Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 187

Thread: The Wine Cellar

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    The odor at that point isn't THAT strong. Det. Arndt, being familiar with this kind of thing, recognized what at that point is more like a sickly- sweet odor. More like a person who hasn't bathed in a week or so. NOT like what the full-wet-decomposition odor would be. Putrefaction is a horrendous odor. Neighbors or passers-by would smell it. But JB was nowhere near that stage of decomposition.
    A lot of what Arndt smelled was the stale, dried urine too. That would also not be too strong. Kind of like a cloth diaper that had dried with urine in it. FW probably spent seconds, not minutes, looking in the WC. And he was undoubtedly stressed as anyone would be in that situation. The odor wasn't strong enough to hit him in the face. It isn't unusual that he didn't notice it.


    Ahhh, I get it now. This really helped me to sort out some things in my mind. Poor FW, Ive been at him hard and he didnt even do it (LOL) Yet I strongly believe that he knows who did. I bet it haunts him.
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  3. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I believe she was put in the WC because the Rs claimed she was kidnapped- knew police would come to he house, but they didn't think police would actually do a search. After all they said she was kidnapped- presumed NOT to be in the house.
    I feel what the Rs really planned to do was to wait till the police left, then at some point call them back and say she had been returned- dead- because they had called police.
    Bits removed from above quote...

    DeeDee, do you really think that given "they" said in their ransom letter not to talk to anyone or her remains wouldn't be returned that any "kidnapper" would risk returning to the house with a dead child and "deliver" her?

    This just strikes me as overkill...especially if the police were going to be keeping an eye on the place and then there's the neighbours who would supposedly keep a closer eye on things. Wouldn't someone notice a LACK of car delivering the body?

    Nah...I don't think they thought much beyond what happened to be honest.
    Smart in that they've got away with it, dumb in that it almost entirely relied on the incompetence of others to work.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wonderllama For This Useful Post:


  5. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I know the screens you speak of, but I don't believe they were placed over JB's body at any time. I don't what the point of that would be. I believe she was put in the WC because the Rs claimed she was kidnapped- knew police would come to he house, but they didn't think police would actually do a search. After all they said she was kidnapped- presumed NOT to be in the house.
    I feel what the Rs really planned to do was to wait till the police left, then at some point call them back and say she had been returned- dead- because they had called police.
    See- to me- this is how some of those puzzle pieces fit. The ransom note- yet the body being found in the house. Why hide the body only to "find" her after police come.
    But if their plan (after JB was fatally injured) was to claim she had been returned to them dead because they defied the note and called police that would seem (to them) that they could not be suspects, that no one could ever suspect they had done this because, after all- they were warned not to call anyone , yet they did, so OF COURSE, JB was killed.
    BUT- when it became apparent that police were NOT going to leave that day, and that they themselves might have to leave (and leave JB behind in the WC while the process of death made finding her ever so much more horrific) JR was forced to do what he did- "find" her himself.
    I think they couldn't just go away without finding her at that point. Though they were not experts on forensics, everyone knows what happens to a dead body as the hours (or days) pass. They couldn't let it go that long.
    Heyya DeeDee,

    There are not many items in the wine cellar to further hide JBR's body.
    A few screens piled at an angle do obstruct vision, so I wonered if her body could have been further hidden at one point in time. But regardless, the 'staging' ended with her wrapped in a blanket.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I feel what the Rs really planned to do was to wait till the police left, then at some point call them back and say she had been returned- dead-
    Like a drive by body dump off.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tadpole12 For This Useful Post:


  7. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    The important difference, is that FW looked around, inside the room, even if it was only near the door, for a light switch, and saw nothing!

    John said, as soon as he pulled open the door, he saw the white blanket and knew he had found her.

    First off, you couldn't see where JonBenet was, until you stepped forward, which he hadn't yet and in experiments, they proved his statements false.

