Questions I Have Not Found Answers To

Matt21 · Jan 26, 2013

Would anyone mind answering some questions I have about the case? Ive been reading and searching this site for a month or so now, and I thought it might be quicker to just ask, especially since Im having trouble corroborating certain facts. I am behind on the case and not quite as seasoned as posters here appear to be, so please bear with me. Please don't hesitate to respond if you only know 1 or 2 answers.

1. One of the Ramseys neighbors said they heard a scream the night of the murder, but then I read that they took it back and that they had never heard any scream. Does anyone know what the truth is? Or why the said this?

2. Was anyone ever apprehended for the large amount of break-ins in the neighborhood before Dec.26th?

3. John Ramsey showered right before Patsy found the ransom note. Was the bathroom and shower ever checked for any kind of evidence?

4. Did the Ramseys own or ever see the movies Dirty Harry, Ruthless People?

5. Does anyone know if John had any knowledge about police procedures regarding crime scenes?

6. Looking at the floor plans and pictures of the Ramsey house in Boulder, wouldn't it be possible for an intruder to have broken in and waited for the family to come home and go to bed without being detected? Would anyone on the 3rd or 4th floor really hear someone sneaking around in the basement?

7. Were The Ramseys or their friends checked before they left the home in Boulder on Boxing Day?

8. Is it really true that the Ramseys phone records were never looked at? How is that possible?

9. I heard blood droplets that were unmatched to anyone were found in Jonbenets underwear. Is this true? Wouldnt this prove there was an intruder?

10. I may be wrong, but I thought DNA belonging to an unknown male was found near the very beginning. Some say this DNA does not matter. Why wouldnt it matter?

11. It was reported Jonbenet had signs of prior vaginal trauma. Then I heard or read that this was untrue. Which is it? How do we know what to believe?

12. In the mid 2000s, John and Patsy were on Larry King to which they responded to a female caller who I believe asked them 2 questions. After John responded to the first question (though he dodged the core of it) he lied and said he couldnt hear the perfectly audible second one. Patsy then chimed in defensively, to what ended up being another lie. Here we have both John & Patsy unquestionably lying. Their speech and demeanor doesn't change and also appears to be consistent with other television interviews. If examined, can anything be gained or learned from this? Remember when this aired, how easily they lied?

13. I've never read any of the books based on this case. Is there one that is accurate and fair? If you had to recommend only one book, which would it be? And would you please state whether the book recommended shows pictures of Jonbenets crime scene or autopsy...I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEM. Thank you.

UKGuy · Jan 26, 2013

Matt21 said:
Would anyone mind answering some questions I have about the case? Ive been reading and searching this site for a month or so now, and I thought it might be quicker to just ask, especially since Im having trouble corroborating certain facts. I am behind on the case and not quite as seasoned as posters here appear to be, so please bear with me. Please don't hesitate to respond if you only know 1 or 2 answers.

1. One of the Ramseys neighbors said they heard a scream the night of the murder, but then I read that they took it back and that they had never heard any scream. Does anyone know what the truth is? Or why the said this?

2. Was anyone ever apprehended for the large amount of break-ins in the neighborhood before Dec.26th?

3. John Ramsey showered right before Patsy found the ransom note. Was the bathroom and shower ever checked for any kind of evidence?

4. Did the Ramseys own or ever see the movies Dirty Harry, Ruthless People?

5. Does anyone know if John had any knowledge about police procedures regarding crime scenes?

6. Looking at the floor plans and pictures of the Ramsey house in Boulder, wouldn't it be possible for an intruder to have broken in and waited for the family to come home and go to bed without being detected? Would anyone on the 3rd or 4th floor really hear someone sneaking around in the basement?

7. Were The Ramseys or their friends checked before they left the home in Boulder on Boxing Day?

8. Is it really true that the Ramseys phone records were never looked at? How is that possible?

9. I heard blood droplets that were unmatched to anyone were found in Jonbenets underwear. Is this true? Wouldnt this prove there was an intruder?

10. I may be wrong, but I thought DNA belonging to an unknown male was found near the very beginning. Some say this DNA does not matter. Why wouldnt it matter?

