983 users online (213 members and 770 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 82
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,661

    JBR: did she sleep that night at all

    I was thinking about the case last night, and it occurred to me that the stories started to diverge as to whether JBR was sleeping or not on the way into the house after the party. If I remember correctly, the parents said she was asleep but Burke said she walked in the house.

    I wonder if JBR ever went to sleep that night?

    I thought back on my own kids, and they are always super-charged up after a party. If they knew they were leaving for Disney the next day, they wouldn't sleep all night.

    I think child defiance is a greater source of parental rage than bedwetting. If you know your child is a bedwetter, what's to get upset about?

    I think a child refusing or unable to go to sleep when you know you have to catch an early flight would be a greater source of conflict.

    Not saying that's what happened, but another thought.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom
    I was thinking about the case last night, and it occurred to me that the stories started to diverge as to whether JBR was sleeping or not on the way into the house after the party. If I remember correctly, the parents said she was asleep but Burke said she walked in the house.

    I wonder if JBR ever went to sleep that night?

    I thought back on my own kids, and they are always super-charged up after a party. If they knew they were leaving for Disney the next day, they wouldn't sleep all night.

    I think child defiance is a greater source of parental rage than bedwetting. If you know your child is a bedwetter, what's to get upset about?

    I think a child refusing or unable to go to sleep when you know you have to catch an early flight would be a greater source of conflict.

    Not saying that's what happened, but another thought.
    Good point, I have wondered that myself. I don't believe that Patsy ever went to bed that night, but I don't know about JB. The housekeeper said that those sheets had been changed, so I am assuming that JB was asleep for at least a little while...whether or not she was asleep when she arrived home...I have no idea. I believe that she did wet and probably also soiled (did #2, so to speak), and mess up her clothes and the sheets. I also believe that those sheets were washed sometime during the night. I could be wrong though...this is only my opinion.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    1,213
    Interesting thought, twinkiesmom, however they were going to Charlevoix on the 26th, not the Disney Big Red Boat cruise.


    -Tea

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594
    Jonbenet slept is Burkes room on Christmas eve so the last time her sheets would have been changed were when the housekeeper said she did it which was the day of the Christmas party, or Dec.23. So if she says the sheets had been changed again since she did it (those sheets were not the ones she put on the bed on the 23rd) then Jonbenet was in that bed at some point after Christmas eve and before the 26th. And for some reason the sheets needed to be changed. This is the first time I've ever thought that thru all the way. I still don't think it looks like anybody slept in her bed that night.And I've always opined that she never made it to bed that night. Is there any other reason why a person would change sheets on a bed even of nobody had slept in it since the last change?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    Jonbenet slept is Burkes room on Christmas eve so the last time her sheets would have been changed were when the housekeeper said she did it which was the day of the Christmas party, or Dec.23. So if she says the sheets had been changed again since she did it (those sheets were not the ones she put on the bed on the 23rd) then Jonbenet was in that bed at some point after Christmas eve and before the 26th. And for some reason the sheets needed to be changed. This is the first time I've ever thought that thru all the way. I still don't think it looks like anybody slept in her bed that night.And I've always opined that she never made it to bed that night. Is there any other reason why a person would change sheets on a bed even of nobody had slept in it since the last change?
    Perhaps LHP changed the sheets on the day of the 23rd and JB soiled the sheets that very night, therefore the sheets could have been changed on the 23rd. I dont believe JB went to sleep as she ate the pinapple. I believe she never went to bed that night.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    Jonbenet slept is Burkes room on Christmas eve so the last time her sheets would have been changed were when the housekeeper said she did it which was the day of the Christmas party, or Dec.23. So if she says the sheets had been changed again since she did it (those sheets were not the ones she put on the bed on the 23rd) then Jonbenet was in that bed at some point after Christmas eve and before the 26th. And for some reason the sheets needed to be changed. This is the first time I've ever thought that thru all the way. I still don't think it looks like anybody slept in her bed that night.And I've always opined that she never made it to bed that night. Is there any other reason why a person would change sheets on a bed even of nobody had slept in it since the last change?
    trixie,

    We do not know exactly where JonBenet was initially attacked, this could have happened in her bedroom. Alternatively she may have been redressed and cleaned up, but placed in her bed to simulate a bedtime assault, later this was revised down to the basement? Both events may have been followed by a change of the sheets?


    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom
    I was thinking about the case last night, and it occurred to me that the stories started to diverge as to whether JBR was sleeping or not on the way into the house after the party. If I remember correctly, the parents said she was asleep but Burke said she walked in the house.

