Cords, Knots, and Strangulation Devices

My responses in blue.

7a) I’ve addressed this previously.
Yeah, and I doubt you'd like what I have to say about it!

Nothing new there.

Quote:
It was most likely that her arms were crossed in front of her and the ligature attached to each wrist and then behind her back in “straightjacket style”. This would have restrained her more than adequately, without the knots needing to be tied tightly and left 15 ½ inches between the knots. The arms were subsequently pulled above her head when she was lifted or dragged to the WC.

I don't figure that AT ALL. Talk about a lot of assumptions. Since the knots were so loose, it doesn't wash that she was dragged or anything of the sort. Also, where were the marks from the cord on her wrists?

It's a bit like the pages on the stairs. You really have to try it yourself. You've experimented quite a bit with various things, so give it a go. It works!!

Click to expand...

I've worked out through tedious calculation (only to have my post lost) that there was around 7ft of cord at most. - MF

otg, what did you calculate for total length used?

DeeDee249 said:

Once again, we agree!

Click to expand...

DD, MF,

I do agree with both of you as well...Any theory has part of 'imagination'. We don't have all the evidence and some which we think we know - could be wrong. I'm only sure on few things: PR knows what happens that night; PR and JR were involved in 'staging'. I still not 100% sure who placed the cord on JBR neck: BR? JAR? or someone very close and dear to R family. And in my opinion, the cord was not part of the 'staging', but rather controlling part of the sexual encounter. I could reconsider the role of the wooden paintbrush as the 'staging' element, placed much later...but as of today, I'm convinced that cord and knots were placed on JBR while she was alive, BEFORE the blow to her head and only after the blow - was tide harder to kill! I have the rights to be wrong.

OpenMind4U said:

DD, MF,

I do agree with both of you as well...Any theory has part of 'imagination'. We don't have all the evidence and some which we think we know - could be wrong. I'm only sure on few things: PR knows what happens that night; PR and JR were involved in 'staging'. I still not 100% sure who placed the cord on JBR neck: BR? JAR? or someone very close and dear to R family. And in my opinion, the cord was not part of the 'staging', but rather controlling part of the sexual encounter. I could reconsider the role of the wooden paintbrush as the 'staging' element, placed much later...but as of today, I'm convinced that cord and knots were placed on JBR while she was alive, BEFORE the blow to her head and only after the blow - was tide harder to kill! I have the rights to be wrong.

Click to expand...

my bold

I'm sure you're wrong because the evidence and witness testimony would have to be circumvented and ignored. I understand your position though.

Here is my 'analytical' deduction. We have 3 elements of the deadly actions: blow on head, strangulation and sexual assault. We have 2 important facts: NO DEFENSE WOUNDS on JBR hands and AFTER the head blow, JBR is unconscious but still alive...

...Now, depends on the goal of the 'X-murderer' (XM for easy reference), the 'common sense' of events should be as follow:

XM goal is to kidnap/molest JBR:

IF XM = IDI then
RN;
control with the cord, SEXUAL ASSAULT, scream, BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STRANGULATION to kill fast!
NO STAGING (no time/no need to place tape, clean, redress, hide!);
get out ASAP
ENDIF

XM goal is to molest JBR:

IF XM = IDI then
no RN;
control with the cord, SEXUAL ASSAULT, scream, BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STRANGULATION to kill fast!
NO STAGING (no time/no need to place tape, clean, redress, hide!);
get out ASAP
ELSE
IF XM = RDI then
control with the cord (as part of the game only!!! Otherwise, no cord needed);
SEXUAL ASSAULT, scream, BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STRANGULATION as an ACCIDENT or STRANGULATION to kill fast!
STAGING (place tape, clean, redress, hide, write RN)
ENDIF
ENDIF

Here is ST scenario:

IF XM = PR then
BLOW on head, JBR is unconscious but still breathing;
STAGING
why add SEXUAL ASSAULT???
Why use STRANGULATION when can be used the 'soft' kill by the pillow???
STAGING (place tape, clean, redress, hide, write RN);
ENDIF

IMO, the second RDI scenario accommodates all deadly elements, known facts and behavior explanation. STRANGULATION for the staging purpose makes no sense at all. Again, JMO.

otg said:

I only posted two pictures to show that there are at least some pipe running at about the same level as the top of the door. There are at least several other basement pictures floating around that show overhead pipes running all over the place. I don’t know exactly where she died, or what was overhead wherever that was; and I certainly don’t know all of the measurements of the ceiling and door heights of that particular basement or the different rooms in it. Nor do I know for certain (though it was my guess) that she was not standing on anything. If she was, I don’t think it would have been anything very high, or there would have been more damage to her throat internally. Also, as I stated to start, I didn’t know JonBenet’s exact height. You say it was 4’ -- I’ll take your word for that because you seem certain of it.

