True or False? [Archive] - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Jayelles

02-19-2005, 06:44 AM

There is only one "pair" of marks on her body. The marks on her leg are not considered to be made by a stungun (see Stratbucker's deposition on this - that is confirmed by Lin Wood).

Then there is only one mark on her face. Proponents of the stungun argue that this is because the second stungun prong "landed" on the duct tape. This in itself raises certain questions:-

1. There was a perfect lip print on the duct tape suggesting that she was dead or unconscious when it was applied. Why stungun someone who is dead or unconscious?

2. Duct tape insultates against electricity. It can be used as electrical tape but is not recommended because it contains cotton fibres. These aborb moisture making the tape less effective as insultation. Now the question about this is whethere it would eb effective insulation against a high voltage such as a stungun. I don't know the answer to this question - nor do any of the people whom I asked. It is possible that if one prong of the stungun landed on duct tape, that it would interfere with the working of the stungun.

3. Michael Doberson is not an expert on stunguns. He was the pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Gerlad Boggs (who WAS stungunned) and he failed to recognise the stungun marks. Robert Stratbucker OTOH has been an expert on stunguns for decades and has conducted dozens of experiments on humans and animals. He believes that the marks on JonBenet were not made by a stungun. Lin Wood "discredited" Stratbucker in his deposition - but on technicalities. He failed to discredit Dr Stratbucker's expertise and he also failed to ask Dr Stratbucker WHY he did not believe the marks were not made by a stungun. I believe this was a deliberate tactic and that things would have played out very differently in a court of law.

Also, it is interesting to note that when jameson was asked to name the doctor who conducted Bogg;s original autopsy, she claimed that she couldn't recall (as if she would forget something like that).

In my opinion, one pair does not constitute a "pattern". I would like answers to the above questions from unbiased experts. Unfortunately the RST have proved time and then time again that they will spin and distort the truth in defence of the Ramseys. This in itself does the Ramseys no favours. People like honesty.

BlueCrab

02-19-2005, 11:10 AM

Maybe we can reach a concensus as to what the facts are with a thread like this; devote it to argument concerning the facts.

True or false?: There are three sets of identical marks (skin irregularities) on JBR's body that some think may have been made by the application of a stun gun. Note, the question is not whether the marks are evidence of the use of a stun gun, but whether such marks were discovered.

This should be an easy one...

TRUE.

RedChief

02-19-2005, 12:23 PM

Jayelles,

Excellent synopsis with lots of applicable information!

As a person with a degree in electrical engineering and with more than a few years experience with the transmission and distribution of electrical energy (popularly referred to as "power"), I can assure you that in order to answer your question definitively about the resistivity of the tape over her mouth, I would have to know the thickness and composition (chemically; i.e. whether polyethylene, ethylene-propylene, silicone rubber, etc.) of the tape; but, I am reasonably certain that if it were run-of-the-mill duct tape, it would offer little resistance to the flow of energy (current) at the voltage generated by the gun (several thousands of volts). I think John characterized it as some other kind of tape of the sort that is used as a fastener in sailing. I sometimes use duct tape, or whatever other kind of tape I can find in a cluttered and overflowing mox-nix drawer to effect repairs on extension cords and the like--too lazy to go down to the hardware store and purchase UL approved electrical tape. Even "Scotch" transparent tape will work, but will be far from being a permanent repair; but, that is because the voltages involved with home electrical cords are LOW (120-240 volts) compared to those produced by a stun gun.

The current involved in stunning with a gun is pretty low (milliamps compared to amps), but that would vary with the brand name and model number, so the gun probably wouldn't even "know" the duct tape was there. However, and this is only a guess, there might not be much of a mark, if any, left by the probe that was on the tape; but, I was under the impression that the tape was on the mouth and not on the neck; of course, I don't know the dimensions of the tape; it could have been wrapped around her ears for all I know. The higher the voltage the lower the amount of current required to operate at the same power and transfer the same amount of energy over the same period of time. I believe the guns are rated in joules per second, no?

Someone once mentioned the possibility that the mysterious marks on the body of JBR might have been produced by the same electric fence that shocked Burke. NO! You can grab these things and hang onto them for as long as you are able (nasty little jolt like that received from a spark plug) and you will suffer no ill effects and require no dermatological intervention; the current is very low (but sufficient to discourage deer, etc.) and intermittent (pulsed).

Now, we're cookin'...but let us not stray too far from the object of the thread which is to ascertain the facts.

BlueCrab

02-19-2005, 02:02 PM

RedChief,

The tape on JonBenet was Shurtape brand black duct tape manufactured in Hickory, N.C. by Shurtape Technologies sometime in late November of 1996 and was availlable to be sold at McGuckin's Hardware in Boulder at the time of JonBenet's death. It's manufacturing run, with an identifiable composition, was for only a short time and therefore the roll, if found, could be identified and be a significant clue. The tape on JonBenet's mouth was estimated to be 5" long. The roll from which it was torn is missing and no other piece of tape in the house matched the tape on JonBenet.

Duct tape, incidentally, is made by pressing three layers of materials together. The top layer is polyethelyne plastic; the middle layer is fabric; and the bottom layer is rubber-based adhesive.

BlueCrab

RedChief

02-19-2005, 02:50 PM

BlueCrab,

Thanks for the tape info.

OK, if the thickness is approximately that of other brands of duct tape with which I'm familiar, the voltage at the skin between the points of contact of the electrodes of the stun gun would be reduced on the order of a thousand volts or so; that would be a small percentage of the total voltage available at the electrodes so interference would be minimal. Depending on how long the voltage was applied, there may or may not be some carbonization in the polyethylene of the tape caused by the heat generated by current flowing through the resistive material. I suppose we don't know whether that is the case. Ohm's law requires that the sum of the voltages around a loop add to zero; i.e., that the applied voltage (the voltage of the source measured while the current is flowing) be equal to the sum of the drops (current x resistance) around the loop. If the electrodes were applied directly to the skin (no air dielectric) and directly to the tape adhering closely to the skin (again, no air dielectric), then grossly the drops would be in the tape and in the tissue, including the skin, between the electrodes. Dielectric is a fancy term for an insulating material. It would not be possible to map the exact path of the current in the skin, tissue and muscles, etc., because of the unknown distribution of conductive materials. The current WOULDN'T travel ONLY via the shortest path between the electrodes; if that were the case then no stunning would result. Stunning (somewhat of a misnomer) involves rapid cycling of muscles so as to produce more or less instant fatigue. What effect stunning would have on the brain (it's fairly well protected) I do not know. It might or it might not produce unconsciousness. Obviously, probably, if sufficent current could be circulated through critical brain structures, given that the brain is an electrical organ, disruption resulting in normal functioning and possibly even in death might result. That is not to say I know for a fact that anyone has ever been electrocuted in such fashion (brain circuit disruption) by a stun gun.

I might add that in videos shown on TV that I have seen, almost always the victim of stunning SCREAMS while the stunning is taking place. It is apparently a painful process and one that I wouldn't choose, to immobilize someone in the circumstances under which JBR is alleged to have been immobilized. However, if it were possible (this I don't know) to stun in such a manner and at such a place on the body to effect paralysis of the diaphragm, it might be impossible for the victim to scream or otherwise vocalize. There might, however, be some sound associated with the rapid cycling of the current through the diaphragm. The decibel level of this imagined sound I would not care to guess. It might only be a brief (though possibly loud) "whuff."

Wish I had a pig ready for slaughter that I could experiment on. Of course, I'd whack him on the head first so as to avoid hurting him with the stunning experiments.

Why does there seem to be so much mystery surrounding the effects of stunning with these devices?

BlueCrab

02-19-2005, 05:46 PM

Okay RedChief, using Ohm's Law as I understand it, I think what you are saying is that since R (the duct tape) = E (the 50,000 V.) divided by I (the minimal current), then the resistance of the duct tape would be minimal and therefore not prevent the second prong of the stun gun from functioning.

IOW, the duct tape would have allowed the electrical circuit from the prong of the stun gun that rested against the tape to have been completed, even though there is little evidence of any stun gun "signature mark" on the skin at that spot (under the tape).

The only other concern then is: Was the tape that stretched across JonBenet's mouth actually long enough to have allowed it to be less than 1 3/8" (the distance between the stun gun's prongs) from the more obvious stun gun mark (large round red mark) on the cheek near the ear? I measured this distance on my 8-year-old granddaughter and it appeared the tape across the mouth would have had to be a minimum of about 6" to 7" long to have reached back that far. Rumor has it that the tape was only 5" long.

BlueCrab

RedChief

02-19-2005, 06:35 PM

BlueCrab,

You say..."Okay RedChief, using Ohm's Law as I understand it, I think what you are saying is that since R (the duct tape) = E (the 50,000 V.) divided by I (the minimal current), then the resistance of the duct tape would be minimal and therefore not prevent the second prong of the stun gun from functioning.

IOW, the duct tape would have allowed the electrical circuit from the prong of the stun gun that rested against the tape to have been completed, even though there is little evidence of any stun gun "signature mark" on the skin at that spot (under the tape)."

I say--As to the resistance of the duct tape: Well, actually the resistance of the duct tape would likely be quite a bit greater than that of the skin, etc., initially, so initially a considerable voltage, say, 45,000 volts (lasting only few microseconds) could develop across the tape (in the direction of the current which would probably be generally perpindicular to the tape), but eventually the insulation provided by the tape would break down (it is the case with most insulating materials, including polyethylene, that as soon as it's insulating capacity is exceeded, current begins to flow and the molecular structure begins to change), so it's resistance would be a function of time--the longer the time, the lesser the resistance. If and when it substantially carbonized, it's resistance could drop to a value even less than that of the skin, in which case most of the voltage drop would develop within the skin and flesh. This is a dynamic situation and would be an example of non-linear resistance--resistance that is not constant but changes with time and possibly even the magnitude of the voltage applied. So, this is not an easy thing to analyze and predict even though, in principle, the mechanisms involved are not all that complex. Polyethylene will eventually deteriorate under electrical stress (it's usually rated in kilovolts per inch) and develop "trees" which will ultimately result in substantial leakage and eventual arcing and short circuit. The upshot of all this is that this duct tape wouldn't prevent stunning. You might try sticking a piece of this tape to the electrode of a stun gun and seeing if it prevents the electrodes from arcing. I think you'll find that it doesn't. The stun gun won't even "know" it's there. Prevent the circuit from being completed, no it wouldn't. I think you'd find that if you measured the voltage across the electrodes while they were applied to the skin (don't try this at home), it would be appreciably less than 50,000 volts. You could calculate how much current would be necessary to maintain 50,000 volts. I think you'd find that it would be much more current than the gun could deliver. The 50,000 volts is probably an open-circuit rating (no current).

You say---"The only other concern then is: Was the tape that stretched across JonBenet's mouth actually long enough to have allowed it to be less than 1 3/8" (the distance between the stun gun's prongs) from the more obvious stun gun mark (large round red mark) on the cheek near the ear? I measured this distance on my 8-year-old granddaughter and it appeared the tape across the mouth would have had to be a minimum of about 6" to 7" long to have reached back that far. Rumor has it that the tape was only 5" long."

I say---Ah hah! So we should find a mark within a 1-3/8 inch radius of the large mark near the ear. Have you found it?

"Stun gun? Can you buy those?"

RedChief

02-19-2005, 07:32 PM

True or false?:

The ownership of the bat found in the yard, the one with a fiber or fibers on it, consistent with fibers from the carpet in the basement, has yet to be determined?

Helgoth committed suicide as opposed to being murdered or the victim of an accidental gunshot wound?

Helgoth owned a wolf-dog?

Helgoth owned an air-taser stun gun?

Helgoth owned Hi-Tec boots?

Helgoth was unnaturally fond of little girls?

The BPD has yet to turn over the Helgoth boots to the DA?

Wolf, on the evening of December 26, while watching a breaking TV news report of the death of JBR, prior to the disclosure of her injuries to the public, exclaimed to his lady friend, Ms. Dilson, "I hope the fxxxxx dies. He was sexually abusing her." or words to that effect?

Question regarding the above: how could Wolf know (or even suspect) that Ramsey was abusing his daughter, prior to the disclosure of the nature of her death?

Wolf was eliminated as the writer of the ransom note?

Wolf was antagonistic toward big business, especially of the military-industrial kind?

Wolf had never interviewed any employee of Access Graphics?

Wolf was fully cooperative with the Boulder Police from the get-go?

Handwriting analysis was done on exemplars provided by Mrs. Santa?

Kevin Raburn was thoroughly investigated?

Comment regarding the above "suspect": Do you remember the Clutter Case, the subject of In Cold Blood, by Capote? Do you remember that one of the perpetrators (who claimed he wasn't the shooter, but was tried, convicted and executed anyway) admitted to passing bad checks and egaging in theft and the like, but denied ever killing anyone? "I ain't no killer", he said. Remind you of anyone connected to this case?

Kevin Raburn had funds amounting to $118,000 (ample means) that he could dip into following his release from prison?

Comment regarding the above "suspect": Recall that the aforementioned participant in the Clutter killing hatched the scheme to rob the Clutters while still in the big house?

Keep them true or false questions coming.

Is it or is it not a fact that........?

BlueCrab

02-19-2005, 08:16 PM

Ah hah! So we should find a mark within a 1-3/8 inch radius of the large mark near the ear. Have you found it?

RedChief,

Correct. If a Taser brand hand-held stun gun had been used, there should have been another burn mark about 1 3/8" (actually 3.5 cm) from the big ugly mark near JonBenet's right ear. There isn't. That's why I was asking about what would happen to the skin if the second prong of the stun gun rested against the duct tape when the trigger was pulled.

Of course, no two stun gun "signature marks" (electrical burns on the skin from the prongs of the stun gun) look alike. There are endless variables, such as the pressure of the twin prongs against the skin (or clothing); the angle of the prongs on the skin; the toughness of the skin at that particular part of the body; the length of time the trigger is held; etc. So they all look different. Also, during a struggle the sharp, steel prongs themselves can cause abrasions on the skin that might look like electrical signature marks.

Strangely, when a stun gun is pressed firmly against the victim there is less of a signature mark (and sometimes no signature mark) made on the skin. Conversely, when the gun is held slightly away from the skin an arc is created that more severely burns the skin.

With this background, can we reasonably make a determination that the injury on the right side of JonBenet's face is an electrical burn from one of the prongs of a stun gun, even though there appears to be little or no evidence of the second prong of the gun having caused an injury?

BlueCrab

RedChief

02-19-2005, 09:18 PM

BlueCrab,

There is another mark along the jaw line toward the chin. It's much less prominent than the big mark below the ear. It's roughly 1.5 inches from the big mark. I used the distance from the external auditory canal as a reference. The coroner said that the big mark was 1.5 inches from that. The distance from the big mark to the much-less-prominent mark is about the same. That could be our "missing mark".

The big mark doesn't look like an abrasion to me; looks more like a burn.

The big triangular patch on her neck doesn't look like an abrasion to me either. I can't figure what made it. JBR's neck has been pretty roughed up, even below the ligature. What's your explanation for that?

Miss Daisey

02-19-2005, 10:27 PM

Any thoughts on whether the burn mark along the jaw line could have been cause by a hair curling iron?

JBR had a lot of hair that her mother, obviouly, had to style for her.

Were there any signs of burn like injuries that might have occured on Chritmas Eve while getting dressed or doing her hair before any festivities?

The mark/burn on her neck looks very much the result of a curling iron.

BlueCrab

02-19-2005, 10:41 PM

RedChief

02-19-2005, 10:51 PM

The mark/burn on her neck looks very much the result of a curling iron.

Miss Daisey,

Have you seen such marks that you know are the result of a curling iron?

Jes' askin'.

sissi

02-19-2005, 11:05 PM

undefinedTrue or false?:

The ownership of the bat found in the yard, the one with a fiber or fibers on it, consistent with fibers from the carpet in the basement, has yet to be determined?

sissi....true

Helgoth committed suicide as opposed to being murdered or the victim of an accidental gunshot wound?

sissi....likely false

Helgoth owned a wolf-dog?
sissi..true

Helgoth owned an air-taser stun gun?
sissi...true

Helgoth owned Hi-Tec boots?
sissi...true

Helgoth was unnaturally fond of little girls?
sissi..hmm..not sure
The BPD has yet to turn over the Helgoth boots to the DA?
sissi...true

Wolf, on the evening of December 26, while watching a breaking TV news report of the death of JBR, prior to the disclosure of her injuries to the public, exclaimed to his lady friend, Ms. Dilson, "I hope the fxxxxx dies. He was sexually abusing her." or words to that effect?

true

Question regarding the above: how could Wolf know (or even suspect) that Ramsey was abusing his daughter, prior to the disclosure of the nature of her death?

his only contact in common was Santa..perhaps a dark conversation?

Wolf was eliminated as the writer of the ransom note?

not sure
Wolf was antagonistic toward big business, especially of the military-industrial kind?

Wolf had never interviewed any employee of Access Graphics?
false

Wolf was fully cooperative with the Boulder Police from the get-go?
false

Handwriting analysis was done on exemplars provided by Mrs. Santa?

they were taken, analysed...don't know
Kevin Raburn was thoroughly investigated?
don't know

Comment regarding the above "suspect": Do you remember the Clutter Case, the subject of In Cold Blood, by Capote? Do you remember that one of the perpetrators (who claimed he wasn't the shooter, but was tried, convicted and executed anyway) admitted to passing bad checks and egaging in theft and the like, but denied ever killing anyone? "I ain't no killer", he said. Remind you of anyone connected to this case?
photographer

Kevin Raburn had funds amounting to $118,000 (ample means) that he could dip into following his release from prison?
don't know

Comment regarding the above "suspect": Recall that the aforementioned participant in the Clutter killing hatched the scheme to rob the Clutters while still in the big house?
don't know
Keep them true or false questions coming.

Is it or is it not a fact that........?

It's amazing, I thought I knew more, but the truth...some of what I think I know is based on questionable media releases.
I tend to trust the depositions, yet I know(even) I have lied "just a little white", in a deposition.
edit: oops, I really "messed" up the format..

Jayelles

02-20-2005, 04:25 AM

Re the stungun on the duct tape:-

There was a lot of technicalese there but I waded through it and I just want to ask if I'm getting the correct understanding.

Basically, I think you are saying that the insulation properties of the duct tape would not prevent the stungun frmo working - but that you need to know the fibre construction of the tape in order to establish the route that the electricity would make through to the skin?

Does this mean that the burning effect of the stungun could spread through the duct tape and cause a duct tape shaped burn?

Now here is a point that interests me. In some of the autopsy photos of JBR;s face, there is a white mark on her chin - #roughly# the correct distance from the large mark as a second stungun prong would be. jameson has suggested that this white deposit is adhesive from the duct tape which melted onto her skin.

More questions:-

In my experience of using black duct tape (I use it backstage in theatre) - the adhesive does not leave a white deposit but then I'm not in the habit of applying a stungun to it!

Secondly - if the stungun heated the duct tape to a sufficient extent as to melt the adhesive and cause it to ermain on the skin after the tape was removed - SURELY there would be matching marks on the duct tape itself - evidence of burning/melting? If so, this would be STONG evidence of an electrical burn which would go a long way to supporting Lou Smit's theory. WHY, why why has he never mentioned this when he has presented his stungun theory?

Has the duct tape been analysed for evidence of heat/burn/melting?

As I said - the stungun issue only raises more questions.

Regarding the pig experiment. According to jameson, the pig did die after the tests. So what happened to the stungun marks after death? The pigmarks look nothing like the marks on Jonbenet IMO. They look like litle burns - which is what they are. jameson argues that we haven't seen all of the pig photos (with a hint that pig photos exist which look more like the marks on JBR). Again this is an argument which doesn't make sense. If pictures exist of the pigmarks which more closely resemble the marks on JBR than the ones we have seen - why aren't those being shown instead of pictures that do not resemble them?

Lou SMit had a theory - he went on national tv to present his theory in an effort to convince the American public that the Ramseys were innocent - so why didn't he use the best photos for comparison - and why didn't he mention melting/burning of the duct tape?

