Where did John go....

and what was he doing for the 1 hour & 20 minutes I read about in that other thread ([ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6093371&postcount=76"]http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6093371&postcount=76[/ame] )?

I know that it said he was checking the mail but...
Do we have a timeline or something for that 80 minutes?

Apologies if there's a thread somewhere else on this, I couldn't see it.

wonderllama said:

and what was he doing for the 1 hour & 20 minutes I read about in that other thread (http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6093371&postcount=76 )?

I know that it said he was checking the mail but...
Do we have a timeline or something for that 80 minutes?

Apologies if there's a thread somewhere else on this, I couldn't see it.

Click to expand...

I think you are referring to the mis-read report of LA? The spin put on this is that JR left the house to 'get his mail'. Not true apparently, and never actually stated by the Detective on the scene at the time. This is from the deposition by LA. The fact was, she lost sight of him, not that he left the scene.

"1 PROCEEDINGS

2 Linda Arndt,

3 having been first duly sworn, was examined and

4 testified as follows:

5 EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. HALABY:
(snip)

25 Q. And you had lost track of John Ramsey for a

1 period between 10:40 and twelve o'clock?

2 A. No.

3 Q. You didn't see him during that period of

4 time; is that correct?

5 A. No.

6 Q. It's not correct?

7 A. That is not correct.

8 Q. Didn't you report - all right. You said

9 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 he went out to pick up

10 the mail.

11 A. No.

12 Q. What did you say?

13 A. I believe I worded it in my report rather

14 vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in

15 the media are not the same. I said something during

16 that time frame I saw John reading his mail.

17 Q. We will get back to that later.

18 But there was a period when you lost

19 contact with him, is that right, personal contact with

20 him?

21 A. I did not watch John Ramsey the entire

22 time.

23 Q. Okay. But during this period you were



24 pretty much just standing around the Ramsey home there.

25 You weren't doing any specific investigation, isn't

1 that correct, between 8:00 and one o'clock?

2 A. That's not correct.

3 Q. What investigation were you conducting

4 between 8:00 and one o'clock?

5 A. From 8:00 to 10:00, monitoring the

6 telephone calls. There was a supervisor who was in

7 with a few detectives at that time. There were still

8 CSIs that we were directing. Fred and I were directing

9 their evidence collection from the house.

10 Q. Were you collecting evidence?

11 A. Not specific physical evidence.

12 Q. Okay. You were collecting evidence based

13 on your observations of people?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you were observing the demeanor of John

16 Ramsey during this period?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you have any suspicions at that point

19 in time?

20 A. With regard to - what kind?

21 Q. Prior to his coming up the stairs holding

22 the body of JonBenet, did you have any suspicions that



23 he might have been involved in the murder of JonBenet

24 as opposed to the fact that it appeared to be a

25 kidnapping at that time?

1 A. No."

So are you telling me that he didn't leave the house?
Or he didn't leave the house for 80 minutes?

I'm genuinely not sure about this and would like to have a definite answer.

wonderllama said:

So are you telling me that he didn't leave the house?
Or he didn't leave the house for 80 minutes?

I'm genuinely not sure about this and would like to have a definite answer.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that this rumour apparently arose from LA's report, but in her sworn deposition, she says she never said that he left the house to get his mail, only that she was not watching him the whole time, and that she later saw him reading "mail".

There was no suggestion by anyone else (that I'm aware of) that he ever left the house. I think she was the only police there after the CSI left. If you re-read the quote, she has no explanation herself for what she was doing at that time, only that she said was 'observing' LOL.

This detective basically botched the whole investigation with her incompetence and then compounded it with her totally untenable accusation against JR, based entirely on a "look" she supposedly detected in his eyes.

wonderllama said:

So are you telling me that he didn't leave the house?
Or he didn't leave the house for 80 minutes?

I'm genuinely not sure about this and would like to have a definite answer.

Click to expand...

There is nothing to indicate he ever actually left the house. Det. LA claimed she saw him looking through his mail and ASSUMED he had gone to get the mail during the almost 2 HOURS he was unaccounted for. However, what she didn't realize is that the R home had a mail slot in the front door! They NEVER had to "go get the mail". All they had to do was walk to the foyer and pick it up off the floor.
Many people (myself included) feel that JR had snuck down to the basement to move JB's body closer to the door of the WC. By then, livor mortis was fixed, so the body could be moved without forming a second pattern. But rigor mortis was also far enough along that she would be very rigid and her limbs not moveable with normal handling. So she would have been able to be moved, but the actual position her body was in would not be able to be changed. When rigor is broken manually (not easy to do) it does not re-form, so any coroner, examining a body dead that many hours with NO rigor or with rigor broken in some areas and not others, would know immediately that someone had broken it, and therefore handled the body and manipulated the crime scene.
The act of carrying her upstairs and laying her on the floor will NOT break rigor. She lay on the living room floor the same way she lay in the WC.

Thanks guys.