11. It was reported Jonbenet had signs of prior vaginal trauma. Then I heard or read that this was untrue. Which is it? How do we know what to believe?

12. In the mid 2000s, John and Patsy were on Larry King to which they responded to a female caller who I believe asked them 2 questions. After John responded to the first question (though he dodged the core of it) he lied and said he couldnt hear the perfectly audible second one. Patsy then chimed in defensively, to what ended up being another lie. Here we have both John & Patsy unquestionably lying. Their speech and demeanor doesn't change and also appears to be consistent with other television interviews. If examined, can anything be gained or learned from this? Remember when this aired, how easily they lied?

13. I've never read any of the books based on this case. Is there one that is accurate and fair? If you had to recommend only one book, which would it be? And would you please state whether the book recommended shows pictures of Jonbenets crime scene or autopsy...I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEM. Thank you.

Matt21,
I found JonBenet Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas an excellent introduction to the case. Also I've heard good reviews about James Kolar's book Foreign Faction, he analyses the facts and introduces new forensic evidence. There are no images in Steve Thomas' book.

Most of your questions have answers that do not really bear on the case. e.g.

1. There may have been a scream. But was it JonBenet or the local cat?

2. Who knows, who cares?

3. Yes.

4. Some say yes.

5. Yes, he had interacted with the police before.

6. Yes.

7. No.

8. Maybe nobody asked to see them, or special privileges were claimed. Anyway for those that know, these calls are still available, since the USofA intelligence agencies archive all that stuff!

9. The blood droplets were JonBenet's, but they contained unidentified touch-dna, i.e. not DNA!

10. If its not identified it cannot matter, since its origin and role are indeterminate.

11. Read the autopsy report. JonBenet had been internally assaulted. The phrase vaginal trauma is politically correct speech, which avoids any reference to incest. The short answer is yes, JonBenet displayed signs of chronic molestation.

.

dodie20 · Jan 26, 2013

Matt21 said:
Would anyone mind answering some questions I have about the case? I’ve been reading and searching this site for a month or so now, and I thought it might be quicker to just ask, especially since I’m having trouble corroborating certain facts. I am behind on the case and not quite as seasoned as posters here appear to be, so please bear with me. Please don't hesitate to respond if you only know 1 or 2 answers.

1. One of the Ramseys neighbors said they heard a scream the night of the murder, but then I read that they took it back and that they had never heard any scream. Does anyone know what the truth is? Or why the said this?

2. Was anyone ever apprehended for the large amount of break-ins in the neighborhood before Dec.26th?

3. John Ramsey showered right before Patsy found the ransom note. Was the bathroom and shower ever checked for any kind of evidence?

4. Did the Ramsey’s own or ever see the movies Dirty Harry, Ruthless People?

5. Does anyone know if John had any knowledge about police procedures regarding crime scenes?

6. Looking at the floor plans and pictures of the Ramsey house in Boulder, wouldn't it be possible for an intruder to have broken in and waited for the family to come home and go to bed without being detected? Would anyone on the 3rd or 4th floor really hear someone sneaking around in the basement?

7. Were The Ramseys or their friends checked before they left the home in Boulder on Boxing Day?

8. Is it really true that the Ramseys phone records were never looked at? How is that possible?

9. I heard blood droplets that were unmatched to anyone were found in Jonbenet’s underwear. Is this true? Wouldn’t this prove there was an intruder?

10. I may be wrong, but I thought DNA belonging to an unknown male was found near the very beginning. Some say this DNA does not matter. Why wouldn’t it matter?

11. It was reported Jonbenet had signs of prior vaginal trauma. Then I heard or read that this was untrue. Which is it? How do we know what to believe?

12. In the mid 2000s, John and Patsy were on Larry King to which they responded to a female caller who I believe asked them 2 questions. After John responded to the first question (though he dodged the core of it) he lied and said he couldn’t hear the perfectly audible second one. Patsy then chimed in defensively, to what ended up being another lie. Here we have both John & Patsy unquestionably lying. Their speech and demeanor doesn't change and also appears to be consistent with other television interviews. If examined, can anything be gained or learned from this? Remember when this aired, how easily they lied?

