Are the Ramseys involved or not?

Are the Ramseys involved or not?

  • The Ramseys are somehow involved in the crime and/or cover-up

    Votes: 883 75.3%
  • The Ramseys are not involved at all in the crime or cover-up

    Votes: 291 24.8%

  • Total voters
    1,173
Status
Not open for further replies.
This brought back a very vivid memory of when my now 3 year old bit my husband while playing. His instant reflex reaction was to smack her..probably way too hard. He felt horrible, but stated it scared and surprised him, that was his first reaction. Is it completely unreasonable to wonder if her screams startled the abuser so much that the smack with the flashlight was almost like a reflex and not intended to be a fatal injury? Only a quick "knee jerk" reaction?

Possible, certainly. That is what is meant when we say her death may have been "unintentional"- which is different from accidental. Bashing her wasn't an accident. No one hits someone with enough force to crack open their skull accidentally. But it was not intended to be a fatal injury. Once it had happened, most forensic specialist agree that the head blow would have rendered her instantly unconscious, and possibly even comatose. She may have convulsed. (this would account for the vomit/mucous on her cheek). But she may have appeared dead to an untrained eye, especially if she did go into a coma or shock. If that happened, her body would get cold, as body temperature drops in a coma or shock, and her breathing might become so shallow as to seem to be absent.
Once JB seemed to be dead or so irreversibly damaged that there was no turning back- there were only two ways forward- call 911 and tell the truth- which may result in the sexual abuse being discovered and criminal charges being brought and certainly a "public relations" nightmare for the family and JR's business (including parent company Lockheed)- as well as a damaged future for BR if he was involved. The OTHER way was the coward's way- and obviously the way they chose to react. Stage it to look like a kidnapping by writing an inane ransom note (and leave the body there), blaming it on either a disgruntled employee (JR told Det. Arndt as soon as he brought up her body is was an "inside job", or a small foreign faction, or an intruder or all three -then call your lawyers immediately and get the governor's office involved and refuse to talk to police....well- that's why we are here today.
 
Possible, certainly. That is what is meant when we say her death may have been "unintentional"- which is different from accidental. Bashing her wasn't an accident. No one hits someone with enough force to crack open their skull accidentally. But it was not intended to be a fatal injury. Once it had happened, most forensic specialist agree that the head blow would have rendered her instantly unconscious, and possibly even comatose. She may have convulsed. (this would account for the vomit/mucous on her cheek). But she may have appeared dead to an untrained eye, especially if she did go into a coma or shock. If that happened, her body would get cold, as body temperature drops in a coma or shock, and her breathing might become so shallow as to seem to be absent.
Once JB seemed to be dead or so irreversibly damaged that there was no turning back- there were only two ways forward- call 911 and tell the truth- which may result in the sexual abuse being discovered and criminal charges being brought and certainly a "public relations" nightmare for the family and JR's business (including parent company Lockheed)- as well as a damaged future for BR if he was involved. The OTHER way was the coward's way- and obviously the way they chose to react. Stage it to look like a kidnapping by writing an inane ransom note (and leave the body there), blaming it on either a disgruntled employee (JR told Det. Arndt as soon as he brought up her body is was an "inside job", or a small foreign faction, or an intruder or all three -then call your lawyers immediately and get the governor's office involved and refuse to talk to police....well- that's why we are here today.

Quote from DeeDee249:
There were only two ways forward- call 911 and tell the truth- which may result in the sexual abuse being discovered and criminal charges being brought and certainly a "public relations" nightmare for the family and JR's business (including parent company Lockheed)- as well as a damaged future for BR if he was involved. The OTHER way was the coward's way- and obviously the way they chose to react. Stage it to look like a kidnapping by writing an inane ransom note (and leave the body there), blaming it on either a disgruntled employee (JR told Det. Arndt as soon as he brought up her body is was an "inside job", or a small foreign faction, or an intruder or all three -then call your lawyers immediately and get the governor's office involved and refuse to talk to police....well- that's why we are here today. End Quote

I think it went even higher up than that, but that is MOO. They made the phone call's as soon as the accident (in MOO) of cracking JB skull. How else can they keep Fleet White shut up for so long and BR as well?