I guess what it all comes down to is that there is a lot that we don’t know with certainty that can make a difference one way or another. You asked if the cord would be long enough to do what I felt the evidence was saying, and I tried to calculate it with as much information as I had, and I noted where I had to estimate. I still feel that with what we know (and what we know that we don’t know), there would be enough cord to make my theory of how it happened plausible -- even if most people don’t even want to consider the possibility. I’m not married to a theory, and I won’t try to slant what I know in an attempt to change the outcome. I believe in letting the evidence speak for itself even if we don’t have enough evidence to be right. I’m just looking at the best information we have and telling you what I think it means. And though you and I may disagree on many things, I’ll listen to candid and logical disagreement any time, and consider the alternatives with an open mind. Who knows -- you may convince me one day to agree with you, or I may convince you to agree with me. Wouldn’t that be great?!

One more thing (I feel like Columbo now)... I don’t think the supposed spot where JonBenet died was really “debunked”, it was only identified as “questionable” because the “urine stain” came from only one source apparently, and somehow got accepted as a fact over the years. That doesn’t make it not true -- just not confirmed. Just goes to show how hungry we all are for information we can use, eh?
.

Click to expand...

Most of my calculations are based on the Autopsy report, which details her height as well as the length of the ligatures. I needed to estimate the circumfence of the loops, but as there is a ruler in post pictures, this wasn't difficult. The length of cord on the stick is a guestimate. Report is here http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996autopsy.htm

I was trying to show that the hanging wasn't feasible, given the length of the cord. You need to do this calculation yourself to be convinced. The standard door height (here in Oz anyway) is 6'8", so I based the estimate of the height of the pipes on this, as the doors clear the pipework. The larger pipes look like 4" or 6" diameter, I used 4". Of course, if you are just going to say (in backing up the hanging theory) that there was probably more cord that was cut off and sent out with BR in the backpack or with PP in the golf bag, then I'd be disappointed in you!!

You have made me wonder though, if the cord on the stick was capable of strangling her. I can certainly see that it's purpose was so that tension could be kept on the cord while the IDI was standing above, pulling on the stick with a foot on her shoulders (see the enhanced picture I posted earlier with the shoe imprints). How long would it have taken to strangle her like that? Or even for her to become unconscious? Was it the length of time it took the reason for the head bash -- they became impatient?

I said the theory of her having died in the hallway was 'debunked' because, although it is still possible, I wanted people to consider that it is just one person's theory, and is no more valid than another persons as it cannot be verified. What happens here is a theory, that is accepted as fact, gets a life of it's own, other theories attach to it, until there is a whole story developed around something that turns out to have been based on a fictitious clue. In this case, it is the unverified 'urine stain'.

Well if you had this scenario...ransom letter, sexual assault and blow to the head, than you would well expect the Ramseys to be taken to the police station ASAP...if you add in strangulation, than therein lies the problem.

Speaking of hanging...weren't JonBenet's feet dirty??

MurriFlower said:

THE FIBERS

1. Mr Levin states that he believes fibers from PR's coat are in the paint tray.
2. Mr Kane states they are identical "in all scientific respects".
3. Mr Wood asks to see the lab report.
4. Mr Levin says he believes Mr Kane's statement that the lab technician would testify that it was a conclusive match.
5. Mr Wood asks if the lab technician will testify that it was a conclusive match.
6. Mr Kane replies "yes".

Cute!!

Click to expand...

Works for me. Must have worked for PR too, because not only did she nearly faint when told, it took her TWO FULL YEARS to come up with an explanation that only adds to the problem.

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't realize you'd read the police case file!

If the fibers were only found in one area, as you assert, (and if this is a fact) means that they either may have been in other areas but were not found, or not looked for. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

The only place we know of that had fibers consistent with her coat (that were on an item they didn't own) were the four (4) red fibers on the tape. As discussed, two people who handled the tape also handled the coat, so this is not evidence.

Click to expand...

