Bedwetting

[Jayelles]

I'm no scientist... but I'd have thought if the H2O evaporated, you'd have a higher concentration of what was left. Like raisins have a higher concentration of sugar than grapes.

Higher concentration - yes compared to the original liquid form/per cubic inch but it doesn't increase in quantity! If you dissolve a teaspoon of sugar in a pint of water - there is still only a teaspoon of sugar there!

In fact, H20 makes up 95% of urine.

The point is - the RST claim that "traces of urine" were found on the sheets when in fact it was "traces of creatinine". A bladderful of urine would yield only "traces" of creatinine as creatinine is only one of numerous chemicals which make up 5% of urine.

The RST forever accuse the "BORG" of spreading myths about the case. There are myths on both sides - but the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Nehemiah]

This is Mark Beckner's November 26, 2001 deposition. Wood is questioning him about info being leaked to the media.


Wood:
169
4 I then asked you in another letter whether
5 you had been the source for some information about
6 urine on the bed sheets and I never did hear back
7 from you, on an NBC broadcast.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.txt

Wood makes it sound as if there was urine on the bed sheets, and Wood is accusing Beckner of leaking that to the press.

 

[Zman]

Sure, I can direct you to Steve Thomas' deposition .

Thanks Jayelles, 'nuff said.

 

[Jayelles]

Thanks Jayelles, 'nuff said.

Yes, I suppose since the source in ST's deposition is in fact Lin Wood ..... could be a case of "nuff said".

 

[Zman]

Yes, I suppose since the source in ST's deposition is in fact Lin Wood ..... could be a case of "nuff said".

Don't believe I ever read anything where Lin Wood is doing anything but questioning how it was determined that there was urine on the bed.

ST is so desperate to put PR away I wouldn't put it passed him to pee on the sheets himself.

 

[Jayelles]

Don't believe I ever read anything where Lin Wood is doing anything but questioning how it was determined that there was urine on the bed.

ST is so desperate to put PR away I wouldn't put it passed him to pee on the sheets himself.

Over the years, I've seen some people so desperate to discredit Steve Thomas, that they'd accuse him of anything..

 

[azwriter]

Either way, what intruder would go to all of that trouble - seeking out a blanket to cover the girl he just ruthlessly strangled to death? And why her blanket? There must have been others available - at my house we have a stack of blankets in the living room so the kids can curl up on the sofa while watching tv. I have a really difficult time believing some foreign faction would bother to find JonBenet's blanket, or Barbie nightgown, for that matter, and place them with her before he leaves. That's something someone who cared about her would do.

And someone who knew where to find these items. Someone familiar with the house and where things were kept. IMO the blanket was in the dryer and the nightgown too. The nightgown stuck to the blanket when it was removed - static probably.
Covering a dead child isn't always a way to show love and caring. It also can be done out of shame and to hide what was done. Since I'm one of those BDI people, Burke knew where to find a blanket and it helped him hide his sister.
JMO

 

[UKGuy]

And someone who knew where to find these items. Someone familiar with the house and where things were kept. IMO the blanket was in the dryer and the nightgown too. The nightgown stuck to the blanket when it was removed - static probably.
Covering a dead child isn't always a way to show love and caring. It also can be done out of shame and to hide what was done. Since I'm one of those BDI people, Burke knew where to find a blanket and it helped him hide his sister.
JMO

azwriter,

What ever the motive for wrapping JonBenet in a blanket was. IMO, the barbie nightgown did not arrive inside the wine-cellar by accident.

Anything else which was compromising was simply removed, she was wearing no socks, is that an accident did they fall off somewhere, she is wearing brand new size-12 underwear, is this evidence of pageant play, or something more sinister? She was wearing her daytime white gap top, her hair had been styled in asymmetric pigtails. Yet from her picture taken on Xmas morning, her hair is loose and lying down, no pigtails required. She was wiped down, there were bloodstains on her underwear that did not match with her clean skin. The white longjohns she was wearing were soaked in urine at the front.