    As for the smell, the wine cellar was not that small, it had a damp odor and JonBenet was wrapped up,

    If nothing else,FW MUST suspect John moved her from deeper within the room. Or, he can see through walls. What do they teach people at Subic Bay?
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:


  9. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,543
    this really sounds like BS to me.....
    IMO he KNOWS exactly what and how it happened.exactly.

    LOU SMIT: Just a couple of

    23 questions and these are just miscellaneous

    24 questions that I had. In what area of the house

    25 do you think that JonBenet received the injuries

    0727

    1 to her head? This is just from your own --

    2 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I guess my

    3 impression
    (impression based on what?) is that it was in the basement. But

    4 that's just purely an assumption. We didn't

    5 hear a thing. I think if she had cried out or

    6 -- you know, we would have heard that. I didn't

    7 know she had any head injury at all
    (WHEN didn't you know?). It

    8 wasn't -- I just didn't see --

    9 LOU SMIT: You had no knowledge?

    10 JOHN RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE

    11 RESPONSE.) I don't know. I just, that's

    12 something that's been difficult for me to think

    13 about it, is what exactly happened
    .

    14 LOU SMIT: And where?

    15 JOHN RAMSEY: And where.

    16 LOU SMIT: Do you think that the

    17 head injury occurred at the same place as the

    18 other injuries, say with the literature?

    19 JOHN RAMSEY: I mean it's just no

    20 reason to -- to know that. I mean I guess --

    21 well, like I say, I just
    -- that's very

    22 difficult to think about and imagine
    , but I

    23 wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her

    24 and after that they strangled her.



    they who?PR and BR?
    you know,this never crossed my mind....... PDI+BDI.....will think about it


    and "that's very difficult to think about and imagine" is ALWAYS his get-out line!whenever he says that it sounds to me like he actually doesn't wanna fall into a trap!annoying
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,543
    ughhhhh.....
    what was wrong with these cops?why did they never push or pursue a certain subject?i am so sure one of them would have cracked! and my bet would be on JR!yes.not her,she was way stronger.she played with the cops,she was bored by them,JR was scared.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  13. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
    Thank you for clearing that up for me. I swear it was FW that had been there for the wine. I made sure to change my notes (LOL) my notes are scribbles compared to yours.

    Cynic, let me ask you this-- I have also read that JR had bad eye-site thats why he had hired MA. I didnt keep that source in my notes and I could kick myself. But heres what I was wondering, if JR had bad eye-site how is it he saw JBR and FW didnt?

    UK, I so agree with you, FW knows a lot more then we think he does. I would give anything to see the notes that he took that day as well as his thoughts in the days that followed. His actions when he came up after JBR had been found, when he crouched by the table and dialled the 3 numbers and just hung up, curious to know your take on that.

    Also, shouldnt FW have smelled the decay in the room? Or would the smell have been different if she was father back in the room when he himself had looked in there?
    Agatha_C,
    Cynic, let me ask you this-- I have also read that JR had bad eye-site thats why he had hired MA. I didnt keep that source in my notes and I could kick myself. But heres what I was wondering, if JR had bad eye-site how is it he saw JBR and FW didnt?
    I agree, I also read something similar John's eyesight was not as good as it used to be. So he hired an air-pilot.

    if JR had bad eye-site how is it he saw JBR and FW didnt?
    Spot on. This conflicts with other personal theories, just like the barbie-nightgown, which was simply an oversight on the stagers part, e.g. static cling, and the explanation for it being missed: bad visibility!

    .

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  15. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,529
    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Wrapping in an outdoor setting is a more dramatic example of undoing, however, a cold, mildewy, dirty floor is also something to “protect” a child against.
    cynic,

    Well it looks to me as if the Wine-Cellar is a convenient location to hide a body, and the blanket is a convenient artifact for encapsulating the body and other crime-scene items so to carry them to the the interior of the Wine-Cellar. Job Done!

    Undoing, Redoing, to me these are prior subjective states of mind that I have no access to.

    After JonBenet being physically assaulted, whacked on the head, strangled, sexually molested, restrained with nylon cord etc, then placed into the Wine-Cellar. I fail to see why the blanket should assume any particular psychological significance, why not her size-12's, do these represent something in the mind of the stager?