13. I've never read any of the books based on this case. Is there one that is accurate and fair? If you had to recommend only one book, which would it be? And would you please state whether the book recommended shows pictures of Jonbenets crime scene or autopsy...I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEM. Thank you.

I'll take a try at a couple of these. 1. from my understanding, the neighbor reported hearing a scream, (with believable detail), then recanted, and then went back to her original statement. Although this made her unreliable, her husband backed up her story and he's the neighbor who reported the metal on concrete sound. 6., it's possible, but there were no signs of a break-in. 11. Medical examiners found signs of prior abuse, but the R's denied this...which was weird, because no one accused them specifically. I would think they would have wanted to know who assaulted their daughter, and therefore point to the murderer. 13. I would recommend starting with 'JonBenet: The Police Files'. It's full of interviews, word for word, so the reader can decide for himself, what he thinks about the Rs. Moo

eileenhawkeye · Jan 26, 2013

For #2, I don't believe the neighborhood burglars were ever caught. IDI's like to think it's "suspicious" that the break-ins stopped after JonBenet's murder, but if I was robbing people's homes at night, and then a child is murdered in her home in the same neighborhood, there is no way that I would continue.

dodie20 · Jan 26, 2013

eileenhawkeye said:
For #2, I don't believe the neighborhood burglars were ever caught. IDI's like to think it's "suspicious" that the break-ins stopped after JonBenet's murder, but if I was robbing people's homes at night, and then a child is murdered in her home in the same neighborhood, there is no way that I would continue.

Well, the neighborhood would be crawling with cops and the homeowners would beef up their securities, so why would a burglar take a chance of getting caught and being forced to explain how he was just a burglar but not a murderer. Can you imagine the fear of the guy doing this? My father in law got caught up in a similar situation. He wasn't committing crimes, but had sold a car to a guy who didn't pay up. My FIL still had the title, so when the car's license plates were found at a mass murder site, the FBI came looking for him. They pulled him out of his job as a high school coach and interrogated him. He said they were hardcore and meant business, and this big, burly 6 ft 3 man, was scared out of his wits. They finally got this straightened out, (after several interviews), so the FBI went after the car buyer. They found him in California,(this all happened in Texas), but it ends up he didn't commit the murders either. He had ditched the plates in case my FIL reported the car stolen. So, in a case where you know ahead of time that you could get caught up in serious business, it would be smart to run, don't walk.

DeeDee249 · Jan 26, 2013

Christmas night is NOT the night to rob a home, IMO. Nearly all families are home that night. The Rs reported no robbery when they arrived home. There was NO sign of forced entry.

SunnieRN · Jan 27, 2013

7) Not only were the R's and their friends not checked, but later PR's sister was allowed to wear a police jacket and remove items (many items), from the house, without them being checked.

One odd thing John wanted was a specific bag/set of golf clubs. Since it was winter, why did John need his golf clubs so swiftly? IMHO, a golf bag could hold a lot, or even a single crucial piece of evidence.

wengr · Jan 27, 2013

SunnieRN said:
One odd thing John wanted was a specific bag/set of golf clubs. Since it was winter, why did John need his golf clubs so swiftly? IMHO, a golf bag could hold a lot, or even a single crucial piece of evidence.

Do we know the exact make and model of golf clubs that were removed? And did the RST have a copy of the autopsy report prior to thier removal?

Anyhoo · Jan 28, 2013

Matt21 said:
Would anyone mind answering some questions I have about the case? Ive been reading and searching this site for a month or so now, and I thought it might be quicker to just ask, especially since Im having trouble corroborating certain facts. I am behind on the case and not quite as seasoned as posters here appear to be, so please bear with me. Please don't hesitate to respond if you only know 1 or 2 answers.

1. One of the Ramseys neighbors said they heard a scream the night of the murder, but then I read that they took it back and that they had never heard any scream. Does anyone know what the truth is? Or why the said this?

