Expanding Dr.Wecht's series of events...

I was very surprised to hear that the strangulation must have come first as for me it raises the question of "What was the point of the head injury?".
If the head injury had occurred first, I can see that the garrote would have been applied as an it displays an obvious cause of death before an autopsy, but why strike her, leaving a non-visable injury to her skull after death?

KarenUK,
And just why would an abductee require an obvious cause of death? JonBenet was not in the house, so there is no garotte to view.


The head injury may be accidental, caused as a consequence of JonBenet falling and striking her head on some object, as she falls down, after being released from having her neck compressed.

The garotte has all the hallmarks as being designed and applied by Patsy, this implies it was Patsy who compressed JonBenet's windpipe, strengthening the PDI.


But along came John and decided an abduction would be better than death by asphyxiation, so everything was dumped down in the basement, out of sight!


.
 
DeeDee, I need your help in sorting something out please... Its well known and documented that JB was wiped down prior to the redressing. We also know that urine was found in her panties. Wouldnt that mean she died after she was wiped down and redressed? And before she was strangled? I mean wouldnt her body have evacuated that urine at the time of death? So this would mean she was alive for most of what took place? The blood that was wiped off in my opinion was from a vaginal trauma that occurred before the paintbrush was ever introduced. The paintbrush was the diversion....

I know there has to be a thread that covers this and I'm sure I've been on it, but I cant seem to find one at the moment.... TIA!!!!

Agatha_C,
If you accept Steve Thomas' version of events e.g. PDI and bedwetting then some might suggest since JonBenet had already evacuated her bladder, there would be little left to wet her underwear with?

I think where we all go wrong, myself included, is assuming there is a linear relationship between her molestation, head injury and interment in the wine-cellar, when there might actually be some prior interaction?

Why, the Christmas gifts and the Barbie Doll need to be factored in, why bother dumping these into the wine-cellar?


.
 
KarenUK,
And just why would an abductee require an obvious cause of death? JonBenet was not in the house, so there is no garotte to view.


The head injury may be accidental, caused as a consequence of JonBenet falling and striking her head on some object, as she falls down, after being released from having her neck compressed.

The garotte has all the hallmarks as being designed and applied by Patsy, this implies it was Patsy who compressed JonBenet's windpipe, strengthening the PDI.


But along came John and decided an abduction would be better than death by asphyxiation, so everything was dumped down in the basement, out of sight!


.

I'm not saying that it should make sense (nothing in this case makes any sense at all....) but if we go with the information in this interview, then she received the head injury after death. I have always thought that the head injury either came first, or that she was struck because she struggled. From the lack of bleeding after the strike it would seem she was already dead when it happened and IF (and it's a big if) the injury was caused by the torch/flashlight (as it seems to be commonly believed, rather than a fall), then why strike her when she's already dead?
I have always thought strangulation (and the premeditation required) pointed more to John (I always believe he made the garrote) and if it was accidental/rage attack it would be Patsy.
In an unrelated point I had always hoped in a strange way that the head injury came first, the idea of strangulation is just hideous - I worked at a shop in Felistowe, Suffolk (England) and became friendly with a local woman who's teenage daughter was murdered by strangulation, and the one thing she spoke about was her horror at the thought of her girl struggling desperately with the killer.
 
KarenUK,
And just why would an abductee require an obvious cause of death? JonBenet was not in the house, so there is no garotte to view.

.

I've never thought an abductee did this....
 
I'm not saying that it should make sense (nothing in this case makes any sense at all....) but if we go with the information in this interview, then she received the head injury after death. I have always thought that the head injury either came first, or that she was struck because she struggled. From the lack of bleeding after the strike it would seem she was already dead when it happened and IF (and it's a big if) the injury was caused by the torch/flashlight (as it seems to be commonly believed, rather than a fall), then why strike her when she's already dead?
I have always thought strangulation (and the premeditation required) pointed more to John (I always believe he made the garrote) and if it was accidental/rage attack it would be Patsy.
In an unrelated point I had always hoped in a strange way that the head injury came first, the idea of strangulation is just hideous - I worked at a shop in Felistowe, Suffolk (England) and became friendly with a local woman who's teenage daughter was murdered by strangulation, and the one thing she spoke about was her horror at the thought of her girl struggling desperately with the killer.

