Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 08-20-2011, 11:29 PM
Tadpole12 Tadpole12 is offline
Bufo americanus
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: .....
Posts: 3,880
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...bsleuths-radio
Websleuths Radio The Truth About The JonBenet Ramsey Case


(15:33) CW: Well there would be a sound, but that sound, not a sound that carries. So, that sound that would have been produced by such a blow, assuming that it occurred in the room in which she was found, or any other place. Is not a sound that would have reverberated elsewhere through the house,
let alone anywhere out doors. So the sound is of no consequence .
With regard to to other part of your comment and question about the furrowing.
As far as I can determine from the autopsy report and everything that I've read and heard from Dr. Myers and from others, except that they have been published, suggests nothing other that that particular garrote, that particular rope having been applied in producing the furrowing. And of course, on the rope around the neckwhat's very important to note is that it was used as a garrote. It was not just a rope and
somebody tieing it, or encircling the neck and turning it. There was a piece of wood that was used as a tourniquet.
So that you turn the wood, and just as you would a tourniquet, somebody's bleeding from a lacerated artery in their arm or leg and you want to apply a tourniquet to stop the hemorrhaging.

KK?

If as CW suggests, the paint brush was turned, would that tourniquet type of application be evidenced by a puckering of the skin around the center point of rotation.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:30 PM
Roy23 Roy23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
A motive? Okay, how does this hit you: fear of what would happen in prison. I'm tempted to quote Robin Williams, but I won't just now.



Gee, I can't IMAGINE why that might be!
These theories are about as likely as little green men jumping down my chimney with both of them in on it. At least in this case. And your hero Wecht now claims strangling came first. That kind blows a hole in your theory does it not?

I guess upon eating some bad food or something The R's said lets play sex games with our daughter and murder her in some god awful way. We are old and lets garner up some attention for ourselves.
__________________
The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:
  #28  
Old 08-22-2011, 05:22 PM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole12 View Post
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...bsleuths-radio
Websleuths Radio The Truth About The JonBenet Ramsey Case


(15:33) CW: Well there would be a sound, but that sound, not a sound that carries. So, that sound that would have been produced by such a blow, assuming that it occurred in the room in which she was found, or any other place. Is not a sound that would have reverberated elsewhere through the house,
let alone anywhere out doors. So the sound is of no consequence .
With regard to to other part of your comment and question about the furrowing.
As far as I can determine from the autopsy report and everything that I've read and heard from Dr. Myers and from others, except that they have been published, suggests nothing other that that particular garrote, that particular rope having been applied in producing the furrowing. And of course, on the rope around the neckwhat's very important to note is that it was used as a garrote. It was not just a rope and
somebody tieing it, or encircling the neck and turning it. There was a piece of wood that was used as a tourniquet.
So that you turn the wood, and just as you would a tourniquet, somebody's bleeding from a lacerated artery in their arm or leg and you want to apply a tourniquet to stop the hemorrhaging.

KK?

If as CW suggests, the paint brush was turned, would that tourniquet type of application be evidenced by a puckering of the skin around the center point of rotation.

All I can tell you is what I believe: I believe Dr. Wecht got confused on this because of the issue with the paintbrush used on the "garrote." It happens to all of us who have been around this case so long; details get mixed up when it's been a while since you have thought about them or talked about them.

I think Wecht was confused because a true garrote actually does use something like the paintbrush handle to twist the cord tighter around the neck. Traditionally that was the actual definition of a garrote, but of course through time it has expanded. We've had many discussions about the correctness of that term, but we use it because loosely defined what was used on JB was and is often called a garrote. It's just shorter than "strangulation device" when you're writing.

I've never seen anyone argue that there is evidence on the body that the paintbrush was placed under the cord on the neck and turned to tighten it. I think we'd see different bruising than what was left by the simple pulling of the noose of the cord with the long end of it, using the paintbrush as a handle. I also don't see any evidence that the paintbrush was inserted into the dangling cord to "twist" it rather than pull.

Edit: I think it's best if you want to google up "garrote" or "garotte" yourself, rather than me posting a link; that stuff is very dicey....

So all I can say is I think Dr. Wecht misspoke. I cut him slack on this because he's done so many autopsies, speaking extemporaneously on a case this old is a challenge even for him. I don't in fact know anyone who has ever spoke or written much about this case through the years who hasn't made mistakes.

Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.

Last edited by KoldKase; 08-22-2011 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
  #29  
Old 08-22-2011, 05:42 PM
Whaleshark Whaleshark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol
That should be the definition of when you know you've been doing something too long.... eek!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:
  #30  
Old 08-22-2011, 05:51 PM
KoldKase's Avatar
KoldKase KoldKase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
That should be the definition of when you know you've been doing something too long.... eek!
No kidding! I blame Tricia! To quote a famous movie villain: "I keep trying to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!" Godfather III

Then he had a heart attack.
__________________
Bloomies underwear model:
Bloomies model


My opinions, nothing more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:
  #31  
Old 08-22-2011, 07:18 PM
SunnieRN SunnieRN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,577
I truly believe that if this was a sexual game 'gone wrong', that another device was used for the 'game' and the 'garrote' was used as staging. Since John put a scarf in JonBenets coffin, that is still my choice of a 'sex game toy'.

Even if Burke was in no way involved, with his sisters death, what and when do you think he learned some/all of what happened? Do you think John would be despicable enough to blame Patsy, after she died, even if he himself were guilty?
__________________
___________________

"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
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:
  #32  
Old 08-22-2011, 10:51 PM
arielilane's Avatar
arielilane arielilane is offline
Justice for Morgan
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: remotely
Posts: 42,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
How many murders will get away with it because people cannot grasp the idea that there is not AWAYS a motive? Sometimes things get carried away and death results when none was intended. But the "risky" activity that caused the death is illegal in its own right?

That'd do the trick for me on this case.
Excellent post, DeeDee.
__________________

You can choose to be bitter or better when handling your problems.


ě My posts are just my opinion and for entertainment purposes only.
Do not copy any of my post. All post are to remain here.



Christopher McCandless (aka Alexander Supertramp)
2/12/1968 -8/1992 RIP you are missed.




http://www.bringkyronhome.org/
If you have information about Kyron Horman, please call the Tip Line at 503-261-2847 or dial 911
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to arielilane For This Useful Post:
  #33  
Old 08-24-2011, 05:41 PM
Tadpole12 Tadpole12 is offline
Bufo americanus
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: .....
Posts: 3,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
All I can tell you is what I believe: I believe Dr. Wecht got confused on this because of the issue with the paintbrush used on the "garrote." It happens to all of us who have been around this case so long; details get mixed up when it's been a while since you have thought about them or talked about them.

I think Wecht was confused because a true garrote actually does use something like the paintbrush handle to twist the cord tighter around the neck. Traditionally that was the actual definition of a garrote, but of course through time it has expanded. We've had many discussions about the correctness of that term, but we use it because loosely defined what was used on JB was and is often called a garrote. It's just shorter than "strangulation device" when you're writing.

I've never seen anyone argue that there is evidence on the body that the paintbrush was placed under the cord on the neck and turned to tighten it. I think we'd see different bruising than what was left by the simple pulling of the noose of the cord with the long end of it, using the paintbrush as a handle. I also don't see any evidence that the paintbrush was inserted into the dangling cord to "twist" it rather than pull.

Edit: I think it's best if you want to google up "garrote" or "garotte" yourself, rather than me posting a link; that stuff is very dicey....

So all I can say is I think Dr. Wecht misspoke. I cut him slack on this because he's done so many autopsies, speaking extemporaneously on a case this old is a challenge even for him. I don't in fact know anyone who has ever spoke or written much about this case through the years who hasn't made mistakes.

Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol
Thanks for feedback, KK.

I had wondered about the tourniquet type of application. There would only be certain positions along bound neck in which the paint prush handle could be rotated. I wondered if the abrasions on JBR's face, and back could be close to equal distance from the pivot point (center point).
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-25-2011, 02:39 PM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

I tend to believe the FBI over people on payrolls and authors of books - whatever their credentials. Meyer never said there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. He only commented on the digital penetration that occurred that night.

