Bedwetting

[Jayelles]

JonBenet was a bedwetter. There is much dispute about whether or not she wet the bed on the night she died. I seriously doubt she was killed for a wet bed but neither do I believe that she did NOT wet the bed that night. Here's why:-

Her parents claim that she fell asleep in the car coming home from the White's house shortly after 9pm. They claim that she did not waken and was put straight to bed. THEREFORE she was not toiletted. If she did not go the toilet after attending a Christmas party, it is likely that she would have needed to empty her bladder within a few hours.

The options therefore are as follows:-

If she did not wet the bed (RST claim):-
- She DID go to the toilet and was therefore awake
- She died before she could wet the bed or go to the lavatory

OR
She DID wet the bed

[Zman]

JonBenet was a bedwetter. There is much dispute about whether or not she wet the bed on the night she died. I seriously doubt she was killed for a wet bed but neither do I believe that she did NOT wet the bed that night. Here's why:-

Her parents claim that she fell asleep in the car coming home from the White's house shortly after 9pm. They claim that she did not waken and was put straight to bed. THEREFORE she was not toiletted. If she did not go the toilet after attending a Christmas party, it is likely that she would have needed to empty her bladder within a few hours.

The options therefore are as follows:-

If she did not wet the bed (RST claim):-
- She DID go to the toilet and was therefore awake
- She died before she could wet the bed or go to the lavatory
OR
She DID wet the bed
Or how about...She was removed from her bed before she could wet it.

But even if her bed is wet what does that prove?
There's a good chance that I would wet my bed if I was attacked in the middle of the night.

[sandraladeda]

Good points, Jayelles.

If she did go to the toilet during the night (on her own or escorted by a parent?), this would be the ideal time to go for a snack of pineapple.


On the topic of bedwetting, it occurred to me that, a child who wets the bed quite regularly could conceivably suffer more vaginal irritations than a non-bed wetting child. To wet oneself, then marinate in one's own urine for several hours could be quite irritating to delicate tissues. This could account for the numerous doctor's visits, and provide a stronger explanation for her condition than the possibility that she had been molested.

imho

[Nuisanceposter]

She absolutely would have needed to use the toilet at some point during the night. I think she might have fallen asleep while on route home but awakened upon arriving home, and was most likely told to use the toilet at that point before she even retired to bed. I should think she would have been awakened and encouraged to use the toilet even if she stayed asleep while being carried in...it was Patsy's usual routine to wake her up to use the bathroom during the night, right? Why not that night? I assume she woke up, either used the toilet or didn't have to, then asked for a snack, and after that it started to go wrong. I think Patsy killed her accidentally. I think P was overwrought and worn out and ended up snapping over something, with all of the stress of the holiday and the trip looming in the morning.

As for the bedwetting...yeah, that's a contributor if you ask Dr. Beuf, along with the bubble bath. You would think needing to see him 27 times in 3 years would either get you to stop using bubble bath on your child and take her to a psychiatrist to see about the bedwetting (what with the Rs stellar insurance that they took full advantage of), but you would think that would be what you wouldn't do if you didn't want anyone to suspect that the girl in question was being molested. She had acute and chronic vaginal injuries...laying in your own urine does not create injuries to your vagina. A rash, yes, but not an injury. Someone had been molesting her.

[Cranberry]

IMO the bed wasn't slept in, so I don't think she wet the bed. The pink jammie top was under the pillow where it was left Christmas morning, the bed looked undisturbed, probably as left prior to leaving for the party. IMO the white blanket with the barbie nightgown clinging to it came from the cellar dryer.

[Jayelles]

Or how about...She was removed from her bed before she could wet it.

But even if her bed is wet what does that prove?
There's a good chance that I would wet my bed if I was attacked in the middle of the night.
That's one of the points I am making - that she met her killer before she had the chance to wet the bed.

That she died soon after arriving home also ties in with one possibility in the pineapple timeline (that she ate the pineapple BEFORE going to the Whites and died around 10pm).

[BrendaStar]

I distinctly remember from the facts coming out at that time that:

The bed had been remade

Sheets were in the dryer next to the bedroom. The sheets had been washed. The conclusion being that JBR had wet her bed that night and the sheets had been washed. The housekeeper testified that there were no sheets in the dryer when she had left.

[Nuisanceposter]

That's right, and there was a red shirt on the washer or dryer early in the morning that mysteriously got moved by afternoon. What was that about?

[Cranberry]

I distinctly remember from the facts coming out at that time that:

The bed had been remade

Sheets were in the dryer next to the bedroom. The sheets had been washed. The conclusion being that JBR had wet her bed that night and the sheets had been washed. The housekeeper testified that there were no sheets in the dryer when she had left.
I believe the housekeeper last changed the sheets on the morning of the 23rd.

[UKGuy]

That's one of the points I am making - that she met her killer before she had the chance to wet the bed.

That she died soon after arriving home also ties in with one possibility in the pineapple timeline (that she ate the pineapple BEFORE going to the Whites and died around 10pm).

Jayelles,

Well the disparity between, her body as discovered in the wine-cellar, the status of her bed and pijamas, and the contents of the ransom note, are so striking as to suggest something is missing from the usual theories.

Lets assume Patsy knew ahead of time, that on the night of the 24th December, JonBenet was going either going to sleep in the spare bed in Burke's room, or even share his bed. She hinted she was aware of this possibility here:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
ST: How about on the, uh, night of the 25th when you and John put her to bed, would it have been unlikely for her to have then moved to another location in the house to have slept, your bed or Burke’s room?

PR: Yeah, it would have been unlikely.

ST: Okay.

PR: The reason I can’t remember whether they, where she slept on the 24th were, not cause it seemed like they were conspiring about what time they were going to get up in the morning and I can’t remember whether they, it seems like there, that she did, they did talk about her sleeping in his room, but I can’t remember whether that really happened or not, but I remember they were conspiring about what time to get up and . . .

Patsy also underlines how aware she was to the possibility of JonBenet bedwetting, she cites this as a reason for disallowing her to sleep in Burke's room:

ST: And if, on occasion, JonBenet would go sleep in Burke’s room would she get into the other bed.

PR: She’d be in, yeah.

ST: Okay. Um, what would cause that? That she got scared at night or . . .

PR: No, just, I mean, that happened very seldom and uh, I think, oh, I think one time when I reading to Burke and, she and Burke in Burke’s room and she feel asleep in that bed so I just let her sleep there or something, but I didn’t, you know, usually I’d get her back in her bed cause she would, occasionally wet the bed and her bed had a plastic wrap on it and that one didn’t so I . . .

ST: Move her to the other bed

In essence Patsy admits that in the past JonBenet has slept in Burke's room, she just had a memory relapse for the 24th and 25th regarding many details relating to JonBenet's homicide.

So if JonBenet slept in Burke's room on the 24th, then her bed sheets will be clean and dry for the 25th. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh stated the sheets were not the same ones she had placed on the bed on the 23rd, so its safe to assume JonBenet wet the bed on the night of the 23rd.

So its possible that Patsy washed the sheets on either the 24th or 25th, not realizing this might play a big role in an upcoming homicide.

Now using Jayelle's strict reasoning, since JonBenet's white longjohns and underwear were urine stained, then JonBenet had not emptied her bladder prior to becoming deceased.
This implies that JonBenet met her killer before she had the chance to wet the bed!

The ransom note suggests JonBenet was abducted from her bed, she did not answer the front door to her abductor, her parents state she was laid sleeping to bed, but her bed does not appear to have been slept in, her pink pijamas worn on the night of the 24th, remain under her pillow. Now if the bedding had been changed who would put her pink pijamas back there, why not wash them along with bedding?

.

[Zman]

So if JonBenet slept in Burke's room on the 24th, then her bed sheets will be clean and dry for the 25th. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh stated the sheets were not the same ones she had placed on the bed on the 23rd, so its safe to assume JonBenet wet the bed on the night of the 23rd.