Parents of a child that is murdered want to find the killler/killer's not hide forever and a day and keep those that were best of friends mouths shut as well.
 
Quote from DeeDee249:


They made the phone call's as soon as the accident (in MOO) of cracking JB skull. How else can they keep Fleet White shut up for so long and BR as well?




Just out of curiosity--what makes you think that?
 
SapphireSteel,
From memory the snow thing is not critical since the snow was not deposited uniformly. Or it was frozen and compact so would not display footprints. I do not think it was as big a deal as described.


In general, because this is what most perpetrators do. Check google for cases, particularly in molestation cases where a male knows he will be at the top of the suspect list, so he erroneously thinks, no body in the house, I can blame an intruder!


It just seems so obvious, the R's wanted an abduction not an intruder led dump-site, otherwise JonBenet would have been left on the roadside somewhere?



.

Do you think John was trying to get JonBenet in the SUV in the garage when he "went missing"? Maybe he was still hoping to go alone and dump her along the way to the bank for the "ransom money? Or could JonBenet of already been in the garage and John moved her in the wine cellar and that was why he made the beeline to the basement to find her? JonBenet had been moved several times by the time the ME got there and she was taken to the morgue and if she was kept on her back wouldn't the lividity stayed the same?

It does make sense that Pasty wouldn't of wanted her placed outside for cosmetic reasons and maybe some compassion ie. her blanket found with her, the heart drawn on her hand. I wonder if there was a red marker with the pad ?

I wake at night and run different scenarios in my mind. I think of the terrible scream and it suddenly stopping. I think of the "lights" seen moving in the house. I think of the missing Christmas tape and photos. I sometimes wonder if there was a stun gun and was it used to try and revive JonBenet? And that it went in a trash can outside the home?

Trying to make sense out of nonsense.
 
Do you think John was trying to get JonBenet in the SUV in the garage when he "went missing"? Maybe he was still hoping to go alone and dump her along the way to the bank for the "ransom money? Or could JonBenet of already been in the garage and John moved her in the wine cellar and that was why he made the beeline to the basement to find her? JonBenet had been moved several times by the time the ME got there and she was taken to the morgue and if she was kept on her back wouldn't the lividity stayed the same?

It does make sense that Pasty wouldn't of wanted her placed outside for cosmetic reasons and maybe some compassion ie. her blanket found with her, the heart drawn on her hand. I wonder if there was a red marker with the pad ?

I wake at night and run different scenarios in my mind. I think of the terrible scream and it suddenly stopping. I think of the "lights" seen moving in the house. I think of the missing Christmas tape and photos. I sometimes wonder if there was a stun gun and was it used to try and revive JonBenet? And that it went in a trash can outside the home?

Trying to make sense out of nonsense.

ILikeToBendPages,
Yes, John could have been upto anything while he was absent. He could have moved JonBenet, no problem, its an unaswered question. Fleet White might have the answer since he saw the inside of the wine-cellar three times that day, more than anyone else bar an R!

I reckon Fleet White thinks JonBenet was not in the wine-cellar when he first looked. After JonBenet was discovered he went back to check on something, what I do not know. But I think he was checking the visibility, since he knew what was already lying in the wine-cellar, he was confirming whether he should have seen earlier what John Ramsey saw immediately!

So its highly likely that John moved JonBenet.

It does make sense that Pasty wouldn't of wanted her placed outside for cosmetic reasons and maybe some compassion ie. her blanket found with her, the heart drawn on her hand. I wonder if there was a red marker with the pad ?
I think dumping JonBenet might ruin their plans. They were attempting to buy time, they wanted to fly out of Colorado, they thought once JonBenet is found and the interviews are over we can fly away. So they cooked up an abduction scenario.

There was a red marker somewhere in the house. I think JonBenet would draw hearts on John's newspaper and desk writing pads?


I wake at night and run different scenarios in my mind. I think of the terrible scream and it suddenly stopping. I think of the "lights" seen moving in the house. I think of the missing Christmas tape and photos. I sometimes wonder if there was a stun gun and was it used to try and revive JonBenet? And that it went in a trash can outside the home?
Stun gun. Probably not, there was no need for it. The missing Christmas tape and photos are a big red flag, especially from a family as wealthy as the R's. There is the outside possibility that JAR was indeed at the house, and its the familial abuse that is the underlying factor in setting the conspiracy in concrete?