KarenUK,
(nothing in this case makes any sense at all....)
If you read the books, and contribute, eventually you get the light bulb effect, this even works for IDI folks. It will make sense, what does not make sense is the staging, and unfortunately, most people think the staging and the Ramsey PR is the case.

This is a case where probabilities matter. And her head injury and asphyxiation probably occur together or are coterminous, to be legal about it.
If you think about it, not even her killer(s) are concerned how you view her death, otherwise we would have been presented with a more detailed crime-scene?

The conventional theory is that the head blow comes first followed by the asphyxiation rendered as staging to an unconcious JonBenet. So theoretically she felt no pain.

As an aside, I reckon JonBenet was in such psychological pain, a place difficult to outline, due to her being regularly molested that she was attempting to assert herself, e.g. the red turtleneck or the MyTwinn Doll, emphasize JonBenet's individuality, something that is lost in the details of the case. Since she is regularly represented as an innocent sweet icon, but she was in truth a naive six-year old girl trying to find her way in the world, despite being abused. In truth she was older than her years, yet was trapped within a cycle of pageants and abuse, which were preventing her from maturing in a natural manner.

the one thing she spoke about was her horror at the thought of her girl struggling desperately with the killer.
I reckon JonBenet was unconscious when the garotte was applied to her neck.


.
 
I've never thought an abductee did this....

I'll rephrase that as why would you stage a crime-scene where someone has been abducted for monetary gain, yet present a crime-scene that appears like one done by an intruder?


.
 
DeeDee, I need your help in sorting something out please... Its well known and documented that JB was wiped down prior to the redressing. We also know that urine was found in her panties. Wouldnt that mean she died after she was wiped down and redressed? And before she was strangled? I mean wouldnt her body have evacuated that urine at the time of death? So this would mean she was alive for most of what took place? The blood that was wiped off in my opinion was from a vaginal trauma that occurred before the paintbrush was ever introduced. The paintbrush was the diversion....

I know there has to be a thread that covers this and I'm sure I've been on it, but I cant seem to find one at the moment.... TIA!!!!

This has been one of the most difficult aspects of the crime to sort out! The urine stain on the anterior surface of the longjohns combined with the ligature being tied at the back of her neck indicates that she died on her stomach. The panties are urine stained as well, but the coroner did state that the small amount if red staining on the panties did NOT correspond to the areas that were wiped down, and the fact that there was no blood (red staining) on the long johns probably mean that she was NOT wearing the size 12 panties under the longjohns when she died or the long johns would have had red staining as well if her bladder voided and wet both garments at the same time.
The panties could have been put on dry and become wet just from being in contact with the wet longjohns. The wet longjohns she died wearing could have been removed while wet, the bloodied size 6 panties removed and replaced with the size 12s, then the wet longjohns put back on, thereby wetting the size 12s.
Another puzzling piece is that the blanket was not reported as having urine or blood on it, and she was found on her back- the opposite of how she died (on her stomach). This fits in with a dead JB being placed in a clean blanket pulled from the basement dryer. If the wet longjohns came into contact with the blanket, there would be urine on the blanket. So we have to consider two possibilities- that she was placed in the WC and wrapped in the blanket after the urine had already dried, or that there WAS urine on the blanket that was never tested for, discovered, or reported if it WAS found.
So...to sort this out almost requires an eye-witness. Just when you think you have a theory that works, you run smack into a piece that doesn't fit!
 
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Wecht. But I disagree with him on some aspects of this case. For one, I disagree that the head bash followed the strangulation and was administered when she was dead. There is NO reason that I can fathom that anyone would need to bash an unconscious person, especially one who you have just strangled. The head bash was not visible, it added nothing to the staging. On the other hand, the garrote provided a very visible cause of death for someone who would have seemed to have none. You have an allegedly kidnapped child found dead in her own home. If the ligature was part of an erotic game gone too far (as Wecht surmises), why would you need anything else?
On the other hand, the bash coming as reaction to her scream in order to shut her up FAST makes sense.
I can see the ligature being staged to cover for the head bash, but cannot imagine the head bash covering for anything, since it was not visible anyway.
I don't agree that it was administered to "make sure she was dead" when all you had to do was pull the garrote a bit tighter. I don't agree that the bash was staging.
Other forensic specialists have said that both these things came close together, and that the restricted blood flow to her head, restricted during strangulation, caused the mild swelling in the brain as well as the relatively small amount of blood found in the skull. There is a good explanation for the small amount of blood and mild swelling, and it doesn't mean that she was already dead or close to death.
 