So its possible that Patsy washed the sheets on either the 24th or 25th, not realizing this might play a big role in an upcoming homicide.

Now using Jayelle's strict reasoning, since JonBenet's white longjohns and underwear were urine stained, then JonBenet had not emptied her bladder prior to becoming deceased.
This implies that JonBenet met her killer before she had the chance to wet the bed!

The ransom note suggests JonBenet was abducted from her bed, she did not answer the front door to her abductor, her parents state she was laid sleeping to bed, but her bed does not appear to have been slept in, her pink pijamas worn on the night of the 24th, remain under her pillow. Now if the bedding had been changed who would put her pink pijamas back there, why not wash them along with bedding?

.
Just because she may of not slept in her room doesn't mean she was not in it at all. Maybe she through them on her bed on the morning of the 25th when she got changed to play.

[trixie]

Jayelles,

Well the disparity between, her body as discovered in the wine-cellar, the status of her bed and pijamas, and the contents of the ransom note, are so striking as to suggest something is missing from the usual theories.

Lets assume Patsy knew ahead of time, that on the night of the 24th December, JonBenet was going either going to sleep in the spare bed in Burke's room, or even share his bed. She hinted she was aware of this possibility here:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
ST: How about on the, uh, night of the 25th when you and John put her to bed, would it have been unlikely for her to have then moved to another location in the house to have slept, your bed or Burke’s room?

PR: Yeah, it would have been unlikely.

ST: Okay.

PR: The reason I can’t remember whether they, where she slept on the 24th were, not cause it seemed like they were conspiring about what time they were going to get up in the morning and I can’t remember whether they, it seems like there, that she did, they did talk about her sleeping in his room, but I can’t remember whether that really happened or not, but I remember they were conspiring about what time to get up and . . .

Patsy also underlines how aware she was to the possibility of JonBenet bedwetting, she cites this as a reason for disallowing her to sleep in Burke's room:

ST: And if, on occasion, JonBenet would go sleep in Burke’s room would she get into the other bed.

PR: She’d be in, yeah.

ST: Okay. Um, what would cause that? That she got scared at night or . . .

PR: No, just, I mean, that happened very seldom and uh, I think, oh, I think one time when I reading to Burke and, she and Burke in Burke’s room and she feel asleep in that bed so I just let her sleep there or something, but I didn’t, you know, usually I’d get her back in her bed cause she would, occasionally wet the bed and her bed had a plastic wrap on it and that one didn’t so I . . .

ST: Move her to the other bed

In essence Patsy admits that in the past JonBenet has slept in Burke's room, she just had a memory relapse for the 24th and 25th regarding many details relating to JonBenet's homicide.

So if JonBenet slept in Burke's room on the 24th, then her bed sheets will be clean and dry for the 25th. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh stated the sheets were not the same ones she had placed on the bed on the 23rd, so its safe to assume JonBenet wet the bed on the night of the 23rd.

So its possible that Patsy washed the sheets on either the 24th or 25th, not realizing this might play a big role in an upcoming homicide.

Now using Jayelle's strict reasoning, since JonBenet's white longjohns and underwear were urine stained, then JonBenet had not emptied her bladder prior to becoming deceased.
This implies that JonBenet met her killer before she had the chance to wet the bed!

The ransom note suggests JonBenet was abducted from her bed, she did not answer the front door to her abductor, her parents state she was laid sleeping to bed, but her bed does not appear to have been slept in, her pink pijamas worn on the night of the 24th, remain under her pillow. Now if the bedding had been changed who would put her pink pijamas back there, why not wash them along with bedding?

.

I think it says somewhere in the Bonita Papers that Jonbenet did indeed spend the night in Burkes room on the 24th. Trouble is, I can't determine how accurate the Bonita Papers really are. However that is the only other place I've heard this idea. Patsy's use of the word "conspiring" really bothers me for some reason. I don't think I've ever used that word concerning little kids. It's seems like such a grown up word with a grown up meaning. I can't put my finger on what about it bothers me so much other than it sounds to me like some similar words and phrases used in the ransom note.

[Cranberry]

Just because she may of not slept in her room doesn't mean she was not in it at all. Maybe she through them on her bed on the morning of the 25th when she got changed to play.
The disparity is JR & PR said they tucked her in her bed on the night of the 25th.

[trixie]

IMO the bed wasn't slept in, so I don't think she wet the bed. The pink jammie top was under the pillow where it was left Christmas morning, the bed looked undisturbed, probably as left prior to leaving for the party. IMO the white blanket with the barbie nightgown clinging to it came from the cellar dryer.

Finally! Someone who agrees with me! I've been saying since I saw that picture that JB never made it to that bed that night. It's just so obvious to me. And knowing about the pineapple seals the deal. IMO the Ramseys had to "put" her as sound asleep from the car to the bed because it's CYA for that time frame. Somewhere on another thread someone said Jonbenet's coat was identified by Patsy in the back seat of the car. What happened to the story of John laying her on the bed and taking off her coat and then Patsy coming in to take over? It's all bull, IMO.

[Cranberry]

Finally! Someone who agrees with me! I've been saying since I saw that picture that JB never made it to that bed that night. It's just so obvious to me. And knowing about the pineapple seals the deal. IMO the Ramseys had to "put" her as sound asleep from the car to the bed because it's CYA for that time frame. Somewhere on another thread someone said Jonbenet's coat was identified by Patsy in the back seat of the car. What happened to the story of John laying her on the bed and taking off her coat and then Patsy coming in to take over? It's all bull, IMO.
Yes, JR stated he took off JBR's coat and shoes and JBR's coat was in the car and she had on boots with animal fur.

[trixie]

I honestly don't know how these people are still walking around amongst us. I don't hate them like some others do, but it bothers me that the law that applies to everyone else doesn't seem to apply to them. Like someone else said, if they had been poor, they'd both be in jail right now. Disgusting.

[FULTON]

I have always felt that JR put JBR to bed as he said after she had a snack and PR went up to check on her to see if she wet the bed. I beleive she used the mag light as not to wake her up if everything was ok. When she found the bed wet she tried to wake JBR and a battle of the wills insued. A six year old, very tired and grumpy from a long Christmas day, can be quite a hand full. I felt JBR was dragged out of bed by the collar and struck in a fit of anger or slung into the bathroom by PR to clean her up and possibly striking her head on something in that room. The rest was panic coverup by the R's.

[Leve]

I always thought that she never made it to bed that night. I think that the whole she fell asleep in the car and stayed asleep story was a "keep it simple" lie. Its easier to lie when you don't have a whole lot of details.

If she played at the Whites she probably didn't eat much and would have been hungry upon returning home. I think she was wake and eating that night. As far as the urine stained clothing she was found in - usually terror will make you empty your bladder.

I never believed that PR killed her because of a bed wetting incident. I don't think the Mag light was the murder weapon. I think the Ramsey's did it, or at the least participated in the cover-up (and that makes them just as guilty in my mind).

[IrishMist]

Ok, as most of you know, I can never make up my mind on this case. But there's something that has been in the back of my mind for the longest time.

YEARS ago, I think it was Oprah, (don't roll your eyes, stay with me here:D ) who had a show about Mother's that accidently killed their children while in a rage. The only mom I remember had been arguing with her child, and holding a curtain rod during this argument. She got to "that point", ya know, where she was so mad and frustrated that she threw the curtain rod. That rod hit (stabbed?) the child, and the child died!

I'm fuzzy on the details, (geez, can ya tell?) but I do remember they were all "good" moms, had "good" families, and they killed their children in these unexpected but accidental ways.

Part of me wonders if something like that happened that night.
But then I think it's a far stretch to the garotte (sp?) point.

[trixie]

I don't know of course but maybe the garrote points to desperation in trying to keep with the ransom notes make believe foreign faction. Maybe the idea of what was to be written in the note was already forming in that persons head and that would make it staging. That garrote is pretty much the one thing I can't wrap my mind around as far as a PDI theory. However, I will say that anyone desperate enough is capable of anything. Patsy Ramsey is no exception. IMO.