So the upper half of her torso is made up to appear as if we are in daytime mode, but the lower half is in bedtime mode, assuming JonBenet wore underwear to bed??

So with this contrast in appearance would it not look neat if she was wearing her favorite barbie nightgown, then its obvious she has been taken from her bed!

 

[Challenger]

No one here is addressing the stun-gun marks. I don't think this crime will ever be solved. I can't understand how anyone from outside the family didn't leave ANY DNA. You know, the theory that a killer always leaves something of himself at the scene?

If there isn't ANY strange DNA, then the killer had to be someone inside the home, who did it, imo.

I find the fact that JR ran for elected office very, very strange.

 

[azwriter]

No one here is addressing the stun-gun marks. I don't think this crime will ever be solved. I can't understand how anyone from outside the family didn't leave ANY DNA. You know, the theory that a killer always leaves something of himself at the scene?

If there isn't ANY strange DNA, then the killer had to be someone inside the home, who did it, imo.

I find the fact that JR ran for elected office very, very strange.

Challenger, I agree. There is absolutely no trace of an intruder inside the Ramsey home.
Yesterday two deliver men delivered a bike to our house that my husband bought. They were here 20 minutes to assemble the bike. They left behind some dirty footprints, some paper and a mark on the glass door before they left. There is no way a stranger or two went upstairs, downstairs, all around the house and left nothing behind. Of course it was an inside job.
Why discuss stun-gun marks when there isn't any on that little angel's body. It's a red herring. One the Ramsey's refuse to prove.
I am not surprised at John's run for office. I see it as a way for him to test the public's opinion of him. Appearing innocent means everything to John and Patsy Ramsey.
JMO

 

[Jayelles]

Here's an interesting urinalysis (sp):-

The bedsheets tested positive for traces of CREATININE. Creatinine is a protein found in urine. In a well hydrated person, the concentration of urine may be as
little as 20mg/dL.

Let's do the math. (1) dL of urine is approx 1/2 cup. There are 1000mg in a gram. As there are approx 6g of fine salt in a teaspoon, 20mg of fine salt would therefore be 1/300 of a teaspoon.

i.e. 1/300 of a teaspoon of creatinine in a 1/2 cup of urine.

Apparently, the above figures are for an adult and children produce even less creatinine.

Remember, urine is 95% water! So according to these figures, there is only a trace of creatinine in a well-hydrated, healthy person's urine. A trace of creatinine on the sheets would therefore suggest that Jonbenet may well have wet the bed.

(Incredibly, elsewhere, it is being suggested that "a trace of creatinine" = "a trace of urine")

 

[Nehemiah]

Here's an interesting urinalysis (sp):-


Apparently, the above figures are for an adult and children produce even less creatinine.

Remember, urine is 95% water! So according to these figures, there is only a trace of creatinine in a well-hydrated, healthy person's urine. A trace of creatinine on the sheets would therefore suggest that Jonbenet may well have wet the bed.

(Incredibly, elsewhere, it is being suggested that "a trace of creatinine" = "a trace of urine")

Interesting, Jay. I agree, it appears as if she did wet the bed.

 

[Jayelles]

Yes. It's a complicated sum but the bottom line speaks for itself.

It's the equivalent of this:-

Solution A - recipe

1. take half a pint of water
2. dissolve 1/150 of a teaspoon of salt in the water (hard to imagine such a tiny amount but it would be just a few grains)
3. pour the entire amount over a sheet and allow to dry
​

You would find traces of salt, but it wouldn't be correct to assume that only traces of Solution A had been spilled there.

 

[tipper]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy. Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.

 

[UKGuy]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy. Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.

tipper,

This is unfortunate, since if we could be certain that she wet the bed say in the morning of the 26th then at least we would know she went to bed.

Currently this is in doubt, I've assumed part of the staging was to represent her as being in bed, that she ate some pineapple suggests she was not in bed at some point, so if it could be confirmed that she wet the bed then it alters this perspective somewhat!


.

 

[capps]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy. Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.

Tipper,

I agree,I have thought that for a long time.ST saw the rubber sheet,and in his mind he had the murder solved.

