in the Beckner deposition there was mention of the dna x, slightly suggesting dna found on that nightgown as well..the dna x


Oops..a little edit ..a question to BC..was this room warm? If so why did they choose a warm room to store wine?

"The cord was attached to a wooden garrote": Nope. The cord and the wooden item together formed the garrote.

"...her hands were bound over her head in front of her.": Nope. This is misleading. Her hands weren't bound; her wrists were bound but separable by 15 inches of slack cord.

"...in front of her.": Nope. How could they be bound over her head and in front of her at the same time? That they weren't tightly bound together (crossed) and behind her back is what is significant to me.

"...light-colored blanket.": Nope. White blanket.

"JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown.": Nope. Not on Barbie nightgown. What was that stain on her pillow case? Is that a sign she was clubbed while in bed?

Not a warm room; good place to preserve a body.

Off to the Beckner deposition I go....

[sissi]

RedChief...I'm not so certain this information is wrong, perhaps the mention of the hands being tied is misleading, however when someone applies a device to your wrists to "take ya off to the paddy wagon" the device is referred to as "handcuffs".
I have always pictured the hands being held up in front of her above head level,is this a wrong impression?
Do we have a picture of the blanket that covered her? Or a description by law enforcement? Probably , but I do remember Patsy looking at such a picture and saying it looked pink, and the interviewer suggested the color quality was off. How many blankets were on the floor of the wine cellar? Two?
Are you certain there was no blood on the barbie nightgown?

Have ya' had a chance to review Beckner's depo?

[BlueCrab]

In regard to the temperature in the basement -- from the 1998 interviews (while discussing John's solo visit to the basement that morning):

MIKE KANE: "Now you said that that window was open a bit, but that sometimes that had been open before to let air -- "

JOHN RAMSEY: "It was open for ventilation. It was wide open, because with the heat all winter, that room would really get hot. So if the kids were down there and playing, you had to open the window."

MIKE KANE: "And that was a room where the kids played a lot with the train?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "The train was there. Burke used to play with that. They didn't play there a lot. Burke did, from time to time. But not so much JonBenet. That was Burke's train room."


So it appears the basement got pretty hot during the winter; and JonBenet's body was in the wine cellar (which was called a wine cellar by the Ramseys just for the fun of it) right next to the boiler room. (Heat, incidentally, significantly speeds up the putrefaction of a dead body.)

BlueCrab

[RedChief]

sissi,

About the wrist ligature: yes, misleading but not necessarily deliberately. This isn't an easy thing to describe in a few words. I might have said, there was as cord tied around each wrist; there was 15 inches of slack in the cord between the wrists. That would have depicted it accurately, no? But, you know, when people are trying to be succinct, summarizing and trying to describe things in a few words, accuracy almost suffers and ambiguity rears it's ugly head. I don't know what your point is about handcuffs?????? Not talkin' about handcuffs here. Should we say her hands were cuffed with a cord that allowed her to move them freely within a 15 inch limit? BTW, what do you make of this wrist ligature; what does it signify?

The hands could have been held up in front of her, if they were raised above her head as has been reported, considering that she was lying on her back. But, reports were that the arms were raised above her head as John carried her up the stairs and into the foyer. At that time the body was vertical, so, for this description to be accurate, the arms would have had to be vertical also. The artist's depiction (for what it's worth) shows her lying on her back with arms extended superiorly (not above her head as you have stated). This arm/hand posture is peculiar and yet unexplained. UKGuy has theorized that the body entered rigor while she lay on her stomach with the arms/wrists/hands extended BEYOND or superiorly (not above) her head. If this were so, it would have to be consistent with the lividity that was present when she was found. What's your take?

I'm not certain of anything, and, yes I have reviewed the Beckner deposition, and no, he doesn't specifically mention any blood on anything other than her clothing that she was wearing and on her body. He does mention the mystery DNAX but since he is having that tested by the FBI to compare to "suspects", isn't it safe to assume that isn't blood which came from the Barbie nightgown? Not that it couldn't be, but why conjecture that? Beckner said no blood except on the clothing she was wearing and on her body. There was also a report of some substance (stain) on the pillow case on her bed. Don't know what that was all about. A suspicious stain on the pillowcase could suggest that she was struck while she slept.

[RedChief]

Yes, BlueCrab,

It appears that the basement got pretty hot, at least in the play area. Does that mean that the wine cellar also got pretty hot? I remember reading that the room had once been a coal bin and had been converted into a wine cellar, so-called because a former tenant stored wine there. If it is true that a former tenant stored wine there, that may have been the coolest room in the basement; maybe cool enough to retard rigor. Of course, how cool it would be would depend on the situation at the time--had the furnace been replaced with a bigger, less-well-insulated one; had additional basement heating ducts been installed, had the thermostat in the basement malfunctioned, etc., etc., etc.

The rigor doesn't appear to have been accelerated in this case, does it?

BTW, who explored the train room first that morning? If Fleet, why didn't he mention having to move things to get into the room? If Fleet, why did he put stuff back after he left the room? What's your take on that?