Did JonBenet have any fluids coming from her body that would have reached and pooled on the floor below her?

qtc said:

Did JonBenet have any fluids coming from her body that would have reached and pooled on the floor below her?

Click to expand...

qtc,
Yes and no. I think this one has been posed before and I mentioned fluid from her ears, and fluid from her nose, and initially fluid from her genital assault?

Others suggested none since she was dead, so fluids should remain static?


Staining from fluids can be made out on her white gap top in some of the autopsy photos.



.

IMO it's possible that's when he moved the body.
I still think it's impossible that FW opened the door and didn't see the body and JR saw it instantly.One of them is lying.If FW is telling the truth the body wasn't there when he checked.Maybe in the same room but not exposed.
And it's seems they told different stories re how the body was positioned as well.(Bonita papers)

madeleine said:

IMO it's possible that's when he moved the body.
I still think it's impossible that FW opened the door and didn't see the body and JR saw it instantly.One of them is lying.If FW is telling the truth the body wasn't there when he checked.Maybe in the same room but not exposed.
And it's seems they told different stories re how the body was positioned as well.(Bonita papers)

Click to expand...

Madeleine, there was something else that I find strange in the Bonita Papers. When Arndt mentioned (to FW) that he take JR on another tour of the house to look for evidence, Fleet told her that it might be better if she asked John herself. I have to wonder if Fleet already knew that something was wrong and John was aware of his suspicions? Why would he not want to make that suggestion to John? It's a harmless suggestion unless he already knew JB was dead or he had seen John doing something very suspicious.

joeskidbeck said:

Madeleine, there was something else that I find strange in the Bonita Papers. When Arndt mentioned (to FW) that he take JR on another tour of the house to look for evidence, Fleet told her that it might be better if she asked John herself. I have to wonder if Fleet already knew that something was wrong and John was aware of his suspicions? Why would he not want to make that suggestion to John? It's a harmless suggestion unless he already knew JB was dead or he had seen John doing something very suspicious.

Click to expand...

FW may have realized that JR was involved somehow and figured if HE asked him to have another look around with him, JR might be suspicious and/or refuse. Coming from LA, it was more of "I better do what she says because otherwise she'll want to know why". Of course, JR jumped at the chance.

qtc said:

Did JonBenet have any fluids coming from her body that would have reached and pooled on the floor below her?

Click to expand...

Nothing was found except the creatinine (urine) stains on the carpeted area on the basement near the paint tote. This was only a stain and not pooled urine. No pools of any fluids were found. The tan mucus found in her nostrils and the tan fluid on her cheek (which came from her mouth) were not in sufficient quantity to pool on the floor. Some of the fluid seeped onto her shirt on the part which was closest to her cheek- her head cocked to the right, so somewhere on the right shoulder or sleeve.
Nothing was found on the white blanket, either. No blood or urine or mucus.
JB's body was not yet in the stage of wet decomposition (also called putrification) where bodily fluids ooze from a corpse. Had that been the case, there would have been fluids pooled under her. She was still in the very early stages of decomposition.

DeeDee249 said:

Nothing was found except the creatinine (urine) stains on the carpeted area on the basement near the paint tote. This was only a stain and not pooled urine. No pools of any fluids were found. The tan mucus found in her nostrils and the tan fluid on her cheek (which came from her mouth) were not in sufficient quantity to pool on the floor. Some of the fluid seeped onto her shirt on the part which was closest to her cheek- her head cocked to the right, so somewhere on the right shoulder or sleeve.
Nothing was found on the white blanket, either. No blood or urine or mucus.
JB's body was not yet in the stage of wet decomposition (also called putrification) where bodily fluids ooze from a corpse. Had that been the case, there would have been fluids pooled under her. She was still in the very early stages of decomposition.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249,

There were bloodstains on the pink barbie nightgown which was not enclosed by the white blanket.


.

UKGuy said:

DeeDee249,

There were bloodstains on the pink barbie nightgown which was not enclosed by the white blanket.


.

Click to expand...

From the Bonita Papers:

They also found bundled inside the blanket a child's pink Burble nightgown. A red Swiss army knife was also found lying in the corner of the room away from the blanket. BBM

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5858"]The Bonita Papers - Forums For Justice[/ame]

I wonder if this could have been the reason behind JR's comment of "that wasn't supposed to be there"? Maybe static had attached it to the blanket and the "stager" did not see it.

UKGuy said:

DeeDee249,

There were bloodstains on the pink barbie nightgown which was not enclosed by the white blanket.


.

Click to expand...