The other items that might be noted in any Chrismas photos, video etc, are clothing, dolls, and other gifts, now absent, due to Pamela's clearup?

There is also the photo albums dumped in the basement, why so, who needed to distance themselves from JonBenet? These photos generated a search of the R's holiday home for illegal *advertiser censored*, and the results of the search were sealed!

Trying to make sense out of nonsense.
It only seems that way because most of it has been staged.



.
 
This brought back a very vivid memory of when my now 3 year old bit my husband while playing. His instant reflex reaction was to smack her..probably way too hard. He felt horrible, but stated it scared and surprised him, that was his first reaction. Is it completely unreasonable to wonder if her screams startled the abuser so much that the smack with the flashlight was almost like a reflex and not intended to be a fatal injury? Only a quick "knee jerk" reaction?

I bet she never bit him again! :eek:
 
SapphireSteel,
From memory the snow thing is not critical since the snow was not deposited uniformly. Or it was frozen and compact so would not display footprints. I do not think it was as big a deal as described.


In general, because this is what most perpetrators do. Check google for cases, particularly in molestation cases where a male knows he will be at the top of the suspect list, so he erroneously thinks, no body in the house, I can blame an intruder!


It just seems so obvious, the R's wanted an abduction not an intruder led dump-site, otherwise JonBenet would have been left on the roadside somewhere?



.

I've read up on the snow thing (which I should have done first, duh) and there was quite a lot of it, but it was patchy, also the paths to the house were completely clear...but the grassy areas were not. Perhaps there was enough around for it to be a factor for a panicked perpetrator trying to stage a scene...but you're right, at this point it does seem irrelevant.
 
I've read up on the snow thing (which I should have done first, duh) and there was quite a lot of it, but it was patchy, also the paths to the house were completely clear...but the grassy areas were not. Perhaps there was enough around for it to be a factor for a panicked perpetrator trying to stage a scene...but you're right, at this point it does seem irrelevant.

SapphireSteel,
Not quite, you can always learn from stuff.

Another way to look at this is this: If they really wanted to dump JonBenet outdoors all that was required was an incoming, e.g. intruder, and outgoing, e.g. intruder, set of footprints.

So find a pair of shoes that can be used then allowed to vanish, but for all intents and purposes an intruder has come and left the R's home. Although much more difficult to achieve, changing the tires on the car and driving in and out would yield the same result.

The problem for LEA is to distinguish the outgoing from the incoming tracks, and in the firestorm the R's would scream IDI!

So given the preamble what might we learn, possibly the R's never intended to dump JonBenet outdoors, because thats not a kidnapping is it?


.
 
Just out of curiosity--what makes you think that?

For starter's the phone records were never recovered. Why would Fleet White go to such links to help solve the case when JR ran from it? Did Fleet's son stay the night w/BR or DS and Fleet had knowledge of this?

Instead JR called the governer of Colorado and hence was lead to how to handle the situation, MOO.
Shoot, the R's lawyers were on the case before the LE could even move. So let's go to the top:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1109560/posts
 
I've read up on the snow thing (which I should have done first, duh) and there was quite a lot of it, but it was patchy, also the paths to the house were completely clear...but the grassy areas were not. Perhaps there was enough around for it to be a factor for a panicked perpetrator trying to stage a scene...but you're right, at this point it does seem irrelevant.

Posted by BlueCrab:
LOU Smit: "You know, I've looked at a lot of pictures in regards to this particular case and I can't remember seeing any bikes. What happened to the bikes?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Well, they were in the garage, I guess. JonBenet rode her bike for a moment outside before we went to the White's; just round the patio. I'm sure that went back in the garage. Patsy's bike, I don't know, it could have gone in the garage. I don't remember."

LOU SMIT: "Have you seen it since, Patsy's bike?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yeah. We have it."

LOU SMIT: "(inaudible) took it?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "No. We gave, JonBenet's bike we gave away. Patsy's bike we haven't (inaudible)."