2. Was anyone ever apprehended for the large amount of break-ins in the neighborhood before Dec.26th?

3. John Ramsey showered right before Patsy found the ransom note. Was the bathroom and shower ever checked for any kind of evidence?

4. Did the Ramseys own or ever see the movies Dirty Harry, Ruthless People?

5. Does anyone know if John had any knowledge about police procedures regarding crime scenes?

6. Looking at the floor plans and pictures of the Ramsey house in Boulder, wouldn't it be possible for an intruder to have broken in and waited for the family to come home and go to bed without being detected? Would anyone on the 3rd or 4th floor really hear someone sneaking around in the basement?

7. Were The Ramseys or their friends checked before they left the home in Boulder on Boxing Day?

8. Is it really true that the Ramseys phone records were never looked at? How is that possible?

9. I heard blood droplets that were unmatched to anyone were found in Jonbenets underwear. Is this true? Wouldnt this prove there was an intruder?

10. I may be wrong, but I thought DNA belonging to an unknown male was found near the very beginning. Some say this DNA does not matter. Why wouldnt it matter?

11. It was reported Jonbenet had signs of prior vaginal trauma. Then I heard or read that this was untrue. Which is it? How do we know what to believe?

12. In the mid 2000s, John and Patsy were on Larry King to which they responded to a female caller who I believe asked them 2 questions. After John responded to the first question (though he dodged the core of it) he lied and said he couldnt hear the perfectly audible second one. Patsy then chimed in defensively, to what ended up being another lie. Here we have both John & Patsy unquestionably lying. Their speech and demeanor doesn't change and also appears to be consistent with other television interviews. If examined, can anything be gained or learned from this? Remember when this aired, how easily they lied?

13. I've never read any of the books based on this case. Is there one that is accurate and fair? If you had to recommend only one book, which would it be? And would you please state whether the book recommended shows pictures of Jonbenets crime scene or autopsy...I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEM. Thank you.

10. It wouldn't matter if someone had predetermined that a Ramsey killed JBR and the DNA did not support this conclusion.

13. I just finished reading Presumed Guilty by Stephen Singular and I was profoundly dissapointed by this book. I had read interesting snippets of it in various places so I thought to get the entire book to see if it held any insights. Alas, it did not.

wonderllama · Jan 28, 2013

#12 - That female caller was our very own Tricia Griffith!

And yes, they conveniently didn't hear the second part of the call and actually made up the answer to the first bit.

Matt21 · Jan 29, 2013

UKGuy

UKGuy said:
Matt21,
I found JonBenet Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas an excellent introduction to the case. Also I've heard good reviews about James Kolar's book Foreign Faction, he analyses the facts and introduces new forensic evidence. There are no images in Steve Thomas' book.

Thanks for the recommendation and info.

UKGuy said:
Most of your questions have answers that do not really bear on the case. e.g.

Sorry...Im sure everyone here probably absorbed all this over a decade ago, but 75-80% is new to me.

UKGuy said:
7. No.

7. I find this one absolutely crazy as hell. So they...the father brings his dead daughter upstairs and then him and his wife drive away. I mean, I thought they were suspected immediately, so why let them just walk away? Not to mention the other 5-7 possible suspects who were in the home with them.

UKGuy said:
10. If its not identified it cannot matter, since its origin and role are indeterminate.

10. I understand what youre saying, but what Ive heard and read is the DNA, whether or not it ever becomes identified, is not as important in this case. Im 100% positive Ive come across different people stating this fact. Though I dont understand why this DNA would not be important.

Dodie20

dodie20 said:
1. from my understanding, the neighbor reported hearing a scream, (with believable detail), then recanted, and then went back to her original statement. Although this made her unreliable, her husband backed up her story and he's the neighbor who reported the metal on concrete sound.