[sissi]

Could John be lying concerning the condition Jonbenet was in when he found her?
Perhaps, he did "cut her down" as John Walsh suggested, perhaps he did redress her for the sake of propriety.
This isn't necessarily likely, but possible. My sisters do not know my mom was found dead lying on the floor, they still believe she "peacefully passed" in her sleep. For my sons, and my sisters, I LIED about her position as to not add to their pain . In my case,of course , it made no difference, an aneurysm is an aneurism, so the whens and wheres didn't matter.
However, with John Ramsey, a father, wouldn't he have pulled up her longjohns and kept quiet if he found her exposed? Would it be too late to tell the truth without looking as though he was covering for "someone" in the house. Would doing this one thing confuse the crime scene by perhaps adding fibers under her clothing. YEP! If his lawyer knows this, would he not tell him to leave it be, because telling after the fact makes one's comments fall into the category of inconsistent? Could Fleet have seen part of this redressing and "think" John not telling was worth a feud?

Red Chief..these picture, the ones that still show her wearing the shirt, do they suggest a positioning of the arms? and......no, I'm not certain the artists rendering is correct..
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

[RedChief]

Could John be lying concerning the condition Jonbenet was in when he found her?
Perhaps, he did "cut her down" as John Walsh suggested, perhaps he did redress her for the sake of propriety.
This isn't necessarily likely, but possible. My sisters do not know my mom was found dead lying on the floor, they still believe she "peacefully passed" in her sleep. For my sons, and my sisters, I LIED about her position as to not add to their pain . In my case,of course , it made no difference, an aneurysm is an aneurism, so the whens and wheres didn't matter.
However, with John Ramsey, a father, wouldn't he have pulled up her longjohns and kept quiet if he found her exposed? Would it be too late to tell the truth without looking as though he was covering for "someone" in the house. Would doing this one thing confuse the crime scene by perhaps adding fibers under her clothing. YEP! If his lawyer knows this, would he not tell him to leave it be, because telling after the fact makes one's comments fall into the category of inconsistent? Could Fleet have seen part of this redressing and "think" John not telling was worth a feud?

Red Chief..these picture, the ones that still show her wearing the shirt, do they suggest a positioning of the arms? and......no, I'm not certain the artists rendering is correct..
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

sissi,

Before I forget, one of the basement windows shown on that site (good photos!), the non-crime scene photo, isn't THE window. Do you know which room it's in? Didn't one of the windows open into a crawl space or a dead end or the like? Could this be it? It hinges horizontally.

John redressed her? Put soiled undies on her? Just pulled them up? That might explain the dark fibers? Maybe, but if memory serves, the dark fibers were found sticking to the smeared areas. The fibers wouldn't be adhering to the smeared areas unless the smeared areas were somewhat wet at the time of the supposed redressing or cleansing process. That would mean John found her right after those areas had been "wiped".

The John cut her down hypothesis: Where is the evidence? No pressure marks on her wrists made by cord under tension to suggest this, were there?

Why would John pull up her longjohns and keep quiet about it? Why wouldn't he report this to the authorities? To fail to do so could hamper the investigation. Why wouldn't he notify authorities immediately upon finding her dead and in this hanging position? UKGuy postulated that she may have gone into rigor while lying on her stomach; also dovetails with the location of the urine stains--urinated while lying on her stomach; but, if that were so, how would we account for the lividity on her back and on the right side of the face which was turned to the right when she was found lying on her back. The lividity is consistent with the position of the body when found, but not consistent with the position of the body (or live girl) when she urinated. What's your explanation for that?

Don't think Fleet saw that.

I'm not sure the artist's rendering is correct either. Maybe you can see some suggestion of a positioning of the arms in those photos, but I can't. Don't forget, at the time those pictures were taken, rigor had begun to wear off. You can see that the head isn't turned to the right in the photos as it was when she was found. The head's been repositioned. Also, the neck ligature doesn't appear to me to be at the back of her neck as stated in the autopsy report; appears to be somewhat to the right side of the neck. Guess I'll have to re-check the autopsy report.

Sorry about your mom; sisters a lot younger than you? I lost my dad to a stroke.

[BlueCrab]

It appears that the basement got pretty hot, at least in the play area. Does that mean that the wine cellar also got pretty hot?


RedChief,

The wine cellar was a concrete windowless room NEXT TO THE FURNACE ROOM. The Ramseys enlarged the house after they bought it, including putting in a larger furnace. One has to assume that the entire basement got hot in the winter time when that big furnace was cranking away. The temperature that night had dipped to around 10 degrees F.

[RedChief]

RedChief,

The wine cellar was a concrete windowless room NEXT TO THE FURNACE ROOM. The Ramseys enlarged the house after they bought it, including putting in a larger furnace. One has to assume that the entire basement got hot in the winter time when that big furnace was cranking away. The temperature that night had dipped to around 10 degrees F.

BlueCrab,

Roger that. Makes sense. Maybe LHP could tell us, or someone else who'd been in the room. Maybe the perp will log on and post that information.