Sounds like lawyer-speak to me.

In any event, had they been charged and gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity for the defence to have their own lab technicians look at the fibers and more than likely testify that there was no conclusive match. It would then be up to the jury to decide which 'expert' they were prepared to believe.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

MurriFlower said:

I understand perfectly, I think it's you who are having a problem.

Please stand on a step and pick up something from the step below where you are standing. How do you do it? With difficulty?

Now, step over the next step and turn around and pick up something from the step above where you are standing. Easier?

Click to expand...

Okay, I think I know where the problem is. I wasn't saying that the cops found it easier to step over it and pick it up. I'm saying that they couldn't "hop" over the step as she claimed to have done without falling. I hope we got that straight.

Finally!! A credit card for an amount does not equal evidence of the purchase of some incriminating items. You know it and they knew it.

Click to expand...

That's not quite what I meant.

Don't give me that.

Click to expand...

Why the HE** not?! His record is available for anyone to see. Don't take my word for it.

You usually don't just go and buy cord and tape and then leave it in the package, you get them in order to use them for some particular purpose.

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. I have cord and tape still in the packs. Why? Just in case.

I've never seen one of his interviews. Where can I access them?

Click to expand...

They used to be all over the place. I'll look.

His mother described it in an interview.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, she's an impeccable source! Are we talking about the same woman who described the heart on JB's hand in detail, then turned around and claimed she never even saw it? The woman whose account of how her fibers wound up in compromising areas is at odds with her own husband's writings?

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't take an emotional attachment to regret one's action when the heat of the moment passes.

Click to expand...

Are you honestly telling me that an intruder who went to all of the trouble to break in, spend hours writing notes and--according to you guys--"brutally" murdered a little girl is going to have a sudden attack of conscience?

Oh, come on, an IDI could have had an emotional attachment, real or in his own mind, it may have even been the reason for the murder. We've also discussed the fact that the wrapping may have been done by an accomplice.

Click to expand...

Occam's Razor, Murri. Who is more likely?

Can't remember, one of you RDIs.

Click to expand...

I think I'd remember that.

I'm referring to the person who undressed her, tied her up, strangled her, bashed her head in and digitally penetrated her, redressed her, moved her to the wine cellar and wrapped her in a blanket. I'm thinking there was a bit of touching going on here.

Click to expand...

Ah. Well, I don't think that's what happened. I think she was hit in the head first and was penetrated by the paintbrush, the brush used specifically so they wouldn't HAVE to touch her flesh. And she was carried to the basement in the blanket. Everything else I can go along with.

It's a bit like the pages on the stairs. You really have to try it yourself. You've experimented quite a bit with various things, so give it a go. It works!!

Click to expand...

What makes you think I haven't? Anytime you're ready to present some proof that what you say happened, I'm all ears.

MurriFlower said:

THE FIBERS

1. Mr Levin states that he believes fibers from PR's coat are in the paint tray.
2. Mr Kane states they are identical "in all scientific respects".
3. Mr Wood asks to see the lab report.
4. Mr Levin says he believes Mr Kane's statement that the lab technician would testify that it was a conclusive match.
5. Mr Wood asks if the lab technician will testify that it was a conclusive match.
6. Mr Kane replies "yes".

Cute!!

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

If the fibers were only found in one area, as you assert, (and if this is a fact) means that they either may have been in other areas but were not found, or not looked for. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

The only place we know of that had fibers consistent with her coat (that were on an item they didn't own) were the four (4) red fibers on the tape. As discussed, two people who handled the tape also handled the coat, so this is not evidence.

In any event, had they been charged and gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity for the defence to have their own lab technicians look at the fibers and more than likely testify that there was no conclusive match. It would then be up to the jury to decide which 'expert' they were prepared to believe.

Click to expand...

MurriFlower,

3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those.
16 MR. WOOD: Right. Not, not
17 without -- I mean, with all due respect,
18 Bruce, even the discussion we had, as I can
19 best recall it, we didn't get a consistent
20 description of the fiber results on the
21 question of the paint tray. You are sitting
22 here making a record saying that it is a
23 fact, and I don't know that.
24 MR. LEVIN: I understand that,

Click to expand...

All these fibers distributed across the crime-scene will not be accidental. The fibers found in the ligature are incriminating, not conclusively, but I reckon any jury would be highly sceptical of any defense report that claimed the fibers were different from those in her jacket.