This has been one of the most difficult aspects of the crime to sort out! The urine stain on the anterior surface of the longjohns combined with the ligature being tied at the back of her neck indicates that she died on her stomach. The panties are urine stained as well, but the coroner did state that the small amount if red staining on the panties did NOT correspond to the areas that were wiped down, and the fact that there was no blood (red staining) on the long johns probably mean that she was NOT wearing the size 12 panties under the longjohns when she died or the long johns would have had red staining as well if her bladder voided and wet both garments at the same time.
The panties could have been put on dry and become wet just from being in contact with the wet longjohns. The wet longjohns she died wearing could have been removed while wet, the bloodied size 6 panties removed and replaced with the size 12s, then the wet longjohns put back on, thereby wetting the size 12s.
Another puzzling piece is that the blanket was not reported as having urine or blood on it, and she was found on her back- the opposite of how she died (on her stomach). This fits in with a dead JB being placed in a clean blanket pulled from the basement dryer. If the wet longjohns came into contact with the blanket, there would be urine on the blanket. So we have to consider two possibilities- that she was placed in the WC and wrapped in the blanket after the urine had already dried, or that there WAS urine on the blanket that was never tested for, discovered, or reported if it WAS found.
So...to sort this out almost requires an eye-witness. Just when you think you have a theory that works, you run smack into a piece that doesn't fit!

DeeDee249,
There is something wrong with the wine-cellar staging, or at least my interpretation.

The panties are urine stained as well, but the coroner did state that the small amount if red staining on the panties did NOT correspond to the areas that were wiped down, and the fact that there was no blood (red staining) on the long johns probably mean that she was NOT wearing the size 12 panties under the longjohns when she died or the long johns would have had red staining as well if her bladder voided and wet both garments at the same time.
One thing we can assume as fact is that her size-6 underwear was removed and that she was wiped down. So if as you suggest there is no blood on the longjohns, then she may not have been wearing the longjohns when she was wearing her size-6 underwear? She must have been wearing something else, and the Pink Nightgown does have a blood stain on it.

The staging makes no sense wrt Ransom Note. These are completely different scenarios. If it is to be an abuction, then how JonBenet is presented does not matter, because she is allegedly not in the building. Theoretically, in an efficiently run police force, if JonBenet is found it is game over for the Ramsey's, particularly since the staging contradicts the chosen scenario.


I wonder if they had intended to dump JonBenet outdoors, then she could be found patently violated by some deranged psychopath, but something prevented them at the last minute?


.
 
DeeDee249,
There is something wrong with the wine-cellar staging, or at least my interpretation.


One thing we can assume as fact is that her size-6 underwear was removed and that she was wiped down. So if as you suggest there is no blood on the longjohns, then she may not have been wearing the longjohns when she was wearing her size-6 underwear? She must have been wearing something else, and the Pink Nightgown does have a blood stain on it.

The staging makes no sense wrt Ransom Note. These are completely different scenarios. If it is to be an abuction, then how JonBenet is presented does not matter, because she is allegedly not in the building. Theoretically, in an efficiently run police force, if JonBenet is found it is game over for the Ramsey's, particularly since the staging contradicts the chosen scenario.


I wonder if they had intended to dump JonBenet outdoors, then she could be found patently violated by some deranged psychopath, but something prevented them at the last minute?


.

We can assume her size 6 panties were removed, but we cannot consider it a FACT because the panties were never found.
I assume the longjohns were not worn for the sexual assault. They were probably removed, rather than pulled down, because there is no blood on them.
It is certainly possible that she was wearing the pink nightie. It could very well be that she may have been brought to the wineceller wearing the pink nightie, and redressed in the white shirt and longjohns, and the pink nightie inadvertently left behind on the white blanket in the basement. That may have been what JR meant when he let it slip to LE that the pink nightie wasn't supposed to be there when he was shown photos of the white blanket in the WC.
 
We can assume her size 6 panties were removed, but we cannot consider it a FACT because the panties were never found.
I assume the longjohns were not worn for the sexual assault. They were probably removed, rather than pulled down, because there is no blood on them.
It is certainly possible that she was wearing the pink nightie. It could very well be that she may have been brought to the wineceller wearing the pink nightie, and redressed in the white shirt and longjohns, and the pink nightie inadvertently left behind on the white blanket in the basement. That may have been what JR meant when he let it slip to LE that the pink nightie wasn't supposed to be there when he was shown photos of the white blanket in the WC.