PS - sorry for any typos - I'm getting used to a new keyboard and I'm also extremely lazy about proof-reading.

Miss Daisey

02-20-2005, 06:35 AM

Miss Daisey,

Have you seen such marks that you know are the result of a curling iron?

Jes' askin'.Sure have, RedChief. Those things are wicked.

Another thought; Wasn't there some craft work/hobbys done in the basement? Those wood burning kits that little boys fool around with will burn the heck out of you too. The end of the burning tool is round but smaller than a curling iron. Also, tools such as those used for working on Burke's train set look reasonably suspect; like saudering (sp) tools.

RedChief

02-20-2005, 12:55 PM

Yeah, Jayelles, to heck with proof reading. We have more important things to do.

Tape interfere with stunning? Very little.

Determine path through tape: Mostly perpendicular; directly through the skin and into the tissue, nerves, etc., beneath it; a minor amount of current over the surface of the skin intervening between the electrodes; a miniscule (if the tape is clean) amount over the surface of the tape intervening between the electrodes.

Could the tape adhesive melt? Yes, theoretically, if the gun were energized long enough; but, I can't say with absolute certainty. The bulk of the melting, if any, would be directly under the electrode--spot-welded as it were. I have no experience with such guns.

The white mark: I think that's along the jaw line (not on the chin) and very near the faint mark that I mentioned previously as a possible candidate for the "missing" mark. The white mark is only visible in one photo, so maybe whatever it was it fell off in handling the body, or just doesn't show up well, if at all, in the other photos. Doesn't look like tape adhesive to me. Looks more like a fleck of slobber or some such thing. Don't you think the coroner would have mentioned this thermal deposit if it were there? So you've taken to believing everything that Jameson says, have you?

Yes, the tape can leave an adhesive deposit, but usually only after having been in position for a long time and probably not on the skin. I suppose the investigators noticed evidence on the body that the tape having been covering the mouth? I don't see that evidence in the photos. They did mention evidence on the tape that it had been applied over mucous on the mouth. What do you make of that?

Maybe you should try stunning your theater tape; might make it stick better. Don't set the building on fire.

Smit hasn't mentioned the spot containing the dermal-adhesive alloy because it doesn't exist. I agree whole-heartedly.

I'm sure the duct tape has been analyzed for evidence of the use of a stun gun. This is also something, if it existed (the melt mark), that Thomas would surely have mentioned in his book; further it would have been much talked about in the media.

The stun gun issue raises more questions: well, yes, it seems to point away from the Ramseys (only an intruder would have done this); but don't you think Lou is sincere? The one big mark on the face and the two on the back do look like burns to me. How do we account for them, burns or no?

Your points about the new and improved pig marks and the melted duct tape are very good ones. They haven't been mentioned by Smit in support of his theory, because they don't exist.

I actually did quite a lot of research on stun marks, as I'm sure we all have, and was impressed with what some of the experts had to say. I came away with the understanding that stun marks ARE reddish (pinkish) and are little WELTS that remain on the body after death, but disappear rather quickly on living human beings. But, it is also my understanding the little reddish welts are made by direct application of the electrodes to the skin. I have seen a photo of a body that was stunned (so it was believed) with one electrode close to, but not contacting, the skin. Recall that charring (a form of oxidation) requires oxygen (from the air) is blackish (carbonized) in appearance. So, the big mark, could have been made by a stun gun that had not made direct contact with the skin; but, why this would be so, is a bit puzzling, since it would appear that the face was readily accessible. However, it's possible that something (an item of clothing or a blanket or a sheet or a pillow case, was in the way and had prevented direct contact).

Lots of possibilities. We've got to figure out what made all those marks on her neck, face and back, speaking of which, both marks on the back resemble the big mark on the face. It is easier to believe that they are brownish, rather than pink or red, because she was stunned through her clothing at that location. That would be consistent with what I've postulated above about the big mark near the ear.

Why didn't Smit experiment with clothed pigs, or did he?

Jayelles

02-20-2005, 01:35 PM

BlueCrab

02-20-2005, 02:47 PM

Unfortunately, I cannot experiment with stunguns because I'm pretty sure it would be considered an offensive weapon and therefore illegal here. Actually, I just don't know.

I tend to think that if it could be proved that a stungun were used, then it would exonerate the ramseys - but my husband (who doesn't have much to say about the ramsey case) doesn't agree that this is necessarily so ... however, this is another argument altogether.

I would really like to know the fine details of Smit and Doberson's experiments and I'd like to see the details of Dr Stratbuckers experiments and I'd like to hear both parties comments on the other's experiments.

When one makes a close graphical analysis of the images of the stungun and the pig marks, then they match exactly in dimensions. The marks on JonBenet do not match the prongs on the Air taser. It seems to me that proponents of the stungun theory spend a LOT of time explainng why the marks do NOT match the pigmarks:-

- the prong landed on duct tape
- the pig did not die (then when I criticised Doberson for not slaughtering the - pig I was told that the pig DID die)
- the stungun was modified in some way
- JonBenet was being held down
- Jonbenet was twisting at the time
- the pig was used because its skin tisssue closely matches a human's
- a pig's skin tissue is NOT human and therefore cannot be expected to look the same

the list goes on ad nauseam

Stratbucker did extensive experiments on human volunteers. He was really focusing on the effects of such a device on the heart and such, but in the process, he noted the effects on the skin. As you say, the marks were described as being pink and they faded quickly. Only one volunteer had marks after a couple of hours and he was described as being of mediterranean origin.

Now, supposing that JonBenet was stunned in her bed - at the very start of her ordeal at the hands of her killer. How long before she died? During that time, the marks would be fading and healing. The killer had still to take her to the basement, sexually assault her, find the cord and paintbrush, create the garrote, slowly strangle her and then beat her on the head. Build into that some thinking time. and I really doubt that her ordeal could have lasted less than twenty minutes and probably much longer.

The marks on JonBenet more closely resemble those on gerald Boggs AFTER he'd been in the ground for 8 months.

Jayelles,

Sorry, but the injuries on JonBenet's back do indeed exactly match the marks of a Taser brand stun gun.

As you know, Cutter, a former poster at this forum, was the single-biggest proponent of the stun gun marks on JonBenet being a myth. But please take Cutter's own photos he used and measure the distance between the prongs of the Taser stun gun and then measure the distance between the marks on JonBenet's back. Both distances, measured centerline to centerline, are 3.5 cm. Cutter made a mistake when he made his measurements. He measured between the edges instead of between the centerlines.

It's true the tiny twin rectangular burns left by the Taser's prongs on JonBenet's back do not align perfectly when compared to the same marks left on the pig, but that minute misalignment has been satisfactorily explained. JonBenet's skin was thin and pliable, and easily distorted when the stun gun was jammed against her. The pig's skin was thick and firm, and did not distort.

Jayelles, I don't think Stratbucker used humans to experiment on. He, like Dobersen, used pigs. You're probably referring to the poster here who said her ex, a cop, had to be stungunned before he was certified to carry an Air Taser.

With respect to JonBenet being stungunned in her bed to disable her so as to be carried downstairs, that's impossible. JonBenet ate pineapple downstairs at the breakfast room table about one hour before she died. She would not have willingly come downstairs to snack on pineapple with someone who had just stungunned her. She was likely downstairs with Burke. It was HIS fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple.

Also, the stungunning of JonBenet would not clear the Ramseys. IMO there was a fifth person in the house that night. He had been invited in by the parents, or Burke had snuck him into the house after the parents went to bed. That fifth person is the reason so many crime scene items of evidence are missing -- including the roll of tape, the rest of the nylon cord, and the stun gun.

BlueCrab

Jayelles

02-20-2005, 03:19 PM

Jayelles,

Sorry, but the injuries on JonBenet's back do indeed exactly match the marks of a Taser brand stun gun.

As you know, Cutter, a former poster at this forum, was the single-biggest proponent of the stun gun marks on JonBenet being a myth. But please take Cutter's own photos he used and measure the distance between the prongs of the Taser stun gun and then measure the distance between the marks on JonBenet's back. Both distances, measured centerline to centerline, are 3.5 cm. Cutter made a mistake when he made his measurements. He measured between the edges instead of between the centerlines.

It's true the tiny twin rectangular burns left by the Taser's prongs on JonBenet's back do not align perfectly when compared to the same marks left on the pig, but that minute misalignment has been satisfactorily explained. JonBenet's skin was thin and pliable, and easily distorted when the stun gun was jammed against her. The pig's skin was thick and firm, and did not distort.

Jayelles, I don't think Stratbucker used humans to experiment on. He, like Dobersen, used pigs. You're probably referring to the poster here who said her ex, a cop, had to be stungunned before he was certified to carry an Air Taser.

With respect to JonBenet being stungunned in her bed to disable her so as to be carried downstairs, that's impossible. JonBenet ate pineapple downstairs at the breakfast room table about one hour before she died. She would not have willingly come downstairs to snack on pineapple with someone who had just stungunned her. She was likely downstairs with Burke. It was HIS fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple.

Also, the stungunning of JonBenet would not clear the Ramseys. IMO there was a fifth person in the house that night. He had been invited in by the parents, or Burke had snuck him into the house after the parents went to bed. That fifth person is the reason so many crime scene items of evidence are missing -- including the roll of tape, the rest of the nylon cord, and the stun gun.

BlueCrab
Bluecrab we've been over this time and time again. The images that I used were correctly scaled by the autopsy rulers. I used numerous controls to ensure the integrity of the measurements and I had a computer graphics expert check them. We also used a method which was far more accurate than Cutter's - we sized the images, then printed them off on acetate and overlaid them. They do not match - end of story. Taser have copies of the work done.

Dr stratbucker did indeed experiment on humans. Here is a report of one of his experiments:-

http://www.paktronix.com/stun93.html

RedChief

02-20-2005, 03:57 PM

The marks on JonBenet more closely resemble those on gerald Boggs AFTER he'd been in the ground for 8 months.

Jayelles,

Yeah, you might be on to something with the Boggs comparison. JBR could have been stunned AFTER she was murdered. Did Smit experiment with dead pigs too? Why did he select pigs? Their hide is tougher than shoe leather; not a very good surrogate.

How long before she died? Well, I doubt much healing and fading would have taken place in that short span of time, be it a few minutes or a few hours, so the marks probably wouldn't have vanished, but, as you seem to be thinking, they'd probably not be the brownish marks seen in the photos. Of course, if stunning took place, we can't know whether it occurred right at first or toward the end, can we? And, how long do the marks remain pinkish on a dead body? I assume that the marks on Boggs were pinkish to start with. Might be comparing apples to oranges.

No, proof of stunning doesn't exonerate the Ramseys; just requires a little revision of the RDI/BDI theory. It there a Christmas connection?

Why don't you give Lou a call, and let us know what he had to say.

Dimensions of taser and separation of marks do not match? Well, isn't this a revolting development. Reminds me of what Douglas had to say about the PDI or JDI or DBI (collectively known as RDI) theory: you gotta jump through a lot of hoops to make it work.

Maybe JonBenet is of mediteranean origin? Is that what you're suggesting?

BlueCrab

02-20-2005, 07:44 PM

Scale it yourself folks. The distance between the prongs on a Taser brand stun gun is 3.5 cm. Here's the crime scene photo of the stun gun marks on JonBenet's back. Cutter said the marks are 2.9 cm apart. I say the marks on JonBenet are 3.5 cm apart -- the same distance apart as the stun gun prongs.

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetbackmarks.ipg

I can't make the url work. Just go to ACandyRose and click on The Crime Scene, and then Autopsy Photos.

RedChief

02-20-2005, 08:50 PM

RedChief

02-20-2005, 09:10 PM

.

Dr stratbucker did indeed experiment on humans. Here is a report of one of his experiments:-

http://www.paktronix.com/stun93.html

Jayelles,

The above-referenced report doesn't say how long the marks persisted. It tells how long the wheals persisted. Only a few of the marks were accompanied by wheals. It would be nice to know how long the marks persisted on the white guys. It was my understanding that the wheals (welts) were likened to hives. One might even liken them to bee stings, but that is not how they were characterized in the report.

Her's a hypothetical by way of illustration: Suppose JBR were stunned while alive and died 1 hour later. Suppose, further, that the gun electrodes were pressed directly against her skin. Suppose, further, that she were stunned for 3 seconds. Suppose, further, that her body were discovered and examined .5 hr after she died. One might expect to find evidence of the stunning in the form of pinkish marks, raised (wheals) or otherwise, at the site of application, according to stratbruker. Let's assume the marks were whealed. Now, another hypothetical identical to the previous except the body is found and examined 8 hours after she died. Though marks should remain, according to the experts, would the marks be pinkish, and would they remain whealed?

That is the question....

RedChief

02-20-2005, 09:37 PM

BlueCrab

02-20-2005, 09:40 PM

I get roughly 3.3 cm; close enough for government work?

Is it absolutely necessary that the gun be an air-taser? Would an air-taser leave a unique signature? It can be configured to launch it's electrodes, can't it? How does that affect the uniqueness of the electrodes if at all?

RedChief,

Yes, the burn injuries on JonBenet match the Taser the closest. The Taser has rectangular prongs on their business ends, and these match the rectangular signature marks on JonBenet. Other brands of guns have varying distances between the electrodes and differently shaped business ends.

The Taser that stungunned JonBenet may or may not have been equipped with the dart feature. I doubt it, because that was 1996 and the Air Taser was relatively new then. The Taser with darts has become popular more recently since it fits the needs of police departments. In fact, I understand thatTasers with the dart feature are illegal in most states and are strictly for LE use.

RedChief

02-20-2005, 10:12 PM

BlueCrab,

I've just been looking at the marks. Do my eyes deceive me or do I notice that the two marks in each pair are of unequal size; that is to say the marks which constitute pair #1 on face are of unequal size; the marks which constitue pair #2 on the back are similarly of unequal size? Is this further evidence that whatever made pair #1 also made pair #2, and, further, could this asymmetry be traced to a particular stun gun; say Helgoth's stun gun? Has that comparison been made?

Holy mackerel!

sissi

02-20-2005, 10:19 PM

BlueCrab

02-20-2005, 10:27 PM

White searched basement within 15 min of his arrival?

White was the first to visit the train room?

White was the first to visit the wine cellar?

White encountered stuff blocking the entrance to the train room?

White moved stuff aside in order to gain entry to the train room?

White put the stuff back, more or less as he had found it, upon leaving the train room?

The stuff which John referred to (chair and/or boxes and/or etc.) was inside the train room and blocking entry?

The stuff which John referred to was outside the train room but blocking entry?

Reichenback was the second to descend into the basement and check the door to the wine cellar?

John was the second to descend into the basement and check the door to the wine cellar?

John checked the door to the wine cellar on his first visit?

John checked the door to the wine cellar on his second visit?

John checked the door to the wine cellar on his third visit?

Officer French was the first to check the door to the wine cellar?

Officer French was the second to check the door to the wine cellar?

Officer French was the third to check the door to the wine cellar?

The sequence was Reichenbach, White, Ramsey, French?

The sequence was White, Reichenbach, Ramsey, French?

The sequence was Ramsey, White, Reichenbach, French?

The sequence was none of the aforementioned?

Question regarding the sequence: If White entered the train room before Ramsey, how did he gain entrance to the train room without moving the stuff?

Lt. Arndt arrived within minutes of Officer French's arrival?

RedChief,

The answer to your above multiple choice questionnaire is none of the above.

Here's the conventionally-accepted sequence of people entering the train room that morning:

Officer French -- at about 6:05 A.M.
Fleet White -- at about 6:20 A.M.
perhaps Sgt. Reichenbach -- at about 6:30 A.M.
Crime scene photographer -- probably 7:00 to 9:00 A.M.
John Ramsey -- solo at about 10:00 to 11:00 A.M.

Here's what I think the sequence of people entering the train room that morning was:

John Ramsey -- solo at about 4:00 - 4:30 A.M.
Officer French -- at about 6:05 A.M.
Fleet White -- at about 6:20 A.M.
perhaps Sgt. Reichenbach -- at about 6:30 A.M.
Crime scene photographer -- probably 7:00 to 9:00 A.M.
John Ramsey -- solo at about 10:00 to 11:00 A.M.

IMO John Ramsey was in the basement prior to the 5:52 A.M. 911 call because in the 1998 interviews he apparently slipped and said he had to remove the chair and some boxes from in front of the train room door (which swung outwards) before he could enter the room. But neither French, nor White, nor Reichenbach, nor the crime scene photographer said or reported anything about the train room door being blocked. Therefore, John had likely been in the basement before them.

John said he had not searched in the basement for JonBenet that morning. He had obviously lied about it. Common sense would also say he would have searched the basement. The chair comment pretty much proved he searched in the basement, and lied about it.

BlueCrab

RedChief

02-20-2005, 10:47 PM

The BPD did confiscate McElroy's stun gun,then nicely replaced it for him on the BPD tab. I do wonder if they checked for the same. They took among his belongings, his shoes, sharpies, examples of his ultraviolent writings, along with that stun gun.

sissi,

You know, if these marks were made with a stun gun, it just may be that this stun gun has this idosyncracy (this asymmetry); it may be that the gun isn't working quite right, or has been modified, either electronically or physically. It may be that is has a pitted electrode on one side, the side which makes the bigger, more prominent mark, because it doesn't sit flush with the skin when it's applied.

At any rate, any suspect gun which is in the custody of LE should be tested to see if it produces asymmetric marks like this.

Absolutely! No kidding!

RedChief

02-20-2005, 10:59 PM

BlueCrab

02-21-2005, 07:53 AM

BlueCrab,

Thanks for the sequence information. Steve Thomas doesn't agree with you as to sequence. In "JB inside the investigation" he has Reichenbach going down to the basement first, followed by White, then French, then Ramsey.

It appears to me that this is something we need to be sure of. What's your opinion?

Three, four, close the door...

RedChief,

PMPT pb, pg 7: "Earlier, Rick French, the first police officer to respond to the mother's 911 call, had immediately searched the house for the child and for any sign of forced entry, but he found nothing."

RedChief

02-21-2005, 10:55 AM

RedChief,

PMPT pb, pg 7: "Earlier, Rick French, the first police officer to respond to the mother's 911 call, had immediately searched the house for the child and for any sign of forced entry, but he found nothing."

Yes, but it doesn't say he searched in the basement at that time nor that he tried the wine cellar door at that time. That's why I posed the question; the two books don't agree on the sequence. So, do we know for a fact what the sequence was? Will we ever know?

BlueCrab

02-21-2005, 11:55 AM

Yes, but it doesn't say he searched in the basement at that time nor that he tried the wine cellar door at that time. That's why I posed the question; the two books don't agree on the sequence. So, do we know for a fact what the sequence was? Will we ever know?

RedChief,

We DO know the sequence. It's in the First Responder's Report (French). Officer French arrived at the Ramseys house at 6:00 A.M. (give or take a minute), and immediately searched the house. Fleet White didn't get there until about 6:15 A.M.

Where in Steve Thomas' book does it say Reichenbach preceded French? ( I have the hardback copy.)

RedChief

02-21-2005, 12:46 PM

RedChief,

We DO know the sequence. It's in the First Responder's Report (French). Officer French arrived at the Ramseys house at 6:00 A.M. (give or take a minute), and immediately searched the house. Fleet White didn't get there until about 6:15 A.M.

Where in Steve Thomas' book does it say Reichenbach preceded French? ( I have the hardback copy.)

BlueCrab,

I am referring to the hardback. Read all of chapter 3, beginning on page 16, but especially pages 16-23. On page 22: "Detectives Arndt and Patterson arrived at the Ramsey house at 8:10. Then with detectives finally on the scene to handle the witnesses, French checked the garage and lower levels of the house, looking for places through which a kidnapper might have carried off the child. He found none. The house was messy but he saw no sign of a struggle. In the basement he also came to the white door at the far end that was closed and secured at the top by the wooden block on a screw. French was looking for exit points from the house, and the door obviously was not one. No one could have gone through that door, closed it behind them and locked it on the opposite side by turning the wooden latch, so he did not open it. When he went back upstairs...."