[trixie]

I always thought that she never made it to bed that night. I think that the whole she fell asleep in the car and stayed asleep story was a "keep it simple" lie. Its easier to lie when you don't have a whole lot of details.

If she played at the Whites she probably didn't eat much and would have been hungry upon returning home. I think she was wake and eating that night. As far as the urine stained clothing she was found in - usually terror will make you empty your bladder.

I never believed that PR killed her because of a bed wetting incident. I don't think the Mag light was the murder weapon. I think the Ramsey's did it, or at the least participated in the cover-up (and that makes them just as guilty in my mind).

I don't think the maglite was the murder weapon eithor. I have no guesses as to what was.

[txsvicki]

I think it's a form of abuse to wake a child up during sleep every night to go to the bathroom. My pediatrician told me years ago not to make a big deal out of bedwetting, that some kids have more problems and it would go away by age 12 or so. Why not just get rid of the bubble bath and use the pull ups at night. I can't make up my mind about this case either. I think there are pedophiles nutty and evil enough to do this but can't ignore the signs of a cover up either.

[Zman]

The disparity is JR & PR said they tucked her in her bed on the night of the 25th.
Well I'm confused. I don't see what UKGuys post has to do with the night of the 25th. Her sheets are from the 24th. Her pj's are from the morning of the 25th and she's put to bed on the same sheets the night of the 25th. I'm missing the disparity here. Help me out.

[Cranberry]

Well I'm confused. I don't see what UKGuys post has to do with the night of the 25th. Her sheets are from the 24th. Her pj's are from the morning of the 25th and she's put to bed on the same sheets the night of the 25th. I'm missing the disparity here. Help me out.
The blanket: was it untucked, then taken off the bed, bed remade with comforter pulled back and left the room with JBR or was it removed from the dryer?

[Nuisanceposter]

The blanket: was it untucked, then taken off the bed, bed remade with comforter pulled back and left the room with JBR or was it removed from the dryer?
Either way, what intruder would go to all of that trouble - seeking out a blanket to cover the girl he just ruthlessly strangled to death? And why her blanket? There must have been others available - at my house we have a stack of blankets in the living room so the kids can curl up on the sofa while watching tv. I have a really difficult time believing some foreign faction would bother to find JonBenet's blanket, or Barbie nightgown, for that matter, and place them with her before he leaves. That's something someone who cared about her would do.

[Shanny]

I don't think she wet the bed that night I believe her bladder was realeased at the time of her death because her long john's were soiled but there were no urine stains on her bed.




JonBenet was a bedwetter. There is much dispute about whether or not she wet the bed on the night she died. I seriously doubt she was killed for a wet bed but neither do I believe that she did NOT wet the bed that night. Here's why:-

Her parents claim that she fell asleep in the car coming home from the White's house shortly after 9pm. They claim that she did not waken and was put straight to bed. THEREFORE she was not toiletted. If she did not go the toilet after attending a Christmas party, it is likely that she would have needed to empty her bladder within a few hours.

The options therefore are as follows:-

If she did not wet the bed (RST claim):-
- She DID go to the toilet and was therefore awake
- She died before she could wet the bed or go to the lavatory

OR
She DID wet the bed

[Zman]

The blanket: was it untucked, then taken off the bed, bed remade with comforter pulled back and left the room with JBR or was it removed from the dryer?
What the one she was found wrapped in?



Why is it that JBR could have played on her bed that day and messed it up? Why would it have to be tucked? I guess I'm still missing the point.

[Linda7NJ]

What the one she was found wrapped in?



Why is it that JBR could have played on her bed that day and messed it up? Why would it have to be tucked? I guess I'm still missing the point.
Ask yourself why a murderer covers his/HER victim.

[Zman]

Ask yourself why a murderer covers his/HER victim.
OK

Zman, why would a murderer cover his/HER victim?

So the victim will be less obviously seen.

[UKGuy]

The blanket: was it untucked, then taken off the bed, bed remade with comforter pulled back and left the room with JBR or was it removed from the dryer?

Could be either. Also depending on where you think she was killed will swing you one way or the other.

The bedding may have been through the wash on the day of the 25th, Patsy may have assumed or ordained that JonBenet will be sleeping in Burke's room, so she will wash some items from JonBenet's room. Or its your initial answer, but who put her pink pijamas back, that is why not wash them too?

Or JonBenet was killed in or near her bedroom, then it had bedding removed and put through the wash downstairs, JonBenet was washed and re-dressed upstairs, then she was carried down to the basement.

If you have just forensically cleaned a body, then you will want to take care not to contaminate either yourself or your surroundings, so you may wrap her body in the white blanket so to avoid this. Or as is suggested the blanket was sourced in the basement, probably with a similar forensic rationale. There is not much point in wrapping her up in a blanket before you clean her up!

So imo, its not an act of kindness to wrap her in a blanket or an intention to hide her, but an attempt to minimize forensic transfer.

[Jayelles]

I don't think she wet the bed that night I believe her bladder was realeased at the time of her death because her long john's were soiled but there were no urine stains on her bed.
We're back to the same old argument then. The facts remain:-

1. You cannot tell from a photo whether polycotton, multipatterned sheets were wet some hours before when the house was warm and they would have dried.

2. The sheets tested positive for creatin - which is in urine.

Not all urine is dark in colour. I used to work in a health centre and handled many urine samples. Some were crystal clear.

Question - were there sheets in the tumble dryer?

[Linda7NJ]

OK

Zman, why would a murderer cover his/HER victim?

So the victim will be less obviously seen.
If that were the case, why leave the body at all? Especially since the murderer spent all that time writing that spiffy three page ransom note.


Also, it would be far easier to stuff a little body out of site all together. NOPE Zman, it wasn't so the victim wouldn't be obviously seen. No way.

[Cranberry]

What the one she was found wrapped in?



Why is it that JBR could have played on her bed that day and messed it up? Why would it have to be tucked? I guess I'm still missing the point.
Yes she was found in the cellar wrapped in the blanket that PR said she tucked her in the bed with. IMO the bed appears not to have been slept in because the comforter is in place. The killer would have to untuck the generous size twin blanket from around the bed and take JBR and remake the bed pulling up the comforter. If the blanket wasn't on the bed to begin with (if left in the dryer) that conflicts with what PR said about it being on the bed. The dryer was in close proximity to the crime scene and barbie nightgown could have came out of the dryer with the blanket.

[sandraladeda]

If you have just forensically cleaned a body, then you will want to take care not to contaminate either yourself or your surroundings, so you may wrap her body in the white blanket so to avoid this. Or as is suggested the blanket was sourced in the basement, probably with a similar forensic rationale. There is not much point in wrapping her up in a blanket before you clean her up!

So imo, its not an act of kindness to wrap her in a blanket or an intention to hide her, but an attempt to minimize forensic transfer.
There would still be a transfer of evidence. Blanket fibers onto the killer, fibers from the killer's clothes (and hair, perhaps?) onto the blanket. If the perp is clever enough to want to minimize the transfer of evidence, then he/she is clever enough to know this. They would really be clever if they used the blanket to move the body, then remove the blanket completely from the scene, burned it, threw it in a river, whatever....

imo

[UKGuy]

There would still be a transfer of evidence. Blanket fibers onto the killer, fibers from the killer's clothes (and hair, perhaps?) onto the blanket. If the perp is clever enough to want to minimize the transfer of evidence, then he/she is clever enough to know this. They would really be clever if they used the blanket to move the body, then remove the blanket completely from the scene, burned it, threw it in a river, whatever....

imo

sandraladeda,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with what you have written. What I propose may be incorrect but I am trying to suggest an alternative interpretation to the conventional offering.