Mind you, I lean a little toward prior sexual abuse....but I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe it was ongoing for a long time prior to her death. IMO
I'm not getting in your business, vlpate, but I believe you have misinterpreted that passage. The FBI was saying that the vaginal trauma from THAT NIGHT was not done for sexual gratification.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-25-2011, 02:53 PM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
These theories are about as likely as little green men jumping down my chimney with both of them in on it.
Like I said, pilgrim, it's a lot easier to say that without the numerous examples I could list.

Quote:
At least in this case.
And just WHAT makes this case so special?

Quote:
And your hero Wecht now claims strangling came first. That kind blows a hole in your theory does it not?
Number one, he ain't my hero. I'm not really sure how you came up with that one.

Number two, he's always claimed that, but I don't buy it.

Quote:
I guess upon eating some bad food or something The R's said lets play sex games with our daughter and murder her in some god awful way. We are old and lets garner up some attention for ourselves.
I'm wondering if SOMEONE ate some bad food, all right! What in God's name are you talking about?
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:
  #36  
Old 08-25-2011, 02:57 PM
SuperDave's Avatar
SuperDave SuperDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 11,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
No kidding! I blame Tricia! To quote a famous movie villain: "I keep trying to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!" Godfather III
God, don't I know what you mean! I'm in a similar quandary NOW!

Quote:
Then he had a heart attack.
I seem to be headed that way, myself.
__________________
All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:
  #37  
Old 12-04-2011, 01:37 AM
Agatha_C's Avatar
Agatha_C Agatha_C is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
One thing that seems to be missing from IDI musings about "motive".

It must be considered that "motive" in this case may not be motive for COMMITTING the crime, but motive to HIDE the prior sexual abuse. The "hidden" secret contained in poor JB's little body. Erosion, bruising, inflammation, a vaginal opening many times larger than normal (even allowing for common anatomical differences) for a child that age- all which did NOT take place the night of the crime. "Motive" to keep the secret. Pretty strong motive there, if you ask me.

BTW, even if you are too stubborn to recognize that erosion takes more than one occasion to occur, you have to understand that the widening of the vaginal canal doesn't happen from one night of penetration. It takes several events of sexual contact over time to cause it.



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

I know there has to be a thread that covers this and I'm sure I've been on it, but I cant seem to find one at the moment.... TIA!!!!
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-04-2011, 02:17 AM
cynic cynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
DeeDee, I need your help in sorting something out please... Its well known and documented that JB was wiped down prior to the redressing. We also know that urine was found in her panties. Wouldnt that mean she died after she was wiped down and redressed? And before she was strangled? I mean wouldnt her body have evacuated that urine at the time of death? So this would mean she was alive for most of what took place? The blood that was wiped off in my opinion was from a vaginal trauma that occurred before the paintbrush was ever introduced. The paintbrush was the diversion....

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

Take a look here:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - A rather "personal" question about female part


andů
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - A rather "personal" question about female part

__________________
This time we get it right
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cynic For This Useful Post:
  #39  
Old 12-04-2011, 02:48 AM
Agatha_C's Avatar
Agatha_C Agatha_C is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,309


Those were exactly the posts I was thinking about and could not remember where I had read them.. You as always are amazing and thank you Cynic for the warm welcome back and the fast response with the exact answer....

I really believe that this all started in her room that night....

Again thank you and you rock as always!!!!!!
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:
  #40  
Old 12-04-2011, 06:44 AM
KarenUK KarenUK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Suffolk, England
Posts: 92
I was very surprised to hear that the strangulation must have come first as for me it raises the question of "What was the point of the head injury?".
If the head injury had occurred first, I can see that the garrote would have been applied as an it displays an obvious cause of death before an autopsy, but why strike her, leaving a non-visable injury to her skull after death?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12-04-2011, 01:22 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenUK View Post
I was very surprised to hear that the strangulation must have come first as for me it raises the question of "What was the point of the head injury?".
If the head injury had occurred first, I can see that the garrote would have been applied as an it displays an obvious cause of death before an autopsy, but why strike her, leaving a non-visable injury to her skull after death?
KarenUK,
And just why would an abductee require an obvious cause of death? JonBenet was not in the house, so there is no garotte to view.