    .

  16. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    So JR had bad eye site and needed reading glasses to boot. Yet he saw his daughters lifeless body on the floor of a pitch dark room and was able to read the RN in poor lighting without his glasses. OMG, JR is really Clark Kent/Superman and he was living right there in Boulder and no one knew it. Maybe we should call the Daily Planet.

    What a bunch of liars the Rs are. I wonder what it must be like to have to live with the reputation those two gave themselves, all while trying to save that very same reputation. Guess what JR, not only do we still see you and yours as guilty and liars. We now see you as Dumb A$$'s, idiots, jerks, slime and worse than beer can collectors, your the scum left in the bottom the trash cans used for recycling. You are/were dung beetles and human trash. I would rather be homeless than rich if this is what money makes of you.

    Sorry, I suddenly had to get that out of my system. The only thing that would feel better is knowing that he reads this.

    JR didnt need his eyes, he already knew she was in the WC (he helped to stage) and knew what was in that RN (He helped to write).
    Last edited by Agatha_C; 03-01-2011 at 03:21 PM.
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  18. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    UK,

    On page 88 of Steve Thomas' book he states that " When Cataracts diminished his vision, JR had to hire a private pilot."

    JR, had cateracts, and he could still see his child in the dark and read in poor lighting... LIARS!

    Heres a link to that page... http://books.google.com/books?id=daO...0Sr41xfJHhfxiA
    Last edited by Agatha_C; 03-01-2011 at 04:39 PM.
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  20. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    I have figured it out.. You can read better if you're in your underwear and on your hands and knees!
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  21. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  22. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,230
    I don't particulary like to use the word "hide" or "hidden" when it comes to the body being in the wine cellar.

    JonBenet's parents needed the body of their child to be found. The body had to be removed from the basement. I can't imagine either of them thought that far ahead to try to get rid of a dead body once the cops left.

    I've said over and over that the ransom note was a blueprint to explain why there was a dead body of a child in the house when the cops found it, and we know in time they had to find it.

    For all sense and purpose a ransom note addresses a kidnapping. The focus is mainly to get money in exchange for the person who has been taken. But when you get into reading the ransom note (really a letter) the emphsis does not appear to be on how to exchange the child for the money.

    There is much detail on how to obtain and prepare the money but little detail on the exchange. For instance the "kidnappers" tell the parents they will be contacted tomorrow. But the letter does not in any way make clear WHAT tomorrow the "kidnapper's" are refering to. There's not date on the letter, and no way in the details within the letterl do the "kidnappers" reference a day of the week that would indicate "tomorrow."

    That omission to me means the person composing the letter assumes the people reading the letter know what "tomorrow" means. The frame of reference for tomorrow, if this were a real kidnapping would be when the note is found and read by the parents, not when was written, if you are truly kidnapping a child and wanting money in exchange.

    Also in this ransom "letter" there is a lot written about how much hate there is toward John Ramsey. The letter goes above and beyond in the description of how John is the target for punishment by a "foreign" faction. To me, that part of the letter goes toward explaining why the child will be found dead.

    There was a great need by the Ramsey's for the body to be found. It is my opinion, very telling that we get one story from Fleet about his search and failure to see, smell or sense a dead body when he looked into the area. And yet when an official search is set up under the direction of LE, John finds his daughter almost immediately in an area that had been searched by another person.

    I can only draw one conclusion when I consider the different outcomes between the two seperate searches: the body was not in the wine cellar when Fleet went looking. Common sense tells us this. jmo
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to azwriter For This Useful Post:


  24. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
    I have figured it out.. You can read better if you're in your underwear and on your hands and knees!
    Agatha_C,


    Thats it the Ramsey reading method. Only canine posture and clean underwear required, perfect vision restored immediately.


    On page 88 of Steve Thomas' book he states that " When Cataracts diminished his vision, JR had to hire a private pilot."
    Yes, I remembered the cataracts, but did not trust my memory, bad cataracts seemed too severe.