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

Click to expand...

This is erroneous reasoning, and of the kind you are criticising yourself. You reach a conclusion No evidence yet you cannot know since JonBenet's forensic evidence is sealed and not open to public scrutiny.

UKGuy said:

MurriFlower,


All these fibers distributed across the crime-scene will not be accidental. The fibers found in the ligature are incriminating, not conclusively, but I reckon any jury would be highly sceptical of any defense report that claimed the fibers were different from those in her jacket.


This is erroneous reasoning, and of the kind you are criticising yourself. You reach a conclusion No evidence yet you cannot know since JonBenet's forensic evidence is sealed and not open to public scrutiny.

Click to expand...

You say it so much more nicely than I would, UKGuy!

SuperDave said:

Okay, I think I know where the problem is. I wasn't saying that the cops found it easier to step over it and pick it up. I'm saying that they couldn't "hop" over the step as she claimed to have done without falling. I hope we got that straight.

Click to expand...

You're trying to tell me those big sooks couldn't take stairs two at a time? What a COS!

That's not quite what I meant.

Why the HE** not?! His record is available for anyone to see. Don't take my word for it.

That's not necessarily true. I have cord and tape still in the packs. Why? Just in case.

Click to expand...

This trying to fit them up with the purchase of the cord and the tape by an amount that according to them, equalled the price of the cord and tape used in the murder, is a dead duck. There was no cord or tape in the house that matched. There was nothing in the house that had any cord or tape on it that matched.

If they were serious about finding the killer and it was true that the cord and tape from the local hardware store was an EXACT MATCH for the cord and tape used in the murder, wouldn't you think they would have spent a bit of time looking at OTHER PURCHASERS of cord and tape around the time of the murder? It stands to reason, by RDI logic, that proximity equals probability, then by Mr Occam's shaving method, the murderer most likely purchased his equipment locally. But it appears that they were just intent on 'fitting up the Rs' and ignored any other purchasers of these two items as potential suspects.

They used to be all over the place. I'll look.

Click to expand...

Ta very much.

Oh, yeah, she's an impeccable source! Are we talking about the same woman who described the heart on JB's hand in detail, then turned around and claimed she never even saw it? The woman whose account of how her fibers wound up in compromising areas is at odds with her own husband's writings?

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, I forgot, that lying b**ch didn't say one single word of truth as far as you are concerned (unless it suits your purposes LOL).

Are you honestly telling me that an intruder who went to all of the trouble to break in, spend hours writing notes and--according to you guys--"brutally" murdered a little girl is going to have a sudden attack of conscience?

Click to expand...

Yep, it appears so, or his accomplice did. Weird eh? Just as weird as this whole murder was, so at least it's consistent.

Occam's Razor, Murri. Who is more likely?

Click to expand...

You must try to get a new line in quotes, this razor is getting a bit blunt. How's about 'Truth is stranger than fiction' LOL.

UKGuy said:

MurriFlower,


All these fibers distributed across the crime-scene will not be accidental. The fibers found in the ligature are incriminating, not conclusively, but I reckon any jury would be highly sceptical of any defense report that claimed the fibers were different from those in her jacket.


This is erroneous reasoning, and of the kind you are criticising yourself. You reach a conclusion No evidence yet you cannot know since JonBenet's forensic evidence is sealed and not open to public scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Ukguy we've been over this time and again. They can SAY anything they like (but notice they say 'we believe' just to cover themselves LOL) to try to trap someone into incriminating themselves.

Just look at the phrasing of the question (my bold)

"3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those."

Let me ask you:

I believe, based on what an expert told me, that there is evidence to incriminate you in this murder, Ukguy. How do you explain that?

Whatcha gunna say?

Where's this evidence?

If there WAS evidence, they would have produced it, (waving it triumphantly under LW's nose) not just said that 'they believed that someone said'. See the difference??

MurriFlower said:

You're trying to tell me those big sooks couldn't take stairs two at a time?

Click to expand...

Not on that staircase.

This trying to fit them up with the purchase of the cord and the tape by an amount that according to them, equalled the price of the cord and tape used in the murder, is a dead duck. There was no cord or tape in the house that matched. There was nothing in the house that had any cord or tape on it that matched.