DeeDee249,
We can assume her size 6 panties were removed, but we cannot consider it a FACT because the panties were never found.
Sure but maybe BPD know the size-6 underwear did exist because there is a missing Wednesday pair from her drawer. And we are not being told for obvious operational reasons.

It is certainly possible that she was wearing the pink nightie. It could very well be that she may have been brought to the wineceller wearing the pink nightie, and redressed in the white shirt and longjohns, and the pink nightie inadvertently left behind on the white blanket in the basement.
Yes something along those lines. Unless its a chance event, no blood on the longjohns must suggest JonBenet was not wearing them initially. There is one unexplained variable and that is the Pink Pajama Bottoms. Its a pity we have not been told if they were ever found. So I'll go with JonBenet wearing the Pink Nightgown when she was first brought down to the basement. The longjohns, size-12's, white gap top, seem a curious combination, but maybe that was the best they could come up in a limited time-frame?

Patsy says she sourced the longjohns, so I guess she either knew or looked for another Wednesday pair of underwear, not finding any, elected for the size-12's, which were stored in her bedroom possibly?

What is interesting is that Patsy has amnesia when it comes to what underwear JonBenet was actually wearing. I assume, since JonBenet could not read, that she would not have automatically picked a Wednesday pair. Patsy said that JonBenet's underwear selection was pretty random. So this underpins the other assumption that the real reason for selecting the size-12's was simply to replace the missing size-6 Wednesday pair?


.
 
I also think the size 12 Wednesday panties were needed to replace a size 6 Wednesday pair. But the police did not say specifically whether they found ANY Bloomies panties of ANY size.
I don't think the size 12s were in her room or in her drawers. NONE were found, and the Rs sent along the remaining size 12s 5 years later, still in the package. I believe the size 12 panties were in the basement, wrapped up as a gift to be mailed to Jenny. They were opened that night, when whatever occurred made it necessary for JB to need clean panties that said "Wednesday".
 
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Wecht. But I disagree with him on some aspects of this case. For one, I disagree that the head bash followed the strangulation and was administered when she was dead. There is NO reason that I can fathom that anyone would need to bash an unconscious person, especially one who you have just strangled. The head bash was not visible, it added nothing to the staging. On the other hand, the garrote provided a very visible cause of death for someone who would have seemed to have none. You have an allegedly kidnapped child found dead in her own home. If the ligature was part of an erotic game gone too far (as Wecht surmises), why would you need anything else?
On the other hand, the bash coming as reaction to her scream in order to shut her up FAST makes sense.
I can see the ligature being staged to cover for the head bash, but cannot imagine the head bash covering for anything, since it was not visible anyway.
I don't agree that it was administered to "make sure she was dead" when all you had to do was pull the garrote a bit tighter. I don't agree that the bash was staging.
Other forensic specialists have said that both these things came close together, and that the restricted blood flow to her head, restricted during strangulation, caused the mild swelling in the brain as well as the relatively small amount of blood found in the skull. There is a good explanation for the small amount of blood and mild swelling, and it doesn't mean that she was already dead or close to death.

Hi, long time no post.

I have tended to favour Dr Wecht's theory above others. Of course, I cannot support it with 100% certainty and I certainly don't claim to be the authority on this case.

I highlighted a part of your post. If JonBenet died to due to the sex-game-gone-wrong theory, then obviously, the other question arises: why did she have a head trauma?

If we work on the basis that JonBenet died from the garrotte/neck trauma and that it was an accident an adult Ramsey didn't intend for, then the death of JonBenet is unintended and a great shock to them. At once, their little girl is dead and the nature of her death is revealed -- she was being sexually molested in conjunction with kinky sex games. That would ruin them. Panic sets in.

Perhaps the head blow, working on the basis that it came after the neck trauma, was more of a cathartic act on the killer's part-- it helped, even in a silly, personal way to distance the killer (a parent) from their heinous acts on their little girl. Perhaps it was not thought through -- an impromptu moment of thought entered the mind of the killer whereby they knew the sex-game theory pointed to hem, so they thought up something in haste to act as a diversion. Perhaps, when staging the crime, they tried to imagine what they thought abductors would do -- they'd bludgeon someone. Thus, they did too.