I always had a hard time believing this woman heard any scream, that is after her initial statements. Didnt she change the story a few times? I felt that maybe she wanted to be included in the case, but then if she is was honest, there could be a more accurate time of death. Thank you for recommending a book.

eileenhawkeye

eileenhawkeye said:
For #2, I don't believe the neighborhood burglars were ever caught. IDI's like to think it's "suspicious" that the break-ins stopped after JonBenet's murder, but if I was robbing people's homes at night, and then a child is murdered in her home in the same neighborhood, there is no way that I would continue.

yes that is a good point, but I was just curious if there was anyone caught, at least just to be eliminated as a suspect.

SunnieRN

SunnieRN said:
7) Not only were the R's and their friends not checked, but later PR's sister was allowed to wear a police jacket and remove items (many items), from the house, without them being checked.

I dont understand what the motivations were back at the time. Within everything Ive watched, read or heard about the case, the Rs were suspects almost immediately. Even if they werent, would this type of treatment be allowed?

SunnieRN said:
One odd thing John wanted was a specific bag/set of golf clubs. Since it was winter, why did John need his golf clubs so swiftly? IMHO, a golf bag could hold a lot, or even a single crucial piece of evidence.

Yes, that is very odd. What happened to these golf clubs? Id be extremely suspicious regarding this aspect, and more so if they disappeared. A golf bag could hold a lot of evidence, and a golf club could crack a head open I bet.

Anyhoo

Anyhoo said:
13. I just finished reading Presumed Guilty by Stephen Singular and I was profoundly dissapointed by this book. I had read interesting snippets of it in various places so I thought to get the entire book to see if it held any insights. Alas, it did not.

Okay, thank you for the warning regarding the book...I appreciate it.

wonderllama

wonderllama said:
#12 - That female caller was our very own Tricia Griffith!

And yes, they conveniently didn't hear the second part of the call and actually made up the answer to the first bit.

Oh really! She posts here? Tell her I said good work.
If I remember correctly, my suspicions towards the Ramseys began with their first interview, but a couple of turning points for me were the interview with detective Linda Arndt, and then that 1 minute of Larry King with the phone call.

I know its just wishful thinking, but since the Rs are on camera undoubtedly lying, is there some behaviour analysis that could be compared with their earlier interviews to detect what they lied about back then?

Nom de plume · Jan 29, 2013

Matt, Tricia Griffith owns WS. She also has a great radio show called "Tricia's True Crime" that's on Sunday nights at 8 pm ET.

With regards to the DNA and some being more important than other. There are two types of DNA. If you shake hands with me you will leave your DNA on my hand (and vice versa). If I then touch person X, that you have never even met, on the shoulder, I will leave not only my DNA on their shirt, dress, whatever, I will also leave your "touch DNA". So in effect, your DNA is now on a person that you do not have anything to do with. Touch DNA is what was found under JBR's fingernails, in the crotch of the size 12 Bloomies, and on the waistband of the underwear and the longjohns. There was actually touch DNA from 5 males and 1 female. It's not viewed as "important" evidence, by anyone other than IDI, because it could have come from anywhere. Now don't ask me how the experts know the difference between DNA and Touch DNA because I haven't got a clue, but they can tell.

UKGuy · Jan 29, 2013

Matt21,

7. I find this one absolutely crazy as hell. So they...the father brings his dead daughter upstairs and then him and his wife drive away. I mean, I thought they were suspected immediately, so why let them just walk away? Not to mention the other 5-7 possible suspects who were in the home with them.

Sure, so does everyone else. The whole case is like this, special priviliges for the R's, like they had a hotline to the DA.

10. I understand what youre saying, but what Ive heard and read is the DNA, whether or not it ever becomes identified, is not as important in this case. Im 100% positive Ive come across different people stating this fact. Though I dont understand why this DNA would not be important.

Its not DNA, its touch-dna, i.e. its not semen, or saliva, or blood, or a hair sample, all of which can prove IDI. The touch-dna could have arrived anyhow, more or less anywhere between the White's house and the Ramsey house. It only becomes important if you can identify it, then you can eliminate or not, the owner.

This touch-dna is only important to the R's since they spuriously wish to claim that it represents absolute evidence of an intruder, in a sense, its their fig leaf!

.

Anyhoo · Jan 30, 2013

UKGuy said:
Matt21,

Sure, so does everyone else. The whole case is like this, special priviliges for the R's, like they had a hotline to the DA.