    I wonder if JBR ever went to sleep that night?

    I thought back on my own kids, and they are always super-charged up after a party. If they knew they were leaving for Disney the next day, they wouldn't sleep all night.

    I think child defiance is a greater source of parental rage than bedwetting. If you know your child is a bedwetter, what's to get upset about?

    I think a child refusing or unable to go to sleep when you know you have to catch an early flight would be a greater source of conflict.

    Not saying that's what happened, but another thought.
    twinkiesmom,
    I think child defiance is a greater source of parental rage than bedwetting. If you know your child is a bedwetter, what's to get upset about?
    The evidence suggests JonBenet was wide awake on returning from the Whites, assuming she consumed the pineapple at some point shortly afterwards, underlines this. She was also discovered wearing her white gap top, but no socks? e.g. she was dressed in her day-clothes from the waist up, along with her jewellry and hair-ties etc.

    We can infer that her urine-soaked underwear and longjohns were not important enough to be considered for removal, possibly neither the blood-stained underwear, since some evidence was left, so would that suggest it was semen that was being removed during JonBenet's cleanup, and that the motive surrounding her death is that of Sexual Rage because JonBenet wanted to defy the sexual advances of her attacker?



    .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    I don't think she slept that night, and I suspect that if she was actually put to bed, that she didn't stay there.

    I think there was definitely something on the size 6s that required them to vanish, and the most logical conclusion, in my train of thought, is semen. That would also explain the need to wipe her off, and why the redresser didn't seem to care that her clothes were urine-soaked. I'm thinking the person who wrapped her in her blanket HAD to have noticed she was wet.

    As for getting rid of the undies, how far out there is this - you could cut them up with scissors or a knife into smaller pieces and flush them down the toilet. Or you could open the seam of a stuffed toy (back to Pam's raid where she came out with stuffed toys and dolls) and jam them inside. When I was a teenager, one of my best hiding places was inside the opened seam of a stuffed rabbit I'd had for years. No one knew the seam had been worked open, and no one would have suspected it.

    Maybe I've had too much coffee....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    I don't think she slept that night, and I suspect that if she was actually put to bed, that she didn't stay there.

    I think there was definitely something on the size 6s that required them to vanish, and the most logical conclusion, in my train of thought, is semen. That would also explain the need to wipe her off, and why the redresser didn't seem to care that her clothes were urine-soaked. I'm thinking the person who wrapped her in her blanket HAD to have noticed she was wet.

    As for getting rid of the undies, how far out there is this - you could cut them up with scissors or a knife into smaller pieces and flush them down the toilet. Or you could open the seam of a stuffed toy (back to Pam's raid where she came out with stuffed toys and dolls) and jam them inside. When I was a teenager, one of my best hiding places was inside the opened seam of a stuffed rabbit I'd had for years. No one knew the seam had been worked open, and no one would have suspected it.

    Maybe I've had too much coffee....

    Nuisanceposter,

    Nope not coffee, you just have a vivid imagination. The BPD did search all the sewerage piping for anything that had been flushed away.

    Yes the size-6 pants were either placed inside another object such as a stuffed animal or inside the now opened size-12 underwear pack, or as per occam and the kiss principle, soaked in soap suds, washed out, dried, then placed back into her bathroom drawer?

    I'm thinking the person who wrapped her in her blanket HAD to have noticed she was wet.
    I agree, and for the same reason they would have noticed when she was being sexually assaulted either by a finger or the paintbrush handle.

    Consider how the flashlight was wiped clean e.g no prints inside or out, then think about how JonBenet was wiped down, with the end result being an absence of semen, and the presence of blood and urine.

    So you can see a methodical removal of the evidence that apparently mattered to the killer(s), and the ignoring of that which was deemed irrelevant.

    Those that promote the Toilet Rage theory tend to either ignore or work around these points, suggesting the wine-cellar staging was all cobbled together and unplanned, but separating out the staging elements allows you to see that they are designed in with a purpose in mind.

    If JonBenet was killed say either 1AM or 2AM then thats four hours until when they had to dial 911, plenty time to plan something e.g. dumping JonBenet outdoors, or staging a homicide in the basement, during this time we know, because of its absence, little forensic evidence was discovered, excluding the wine-cellar, so whomever killed JonBenet did a good job cleaning up, it was important to them, they missed little.