I'll post what happened prior to that regarding the sequence, according to Thomas, shortly.

RedChief

02-21-2005, 01:01 PM

To continue:

Page 19: "By the time the sun rose at 6:30, the Whites and the Fernies had arrived to comfort their friends"

Page 20: "...the crime scene was put at risk by allowing the friends to come inside. As if to demonstrate that problem, Fleet White stepped away from the little group attending the Ramseys and took a walk inside the house, certainly with the best of intentions.......White went downstairs. The lights were on and shadows danced in the big basement.......Moving deeper into the basement he found the same white door that had been checked by Sergeant Reichenbach. Fleet White turned the makeshift latch and pulled the door open, toward him.....He never saw JonBenet."

Thomas describes the scene at the house that morning chronologically. He has Reichenbach going down to the basement first, followed by Fleet White, followed by Officer French. I don't know when Ramsey made his first decent that morning. He claimed it was around 10 AM.

Where can I get a hold of French's report?

Jayelles

02-21-2005, 01:23 PM

RedChief

02-21-2005, 03:08 PM

I don't know if French's report is online, but I have definitely seen references to it (or paraphrases of it).

I have a stirring memory that it may have been on the Smoking Gun archive:-

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/jonbenet_casefile.html

Sorry, but I am snowed under at work just now or I would look for you.

Jayelles,

Didn't find it there.

Was just looking at some comments that EasyWriter made on ForumsForJustice once upon a time in '04. The thread is "Tying Up Loose Ends". EW talks about the cords. Here is a quote: "In an earlier post, I asked the RST to explain the why of the “garrote handle”, to explain what would happen and why if the handle were pulled. Not surprisingly, I didn’t get an answer. I add another question: By what rationale do you label as
“professional” a person who cannot even tie a cord around a wrist
efficient enough to keep it from falling off???"

Apparently EW somehow determined that the knot in the neck ligature, at the back of the neck, is not a slip knot. The coroner referred to it as a "double knot." Hence, EW's challenge to the RST. If it can be definitively proven, or convincingly argued, that this isn't a slip knot, then the "garotte handle" takes on new meaning; i.e., it's useless as an adjunct for tightening the cord to effect strangulation or to exercise control of the victim. If it wasn't affixed to the cord to effect strangulation or exercise control of the victim, then why was it thus affixed? It appears to serve no utilitarian purpose, beyond being an ornament of staging.

It's extremely important to carefully examine these knots.

Jayelles

02-21-2005, 03:20 PM

I'm sorry you didn't find the article there. I can picture the article in question and I remember that I typed part of it out once for a post so it was from somewhere that I couldn't copy and paste (i.e. like Smoking Gun). I'll keep on thinking.

Yes it is important to look at the knots. I'm afraid I've deliberately shunned all aspects of the murder itself being of a squeamish disposition.... so I can't help.

I think it is fair to say that there are almost certainly evidential facts that we don't know about. Lots has been leaked, but there is probably equal amounts which have not. I'd like an official confirmation on that - "Please Mr Bennett, can you just tell us one thing - are there things that have never been leaked about this case?" LOL

Jayelles

02-21-2005, 03:23 PM

I found this which gives you some information:-
Officer Rick French was dispatched to 755 15th Street in Boulder at approximately 5:52 a.m. on the report of a possible kidnapping. He was met at the door by the distraught Patsy and by John who told him that their six-year-old daughter was missing and their nine-year-old son was asleep upstairs. Patsy, hysterical and apparently confused about the sequence of the mornings events, told officer French that she went into JonBenet’s bedroom at approximately 5:45 a.m. that morning to wake her up for the trip and saw that she was not in bed. As she was coming down the spiral staircase she found the note stating that her daughter had been kidnapped. John then lead French through the house and pointed out a three page handwritten note which still lay on the hallway floor next to the kitchen.

French noted that Patsy, dressed in a red turtle sweater and black pants, was pacing back and forth, but eventually settled in an overstuffed chair in the sitting room located at the southeast of the main floor. Patsy stared at French her eyes riveted him, but tried to conceal her actions with her fingers splayed over her eyes.

French did a quick inspection of the interior of the house and found all the doors locked, including the door leading from JonBenet’s bedroom to the second floor balcony. There were no signs of the missing child. French inspected the basement during this search, but was not able to open one room in the basement on the south end of the house because of a top latch. John told Officer French that too had personally checked for unlocked doors and windows – John said he found the house locked up as it had been left the night before.

When asked about the security alarm system, John told French that it had not been engaged for several years. While the remodeling of the residence was still in process, JonBenet, then only a toddler, had dragged a small bench over to the key pad to the system and began hitting the keys. The interior alarm was so deafening that they couldn't even hear to telephone the security company to notify them that it was a false alarm.

Almost immediately police cars and sirens were heard coming down the street. Since the Ramseys had not used the system since they had moved into the new house, they didn't know the code to shut it off. Because of this mishap and a couple of subsequent false alarms, they had decided not to activate the system.

After his cursory inspection of the house, French took a statement from John regarding the events of the prior evening. John related that the family had arrived home around 9:00 p.m., that Burke and Patsy had gone immediately to bed, and that he had read to JonBenet for a few minutes before he went to bed. Apparently the morning's stress had also confused John, as the sequence of events he related to French about the prior evening would differ at his later official statement.

Arriving almost immediately after the first officers on scene were John and Barbara Fernie, close friends of both John and Patsy. They were soon joined by Fleet and Priscilla White, with whom the Ramsey family had spent the evening of Christmas day just hours before the disappearance of their daughter. Patsy confirmed that she had called both the Whites and the Ferniest after notifying the police. Bill and Heather Cox, guests staying at the Whites’ home, also appeared. Barbara Fernie called the Ramsey’s pastor, Rev. Rol Haberstock from St. John’s Presbyterian Church, and asked him to come.

According to the family friends, the hysterical Patsy was alternating between noncoherent praying to God and Jesus and screaming, " They have my baby.” At one point Patsy screamed at John, “You have to give them the money and get out baby back.” John, attempting to comfort his wife, responded, “We’ll get her back. She'll be okay."

Within minutes of arriving at the Ramsey home, Fleet decided to look around the house. His own daughter had been missing a few months ago, and after the police were called they found her hiding under her bed. Fleet was hoping that JonBenet too was just hiding somewhere in the house. Since everyone had been told by the police officers not to go upstairs, Fleet went town to the basement. He noticed that the lights were on. He found a small piece of glass from a broken window in a room used for model trains. In checking the latch for the window he discovered that it was unlocked, but closed. Fleet also noticed a blue suitcase was sitting underneath the window. He continued with his search by opening every cupboard and door. He opened the door to the wine cellar, reached inside, but could not find the light switch and could not see inside the room. The wind cellar is completely formed by cement and has no windows. Finding no evidence of anyone entering or leaving from the basement area and no trace of JonBenet, Fleet went back upstairs.

Patrol Sgt. Reichenbach, responding to the call to go to the 15th Street address, passed a time and temperature sign in a mall parking lot on his way to the Ramsey home. The temperature in Boulder that morning was 9 degrees. A light dusting of snow lay sprinkled on the ground, mostly visible on the neighborhood lawns. Upon his arrival at the residence Reichenbach conducted a brief inspection of the outside of the premises. In addition to the newly fallen snow, portions of the yard were covered with one or two inches of crusty snow from a prior snowfall. He noted that no footprints were visible in the new snow that adhered to the grass and pavement areas surrounding the house nor in the old snow still remaining

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2043

Jayelles

02-21-2005, 03:27 PM

RedChief

02-21-2005, 07:24 PM

True or False: The cord around JBR's neck was fastened in place with a square knot.

A square knot is not a slip knot.

A square knot is the sort of knot that, once tightened, will not permit any loop formed by the cord which it incorporates to be shrunk by pulling on the tailing ends of the cord.

Pulling on the two units of cord that exit the above-mentioned knot to form the loop, will not result in expanding the loop (assuming the cord is non-elastic).

BlueCrab

02-22-2005, 08:33 AM

I beg yor pardon. The document I was thinking on is this one:-

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix3.html

and it was not Officer french, but Officer Reichenbach. I always get those two mixed up.

RedChief,

Let's try to set the record straight with respect to what BPD officer inspected the INTERIOR of the Ramsey house minutes after they arrived around 6:00 A.M. on the 26th. It appears Steve Thomas was wrong when he wrote that it was Sgt. Paul Riechenbach. I'm quite certain it was Officer Rick French.

Larry Schiller in PMPT wrote that it was French. And the affidavit in the link provided by Jayelles above says that Reichenbach inspected the EXTERIOR of the house. There was no mention of Reichenbach searching inside of the house.

Steve Thomas' co-author, Don Davis, wrote most of the book even though he didn't know the case all that well, and probably got the two officers mixed up.

Other sources also said it was Rick French who searched the interior of the house and didn't open the wine cellar door because it was locked with a latch on the outside, thereby eliminating the possibility there was a perp on the inside of the room.

For instance, I know that Ann Louise Bardach's Vanity Fair article of September 16, 1997 was taken from the First Responder's Report leaked to her by Steve Thomas. The correct information was in the report, although I don't think it's available on the net. Don Davis got the names switched.

IOW, Steve Thomas' book is likely wrong. French, not Reichenbach, was the first police officer into the train room that morning.

BlueCrab

RedChief

02-22-2005, 10:33 AM

RedChief,

Let's try to set the record straight with respect to what BPD officer inspected the INTERIOR of the Ramsey house minutes after they arrived around 6:00 A.M. on the 26th. It appears Steve Thomas was wrong when he wrote that it was Sgt. Paul Riechenbach. I'm quite certain it was Officer Rick French.

BlueCrab,

With all due respect, we are attempting to set the record straight; that's the thrust of this thread. We have conflicting stories from two authors who apparently both had access to the police reports. I say apparently, because, I've read and heard that Schiller did. It stands to reason that a lead detective, Steve Thomas and his co-author would. In fact, Steve has said as much.

So, although "we" are quite certain, apparently mostly because Schiller said so (or implied so) it was French who was the first to explore in the basement, "we" are not 100 percent certain, right? I take it your vote is: French was the first. Anyone else care to vote?

BTW, why do you suppose French combed the house that morning purportedly shortly after arriving? Didn't he trust the Ramseys? What were the Ramseys doing while he was searching the house? Why didn't he just ask the Ramseys, 'Did you thoroughly search the house?' What was he looking for; the girl or evidence of intrusion or both? Did he smell a rat?

UKGuy

02-22-2005, 01:21 PM

It is the duty of the 1st responding Officer to secure and PROTECT the occupants of any domestic crime, particularly homicides.

Detective duties are reserved to those given that responsibility !

RedChief

02-22-2005, 01:47 PM

UKGuy,

You seem to have left yourself a little wiggle room with "particularly". I thought this was reported as a kidnapping?

How does it protect the Ramseys if French is down in the basement while the perpetrator is sneaking up on the parents, having popped into the kitchen via the mud room? Further, would you expect that the perp, who hadn't left the premises since throttling JonBenet, would wait until the police were summoned, to arise from his hiding place and inflict injury on the parents and the boy (who, incidentally, due to the genuine fear of the parents regarding such a development) was left unattended in his unlocked bedroom?

"John is not particularly a cat person"--PR in DOI "The two gentlemen who are watching over your daughter do not particularly like you."--ransom note

sissi

02-22-2005, 02:58 PM

a bit on stun guns..When you press the stun gun against an attacker and hold the trigger, the electricity stored in the stun gun is dumped into the assailant's nervous system and the normal body signals get mixed up with noise. The muscles and brain are no longer able to communicate because the messages are no longer understood. The result is temporary confusion and imbalance. Alternatively, stun guns can generate current with a pulse frequency that mimics the body's own electrical signals telling the attacker's muscles to do a great deal of work rapidly. But the work is not directed toward any particular movement. The rapid work cycle instantly depletes the attacker's blood sugar by converting it to lactic acid. The attacker is left unable to produce energy and too weak to move.

I was just thinking how this action alone would stop the digestion time...oh well

I believe it was a stun gun, I don't believe the police were as well versed on the topic in '96 as the street people in Boulder, who all seemed to own at least one. This perfect measurement narrowing to the air-taser seems off, but that's JMO. Did they check the others against the marks? Why should they? They won't admit they are stun marks?

Richenbacher, I don't believe ever went down that basement, I believe French was in the house, followed shortly by White, I can not say that White didn't go down before French, as he COULD HAVE!
I believe White is the obsessive type, if a chair was lying on the floor he would have made it upright, he just did these kinds of things compulsively, according to what I've read, it would make sense that he was the "guy" who went down there after French and before John, but I don't know this.

There was nothing particularly drawing one to that basement, so the fact he went down at all is a hmmm. I believe he said something to John, which aroused John's curiosity enough for him to eventually make that trip down himself.

UKGuy

02-22-2005, 03:18 PM

sissi:
yes I believe Fleet White made straight down for the BASEMENT ! Ive always thought that very curious, since the child is meant to have been in her bed , so it would seem natural to search top down, from her bedroom ... and FleeT Whites reason for doing it, seemed pretty lame to me.

Also given he took Burke away, no questions asked, makes me wonder if some discussion had taken place on the phone. It was such a serious situation, surely not a nod and a wink affair ?

UKGuy

02-22-2005, 03:27 PM

RedChief:

I know but 1st responders have a duty of care to any surviving occupants in a domestic crime, burgalry, assault, kidnapping or domestic homicide etc, no need for wiggle room its written into law.

But as you point out its not always observed especially over xmas holiday. But Officer French if his report is correct seemed to do most of the right stuff, he searched for prowlers , made sure the building was secure etc.

RedChief

02-22-2005, 03:45 PM

UKGuy,

Do you think the note writer expected LE to comb the house immediately upon arrival? What's your opinion regarding that?

I don't know who went down and checked the "white door" first, nor who entered the train room first. If we could pin some of this down, we'd have a better crack at distinguishing false reports from truthful ones.

It may have been French, but if you read the relevant portion of Chapter 3 in Thomas' book you get the distinct impression that it was not French. Thomas has French busy with the parents and the note, etc.; basically obtaining some background information and getting oriented.

From Thomas book: "French stepped away from them [the parents with whom he had been conferring and with whom he had been examining the note] to meet Sergeant Reichenbach [who also headed for the scene as soon as he heard the dispatcher's unusual call] at the front door and confirmed that it looked as if there might have been a kidnapping. But, he observed, 'something isn't right'."

Reichenbach got there shortly after French. It's all in the book.

UKGuy

02-22-2005, 04:22 PM

UKGuy,
Do you think the note writer expected LE to comb the house immediately upon arrival? What's your opinion regarding that?

No the note writer expected the LE to put out an all cars alert, if it was today it would be an all devices Amber Alert, going up on highway readouts and car radios etc. The intention of the note was diversionary. At the point of entry of the responding officer, it suggested a kidnapping and not a homicide it pointed the LE focus out of the house not into it. This strategy WORKED, LE assumed a kidnapping until her body was found.

Yes Reichenbach arrived just after french, he may even have been coterminous with French, was he not cruising in the area? But it was French who went and did the security check.

I suspect its possible John had hinted something to Fleet White, with John expecting Fleet to find the body, but that never happened.

I'll post some more in the other thread ....

RedChief

02-22-2005, 04:40 PM

Yes Reichenbach arrived just after french, he may even have been coterminous with French, was he not cruising in the area? But it was French who went and did the security check.

No, Reichenbach was not cruising in the area, if that's what you were asking. French was on drive-about; Rbch was at his desk at the BPD.

"It was French who went and did the security check."-----SOURCE? Thomas says it was Rbch.

UKGuy

02-22-2005, 05:23 PM

No, Reichenbach was not cruising in the area, if that's what you were asking. French was on drive-about; Rbch was at his desk at the BPD.

"It was French who went and did the security check."-----SOURCE? Thomas says it was Rbch.
I'm not at home so have no access to books etc. But from memory French checked the basement over and some other areas. Source prob' PMPT.

RedChief

02-24-2005, 05:49 PM

There were petechiae on JBR's neck, above and below the ligature?

These petechiae were caused by the pressure of the self-same ligature that was looped around the neck at the time the body was discovered--the one seen in the crime-scene photos?

Questions with respect to the above: is it possibly, or likely, that these petechiae developed during the period when the tissue of the neck swelled post mortem?

Is it possible, or likely, that these petechiae developed while something other than the aforementioned ligature was looped tightly around the neck--a precursory device?

BlueCrab

02-24-2005, 09:09 PM

RedChief

02-25-2005, 10:37 PM

There were several red areas of staining in the interior of the undies at the crotch?

There were no corresponding red areas in the pubic area?

There were dark fibers found in the folds of the labia and elsewhere in/on the pubic area?

There were dark fibers found adhering to the smears on the thighs?

Questions regarding the above: Assuming that the blood (the red areas) in the undies dripped there (post mortem?) from the vagina after the last wiping episode. Assume, further, that the lack of correspondence of blood in the pubic area to the red areas in the undies is of no great importance to the investigation. Who did the wiping and why? Was the child alive at the time?

Possibilities: (1.) A family member wiped the body to remove evidence of molestation, not realizing that there could be further bleeding. (2.) A stranger/intruder wiped the body to remove forensic evidence, and would not have cared about further bleeding (though perhaps he should have).

Questions regarding 1, above: why was she killed? Regarding 2, above: why did he change her undies?

There was an interesting scenario posed by the FBI (you have to use a little imagination): One family member caught another family member molesting JonBenet and swung at him with a bat, accidentally hitting JBR. These two family members realized she was mortally wounded and also realized that her two wounds (more about this later) would be impossible to explain to the authorities as anything even remotely resembling an innocent accident. So, they took the next step, and the next, and the next. Suspicion of incest in connection with the child's death, could deal a death blow to reputations and business careers. Whether incest was involved or not, keeping it under wraps can be a powerful motive for killing (or in this case, not requesting emergency assistance). The second wound was that of the injured genitalia. Either there was blood at that time or unmistakable evidence of molestation. The paintbrush (or whatever) may have been used in the staging to enhance the injury, once staging was elected. Of course, this doesn't explain why the body was cleansed in the first place. Will this fly?

If you suspect that a family member killed JonBenet, then you must think there was a powerful motive for doing so. What might that have been?

"There are two people who know who did this."

UKGuy

02-26-2005, 06:36 AM

Either she was naked and wearing no underwear or what she was wearing had forensic evidence on them and needed to be disposed of?

I dont think there are any clear cut answers here. You have to select the
interpretation which suits your favorite theory.

Some points to consider are:

The person who wiped her down may not be the same person who assaulted her sexually.

And the person who re-dressed her in her size-12 underwear may not be the same person who who assaulted her sexually.

Its entirely possible that she was wiped down with her modesty in mind, then again those dna markers BlueCrab mentions, place a different light on it.

What I am convinced of is that the wine-cellar scenario is mostly staging, and that prior to being re-located there, her body had been placed elsewhere and staged completely differently?

And that staging proceeded from the abandonded "kidnap and ransom" staging, which was likley preceded by an initial staging where ever she was originally killed e.g. her bedroom.

Which suggests the collusion of more than one or two people, and probably mixed motives.

Thats why I describe JonBenet's murder as a Staged Homicide!

BlueCrab

02-26-2005, 10:05 AM

UKGuy

02-26-2005, 10:39 AM

UKGuy,

I like your "double staging" scenario. It fits my "worst case" scenario of JonBenet being obscenely posed by the killer to send a sick political message, but when found later by the parents she was cut down, re-dressed, wrapped in a blanket, and re-posed to give her a measure of dignity in death.

BlueCrab
BlueCrab,

Thanks, yes something along the lines of what you suggest above could very well have taken place.

Not only does it fit the evidence it explains the staging, also some critical features match previous recorded homicides.

Whereas some other theories have holes that dont explain the staging, or lack credibility.

RedChief

02-28-2005, 12:29 PM

Jayelles

02-28-2005, 01:34 PM

BlueCrab

02-28-2005, 03:10 PM

Some of JonBenet's "adequate size" undies-the size 6's, were of the day-of-the-week variety.