Its not DNA, its touch-dna, i.e. its not semen, or saliva, or blood, or a hair sample, all of which can prove IDI. The touch-dna could have arrived anyhow, more or less anywhere between the White's house and the Ramsey house. It only becomes important if you can identify it, then you can eliminate or not, the owner.

This touch-dna is only important to the R's since they spuriously wish to claim that it represents absolute evidence of an intruder, in a sense, its their fig leaf!

.

So you are saying touch-dna is not DNA? Are you sure about that? It sounds like what someone would say when they want to dismiss or disregard evidence that does not fit with their theory of the case. My understanding is that it had been determined that this so-called touch DNA from multiple locations on either JBR's body and/or clothing matched. If that were the case it would be much more significant than what you are implying here.

BOESP · Jan 30, 2013

Touch DNA, for one example, could be that which might have been found on Patsy's hands or garments then transferred to JonBenet. It works a lot like secondary fiber transfer may act.

It is not evidence of an Intruder unless and until it can be identified as belonging to someone who was at the crime scene. Coming to a decision on only one piece of evidence is risky business.

DeeDee249 · Jan 30, 2013

Anyhoo said:
So you are saying touch-dna is not DNA? Are you sure about that? It sounds like what someone would say when they want to dismiss or disregard evidence that does not fit with their theory of the case. My understanding is that it had been determined that this so-called touch DNA from multiple locations on either JBR's body and/or clothing matched. If that were the case it would be much more significant than what you are implying here.

Touch DNA is skin cells. That's all there is to that. That is where the designation "TOUCH" comes from. Skin cells are everywhere, and easily transferrable. If you visit a friends home, shake hands, drink from a coffee cup she handed you, used her bathroom, etc. HER skin cells are on your hands and can then be transferred to your clothes, car door handles, doorknobs etc in your own home. Later, if you are found murdered, your friend who is completely innocent may have her "touch DNA" found on your clothes or elsewhere in your home. She had nothing to do with your murder, but her DNA is there all the same.
With JB, the skin cells are ONLY on the clothing. Nowhere else- no doorknobs, not the blanket, cord, tape, paint tote, suitcase handle, etc. BOTH parents admittedly handled those clothes- Patsy claimed to put the long johns on JB that night for bed, and JR was SEEN to be carrying JB's body with his hands around her waist- the area where some of the DNA was found. Until the donor of the Touch DNA has been identified BY NAME- it cannot be sourced to the crime-because of the ease of secondary or tertiary transfer. On the other hand, semen and blood are much more likely to be a primary transfer deposited AT THE TIME of the crime- in this case, semen ON THE BODY would be a huge part of the case. The only blood found at ALL was JB's own-though it has bee wrongly stated (long ago) that the source of the male DNA was also blood. It was NOT. And the ONLY semen found was sourced definitively to JAR- found on a comforter in a suitcase in the basement. So bottom line- NO DNA thus far can be linked to someone who was actually THERE when she was killed. There WAS parental DNA (Patsy's forearm hair and DNA belonging to BR) found on the white blanket) and there WAS parental fibers found on the duct tape, cord KNOT, paint tote, and her clothing - ALL items part of the crime scene and some items not likely to have been handled at any other time.

SunnieRN · Jan 30, 2013

Matt21, if you don't mind too much, I would like to add a question, with part A and part B.

A) I am awaiting my book by Chief Kolar, however on another forum I read that in the chapter called "Red Flags", Susan Stein reported that a couple of days after JonBenet was murdered, Doug and Burke were at her home and she heard them talk about whether JonBenet had been manually strangled and not just with the garote. She used the term 'manual strangulation'. I'd say that is a huge red flag, since the R's state they have never talked to BR about the murder and supposedly he slept through everything. Also, what/how would BR know about manual strangulation? Did it have anything to part B....

B) It has always struck me as VERY odd, that JR put a silk scarf in JonBenets coffin, blanketed around her. It was a new scarf, not one she used for dress up or pageants. Why not a book, as he stated he would read to her. A favorite toy? A familial piece of jewelry, that would one day be hers? Why the silk scarf and why did JonBenet have the triangle shaped red mark, that is often seen in people who have been choked with a soft object.