I consider this a controversial part of the interviews because, in regard to the bike, Lou Smit seems to have named the person who took it, but the transcriber notes "inaudible" in place of the name. Was the transcript edited to shield a person's name? JMO

There was a crime scene photo 101 but it is not available.
 
A few thoughts directed to no one in particular.

What's staged and what's part of the original crime?

We know the strangulation came reasonably close in time to the head bash, so it wasn't something that they had to sit down and think about for a couple hours. That suggests to me that strangulation (which may have been separate from the garrotte) wasn't staging. I don't think the blow to the head was an accident because how do they jump to strangulation so soon after the head blow? If the strangulation was staging it was thought up pretty quickly. Too quickly, IMO, to be staging. We know from the petechial hemorrhaging that she was alive when strangled. Some have suggested strangulation with hands, the garrotte being staging. Either way, it doesn't take long to decide to do that to her, suggesting it's part of the crime, not the staging.


Was the flashlight used to crack her skull?

I don't know, however, I tend to think that if it was used, it was used by an adult. The shorter the blunt object that caused the head injury, the larger and stronger the perp had to be. IOWs BR might have been able to do that much damage swinging a golf club, but I don't think a 9 year old boy could fracture a skull with a flashlight.

Why was it wiped down inside and out?

An "intruder" might wipe down the outside, but he'd know his prints are not on the batteries. OTOH, there is really no reason for the Rs to wipe the batteries either - we'd expect their prints on the batteries, even if the intruder used it and wiped it down.

Why is there a body and a RN?

It makes no sense to have a body and a RN in the same house. If the plan was originally to dump the body, but the plan had to be abandoned, that might explain why we have both a body and a RN, though it doesn't really explain why they didn't just destroy the RN. IMO the RN just adds another layer of unbelievability to the whole scenario. It could not have taken long to destroy the RN.

Could the Rs have dumped the body?

Maybe. The Rs could not have simply put on masks and walked around their neighborhood to see if anyone was watching. That in itself might have been observed, and they might have been observed 10 minutes later after making sure everything was "ok". The only way to get the body out was by car, but that risks being noticed.

However, if we are to believe that highly placed people (ineptly) helped advise on how to stage a "kidnapping gone bad", then they might have taken the much simpler step of providing an alibi for having driven the car.

The problem I'm having with the conspiracy theories is that if the conspiracy starts with phone calls -the records of which are not available- then it probably starts before it becomes a murder. IOWs if this starts out as an accident or unintended consequence, why wouldn't higher ups want to deal with it at that much simpler level? Why turn it into a murder when it doesn't have to be a murder?

The stock answer is of course the evidence of chronic abuse, but that is distinguishable from acute abuse in any scenario. There was evidence of chronic abuse, but no action taken against the Rs in that regard, even after a murder, so why would any action have been taken if there had only been an accidental death? The evidence is the
same in either scenario.

Higher ups have risks too. In fact, it's often the conspiracy/cover-up that gets people, rather than the actual wrongdoing. (Ask Nixon). The smaller risk is to get caught helping cover up an accident, as opposed to covering up a murder.

Could JR have moved the body while he was "missing"?

IMO, probably not. There was a house full of people - most of them called by the Rs. There was at all times at least one cop present. I don't think he'd risk moving the body from say the garage to the basement. From one spot in the basement to the WC, maybe, but I still regard it as unlikely.
 
Chrishope,
What's staged and what's part of the original crime?
The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene. The primary crime-scene is located elsewhere in the house.

The flashlight might be part of the primary crime-scene, so was wiped and cleaned to remove forensic traces, e.g. hair?



The garrote is staging, its not required to kill JonBenet, bare cumped hands or a plastic bag can accomplish this. So it was a deliberate decision to asphyxiate JonBenet, e.g. not unintentional, or an artifact of staging, someone wanted JonBenet dead!

It seems Patsy fabricated the wine-cellar staging, but it was John who wiped JonBenet down?

You could infer from the breakfast-bar BDI otherwise the R's would have cleaned it up to match their version of events?

The death of JonBenet is a sexually motivated homicide with one or more of the R's as prime suspects. With no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey house, this more or less points the finger at an R!

The bottom line is that JonBenet was killed just in case she talked!


.
 