Question regarding the size 12's: Are we assuming (surmising) that these undies were installed on JonBenet that PM/AM because they were too big, or because they had been removed from that package of new bloomies in the bedroom from which no other undies had been removed, or both? Is there any other reason for surmising the aforementioned? Could this reason be that Patsy incorrectly informed her interviewer, Mr. Kane, about the size of the panties she normally purchased for JonBenet?

RedChief,

I have a tough time trying to figure out what your question is. So please just let me say this:

IMO Patsy knows very well that in the past she has bought only size 4 and size 6 panties for JonBenet. And size 4 and size 6 panties were the only sizes the cops found in JonBenet's underwear drawer. So Patsy lied.

So why did Patsy lie by saying she normally bought size 8 to 10 for JonBenet when there weren't even any size 8's or 10's in the house -- there were just 4's and 6's?

IMO here's why: Patsy knew that JonBenet was found dead wearing size 12/14 underwear, a size for a girl twice the size of JonBenet. It was evidence that she had been cleaned up and re-dressed after death by someone who didn't know what they were doing -- such as a 9-year-old boy.

To help deflect suspicion from Burke, Patsy wanted the size of JonBenet's underwear she normally wore to be as close to size 12/14 as possible. That's why Patsy lied and said 8 to 10, when she knew the only sizes she had ever bought for JonBenet were sizes 4 and 6.

Patsy wants the cops to believe that JonBenet opened the package of 12/14's and put them on herself. But size 12/14 underwear would have likely fallen down into JonBenet's pantlegs had she tried to walk.

It was just one more obvious Ramsey lie, of dozens, to try to distance Burke from the crime. Burke is involved somehow in this crime and the parents have been lying their heads off and doing their best to cover it up.

BlueCrab

UKGuy

02-28-2005, 03:46 PM

BlueCrab:

Just have to agree with most of what you post. If you read and contrast the transcripts, it jumps out at you that, at a minimum, Patsy is being evasive.

Dont forget we can test for when they were placed on her e.g. 25th or 26th since they will have black velvet fibers on them if they were worn to the White's party.

If they were clean on, then where are her old size-6 underwear? these will have black velvet fibers on them along with forensic evidence. When asked about JonBenet's changing routine Patsy replied she usually just dropped clothes where she disrobed. But these pants are nowhere to be found?

Why was she found in the Wine-Cellar still wearing all her jewellry, but no socks?

Also what we dont know is was there a Day Of The Week Pair amongst the size-6's that had "Wednesday" stamped on them?

And just to reinforce BlueCrab's reference to someone unversed in JonBenet's dressing preferences or even Patsy's, since whoever was preparing the staging in the Wine-Cellar decided to use JonBenet's Barbie Gown to suggest an abduction from her bed, but just like her underwear, whilst they never got it 100% wrong. Patsy is on record as stating she wore the pink nightgown the previous night that was under her pillow and it would have been the nightgown of choice.

RedChief

02-28-2005, 04:57 PM

My five year old has the exact same Bloomies as JonBenet. She is only now growing into the size 4-6 although they are still a little on the generous side (they sit on her without being stretched if that makes sense). My little girl weighs 37lbs. She's slightly above average height, but she has a lean build. I imagine she's not far off the same build sa Jonbenet.

Perhaps this will give you some indication of how the Bloomies were for a fit.

Jayelles,

Thank you for the information. Your five-yr-old would be about 1 year younger than JBR was? Just roughly. I think JBR's birthday was in early August, so she was about 6 years and 4 months. She weighed 45 lb and was 4 feet tall, medium build?

The sizes are age groupings (spans)? 4-6 means from 4 to 6 years of age?

So Patsy's remark about undies of the sort we're discussing here, being commercially available in sizes small, medium and large is incorrect? Doesn't sound correct. I'd think the age group would be an essential specification. And what are the standard sizes for children between the ages of 4 and 14?

Just so we're clear. Thank you.

RedChief

02-28-2005, 05:15 PM

Question regarding the size 12's: Is it because (1.) they were too big for her that we are surmising that someone other than JonBenet or her mother dressed JonBenet in those undies at some point (in time) after she returned home from the Whites' on the evening of December 25, 1996 and before she was found dead, or because (2.) they had apparently been removed from that package of new bloomies in the bedroom from which no other undies had been removed, or (3.) both? Is there any other reason (beyond the two just mentioned) for surmising that someone other than JonBenet or her mother had dressed her in those undies during the period (of time) aforementioned? Could this reason be that Patsy incorrectly informed her interviewer, Mr. Kane, about the size of the panties she normally purchased for JonBenet?

RedChief

02-28-2005, 06:05 PM

Ok, well, here're some questions about Burke and his possible involvement in the death of his sister and/or his possible knowledge of the events leading to the death of his sister:

Burke was interviewed by LE (or at LE's behest) how many times?

During any of those interviews were the parents present (in the same room)?

During any of those interviews were legal council present (in the same room)?

During any of those interviews was anyone present in the same room to unlawfully influence his testimony in any way?

Prior and pursuant to those interviews, were there any restrictions placed on the questions put to Burke; i.e., any conditions agreed to before hand by LE and Burke's attorneys or parents or Burke himself, with respect to his testimony?

Do you consider it true that the parents provided LE access to Burke far and beyond any that either of them allowed for themselves? And, if so, could you not surmise that neither John nor Patsy were concerned about what Burke might say in regard to the events of the evening of December 25, 1996; to wit, those culminating in the death of JonBenet?

Do you consider it a fact that Alex Hunter publicly stated that Burke was not a suspect nor a person of interest in the case?

And finally, do you believe that if Burke were involved at any level, however minor, in the death of his sister, or had any information, however indirect, that he would be able to keep knowledge of his involvement and/or this information to himself all these years?

RedChief

02-28-2005, 07:21 PM

UKGuy--"...but these pants were nowhere to be found?"

I assume you're referring to the size 4-6 undies. You don't suppose the perp took them with him as a souvenir?

UKGuy--"these will have black velvet fibers on them along with forensic evidence."

I assume by forensic evidence you mean DNA and stuff. You wouldn't consider the fibers forensic evidence?

UKGuy--"Why was she found in the Wine Cellar still wearing all her jewellry, but no socks?"

The socks. The socks! Is there a law against wearing jewelry to bed? Is there a law against having one's hair up in pony tails while sleeping? Didn't the Ramseys say they put her to bed before she awoke and gently so as not to awaken her? Similarly is there a law against removing one's socks either before or after one climbs into bed? After all, you don't suppose they were glued on, do ya? The Ramseys didn't say they didn't remove her socks, did they? John couldn't remember whether he removed her shoes or her coat. For that matter, how do ya know she was even wearing socks?

BTW, before I forget, Patsy said the Barbie gown in the WC was not the Barbie gown she usually wore; I should think you'd be emphasizing this strenuously--more evidence of the "fact" that the perp wasn't well versed.

UKGuy--"Also what we dont know is was there a Day Of The Week Pair amongst the size-6's that had "Wednesday" stamped on them?"

Maybe we do know; didn't Patsy imply that some of JonBenet's "adequate size" undies were DOW?

UKGuy--"Patsy is on record as stating she wore the pink nightgown the previous night that was under her pillow and it would have been the nightgown of choice."

Regarding the perp being unversed in JonBenet's dressing preferences: Especially Burke, her brother, with whom she slept on occasion and had been a sister to for 6+ years; he would be especially unversed, huh? Now, you propose that the items in the wine cellar are suggestive of a bedroom abduction, and that the Barbie gown, though bedroom apparel, and available to the child for sleeping (bedroom) and other purposes, was THE wrong apparel, because THE right apparel was readily available (though under her pillow and out of sight--one reason Patsy gave for not installing it), and would therefore have been more convincing as a staging item. BTW, the item on the bed (under the pillow) was not a gown. If you see something in a scene that isn't convincing as a staging item, maybe that's because it isn't a staging item. You conclude, therefore, that the alleged wine cellar staging was conducted by amateurs who were clever enough to realize they'd need convincing props but not knowledgable enough about JonBenet's dressing preferences (which were rigid as pot metal) to select the right ones. Those idiots!

UKGuy

02-28-2005, 11:40 PM

RedChief:

No there is no law saying what she must or must not wear to bed. I am hoping to demonstrate, but likely not conclusively that the wine-cellar is at least in part staged.

RedChief

02-28-2005, 11:46 PM

RedChief:

No there is no law saying what she must or must not wear to bed. I am hoping to demonstrate, but likely not conclusively that the wine-cellar is at least in part staged.

UKGuy,

Gotcha! And a fine job it is that you're doing. Keep it up!

You have my unflagging support.

RedChief

03-01-2005, 05:40 PM

Patsy purchased the size 12-14 day-of-the-week (DOW) "bloomies" from Bloomingdales.

Patsy purchased two packages--one for her niece and one for JonBenet.

Both packages contained underwear of the same size.

One package contained size 12-14; the other contained size 4-6.

Bloomingdales continues to sell "bloomies" panties for children.

Bloomingdales has discontinued the sale of "bloomies" panties for children.

Bloomingdales does not currently sell panties of any size, shape or description for children.

Bloomingdales NEVER did sell "bloomies" panties for children.

Bloomingdales sells a few "bloomies" products including a nightshirt for young women and a few products for infants and toddlers.

Questions and comments regarding the above: "Bloomies" is a logo or registered trademark. Not all items sold at Bloomingdales are "Bloomies", in fact they sell few such items. They don't cater to children one iota. Also, it is improper and incorrect to refer to any or all underwear or sleepwear sold by Bloomingdales as "Bloomies". So, how did this term originate with respect to the underwear Patsy claims to have purchased from Bloomingdales in the fall of '96? She may have purchased childrens' underwear there, but were they "bloomies"? If they were "bloomies" they'd have the logo, "bloomies", printed on them or sewn into them.

Which would be more noticeable to the untrained eye as a feature of the underwear--a floral pattern (printed rosebuds) or "Wednesday" printed on the elastic wasteband? Well, I guess it'd depend on the size, color and location of the lettering, and the size, density and location of the rosebuds. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the floral pattern would be more quickly and easily discerned than the lettering. So, if you were choosing a proper substitue for the alleged "adequate size" panties (in need of changing), would you be more inclined to choose panties that had similar (if not identical) floral pattern (the rosebuds) or panties that had "Wednesday" printed on the waistband? Of course, if you could choose panties that fulfilled both requirements, wouldn't that be grand. But, if it's the floral pattern that you've noticed, and you want to find replacements that are a match in that respect, you don't go looking for Wednesdays. You grab the first pair of rosebuds that you encounter in the "bloomie" bag. After all, they are all printed with rosebuds, aren't they? Gee, what if they aren't! What if only the Wednesdays are rosedbuds. Do we know this?

From PMPT, paperback, pg 3 (not numbered): "Do roses know their thorns can hurt?" JonBenet asked me that one morning. I was the landscaper at the Ramseys' home during the last two years of her life, and it was the kind of question I'd learned to expect from her."--Brian Scott

Nehemiah

03-01-2005, 06:01 PM

UKGuy

03-01-2005, 06:02 PM

Children can learn to associate the day of the week to the picture or pattern on the underwear.

Bloomies is Patsy's phrase, so she may just mean a generic underwear style, or she may be deliberately misleading, who knows, I forget if she had reciepts etc or if she paid by credit card or whatever.

She purchased size-12 underwear for her relative somewhere and they ended upon JonBenet.

So what you derive from all those statements about the underwear ?

One aspect that is difficult to reconcile is if there is serious staging involved why does it appear to be so ad-hoc, so much so, we can just about see it as staging e.g. the size-12 underwear , her ponytails, her barbie gown etc, possibly her jewellry, the placement in the wine-cellar ....

UKGuy

03-01-2005, 06:37 PM

Can we get a thread on JBR's clothing started so we can contain all the posts there?

As I posted somewhere else (don't remember where now LOL), I think a mother would not hurriedly or otherwise grab a pair of size 12 panties, if that child wore a size 6. Just not something a mom would do. I could see a dad, or brother, or another male (sorry guys, for the stereotyping here) doing this, however. She was wearing a pair of rosebud panties with Wednesday on them, and lo and behold, there's another pair just like them in the drawer. What luck! Grab them and put them on. Doesn't matter if they fit or not.. Don't even know if they "fit" or not because they go on her easily enough. Bingo!

The gardener is someone I would like to know more about. He's always been of interest to me.
I dont think we know if the size-6 pair we assume she wore, was a wednesday or rosebud motif, they are missing.

Whats important is establishing if there is staging in the wine-cellar, which is what it appears to be, a quick fiber analysis of those size-12 underwear will establish it either way. Well in the panic of staging a homicide, its possible any "correct" day of the week underwear might do?

Nehemiah

03-01-2005, 09:47 PM

I dont think we know if the size-6 pair we assume she wore, was a wednesday or rosebud motif, they are missing.

Correct, we don't know.

RedChief

03-01-2005, 11:00 PM

I dont think we know if the size-6 pair we assume she wore, was a wednesday or rosebud motif, they are missing.

Whats important is establishing if there is staging in the wine-cellar, which is what it appears to be, a quick fiber analysis of those size-12 underwear will establish it either way. Well in the panic of staging a homicide, its possible any "correct" day of the week underwear might do?

Yes, staging in the wine cellar. Please list each and EVERY aspect of the wine cellar scene that makes you suspect staging. One more time.

Yes, we don't know if the 4-6's are Wednesday, nor do we know if they are rosebud motif, nor do we know whether all the panties are rosebuds or just the Wednesdays, nor that there were any panties besides the big ones that were either rosebud or Wednesday. Your observation that the motif would help a little girl who couldn't read, to select the correct panties, was astute. It would certainly be helpful to our analysis if we could know all about the discarded underwear.

OK, we're staging a homicide: it's possible any correct DOW underwear might do; that would depend on the staging objective (what the perp wants someone to think) and the proficiency and/or cleverness of the stager. Even clever stagers sometimes make mistakes; that's how they get caught. Example: maybe it's just important that she be wearing panties, period. Since we dont know what "this" stager wants us (if anything) to think, but we surmise that he wants SOMEONE to think she's been abducted from the bedroom (that would fit with what the Ramseys have told us--that JB was asleep when carried up to her bedroom, and asleep when they exited her room for the last time that night, circa 10 PM--and this may or may not be true), what might we expect "him" to do with regard to the undies? Won't he want to fool SOMEONE (who might that be?) by putting new panties on her that are identical in all respects to the old ones? Recall that we don't know what she wore to bed; we haven't a clue; but SOMEONE does. But, yes, he might be in a hurry and not thinking clearly. So, what are his options? He can't find little bloomers that match her "dirty" ones (this reinforces my suspicion that only the rosebuds are Wednesdays), so he utilizes the big ones. He finds Wednesday rosebuds (recall that there may be no other underwear with the same motif) and dresses her with those. If any old bloomers will do, why not opt for a size 4-6? Lots of those in her bathroom. But, the question lingers, does he select those big ones because of the rosebuds, or because of the day of the week? What would be the point in selecting DOW if that is a non-significant feature of the underwear? Wouldn't you think a considerably more significant feature would be the rosebuds? Might he not want panties that LOOK a lot like the panties he's replacing? You have to look closely to see the Wednesday (I assume) on the waistband; I'm guessing you can see the rosebuds from two blocks away. I have to guess it is the rosebuds that attracted him to the Wednesdays and not the other way 'round. But, again, who is he staging this scene for? For you? For me? For Lou Smit? No. He's staging it for SOMEONE else. Who?

PS: We're assuming that the missing undies were either Wednesdays or rosebuds. What if they were neither? Now, here's something to consider: if the perp/stager were unconcerned with JB's dignity, why would he bother to replace her panties in the first place? If the perp/stager is a family member, and you suspect the garotte is staging (albeit contributing to her death), why is she wearing panties, or even longjohns? Because as you have surmised, a bloody, pantiless corpse isn't dignified insofar as this perp is concerned. One more thing: Who knows better than one or both of the Ramsey parents WHEN JB went to bed (was supposed to go to bed) and WHAT she was wearing (underwear) when her slacks were removed and her longjohns were put on? Someone is trying to fool someone. Who is trying to fool whom? What we need to do is pick out the salient features of this crime scene--the major dots--and connect them together. But, you knew this. What would be ideal from the stagers point of view, is a perfect correlation between the wine cellar and the bedroom. So, what is imperfect about it? Well, the hair ties for one; and............

Someone knows that someone knows when JB went to bed AND how she was dressed.

Catfish

03-02-2005, 01:37 AM

and............ Someone knows that someone knows when JB went to bed AND how she was dressed. Hi RedChief,

Excellent intriguing questions and comments.

Let's see if I follow your comment. JonBenet arises Christmas day, opens her presents, eats breakfast, plays with toys, and later dresses for the White's Christmas party. So far as we know, only Patsy would know which pair of underpants JonBenet was wearing when she went to the White's (there was a disagreement between Patsy and JonBenet over which clothing to wear that evening) and again, when Patsy redressed JonBenet for bed (for the moment, let's ignore the police logs quoting John as saying he put her to bed ).

Are you are hinting that the perp may have been concerned that Patsy would recall which style of undies JonBenet had on when she went to bed and therefore, he/she felt they had to replace them with a pair that matched?

Perp accidently/purposefully kills JonBenet and, for reasons still being debated, wants/needs to change JonBenet's underwear. However, the perp is concerned that replacing the "soiled" underpants might be noticed by Patsy if the fresh pair do not match the "soiled" pair to be replaced. So the perp searches the underwear drawer and only finding a match in an unopened package, opens the package and puts on a "matching pair," possibly not noticing they are much too large. This way, the perp figures, Patsy won't notice the switch.

If I may digress.... JonBenet is dead. Patsy and the family will notice that. The perp left a "ransom note." The family will notice that. JonBenet has/might have been sexually molested. The coroner will discover that, if molestation did indeed happen.

I'm not trying to be frivolous here. Why would the perp be concerned about replacing one pair of underpants with a matching pair, given everything else he/she left behind, including a dead child and a "ransom note?" Once the perp has killed JonBenet and has made the decisions as to how the body is to be left in the wine room, why does the style of underpants matter? If Patsy was solely responsible for this, was she concerned that someone else knew what JonBenet was wearing earlier? Or if someone other than Patsy is responsible, was the perp concerned that Patsy would notice JonBenet was wearing a different style of underwear and, if so, why would the killer care? After killing a child, wouldn't matching the underwear be trivial?

I'm beginning to suspect that focusing on the size 10-12 underwear is a red herring.

It may be as simple as this: it was Christmas day, a day of opening presents- of opening new packages. A little girl is getting dressed for Christmas dinner that evening. She opens one more new package that Christmas day - a package of underwear and puts on a new pair of underwear.

RedChief

03-02-2005, 04:33 AM

Hi RedChief,

Excellent intriguing questions and comments.

Let's see if I follow your comment. JonBenet arises Christmas day, opens her presents, eats breakfast, plays with toys, and later dresses for the White's Christmas party. So far as we know, only Patsy would know which pair of underpants JonBenet was wearing when she went to the White's (there was a disagreement between Patsy and JonBenet over which clothing to wear that evening) and again, when Patsy redressed JonBenet for bed (for the moment, let's ignore the police logs quoting John as saying he put her to bed ).

Oh, no, don't let's ignore the police logs. John didn't say he put her to bed; he said he removed either her coat or her shoes (he wasn't sure) and left the rest to Patsy; then went downstairs and helped Burke with a project he was working on. Also, I wouldn't agree that "so far as we know", only Patsy would know what JB was wearing. I don't think I mentioned anyone by name.

Are you are hinting that the perp may have been concerned that Patsy would recall which style of undies JonBenet had on when she went to bed and therefore, he/she felt they had to replace them with a pair that matched?

No. I'm hinting that someone knows that someone knows what JB was wearing when she was undressed and put to bed, and that MAY be the reason for the attempted match. There were three family members in the house that night according to the parents. If we take anyone's word for it, it will have to be theirs, right?