Could this be the type of 'manual strangulation' that BR and DS were discussing?

I may be way over thinking the statement SS gave, but it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up none the less.

If anyone has the book, if they could add any information the book has, I would appreciate it.

Nom de plume · Jan 30, 2013

SunnieRN said:
Matt21, if you don't mind too much, I would like to add a question, with part A and part B.

A) I am awaiting my book by Chief Kolar, however on another forum I read that in the chapter called "Red Flags", Susan Stein reported that a couple of days after JonBenet was murdered, Doug and Burke were at her home and she heard them talk about whether JonBenet had been manually strangled and not just with the garote. She used the term 'manual strangulation'. I'd say that is a huge red flag, since the R's state they have never talked to BR about the murder and supposedly he slept through everything. Also, what/how would BR know about manual strangulation? Did it have anything to part B....

B) It has always struck me as VERY odd, that JR put a silk scarf in JonBenets coffin, blanketed around her. It was a new scarf, not one she used for dress up or pageants. Why not a book, as he stated he would read to her. A favorite toy? A familial piece of jewelry, that would one day be hers? Why the silk scarf and why did JonBenet have the triangle shaped red mark, that is often seen in people who have been choked with a soft object.

Could this be the type of 'manual strangulation' that BR and DS were discussing?

I may be way over thinking the statement SS gave, but it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up none the less.

If anyone has the book, if they could add any information the book has, I would appreciate it.

It's actually in the following chapter Enigma pg #353. You've pretty much summed up what Kolar said. There are only three paragraphs regarding the topic. SS appeared to be very disturbed by the "very impersonal" way the boys were discussing JB's death "like it was a TV show". How BR or DS would know about "manual strangulation" is beyond me. My only guess is lack of parental control over their TV & movie viewing.

It is VERY odd about the scarf! I've heard it said that it was a scarf that Beth gave him, but don't know if that's valid or not. I can only imagine a man having one type of scarf, and that would be a wool, or blend, of the kind used in the winter on an overcoat. The only other type of "scarf" I could see a man owning would be perhaps an ascot, if you could even call that a scarf. I don't see JR as the ascot type. So why would a man own a silk scarf? STRANGE!!

Could strangulation by a scarf be considered manual? I don't know. To me, I would think manual would mean "by hand" or without a rope, belt, scarf, etc. Are the boys conversation and the scarf connected? Who knows? I've often wondered about the scarf (or possibly turtleneck) causing the bruise. If it was the scarf, how much sicker could he get than the put it around her in her coffin? Why didn't any friends or family ask him why he would choose a scarf?

There seems to be some hidden meaning known presumably only to JR with regard to the scarf.

My three questions:
1. Why did he have the scarf in the first place?
2. What was it used for?
3. Why choose the scarf to "blanket her" in her coffin?

DeeDee249 · Jan 30, 2013

Nom de plume said:
It's actually in the following chapter Enigma pg #353.

Could strangulation by a scarf be considered manual? I don't know. To me, I would think manual would mean "by hand" or without a rope, belt, scarf, etc. Are the boys conversation and the scarf connected? Who knows? I've often wondered about the scarf (or possibly turtleneck) causing the bruise. If it was the scarf, how much sicker could he get than the put it around her in her coffin? Why didn't any friends or family ask him why he would choose a scarf?

There seems to be some hidden meaning known presumably only to JR with regard to the scarf.

My three questions:
1. Why did he have the scarf in the first place?
2. What was it used for?
3. Why choose the scarf to "blanket her" in her coffin?