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

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


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


.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-04-2011, 01:36 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
DeeDee, I need your help in sorting something out please... Its well known and documented that JB was wiped down prior to the redressing. We also know that urine was found in her panties. Wouldnt that mean she died after she was wiped down and redressed? And before she was strangled? I mean wouldnt her body have evacuated that urine at the time of death? So this would mean she was alive for most of what took place? The blood that was wiped off in my opinion was from a vaginal trauma that occurred before the paintbrush was ever introduced. The paintbrush was the diversion....

I know there has to be a thread that covers this and I'm sure I've been on it, but I cant seem to find one at the moment.... TIA!!!!
Agatha_C,
If you accept Steve Thomas' version of events e.g. PDI and bedwetting then some might suggest since JonBenet had already evacuated her bladder, there would be little left to wet her underwear with?

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

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


.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-04-2011, 02:10 PM
KarenUK KarenUK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Suffolk, England
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
KarenUK,
And just why would an abductee require an obvious cause of death? JonBenet was not in the house, so there is no garotte to view.


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

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


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


.
I'm not saying that it should make sense (nothing in this case makes any sense at all....) but if we go with the information in this interview, then she received the head injury after death. I have always thought that the head injury either came first, or that she was struck because she struggled. From the lack of bleeding after the strike it would seem she was already dead when it happened and IF (and it's a big if) the injury was caused by the torch/flashlight (as it seems to be commonly believed, rather than a fall), then why strike her when she's already dead?
I have always thought strangulation (and the premeditation required) pointed more to John (I always believe he made the garrote) and if it was accidental/rage attack it would be Patsy.
In an unrelated point I had always hoped in a strange way that the head injury came first, the idea of strangulation is just hideous - I worked at a shop in Felistowe, Suffolk (England) and became friendly with a local woman who's teenage daughter was murdered by strangulation, and the one thing she spoke about was her horror at the thought of her girl struggling desperately with the killer.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-04-2011, 02:20 PM
KarenUK KarenUK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Suffolk, England
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
KarenUK,
And just why would an abductee require an obvious cause of death? JonBenet was not in the house, so there is no garotte to view.

.
I've never thought an abductee did this....
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-04-2011, 05:39 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenUK View Post
I'm not saying that it should make sense (nothing in this case makes any sense at all....) but if we go with the information in this interview, then she received the head injury after death. I have always thought that the head injury either came first, or that she was struck because she struggled. From the lack of bleeding after the strike it would seem she was already dead when it happened and IF (and it's a big if) the injury was caused by the torch/flashlight (as it seems to be commonly believed, rather than a fall), then why strike her when she's already dead?
I have always thought strangulation (and the premeditation required) pointed more to John (I always believe he made the garrote) and if it was accidental/rage attack it would be Patsy.
In an unrelated point I had always hoped in a strange way that the head injury came first, the idea of strangulation is just hideous - I worked at a shop in Felistowe, Suffolk (England) and became friendly with a local woman who's teenage daughter was murdered by strangulation, and the one thing she spoke about was her horror at the thought of her girl struggling desperately with the killer.
KarenUK,
Quote:
(nothing in this case makes any sense at all....)
If you read the books, and contribute, eventually you get the light bulb effect, this even works for IDI folks. It will make sense, what does not make sense is the staging, and unfortunately, most people think the staging and the Ramsey PR is the case.

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

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

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

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


.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:
  #46  
Old 12-04-2011, 05:44 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenUK View Post
I've never thought an abductee did this....
I'll rephrase that as why would you stage a crime-scene where someone has been abducted for monetary gain, yet present a crime-scene that appears like one done by an intruder?


.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:
  #47  
Old 12-04-2011, 07:55 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
DeeDee, I need your help in sorting something out please... Its well known and documented that JB was wiped down prior to the redressing. We also know that urine was found in her panties. Wouldnt that mean she died after she was wiped down and redressed? And before she was strangled? I mean wouldnt her body have evacuated that urine at the time of death? So this would mean she was alive for most of what took place? The blood that was wiped off in my opinion was from a vaginal trauma that occurred before the paintbrush was ever introduced. The paintbrush was the diversion....