    I knew someone who had bad cataracts and as the years went by his vision deteriorated to the point he had tunnel-vision only, and required help in reading the small print.

    So these claims about John seeing JonBenet instantly are similar to Patsy placing the size-12's into the underwear drawer, plausible yes, but dont quite match the physical evidence.

    So I reckon its safe to suggest, if John has impaired sight then, him redressing JonBenet in those size-12's is plausible?


    .
    .

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  26. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Agatha_C,


    Thats it the Ramsey reading method. Only canine posture and clean underwear required, perfect vision restored immediately.



    Yes, I remembered the cataracts, but did not trust my memory, bad cataracts seemed too severe.

    I knew someone who had bad cataracts and as the years went by his vision deteriorated to the point he had tunnel-vision only, and required help in reading the small print.

    So these claims about John seeing JonBenet instantly are similar to Patsy placing the size-12's into the underwear drawer, plausible yes, but dont quite match the physical evidence.

    So I reckon its safe to suggest, if John has impaired sight then, him redressing JonBenet in those size-12's is plausible?


    .
    .

    To me it makes perfect sense of many things.
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  28. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,529
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter View Post
    I don't particulary like to use the word "hide" or "hidden" when it comes to the body being in the wine cellar.

    JonBenet's parents needed the body of their child to be found. The body had to be removed from the basement. I can't imagine either of them thought that far ahead to try to get rid of a dead body once the cops left.

    I've said over and over that the ransom note was a blueprint to explain why there was a dead body of a child in the house when the cops found it, and we know in time they had to find it.

    For all sense and purpose a ransom note addresses a kidnapping. The focus is mainly to get money in exchange for the person who has been taken. But when you get into reading the ransom note (really a letter) the emphsis does not appear to be on how to exchange the child for the money.

    There is much detail on how to obtain and prepare the money but little detail on the exchange. For instance the "kidnappers" tell the parents they will be contacted tomorrow. But the letter does not in any way make clear WHAT tomorrow the "kidnapper's" are refering to. There's not date on the letter, and no way in the details within the letterl do the "kidnappers" reference a day of the week that would indicate "tomorrow."

    That omission to me means the person composing the letter assumes the people reading the letter know what "tomorrow" means. The frame of reference for tomorrow, if this were a real kidnapping would be when the note is found and read by the parents, not when was written, if you are truly kidnapping a child and wanting money in exchange.

    Also in this ransom "letter" there is a lot written about how much hate there is toward John Ramsey. The letter goes above and beyond in the description of how John is the target for punishment by a "foreign" faction. To me, that part of the letter goes toward explaining why the child will be found dead.

    There was a great need by the Ramsey's for the body to be found. It is my opinion, very telling that we get one story from Fleet about his search and failure to see, smell or sense a dead body when he looked into the area. And yet when an official search is set up under the direction of LE, John finds his daughter almost immediately in an area that had been searched by another person.

    I can only draw one conclusion when I consider the different outcomes between the two seperate searches: the body was not in the wine cellar when Fleet went looking. Common sense tells us this. jmo
    azwriter,
    Seems more likely to me. I'm going to factor it into my RDI theory, along with the barbie nightgown and doll. For me its a staged homicide thats gone wrong. This why I use the word hide its in the same sense as JonBenet's molestation and assault is hidden beneath the longjohns and size-12's.

    Someone initially staged JonBenet postmortem. John comes along and changes certain features of the staging e.g. removes the barbie-nightgown and doll. Eventually wrapping her up in the blanket and moving her to the wine-cellar where she is hidden. e.g. she is not lying in a bedroom beneath a sheet or blanket. If being found is the rationale then why place her at the bottom of the house in a wine-cellar?

    It seems as if the original staging may have portrayed JonBenet as assaulted and killed in bed hence the barbie nightgown and doll. This might favor PDI as the correct theory. With John cleaning up with an ulterior motive?

    .

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  30. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,663
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderllama View Post
    Bits removed from above quote...