Perp accidently/purposefully kills JonBenet and, for reasons still being debated, wants/needs to change JonBenet's underwear. However, the perp is concerned that replacing the "soiled" underpants might be noticed by Patsy if the fresh pair do not match the "soiled" pair to be replaced. So the perp searches the underwear drawer and only finding a match in an unopened package, opens the package and puts on a "matching pair," possibly not noticing they are much too large. This way, the perp figures, Patsy won't notice the switch.

Approximately correct and, yes, "debated" is the key word: JonBenet is not necessarily dead at the point in time when the "perp" changes the underwear. I'm guessing that she wasn't. But, she may have been; at any rate, she is eventually killed by person or persons unknown.

If I may digress.... JonBenet is dead. Patsy and the family will notice that. The perp left a "ransom note." The family will notice that. JonBenet has/might have been sexually molested. The coroner will discover that, if molestation did indeed happen.

If I may digress....yes, well that JonBenet is dead is why we're here, right? Yes, Patsy and family will notice that; perhaps one of them long before the others. Yes, there is a ransom note; whether it was "left" or whether it was placed by a family member is what we've been debating. Yes, JonBenet might have been sexually molested. The coroner did discover injury to the vagina, but couldn't determine whether that was evidence of molestation or something else; leaned toward something else, I think. But, that wasn't his decision to make. I don't think he declared that she had died of that injury. So, yes, inquiring minds will discover what inquiring minds are capable of discovering, no doubt about that, though there may be some disagreement as to what the discoveries show.

Now, let me anticipate your questions by pointing out that it depends what you mean by perp, and remember that the following is hypothetical: If you mean by perp the person who molested JB and is a family member, the answer is that the perp doesn't want Patsy (in your sketch) to know that he's molested her as will be evidenced by the bloody size 4-6 undies if he leaves them on her; plus he might be concerned too that his forensics (as UKGuy is fond of saying) would be found in them.

I'm not trying to be frivolous here. Why would the perp be concerned about replacing one pair of underpants with a matching pair, given everything else he/she left behind, including a dead child and a "ransom note?" Once the perp has killed JonBenet and has made the decisions as to how the body is to be left in the wine room, why does the style of underpants matter? If Patsy was solely responsible for this, was she concerned that someone else knew what JonBenet was wearing earlier? Or if someone other than Patsy is responsible, was the perp concerned that Patsy would notice JonBenet was wearing a different style of underwear and, if so, why would the killer care? After killing a child, wouldn't matching the underwear be trivial?

The style of underpants is itself an element of the "decision" and matters if she is indeed wearing underpants when her body is found. If she's not wearing any underpants then the real perp can have us believe that the fake perp made off with them. He could decide, but he didn't, to leave the soiled underpants on her along with his forensics and not bother to clean her up. If she's wearing underpants that aren't the ones she was put to bed with, then how does the real perp explain why the fake perp changed her undies? It will be obvious that they have been changed; obvious to SOMEONE who knew which undies she had been wearing when she was put to bed and he will draw suspicion to himself. No, the matching (presumably) but too-big underwear are obviously not trivial. Trust me, if the killer is a family member he won't want Patsy (assuming she is not the perp) to know that he has changed the child's underwear. Why did he do that? What's his explanation for that? "John, did you change her underwear last night after I went to bed?" "Well, er...yes." "Why did you do that?" "Well, she soiled the others." "How did you know that?" "Well, I heard her crying and went down to investigate." "Hmmmm, wonder why I didn't hear that?", etc., etc.

I'm beginning to suspect that focusing on the size 10-12 underwear is a red herring.

Oh, good! And, isn't that just like a catfish. Let's see: according to my dictionary a red herring is (1.) a fish (2.) something dragged across a trail to confuse hunting dogs (3.) something which distracts attention from the real issue. Which of the three are you meaning? If you're meaning that I'm deliberately attempting to confuse you, then you're dead wrong. If you're meaning that the size 12-14 (not 10-12) underwear mystery is distracting you from the real issue, then you might want to explain what you think the real issue is. Also, I don't believe the forum is focusing on this issue--each thread deals with an issue and there are many threads, though I may be focusing on it at the moment. Did you have an issue that you wished to focus on? BTW, if, as you say, the comments are intriguing and excellent, why do you suspect a red herring???? Is that comment a bit disingenuous?

It may be as simple as this: it was Christmas day, a day of opening presents- of opening new packages. A little girl is getting dressed for Christmas dinner that evening. She opens one more new package that Christmas day - a package of underwear and puts on a new pair of underwear

Well, unfortunately, it isn't as simple as that, if you've been following the interviews. I would that it were that simple. The detectives have been saying, among other things, that they think those size 12-14 panties would have been pulled off in the undressing process--when the black velvet pants were removed, before the longjohns were put on. Basically, they don't think JB was wearing those undies when she got home from the Whites'. But Patsy says that didn't happen, and she claims to have undressed JB and didn't change JB's underwear that night. I guess you're saying, in a roundabout way, that you dont agree? So, if as you postulate, JB put those 12-14's on prior to going to the Whites', then the debate shifts direction (the red herring goes back to sea)--why did the perp wipe her (as seems to be the case), re-dress her (as seems to be the case), and wrap her body in blanket, etc? There may be something to this panty business, and there may not. We shall see.

If you consider all the crime-scene evidence (that includes the body and how it's dressed), such as the size 12-14 panties that would have fit a child 6 years older than JonBenet, and that didn't pull down when the black velvet pants were removed (according to the witness/suspect) and weren't purchased for JBR in the first place (according to the witness/suspect) and weren't stored with the rest of her undies (though the witness/suspect said they were), and the evidence of wiping/cleansing, and the very fact that she was even wearing underpants, regardless of style and size, after having been brutally attacked by the mysterious intruder, and the fact that the body was placed in an out-of-the-way room behind a closed and effectively locked door (the detectives couldn't get it open), and had a dubious garotte around it's neck, etc., etc., you have to ask yourself, what is the explanation for these too big panties on a dead girl whose parents were claiming (when police arrive and in their 911 call) had been kidnapped, and was discovered murdered in their own basement. "See here, detective, we found this [screwy] ransom note lying on the steps of the back, spiral staircase and our daughter is nowhere to be found."

Is it fair to say that none of us knows what happened? Now, lessee, you're of the PDI persuasion, right?

sissi

03-02-2005, 09:12 AM

RedChief

03-02-2005, 09:56 AM

Can we back up a bit ,are we certain these panties were size 12, or were they simply described as being a bit too big for this child?
Are we certain they came from the pack that was suppose to go to a niece, or could they have been from Jonbenet's own pack ,size 8 that would be too large, as well.
I'm just not certain that the size 12's weren't just an early tab release that we all bought into? I guess I just need a fact boost;)

From the 2000 interview with Patsy:

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

Boosted?

sissi

03-02-2005, 10:25 AM

Yep! Thanks!
It really does make a tremendous difference. On Christmas morning ,opening a pack of new panties , being told to get dressed, wanting the new ones, putting them on, all flows nicely. Having her mother available, close enough to have a little tif over which shirt to wear , suggests she did NOT put on size 12's while dressing for the Whites. They weren't hers, too big, no need, she had the same in her package, why wear them.
She didn't put them on before she left the house, and no one noticed them on her when they changed her for bed, (if all is true) then the killer put them on her. Who would care to match them up to the Wednesdays they removed? What kind of cold blooded killer would obsess over panties? Maybe someone that knew "others" were aware of her having on Wednesdays, and that others had taken potty trips with her and would remember. Example, Daphne could have been questioned, "what panties was she wearing at your house", yep ..could happen.

BlueCrab

03-02-2005, 12:35 PM

They weren't hers, too big, no need, she had the same in her package, why wear them.

sissi,

There's no evidence that Patsy bought JonBenet size 8's during the same time she bought size 12/14 for her neice. There were no size 8 panties found in the house.

When Patsy was asked if she also bought panties for JonBenet when she bought the panties for her 13-year-old niece, Patsy replied, "I don't remember".

Jayelles

03-02-2005, 01:24 PM

Catfish

03-02-2005, 01:25 PM

Red Chief,

Thanks once again for taking the time to reply. I just gotta keep digging deeper. LOL

Oh, no, don't let's ignore the police logs. John didn't say he put her to bed; he said he removed either her coat or her shoes (he wasn't sure) and left the rest to Patsy; then went downstairs and helped Burke with a project he was working on.
Concerning my comment about the police logs, I was refering to police reports filed about statements John made on December 26th.

From Steve Thomsas' book (p. 23 & 24, hb) -

Officers reconstructed some of the time line from the parent's recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in.
Perhaps I should have written that John 'tucked her in' instead of saying 'put her to bed.'

John denied the accuracy of those reports in his 1997 testimony -

ST: OK. Sir, I have a question regarding the security of the home on the night of the 25th, which led to the morning of the 26th, and I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to review the police reports that were provided to you.

JR: I scanned them.

ST: Did those, what you read in those, are those factual?

JR: Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn’t correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don’t think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early. Ah, and I think the other part I noted in there was they said I read to both kids before I went to bed, and that did not happened. What happened was the kids went to bed and then I read to myself in bed.

ST: John, let me ask you this. Do you attribute that to simply an officer’s error in recollection or might you have said that and . .

JR: I wouldn’t have said that. I think it might have been, maybe the way I said it, that was misinterpreted, but we clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep, so we could get them up early the next morning, so . . .
I still find it hard to believe that two police officers and Linda Arndt misinterpreted Johns statements.... but then again, would a Ramsey mislead anyone in this case?

RedChief

03-02-2005, 02:51 PM

I still find it hard to believe that two police officers and Linda Arndt misinterpreted Johns statements.... but then again, would a Ramsey mislead anyone in this case?

Oh, well, Catifish,

It looks like you have dug deeper, and I misunderstood your term, "log". My humble apologies.

Thanks for refreshing my memory as to the misunderstandings, mistatements, inconsistencies and discrepancies. Don't you have to wonder what John really said in those early hours. Yes, detective Linda Arndt, now there's an exemplary law officer if ever I saw one. It's all in the suspects eyes. What do you glean from looking into Linda's wild eyes? These purported inaccuracies and downright lies have been a stumbling block for sleuths from the beginning. I bought the books thinking that I'd be able to rely on them for factual information; no way Jose! One cannot even rely on the police reports, interviews, depositions, affadavits, etc. I guess it is the nature of man to misunderstand, misreport and misinform. Thank heaven for Miss Piggy. I'm surprised that Patsy hasn't been better prepared for her interviews. She seems to have been caught in some downright lies. Now, John, I think he's quite a bit better prepared and more honest, actually, for the most part. There are subjects discussed in the interviews where Patsy speaks fluently and has total recall. There are other subjects where she gets mighty halting and hazy. I'm not aware that John has recanted about the papoose-like wrapping, or about telling Arndt it looked like an inside job; however, he clarified this statement in a later interview, by explaining that he'd had the housekeeper in mind. I could believe that an officer misunderstood his remark about reading to the kids; he might have said, I put the kids to bed then read a while. But, as you say, for 3 officers to report that he said he'd read to the kids, does give you pause. It's not unusual, as I'm sure you know, for the information in these police reports to be contested by witnesses and defendants. To err is human, and to deny is divine. But, if you choose to believe the earlier testimony, which ought to be more accurate, then we have John putting her to bed (tucking her in), whatever that means, and reading to her. So, why'd he change his testimony? BTW, How does one put a 9-yr-old Burke to bed? Can't he undress himself? Can't he put his own pajamas on? Can't he turn his own bed covers down? Can't he crawl into bed and turn out the light? Can't he draw the covers up around him without help from papa? What exactly does one do? What exactly does John do? Let the boy have a little privacy, for cryin' out loud. The Ramseys have never been known to intentionally mislead anyone, Police, FBI, bank authorites or stray dogs.

As for JonBenet putting the big panties on; well, that sounds like something a child her age might do, granted; but, where is mom in all this? These panties seem way too big; how would she keep them up long enough to put the black velvet pants on over them? Where there's a will, there's a way, huh. And, what would wearing those monsters feel like? 'Twould be a might uncomfortable, wouldn't it, with all that extra cloth wadded up in her crotch? Maybe she had worn pull-ups inside them while at the Whites'. Maybe those pull-ups were removed when she went to bed. But, if so, why didn't Patsy admit it? I thought pull-ups were sufficient in and of themselves. But, there is that vanity thing, I guess. Now, maybe the questions I'm posing reveal my ignorance of such matters. If y'all think the big panties is no problem, then'll I'll be glad to know that, so I can turn my attention to other matters. Then, there is this, if it is your objective to switch panties without having anyone notice they've been switched, what makes you think you can get away with it with those size 12-14 parachutes? How much bigger around the waist and hips is a 12 yr-old than a 6-yr-old?

So, by all means, let's pursue the JonBenet did it theory (JDI) side by side with all the others; see where it leads. Whaddya say? After all it's the truth we're after, isn't it? I vote for you as chairman of the JDI committee; seriously. Whoops, watch out for that red herring. He's stalled halfway to the beach.

Laughter is the best medicine.

UKGuy

03-02-2005, 03:47 PM

Dont forget the BPD will know from fiber analysis if JonBenet wore those size-12 underwear beneath her black velvet pants, or even her tights if she wore those, and anything else she wore that night we dont know about, but if the are clean of anything but random fibers, excluding the white longjohns of course, then she was re-dressed in those size-12 pants and that is direct evidence of staging!!!

Catfish

03-02-2005, 05:04 PM

Don't you have to wonder what John really said in those early hours... But, if you choose to believe the earlier testimony, which ought to be more accurate, then we have John putting her to bed (tucking her in)...and reading to her. So, why'd he change his testimony? Here I go, speculating again.... if John, as reported by the police, tucked JonBenet in bed and read to her, that makes him alone with her that night, possibly the last family member to see her alive. Ten days after her death, on January 4, 1997, CNN runs a story with the headline " Slain 6-year-old Colorado girl was sexually molested, source says" http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/04/slain.girl/

In the court of public opinion, this placed John in a very uncomfortable position. Already under the "umbrella of suspicion," information of sexual molestation lead to speculation that John may have killed JonBenet. I believe that in order to distance himself from this situation, he and Patsy rehearsed the "JonBenet was zonked" story prior to their testimony in April, 1997.

As for JonBenet putting the big panties on; well, that sounds like something a child her age might do, granted; but...These panties seem way too big; how would she keep them up long enough to put the black velvet pants on over them? I should have consulted with my wife before I advanced that theory. I've seen my 6-year-old granddaughter wearing her mother's cotton socks several times, with the heel coming half way up her calf. Between my observation of my grandaughter wearing oversized socks and assuming the elastic in a new pair of underwear would hold up oversized undies, I dove head first into shallow waters. My wife has since informed me that, in no way, would such large size underwear cling to a small girls hips by the elastic band. I stand humbly corrected. :blushing:

So, by all means, let's pursue the JonBenet did it theory (JDI) side by side with all the others; see where it leads. Whaddya say? After all it's the truth we're after, isn't it? I vote for you as chairman of the JDI committee; seriously. Whoops, watch out for that red herring. He's stalled halfway to the beach.
Well, it won't take long before that committee disbands for lack of evidence, will it! Paraphrasing what you so eloquently wrote elsewhere, better to keep quiet and have people think I'm stupid than to open my mouth and remove all doubt. :crazy:

RedChief

03-02-2005, 10:08 PM

Here I go, speculating again.... if John, as reported by the police, tucked JonBenet in bed and read to her, that makes him alone with her that night, possibly the last family member to see her alive. Ten days after her death, on January 4, 1997, CNN runs a story with the headline " Slain 6-year-old Colorado girl was sexually molested, source says" http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/04/slain.girl/

In the court of public opinion, this placed John in a very uncomfortable position. Already under the "umbrella of suspicion," information of sexual molestation lead to speculation that John may have killed JonBenet. I believe that in order to distance himself from this situation, he and Patsy rehearsed the "JonBenet was zonked" story prior to their testimony in April, 1997.

Catfish,

Thanks for your reply and the info contained therein.

The "JonBenet was zonked" story: Zonked? Oh, you mean tranquilized by Priscilla with the special plate of cracked crab? Have you ever partaken of the cracked crab? What parent would want to molest a zonked daughter. Yes, they seem to want us to think that JonBenet was virtually comatose when John carried her upstairs and put her to bed. They've made a big deal about that for some reason. And John had nothing to do with tucking her in, 'cept removin' her shoes; why would he bother to do that? Couldn't Patsy just as easily have done that as part of the tucking in process? Hey, I seem to recall that John was such a neatnick that he'd remove HIS shoes upon entering the house. He was in his stocking feet while standing in the bayou that formed when the wind turned the shower on in that one upstairs bathroom. Which reminds me to ask this question again: was Patsy's shower really unserviceable? Did she not have access that morning to other showers or means of bathing? Was this someting the BPD checked out? I remember reading that her shower had been repaired at one time, and that in order to repair it, the workmen busted a big hole in the wall. Par for the course. But, that was prior to the murder. Did their work not endure? I recall that Patsy said she put her makeup on that morning 'cause she wanted to look nice for Melinda's boyfriend; wasn't concerned about how she smelled though? Did she look distraught when the first officer arrived? Did she appear to have been crying? Did she seem exhausted? Wouldn't you want to know? Gosh, busted showers, busted windows, deactivated security alarm systems. Which reminds me, when I was in that business many moons ago, we often installed IR motion detection in basements and other rooms. Guess that method of intrusion detection has gone out of vogue? Recall that Smit speculated that the intruder entered through the BW because there would be no security on that window; said burglers often do this. What self-respecting alarm company doesn't install intrusion detection on or near basement windows???? Guess that system was just too big a nuisance? Might have been pretty effective while the Ramseys were away and the house was vacant, or at night on the lower levels? Isn't John a graduate electrical engineer? Why's he referring to high voltages as "large"?

"..in no way, would such large size underwear cling to a small girls hips by the elastic band." Couldn't she have used duct tape or bubble gum? Of course your wife ought to know; wives tend to know these things; still, it might be premature to lay down your arms. Maybe LE was "stretching" the truth a bit about the size of the undies. No pun intended. Remember how they sprung one on John--fibers from his shirt in her underpants. Remember how he reacted--that is bull****! Seemed like a heartfelt reaction to me. So, do they or do they (LE) not have those fibers from that shirt? Further, how can we be sure they have the right shirt? Further, how can we be sure the clothing items Patsy gave them are the right ones? Can you imagine that she would give LE the very shirt that she was wearing when she applied the tape? Nah! What are attorneys for?

What I so "eloquently wrote" is a maxim that I borrowed from anonymous. Why no DNA on swab or smear, but DNA in undies? Where was DNAX found? Maybe we should do a poll; ask that only posters in the know participate. Did JBR put those big undies on? BTW, I should have written, JIU (Jonbenet installed undies) instead of JDI; that's what I meant. Disbanding for lack of evidence; yes, that's what happened to my group quite a while back--about 5 years ago, to be inexact.

Cheers!

sissi

03-02-2005, 10:57 PM

Maybe the perp was very careful in not leaving his dna, perhaps his only error was using a handkerchief to clean her, one that contained his dna .

Nehemiah

03-02-2005, 11:13 PM

The style of underpants is itself an element of the "decision" and matters if she is indeed wearing underpants when her body is found. If she's not wearing any underpants then the real perp can have us believe that the fake perp made off with them. He could decide, but he didn't, to leave the soiled underpants on her along with his forensics and not bother to clean her up. If she's wearing underpants that aren't the ones she was put to bed with, then how does the real perp explain why the fake perp changed her undies? It will be obvious that they have been changed; obvious to SOMEONE who knew which undies she had been wearing when she was put to bed and he will draw suspicion to himself. No, the matching (presumably) but too-big underwear are obviously not trivial. Trust me, if the killer is a family member he won't want Patsy (assuming she is not the perp) to know that he has changed the child's underwear. Why did he do that? What's his explanation for that? "John, did you change her underwear last night after I went to bed?" "Well, er...yes." "Why did you do that?" "Well, she soiled the others." "How did you know that?" "Well, I heard her crying and went down to investigate." "Hmmmm, wonder why I didn't hear that?", etc., etc.