A few thoughts directed to no one in particular.

What's staged and what's part of the original crime?

We know the strangulation came reasonably close in time to the head bash, so it wasn't something that they had to sit down and think about for a couple hours. That suggests to me that strangulation (which may have been separate from the garrotte) wasn't staging. I don't think the blow to the head was an accident because how do they jump to strangulation so soon after the head blow? If the strangulation was staging it was thought up pretty quickly. Too quickly, IMO, to be staging. We know from the petechial hemorrhaging that she was alive when strangled. Some have suggested strangulation with hands, the garrotte being staging. Either way, it doesn't take long to decide to do that to her, suggesting it's part of the crime, not the staging.


Was the flashlight used to crack her skull?

I don't know, however, I tend to think that if it was used, it was used by an adult. The shorter the blunt object that caused the head injury, the larger and stronger the perp had to be. IOWs BR might have been able to do that much damage swinging a golf club, but I don't think a 9 year old boy could fracture a skull with a flashlight.

Why was it wiped down inside and out?

An "intruder" might wipe down the outside, but he'd know his prints are not on the batteries. OTOH, there is really no reason for the Rs to wipe the batteries either - we'd expect their prints on the batteries, even if the intruder used it and wiped it down.

Why is there a body and a RN?

It makes no sense to have a body and a RN in the same house.

Could the Rs have dumped the body?

The only way to get the body out was by car, but that risks being noticed.


The problem I'm having with the conspiracy theories is that if the conspiracy starts with phone calls -the records of which are not available- then it probably starts before it becomes a murder. IOWs if this starts out as an accident or unintended consequence, why wouldn't higher ups want to deal with it at that much simpler level? Why turn it into a murder when it doesn't have to be a murder?

The stock answer is of course the evidence of chronic abuse, but that is distinguishable from acute abuse in any scenario. There was evidence of chronic abuse, but no action taken against the Rs in that regard, even after a murder, so why would any action have been taken if there had only been an accidental death?


Could JR have moved the body while he was "missing"?


So much to ponder in this case= and all of it seemingly at odds.
I agree with UKGuy that the wineceller is a staged crime scene. I believe the garrote was made just outside the wineceller near the paint tote that the brush came from. She was on her stomach then- the placement of the knot at the back of her neck, the bruise on her posterior (back) shoulder, and the urine stain on the anterior (front) of her clothing all agree with this. We know she was still alive at that point- but she may have been in deep shock and appeared dead. I believe the head blow was NOT staging, but was done as a reaction to her scream. At some point after she died, within 15 minutes of her death, she was placed in the wineceller on her back on top of the white blanket. The blanket had no evidence of urine, so she did not void her bladder there. Livor formed within 15 minutes and rigor began shortly after that. This also helps to answer another question- was she moved? Not far and not from another position. Livor and rigor tell us that she remained in the position she was found in from short;y after her death until she was found BUT she could have been moved from further back in the wineceller to closer to the doorway without breaking rigor. She could have been slid along the floor still in the blanket or she could have been picked up but I don't think so. If she was picked up before rigor was fully formed, her limbs would have had to be flexible enough to splay out flat when she was lain on the blanket. The danger in moving a body after rigor forms is that it can "break" rigor if the handling is rough and after is breaks it will not re-form. She was in FULL rigor- and I feel she had to have lain in that same position the entire 12 hours she was in the wineceller, although she could have been pulled along the floor at anytime, and there is a good chance that is what JR was doing when he "disappeared".

I believe the flashlight was used. The wiping of the batteries puts it in squarely in RDI territory- and no intruder would have done it. Why do it when R prints would be expected to be there? Easy- they tried to day it wasn't theirs. They admitted they had one "just like it", and it was kept in a drawer off the kitchen. There was a photo of the drawer- it was open and there was no flashlight in it. LE pointed this out to Patsy, and she just did her "Patsy doublespeak" and they let it go.

Why a body and an RN? This was something I believe the Rs simply did not see a problem with. For one thing- while some parents do dump their child's body somewhere else, this is not something I can see the Rs doing. I just don't see it. I will always feel they really expected the police would take information and then LEAVE- to find the kidnappers. When that didn't happen and it became apparent the R were not going to be left alone in the house, they realized she had to be found and Arndt gave them the opportunity.