BTW, there was mention of some boards in the room that Burke is alleged to have been using for something he was building in there. I believe Patsy mentioned this to LE in one of her interviews while looking at photos and identifying things in the room. Are you aware of what he and his friend/s were building in that room? Patsy said they were always (frequently) in there working on that.

The material on the floor that contained the shoe prints: are we sure it was mold, not that it's terribly important; could it have been alkali? Was it the sort of mold that grows in a warm environment? Has it been analyzed?

"His eyes were hollows of madness; his hair like mouldy hay..."--AN

[Miss Daisey]

Red Chief....LE said in PMPC the dust on the floor of the wine cellar was dust from the natural decomposition of the old concrete floor of the basement.

In another theory involving Kali there's something else like a dust but I simply can't recall it's use. When I find it again I'll post it

edit; I may be mistaken about the Kali reference OTH

[sissi]

In our house the wall in the back of the basement "limes", the cement sort of develops a whitish chalk. Not sure if this is the same as the Ramsey's floor or not?
Shoes? We certainly have covered the Hi-tecs, now we understand there was another set of boot prints, not mentioned to brand, and we can not forget the Sas shoe prints from the earliest reports. When asked ,Christine Griffith (sp) said she had owned a pair but had given them away. Did the Ramseys give things away as well? To a charitable group or to household help? Does this suggest there were three people involved, or that two sets of shoeprints mean nothing?
Can anyone point me to a description of how the cord appeared on the wrists?

[BlueCrab]

BTW, there was mention of some boards in the room that Burke is alleged to have been using for something he was building in there. I believe Patsy mentioned this to LE in one of her interviews while looking at photos and identifying things in the room. Are you aware of what he and his friend/s were building in that room? Patsy said they were always (frequently) in there working on that.



RedChief,

No. I don't remember anything like that.

Maybe you're referring to the photographs the cops found taken of JonBenet in the basement laundry room, which is located just a few steps from the door to the train room. Patsy says she didn't take the snapshots.

TRIP DEMUTH: "Is there any reason why there would be photographs of JonBenet located in the laundry room?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No. Were there -- I mean, did somebody find them there?"

TRIP DEMUTH: "Would the boys play in there? Would John go down there?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I mean anybody could, but I mean the boys could come down and play in the train room ..."

TOM HANEY: "If she was doing something really cutesy or something, would you run and get the camera, take one of her?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No."

[RedChief]

Does this suggest there were three people involved, or that two sets of shoeprints mean nothing?

Can anyone point me to a description of how the cord appeared on the wrists?

There are several sources for how the cord appeared on the wrists: One is the coroner's report where he described it as being loosely tied around the right wrist. One is John's interview with LE where he said the wrists were crossed and tightly bound and he tried to untie the cord but couldn't. One is in DOI where he said there was 15.5 inches of slack cord between the wrists suggestive of a "snuff sex" scenario. One is in PMPT where it was reported that as John brought her into the foyer it was noticed that there was a cord dangling from the right wrist.

Incidentally, in the coroner's report, Meyer remarked that the tail end of the wrist ligature ended in a double-loop knot. I can see two loops in the photo. This would have been the end that had once (if ever) been tied around the left wrist. Why two loops for the left wrist but only one for the right (as seen in the photos)? If you take all these reports at face value you end up confused. The concensus seems to be that at one time both wrists were tied (but not tightly together) and that there was 15.5 inches of slack cord between the wrists--all of this when the child was found in the cellar. However, it's possible that this is not a fact, but an inference. Thomas says that the way the child was bound would not have restrained a live person.

[RedChief]

RedChief,

No. I don't remember anything like that.

Maybe you're referring to the photographs the cops found taken of JonBenet in the basement laundry room, which is located just a few steps from the door to the train room. Patsy says she didn't take the snapshots.
PATSY RAMSEY: "No."


BlueCrab,

Can you do a quick search of the interview documents? I'm off on another tangent right now. Look for the term "board" in a Patsy document.

If I recollect correctly Patsy was identifying photos of stuff in the wine cellar. I remember wondering what it was that she said the boys were building in there; could've been referring to the train room though.

THX

[RedChief]

BlueCrab,

Can you do a quick search of the interview documents? I'm off on another tangent right now. Look for the term "board" in a Patsy document.

If I recollect correctly Patsy was identifying photos of stuff in the wine cellar. I remember wondering what it was that she said the boys were building in there; could've been referring to the train room though.

THX

It was the train room; what were they building in there; the boys? A gallows?

[Nehemiah]

Shoes? We certainly have covered the Hi-tecs, now we understand there was another set of boot prints, not mentioned to brand, and we can not forget the Sas shoe prints from the earliest reports. When asked ,Christine Griffith (sp) said she had owned a pair but had given them away. Did the Ramseys give things away as well? To a charitable group or to household help? Does this suggest there were three people involved, or that two sets of shoeprints mean nothing?

Steve Thomas stated in his book that there were three footprints never identified. They were from three different shoes.