    And if the motive lying behind JonBenet's death was Toilet Rage and the Ramsey's had 4-hours to cleanup and stage a homicide, why did they leave JonBenet wearing urine-soaked underwear and longjohns, including the blood-stains?

    This is important it cannot incidental or accidental that a detail such as her urine-soaked longjohns were left on her , when other items such as her size-6 underwear, her socks, shoes, velvet-pants were removed, after all the rationale that lay behind the staging in the first instance was to mask the original circumstances of JonBenet's death and if it was Toilet Rage provoked by a bedwetting, then the urine-soaked longjohns are inconsistent with the intended outcome!

    imo the Toilet Rage Theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.



    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    Is there any other reason why a person would change sheets on a bed even of nobody had slept in it since the last change?
    Perhaps to provide a clue? Remember, she had coordinating peachy-pink gingham sheets for her bed and now they're in Beauty and the Beast sheets. Beauty and the Beast.


    -Tea


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    Jonbenet slept is Burkes room on Christmas eve so the last time her sheets would have been changed were when the housekeeper said she did it which was the day of the Christmas party, or Dec.23. So if she says the sheets had been changed again since she did it (those sheets were not the ones she put on the bed on the 23rd) then Jonbenet was in that bed at some point after Christmas eve and before the 26th. And for some reason the sheets needed to be changed. This is the first time I've ever thought that thru all the way. I still don't think it looks like anybody slept in her bed that night.And I've always opined that she never made it to bed that night. Is there any other reason why a person would change sheets on a bed even of nobody had slept in it since the last change?
    to hide evidence of some sort?
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Nuisanceposter,

    Nope not coffee, you just have a vivid imagination. The BPD did search all the sewerage piping for anything that had been flushed away.

    Yes the size-6 pants were either placed inside another object such as a stuffed animal or inside the now opened size-12 underwear pack, or as per occam and the kiss principle, soaked in soap suds, washed out, dried, then placed back into her bathroom drawer?


    I agree, and for the same reason they would have noticed when she was being sexually assaulted either by a finger or the paintbrush handle.

    Consider how the flashlight was wiped clean e.g no prints inside or out, then think about how JonBenet was wiped down, with the end result being an absence of semen, and the presence of blood and urine.

    So you can see a methodical removal of the evidence that apparently mattered to the killer(s), and the ignoring of that which was deemed irrelevant.

    Those that promote the Toilet Rage theory tend to either ignore or work around these points, suggesting the wine-cellar staging was all cobbled together and unplanned, but separating out the staging elements allows you to see that they are designed in with a purpose in mind.

    If JonBenet was killed say either 1AM or 2AM then thats four hours until when they had to dial 911, plenty time to plan something e.g. dumping JonBenet outdoors, or staging a homicide in the basement, during this time we know, because of its absence, little forensic evidence was discovered, excluding the wine-cellar, so whomever killed JonBenet did a good job cleaning up, it was important to them, they missed little.

    And if the motive lying behind JonBenet's death was Toilet Rage and the Ramsey's had 4-hours to cleanup and stage a homicide, why did they leave JonBenet wearing urine-soaked underwear and longjohns, including the blood-stains?

    This is important it cannot incidental or accidental that a detail such as her urine-soaked longjohns were left on her , when other items such as her size-6 underwear, her socks, shoes, velvet-pants were removed, after all the rationale that lay behind the staging in the first instance was to mask the original circumstances of JonBenet's death and if it was Toilet Rage provoked by a bedwetting, then the urine-soaked longjohns are inconsistent with the intended outcome!

    imo the Toilet Rage Theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.



    .
    that makes a lot of sense,UK.do you mean the flashlight had evidence on it as well?(besides fingerprints?).
    since a nbor saw 'strange lights' in the kitchen,i think it was one of the R's w. the flashlight,not wanting to turn any lights on,so it would appear they were all asleep.but would that facilitate needing to wipe it off?why not just put it back in a drawer ?
    but if her underwear was washed out in the sink,wasn't that risking leaving some possible dna behind?imo i think it was most likely hidden in something,then removed from the house.
    since there is likely evidence held back,i dont personally rule out toilet rage,since ST had access to it and that was his opinion on it.so maybe without all the evidence,sexual rage only appears possible ?
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    I know, JMO, about Thomas and his belief in the toilet rage scene, and I feel compelled to go with his instincts because A. he is a cop and as such would know better than I, and B. he knows this case backwards and forwards and I believe he may know things we've never even heard about.