The sexual abuse is what made it have to be a kidnapping murder and not an accidental or unintended death. Blood coming FROM the vagina in quantities sufficient to require wiping would certainly have left evidence in the vagina, and you don't have to be a forensics expert to think that, even if they never thought about a fluoroscope or luminol. They knew it happened that night, even if they never thought previous abuse would be evident.
The phone records hold the key to this question. No action was taken against the Rs because the abuse did not surface until the autopsy, and by then they had lawyers. Without semen it is hard to identify the sexual abuser of a dead person. One specialist had already said that if she had been brought to an emergency room the father would have been arrested. Even if that happened, it still may not have been enough to identify him as the abuser. The same dilemma faced in deciding who did what that night. No way to prove which parent did what.
 
Chrishope,

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene. The primary crime-scene is located elsewhere in the house.

I agree.

The flashlight might be part of the primary crime-scene, so was wiped and cleaned to remove forensic traces, e.g. hair?

Yes, but also the fact that it's wiped down both inside and outside tells us it was likely to have been done by an R. It's one of the many many ways we can infer the Rs did it. No reason for an intruder to wipe the prints off the batteries - after all, they aren't his. In fact it's better for an intruder if the batteries have the Rs prints, that way the flashlight is tied to them.

The garrote is staging, its not required to kill JonBenet, bare cumped hands or a plastic bag can accomplish this. So it was a deliberate decision to asphyxiate JonBenet, e.g. not unintentional, or an artifact of staging, someone wanted JonBenet dead!

I agree. The strangulation was intended. The garrotte may be staging, but the decision to strangle was made very shortly after the blow to the head. This makes BDI much less likely?

It seems Patsy fabricated the wine-cellar staging, but it was John who wiped JonBenet down?

Based on fiber evidence, yes.

You could infer from the breakfast-bar BDI otherwise the R's would have cleaned it up to match their version of events?
I disagree. The pineapple could have been out from earlier, in which case there is no need to clean up, and really it plays into their "ignorance" of how she came to eat pineapple after the party if the bowl is out.

The death of JonBenet is a sexually motivated homicide with one or more of the R's as prime suspects. With no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey house, this more or less points the finger at an R!

To be as fair as possible to the IDI types, the touch DNA is evidence that potentially links someone other than a family member. There could of course be an innocent explanation for the touch dna, but there could also be a guilty explanation.

The bottom line is that JonBenet was killed just in case she talked!

If she was going to talk -presumably about chronic abuse- then what had she done to indicate a likelihood of talking in the near future? She might have talked weeks or months prior, or she might have gone on for years w/o talking, as victims sometimes do.
 
There would definitely be evidence of manual strangulation had that happened. I have to rule that out. The coroner would have known it. And I don't even think she was strangled with a scarf or anything other than the cord. No evidence supports this.
 
So much to ponder in this case= and all of it seemingly at odds.
I agree with UKGuy that the wineceller is a staged crime scene. I believe the garrote was made just outside the wineceller near the paint tote that the brush came from. She was on her stomach then- the placement of the knot at the back of her neck, the bruise on her posterior (back) shoulder, and the urine stain on the anterior (front) of her clothing all agree with this. We know she was still alive at that point- but she may have been in deep shock and appeared dead. I believe the head blow was NOT staging, but was done as a reaction to her scream. At some point after she died, within 15 minutes of her death, she was placed in the wineceller on her back on top of the white blanket. The blanket had no evidence of urine, so she did not void her bladder there. Livor formed within 15 minutes and rigor began shortly after that. This also helps to answer another question- was she moved? Not far and not from another position. Livor and rigor tell us that she remained in the position she was found in from short;y after her death until she was found BUT she could have been moved from further back in the wineceller to closer to the doorway without breaking rigor. She could have been slid along the floor still in the blanket or she could have been picked up but I don't think so. If she was picked up before rigor was fully formed, her limbs would have had to be flexible enough to splay out flat when she was lain on the blanket. The danger in moving a body after rigor forms is that it can "break" rigor if the handling is rough and after is breaks it will not re-form. She was in FULL rigor- and I feel she had to have lain in that same position the entire 12 hours she was in the wineceller, although she could have been pulled along the floor at anytime, and there is a good chance that is what JR was doing when he "disappeared".