I know about the blood on the pink nightie. But there was no blood on the white blanket. The above post (from the Bonita Papers) state the pink nightie was found bundled up inside the white blanket. Of course, in the only photos we have seen, it is laying on top of it. Bit we don't know if that was the only photo taken of the white blanket in situ, and I doubt it was. Is it written in any official LE report that the blanket was inside or on top of the blanket when police first came into the WC? FW of course, has to have seen whether it was inside or on top. JR allegedly unwrapped JB from the blanket when he found her, and FW was right behind him.
I wish we knew more about the blood on the nightie. How much? What part of the nightie? On the sleeve (where it could have seeped from her nose or mouth)? Or on the areas that would indicate it came from her vagina? We don't know. The blood on the pink nightie is the single thing that makes me have some doubt she put the longjohns on when she got home. If whatever caused her to bleed from the vagina also caused the blood to be on the nightie, then that is an argument for the longjohns and shirt being put on her after that injury. But because of the urine stains and the position down the front of the longjohns and panties, she was lying down on her stomach when she voided that urine, probably at death. The presence of the pink nightie is yet another frustrating piece of a puzzle that seems to have no way of solving.

DeeDee249 said:

I know about the blood on the pink nightie. But there was no blood on the white blanket. The above post (from the Bonita Papers) state the pink nightie was found bundled up inside the white blanket. Of course, in the only photos we have seen, it is laying on top of it. Bit we don't know if that was the only photo taken of the white blanket in situ, and I doubt it was. Is it written in any official LE report that the blanket was inside or on top of the blanket when police first came into the WC? FW of course, has to have seen whether it was inside or on top. JR allegedly unwrapped JB from the blanket when he found her, and FW was right behind him.
I wish we knew more about the blood on the nightie. How much? What part of the nightie? On the sleeve (where it could have seeped from her nose or mouth)? Or on the areas that would indicate it came from her vagina? We don't know. The blood on the pink nightie is the single thing that makes me have some doubt she put the longjohns on when she got home. If whatever caused her to bleed from the vagina also caused the blood to be on the nightie, then that is an argument for the longjohns and shirt being put on her after that injury. But because of the urine stains and the position down the front of the longjohns and panties, she was lying down on her stomach when she voided that urine, probably at death. The presence of the pink nightie is yet another frustrating piece of a puzzle that seems to have no way of solving.

Click to expand...

I think that if the nightie is bloodstained but not the blanket, then we can assume it was the nightie that was used to wipe the blood from her legs.

MurriFlower said:

I think that if the nightie is bloodstained but not the blanket, then we can assume it was the nightie that was used to wipe the blood from her legs.

Click to expand...

Not really. There were dark (though to be cotton) fibers all over her thighs, and in the folds of her labia. They did not come from her light colored longjohns or panties. The nightie was of a material that was not likely to shed, but that still doesn't explain the dark fibers. And there would have had to be sufficient blood noted on the nightie to make it suspected as what was used to wipe her.
We still don't know how much blood was on it. I have seen it described as "drops". Wiping would produce smears. Handling it with bloody hands may make a print or partial print in blood. But make no mistake- I agree the presence of blood on the nightie is suspicious and places it at the scene of the crime- either something she wore during the assault or something that was nearby at the time or nearby when she was wiped. If it came out of the dryer attached to the blanket by static cling (very possible) it had to be nearby when blood was shed or splattered or wiped. If we only knew where it happened. If only we could place her assault in a specific area. I have no problem placed her death as occurring on the floor of the basement, on the carpeted area near the paint tote. The anterior urine stains, as well as the urine on that carpet, have me fairly convinced that she died there, on her stomach, and then was moved to her back, where she was left and where within 15 minutes, livor formed to indicate that is how she remained. But where the vaginal injury occurred is something that hasn't been proven and is still a mystery to me.

Regardless of where he went, this seems like very odd behavior to me. His daughter is missing, there is a police officer, victim advocates and multiple friends present, but no one sees him for 80 minutes. Ring ring, clue phone. Sorry, but something is 'off' in this scenario. Wouldn't he have wanted to be immediately available, if a call came from the kidnappers? Sheesh, that's right, he knew there wouldn't be a call.

SunnieRN said:

Regardless of where he went, this seems like very odd behavior to me. His daughter is missing, there is a police officer, victim advocates and multiple friends present, but no one sees him for 80 minutes. Ring ring, clue phone. Sorry, but something is 'off' in this scenario. Wouldn't he have wanted to be immediately available, if a call came from the kidnappers? Sheesh, that's right, he knew there wouldn't be a call.

Click to expand...

SunnieRN,

Right call. Elementary dear Watson. You see the phone never rang!


.

SunnieRN said:

Regardless of where he went, this seems like very odd behavior to me. His daughter is missing, there is a police officer, victim advocates and multiple friends present, but no one sees him for 80 minutes. Ring ring, clue phone. Sorry, but something is 'off' in this scenario. Wouldn't he have wanted to be immediately available, if a call came from the kidnappers? Sheesh, that's right, he knew there wouldn't be a call.

Click to expand...

my bold

Is there a source for 'no one sees him for 80 minutes'? Do you have any statement from those people you mentioned, aside from LA, (victim advocates and multiple friends) as to whether he was present or not?

BTW this was also after the deadline for the call and even the CSI had left.