They would really be clever if they used the blanket to move the body, then remove the blanket completely from the scene, burned it, threw it in a river, whatever....
imo
Well as I've posted before, I think the wine-cellar crime scene was an attempt at staging to make it appear more as if an intruder had abducted JonBenet from her bed, but it was interrupted at some point, since she was intended to be found wearing her barbie-gown. So the removal of the blanket from the wine-cellar would in all likelyhood, have followed, as you suggest.

Also after JR took JonBenet's body upstairs, both he and PR had contact with the body, and curiously in this context, JR placed a blanket over JonBenet, and somone else spread a Colorado Avalanche Sweatshirt over her bare feet. All this destroyed the possibility of any consistent forensics analysis, since who was to say where any fibers originated from now?

And I believe John Ramsey took a shower that morning which would have washed away any remnants of forensic evidence, left on him by cross-transfer.

[UKGuy]

Yes she was found in the cellar wrapped in the blanket that PR said she tucked her in the bed with. IMO the bed appears not to have been slept in because the comforter is in place. The killer would have to untuck the generous size twin blanket from around the bed and take JBR and remake the bed pulling up the comforter. If the blanket wasn't on the bed to begin with (if left in the dryer) that conflicts with what PR said about it being on the bed. The dryer was in close proximity to the crime scene and barbie nightgown could have came out of the dryer with the blanket.

Cranberry,

And when Patsy's memory is in total recall mode you know she wants you to listen and believe.

And if she has had a memory malfunction, and she did wash the blanket and finish it off in the dryer, lets say along with the barbie-gown, why leave her pink pijamas upstairs. And does this inconsistency as to the blankets origin suggest JonBenet's bedroom was forensically wiped, and Patsy's version is conflated?

[Cranberry]

Cranberry,

And when Patsy's memory is in total recall mode you know she wants you to listen and believe.

And if she has had a memory malfunction, and she did wash the blanket and finish it off in the dryer, lets say along with the barbie-gown, why leave her pink pijamas upstairs. And does this inconsistency as to the blankets origin suggest JonBenet's bedroom was forensically wiped, and Patsy's version is conflated?
IMO the sheets were changed on the 24th (leaving the pink jammie top under the pillow after Christmas morning of the 25th) and the blanket was left in the cellar dryer on the 24th. This would leave sheets in the upstairs dryer that LHP put on the 23rd. If I remember the upstairs was used for the sheets and downstairs for blankets.

[itsreenw]

Good points, Jayelles.

If she did go to the toilet during the night (on her own or escorted by a parent?), this would be the ideal time to go for a snack of pineapple.


On the topic of bedwetting, it occurred to me that, a child who wets the bed quite regularly could conceivably suffer more vaginal irritations than a non-bed wetting child. To wet oneself, then marinate in one's own urine for several hours could be quite irritating to delicate tissues. This could account for the numerous doctor's visits, and provide a stronger explanation for her condition than the possibility that she had been molested.

imhoSandraladeda, that doesn't explain the old injuries inside her vagina.

[Zman]

Yes she was found in the cellar wrapped in the blanket that PR said she tucked her in the bed with. IMO the bed appears not to have been slept in because the comforter is in place. The killer would have to untuck the generous size twin blanket from around the bed and take JBR and remake the bed pulling up the comforter. If the blanket wasn't on the bed to begin with (if left in the dryer) that conflicts with what PR said about it being on the bed. The dryer was in close proximity to the crime scene and barbie nightgown could have came out of the dryer with the blanket.Do we know what PR meant by tucked? Has she detailed that anywhere?

If that were the case, why leave the body at all? Especially since the murderer spent all that time writing that spiffy three page ransom note.


Also, it would be far easier to stuff a little body out of site all together. NOPE Zman, it wasn't so the victim wouldn't be obviously seen. No way..Because they lost the nerve to remove her from the house?
Maybe the reality of carrying a dead 6 yo outside was more scary than the fantasy.

Why do you think it would be easier to stuff her body out of site? Where would you put her?

Its quite amusing to find that some think it must be a fake RN because a kidnapper would remove the body from the house, yet they also think the R's would leave the body in the house and then write a fake RN.

Why should the Kidnappers be held to a higher standard?

2. The sheets tested positive for creatin - which is in urine.
..I'm sure this is a fact that I've missed along the way but Jayelles can you please pinpoint the source of this test for me?

[Cranberry]

I don't know what PR meant by tucked or how she would tuck in except tuck her in the bed with the sheets and blankets tucked in I assume. With the comforter on top of the bed the blanket wouldn't come off like a magicians tablecloth trick. Unless it was remade or not there in the first place. IMO

[Linda7NJ]

[QUOTE]Do we know what PR meant by tucked? Has she detailed that anywhere?
Because they lost the nerve to remove her from the house?
Maybe the reality of carrying a dead 6 yo outside was more scary than the fantasy.[QUOTE]

Lost their nerve? Please ....they just finished murdering a little girl in the most brutal way imaginable IN HER OWN HOME and stuck around to write three pages . But couldn't walk out with a dead child, in the dark of night? Get real!


Why do you think it would be easier to stuff her body out of site? Where would you put her?

Stuff her in the dryer, behind anything, in a suitcase etc, Have you never seen a small child play hide & seek? They can fit almost anywhere

Again...ransom kidnappers are not pedophiles or child molesters. But we know this REALLY was not ever about kidnapping for money.

[UKGuy]

Its quite amusing to find that some think it must be a fake RN because a kidnapper would remove the body from the house, yet they also think the R's would leave the body in the house and then write a fake RN.

Why should the Kidnappers be held to a higher standard?
I'm sure this is a fact that I've missed along the way but Jayelles can you please pinpoint the source of this test for me?


Zman,

It may be the assumed privacy of the mind that allows you to generate quasi-contradictions such as above, or you may be a troll.

The kidnappers are held to a higher standard because they are assumed to be an external agency whose intention is to remove JonBenet.

The ransom note is NOT fake its real, its just so happens that JonBenet was not kidnapped!

She was killed and her corpse was discovered in the wine-cellar, so what is the rationale for any kidnapper to issue ransom demands?

If a Ramsey killed JonBenet then it may not be the same Ramsey who decided to write the ransom note, and it may not have been the same Ramsey who placed her body in the wine-cellar, these Ramsey's may all have different motives, whereas the kidnappers have one motive.

So the Ramsey's are held to a different standard because we all publicly assume responsible parents dont murder, abduct then issue ransom demands to retrieve their own child, who is currently located within their household.

In the assumed privacy of the mind, you may find all this amusing, the rest of the forum may consider it public common sense!

[Zman]

Zman,

She was killed and her corpse was discovered in the wine-cellar, so what is the rationale for any kidnapper to issue ransom demands?


Because like my question UKGuy the RN was rhetorical.

[itsreenw]

Zmnan, were you serious about the imaginary kidnappers losing the nerve to take JBR out of the house or are you just playing devil's advocate?? First of all, REAL kidnappers would've likely had a note prepared- got in, took the kid, left the note on the bed in place of the kid and got the hell out.

Kidnappings are for the most part, about BIG bucks. Access Graphics had just hit the BILLION dollar mark and the 'kidnapper(s)" wrote a 3 page ransom note for a lousy $118,000??? Come on now.

And if the "kidnapper(s)" wanted to sexually assault the poor baby, they were steps away from doors and windows all over that house. Why do it there when they could've been out the door in minutes-free to sexually abused JBR on their own turf where there was less chance of being caught. They could've still made that 'phone call' to get the ransom money the next day or killed JBR and left her in some location where it would've taken a while to find her.

And honestly now, do you think he/they just said, "oh, I'll just go snatch the kid and write the ransom note on my way out- I'm sure PR will have a pad of paper there for me to practice on because I'm not quite sure what I want to say yet"

Who would even WRITE a ransom note?? He was so comfortable sticking around the house, he could've just used one of the R's computers and typed one!!

Give me a break!!