I believe the flashlight was used. The wiping of the batteries puts it in squarely in RDI territory- and no intruder would have done it. Why do it when R prints would be expected to be there? Easy- they tried to day it wasn't theirs. They admitted they had one "just like it", and it was kept in a drawer off the kitchen. There was a photo of the drawer- it was open and there was no flashlight in it. LE pointed this out to Patsy, and she just did her "Patsy doublespeak" and they let it go.

Why a body and an RN? This was something I believe the Rs simply did not see a problem with. For one thing- while some parents do dump their child's body somewhere else, this is not something I can see the Rs doing. I just don't see it. I will always feel they really expected the police would take information and then LEAVE- to find the kidnappers. When that didn't happen and it became apparent the R were not going to be left alone in the house, they realized she had to be found and Arndt gave them the opportunity.

The sexual abuse is what made it have to be a kidnapping murder and not an accidental or unintended death. Blood coming FROM the vagina in quantities sufficient to require wiping would certainly have left evidence in the vagina, and you don't have to be a forensics expert to think that, even if they never thought about a fluoroscope or luminol. They knew it happened that night, even if they never thought previous abuse would be evident.
The phone records hold the key to this question. No action was taken against the Rs because the abuse did not surface until the autopsy, and by then they had lawyers. Without semen it is hard to identify the sexual abuser of a dead person. One specialist had already said that if she had been brought to an emergency room the father would have been arrested. Even if that happened, it still may not have been enough to identify him as the abuser. The same dilemma faced in deciding who did what that night. No way to prove which parent did what.


Good analysis. The only thing I'd disagree with is whether they expected LE to take the info and leave. It's certainly possible, but they must not have had their thinking caps on. A search would seem likely and the possibility of a K-9 unit should have occurred to them. Then there were all the "guests" invited over for God only knows what reason. I don't see how they could expect the body not to be found fairly quickly.
 
Good analysis. The only thing I'd disagree with is whether they expected LE to take the info and leave. It's certainly possible, but they must not have had their thinking caps on. A search would seem likely and the possibility of a K-9 unit should have occurred to them. Then there were all the "guests" invited over for God only knows what reason. I don't see how they could expect the body not to be found fairly quickly.

The housekeeper said that most people didn't know the wineceller was there. You had to go through another room first- the door was not off the main basement areas. The calling in of the friends and clergy and victims' advocates literally minutes after being warned not to (under threat of JB's death) is to me, on of the main reasons why they did it. Because they had been warned not to. Therefore, if she turned up dead (and she was already dead) they could blame it on that. They even put it in the note that the house and phones were being monitored. It is pretty complicated to "monitor" a phone line unless the kidnappers were FBI, Police or worked for the phone company. This gave them the perfect explanation for their dead child- she was killed because they called people.
The other thing we can thank that posse of "friends" for is wiping down the kitchen counters - and area where both the potential weapon and pineapple evidence was located. Oops!
 
The housekeeper said that most people didn't know the wineceller was there. You had to go through another room first- the door was not off the main basement areas. The calling in of the friends and clergy and victims' advocates literally minutes after being warned not to (under threat of JB's death) is to me, on of the main reasons why they did it. Because they had been warned not to. Therefore, if she turned up dead (and she was already dead) they could blame it on that. They even put it in the note that the house and phones were being monitored. It is pretty complicated to "monitor" a phone line unless the kidnappers were FBI, Police or worked for the phone company. This gave them the perfect explanation for their dead child- she was killed because they called people.
The other thing we can thank that posse of "friends" for is wiping down the kitchen counters - and area where both the potential weapon and pineapple evidence was located. Oops!

I keep wondering why the Stines weren't called that morning. They lived a very short distance away, SS was already PR's bulldog? DeeDee249 what are your thoughts on this? Thanks
 
SapphireSteel,
Not quite, you can always learn from stuff.

Another way to look at this is this: If they really wanted to dump JonBenet outdoors all that was required was an incoming, e.g. intruder, and outgoing, e.g. intruder, set of footprints.

So find a pair of shoes that can be used then allowed to vanish, but for all intents and purposes an intruder has come and left the R's home. Although much more difficult to achieve, changing the tires on the car and driving in and out would yield the same result.

The problem for LEA is to distinguish the outgoing from the incoming tracks, and in the firestorm the R's would scream IDI!

So given the preamble what might we learn, possibly the R's never intended to dump JonBenet outdoors, because thats not a kidnapping is it?


.

Did anyone ever "measure" the imprint of the High Tec shoe imprint in the wine cellar?

I think Pasty acknowledged that Burke had a pair of them. Were they ever accounted for? If JAR was there and could of been from him?

Why distance yourself from you daughter's photos? But an older brother might want to. I wonder if he was in there that afternoon and night and he was the one that abused JonBenet and he did the head bash when she screamed. Could Pasty of gone looking when she heard a scream? and found JAR with a comatose JonBenet and no clothes from her waist down? Could the comforter from his bed been used and he got JonBenet to come with him because he was going to read her a book? And that would account for the things in the suitcase? Was the suitcase going to be used to get JonBenet out of the house? Where was that suitcase usually stored? I wonder why John Ramsey wanted to be sure his golf bag was taken out of the house?

But that still doesn't explain evidence found in JonBenet's bed.

Just more random thoughts.
 
I agree.



Yes, but also the fact that it's wiped down both inside and outside tells us it was likely to have been done by an R. It's one of the many many ways we can infer the Rs did it. No reason for an intruder to wipe the prints off the batteries - after all, they aren't his. In fact it's better for an intruder if the batteries have the Rs prints, that way the flashlight is tied to them.



I agree. The strangulation was intended. The garrotte may be staging, but the decision to strangle was made very shortly after the blow to the head. This makes BDI much less likely?



Based on fiber evidence, yes.

You could infer from the breakfast-bar BDI otherwise the R's would have cleaned it up to match their version of events?
I disagree. The pineapple could have been out from earlier, in which case there is no need to clean up, and really it plays into their "ignorance" of how she came to eat pineapple after the party if the bowl is out.



To be as fair as possible to the IDI types, the touch DNA is evidence that potentially links someone other than a family member. There could of course be an innocent explanation for the touch dna, but there could also be a guilty explanation.



If she was going to talk -presumably about chronic abuse- then what had she done to indicate a likelihood of talking in the near future? She might have talked weeks or months prior, or she might have gone on for years w/o talking, as victims sometimes do.


Chrishope,
I disagree. The pineapple could have been out from earlier, in which case there is no need to clean up, and really it plays into their "ignorance" of how she came to eat pineapple after the party if the bowl is out.
Lets put your disagreement to bed. Note there was condensed milk in the bowl, and a spoon was available. This is evidence contradicting any prior preparation, even if this assumption was false, and there was prior preparation, th eaddition of the condensed milk marks a particular point in time, e.g. not when it was prepared?

I agree. The strangulation was intended. The garrotte may be staging, but the decision to strangle was made very shortly after the blow to the head. This makes BDI much less likely?
How can you infer from a decision to quickly kill JonBenet that BDI is less likely? You could have Patsy staging for Burke?


To be as fair as possible to the IDI types, the touch DNA is evidence that potentially links someone other than a family member. There could of course be an innocent explanation for the touch dna, but there could also be a guilty explanation.
If there were a guilty explanation for the touch dna, why has it not been found and why is there no similar touch dna anywhere else particularly in the wine-cellar, or JonBenet's bedroom, you might expect a surplus in the latter?

If she was going to talk -presumably about chronic abuse- then what had she done to indicate a likelihood of talking in the near future? She might have talked weeks or months prior, or she might have gone on for years w/o talking, as victims sometimes do.
Sure but the person who killed JonBenet was not concerned with conjecture, but more with probability, and they reckoned if JonBenet remained alive she would talk with someone about her abuse, it was so extensive and familial, her killer knew she would talk. JonBenet might even have indicated she intended to talk, the desire to share and communicate is given, her killer would understand this and might have acted upon it?


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
2,364
Total visitors
2,544

Forum statistics

Threads
589,970
Messages
17,928,523
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top