If they were serious about finding the killer and it was true that the cord and tape from the local hardware store was an EXACT MATCH for the cord and tape used in the murder, wouldn't you think they would have spent a bit of time looking at OTHER PURCHASERS of cord and tape around the time of the murder? It stands to reason, by RDI logic, that proximity equals probability, then by Mr Occam's shaving method, the murderer most likely purchased his equipment locally.

Click to expand...

Far as I know, they did check out a few other places. There was an Army-Navy store, if memory serves.

But it appears that they were just intent on 'fitting up the Rs' and ignored any other purchasers of these two items as potential suspects.

Click to expand...

To you, maybe.

Ta very much.

Click to expand...

I'll let you know.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, that lying b**ch didn't say one single word of truth as far as you are concerned (unless it suits your purposes LOL).

Click to expand...

WOW. Remember, YOU said that, not me! That was LOW.

And I find it hard to believe you "forgot." You've made it clear that you can't see it when it's slapping you in the face. Well, I can sympathize. I was the same way, once.

Yep, it appears so, or his accomplice did. Weird eh? Just as weird as this whole murder was, so at least it's consistent.

Click to expand...

My head hurts again!

You must try to get a new line in quotes, this razor is getting a bit blunt.

Click to expand...

It works. And I don't apologize for it.

How's about 'Truth is stranger than fiction' LOL.

Click to expand...

Ironic, given the source.

SuperDave;5810538]Not on that staircase.

Click to expand...

Just run by me again which step it was found on?

Far as I know, they did check out a few other places. There was an Army-Navy store, if memory serves.

Click to expand...

I didn't say if they checked out other stores, but other people who PURCHASED the 'incriminating' items.

WOW. Remember, YOU said that, not me! That was LOW.

Click to expand...

Keh? Just remind me of something she said you DO believe?

And I find it hard to believe you "forgot." You've made it clear that you can't see it when it's slapping you in the face. Well, I can sympathize. I was the same way, once.

Click to expand...

Forgot what??

My head hurts again!

Click to expand...

Now you know how I feel!

It works. And I don't apologize for it.

Click to expand...

It works when it suits your purposes. The most logical killer, taking into account the evidence, is an IDI. For RDI to work, you have people acting totally out of context, without motive, doing things that they have never attempted before, consistently lying to cover up, using items they didn't own, conspiring with their whole family to remove evidence, enlisting support of LE, and taking their secret to their grave. All you needed is for IDI is someone to come in that balcony while they were away, write the RN, wait till they come home, do the deed and take themselves away again. What seems most likely to you is not most likely to me. It's just a glib saying with no basis in fact.

Ironic, given the source.

Click to expand...

So I'm not supposed to take offence at such a rude remark then?

MurriFlower said:

Just run by me again which step it was found on?

Click to expand...

You mean where the Rs SAY they found it, right? I'll check.

I didn't say if they checked out other stores, but other people who PURCHASED the 'incriminating' items.

Click to expand...

Did any of those people have a dead kid in THEIR basements?

Keh?

Click to expand...

Don't play games with me. You referred to Patsy Ramsey as "that lying b**ch with the clear implication that those were my thoughts, if not my words. That was low.

Just remind me of something she said you DO believe?

Click to expand...

One thing? Okay: I believe her when she described the heart on JB's hand. And when she said there were two people who knew who did this. There's more. It'll come to me.

Forgot what??

Click to expand...

You said, and I quote, "Oh, yeah, I forgot, that lying b**ch didn't say one single word of truth as far as you are concerned (unless it suits your purposes LOL)" And I said that I didn't think you forgot it so much as you refused to recognize it.

Now you know how I feel!

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised at how well I know how you feel.

It works when it suits your purposes. The most logical killer, taking into account the evidence, is an IDI.

Click to expand...

You were only off by one letter. The most logical killer, taking into account the ENTIRETY of the evidence and not just picking and choosing, is RDI.

For RDI to work, you have people acting totally out of context, without motive, doing things that they have never attempted before, consistently lying to cover up, using items they didn't own, conspiring with their whole family to remove evidence, enlisting support of LE, and taking their secret to their grave.

Click to expand...

That's more or less right. It's actually pretty simple.

I take umbrage with a few of those assertions: we don't know what the motive might be; and I'm not aware of anyone who thinks they conspired with their whole family. You'll have to explain that one to me.

All you needed is for IDI is someone to come in that balcony while they were away, write the RN, wait till they come home, do the deed and take themselves away again.

Click to expand...