Strangulation with a scarf would not be considered "manual". ONLY strangulation with the hands is considered "manual".
I believe using a scarf might still be considered "ligature strangulation".
Patsy gave out scarves that year as Christmas gifts to some of the males on her list. JR got one, and a scarf was found in the laundry area of the basement. It has never been made clear whether the scarf JR put around JB in the coffin was the one he got that year from Patsy, whether it was the same scarf that was found in the basement. Also not clear- did the scarf found in the basement gat taken into evidence and if so was it tested against the fibers found on the body, blanket or anywhere else in the crime scene?
JR's decision to wrap JB in a scarf in her coffin is more "undoing" IMO- a classic sign of a remorseful killer and especially occurring when a parent kills a child. There is also a possibility that the marks on her throat could be seen up close, especially as she was in a pageant dress which may not have had a high neck that covered the throat. Morticians can do a lot with injuries and wounds but they can't always completely eradicate them.
With Caylee Anthony, she was found wrapped in a blanket from her home and stuffed toys were found as well as a heart sticker. JB was found wrapped in her blanket as well, and her favorite nightie nearby as well as (though it was not discussed by LE) the 1996 Holiday Barbie, a likely favorite Christmas present.

midwest mama · Jan 30, 2013

Nom de plume said:
It's actually in the following chapter Enigma pg #353. You've pretty much summed up what Kolar said. There are only three paragraphs regarding the topic. SS appeared to be very disturbed by the "very impersonal" way the boys were discussing JB's death "like it was a TV show". How BR or DS would know about "manual strangulation" is beyond me. My only guess is lack of parental control over their TV & movie viewing.

It is VERY odd about the scarf! I've heard it said that it was a scarf that Beth gave him, but don't know if that's valid or not. I can only imagine a man having one type of scarf, and that would be a wool, or blend, of the kind used in the winter on an overcoat. The only other type of "scarf" I could see a man owning would be perhaps an ascot, if you could even call that a scarf. I don't see JR as the ascot type. So why would a man own a silk scarf? STRANGE!!

Could strangulation by a scarf be considered manual? I don't know. To me, I would think manual would mean "by hand" or without a rope, belt, scarf, etc. Are the boys conversation and the scarf connected? Who knows? I've often wondered about the scarf (or possibly turtleneck) causing the bruise. If it was the scarf, how much sicker could he get than the put it around her in her coffin? Why didn't any friends or family ask him why he would choose a scarf?

There seems to be some hidden meaning known presumably only to JR with regard to the scarf.

My three questions:
1. Why did he have the scarf in the first place?
2. What was it used for?
3. Why choose the scarf to "blanket her" in her coffin?

If you haven't taken time to read the thread, "Why a Scarf" now might be a good time. The scarf bugs the cr*p out of me too.

Because the autopsy photos show the possibility of two other lines where the ligature might have been, and that JB's gold chain is tangled up in it at the final position, I am sticking to my thought she was a victim of a 3 fold assault on her upper body.

I think there could have been a scarf used as padding under the ligature, which might have been part of a choking process. I hate having to think it was a sexual game possibly perpetrated by more than one person, but at this point nothing is impossible, especially after reading Wecht's theory.

If JB screamed out in pain during a sexual attack, and the padded ligature was in place for the choking, the blow to her head might have been a knee-jerk reaction from a perpetrator to quiet her.

At this point we can speculate that another person(s) heard the scream and came to the scene, only to realize the horror.

JB probably appeared to be dying, so those in attendance then tried to get the ligature undone, found out it was only getting worse, but could pull the scarf free from underneath. Once the ligature was rolled up to get the scarf out (catching JB's necklace), there was no way it was going to come undone.

I do think the broken brush handle could have easily been tied in after the fact, to assist in making the crime look as if it was committed by a lunatic.

Of course, that scarf would have gone the way of the other things missing from the scene.

But who's to say there might not have been a few more new scarves kept at the ready? It was said JR purchased the one he placed over JB, so JR might have kept a few on hand to be able to give as gifts to employees, or other females who deserved a token of appreciation. He might have asked Pam to retrieve scarves for him so he could "gift" those who helped them so much on the 26th, or he might have kept some at his office, in the Michigan house, or even in Atlanta. I can think of several places he might have extras tucked away. And I can think of a couple of other reasons why he might have kept scarves on hand. Just saying............

Questions I Have Not Found Answers To

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Former Member

Registered Snoozer

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics