Exhume Jonbenet's Body; Why Not?

[Blazeboy3]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in523887.shtml
...
Unfortunately, with only photographs to go by, no expert can be sure. The best way to determine the answer would have been to exhume the body to study the injuries. Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet’s death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed. They decided against it

So did John Ramsey. “We had buried our child, she was at peace, she was safe. That was just an abhorrent thought to me,” he says. “We’ve got people that know what they’re doing that say with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used, no question.” Despite the uncertainty that leaves, he says he didn’t want to disturb his child.
...
IMHO why would Patsy state/say "Go Back To The Damn Drawing Board" as if this is a "picture"?

IMHO, why not exhume JonBenet's body if it would SAVE ANOTHER CHILD ...(KILLER ON THE LOOSE)...HELLO???

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou..._3.html?sect=7
Patsy answered in a tearful voice: - "There is a killer on the loose, I don't know who it is, I don't know if it's a he or a she - but if I were a resident of Boulder I would tell my friends to keep their babies close to you."
Rather than explain their point of view, the broadcast only served to bolster the theory that the Ramseys were pretending and would rather talk on television than talk to the police

///...hum Wasn't Patsy a RESIDENT OF BOULDER???

[BlueCrab]

Exhume the body. Even after seven years it may be able to determine whether or not a stun gun was likely used on JonBenet. If a stun gun was used it points to torture and a whole different outlook on this case. The term "accident" goes out of the window forever.

IMO John Ramsey isn't concerned about "disturbing" JonBenet's body. He's concerned that Ramsey ownership of a stun gun will be uncovered some day and it will point to a Ramsey family member using it on JonBenet. But so long as the marks on JonBenet's body remain inconclusive the Ramseys are left with wiggle room.

JMO

[Ivy]

BlueCrab...even if it could be determined a stun gun had been used on JonBenet and that around the time of her death, the Ramseys owned a stun gun whose prongs could have made the marks, how would LE go about determining which of the Rs or their friends zapped her, or how long before her death she was zapped?

____
IMO

[why_nutt]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

IMO John Ramsey isn't concerned about "disturbing" JonBenet's body. He's concerned that Ramsey ownership of a stun gun will be uncovered some day and it will point to a Ramsey family member using it on JonBenet. But so long as the marks on JonBenet's body remain inconclusive the Ramseys are left with wiggle room.

JMO

I definitely agree John "isn't concerned about 'disturbing' JonBenet's body." He and Patsy were all in favor of having a child's body exhumed for the relatively frivolous reason of simply wanting that child to be buried elsewhere for convenience (this is in reference to the the Mary Ann Holt story found in DOI). Was that child's body any less "disturbed" than JonBenet's would be? No, it was not. The exhumation would be done with respect, and as it is, JonBenet's autopsy rendered her body into a series of pieces held together only by cosmetics, costumes, and a strong desire to deny what her body really looks like after that autopsy.

In my opinion, an exhumation should take place. At best, enough skin has survived decay to allow for microscopic examination and the potential find of nuclear streaming, which would define once and for all stun-gun use. If a stun gun can definitively be said to have been involved, then the case becomes one of looking for someone who liked to torture a victim, and that aspect of psychological evidence narrows the suspect pool. If, at worst, JonBenet's skin yields up nothing, then truly nothing has been lost. Again, the issue is not that of keeping JonBenet from resting in peace. John approved of the exhumation of a friend's child, therefore he has no reason, real or irrational, to refrain from approving the exhumation of his own child.

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by Ivy

BlueCrab...even if it could be determined a stun gun had been used on JonBenet and that around the time of her death, the Ramseys owned a stun gun whose prongs could have made the marks, how would LE go about determining which of the Rs or their friends zapped her, or how long before her death she was zapped?

____
IMO

It's known from photos that JonBenet didn't have the marks on her on Christmas Day. The marks were inflicted that night.

If it's eventually uncovered the Ramseys owned a stun gun or had access to a stun gun, it would prove they had been covering up the existence of a significant item of evidence. The proven lie would open the door to intensive interrogations, and it's likely the truth would eventually reveal itself under the barrage of those endless police questions.

Even if the authorities are already aware that children were involved in the death of JonBenet (as I suspect they do), it would be important to know whether or not torture was involved.

JMO

[BlueCrab]

Thought I'd do a little research about what happens to bodies after being buried. I'm afraid it doesn't look good for digging up JonBenet and studying the "stun gun" marks under a microscope. The skin, and the marks, may no longer be there. Putrefaction is much quicker in children.

Under normal burial conditions, and depending how deep the casket is buried and how moist the ground is, an adult is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years; a child is reduced to a skeleton in just 5 years.

JMO

[Ivy]

BC, if the body were exhumed and found to be in poor condition, making examination of the marks impossible, then even if someday it's established that the Rs owned a stun gun around the time of JonBenet's death, it would have no bearing on the case...right?
___
IMO

[Maikai]

was used, with a high degree of medical certainty--he did the experiements, and researched the world-wide literature....so there's no point in doing an exhumation, and at this point in time, it's too late. The BPD could have had it done, but didn't. It's unreasonable to expect the Ramseys to have made that decision, and you can't just go to the cemetery and just say you want a body exhumed.