[Zman]

Zmnan, were you serious about the imaginary kidnappers losing the nerve to take JBR out of the house or are you just playing devil's advocate?? First of all, REAL kidnappers would've likely had a note prepared- got in, took the kid, left the note on the bed in place of the kid and got the hell out.!!Serious. What is a REAL kidnapper itsreenw?
Maybe this was a first time crime by a very violent individual.

Kidnappings are for the most part, about BIG bucks. Access Graphics had just hit the BILLION dollar mark and the 'kidnapper(s)" wrote a 3 page ransom note for a lousy $118,000??? Come on now. .!!I will say again. Don't you think the R's would know that too? This was not about kidnapping.
You know if you guys just want to sit around and post PDI notes back and forth I'll be gald to stop posting here. I'm trying to offer the alternative. Just in case someone other than a R really did this.


And if the "kidnapper(s)" wanted to sexually assault the poor baby, they were steps away from doors and windows all over that house. Why do it there when they could've been out the door in minutes-free to sexually abused JBR on their own turf where there was less chance of being caught. They could've still made that 'phone call' to get the ransom money the next day or killed JBR and left her in some location where it would've taken a while to find her. .!!I don't think they were there to sexually abuse JBR. I'm pretty sure this was done by female/s. The way her body was left is either an attempt to frame JR with incest or just a brutal humiliation of the body.

And honestly now, do you think he/they just said, "oh, I'll just go snatch the kid and write the ransom note on my way out- I'm sure PR will have a pad of paper there for me to practice on because I'm not quite sure what I want to say yet"

Who would even WRITE a ransom note?? He was so comfortable sticking around the house, he could've just used one of the R's computers and typed one!!

Give me a break!!I think someone very close to the R's are responsible, so they are very comfortable in the house and yes they know where the pad a pens are, not to mention everything else.

[narlacat]

>>Just in case someone other than a R really did this.<<

Yeah, just in case....

>>I'm pretty sure this was done by female/s<<

When you say that Zman, do you have any idea who that might be?? Do you think it was one of Patsy's friends??

[Zman]

>>Just in case someone other than a R really did this.<<

Yeah, just in case....

>>I'm pretty sure this was done by female/s<<

When you say that Zman, do you have any idea who that might be?? Do you think it was one of Patsy's friends??
Narla, are you trying to tempt me?LOL

[narlacat]

That question reminds me of a line from a Aussie song Zman
'I said to the man are you trying to tempt me, he just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich'

Anyway no, I'm not trying to tempt you!
I'm just curious as to your ideas as to who the female perp might be. A random female perp or someone Patsy knew?
Just say someone Patsy knew if you don't want to mention names.
Sorry if you have mentioned this before and I've missed it.

[itsreenw]

Serious. What is a REAL kidnapper itsreenw?
Maybe this was a first time crime by a very violent individual.
I will say again. Don't you think the R's would know that too? This was not about kidnapping.
You know if you guys just want to sit around and post PDI notes back and forth I'll be gald to stop posting here. I'm trying to offer the alternative. Just in case someone other than a R really did this.

I don't think they were there to sexually abuse JBR. I'm pretty sure this was done by female/s. The way her body was left is either an attempt to frame JR with incest or just a brutal humiliation of the body.
I think someone very close to the R's are responsible, so they are very comfortable in the house and yes they know where the pad a pens are, not to mention everything else.
ZMan, may I say that I have only been here a couple months and you have some very interesting, thought provoking posts, so I hope that you will continue to post here. We may not agree on every subject but some of the things you have mentioned have sent me speed-reading through books and sites to see the 'other side'.

Now, in response to the quoted post above..

.a REAL kidnapper is someone who actually takes the person with them!!! And we do agree on 2 things- that this was NOT about kidnapping, It was a murder that someone tried to make look like a kidnapping attempt. And I agree that the killer was female.

I don't know how you could say it wasn't about sex. If that were true, she would NOT have been violated sexually. It wasn't an afterthought to violate her to throw off LE. (I believe I read) it was done while she was still alive.

They could have just killed her or as some believe, abducted her from the house without ever molesting her. I believe she was molested by someone in that household who was initially being very nice to her to get her to cooperate with them. (Drawing the heart on her hand, giving her a late snack) then they got very angry, were already jealous of her or flew into a rage because of something she said or did that night.


I don't think The R's friends would feel THAT comfortable in their home to come in, molest and murder their daughter, then sit down and practice writing RN's until they came up with 3 pages of rambling words and never fear being caught!!

IMO, PR thought she was being really clever by throwing in words like "foreign faction" and using S.B.T.C. as a signature which could stand for Subic Bay Training Center which was in a foreign country, and just happened to be on a picture in the house. Very convenient for LE to see and investigate that avenue. Then the $118g ransom demand. That was supposed to send LE running around Access Graphics. Then PR put on her preformance and she thought LE would buy it hook, line & sinker. They didn't buy her act, but the R's money bought them privileges that allowed then to contaminate the crime scene enough to prevent them from being charged. But that's MY opinion!!

[Zman]

That question reminds me of a line from a Aussie song Zman
'I said to the man are you trying to tempt me, he just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich'

Anyway no, I'm not trying to tempt you!
I'm just curious as to your ideas as to who the female perp might be. A random female perp or someone Patsy knew?
Just say someone Patsy knew if you don't want to mention names.
Sorry if you have mentioned this before and I've missed it.

Do you come from the land down under?http://members.aol.com/bdzan/menatwork

Someone PR knew for sure. Someone they all knew for sure.

What is vegemite anyway narlacat?

[Zman]

I don't know how you could say it wasn't about sex. If that were true, she would NOT have been violated sexually. It wasn't an afterthought to violate her to throw off LE. (I believe I read) it was done while she was still alive.!!
JBR was not violated sexually for pleasure by a male attacker.IMO
Don't believe everything you read. As far as I can tell she was only violated by a paint brush handle. Nothing more. And no one knows if it was before or after she was dead.




IMO, PR thought she was being really clever by throwing in words like "foreign faction" and using S.B.T.C. as a signature which could stand for Subic Bay Training Center which was in a foreign country, and just happened to be on a picture in the house. Very convenient for LE to see and investigate that avenue. Then the $118g ransom demand. That was supposed to send LE running around Access Graphics. Then PR put on her preformance and she thought LE would buy it hook, line & sinker. They didn't buy her act, but the R's money bought them privileges that allowed then to contaminate the crime scene enough to prevent them from being charged. But that's MY opinion!!
I don't believe PR is that clever or quick thinking.
I don't believe she is the cool under pressure type.
I don't believe she wrote the RN.

[trixie]

JBR was not violated sexually for pleasure by a male attacker.IMO
Don't believe everything you read. As far as I can tell she was only violated by a paint brush handle. Nothing more. And no one knows if it was before or after she was dead.

I don't believe PR is that clever or quick thinking.
I don't believe she is the cool under pressure type.
I don't believe she wrote the RN.


"ONLY violated by a paint brush handle.(!!!) Nothing more.(!!!) And no one knows if it was before or after she was dead."

JB bled when she was "only" violated with a paintbrush handle. Dead bodies do not bleed.

[Zman]

"ONLY violated by a paint brush handle.(!!!) Nothing more.(!!!) And no one knows if it was before or after she was dead."

JB bled when she was "only" violated with a paintbrush handle. Dead bodies do not bleed.It does seem I was a little callous about the paintbrush. Not my intention.

True, but dying unconscience bodies do.

[narlacat]

Do you come from the land down under?http://members.aol.com/bdzan/menatwork

Someone PR knew for sure. Someone they all knew for sure.

What is vegemite anyway narlacat?
Clever Boy.
Land Down Under was the name of the song and the band were called Men at Work. They have long since disbanded and I haven't heard the song in ages. Funny how as soon as I read that line, I thought of Men at Work and started humming!

Vegemite is a spread to put on your toast or on your sandwich. I'm not sure what you would have that is like it, it is black in colour and has a distinct taste, not sure exactly what it's made from....vegetable extracts it says, 'hence' the name Vegemite......