I know there has to be a thread that covers this and I'm sure I've been on it, but I cant seem to find one at the moment.... TIA!!!!
This has been one of the most difficult aspects of the crime to sort out! The urine stain on the anterior surface of the longjohns combined with the ligature being tied at the back of her neck indicates that she died on her stomach. The panties are urine stained as well, but the coroner did state that the small amount if red staining on the panties did NOT correspond to the areas that were wiped down, and the fact that there was no blood (red staining) on the long johns probably mean that she was NOT wearing the size 12 panties under the longjohns when she died or the long johns would have had red staining as well if her bladder voided and wet both garments at the same time.
The panties could have been put on dry and become wet just from being in contact with the wet longjohns. The wet longjohns she died wearing could have been removed while wet, the bloodied size 6 panties removed and replaced with the size 12s, then the wet longjohns put back on, thereby wetting the size 12s.
Another puzzling piece is that the blanket was not reported as having urine or blood on it, and she was found on her back- the opposite of how she died (on her stomach). This fits in with a dead JB being placed in a clean blanket pulled from the basement dryer. If the wet longjohns came into contact with the blanket, there would be urine on the blanket. So we have to consider two possibilities- that she was placed in the WC and wrapped in the blanket after the urine had already dried, or that there WAS urine on the blanket that was never tested for, discovered, or reported if it WAS found.
So...to sort this out almost requires an eye-witness. Just when you think you have a theory that works, you run smack into a piece that doesn't fit!
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #48  
Old 12-04-2011, 08:31 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,447
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Wecht. But I disagree with him on some aspects of this case. For one, I disagree that the head bash followed the strangulation and was administered when she was dead. There is NO reason that I can fathom that anyone would need to bash an unconscious person, especially one who you have just strangled. The head bash was not visible, it added nothing to the staging. On the other hand, the garrote provided a very visible cause of death for someone who would have seemed to have none. You have an allegedly kidnapped child found dead in her own home. If the ligature was part of an erotic game gone too far (as Wecht surmises), why would you need anything else?
On the other hand, the bash coming as reaction to her scream in order to shut her up FAST makes sense.
I can see the ligature being staged to cover for the head bash, but cannot imagine the head bash covering for anything, since it was not visible anyway.
I don't agree that it was administered to "make sure she was dead" when all you had to do was pull the garrote a bit tighter. I don't agree that the bash was staging.
Other forensic specialists have said that both these things came close together, and that the restricted blood flow to her head, restricted during strangulation, caused the mild swelling in the brain as well as the relatively small amount of blood found in the skull. There is a good explanation for the small amount of blood and mild swelling, and it doesn't mean that she was already dead or close to death.
__________________
THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
  #49  
Old 12-05-2011, 06:53 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
This has been one of the most difficult aspects of the crime to sort out! The urine stain on the anterior surface of the longjohns combined with the ligature being tied at the back of her neck indicates that she died on her stomach. The panties are urine stained as well, but the coroner did state that the small amount if red staining on the panties did NOT correspond to the areas that were wiped down, and the fact that there was no blood (red staining) on the long johns probably mean that she was NOT wearing the size 12 panties under the longjohns when she died or the long johns would have had red staining as well if her bladder voided and wet both garments at the same time.
The panties could have been put on dry and become wet just from being in contact with the wet longjohns. The wet longjohns she died wearing could have been removed while wet, the bloodied size 6 panties removed and replaced with the size 12s, then the wet longjohns put back on, thereby wetting the size 12s.
Another puzzling piece is that the blanket was not reported as having urine or blood on it, and she was found on her back- the opposite of how she died (on her stomach). This fits in with a dead JB being placed in a clean blanket pulled from the basement dryer. If the wet longjohns came into contact with the blanket, there would be urine on the blanket. So we have to consider two possibilities- that she was placed in the WC and wrapped in the blanket after the urine had already dried, or that there WAS urine on the blanket that was never tested for, discovered, or reported if it WAS found.
So...to sort this out almost requires an eye-witness. Just when you think you have a theory that works, you run smack into a piece that doesn't fit!
DeeDee249,
There is something wrong with the wine-cellar staging, or at least my interpretation.

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

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


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


.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:
  #50  
Old 12-05-2011, 09:58 PM
DeeDee249 DeeDee249 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In the Federal Witness Protection Program
Posts: 7,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
DeeDee249,
There is something wrong with the wine-cellar staging, or at least my interpretation.


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

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


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


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

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wecht vs. Lee shiloh JonBenet Ramsey 102 07-31-2006 11:30 AM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!