It's hardly that simple! What you need for IDI to work is for someone to come in, spend hours wandering the house in the dark, write an RN with materials they just happen to know would be there and using expressions and numbers familiar to the family (whom he's presumably never met), force-feed her pineapple and wait the two hours for it to digest (what was he doing in that time, anyway? Playing cards with her?), molest her in a way that the FBI said was totally inconsistent with a sexual predator, kill her with an inefficient weapon and then just vanish into thin air.

Sorry; fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.

I know how much you dislike talking about other cases, Murri. But some of the biggest eye-openers for me were the killings of Danielle Van Dam and Samantha Runnion. That's how REAL stranger child killers operate.

What seems most likely to you is not most likely to me.

Click to expand...

That's obvious!

So I'm not supposed to take offence at such a rude remark then?

Click to expand...

Were my mother still alive, she would no doubt say something about throwing stones in a glass house.

Chrishope said:

otg

You certainly have come up with a theory which fits much of the evidence. It could have happened this way - certainly no reason for me to deny that it could.

I find it unlikely though. But then I find all BDI theory unlikely.

BDI always has to explain both JR and PR doing all the staging to protect BR.

But, BR isn't going to prison at age 9. He's going to a juvenile shrink ward for a while, and this is embarrassing to the family - but is it more embarrassing than being a murder suspect? More embarrassing than having people think you diddled your daughter then killed her?

Click to expand...

Yes, just about any BDI theory is going to have both parents working together to do the cover-up. That’s because logic tells anyone that a child would be incapable of doing any of the elaborate staging that would be required to come up with something that would fool so many people (even to this day) into believing that someone came into the home with the intent of kidnapping, only to end up killing their hostage before they even leave the house.

Can I ask this question, not just of you, Chris, but anyone who wants to answer... Before this happened, and before we all got so consumed with reading all we could about it, and we all read about the fact that Burke was one month shy of being 10-years-old, and that Colorado law does not allow anyone under the age of ten to be charged with a felony, did you know that? In fact, do you know right now what that age is in your own state (or country, for our international guests)?

In addition to it being unlikely that the Ramseys knew that, if they were indeed faced with the situation as I have suggested, I don’t think they would have been thinking clearly enough to decide to go ahead and call the police for the reason that their son couldn’t be charged with a crime anyway.

I always find a cover-up to protect Burke an unlikely scenario.

Click to expand...

I do too!! I also find it “unlikely” that this whole thing would happen. It’s unbelievably unlikely that a 6yo girl could be sexually assaulted, strangled, hit over the head, washed up, wrapped up, and laid out in the basement of her own home on Christmas night. But as unlikely as it is, it happened. Don’t look for something “likely” in this. You’ll never find it.

Consider that had there been an indictment, and the Rs were found guilty at trial, they'd have "lost" Burke for all practical purposes. Implicating one's self in a murder doesn't seem like a good way to protect your son. If BR did kill JBR, accidentally, the best course of action for the Rs would be call the police and not touch one damn thing. Would have been best for BR too.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with that. It’s what I would do. It’s what, I’m sure, you would do. It’s probably what every single person reading this would do. But that doesn’t mean that every single person who might ever be confronted with such a situation would do the same thing.

BDI usually has JR covering up to save himself - the presumption being JR did the prior molestation. But again, is it better to be suspected of molestation, or suspected of both molestation and murder? And what's the probability that JR could be proven to be the prior abuser? Proof as opposed to suspicion.

Click to expand...

I don’t believe John Ramsey ever molested JonBenet -- that night, or any night prior to that. Nor do I believe that it was anything done by Patsy -- as a “punishment”, as any kind of “rough handling”, or as any kind of staging to make it look like the work of an intruder. Had it been done as something to make it look like the work of someone from outside the house (Jammie’s “sick puppy”), why would she have been wiped down and cleaned of any blood? Wouldn’t it be better to leave it on and look even more horrifying? I don’t think they believed that anyone would know about the sexual aspect of this. They did most of the cover-up to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted (which, to me, shows what their motivation was in making it seem like something it was not).

The really big problem with BDI is that PR's involvement must be explained. I take it for granted that JR doesn't tell PR of the prior molestation. But then we are back to staging for the sake of Burke, and I've already outlined why I'm skeptical about that. What mother's natural instinct would be to stage a crime scene - including tying the end of the "garrote" around a stick while looking at your dead daughter?

Click to expand...