I'm also aware that this then leaves the question: why leave the garrote etc on display?

I can only speculate. One answer might be that to touch it would risk contamination. Another might be that they equipment used for garrote etc could not be disposed of -- to move it away from the crime scene implies the intruder was active in the house and this raises questions as to why he wasn't heard etc. Another answer might be they thought it would be attributed to the intruder : he sexually assaulted her then bludgeoned her or he bludgeoned her and then did all this stuff to her.

Who knows. Just some speculations. Perhaps it just boils down to that it was their best attempt at the time, under the circumstances, to divert away from the truth.

Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight so can judge and analyse all the actions. But trying to imagine how one would feel in such an event, perhaps certain actions were simply not thought through properly. And perhaps these illogical acts and 'mistakes' were just that -- testament to the human-centric nature of this crime and the imperfections of people caught off guard by an unintended death.
 
Excellent points, UK.

One thing to consider: I believe anyone would have expected LE to find the body PDQ. I think that was fully the intention, part of the plan. That's why the couples were called over, as a buffer between the Ramseys and LE once the body was found, IMO. Patsy could pull her fainting, hysterical act, JR and the friends could focus on her and in fear, whisk his family to the airport and away from interrogation by LE, into the arms of loving family...and powerful lawyers.

Whether the BPD not finding the body helped them, I don't know, but I think it didn't hurt in the long run, because the Ramseys were able to thoroughly contaminate the crime scene. It was a pure fluke, not finding the body, and whoever reflexively turned the "lock" on the cellar door sealed it from suspicion while everyone was reacting to a kidnapping. You can't lock a door like that from inside, now can you? And it was too high for the children to reach.

In fact, I've always wondered if securing the door like that was just in case Burke got involved in the "hunt" somehow. Burke certainly didn't turn that block, did he?

He could if he used the suitcase :)

Why would anyone lock that door? To keep her in? Unlikely, that's just stupid. To keep her from being found? Maybe - they were looking for JonBenet - at first, a JonBenet who might be hiding - stands to reason she wouldn't be hiding in there, which is why the first officer missed it, IMO.

Or would it be locked by a parent that wanted to make sure Burke wouldn't find JonBenet before the Police?
 
The head bash is associated with the sexual assault in this way- if she screamed during the assault, she may have been bashed on the head to shut her up. The flashlight, not originally intended to be a murder weapon, was being held for its usual purpose- to illuminate a dark room. sexual abuse is a "secret" game which usually takes place in the dark, and it really wasn't that late. Lights on in rooms which have no drapes drawn (like the kitchen window- it only had a valance) make the people inside very visible to neighbors who happen to be up and about.
When she screamed, the flashlight became an instant bludgeon- wielded suddenly and unexpectedly and before they knew it- she went down, instantly unconscious, possible going into seizures and/or shock.
 
The head bash is associated with the sexual assault in this way- if she screamed during the assault, she may have been bashed on the head to shut her up. The flashlight, not originally intended to be a murder weapon, was being held for its usual purpose- to illuminate a dark room. sexual abuse is a "secret" game which usually takes place in the dark, and it really wasn't that late. Lights on in rooms which have no drapes drawn (like the kitchen window- it only had a valance) make the people inside very visible to neighbors who happen to be up and about.
When she screamed, the flashlight became an instant bludgeon- wielded suddenly and unexpectedly and before they knew it- she went down, instantly unconscious, possible going into seizures and/or shock.

Excellent points.

Just to show I'm not a slave to Wecht's theory, I had a though regarding the head-blow coming first angle. And it was prompted me think quite seriously if that is what happened.

It goes like this:

1. JonBenet soils herself and Patsy has to go clean her up. She takes the flashlight to go get her changed etc. An altercation takes place. Patsy, in a split moment of rage hits JonBenet. JonBenet dies (or appears dead to Patsy).

2. Patsy panics. Does she call the police? What will she say? If the police come will she be arrested for murder? Patsy gets John for help. John convinces Patsy not to call the police -- if she does they could all be ruined ad she'll go to prison.