    But I think UKGuy is right about the fact that JonBenet was found with urine-stained clothes indicating that they weren't concerned about her being found in urine-stained clothes, which further indicates that's not necessarily the crux of this murder. Is it possible that JonBenet was left lying there and enough time elapsed between her wetting her clothes and the time she was wrapped in the blanket that it had dried sufficiently and may have not been noticed?

    I think the strange lights seen by the neighbor were someone moving about with the flashlight, and I think the flashlight was wiped clean because it was definitely used in this crime. I suspect strongly it was the object that created JonBenet's skull fracture, and I wonder why it was left sitting on the counter. Did it got forgotten, like I think the pineapple got forgotten?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    I know, JMO, about Thomas and his belief in the toilet rage scene, and I feel compelled to go with his instincts because A. he is a cop and as such would know better than I, and B. he knows this case backwards and forwards and I believe he may know things we've never even heard about.

    But I think UKGuy is right about the fact that JonBenet was found with urine-stained clothes indicating that they weren't concerned about her being found in urine-stained clothes, which further indicates that's not necessarily the crux of this murder. Is it possible that JonBenet was left lying there and enough time elapsed between her wetting her clothes and the time she was wrapped in the blanket that it had dried sufficiently and may have not been noticed?

    I think the strange lights seen by the neighbor were someone moving about with the flashlight, and I think the flashlight was wiped clean because it was definitely used in this crime. I suspect strongly it was the object that created JonBenet's skull fracture, and I wonder why it was left sitting on the counter. Did it got forgotten, like I think the pineapple got forgotten?
    I agree with your points Nuisance.

    In your second paragraph you question why JBR was left in urine soaked bottoms if the rage was initially caused by wetting or soiling. I've questioned that myself...then I remind myself of the panic that must have occurred during the staging, and the staging occured in a dark basement with maybe only a flashlight to help see. If there was post-mortem release of urine...it probably would not have been noticed in the confusion.

    I also tend to lean towards ST's theories...I think he knows more than he would ever reveal publicly.

    And I do not believe JonBenet ever went to bed that night.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778
    that makes a lot of sense,UK.do you mean the flashlight had evidence on it as well?(besides fingerprints?).
    since a nbor saw 'strange lights' in the kitchen,i think it was one of the R's w. the flashlight,not wanting to turn any lights on,so it would appear they were all asleep.but would that facilitate needing to wipe it off?why not just put it back in a drawer ?
    but if her underwear was washed out in the sink,wasn't that risking leaving some possible dna behind?imo i think it was most likely hidden in something,then removed from the house.
    since there is likely evidence held back,i dont personally rule out toilet rage,since ST had access to it and that was his opinion on it.so maybe without all the evidence,sexual rage only appears possible ?
    JMO8778,

    No its the absence of evidence on the flashlight that is important, this demonstrates forensic awareness, this and the removal of forensic evidence from JonBenet's body and the original crime-scene upstairs, suggests a pattern of behaviour that is premeditated and planned, e.g. its not haphazard and incidental, i.e. oh lets do this, oh how about that etc. Some of the stuff they did miss such as the pineapple in retrospect may be understandable?

    Given the option I would rather wash out semen stained underwear, using a good cleansing agent, than take a chance with them being found and then have to explain how it arrived on said underwear.

    Else if semen stained size-6 underwear were to be smuggled out of the house , after, JonBenet's body is discovered then that is quite a risk to take, and also underlines again, the amount of forward planning undertaken by the Ramsey's.


    If the flashlight was used to bludgeon JonBenet, then I think this probably occurred after her initial asphyxiation, it may have been left at the crime-scene, but later removed by someone else as the staging changed e.g. Patsy, prior to dialling 911?

    Returning to the forensic awareness, if the flashlight was used to whack JonBenet then there would likely be some hair or skin residue left on it, and may have been this rather than simply the fingerprints that was being removed after all if it was a Ramsey flashlight then you would expect to see fingerprints on the batteries and casing from any or all of the Ramsey's resident in the house that night, that there was none indicates either a Ramsey wiped it clean or an intruder who was not wearing gloves and left no fingerprints elsewhere in the house, decided to wipe clean his choice of muder weapon?

    As I suggested already, if you isolate out the staged elements, then tick a box for premeditation and forensic cleaning, it becomes obvious how reasonably well planned the wine-cellar scenario was!




    .

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-10-2013, 10:03 PM
  2. Top 10 Foods for a Good Night's Sleep
    By Dark Knight in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-31-2007, 12:21 AM