Even if the body had been exhumed, proof of the marks does not reveal who did it.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally Posted by why_nutt

I definitely agree John "isn't concerned about 'disturbing' JonBenet's body." He and Patsy were all in favor of having a child's body exhumed for the relatively frivolous reason of simply wanting that child to be buried elsewhere for convenience (this is in reference to the the Mary Ann Holt story found in DOI). Was that child's body any less "disturbed" than JonBenet's would be? No, it was not. The exhumation would be done with respect, and as it is, JonBenet's autopsy rendered her body into a series of pieces held together only by cosmetics, costumes, and a strong desire to deny what her body really looks like after that autopsy.

In my opinion, an exhumation should take place. At best, enough skin has survived decay to allow for microscopic examination and the potential find of nuclear streaming, which would define once and for all stun-gun use. If a stun gun can definitively be said to have been involved, then the case becomes one of looking for someone who liked to torture a victim, and that aspect of psychological evidence narrows the suspect pool. If, at worst, JonBenet's skin yields up nothing, then truly nothing has been lost. Again, the issue is not that of keeping JonBenet from resting in peace. John approved of the exhumation of a friend's child, therefore he has no reason, real or irrational, to refrain from approving the exhumation of his own child.

I agree. John's thinking ahead of others which IMHO means he has something to HIDE(selfish IMHO) from others.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

Thought I'd do a little research about what happens to bodies after being buried. I'm afraid it doesn't look good for digging up JonBenet and studying the "stun gun" marks under a microscope. The skin, and the marks, may no longer be there. Putrefaction is much quicker in children.

Under normal burial conditions, and depending how deep the casket is buried and how moist the ground is, an adult is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years; a child is reduced to a skeleton in just 5 years.

JMO

Says who...IMHO unexplained mysteries(miracles?) are happening ALL THE TIME!!!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

Thought I'd do a little research about what happens to bodies after being buried. I'm afraid it doesn't look good for digging up JonBenet and studying the "stun gun" marks under a microscope. The skin, and the marks, may no longer be there. Putrefaction is much quicker in children.

Under normal burial conditions, and depending how deep the casket is buried and how moist the ground is, an adult is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years; a child is reduced to a skeleton in just 5 years.

JMO

IMHO IT'S NEVER TOO LATE EVER BECAUSE LIFE/EARTH IS A NEVER-ENDING CIRCLE fwiw

Remember this(IMHO it originated from Dixon/Physic?) but not sure!?

KENNEDY(maybe he died because of this belief?): "Some people see things as they are and say why. I see things that never were and say why not."

[Blazeboy3]

Originally Posted by Maikai

was used, with a high degree of medical certainty--he did the experiements, and researched the world-wide literature....so there's no point in doing an exhumation, and at this point in time, it's too late. The BPD could have had it done, but didn't. It's unreasonable to expect the Ramseys to have made that decision, and you can't just go to the cemetery and just say you want a body exhumed.

Even if the body had been exhumed, proof of the marks does not reveal who did it.

I agree that anyone can "Talk/justify themselves into it/belief OR/CHOICE Talk/justify themselves out of it/belief" IMHO fwiw fyi!

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by Ivy

BC, if the body were exhumed and found to be in poor condition, making examination of the marks impossible, then even if someday it's established that the Rs owned a stun gun around the time of JonBenet's death, it would have no bearing on the case...right?
___
IMO

Ivy,

If a stun gun was found to be owned or readily available to a Ramsey on December 26, 1996 and they had lied about it, I think it would be a significant development. Why would they find it necessary to lie about the stun gun's existence?

It would be powerful evidence that a stun gun had been used on JonBenet to torture her.

If so, WHO used the stun gun on JonBenet? WHO brought the stun gun into the house? WHO took the stun gun from the house? Was there a fifth person in the house that night, invited in by a Ramsey, and that fifth person can answer all of the above questions? If so, what was the age of that fifth person? If that person was 10 or older he can be adjudicated in the juvenile courts. If he is 14 or older he can be prosecuted as an adult.

The Ramseys are definitely covering up for someone, and that someone may not be Burke. Burke was 9 at the time and legally not culpable.

JMO

[Shylock]

Originally Posted by Maikai

Doberson is sure a stun gun was used, with a high degree of medical certainty--

Doberson is a ham who says whatever gets him the most publicity. He's on record as saying you can never tell from a photograph, that you have to exhume the body and look for very charistic signs in the tissue.

Additionally, the BPD said a few yers ago that they have evidence which proves a stun gun wasn't used. I believe that evidence is blood on the inside of her shirt from the "abrasions". Stun guns don't make people bleed.

[Shylock]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

The Ramseys are definitely covering up for someone, and that someone may not be Burke. Burke was 9 at the time and legally not culpable.