    DeeDee, do you really think that given "they" said in their ransom letter not to talk to anyone or her remains wouldn't be returned that any "kidnapper" would risk returning to the house with a dead child and "deliver" her?

    This just strikes me as overkill...especially if the police were going to be keeping an eye on the place and then there's the neighbours who would supposedly keep a closer eye on things. Wouldn't someone notice a LACK of car delivering the body?

    Nah...I don't think they thought much beyond what happened to be honest.
    Smart in that they've got away with it, dumb in that it almost entirely relied on the incompetence of others to work.

    Well, REAL kidnppers wouldn't return to "deliver" a child or body- but I feel this is what the R planned to SAY. They planned to call LE and say that JB had been returned, but she was returned dead. It was a way of explaining both her disappearance (she was kidnapped) and death (she was killed because the defied the RN).
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  32. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
    So JR had bad eye site and needed reading glasses to boot. Yet he saw his daughters lifeless body on the floor of a pitch dark room and was able to read the RN in poor lighting without his glasses. OMG, JR is really Clark Kent/Superman and he was living right there in Boulder and no one knew it. Maybe we should call the Daily Planet.

    What a bunch of liars the Rs are. I wonder what it must be like to have to live with the reputation those two gave themselves, all while trying to save that very same reputation. Guess what JR, not only do we still see you and yours as guilty and liars. We now see you as Dumb A$$'s, idiots, jerks, slime and worse than beer can collectors, your the scum left in the bottom the trash cans used for recycling. You are/were dung beetles and human trash. I would rather be homeless than rich if this is what money makes of you.

    Sorry, I suddenly had to get that out of my system. The only thing that would feel better is knowing that he reads this.

    JR didnt need his eyes, he already knew she was in the WC (he helped to stage) and knew what was in that RN (He helped to write).
    Not only did he see her in the dark, but through a wall and door! He yelled out prior to even entering the room enough to see where the body was placed. I think you should call the daily planet and the National Enquirer. lol

    As for helping write the RN, it makes sense, as the style changes throughout the note. Written by one person, engineered by two.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  33. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:


  34. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,230
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    azwriter,
    Seems more likely to me. I'm going to factor it into my RDI theory, along with the barbie nightgown and doll. For me its a staged homicide thats gone wrong. This why I use the word hide its in the same sense as JonBenet's molestation and assault is hidden beneath the longjohns and size-12's.

    Someone initially staged JonBenet postmortem. John comes along and changes certain features of the staging e.g. removes the barbie-nightgown and doll. Eventually wrapping her up in the blanket and moving her to the wine-cellar where she is hidden. e.g. she is not lying in a bedroom beneath a sheet or blanket. If being found is the rationale then why place her at the bottom of the house in a wine-cellar?

    It seems as if the original staging may have portrayed JonBenet as assaulted and killed in bed hence the barbie nightgown and doll. This might favor PDI as the correct theory. With John cleaning up with an ulterior motive?

    .
    You have a point, but I'm sticking with the idea of the nightgown being attached to the blanket by static when taken from the dryer. There's a dryer in the basement, along with paint brushes. I think the staging was done in the basement using what could be found there. jmo
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to azwriter For This Useful Post:


  36. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,663
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter View Post
    You have a point, but I'm sticking with the idea of the nightgown being attached to the blanket by static when taken from the dryer. There's a dryer in the basement, along with paint brushes. I think the staging was done in the basement using what could be found there. jmo
    I have to say this makes about the most sense to me, too. But the bloodstains on the pink nightie are troubling to me. If the static cling theory is correct, how did the blood get there? The only way is if she was wiped down when lying ON the white blanket in the WC and some blood inadvertently splattered on the nightie. JR saw the photo and the first thing he said was "that wasn't supposed to be there" when he saw the nightie. I have always been amazed that LE didn't jump all over that statement. Of COURSE it wasn't suppose to be there. Neither was the white blanket and neither was the dead little girl.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  38. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    The blood on the nightgown was a small amount. I would imagine, because of that blood, it was supposed to have disappeared along with JonBenets undies, that actually fit her, as well as the remaining piece of the paintbrush.