If the perp had not replaced her underwear, then the BPD, upon discovery of the body, may have begun looking around for the removed underwear. Perhaps the perp didn't want to risk that at that particular time.

RedChief

03-03-2005, 12:04 AM

If the perp had not replaced her underwear, then the BPD, upon discovery of the body, may have begun looking around for the removed underwear. Perhaps the perp didn't want to risk that at that particular time.

Nehemiah,

Great observation! But, I'm still in a quandary: it may make sense that the perp replaced the underwear for the reason you stated, but does it make sense that he'd choose those titanics? The size is a major component of the mystery. Maybe LE stretched the truth. Also, the titanics weren't discovered until the autopsy was peformed; that alone gave the perp plenty of breathing room. Probably one of the Whites knows the answer to the mystery bloomers. Maybe even Fleet, as it was his custom, if not duty, (custom? duty?) to help the little girls with their feminine hygiene.

I thought you were going to start a thread on the clothing; change your mind?

sissi,

Yeah, wiped her with his hanky, after all, it was hanky panky, right? No, that won't work. It'd be her hanky. Still puzzled as to why DNA in the undies, purportedly only in conjunction with the areas of red staining on the "inner" aspect of the crotch of the undies. One might infer that the DNA was comingled with the blood when it was deposited. If that were the case, then either (1.) very little DNA and none left on/in the body or (2.) a ton of it left on/in the body and LE failed to collect it. I've heard it mentioned that the DNA represents saliva. Where did this rumor come from--Carol McKinley? What is saliva doing in her undies? Weird! Maybe the DNA came from the instrument (the brush?) that was used to inflict the injury--transferred from hand to brush to body. Maybe that would explain why there was so little? Vaginal injury: major or minor in your estimation?

Maybe she was wet when the perp found her (it appears that she urinated while alive--empty bladder) and her condition turned him off, and that's why he didn't rape her per se. Then, there would be evidence of that where she had been lying. Someone should start a thread on pedophilia--Smit says it's a pedophile. Here's something to consider: the Oliva fellow, said he guessed LE decided he didn't do it, or words to that effect. Maybe he used an article of clothing, or a cloth, that didn't belong to him to accomplish the wiping and that accounts for the mystery DNA? No, 'cause she also had mystery DNA under her fingernails. Darn! That fellow, Raburn, said something similar in his blurb to Schiller: "Guess they figured out I didn't do it." He was the $118,000 ex-convict. They could have hatched this kidnapping while he was in prison. The Henderson woman was in stir 'round about that time also. Recall that the plan to ROB the Clutters was hatched in prison by the Richard fellow, and he and Perry ended up MURDERING the entire family. God, that was a heartbreaker! Well, to their credit, they didn't leave a ransom note at the scene. One more thing: what unsub is dumb enough and/or brave enough to first kill the girl in her own home with the parents and brother present, though sleeping, then take the additional time and risk to jot down a pulitzer-prize winnning ransom note? Oh, I forgot: he killed the girl in the basement (lured her there somehow), then he waited. "Dumb as a dog he listened" until he was sure no one in the house had heard whatever commotion there may have been (the scream?), then he stole back upstairs, penned the bizarre note, placed it on the stairs, high-tailed out the patio door and into the alley, and hot-footed it to his temporary abode--a cardboard box in a train culvert, where 118th street intersects the track.

Stop me before I ramble more.

Nehemiah

03-03-2005, 08:35 AM

It makes the most sense to me that she was already wearing the Wed. panties, and the perp thought he was replacing them with a pair just like the ones he removed. He either didn't know a thing about sizes, or thought no one else would notice the size change. After all, they looked exactly alike. Wonder if he replaced them before death, or after?

sissi

03-03-2005, 09:17 AM

BlueCrab

03-03-2005, 10:25 AM

I've heard it mentioned that the DNA represents saliva. Where did this rumor come from--Carol McKinley? What is saliva doing in her undies? Weird!

RedChief,

Come on now RedChief, I didn't peg you to be one who is naive. The foreign male DNA in JonBenet's panties was most likely saliva. There was no semen at the crime scene, yet it was a sex crime. Oral sex is likely more prevalent these days than is straight sex.

sissi

03-03-2005, 10:56 AM

I guess he did a great job cleaning her body, why didn't he consider the underwear, and what kind of "conditions" are in the vagina that would kill off traces of the killers dna?

RedChief

03-03-2005, 10:56 AM

Is rambling a bad thing?
I'm not too proud, here's a shot....
Perp comes to the house to visit the Ramseys, he wants to either say "hi", or he wants something, maybe he watched the scrooge mcduck version of a Christmas Carol and thought his arrival would spark some sympathy/money offering from Mr. Ramsey. He walked in, no one remembered to lock up, why should they, it was "Christmas in a postcard" land. The Chamber of Commerce was putting out ..to keep as much boulder burglary crap out of the news as possible. The day was about blazing cozy fires ,tinsel and glitter. However not so for our perp, his day was lonely enough to drop in uninvited ,I suppose he wasn't wanted anywhere else, he spent his day annoying his own family, *****in' and complaining about what they didn't have, and absorbing his drug/alcohol of choice. House empty, no magic, no offer of money , so leave empty handed, or sit around and let the creative juices flow. Write the damn note , create a scenario on paper where ya get what ya want, ya get to torment the "cheapskate" for a few hours, and ya get the 118,000 that in some way you calculated as do you. Ya hear them coming in? Hide away in some dark corner of that basement, bored? fashion a leash of some sort to take the child like a dog. They go to bed,leave the note on the stairs, run up, pick up the child, she awakens, stun her, she empties her bladder , which is more than an inconvenience, take her out of that house, she screams , punish her for doing that to you, rage, hurt her, strangle her, kick her in the head, after all she wet you. The body is quiet, the Ramseys still asleep, dump her back in that house like debris on the basement floor.

sissi (rambling rose),

Questions/comments regarding the above: Does the note look like the work of a drunk man? Mervin Pugh comes to mind. How articulate is Mervin Pugh when he isn't drunk? Did any of the materials in his possession that he voluntarily turned over to LE, match any of the items at the crime scene?

The leash: that's a definite possibility. I've been re-examining the knots. There is a common knot referred to as a double loop knot. I have no way of knowing whether this common knot is the one the coroner referred to in the AR. (It is the knot on the end of the cord that was not fastened around the right wrist.) But, if it is, it'd make a good handle for the cord, like the handle in a leash. In the photos you see two loops. Whereas there have been other explantions for these two loops, they could also be explained as elements of the aforementioned handle. In the photos, these loops are separate and distinct; in use, the hand is slipped through both of them. This common double loop knot works good for a handle for the following reason, aside from it's being easy to tie: it doesn't slip, so would not tighten around the hand of the user while pulling whatever the cord is fastened to, and would, therefore, afford a comfortable grip. One wonders why this kind of knot wasn't also used on the garotte, instead of the stick. The garotte handle, actually seems more ad hoc than the wrist ligature. There are several variations of the standard double loop knot; the most basic double loop knot contains only one loop (the handle). The knot isn't named for the number of loops it contains, but for the doubling of the cord in fashioning the loop or loops.

Sequence of events in bedroom: the pattern of urine staining on the lj's strongly suggests she was lying on her tummy when she peed. So maybe it is stun first, or whack on the head first? Then install the leash. There were fibers consistent with the fibers of the cord, found in the bedroom. But, we don't know when she peed, so this might not have happened until later. I would think the perp would want to remove her from the bedroom ASAP, and if he put a leash on her, probably she was awake and ambulatory at that time, or soon after. The leash would be not very useful otherwise. She did have lint on her feet. This would be consistent with her having walked while being led on a leash. The eyes would have been untaped to enable her to see where she was going, to avoid tripping and falling, etc. Probably her wrists were bound together initially, maybe by half-hitching around the left wrist. John initially told investigators that the wrists were tied together. We know that the cord was not half-hitched around the right wrist, so that may have been the first wrist to be tied. You might be on to something here, with the leash hypothesis.

Kick her in the head: mighty hard kick; would need steel-toed boot at a minimum. Probably didn't happen. Are Hi-Tec boots steel-toed?

Wandered in: Doubt it; was probably planned out in advance. The perp was planning to leave by the butler pantry door, but something went awry; the child pulled loose and/or scratched him. They ended up in the basement. The rest is history. Whoever did this, if not a Ramsey, apparently knew the house well, and that the sleeping parents probably wouldn't hear him moving about in the house at lower levels, including on the 2nd floor.

Yes to the leash. Good rambling!

PS: Whoever did this, if not a Ramsey, apparently knew they'd be away for a few hours that evening.

PPS: Whoever did this knew where to leave the note.

PPPS: Whoever did this knew the dog was at the Barnhills. Whoever did this very likely had a key. Whoever did this knew about the "Christmas bonus". Whoever did this knew about joking in the household concerning John's "good southern common sense". Whoever did this looked upon John as a fat cat and envied his "bussiness", so probably wasn't rolling in dough himself. Whoever did this envied John but respected Patsy. Whoever did this also misspelled "posession". There is someone who knows someone who is in the habit of misspelling words such as these. Whoever did this was in need of the money. Whoever did this lost control of the "situation" and JB sought refuge in the basement? Whoever did this was possibly scratched by JB, and probably JB got a good look at him when his disguise malfunctioned. Maybe she pulled off his mask or whatever it was that he had disguised himself with. Whoever did this probably wore a red article of clothing and may have had pet animals in his establishment. Whoever did this might have gotten word to JB that he (Santa) was going to pay her a secret visit. Whoever did this may have been the person who spoke to JB directly; and not necessarily dressed as Santa when he spoke to her, but someone whom she trusted to know that Santa would visit her secretly. Whoever did this probably had to kill JB to keep her from ratting on him. Whoever did this knew one hell of a lot about the Ramseys, their habits, their plans, their house. Whoever did this probably left in a panic and probably through the basement window.

PPPPS: Probably JonBenet had already wet herself as she lay asleep in bed and was wet when the perp arrived in her bedroom. There is evidence to suggest that she was alive at the time she peed. There should have been evidence of the wetting on the bed sheet. There is uncertainty surrounding this matter. Thomas copped out by saying there is no presumptive evidence for urine, and that he was not aware that anyone in LE had checked for urine. Isn't this amazing, considering that his theory requires that JB wet the bed! Oh, my!

"Who will love you with a love true, when your ramblin' days are gone?"--NKK

sissi

03-03-2005, 02:51 PM

Red Chief...A scratch? Is this why there is so little dna? Maybe not saliva at all, but a tiny speck of blood from a tiny scratch?

RedChief

03-03-2005, 03:14 PM

Red Chief...A scratch? Is this why there is so little dna? Maybe not saliva at all, but a tiny speck of blood from a tiny scratch?

sissi,

Yes, it's possible 'twas blood from a small wound. Frankly, I've never understood the saliva hypothesis. Obviously I'm not well versed in child/adult sex and don't wish to be, except possibly for sleuthing purposes. Ignorant as I am of this subject, I don't hesitate to remark that saliva would make more sense in concensual sex between adults. Who could possibly want to perform oral sex on a 6 yr-old-girl? That's something done for the female partner's pleasure, with her permission. Further, why is there so little DNA and why wasn't any found AT ALL on/in the body? The cleansing didn't appear to be thorough. There were smears left. There should have been DNA in those too. If the pants don't fit, you must acquit. However, if you suspect kidnapping gone awry, you might want to explain the vaginal injury, which doesn't seem to fit with the kidnapping hypothesis. There will probably always be stuff that doesn't fit ANY theory and doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the theory.

"Why you wander, heaven knows."--NKK

RedChief

03-06-2005, 02:57 PM

JonBenet's pink jammies (the one's on the bed in the CS photos) were two-piece? Those are the same jammies she was wearing Xmas morning?

When the first officer arrived, the parents showed him a ransom note?

Question/s and comments regarding the above: Except as a diversionary tactic to focus attention on an outsider ("there's somebody out there"), what reason might the Ramseys have had for writing the note? Is it possible that they might have wanted to protect someone in the extended family or some other person (the unsub), public knowledge of whose participation in the crime would reflect extremely badly on them?

Except as a genuine attempt to collect ransom, what reason might an outsider have had for writing and leaving the note? Is it possible that he might have wanted to send a message to the Ramseys; a message that, though cryptic to us, was much less so to them? Are the Ramseys afraid to tell us who that outsider is? Or, have they already identified him and the BPD have been unable to connect him, in any forensic way, to the crime?

The ransom note makes virtually no sense in connection with the very fact of the body, obscured from ready view, in the wine cellar; and with the injuries sustained, and the various artifacts discovered there, not least of which is the Barbie gown which seems to have materialized out of thin air.

That's how I see it.......

UKGuy

03-06-2005, 04:22 PM

RedChief,

Really the only reasonable explanation is, multiple staging, any other rationale must assume, different perpetrators acting out different crimes with varying motives. Thus displaying these different aspects to the crime. This leads to a proliferation of whodunnits, any of whiich can be valid.

But we suspect this is not the case, most people think it is the work of one or two people and five at most!

An outsider might leave a ransom note simply to divert attention away from himself and onto an unknown child killer who could be seen as an external danger!

IMO the correct view is that the ransom note is part of prior staging which was not completed, even abandonded, due possibly to, if you suscribe to BlueCrab's suggestion, that is was Mother Nature, with a fall of snow!

I dont think the Ramsays intended the actual outcome that arrived to be as it was. Circumstance and accident allowed a lot of what we see as evidence of certain scenarios to transpire. Just think of all the evidence that the BPD messed up on that day. The Ramsay's never expected that to happen. So their ad-hoc staging accompanied by BPD charging all over the house, including the Ramsay's themselves and their friends makes a lot of the forensic evidence eqivocal, and this is why it probably never went to court. LE probably thought they knew who did it, but knew it could never be proved in open court.

Any explanation of JonBenet's death, has to account for the staging, so any theory that does not factor it in, however seductive it may be, you know may not be correct.

Personally I found once I allowed for staging and attempted to account for it, I arrived at a different person being responsible from nearly everyone else!

So why do you think those pink pijamas are relevant ?

sissi

03-06-2005, 04:42 PM

Patsy is too emotional to have held back that grief and anguish for hours while pretending to wait for a kidnapper. She was struggling with fear, reading her Bible, holding the hands of friends, praying for the safe return of her child, nothing prepared her for the meltdown she experienced when her child was found dead. John, was trying to "do the right things", he was not experiencing grief either, his persona was one of a man used to taking charge and getting things done. I believe both thought the child would be returned unharmed.
Why the ransom note? It may have worked had he/they not decided she had to die.

RedChief

03-06-2005, 05:49 PM

Why did she have to die?

That's the $118,000 question.

Here are some possibilities:

She was a pedophile's dream.

She was the John's daughter.

She was Patsy's daughter.

She was a rich kid.

She was ornery.

She flaunted her wealth.

She flaunted her talent.

She was a threat (real or imagined) to the success of some Colorado pageant mom's daughter; and hence to the mom herself.

She was the convenent target of a pack of hooligans--some of Burke's older playmates.

She wet the bed.

She became rebellious toward her mother.

She became a liability for her father.

She was high profile and her daddy was rich.

She knew too much.

She saw too much; recognized her abductor.

She rejected her suitor.

She pissed somebody off big time.

She got in the way of a swinging bat or flashlight.

She forgot to duck.

RedChief

03-06-2005, 06:14 PM

An outsider might leave a ransom note simply to divert attention away from himself and onto an unknown child killer who could be seen as an external danger

Right. Can you think of some candidates for the outsider? Someone LE or the Ramseys might suspect if it weren't for the note? So, that would make the note fake, but not an element of staging, right? The note would be phony but considered a true element of the crime, even though diversionary.

Any explanation of JonBenet's death, has to account for the staging, so any theory that does not factor it in, however seductive it may be, you know may not be correct.

Yes, has to account for the possibility of staging.

Personally I found once I allowed for staging and attempted to account for it, I arrived at a different person being responsible from nearly everyone else!

Now THAT is an enigmatic statement.

So why do you think those pink pijamas are relevant ?

I think they're relevant because they are the jams she was wearing Xmas morning; they were on her bed in the CS photos; they were readily accessible for bedtime dressing or staging; and they somehow managed to circumvent the wine cellar.

UKGuy

03-06-2005, 07:01 PM

RedChief,

Thanks for your reply,

Now staging in any crime scene is where someone alters some aspect of it to divert attention away from themselve(s).

Its a tricky concept to take on board since many people see it as either unimportant or simply the perp messing the crime scene up.

JonBenet's death is not only a domestic homicide, which is the normal classification, its also a staged domestic homicide, and to solve it you need to account for the staged elements as well as the non-staged ones. Doing this means you see why they are important!

So the note is fake in the sense you mean. But its also staging because its purpose is other than what its written content suggests.

e.g. If JonBenet had been discovered in the wine cellar, strangled and sexually violated , dressed only in her day of the week (wednesday) size-12 underwear and her favorite Barbie Gown.

Then everyone would assume she had been abducted from her bed, removed to the wine-cellar, and therein sadistically sexually assaulted whilst being garroted. The evidence would appear unassailable, any common sense thinking person would be looking for a violent pedophile predator!

But after reading the parents version of her dressing for bed routine, and how Patsy dressed her in those white longjohns for the stated reasons. You now can see there was a pair already under her pillow, awaiting re-use, so what appears to be inconsistent? What JonBenet would normally wear nightly, as evidenced by what is under her pillows, or how the parents version corresponds to what she was found wearing in the wine-cellar, but we can suggest, she should really be wearing her Barbie Gown, thats why its at the staged murder scene, like other elements at the scene , all brought together to paint a picture of intruder violence, which many assume to be the correct perspective.

But once you accept all that , it begs the question, was what she was wearing in the wine-cellar, the clothing she wore whilst being killed, and we can answer with some degree of certainty. Probably not since those size-12 pants were clean on, and so may have been the white longjohns, and she was wiped down. So was their prior staging, which was now being revised ? And the answer is a likely yes, so the manner in which she was killed and by whom and where is open to debate since we can now, hopefully, see through the staging??

The outsider candidate would be someone who may have been invited earlier, and who had been to the house before, knew the ramsay's socially. And took advantage of knowing their domestic routine. He would leave the house, say his goodbyes , but return later to commit his fowl deed, after everyone had settled down. This scenario assumes a degree of collusion in illegality between the Ramsays and the outsider in some other area e.g. its part of a conspiracy theory. So once they work out who might have done it they would be reluctant to name him/her, and just as likely to cover up for them!

RedChief

03-06-2005, 09:00 PM

RedChief,

Thanks for your reply,

Now staging in any crime scene is where someone alters some aspect of it to divert attention away from themselve(s).

Yes, but in a staged domestic homicide, the person or persons involved in the staging are undertaking the staging to divert attention away from them or someone else in the domicile. If the Ramseys, being involved in some way, either directly or indirectly in the death, wrote a fake note, we can confidently call it a staged element; but, if an outsider wrote a FAKE note to divert attention away from himself, then we can no longer call it an element of staging; it's simply an element of the crime--something found at the scene that wasn't essential for the commission of the homicide, but deemed necessary by the perpetrator to send the investigators on a wild goose chase, or a wild foreign faction chase, if you prefer. As an example, the perpetrator could have arrived in Santa's sleigh, but we would not consider Santa's sleigh an element of staging on the part of the perpetrator; it would be considered part of a ruse to kill the girl and have folks think Santa did it.

Its a tricky concept to take on board since many people see it as either unimportant or simply the perp messing the crime scene up.!

Oh, I don't see it as unimportant at all, nor all that tricky.

JonBenet's death is not only a domestic homicide, which is the normal classification, its also a staged domestic homicide, and to solve it you need to account for the staged elements as well as the non-staged ones. Doing this means you see why they are important!

True, but let's suppose that JonBenet had been found beheaded in her bedroom with a sling blade laying beside her dead body. Where is the staging? I'll bet this will be a headscratcher.

So the note is fake in the sense you mean. But its also staging because its purpose is other than what its written content suggests.