Again John doesn’t know about any prior molestation at that time. As for who did what in the cover-up, I don’t think (and this is only my opinion here) Patsy would have been able to do anything to JonBenet’s body after she was found dead. I think that once the decision was made and agreed on as the best thing to do, John would simply “man-up” and do what he felt was necessary, telling Patsy to use her journalism skills and go write a ransom note while he took care of the things that had to be done. Same reason he would have her make the 911 call -- she would be so much more believable as the distraught parent because of all the raw emotion.

Even if JR cons PR into going along with the staging "to protect Burke" she must surely figure out later that something more was at stake. At that point it's probable that she talks to authorities.

Click to expand...

Again, IMO, mute point.

It might fit the evidence, and I can't say that it's impossible, but my gut says it's highly improbable. I think PR was far more involved than just being a mom who got talked into helping with a cover-up to protect her son.

Click to expand...

Involved in what way? Tell me about it.
.

otg said:

I don’t believe John Ramsey ever molested JonBenet -- that night, or any night prior to that. Nor do I believe that it was anything done by Patsy -- as a “punishment”, as any kind of “rough handling”, or as any kind of staging to make it look like the work of an intruder. Had it been done as something to make it look like the work of someone from outside the house (Jammie’s “sick puppy”), why would she have been wiped down and cleaned of any blood? Wouldn’t it be better to leave it on and look even more horrifying? I don’t think they believed that anyone would know about the sexual aspect of this. They did most of the cover-up to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted (which, to me, shows what their motivation was in making it seem like something it was not). .

Click to expand...

100% agree with you, OTG! And something else. I would love to hear the answer from IDI supporters: 'Assuming that RN was written by IDI before R came home, when RN was placed on the bottom of the spiral stairs: before or after JBR murder?'. You see, no matter what the answer is - it has no logical behavior sense, IMO.

BEFORE the murder: risky business; any R can wake-up at any time and get downstairs, see RN and spoil the 'fun';
AFTER the murder: risky business again; takes time after cleaning, redressing...go upstairs, walk through the kitchen and hallway and neatly place all pages (kind of side by side) in sequential order...WOW, 'cool dude' this IDI...

MurriFlower said:

Ukguy we've been over this time and again. They can SAY anything they like (but notice they say 'we believe' just to cover themselves LOL) to try to trap someone into incriminating themselves.

Just look at the phrasing of the question (my bold)

"3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.
14 And I understand you are not going to answer
15 those."

Let me ask you:

I believe, based on what an expert told me, that there is evidence to incriminate you in this murder, Ukguy. How do you explain that?

Whatcha gunna say?

Where's this evidence?

If there WAS evidence, they would have produced it, (waving it triumphantly under LW's nose) not just said that 'they believed that someone said'. See the difference??

Click to expand...

MurriFlower,
Well as usual you seem to consider that indulging us in your erroneous reasoning is sufficient to persuade us that you are correct.

Given the number of your invalid conclusions I'm beginning to wonder if you are operating incognito, since your mistakes in reasoning seem to be very similar to some other members.

There is nothing inconsistent in the interviewers remarks. Mr Levin is stating he has a belief, but not any arbitrary belief such as alien abduction or the power inherent in pyramids. Mr Levin is stating his belief is based on the state of the art scientific testing, so it is not a subjective belief, it is objective and testable.

Whilst you may hold the belief that the police were attempting to entrap the Ramseys' your evidence for this is simply based on semantics and your personal interpretation of the term belief.

You have not seen the evidence and you do not know if the said evidence e.g. lab report is absent because the forensic evidence is sealed. So your reasoning means that you are inferring the absence of forensic evidence based on a subjective belief e.g. entrapment. This means we cannot test your belief. But Mr Levin's belief is testable his is objective. Furthermore in the event of any court case the evidence led in the interview would have to be produced in court else claims of entrapment might be sustained.

I believe, based on what an expert told me, that there is evidence to incriminate you in this murder, Ukguy. How do you explain that?

Whatcha gunna say?

Where's this evidence?

Click to expand...

I'd say I'll see you in court, since that is where the actual forensic evidence is tested.

Ukguy we've been over this time and again.

Click to expand...

Possibly because you reckon repetition represents validity. Similar to how magic operates with the incantation of spells.

You may believe you have a case for entrapment but sadly you can produce no evidence since the forensic evidence is sealed.

That is your reasoning is flawed. So I guess we may revisit this one again.



.