    The fact that John made the statement that he did, proves prior knowledge, which also is proof of obstructing justice by disturbing the evidence of a crime. Either that, or he is guiltier than I think. Either way, he should have been interrogated, as well as Patsy.

    BPD should have leaked the truth as the DA's office leaked their bullpucky! It may have been a much different outcome and justice for JonBenet.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:


  40. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,529
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter View Post
    You have a point, but I'm sticking with the idea of the nightgown being attached to the blanket by static when taken from the dryer. There's a dryer in the basement, along with paint brushes. I think the staging was done in the basement using what could be found there. jmo
    azwriter,

    That makes sense if you are thinking that the main objective of staging is driven by the eventual placement of JonBenet into the wine-cellar?

    I do not think that this was the original plan, someone changed it, and moved JonBenet along with some crime-scene artifacts into the wine-cellar.

    I have never ever thought that the barbie nightgown arrived in the wine-cellar accidentally, then when you include the barbie doll, and note that the barbie nightgown is bloodstained then the probability that both these items arrived, by accident, in the course of a cleanup/staging event starts falling to close to zero!

    It is possible that the nightgown bloodstains are a result of cross-contamination, the extent of any bloodstains on the white blanket has not been detailed?

    Someone else staged JonBenet's death wearing the barbie nightgown, with her barbie doll lying close by.

    This was then changed, probably as a result of opting for the abduction scenario, for some reason, the nightgown and doll could not be left at the prior location, either because it was bloodstained or simply out of context e.g. the kitchen?

    This is hinted at by the removal of the size-6 underwear but not the nightgown or doll.


    .

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  42. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,529
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I have to say this makes about the most sense to me, too. But the bloodstains on the pink nightie are troubling to me. If the static cling theory is correct, how did the blood get there? The only way is if she was wiped down when lying ON the white blanket in the WC and some blood inadvertently splattered on the nightie. JR saw the photo and the first thing he said was "that wasn't supposed to be there" when he saw the nightie. I have always been amazed that LE didn't jump all over that statement. Of COURSE it wasn't suppose to be there. Neither was the white blanket and neither was the dead little girl.
    DeeDee249,
    Exactly, so how come? static cling along with John's poor eyesight might, at a stretch, explain the nightgown away, but the barbie doll. Was that also transferred by static cling?

    Blood may have transferred from the white blanket to the nightgown, but I have never seen any analysis of any bloodstains on the white blanket. This is why I have asked previously was the blanket urine stained?

    Applying occam, this is a staging gone wrong, with JonBenet quickly bundled into the blanket along with associated items, and hidden in the wine-cellar.

    As you suggest either she was to be discovered by one of the parents later that day or even dumped somewhere outdoors to be found?

    If the nightgown and doll can be left behind why not her size-6 underwear? What distinguishes them, say in the stagers mind, not much, both might be bloodstained. They may even be urine-stained alike the longjohns and size-12's, so why bother?

    What would be interesting would be knowing if the source of the bloodstains on JonBenet's white top/shirt are the same as that on the barbie nightgown?


    .

  43. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  44. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,543
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    I have never ever thought that the barbie nightgown arrived in the wine-cellar accidentally
    .
    ITA

    JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't be, no,
    6 it would be unusual for her to have those on.
    7 Leggings, kind of just a regular nightgown. She
    8 didn't always wear a nightgown to bed. If she
    9 was awake when she went to bed, she got into a
    10 nightgown
    and brushed her teeth, got into bed.
    11 But if she was asleep, we usually just tried to
    12 make her comfortable, make sure she was warm.
    13 Didn't go into the trouble of getting her into a
    14 nightgown, necessarily. Sometimes she had a tee
    15 shirt on.