Well, I guess here is where we differ, but it gets back to semantics. We can get untangled from that by simply being more specific. Let's say that either (1.) the Ramseys wrote the fake note or (2.) an outsider wrote the fake note. Either way, there has to be a purpose for the fake note, and I think that would be to confuse the investigators and/or the Ramseys. It may be that the outsider/perpetrator just has a fettish for fake notes.

e.g. If JonBenet had been discovered in the wine cellar, strangled and sexually violated , dressed only in her day of the week (wednesday) size-12 underwear and her favorite Barbie Gown.

Not so fast; the size 12-14 underwear would raise eyebrows, no? And perhaps even the Barbie gown, if it isn't her contemporary preference. I assume you're excluding the note from this scenario. But, again, it depends on who is trying to fool whom?

Then everyone would assume she had been abducted from her bed, removed to the wine-cellar, and therein sadistically sexually assaulted whilst being garroted. The evidence would appear unassailable, any common sense thinking person would be looking for a violent pedophile predator!

I'm not sure that would be the prevailing assumption; after all her sexual injury was MINOR and her panties were way too big. Some amateur perpetrator might expect that would be the outcome, however.

But after reading the parents version of her dressing for bed routine, and how Patsy dressed her in those white longjohns for the stated reasons. You now can see there was a pair already under her pillow, awaiting re-use, so what appears to be inconsistent? What JonBenet would normally wear nightly, as evidenced by what is under her pillows, or how the parents version corresponds to what she was found wearing in the wine-cellar...

I followed you this far. If I may paraphrase, you say the parents' version is suspicious because she was found in longjohns and should have been wearing the jammies. Yes? But, I would view the neglected jammies as a mistake on the stager's part rather than as staging in and of itself.

, but we can suggest, she should really be wearing her Barbie Gown, thats why its at the staged murder scene, like other elements at the scene , all brought together to paint a picture of intruder violence, which many assume to be the correct perspective.

This is where you lost me. She shouldn't be wearing her Barbie gown, unless you think she ought to be wearing it over her longjohns. I don't think that's the case. She was in the habit of throwing her covers off because it was too warm in the room. It seems to me that if the staging is to be convincing she'll be wearing her pink jammies. Explain to me why I'm wrong. I don't know this to be the case, but it seems reasonable, given that she was wearing them Xmas morning. It's possible that she got up out of bed that Xmas morning and put them on, but is that reasonable? Someone knows what she was in the habit of wearing to bed, and someone knows what she was wearing when she was put to bed that night. If that someone was involved in the staging, there is no reason why she shouldn't be found in those clothes in the wine cellar, if the intent was to stage a convincing bedroom abduction scene. But, again, it depends on who is trying to fool whom? Her sequined GAP shirt wasn't sexy enough?

But once you accept all that , it begs the question, was what she was wearing in the wine-cellar, the clothing she wore whilst being killed, and we can answer with some degree of certainty. Probably not since those size-12 pants were clean on, and so may have been the white longjohns, and she was wiped down. So was their prior staging, which was now being revised ? And the answer is a likely yes, so the manner in which she was killed and by whom and where is open to debate since we can now, hopefully, see through the staging??

Well, what does it prove that the size 12-14's were clean on or that the longjohns were clean on? If she had been found wearing the pink jammies they'd be clean on too, no? Unless they'd gotten dirty since she wore them the time before. Granted the size 12-14's are a headscratcher. I am not able to answer whether there was prior staging that was being revised. First, I would have to know the nature of the prior staging. Maybe what you mean by "clean on" is that they were fresh that night, but you'd only be guessing, as evidenced by "and so MAY have been the white longjohns". We don't know whether either the panties or the longjohns were clean on. That's the problem. How do you know the wiping wasn't done simply to clean her up after she wet herself, or worse? You can suspect, but you can't know.

What do you theorize that JonBenet was wearing when she was killed? What you see as staging in the wine cellar hinges on that and on who is trying to fool whom. If both parents were involved in the staging, then they might think they could re-dress her in longjohns and sequined shirt and Barbie gown (or suggest that she had been wearing it by placing it close by) and oversized Wednesday panties and get away with it--fool the authorities; make them think she'd been abducted from her bedroom. But, if only one parent were involved in the staging and the other parent were unaware of the death until 1:05 PM or so on the 26th, then how can the guilty (of staging or murder or both) parent hope to fool the other parent, if the other parent knows what JonBenet was wearing when she was put to bed? The best staging would be to re-install her pink jammies, if that's what she was wearing when she was put to bed (and which is what, I think, you suspect), and replace her "adequate size" panties with another pair of "adequate size". I'm not familiar with how female children are dressed for bed. Would it be likely that JonBenet wore a shirt under her jammies? Even better staging might be to place all those items in the wine cellar that she would be expected to have been wearing to bed that night, or that you, as stager, KNEW that she had worn to bed that night, and leave the body nude, at least from the waist down. That would be more convincing, by far, of an attack by a sexual sadist than the scene that was found. You could also place a fig leaf in a judicious location on the body. Boy, wouldn't that give us something to argue about!

The outsider candidate would be someone who may have been invited earlier, and who had been to the house before, knew the ramsay's socially. And took advantage of knowing their domestic routine. He would leave the house, say his goodbyes , but return later to commit his fowl deed, after everyone had settled down. This scenario assumes a degree of collusion in illegality between the Ramsays and the outsider in some other area e.g. its part of a conspiracy theory. So once they work out who might have done it they would be reluctant to name him/her, and just as likely to cover up for them!

Yes, to the conspiracy. Now, how do you account for the clean longjohns and underpants being urine soaked if you theorize that she was re-dressed after her death????? I think if you'll just walk us through what happened and include as much detail as you can, then maybe we can understand your staging hypotheses. We'll forgive you if you don't get it 100% correct.

sissi

03-07-2005, 01:15 AM

I pick

She knew too much.

She saw too much; recognized her abductor.

There is a possibility that she "knew too much" before "a scheduled "murder?
Perhaps the perp had already stepped over some "line" with Jonbenet and needed to kill her before she left for Michigan and was out of his control?

hmm..edit to add...would he kill her himself or pay a "hit guy"? ..set the stage..order the scenario to include a nice ransom note?

I know this is out there, living where I live we still experience a hit on occasion..probably not so in Boulder

UKGuy

03-07-2005, 03:10 PM

RedChief,

At any crime scene if anyone adds evidence, changes it, removes it, or destroys it etc. Then that is termed staging, regardless of whether its a domestic crime, or an outdoor crime.

Actually your Santa example would be an instance of staging, and if he repeated it, a sharp LEA would recognize it as part of his MO.

No I am not excluding the note, simply treating it as separate staging, its existence is obviously incongruous with the crime scene in the wine-cellar.

I followed you this far. If I may paraphrase, you say the parents' version is suspicious because she was found in longjohns and should have been wearing the jammies. Yes? But, I would view the neglected jammies as a mistake on the stager's part rather than as staging in and of itself.
Not exactly more that the parents version of JonBenet being put to bed correspond more or less with what she was discovered wearing in the basement. But we have a few reasons to suspect their version of JonBenet's bedtime events are less than candid.

The Pink Pijamas however you regard them, are similar to the size-12 underwear. We have someone attempting to stage a homicide, but using what we recognize as the least persuasive items. Its not proof, just as the size-12 pants are not proof. But we now have say two examples of inconsistant dressing. 1.) size-12 underwear. 2.) No Pink Pijamas. This is really more re-inforcement for BlueCrabs juvenile male perpetrator theory!

Once the wine cellar staging was completed, JonBenet should have had no extraneous items lying around her, since that will just raise suspicion. So ideally she should only be found in her Barbie Gown and underwear. I suggest this is what was in the stagers mind, but circumstance forced him to abandon it and leave the crime scene as it was found?

It seems to me that if the staging is to be convincing she'll be wearing her pink jammies. Explain to me why I'm wrong.
So you are not wrong, this why we can recogize the wine cellar as likely staging, and why Patsy had to come up with some reason for dressing JonBenet in longjohns the night before, when her Pink Pijamas were available inches away, under her pillow!

And if the bells are ringing just as they did about the size-12 underwear, then its hey why was her Barbie Gown in the wine cellar and not her Pink Pijamas.

If she had been wearing Pink Pijamas when her body was discovered, and Patsy had stated she was dressed in those the night before then not much has changed.

The longjohns "appear" to be clean on, then soiled, as do the size-12 underwear, she is wearing no socks, which suggests she was undressed, so that she could be dressed in the longjohns, possibly removing her missing size-6 underwear. When exactly she was wiped clean is difficult to pin down. And there was blood removed from her genital area, not simply urine etc. And you can have post-mortem release of urine, or you can suscribe to Steve Thomas's PDI via toilet rage? Another explanation is that she was naked, so some form of re-dressing was required. So basically she was in another state of dress prior to being relocated to the wine-cellar?

I hope there is enough there so you can recognize the wine-cellar as a staged crime scene, and that this implies there was another prior crime scene, staged or not? And that the proposed wine cellar staging corresponds with the inconsistencies in some of the participants interview replies and statements.

RedChief

03-07-2005, 05:54 PM

RedChief,

At any crime scene if anyone adds evidence, changes it, removes it, or destroys it etc. Then that is termed staging, regardless of whether its a domestic crime, or an outdoor crime..

I agree with one proviso: the addition, changing, removal or destruction of evidence must have the objective of foiling an investigation. So, if the body were moved, and/or posed to effect a decency presentation, that wouldn't be considered staging. And it would be a simple matter for the person who engaged in the posing to admit that to the authorities so as to not mislead them. So, it boils down to motive. What if someone accidentally alters a crime scene? Is that still considered staging? I don't think so. So we have to allow for exceptions.

Here is an example of the staging of a crime scene: A man manually strangles his wife in a fit of passion. He drags her body over to the foot of a staircase and positions it such that it appears she has fallen down the stairs. He wants the coroner to think she died in an accident. The coroner, being a smart man, and accustomed to such deceit, takes a close look at the body and notices petechial hemorrhages in the conjunctiva. He says, aha! This is not an accident. He transports the body to the morgue and performs an autopsy. He discovers a broken hyoid bone, and neck strap muscle hemorrhages. He calls the cops and they arrest the husband. Classic example of staging attempted by a criminally unsophisticated person.

Actually your Santa example would be an instance of staging, and if he repeated it, a sharp LEA would recognize it as part of his MO.

Actually my Santa example would not be an instance of staging even by your definition above, for the simple reason that nothing was added, nothing was changed, nothing was removed and nothing was destroyed at the crime scene. If repeated, it might be considered an MO. If the perp repeatedly dressed as Jack the Ripper and used a machete, that also might be considered an MO; but not staging. QED

No I am not excluding the note, simply treating it as separate staging, its existence is obviously incongruous with the crime scene in the wine-cellar..

I agree that the note appears to be inharmonious with the scene in the cellar; however, if we dress the child in the Barbie gown and put the body on the Butler pantry floor, it becomes more consonant? Also, it matters whether the fake note was written by a Ramsey who committed the crime or by an outsider who committed the crime. If it was written by a Ramsey, it was probably something ADDED to the scene and that would make it staging. If it was written by an outsider it may or may not have been something added to the scene. If it wasn't added to the scene, it isn't staging, even though it's fake. Suppose a man holds up a liquor store with a water pistol. Would you consider the water pistol an item of staging? I don't think so. It's a fake item that was used in the commission of a crime. It fooled the clerk, and that was all it was intended to do. It wasn't intended to foil an investigation.

Not exactly more that the parents version of JonBenet being put to bed correspond more or less with what she was discovered wearing in the basement. But we have a few reasons to suspect their version of JonBenet's bedtime events are less than candid.

Well, if you have reason to believe that they lied about how JonBenet was dressed when she was put to bed, then I can understand how you might detect staging in the wine cellar scene.

The Pink Pijamas however you regard them, are similar to the size-12 underwear. We have someone attempting to stage a homicide, but using what we recognize as the least persuasive items. Its not proof, just as the size-12 pants are not proof. But we now have say two examples of inconsistant dressing. 1.) size-12 underwear. 2.) No Pink Pijamas. This is really more re-inforcement for BlueCrabs juvenile male perpetrator theory!.

Yes, you'd think the parents would be smart enough to do proper staging. However, then you must answer this: if the parents are lying about the child's attire--how they undressed her, dressed her, what she had on when they (or perhaps just he or she) tucked her in and left the room, etc., how do you explain that they (or he or she) didn't revise the staging to make it look more convincing? Did someone confess to them his part in the crime too late for them to make the necessary adjustments, but not too late for them to concoct a story for the investigators?

Once the wine cellar staging was completed, JonBenet should have had no extraneous items lying around her, since that will just raise suspicion. So ideally she should only be found in her Barbie Gown and underwear. I suggest this is what was in the stagers mind, but circumstance forced him to abandon it and leave the crime scene as it was found?

That's possible. And what might those circumstances have been?

So you are not wrong, this why we can recogize the wine cellar as likely staging, and why Patsy had to come up with some reason for dressing JonBenet in longjohns the night before, when her Pink Pijamas were available inches away, under her pillow!

Yes, the wine cellar scene certainly does arouse suspicion; no doubt about that. I think that's what John's lawyer friend thought too, and that's why he advised John to lawyer up.

And if the bells are ringing just as they did about the size-12 underwear, then its hey why was her Barbie Gown in the wine cellar and not her Pink Pijamas.

If she had been wearing Pink Pijamas when her body was discovered, and Patsy had stated she was dressed in those the night before then not much has changed.

The longjohns "appear" to be clean on, then soiled, as do the size-12 underwear, she is wearing no socks, which suggests she was undressed, so that she could be dressed in the longjohns, possibly removing her missing size-6 underwear. When exactly she was wiped clean is difficult to pin down. And there was blood removed from her genital area, not simply urine etc. And you can have post-mortem release of urine, or you can suscribe to Steve Thomas's PDI via toilet rage? Another explanation is that she was naked, so some form of re-dressing was required. So basically she was in another state of dress prior to being relocated to the wine-cellar?

Yes, however I think dressing her in those dubious items rather than leaving her naked, is even more suggestive of staging. I'm still not certain of the meaning of the urine-stained and bloody underwear. It would take some time to dress her in those items after the crime (even assuming she had not been undressed and wiped prior)--what WAS the crime at that point?--and take her down to the wine cellar, etc. Why is the urine waiting to be released in the wine cellar? You apparently don't think she was killed in or near the wine cellar? If that is so, then she must have urinated prior to being transported there. Maybe only the paint handle was added at that venue?

I hope there is enough there so you can recognize the wine-cellar as a staged crime scene, and that this implies there was another prior crime scene, staged or not? And that the proposed wine cellar staging corresponds with the inconsistencies in some of the participants interview replies and statements.

The body in the wine cellar, along with it's appurtenances, has always puzzled me. I'm unable to explain it at this juncture. Your explanation of amateurish and unfinished staging seems to have some merit. It sort of looks like the boy had a hand in the crime alright. And, it sort of looks like neither parent was aware of his participation until much later. Either that or the one parent who WAS aware, was too shook up to think straight. However, looks are often deceiving. They did manage to crank out a bonny ransom note.

hmmmm....

UKGuy

03-07-2005, 11:53 PM

Staging the crime scene to effect decency appearances is recognized by LEA all over the world as such.

e.g. It is extremely common in cases of Autoerotic Asphyxiation, if you check over my post on Female Sexual Asphyxiation, you will also find reference to other examples.

I dont think JonBenet was killed in the wine cellar, many other people have also mentioned that there is no urine staining anywhere down there?

So I am fairly confident in suggesting that she was re-dressed at least twice and possibly three times.

The wine cellar staging may have been abandonded because JR ran out of opportunity to finish it off, he was likely making her decent or covering up a prior crime scene. The paint handle, duct tape, and the cord re-arranged, are among some items probably added at some point to effect the staging.

So JonBenet's murder is a staged homicide, since we can illustrate at least two instances e.g. the wine cellar and the ransom note, both of which were pressed into service and achieved there initial purpose by re-directing the police focus and buying time for the perpetrator.

There are apparently only two reasons why the Ramsays would collude in a cover up like this 1.) If Burke was a participant. or 2.) Either John or Patsy or both were materially involved, either as participants or party to a conspiracy involving a 3rd person.

Nehemiah

03-08-2005, 08:16 AM

RedChief

03-08-2005, 10:02 AM

And, Patsy initially said that JB was wearing the red turtleneck, but later changed her story. If this were really true (that she was wearing the turtleneck), how could it fit into your staging scenarios?

Nehemiah,

The red turtleneck, yes. I thought about that while posting my blurb above. Do we have an official document corroborating Patsy's recanted testimony? I suppose that would be in a police report that isn't available for public consumption?

I believe Thomas said that it was found "balled up" on a counter in the JB's bathroom. I believe he also speculated that she had been wearing it when she wet herself and that may have been the reason for it's removal. How is that a reason for it's removal unless it got wet? Assuming it was actually found balled up on the counter, what would be the reason for balling it up, other than that it had been unceremoniusly deposited on the counter, just as clothes often are. Was Thomas implying that it had been rinsed out? What was he implying? If it had not been rinsed out, and if it had gotten urine on it, the urine could have been detected by LE and at least one question answered. Fresh urine has a strong odor, as you may know, being a farm person. So, the old smell test would probably be sufficient.

Here is another question regarding the mysterious red turtleneck. Isn't that the shirt Patsy wanted JB to wear to the Whites', but she refused? That's what Patsy tells us. Maybe that explanation is false also, and proffered to explain why JB wasn't wearing the red turtleneck when her body was found. This shirt business is one more in a long string of confusing evidence, thanks in part to the Ramseys, and thanks in part to LE.

The red shirt being found "balled up" (whatever that means) in her bathroom, could corroborate what Patsy said. JonBenet took it off and unceremoniously (as was her habit) tossed it on the counter and put on her white sequined shirt. Is it true or is it not true that she wore the white sequined shirt to the Whites'? This matter should have been resolved a long time ago. There were plenty of witnesses. We don't have to rely on the testimony of the Ramseys. Why would JB wear her white collarless shirt to the Whites', then come home and replace it with the red turtleneck, then remove the red turtleneck at some point, and re-dress in the white shirt and wear it to bed? A whole lot of dressing and re-dressing going on; but I guess that's what gals do.

Also, what did Patsy wear to the Whites', besides the bi-colored wool jacket? Didn't SHE wear a red turtleneck? How do we know she wasn't wearing that all-red shirt in her home that evening? That could account for the lack of dark fibers on the tape and in the knot. Maybe we should ask Gloria Allred.

In DOI, John says JonBenet didn't wear the red turtleneck to the Whites'; she wore an outfit that she had chosen. He doesn't describe the outfit, except for the boots, "which zipped up the front and had a bit of animal print trim along the top." Does this sound like John?

dumbfounded in Dubai...

Nehemiah

03-08-2005, 02:36 PM

Nehemiah,

The red turtleneck, yes. I thought about that while posting my blurb above. Do we have an official document corroborating Patsy's recanted testimony? I suppose that would be in a police report that isn't available for public consumption?

The red shirt being found "balled up" (whatever that means) in her bathroom, could corroborate what Patsy said. JonBenet took it off and unceremoniously (as was her habit) tossed it on the counter and put on her white sequined shirt. Is it true or is it not true that she wore the white sequined shirt to the Whites'? This matter should have been resolved a long time ago. There were plenty of witnesses. We don't have to rely on the testimony of the Ramseys. Why would JB wear her white collarless shirt to the Whites', then come home and replace it with the red turtleneck, then remove the red turtleneck at some point, and re-dress in the white shirt and wear it to bed? A whole lot of dressing and re-dressing going on; but I guess that's what gals do.

I believe the red turtleneck recant was in the NE book of police interviews. Perhaps I can look tonight and make sure.

We don't know what, for sure, JB wore to the White's. The pictures have never been released, and I think the BPD has been silent on this one.

Another thing that I've recently wondered....Patsy goes to lengths to make sure that we know (via DOI) that she took time to wash out a jumpsuit of JB's, outside JB's bedroom in the sink area. I've always wondered what evidence there is (that the Rs know about and we don't) that Patsy is addressing here. (Much like she wrote about hanging the phone in the cradle...which I think she wrote to dispute the knowledge of the 911 call taping voices.)