The Ramseys would have had no way of knowing that night that Burke was not culpable. They didn't even know if what Burke did to JonBenet was considered "incest" and they had to look it up in the dictionary.

Besides, even if they knew Burke couldn't be arrested, they would have still staged the crime to protect him from going through life known as the kid who killed his beauty queen little sister while playing "doctor".

I can just hear John Ramsey saying, "Now I've lost TWO daughters, and I'm NOT going to lose a son!"

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by Shylock

The Ramseys would have had no way of knowing that night that Burke was not culpable.

Mike Bynum knew. Although the cell phone records are conveniently missing so it can't be proven, I think John Ramsey called Bynum VERY early that morning to get advice -- probably around 4:00 A.M.

JMO

[popcorn]

I vote to exhume but not to check for stungun marks rather to see what the Ramseys may have hidden in with the body AND to see if any foreign DNA is in the panties she was buried in. Where did those panties come from? Was Pam allowed to paw through her panty drawer? This needs to be addressed.

The circumference of the largest abrasion is visually similar enough to the jagged paint stick which was within inches of said injury so seems plausible enough to be more likely than a stungun.

[Shylock]

Originally Posted by BlueCrab

Mike Bynum knew. Although the cell phone records are conveniently missing so it can't be proven, I think John Ramsey called Bynum VERY early that morning to get advice -- probably around 4:00 A.M.
JMO

The cell phone record is not missing. The record is there but shows no minutes used in the month of December.

[Ivy]

BC...I too believe the Ramseys phoned Bynum in the wee hours of the 26th. It would have been easy for Haddon to have the record expunged to hide the fact.

When a phone record has been expunged, is there a way to restore it?
___
IMO

[LovelyPigeon]

If law enforcement wanted to exhume the body they would not need the parents' permission. LE would need a judge's permission.

To establish in court whether or not the marks on JonBenét's body were made by a stun gun there would be need for: (1) an expert to testify to his belief to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and (2) a stungun connected to a person accused of using that stun gun.

Court precedence has been well established since 1996 for an expert to examine photographs of injuries and compare those injuries to a weapon claimed to have been used to make the injuries. That precedence certainly includes a stun gun as a weapon. The murder of Karen Styles in NC may have been the first court to establish that precedent.

There is no need, nor any desire, on the part of LE or parents to exhume JonBenét's body to establish use of a stun gun. Only if and when a person is charged with using a stun gun on her and that stun gun produced will there be testimony in court regarding whether the marks were made by a stun gun.

[Toltec]

Did Doctor Meyer take tissue samples...anyone?

I do not believe for one second that a stungun was used...and so does John and Patsy Ramsey. John does not want to disturb his daughters body because of fear of finding something more incriminating period.

[Ivy]

I don't believe in the stun gun theory either. The Rs like to flash it around as "evidence" of an intruder, but even if it could be shown that JonBenet had been zapped with a stun gun, it wouldn't be evidence of an intruder.

LE was already being accused of picking on the Ramseys, so why would LE demand the body be exhumed and leave themselves open to even more negative publicity, especially when the exhumation would accomplish nothing toward solving the case? After all, even if the marks were shown to be stun gun marks, they wouldn't indicate who made them. They could have been made by an intruder, or they could have been made by one of the Ramseys. And if one of the Ramseys, which one?
___
IMO

[LovelyPigeon]

In order to present proof of a stun gun against a defendant in court, the stun gun used would have to be presented and expert testimony given that the stun gun could have made the marks on the particular victim.

At the very least, it would have to be legally established that the defendant had possession of or access to an identical stun gun at the time the victim was injured.

Evidence of a stun gun used on JonBenét would be only IF a suspect is charged and can be connected with a stun gun that can scientifically be shown capable of making the marks in the photographs of JonBenét's body.

There is no stun gun to use as evidence against the Ramseys. If a Ramsey were ever charged, expert testimony would be presented that the Ramseys did not own or have access to a stun gun but that the marks were made by a stun gun with certain physical characteristics.

[Honeybee]

[quote=LovelyPigeon]"If law enforcement wanted to exhume the body they would not need the parents' permission. LE would need a judge's permission. "

You're right, LP. All the authorities need is a court order to exhume the body and they do not need the Ramseys' permission at all.

But in order to admit this is the case, (as it definitely is) it would have to be admitted that in one instance at least the Ramseys can't be blamed. Few of the posters here are prepared to do that no matter what the facts are.

[BlueCrab]

[quote=Honeybee]

Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon

"If law enforcement wanted to exhume the body they would not need the parents' permission. LE would need a judge's permission. "

You're right, LP. All the authorities need is a court order to exhume the body and they do not need the Ramseys' permission at all.

But in order to admit this is the case, (as it definitely is) it would have to be admitted that in one instance at least the Ramseys can't be blamed. Few of the posters here are prepared to do that no matter what the facts are.

It's a moot question anymore. The body is likely nothing but a skeleton after being buried for seven years. A child's body completes putrefaction after about five years.

JMO