 

[tipper]

tipper,

This is unfortunate, since if we could be certain that she wet the bed say in the morning of the 26th then at least we would know she went to bed.

Currently this is in doubt, I've assumed part of the staging was to represent her as being in bed, that she ate some pineapple suggests she was not in bed at some point, so if it could be confirmed that she wet the bed then it alters this perspective somewhat!


.

I don't know that I would say " Currently this is in doubt" At best, I think you can say it is not known.

 

[Jayelles]

We already know she wet the bed. That is why the rubber sheet was there. ST says "sheets" , I don't recall whether he specified fabric sheets or the rubber sheet. It wouldn't surprise me at all that in actuality it was the rubber sheets that showed the traces and he ran with it. We know his research and verification of facts in his book was shoddy.

SNIP

We know no such thing! He was the investigator of the case when the investigation was at it's most active and he wrote his book with the benefit of actual case evidence and police files.

In his deposition, Lin Wood questioned ST about things he mentioned in his book and then refused to let him answer fully - thus manipulating "the record". Clever lawyer tactic. I find it compelling that Lin Wood never goes to court - his games and nonsense wouldn't be tolerated in a court and if he tried them, he would be revealed for what he is - a bully.

Like the DNA, the creatinine doesn't come with a date/time stamp so if on the rubber sheet, all it tells us is that at some point in the past she wet the bed.

Yes - so the RST cannot claim that it was from a prior accident and transferred from her rubber sheet!

 

[tipper]

We know no such thing! He was the investigator of the case when the investigation was at it's most active and he wrote his book with the benefit of actual case evidence and police files.

I don't know whether you were able to listen to testimony in the van Dam case. But from that and my own experience I can tell you that just because somethiing is written up in a police report it isn't necessarily accurate or true. My recollection is you yourself said you cringed when you saw Thomas hadn't checked his facts with the other detectives before committing them to his book.

In his deposition, Lin Wood questioned ST about things he mentioned in his book and then refused to let him answer fully - thus manipulating "the record". Clever lawyer tactic. I find it compelling that Lin Wood never goes to court - his games and nonsense wouldn't be tolerated in a court and if he tried them, he would be revealed for what he is - a bully.

Questioning in a deposition is very different from questioning in a courtroom. It is much more free-ranging within whatever parameters the judge has set. I don't find it at all compelling that Wood doesn't go to court. He's a civil lawyer. Most civil cases are settled out of court. Its more a reflection of his ability to convince the opposition that he has a strong case. I don't see him as any more of a "bully" than Thomas. Wood was trying to get information, Thomas was trying to conceal it. Many of Lin Wood's interruptions were because Thomas was setting out to answer something other than the question that was asked or run out the clock with a bunch of extraneous talk.

 

[Jayelles]

I don't know whether you were able to listen to testimony in the van Dam case. But from that and my own experience I can tell you that just because somethiing is written up in a police report it isn't necessarily accurate or true. My recollection is you yourself said you cringed when you saw Thomas hadn't checked his facts with the other detectives before committing them to his book.

I'd be interested to see this post of mine in context. Do you have a reference?

Questioning in a deposition is very different from questioning in a courtroom. It is much more free-ranging within whatever parameters the judge has set. I don't find it at all compelling that Wood doesn't go to court. He's a civil lawyer. Most civil cases are settled out of court. Its more a reflection of his ability to convince the opposition that he has a strong case. I don't see him as any more of a "bully" than Thomas. Wood was trying to get information, Thomas was trying to conceal it. Many of Lin Wood's interruptions were because Thomas was setting out to answer something other than the question that was asked or run out the clock with a bunch of extraneous talk.

I realise that questioning on a courtroom would be different from a depo. I believe this was the point I was making. Lin Wood would not get away with his style of bullying in a courtroom. His MO of asking questions and then preventing the desposee from answering the question fully would certainly raise objections. I think Lin Wood is very talented at influencing what actually goes on record. Darnay Hoffman came off as a total wimp and it made my blood boil.

It seems to me that presenting a one sided version of events is an RST speciality.