Yes, as a farm person, I am qualified to detect urine. I've had official training in that capacity.

Are you really in Dubai?

UKGuy

03-08-2005, 03:21 PM

I believe the red turtleneck recant was in the NE book of police interviews. Perhaps I can look tonight and make sure.

We don't know what, for sure, JB wore to the White's. The pictures have never been released, and I think the BPD has been silent on this one.

Another thing that I've recently wondered....Patsy goes to lengths to make sure that we know (via DOI) that she took time to wash out a jumpsuit of JB's, outside JB's bedroom in the sink area. I've always wondered what evidence there is (that the Rs know about and we don't) that Patsy is addressing here. (Much like she wrote about hanging the phone in the cradle...which I think she wrote to dispute the knowledge of the 911 call taping voices.)

Yes, as a farm person, I am qualified to detect urine. I've had official training in that capacity.

Are you really in Dubai?
Also one of the police officers at the crime scene relocated a bag of clothing.

From memory Patsy wore a red turtle top and black pants, she wanted JonBenet to dress similar, but she disagreed and went wearing her star sequined white gap top, and black velvet pants.

Nehemiah I reckon the jumpsuit and any other clothing lying around may be significant, since its possible some of it is what JonBenet wore prior to being relocated to the basement.

I have yet to factor in the JonBenet's red turtle neck, but my first "occam" attempt is, she was dressing up for Patsy, in a lets see how you look in this or that, with your next pageant in mind.

Next thought was Patsy demanded she dress in this or that since she disobeyed her earlier on.

Lastly was JonBenet dressing up, for her special xmas visitor ...

Also I've never seen any special mention of JonBenet's socks, she was wearing none when discovered, little mention of her black velvet pants, and of course her size-6 underwear.

My guess is she was killed wearing clothes other than what she was wearing in the basement, then re-dressed as per her longjohns and gap top, we can speculate if she was naked or not, but no socks, this has the appearance of bedtime staging, in the sense that it may have been the first considered attempt at staging, say some kind of bedroom homicide.

On reflection it was recognized it was far too obvious or risky, so she was relocated elsewhere, and it need not have been the basement. Speculating it may have been the back of some vehicle, wrapped in a blanket, ready for being removed as per the next staging idea: Abduction and the Ransom Note. This was also not completed for some reason ... so its possible they tried another, say down in the basement, but ran out of time, and circumstance forced the 2 or 3 staging events to tranfigure into what we know as the JonBenet Murder Scene.

BlueCrab

03-08-2005, 05:09 PM

Another thing that I've recently wondered....Patsy goes to lengths to make sure that we know (via DOI) that she took time to wash out a jumpsuit of JB's, outside JB's bedroom in the sink area.

Nehemiah,

In regard to the jumpsuit, that's not the info I have. Patsy didn't rinse it out. From the 1998 interviews:

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember -- remember laying the little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's over the ironing board, because it had a few spots on it, so I was thinking when I came back from the lake I was going to take that to the dry cleaners, and decided to lay that under there somewhere."

TOM HANEY: "Was that -- it wasn't something you were going to take to the lake?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No, no, it was something she had worn to a Christmas performance. It was a little Christmas thing."

TOM HANEY: "When had she worn that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "She had worn it -- well, she wore it, some of her pageant girls performed together in a group, some Christmas songs and things, down in a mall in Denver, she wore it for that."

BlueCrab

RedChief

03-08-2005, 06:03 PM

Nehemiah,

Am I really in Dubai, you ask.

Not at liberty to say.

TOP SECRET

Nehemiah

03-08-2005, 10:28 PM

Nehemiah,

In regard to the jumpsuit, that's not the info I have. Patsy didn't rinse it out. From the 1998 interviews:

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember -- remember laying the little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's over the ironing board, because it had a few spots on it, so I was thinking when I came back from the lake I was going to take that to the dry cleaners, and decided to lay that under there somewhere."

TOM HANEY: "Was that -- it wasn't something you were going to take to the lake?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No, no, it was something she had worn to a Christmas performance. It was a little Christmas thing."

TOM HANEY: "When had she worn that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "She had worn it -- well, she wore it, some of her pageant girls performed together in a group, some Christmas songs and things, down in a mall in Denver, she wore it for that."

BlueCrab

From the 1997 interviews:

PR: ...John was still in the bathroom and went, uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area (the Ramseys had a small washer-dryer setup on the second floor near JonBenet's room, and a larger laundry area in the basement). And I remember the ironing board was up, I think, and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's 'cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and, uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area...."

I thought I had read somewhere that she washed out the jumpsuit. Apparently, I mistook "fussing around" with the jumpsuit as washing/rinsing it. I'll have to look in PMPT but I don't have it right now. Not sure what "fussing around" actually means here in this passage.

RedChief

03-08-2005, 10:45 PM

I thought I had read somewhere that she washed out the jumpsuit. Apparently, I mistook "fussing around" with the jumpsuit as washing/rinsing it. I'll have to look in PMPT but I don't have it right now. Not sure what "fussing around" actually means here in this passage.

Nehemiah,

You know I, too, was under the impression that Patsy claimed to have rinsed out the red jumpsuit. Don't know whether I read that in a book, or interview or on this forum or got it from a media source. That would be a good thing to get pinned down. BTW, why is she "fussing" with that article of clothing when she's supposed to be in a big hurry to get things packed in the plastic bags preparatory to their departure; also has to get the coffee boiled and get the kids up. Seems her priorities were out of whack.

I think the jumpsuit has been confused with the red turtleneck from time to time. If the turtleneck is described as being balled up on a counter in the bathroom, the impression for some may be that it has been rinsed. If the turtleneck is confused with the red jumpsuit then some may think the jumpsuit has been rinsed.

This is the best I can do at the moment.

amazed in Amazonia...

RedChief

03-10-2005, 03:37 PM

JonBenet's hymen was torn?

JonBenet's vagina was scarred from previous sexual abuse?

sissi

03-10-2005, 04:30 PM

JonBenet's hymen was torn?

JonBenet's vagina was scarred from previous sexual abuse?

Ah, a starting point for a free for all!

hymen 1c*1c..interpreted by sissi as intact
bruising, abrasions, I have no idea what they mean, but they strongly suggest an acute vaginal assault at the time of the murder
sissi is not a gynecologist

Chronic inflammation, (don't hit me) sounds like a side effect of bedwetting /bubble bath/overuse of antibiotics..knowing this , I would have to think it was not caused by previous sexual molestation. However, I have considered this possibility, and am open to be converted entirely if anyone can present a fair case.

RedChief

03-10-2005, 05:38 PM

Ah, a starting point for a free for all!

hymen 1c*1c..interpreted by sissi as intact
bruising, abrasions, I have no idea what they mean, but they strongly suggest an acute vaginal assault at the time of the murder
sissi is not a gynecologist

Chronic inflammation, (don't hit me) sounds like a side effect of bedwetting /bubble bath/overuse of antibiotics..knowing this , I would have to think it was not caused by previous sexual molestation. However, I have considered this possibility, and am open to be converted entirely if anyone can present a fair case.

sissi,

Beuf was a pediatrician, and he said he saw no sign of sexual abuse during any of his examinations. I'm inclined to think he was fairly thorough, because some mothers accused of him of being too thorough; perfoming unnecessary exams. Guess you can't please everybody. Give the guy a break; he's a rocket scientist.

The chronic interstitial inflammation could be attributable to vaginitis, which in turn could be attributable to poor hygiene and the things you mentioned.

There was no mention of a torn hymen in the autopsy report. I don't think that would have been something the coroner would leave out; too important.

There was mention of an abraded hymen (1 cm area: need another dimension to get area= cm2) and some abrasion in the vagina in proximity to the 1 cm area, fore and aft.

Don't think there was any sign of prior abuse; certainly not scarring. It was a one-time deal.

That's what I think.....

BlueCrab

03-10-2005, 09:12 PM

sissi,

Beuf was a pediatrician, and he said he saw no sign of sexual abuse during any of his examinations. I'm inclined to think he was fairly thorough, because some mothers accused of him of being too thorough; perfoming unnecessary exams. Guess you can't please everybody. Give the guy a break; he's a rocket scientist.

The chronic interstitial inflammation could be attributable to vaginitis, which in turn could be attributable to poor hygiene and the things you mentioned.

There was no mention of a torn hymen in the autopsy report. I don't think that would have been something the coroner would leave out; too important.

There was mention of an abraded hymen (1 cm area: need another dimension to get area= cm2) and some abrasion in the vagina in proximity to the 1 cm area, fore and aft.

Don't think there was any sign of prior abuse; certainly not scarring. It was a one-time deal.

That's what I think.....

RedChief,

Sorry my friend. You are wrong.

Beuf never gave JonBenet an internal examination; no pediatrician would do that to a six-year-old unless it was absolutely necessary. It would have been extremely painful. Beuf's examinations were external.

The autopsy report didn't mention a torn hymen because JonBenet didn't have much of a hymen remaining:

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."

JonBenet had indeed suffered prior sexual abuse. This was affirmed by all of the pathologists who studied the autopsy report and the slides taken during the autopsy. These pathologists were:

Dr. David Jones
Dr. James Monteleone
Dr. John McCann
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Dr. Ronald Wright
Dr. Richard Krugman, and
Dr. Werner Spitz.

Krugman and Spitz made qualified reports, but they didn't deny the sexual abuse.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab

03-10-2005, 10:34 PM

Okay, but you are still 100% wrong. I didn't quote Schiller; I quoted the autopsy report:

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."

There is no hymen. You can't tear something that isn't there. The rim of mucosal tissue "represents" where the hymen once was.

With respect to the panel of doctors who were appointed by the BPD to examine the autopsy results to determine whether or not JonBenet had suffered past sexual abuse, are you challenging their findings? If so, may we please have your source? Thank you.

BlueCrab

RedChief

03-10-2005, 10:55 PM

RedChief,

Okay, but you are still 100% wrong. I didn't quote Schiller; I quoted the autopsy report:

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."

There is no hymen. You can't tear something that isn't there. The rim of mucosal tissue "represents" where the hymen once was.

With respect to the panel of doctors who were appointed by the BPD to examine the autopsy results to determine whether or not JonBenet had suffered past sexual abuse, are you challenging their findings? If so, may we please have your source? Thank you.BlueCrab

No, BlueCrab,

You are misinterpreting the description of the hymen; it may be a normal hymen. The hymen is an extremely variable piece of equipment from individual to individual; go to any reputable website and check it out for yourself. If you'd like, I will recommend one to you. I found a description yesterday, on a site devoted to the detection of sexual abuse, of a normal hymen that was just the REVERSE of JonBenet's.

No, the rim of mucosal tissue DOESN'T represent where the hymen once was; you got that from Schiller; he planted that idea in your brain. He misinterpreted the coroner's report also. He said "what remains of the hymen is a rim of mucosal tissue..." blah, blah, blah. You're repeating his mistake.

If the hymen had been torn in this incident, the tear would have been discovered at autopsy and noted in the report. That's too important a piece of evidence to leave out. Call John Meyer and ask him. The only injuries to the vagina were those noted in the report. The rim of mucosal tissue (that's what a hymen consists of) was not what remained following the acute injury. That's totally false. That's a false inference.

If you want to think that part of the hymen is missing (for no good reason, I might add) then you can speculate that it was injured at some time in the past. But, don't attribute what you think is a torn hymen to this incident. That is totally misleading.

Futhermore, it's not unusual for little girls to injure their hymens; especially little girls who are quite physically active and ride bikes. An injured hymen is never proof positive of sexual abuse; in fact, it hardly ever is.

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions." That's right; he's describing the hymen, not the aftermath of any injury.

The torn hymen is a myth. I think we should start a thread--"myths of the Ramsey case" and clear up some of these misperceptions.

Wecht is a media whore.

That's how I see it.....

skybluepink

03-10-2005, 10:57 PM

RedChief

03-10-2005, 11:31 PM

Q: In theory, would stungunnning affect a 45-pound child differently from the way it would affect your basic adult? Also, IF one were to stungun a 45-pound child, would the fact that the child had wet pants at the time affect the effect?

(Ah so, "RedChief" as in "Ransom of"; beddy amusing.)

Sky,

If you attempted to stun her thru the wet pants, you'd short-circuit the gun. Urine is an electrolyte. It would act as a shield.

Stunning a 45-lb child could kill her; whether she would succumb to stunning would depend on where you stunned her, how long you stunned her, and with which gun? Stunning the child probably wouldn't knock her out. It might be possible to stun her at just the right spot and paralyze her diaphragm. If that happened, she'd asphyxiate. JonBenet's asphyxiation, however, wasn't caused by stunning.

Just as the adult would very likely scream, so would the child.

If JonBenet was stunned, such stunning probably didn't take place in her bedroom.

The stunning matter is hotly debated--was she or wasn't she--like several other aspects of this case.

There's a thread about stun guns; you might want to check it out, if you haven't already.

TWO DESPERATE MEN

sissi

03-11-2005, 09:03 AM

Just to refresh our memories, and not to include anyone's "opinions'..

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified.

RedChief

03-11-2005, 09:57 AM

Hey sissi,

What's the big idea of "misinforming" us with an excerpt from the autopsy report. (grin) What's the big idea of confusing us with the facts.

Next you'll be "misinforming" us with an excerpt from the 1998 interview.

I know what's coming next--those slices of vaginal mucosa; they tell the whole story; they tell us who murdered JonBenet.

Uh, oh....I forgot about the mystery DNA in the panties.

Back to the drawing board....

PS: It's a good point you bring up about the opinions. We have data, and we have opinions about the data. It's good to remember that they are separate and distinct.

RedChief

sissi

03-11-2005, 12:44 PM

I copied and pasted, I am not to be responsible for "violent"...and my reasons were a bit selfish..cm2!
Although,sometimes we do have to step back in order to separate what we know from what we think we know;)

BlueCrab

03-11-2005, 12:46 PM

RedChief,

Please post your source that contradicts the findings of the board certified forensic pathologists who, as a group, verified that JonBenet had been chronically sexually abused.

sissi

03-11-2005, 01:41 PM

There are many BC who have suggested she was chronically molested ,however there are many,who, based on "EVIDENCE" are unwilling to take that leap!

RedChief

03-14-2005, 11:18 AM

sissi, et al

Would it be helpful to ignore some of the evidence (pretend for the purpose of this exercise that it doesn't exist) and see how that changes our perceptions? It seems to me that we have conflicting evidence; i.e., a galaxy of evidence that doesnt make sense to some of us.

Toward that end, let me suggest erasing two items--the vaginal injury and the supposed wiping; in other words, the overt sexual aspect of the crime. Then we'd have a body in a blanket in the room in the basement, behind a closed and latched door, in urine-stained clothing with a cord around her neck and wrist and her arms stretched (maybe) beyond her head. Maybe we should go one step further, and ignore any equivocal "evidence", such as the posture of the arms or the nature of the knots or the nature of the "abrasions".

Maybe we should go one step further and ask ourselves, what is our first impression when we first step through the door and switch on the light? What are our early impressions? At that point we can't see the urine stain, nor the head injury, nor the bruising, nor the shoulder petechiae, nor the mystery mark on the right side of the cheek, nor the scratch-like marks on the leg, nor the mystery marks on the back, etc. When we first switch on the light, there is a lot of evidence we can't see, but what we can see is that, there she is; what in the world is she doing here!?

Take away one item or aspect, and see how it affects our perceptions.

Worth a try?

gaia

03-14-2005, 12:41 PM

This is a great idea. I really like your limber brain!

Let's see. I'm called by Patsy and told her daughter has been kidnapped. I arrive at the house and others are there too. Friends and police. Patsy is extremely distraught and John seems withdrawn. We wait. A policewoman tells John and his friend to take another look around. John goes down to the basement and finds JB. I'm right behind him. He opens the door and walks in and finds her. She's displayed the way you have described, Red Chief.

I am immediately stunned by what I see. It's her! She's covered and not moving. She's dead is my thought. I'm thinking, "Now wait a minute, she was kidnapped! Huh? What's she doing here in the basement - dead?" This is unreal. NO way this child is here. How can this be? Something is really incongruent about this situation. Kidnapped? What's she doing here? I just can't get beyond that. I'm stuck. I can't go on unless I get some info about kidnappers. Have they called? Did John rush out and get the money? He was drinking. I know he was upset earlier, but what's the deal? He went out of the house earlier. How come the police allow this? John and Patsy are separate - very separate.

I just can't put a kidnapping together with this result.

BlueCrab

03-14-2005, 02:54 PM

There are many BC who have suggested she was chronically molested ,however there are many,who, based on "EVIDENCE" are unwilling to take that leap!

sissi,

Who are they? And what is their evidence?

Goody

03-14-2005, 09:55 PM

BlueCrab

03-15-2005, 10:27 AM

Does anyone have a theory (or heard one) about the black fibers that were found in the crouch of JB's panties?

I am wondering if there were black wash rags in the home that could have caused them or if there is additional evidence about it that I have not heard yet.

I haven't thought much about this case for a couple of years, and I am not sure what I believe anymore. However, I have to admit I find it difficult to believe that anyone from the outside came in and did this. It could have happened but without more evidence, I just can't support that theory. SO I am not on the fence. I just am not completely off of it either.

Goody,

There were two sets of black fibers:

1. There were black (or dark blue) fibers on the inner thighs and the labia of JonBenet, obviously placed there by the wipe down of the body before re-dressing her in the clean but oversized 12/14 panties. The cloth that left these fibers was never found.

2. There were black fibers in the crotch of JonBenet's size 12/14 panties. These fibers were traced to the black shirt that John Ramsey wore to the White's dinner party that evening.

RedChief

03-16-2005, 02:09 PM

Let's imagine that JonBenet's body hadn't been wrapped in a blanket, and that there was no blanket in the basement room with her.

How does that change our impressions?

John says, in DOI, paperback, pg 397, "Although JonBenet's wrists were tied, her hands were free to move. I'm told this is consistent with sexual bondage situations." Her hands were free to move? More ambiguity. This observation isn't very helpful; it doesn't tell us whether there was 15+ inches of slack cord between them, or zilch. That's the big question regarding the wrist ligature. "I start untying her, but I can't get the tight knot undone." Huh? Why is only one wrist tied when he brings her body upstairs? Earlier in the paragraph he says, "The garrote around JonBenet's neck was most likely part of a sexual fantasy that I have heard referred to as 'snuff sex'." On page 22 of the book, he says, "I can't stand the sight of her hands tied and have to do something to get them loose." There is no mention of the wrists being tied; this time it's the hands. In one of his interviews (I lose track), he says--and I paraphrase--the wrists were bound together; crossed and bound together. Too many versions for any of them to be believable. So, we're left to wonder. How the wrists were bound (if they were in fact bound) would affect our impressions. If the wrists were crossed and tightly bound, one might infer an abduction attempt; better, yet, if they were bound behind her back, an even stronger impression; better yet, if the ankles and knees were bound, a mighty strong impression. I'm aware that some deduce that her ankles were bound at one time.

What do y'all think?

Now, let's dematerialize the Barbie gown.

How does that change our impressions?

John said, in examining the photos for LE, that the gown looked too shiny to be the one that JonBenet usually wore (or words to that effect). He surmised it may have been removed from JonBenet's life-size (how big is that?) Barbie doll. Apparently this life-size doll came equipped with a similar silken gown. Isn't that interesting. Patsy said, in examining the photos (I'm sure she and John didn't collaborate) for LE, that she didn't recognize the gown as one JonBenet usually wore. She appeared to be genuinely puzzled (my impression). Do you suppose LE found a naked Barbie in the house, or, at least, one sans nightgown? Anybody know? Did they check it for DNA?

So, what we make of this Barbie gown, when we first see it in the wine cellar, without the benefit of the Ramseys' observations, is ??????? We probably get the impression that she had been wearing it at some point prior to being executed?

Maybe her killer (just thinkin') hated/hates females, or is intimidated by them?

Back to the impressions: looks like someone's tried to abduct her?

Remember...we aren't aware of that ransom note yet.....