[Rupert]

IMO, PR thought she was being really clever by throwing in words like "foreign faction" and using S.B.T.C. as a signature which could stand for Subic Bay Training Center which was in a foreign country, and just happened to be on a picture in the house. Very convenient for LE to see and investigate that avenue. Then the $118g ransom demand. That was supposed to send LE running around Access Graphics. Then PR put on her preformance and she thought LE would buy it hook, line & sinker. They didn't buy her act, but the R's money bought them privileges that allowed then to contaminate the crime scene enough to prevent them from being charged. But that's MY opinion!!
Facts come first. Opinions follow. Your facts are wrong. It did not say "Subic Bay Training Centre". It was written into the waves: Subic Bay (a painting of an aurcraft carrier). So easy to jump to conclusions. This is old stuff.

[BlueCrab]

Facts come first. Opinions follow. Your facts are wrong. It did not say "Subic Bay Training Centre". It was written into the waves: Subic Bay (a painting of an aurcraft carrier). So easy to jump to conclusions. This is old stuff.


Rupert,

Linda Wilcox, the housekeeper prior to Linda Hoffman Pugh, was quoted in PMPT pb, pg 337:

"I don't remember if I told them about the large photograph John had of an aircraft carrier. On the bottom of the picture in fancy writing were the words Subic Bay Training Center. The script was faint because it blended in with the water, so the words were hard to read. It used to hang behind his desk in the bedroom."

However, there was no training facility at Subic other than a survival school. There was also a Subic Bay Naval Telecommunication Center at the base which was often referred to as simply the Subic Bay Telecommunication Center.

BlueCrab

[Rupert]

Rupert,

Linda Wilcox, the housekeeper prior to Linda Hoffman Pugh, was quoted in PMPT pb, pg 337:

"I don't remember if I told them about the large photograph John had of an aircraft carrier. On the bottom of the picture in fancy writing were the words Subic Bay Training Center. The script was faint because it blended in with the water, so the words were hard to read. It used to hang behind his desk in the bedroom."

However, there was no training facility at Subic other than a survival school. There was also a Subic Bay Naval Telecommunication Center at the base which was often referred to as simply the Subic Bay Telecommunication Center.

BlueCrab
I think in DOI it just says Subic Bay and written into the waves. LHP was wrong.

[BlueCrab]

I think in DOI it just says Subic Bay and written into the waves. LHP was wrong.


Rupert,

You're apparently thinking of the Subic Bay plaque found in the basement. It had just "Subic Bay" written on it.

The photo of the aircraft carrier, according to Linda Wilcox, had the words "Subic Bay Training Center" written on it.

BlueCrab

[Jayelles]

I'm sure this is a fact that I've missed along the way but Jayelles can you please pinpoint the source of this test for me?
Sure, I can direct you to Steve Thomas' deposition where he describes being told by Tom Trujillo that the sheets smelled of urine. He also stated in his deposition that there isn't a "test presumptive" for urine and was challenged by Lin Wood on the fact that urine contains chemicals and that there would be tests for those chemicals. This is where the creatinine comes in. It is present in urine and it was reported that the CBI confirmed that there were traces of creatinine present on the sheets. This was a news story a couple of years ago but I cannot find a link to the story - if you Google "creatinine + jonBenet" you will find links to forum discussions about the story.

Now this is where RST urban legend took over because "traces of creatinine" became "traces of urine" - which they easily explained by transfer from the rubber undersheet following a previous bedwetting accident. However, common sense should tell us that if creatinine is only one of numerous chemicals which are present in urine with the remainder comprising of other chemicals and a LOT of H20 - then traces of creatinine certainly does NOT equate to traces of urine. The vast majority of urine would evaporate - leaving only traces of a few chemicals.

[tipper]

[...]
Now this is where RST urban legend took over because "traces of creatinine" became "traces of urine" - which they easily explained by transfer from the rubber undersheet following a previous bedwetting accident. However, common sense should tell us that if creatinine is only one of numerous chemicals which are present in urine with the remainder comprising of other chemicals and a LOT of H20 - then traces of creatinine certainly does NOT equate to traces of urine. The vast majority of urine would evaporate - leaving only traces of a few chemicals.
I'm no scientist... but I'd have thought if the H2O evaporated, you'd have a higher concentration of what was left. Like raisins have a higher concentration of sugar than grapes.

[Jayelles]

I'm no scientist... but I'd have thought if the H2O evaporated, you'd have a higher concentration of what was left. Like raisins have a higher concentration of sugar than grapes.
Higher concentration - yes compared to the original liquid form/per cubic inch but it doesn't increase in quantity! If you dissolve a teaspoon of sugar in a pint of water - there is still only a teaspoon of sugar there!

In fact, H20 makes up 95% of urine.

The point is - the RST claim that "traces of urine" were found on the sheets when in fact it was "traces of creatinine". A bladderful of urine would yield only "traces" of creatinine as creatinine is only one of numerous chemicals which make up 5% of urine.

The RST forever accuse the "BORG" of spreading myths about the case. There are myths on both sides - but the facts speak for themselves.

[Nehemiah]

This is Mark Beckner's November 26, 2001 deposition. Wood is questioning him about info being leaked to the media.


Wood:
169
4 I then asked you in another letter whether
5 you had been the source for some information about
6 urine on the bed sheets and I never did hear back
7 from you, on an NBC broadcast.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.txt

Wood makes it sound as if there was urine on the bed sheets, and Wood is accusing Beckner of leaking that to the press.

[Zman]

Sure, I can direct you to Steve Thomas' deposition .
Thanks Jayelles, 'nuff said.

[Jayelles]

Thanks Jayelles, 'nuff said.
Yes, I suppose since the source in ST's deposition is in fact Lin Wood ..... could be a case of "nuff said".

[Zman]

Yes, I suppose since the source in ST's deposition is in fact Lin Wood ..... could be a case of "nuff said".
Don't believe I ever read anything where Lin Wood is doing anything but questioning how it was determined that there was urine on the bed.

ST is so desperate to put PR away I wouldn't put it passed him to pee on the sheets himself.

[Jayelles]

Don't believe I ever read anything where Lin Wood is doing anything but questioning how it was determined that there was urine on the bed.

ST is so desperate to put PR away I wouldn't put it passed him to pee on the sheets himself.
Over the years, I've seen some people so desperate to discredit Steve Thomas, that they'd accuse him of anything..

[azwriter]

Either way, what intruder would go to all of that trouble - seeking out a blanket to cover the girl he just ruthlessly strangled to death? And why her blanket? There must have been others available - at my house we have a stack of blankets in the living room so the kids can curl up on the sofa while watching tv. I have a really difficult time believing some foreign faction would bother to find JonBenet's blanket, or Barbie nightgown, for that matter, and place them with her before he leaves. That's something someone who cared about her would do.
And someone who knew where to find these items. Someone familiar with the house and where things were kept. IMO the blanket was in the dryer and the nightgown too. The nightgown stuck to the blanket when it was removed - static probably.
Covering a dead child isn't always a way to show love and caring. It also can be done out of shame and to hide what was done. Since I'm one of those BDI people, Burke knew where to find a blanket and it helped him hide his sister.
JMO

[UKGuy]

And someone who knew where to find these items. Someone familiar with the house and where things were kept. IMO the blanket was in the dryer and the nightgown too. The nightgown stuck to the blanket when it was removed - static probably.
Covering a dead child isn't always a way to show love and caring. It also can be done out of shame and to hide what was done. Since I'm one of those BDI people, Burke knew where to find a blanket and it helped him hide his sister.
JMO

azwriter,

What ever the motive for wrapping JonBenet in a blanket was. IMO, the barbie nightgown did not arrive inside the wine-cellar by accident.

Anything else which was compromising was simply removed, she was wearing no socks, is that an accident did they fall off somewhere, she is wearing brand new size-12 underwear, is this evidence of pageant play, or something more sinister? She was wearing her daytime white gap top, her hair had been styled in asymmetric pigtails. Yet from her picture taken on Xmas morning, her hair is loose and lying down, no pigtails required. She was wiped down, there were bloodstains on her underwear that did not match with her clean skin. The white longjohns she was wearing were soaked in urine at the front.

So the upper half of her torso is made up to appear as if we are in daytime mode, but the lower half is in bedtime mode, assuming JonBenet wore underwear to bed??

So with this contrast in appearance would it not look neat if she was wearing her favorite barbie nightgown, then its obvious she has been taken from her bed!

[Challenger]

No one here is addressing the stun-gun marks. I don't think this crime will ever be solved. I can't understand how anyone from outside the family didn't leave ANY DNA. You know, the theory that a killer always leaves something of himself at the scene?

If there isn't ANY strange DNA, then the killer had to be someone inside the home, who did it, imo.

I find the fact that JR ran for elected office very, very strange.

[azwriter]

No one here is addressing the stun-gun marks. I don't think this crime will ever be solved. I can't understand how anyone from outside the family didn't leave ANY DNA. You know, the theory that a killer always leaves something of himself at the scene?

If there isn't ANY strange DNA, then the killer had to be someone inside the home, who did it, imo.

I find the fact that JR ran for elected office very, very strange.
Challenger, I agree. There is absolutely no trace of an intruder inside the Ramsey home.
Yesterday two deliver men delivered a bike to our house that my husband bought. They were here 20 minutes to assemble the bike. They left behind some dirty footprints, some paper and a mark on the glass door before they left. There is no way a stranger or two went upstairs, downstairs, all around the house and left nothing behind. Of course it was an inside job.
Why discuss stun-gun marks when there isn't any on that little angel's body. It's a red herring. One the Ramsey's refuse to prove.
I am not surprised at John's run for office. I see it as a way for him to test the public's opinion of him. Appearing innocent means everything to John and Patsy Ramsey.
JMO

[Jayelles]

Here's an interesting urinalysis (sp):-

The bedsheets tested positive for traces of CREATININE. Creatinine is a protein found in urine. In a well hydrated person, the concentration of urine may be as
little as 20mg/dL.

Let's do the math. (1) dL of urine is approx 1/2 cup. There are 1000mg in a gram. As there are approx 6g of fine salt in a teaspoon, 20mg of fine salt would therefore be 1/300 of a teaspoon.

i.e. 1/300 of a teaspoon of creatinine in a 1/2 cup of urine.
Apparently, the above figures are for an adult and children produce even less creatinine.

Remember, urine is 95% water! So according to these figures, there is only a trace of creatinine in a well-hydrated, healthy person's urine. A trace of creatinine on the sheets would therefore suggest that Jonbenet may well have wet the bed.

(Incredibly, elsewhere, it is being suggested that "a trace of creatinine" = "a trace of urine")

[Nehemiah]

Here's an interesting urinalysis (sp):-


Apparently, the above figures are for an adult and children produce even less creatinine.

Remember, urine is 95% water! So according to these figures, there is only a trace of creatinine in a well-hydrated, healthy person's urine. A trace of creatinine on the sheets would therefore suggest that Jonbenet may well have wet the bed.

(Incredibly, elsewhere, it is being suggested that "a trace of creatinine" = "a trace of urine")

Interesting, Jay. I agree, it appears as if she did wet the bed.

[Jayelles]

Yes. It's a complicated sum but the bottom line speaks for itself.

It's the equivalent of this:-

Solution A - recipe
1. take half a pint of water
2. dissolve 1/150 of a teaspoon of salt in the water (hard to imagine such a tiny amount but it would be just a few grains)
3. pour the entire amount over a sheet and allow to dry
You would find traces of salt, but it wouldn't be correct to assume that only traces of Solution A had been spilled there.

[tipper]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy. Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.

[UKGuy]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy. Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.

tipper,

This is unfortunate, since if we could be certain that she wet the bed say in the morning of the 26th then at least we would know she went to bed.

Currently this is in doubt, I've assumed part of the staging was to represent her as being in bed, that she ate some pineapple suggests she was not in bed at some point, so if it could be confirmed that she wet the bed then it alters this perspective somewhat!


.

[capps]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy. Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.

Tipper,

I agree,I have thought that for a long time.ST saw the rubber sheet,and in his mind he had the murder solved.

[tipper]

tipper,

This is unfortunate, since if we could be certain that she wet the bed say in the morning of the 26th then at least we would know she went to bed.

Currently this is in doubt, I've assumed part of the staging was to represent her as being in bed, that she ate some pineapple suggests she was not in bed at some point, so if it could be confirmed that she wet the bed then it alters this perspective somewhat!


.I don't know that I would say " Currently this is in doubt" At best, I think you can say it is not known.

[Jayelles]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy.

SNIP
We know no such thing! He was the investigator of the case when the investigation was at it's most active and he wrote his book with the benefit of actual case evidence and police files.

In his deposition, Lin Wood questioned ST about things he mentioned in his book and then refused to let him answer fully - thus manipulating "the record". Clever lawyer tactic. I find it compelling that Lin Wood never goes to court - his games and nonsense wouldn't be tolerated in a court and if he tried them, he would be revealed for what he is - a bully.

Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.
Yes - so the RST cannot claim that it was from a prior accident and transferred from her rubber sheet!

[tipper]

We know no such thing! He was the investigator of the case when the investigation was at it's most active and he wrote his book with the benefit of actual case evidence and police files.I don't know whether you were able to listen to testimony in the van Dam case. But from that and my own experience I can tell you that just because somethiing is written up in a police report it isn't necessarily accurate or true. My recollection is you yourself said you cringed when you saw Thomas hadn't checked his facts with the other detectives before committing them to his book.

In his deposition, Lin Wood questioned ST about things he mentioned in his book and then refused to let him answer fully - thus manipulating "the record". Clever lawyer tactic. I find it compelling that Lin Wood never goes to court - his games and nonsense wouldn't be tolerated in a court and if he tried them, he would be revealed for what he is - a bully.
Questioning in a deposition is very different from questioning in a courtroom. It is much more free-ranging within whatever parameters the judge has set. I don't find it at all compelling that Wood doesn't go to court. He's a civil lawyer. Most civil cases are settled out of court. Its more a reflection of his ability to convince the opposition that he has a strong case. I don't see him as any more of a "bully" than Thomas. Wood was trying to get information, Thomas was trying to conceal it. Many of Lin Wood's interruptions were because Thomas was setting out to answer something other than the question that was asked or run out the clock with a bunch of extraneous talk.

[Jayelles]

I don't know whether you were able to listen to testimony in the van Dam case. But from that and my own experience I can tell you that just because somethiing is written up in a police report it isn't necessarily accurate or true. My recollection is you yourself said you cringed when you saw Thomas hadn't checked his facts with the other detectives before committing them to his book.
I'd be interested to see this post of mine in context. Do you have a reference?


Questioning in a deposition is very different from questioning in a courtroom. It is much more free-ranging within whatever parameters the judge has set. I don't find it at all compelling that Wood doesn't go to court. He's a civil lawyer. Most civil cases are settled out of court. Its more a reflection of his ability to convince the opposition that he has a strong case. I don't see him as any more of a "bully" than Thomas. Wood was trying to get information, Thomas was trying to conceal it. Many of Lin Wood's interruptions were because Thomas was setting out to answer something other than the question that was asked or run out the clock with a bunch of extraneous talk.
I realise that questioning on a courtroom would be different from a depo. I believe this was the point I was making. Lin Wood would not get away with his style of bullying in a courtroom. His MO of asking questions and then preventing the desposee from answering the question fully would certainly raise objections. I think Lin Wood is very talented at influencing what actually goes on record. Darnay Hoffman came off as a total wimp and it made my blood boil.

It seems to me that presenting a one sided version of events is an RST speciality.

[tipper]

I'd be interested to see this post of mine in context. Do you have a reference?

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=26&forum=DCForumID107
Jayelles
unregistered user
May-31-03, 06:10 PM (EST)

16. "Margoo"
In response to message #15

Margoo, what a surprise! My point was to Guppy, but since you've responded on his behalf...

We will agree to disagree. Obviously, it is difficult to tell without hearing/seeing the tape, but, IMO, Lin Wood was argumentative and on reading the deposition, I noticed that he constantly interrupted Steve Thomas. Steve Thomas OTOH remained polite and allowed Wood to finish asking his questions. There are people who talk and people who listen. In my experience, you learn more by listening. Lin Wood lost himself some valuable recording time because he kept butting in and got involved in cross-talk and ended up having to restate the question on several occasions. Steve Thomas was absolutely correct to ensure his questions were clear before he answered. Lin Wood also repeated several questions which had already been answered - something that I noticed he did in Beckner's deposition too.

Now thankfully, I am not looking at this case through Ramsey-tinted spectacles, nor am I looking at it through BORG-tinted spectacles (questioning Ramsey does not equate to BORG although RST would have it so). I have no particular feelings about Steve Thomas because his involvement in the case does not change the evidence one way or another. I don't condone what he did and I cringe when I see that he didn't check facts provided by Trujillo and Wickman before committing them to his book.

We learned little of value from Thomas' deposition. Certainly nothing to advance the investigation. It was dirty-underwear laundering that's all.

Rest assured, my book will have all facts verified and sources checked ;-)






I realise that questioning on a courtroom would be different from a depo. I believe this was the point I was making. Lin Wood would not get away with his style of bullying in a courtroom. His MO of asking questions and then preventing the desposee from answering the question fully would certainly raise objections. I think Lin Wood is very talented at influencing what actually goes on record. Darnay Hoffman came off as a total wimp and it made my blood boil.It might raise objections but on the other hand the judge can also be asked to direct the witness to answer the question.




It seems to me that presenting a one sided version of events is an RST speciality.Oh, I think there are plenty of examples of that on both sides.

[Jayelles]

OK, I certainly couldn't have recalled this one off the top of my head. Now let's put this in context. A few weeks ago, my mother told me my nephew's wife is pregnant for the second time. I am writing about it in this post. Next week Lin Wood could depose me and ask me if I checked with my niece in law whether she is in fact pregnant again and I would have to say no - I didn't check. I took my mother's word for it. Does that make me look stupid? Perhaps. Does it mean my niece in law is not pregnant. Nope.

Another example. This morning my boss told me that his boss told him that a report is due by next Monday. Did I check with my boss's boss? Nope. Lin Wood - "Did you check this detail with your boss's boss?", Jayelles "No". Am I a liar? Is my boss a liar?

Just because I cringed 3 years ago over at jameson's forum (now I cringe there daily), doesn't mean that Thomas' book is full of lies.

Just because Lin Wood got it on record that Thomas didn't check his facts with people he used to work with 5 years ago when he wrote his book does NOT mean he wrote lies. If Trujillo and Wickman come out and say that Thomas lied - then it might mean something and I might even cringe some more.

Regarding people being forced to answer - where does Thomas refuse to answer? I remember Beckner refusing to answer questions on DNA-x. Thomas was polite at all times during that deposition. He asked for clarification on the questions a few times and Wood turned that into a negative. I can assure everyone that if I was answering questions under oath on penalty of perjury, then I would want to ensure I was answering the right question so that I could answer the question right.

[tipper]

OK, I certainly couldn't have recalled this one off the top of my head. Now let's put this in context. A few weeks ago, my mother told me my nephew's wife is pregnant for the second time. I am writing about it in this post. Next week Lin Wood could depose me and ask me if I checked with my niece in law whether she is in fact pregnant again and I would have to say no - I didn't check. I took my mother's word for it. Does that make me look stupid? Perhaps. Does it mean my niece in law is not pregnant. Nope.

Another example. This morning my boss told me that his boss told him that a report is due by next Monday. Did I check with my boss's boss? Nope. Lin Wood - "Did you check this detail with your boss's boss?", Jayelles "No". Am I a liar? Is my boss a liar?

Just because I cringed 3 years ago over at jameson's forum (now I cringe there daily), doesn't mean that Thomas' book is full of lies.

Just because Lin Wood got it on record that Thomas didn't check his facts with people he used to work with 5 years ago when he wrote his book does NOT mean he wrote lies. If Trujillo and Wickman come out and say that Thomas lied - then it might mean something and I might even cringe some more.

Regarding people being forced to answer - where does Thomas refuse to answer? I remember Beckner refusing to answer questions on DNA-x. Thomas was polite at all times during that deposition. He asked for clarification on the questions a few times and Wood turned that into a negative. I can assure everyone that if I was answering questions under oath on penalty of perjury, then I would want to ensure I was answering the right question so that I could answer the question right.But I'll bet if you were in an emergency room with your (unconscious) niece and the doctor needed to know if she was pregnant to determine how to treat her, you would probably verify her pregnancy with someone who knew for sure.

I'm 100% sure if you were writing a book accusing someone of murder you would want to make sure that all the information you put in it was the most accurate and up to date information available. Thomas doesn't seem to have bothered.

I don’t believe his book is full of lies, I also don’t believe it is a search for the truth. I think he shades, obfuscates, and presents information in the way he thinks will be most damning to the Ramseys. Until we hear from these other detectives we don’t know whether he flat-out lies or not.

I’m not sure what you are saying about people being “forced” to answer. I couldn't find a reference to forcing in my post. In court if a witness bobbles around and doesn’t get to answering the question the judge can be asked to instruct the witness to answer the question. Just as you say Lin Wood’s methods would not be allowed in a courtroom, Steve Thomas would not be allowed to meander around complaining about lack of support from the DA’s office in response to a Yes/No question regarding did he, in his view, believe he had probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

I think because of his job Beckner had the option to refuse to answer questions if he felt answering would compromise the case in some way. Thomas doesn’t have the right to just refuse to answer a question. Both Beckner and Thomas' lawyers objected to some of the questions for various legal reasons.

If Thomas were simply asking for clarification a few times that would be fine. But he not doing that. He's being difficult either to spin out the time or to avoid answering the question or perhaps just vent his spleen. In comparison, Beckner was a model of clarity whenever the lawyers would be quiet long enough for him to answer a question.

I think Darnay Hoffman made Darnay Hoffman come off like a wimp.

[Jayelles]

Forced ... directed to answer. OK Semantics - careless choice of words on my part. Sorry you had to waste time correcting me for it.

The real point is - these guys were working as a team. Have you ever worked as a team? Steve Thomas reported what Wickman and Trujillo brought to the table from their team efforts. It wasn't Thomas' job to double check their work - it was their responsibility to make sure they reported their findings accurately.

Should he have double checked their facts before writing them in hs book? Well what do we mean by double checking? What level of checking would you find acceptable?

For example - supposing Thomas had written that Wickman had reported back that John Fernie said he saw A picking up the note and reading it (hypothetical scenario)

Should ST have double checked that Wickman did in fact say this?
Should ST have double checked with John Fernie that he said this to Wickman?
Should ST have double checked with A that he did pick up the note and read it?

And I don't agree that Thomas was being difficult. There is a common theme in all of the Lin Wood depos I've read in that he phrases questions in a way that makes it appear that the deposee is being awkward. I could do that tipper. I could post to you in a way that made it appear that I considered you to be evasive, unco-operative and untruthful. Except that you have the right to respond - Wood didn't give his deposees that option.

There is a tv advert running here where a guy creates a scene which appears to be one thing when in fact is is something quite different. It's really funny - won an award I believe.

I think it's what lawyers like Lin wood do to influence the record and that it will have the desired effect on quite a lot of people. However we've had this conversation before and I think we agreed that unless we had the benefit of seeing a video of the deposition, it is impossible to tell from a transcript whether someone was being evasive etc or whether Lin wood was doing his thing.