3. It's known that there was both acute and chronic sexual trauma in the genital region. Thus, that night and prior JonBenet was being molested. Assume it was the father. John, on seeing his daughter dead knows that if the police come and do an autopsy, the truth will come out. That will be disastrous for him -- a good 'family' man being caught doing such filth. That's what his overriding motive was for not calling the police. Patsy however was unaware of such abuse and felt that calling the police would implicate her solely. John somewhat encouraged that feeling in her. Patsy is none the wise. She thinks he's merely acting to help her.

4. They conspire to stage a crime to make it look like an evil intruder did all this horrible stuff. It explains their involvement. Assume in this instance that the garrotte was made for staging and it was also suggested by John to do this. It served thepurposes of giving a visible reason as to why/what the intruder did what they did since the headwound wasn't visible. They needed something shocking and 'external'. *if the autopsy came back at a later date and said she had being sexually abused, John would deny, deny, deny.But he did his best to remove any traces of his actions hence the new underwear and cleaning down etc.*

5. Patsy write the ransom note. Makes the police call. She is unaware of JonBenet's sexual abuse. She thinks only in terms of 'she killed her' and her life will be ruined if the truth comes out. John is aware of the full story. Each are trying to preserve their 'life' in their own way. John's reasons are more sinsiter.

6. This theory would also explain the pineapple and material found in JonBenet's bed: it was John who acted inappropriately to her that evening when putting her to bed hence the 'acute' injuries. Later on, just after midnight, after the commotion with Patsy/JonBenet, John is terrified his secret will come out when his daughter is accidentally killed by his wife. The pineapple could have been innocent -- JonBenet got it herself or was fed it. It could be much more -- it was her favourite food and perhaps a bribe to let stuff happen.


This scenario popped into my head.It does have flaws. One thing that is confusing to many RDI theorists is that forensic material from both parents was found in the crime scene in such a way to perhaps insinuate that both were involved, at the every least, with the cover up. The scenario above seemed to give it a valid explanation as to how both parents could be involved.

Just a thought/scenario I thought I'd share.
 
He could if he used the suitcase :)

Why would anyone lock that door? To keep her in? Unlikely, that's just stupid. To keep her from being found? Maybe - they were looking for JonBenet - at first, a JonBenet who might be hiding - stands to reason she wouldn't be hiding in there, which is why the first officer missed it, IMO.

Or would it be locked by a parent that wanted to make sure Burke wouldn't find JonBenet before the Police?

vlpate,
He could if he used the suitcase :)
Or a chair, or a crate, or an upturned bin, or a stool. I seriously doubt that the latching of the door is to prevent Burke from viewing JonBenet.

Why would anyone lock that door? To keep her in? Unlikely, that's just stupid. To keep her from being found? Maybe
If the R's wanted JonBenet to be found they would have staged some bedroom scenario.

Given that JonBenet's person is staged but the wine-cellar per-se is not, then its possible a prior staging was abandoned in favor of hiding JonBenet in the wine-cellar.

The R's possibly thought, for whatever reason, that their best chance was to hide JonBenet in the wine-cellar, hope she was not found, then they might have an opportunity to get away later that morning.

Otherwise if left in the open, they must have known all three R's would become immediate suspects and likely be arrested for interview.

Also we do not know how much Burke actually knew that morning, with his fingerprints on the pineapple bowl, and tea-glass, I reckon he watched JonBenet snack pineapple the night before. So he knows his parents lied through their teeth about their version of events. He also play acted being asleep the following morning. So Burke might be an active participant in the staging?

So the Ramsey's last throw of the dice was their Abduction Scenario, they bet the house on that one. That John relocated Burke as quickly as he did suggests this was an element of deliberate planning.
 
He could if he used the suitcase :)

Why would anyone lock that door? To keep her in? Unlikely, that's just stupid. To keep her from being found? Maybe - they were looking for JonBenet - at first, a JonBenet who might be hiding - stands to reason she wouldn't be hiding in there, which is why the first officer missed it, IMO.

Or would it be locked by a parent that wanted to make sure Burke wouldn't find JonBenet before the Police?

OR, maybe the engaged lock that Burke couldn't reach would make it seem unlikely Burke had been in that room, or locked the door after leaving her there.
 
OR, maybe the engaged lock that Burke couldn't reach would make it seem unlikely Burke had been in that room, or locked the door after leaving her there.

vlpate,
If an R reasoned like this then its an example of dysfunctional thinking. Since as you suggested an investigator might think, how about he used the suitcase?

Also same reasoning allows: Burke was not in JonBenets room, since she was found in the latched wine-cellar, similarly JonBenet was not in Burkes room ...

The R's redressed JonBenet so to execute their Abduction Scenario, this was not required. JonBenet partially clothed, visibly sexually assaulted, lying in the wine-cellar, minus any blanket would have been just as effective, e.g. a bedtime abduction.

So why bother redressing her. I know it probably bought them some extra time, but how were they to know that in advance?

.
 
Excellent points.

Just to show I'm not a slave to Wecht's theory, I had a though regarding the head-blow coming first angle. And it was prompted me think quite seriously if that is what happened.

It goes like this:

1. JonBenet soils herself and Patsy has to go clean her up. She takes the flashlight to go get her changed etc. An altercation takes place. Patsy, in a split moment of rage hits JonBenet. JonBenet dies (or appears dead to Patsy).

2. Patsy panics. Does she call the police? What will she say? If the police come will she be arrested for murder? Patsy gets John for help. John convinces Patsy not to call the police -- if she does they could all be ruined ad she'll go to prison.

3. It's known that there was both acute and chronic sexual trauma in the genital region. Thus, that night and prior JonBenet was being molested. Assume it was the father. John, on seeing his daughter dead knows that if the police come and do an autopsy, the truth will come out. That will be disastrous for him -- a good 'family' man being caught doing such filth. That's what his overriding motive was for not calling the police. Patsy however was unaware of such abuse and felt that calling the police would implicate her solely. John somewhat encouraged that feeling in her. Patsy is none the wise. She thinks he's merely acting to help her.

4. They conspire to stage a crime to make it look like an evil intruder did all this horrible stuff. It explains their involvement. Assume in this instance that the garrotte was made for staging and it was also suggested by John to do this. It served thepurposes of giving a visible reason as to why/what the intruder did what they did since the headwound wasn't visible. They needed something shocking and 'external'. *if the autopsy came back at a later date and said she had being sexually abused, John would deny, deny, deny.But he did his best to remove any traces of his actions hence the new underwear and cleaning down etc.*

5. Patsy write the ransom note. Makes the police call. She is unaware of JonBenet's sexual abuse. She thinks only in terms of 'she killed her' and her life will be ruined if the truth comes out. John is aware of the full story. Each are trying to preserve their 'life' in their own way. John's reasons are more sinsiter.

6. This theory would also explain the pineapple and material found in JonBenet's bed: it was John who acted inappropriately to her that evening when putting her to bed hence the 'acute' injuries. Later on, just after midnight, after the commotion with Patsy/JonBenet, John is terrified his secret will come out when his daughter is accidentally killed by his wife. The pineapple could have been innocent -- JonBenet got it herself or was fed it. It could be much more -- it was her favourite food and perhaps a bribe to let stuff happen.


This scenario popped into my head.It does have flaws. One thing that is confusing to many RDI theorists is that forensic material from both parents was found in the crime scene in such a way to perhaps insinuate that both were involved, at the every least, with the cover up. The scenario above seemed to give it a valid explanation as to how both parents could be involved.

Just a thought/scenario I thought I'd share.

Let_Forever_Be,
Sure both parents are involved in the staging, the forensic evidence corroborates this. Burke Ramsey was also involved since he has remained silent, despite knowing his parents version of events is inconsistent with the forensic evidence, e.g. pinepple in JonBenet's stomach.

So assuming only one person killed JonBenet, the other two are accomplices after the fact.

What we are not certain about is the motive? IMO it was a sexually motivated homicide, it was no bedwetting issue, the R's never tried to hide that JonBenet had toileting issues, but her sexual assault was hidden, beneath layers of clothes.

If Patsy had redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, presumably she would have known what happened to the remaining size-12's? She said they should be in JonBenet's underwear drawer, but BPD said none were found!

Before she attended the interview, where she was asked about the size-12's, the R's knew JonBenet had been found wearing these, so if it was JR who redressed JonBenet, he said nothing on the topic, despite knowing Patsy would be questioned about this.

One of the R's abused JonBenet that fateful night, then she was whacked on the head, then she was strangled, wiped down, redressed and placed into the wine-cellar. I can think of only one reason why there was collusion to fake an abduction.


.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
2,037
Total visitors
2,133

Forum statistics

Threads
590,006
Messages
17,928,892
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top