    JOHN RAMSEY: I laid her on the
    21 bed. I didn't -- I don't remember the cover,
    22 if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on
    23 the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up
    24 to put her nightgown
    on and get her ready for
    25 bed.
    0498



    LOU SMIT: We have heard
    16 that a Barbie nightgown was one of her
    17 favorite nightgowns. What can you tell us
    18 about that?
    19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think she had a
    20 Barbie nightgown, yeah, as I recall. Pink,
    21 maybe.
    22 LOU SMIT: The night you put
    23 her in bed, do you remember anything about
    24 a Barbie nightgown?
    25 JOHN RAMSEY: When I put
    0686
    1 her to bed she had on, when I laid her
    2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
    3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
    4 shirt on when I found her.






    why does JR feel the need to reassure us that


    "when I laid her
    2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
    3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
    4 shirt on when I found her."


    it's either she was put to bed in her nightgown and something happened during the night
    or
    she never went to bed


    when she was redressed in the basement,they/he/she didn't only change her panties but the bloody nightgown as well (is this why JR said it shouldn't have been down there?why if it was taken to the laundry,normal for it to have been there......IMO they forgot to get rid of it)
    blood on the panties,blood on the gown but not on the clothes she wore the night before at the party nor on the blanket


    IMO part of the staging are the blanket and the clothes she was found in
    Last edited by madeleine; 03-02-2011 at 08:36 AM.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  45. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  46. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    So, did they ask Patsy if she ever went in and got JB ready for bed, put on her nightgown, etc., as JR says he knew she was going to do:

    JOHN RAMSEY: I laid her on the
    21 bed. I didn't -- I don't remember the cover,
    22 if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on
    23 the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up
    24 to put her nightgown on and get her ready for
    25 bed.
    0498

    If JR said she was found in those same clothes, then PR supposedly couldn't have done that. What did Patsy say she did when she got home?

  47. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    If JR said she was found in those same clothes, then PR supposedly couldn't have done that. What did Patsy say she did when she got home?
    Patsy said she took off JB's black velvet pants. She did not mention socks or the black velvet vest JB was also said to have worn that day. Patsy claimed she looked around for the pink pajama bottoms JB had worn on Christmas Eve (she is seen wearing the top in the Christmas Morning photos) but couldn't find them. There is a pink garment said to be the pink pajama top seen on JB's bed in the crime photo. Patsy said JB kept pajamas under her pillow (a lot of girls do this). Also seen in the crime photo of the bed is that the pillow is pulled away from the head of the bed- a very expected sight if Patsy had pulled the pillow away to get the pajamas. Yet, the R's (and LS) jumped all over this as a way of saying "look- she was pulled from her bed- look at the pillow" when it was Patsy who pulled that pillow away.
    After not finding the pink pajama bottoms, Patsy said she looked in a drawer and found the longjohns. They are thin cotton thermal weave, so they are perfect for sleeping anyway.
    Patsy said she left JB in the shirt she wore to the White's, after first saying she wore a red turtleneck. But when shown photos of the White's party by police, she had to admit that JB was wearing the white top.
    There has been confusion about the pink pajama bottoms- they were said to have been found in BR's room- an indication she may have actually put THOSE on Christmas night instead of the longjohns. As far as I know, I have seen nothing written about the pink pajama tops OR bottoms, do not know if police found them, took them or anything. And I have not seen that the pink garment seen on JB's bed actually was the pink top. Police took the sheets- that we know. Anything else- not sure.
    The pink bottoms are a key piece of evidence. If they were found with urine stains, it would mean that she had to have put them on THAT night when she got home, and had an accident in them. Because if she had wet them the previous night, she wouldn't have had them on the next morning for the Christmas morning photos. I'd also like to know if THEY had any blood on them. Where are they NOW? Anyone know?
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  48. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. JB/wine cellar
    By madeleine in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-01-2014, 11:38 PM
  2. What's in this cellar room photo?
    By KoldKase in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 409
    Last Post: 11-07-2013, 12:57 AM
  3. Wine Cellar Top Door Latch
    By calicocat in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-13-2006, 11:55 AM
  4. Cellar-slay mom abused
    By mysteriew in forum Crimes in the News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2005, 06:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •