See above.
Solace,
I'll allow you some thinking time on that one.
You must confer with Ames, he will have a definitive answer.
.
Rogue DNA
- Thread starter why_nutt
- Start date
Solace,
.
JBR was likely naked from the waist down at least, whether there was a sexual assault right before the paintbrush assault or not. The long johns were either put back on or redressed after the blood was wiped off. It was a fact that there was fluorescence on her thighs that was originally thought to be semen and turned out to be blood. I believe the actual panties had much more blood on them, and that is what caused the Rs to get the larger ones, because I can totally see PR thinking that someone at the White's may have seen JBR's panties that day and remembered them because they had the day of the week. Only one pair in a pack would say Wednesday, so it couldn't be just any pair of panties- that's why they put those huge panties on her. I really think they were worried that someone at that party might mention them if questioned by the police.
I do lean toward a sexual assault, both then and previous. But the douching...I wonder was this something that was well-known in the R circle of friends? Or was it just the housekeeper? Because I wonder if it's possible there really was no douching- but PR said there was to hide any evidence of a sexual assault that she knew had taken place.
I do lean toward a sexual assault, both then and previous. But the douching...I wonder was this something that was well-known in the R circle of friends? Or was it just the housekeeper? Because I wonder if it's possible there really was no douching- but PR said there was to hide any evidence of a sexual assault that she knew had taken place.
Thanks to all who continue to discuss this--it may seem 'repetitive' to some, but I'm still catching up on years of information about this case.
I would agree that if all the urine on the longjohns came from a postmortem release, the blanket would show traces of urine too. I take it that it didn't?
My goal in theorizing at all is to try to make as many things as possible make sense. That's why I tend to think JR did it, and why I also tend to think things happened in a certain way, which I'll summarize below (I don't mind repeating myself!) In my opinion:
JR was abusing JBR. The abuse wasn't that of a pedophile, just a crime of opportunity. It probably hadn't progressed to intercourse.
JBR was showing signs of wanting to tell someone (the "I don't feel pretty" quote, the visits to the school nurse perhaps, and maybe some other things that were dismissed at the time). This makes JR uneasy. He starts to think of his own safety. I don't think the crime was premeditated, but I have to wonder if he hadn't thought about how much easier life would be if there were to be an 'accident.' (If he had committed a premeditated murder, it would have been an 'accident;' it would have been accepted as such, and we wouldn't still be talking about poor little JBR).
The night of the murder something happened that caused him to strike JBR on the head. I think she made it clear she planned to tell someone soon, or he thought she was threatening to do so. I don't disagree that this was a rage attack, but I think the person enraged, and his motive, were different from most posters.
Once the blow had been struck JR indeed did know JBR was dead or irrevocably dying--and realizing this, he also realized that he wanted her death to take place.
Unlike theories which have PR calling for JR to help her, though, JR needed no help. He inflicted the 'staged' wound for one reason--to cover up his prior activities. He then cleaned up the staged wound, something that wouldn't have happened if he and PR had decided to make JBR's death look like a sex crime!
Why clean up the wound? Why replace whatever underpants she was wearing with the size 12s, which were probably near at hand? Why re-dress her? I think this makes sense if you look at the motives for the two actions--the wiping up, re-dressing etc. were to fool one person, PR. The 'sexual wound' was inflicted to fool other people, law enforcement. Considered as 'one' act of staging they don't make sense, but considered as two separate acts of staging they are almost frighteningly logical.
I think JR 'staged' the crime scene the first time to make it look as though BR had struck his sister as an act of rage, possibly over his new Nintendo. We've all talked about BR being 'got out of the way' the next day; is it possible that he took the Nintendo with him because at least to one other person in the house it was necessary to get the Nintendo 'out of the way' too? The house was stripped nearly bare by the R's as soon as they could get PR's sister into it, but one item left the house openly on the very day of the crime...just something that makes me wonder. I've mentioned before the idea that JR's concern over his golf clubs may make sense here, too--since BR had actually hit JBR with a golf club once, what would stop JR from placing a club near JBR's body and trusting PR to make the obvious assumption?
Once JR showed PR the body, the staging for LE's benefit began in earnest. JR sends PR to write the note, but probably realizes quite soon that they won't be dumping the body after all. The alternate plan is contrived but the note is left--they have to have a reason to cancel that morning flight.
I could go on, but that's probably enough for now. One final thing, though--the blanket wrapped around JBR was there just in case some more blood had gotten onto the new underwear. IMO, JR wasn't taking any chances that it might seep onto the longjohns before PR saw the body again, and at that point any knowledge of sexual assault would have upset the applecart, so to speak.
I would agree that if all the urine on the longjohns came from a postmortem release, the blanket would show traces of urine too. I take it that it didn't?
My goal in theorizing at all is to try to make as many things as possible make sense. That's why I tend to think JR did it, and why I also tend to think things happened in a certain way, which I'll summarize below (I don't mind repeating myself!
) In my opinion:JR was abusing JBR. The abuse wasn't that of a pedophile, just a crime of opportunity. It probably hadn't progressed to intercourse.
JBR was showing signs of wanting to tell someone (the "I don't feel pretty" quote, the visits to the school nurse perhaps, and maybe some other things that were dismissed at the time). This makes JR uneasy. He starts to think of his own safety. I don't think the crime was premeditated, but I have to wonder if he hadn't thought about how much easier life would be if there were to be an 'accident.' (If he had committed a premeditated murder, it would have been an 'accident;' it would have been accepted as such, and we wouldn't still be talking about poor little JBR).
The night of the murder something happened that caused him to strike JBR on the head. I think she made it clear she planned to tell someone soon, or he thought she was threatening to do so. I don't disagree that this was a rage attack, but I think the person enraged, and his motive, were different from most posters.
Once the blow had been struck JR indeed did know JBR was dead or irrevocably dying--and realizing this, he also realized that he wanted her death to take place.
Unlike theories which have PR calling for JR to help her, though, JR needed no help. He inflicted the 'staged' wound for one reason--to cover up his prior activities. He then cleaned up the staged wound, something that wouldn't have happened if he and PR had decided to make JBR's death look like a sex crime!
Why clean up the wound? Why replace whatever underpants she was wearing with the size 12s, which were probably near at hand? Why re-dress her? I think this makes sense if you look at the motives for the two actions--the wiping up, re-dressing etc. were to fool one person, PR. The 'sexual wound' was inflicted to fool other people, law enforcement. Considered as 'one' act of staging they don't make sense, but considered as two separate acts of staging they are almost frighteningly logical.
I think JR 'staged' the crime scene the first time to make it look as though BR had struck his sister as an act of rage, possibly over his new Nintendo. We've all talked about BR being 'got out of the way' the next day; is it possible that he took the Nintendo with him because at least to one other person in the house it was necessary to get the Nintendo 'out of the way' too? The house was stripped nearly bare by the R's as soon as they could get PR's sister into it, but one item left the house openly on the very day of the crime...just something that makes me wonder. I've mentioned before the idea that JR's concern over his golf clubs may make sense here, too--since BR had actually hit JBR with a golf club once, what would stop JR from placing a club near JBR's body and trusting PR to make the obvious assumption?
Once JR showed PR the body, the staging for LE's benefit began in earnest. JR sends PR to write the note, but probably realizes quite soon that they won't be dumping the body after all. The alternate plan is contrived but the note is left--they have to have a reason to cancel that morning flight.
I could go on, but that's probably enough for now. One final thing, though--the blanket wrapped around JBR was there just in case some more blood had gotten onto the new underwear. IMO, JR wasn't taking any chances that it might seep onto the longjohns before PR saw the body again, and at that point any knowledge of sexual assault would have upset the applecart, so to speak.
One thing I've heard lately is that there was no way JB would keep quiet about being abused.
That's horse-hockey, brothers and sisters. It's hard enough to get adult women to come forward with this stuff. Wendy Murphy elaborates. I'll find it.
That's horse-hockey, brothers and sisters. It's hard enough to get adult women to come forward with this stuff. Wendy Murphy elaborates. I'll find it.
I'm sure plenty of people have already read this old "puff piece" that makes the R's look like saints:
http://www.denver-rmn.com/extra/ramsey/0817jon1.htm
but I found one thing very interesting. Twice when female friends of PR's were diagnosed with cancer, PR immediately showed up with a gift:
...a nightgown.
Hmmm.....
http://www.denver-rmn.com/extra/ramsey/0817jon1.htm
but I found one thing very interesting. Twice when female friends of PR's were diagnosed with cancer, PR immediately showed up with a gift:
...a nightgown.
Hmmm.....
Thanks to all who continue to discuss this--it may seem 'repetitive' to some, but I'm still catching up on years of information about this case.
I would agree that if all the urine on the longjohns came from a postmortem release, the blanket would show traces of urine too. I take it that it didn't?
My goal in theorizing at all is to try to make as many things as possible make sense. That's why I tend to think JR did it, and why I also tend to think things happened in a certain way, which I'll summarize below (I don't mind repeating myself!
JR was abusing JBR. The abuse wasn't that of a pedophile, just a crime of opportunity. It probably hadn't progressed to intercourse.
JBR was showing signs of wanting to tell someone (the "I don't feel pretty" quote, the visits to the school nurse perhaps, and maybe some other things that were dismissed at the time). This makes JR uneasy. He starts to think of his own safety. I don't think the crime was premeditated, but I have to wonder if he hadn't thought about how much easier life would be if there were to be an 'accident.' (If he had committed a premeditated murder, it would have been an 'accident;' it would have been accepted as such, and we wouldn't still be talking about poor little JBR).
The night of the murder something happened that caused him to strike JBR on the head. I think she made it clear she planned to tell someone soon, or he thought she was threatening to do so. I don't disagree that this was a rage attack, but I think the person enraged, and his motive, were different from most posters.
Once the blow had been struck JR indeed did know JBR was dead or irrevocably dying--and realizing this, he also realized that he wanted her death to take place.
Unlike theories which have PR calling for JR to help her, though, JR needed no help. He inflicted the 'staged' wound for one reason--to cover up his prior activities. He then cleaned up the staged wound, something that wouldn't have happened if he and PR had decided to make JBR's death look like a sex crime!
Why clean up the wound? Why replace whatever underpants she was wearing with the size 12s, which were probably near at hand? Why re-dress her? I think this makes sense if you look at the motives for the two actions--the wiping up, re-dressing etc. were to fool one person, PR. The 'sexual wound' was inflicted to fool other people, law enforcement. Considered as 'one' act of staging they don't make sense, but considered as two separate acts of staging they are almost frighteningly logical.
I think JR 'staged' the crime scene the first time to make it look as though BR had struck his sister as an act of rage, possibly over his new Nintendo. We've all talked about BR being 'got out of the way' the next day; is it possible that he took the Nintendo with him because at least to one other person in the house it was necessary to get the Nintendo 'out of the way' too? The house was stripped nearly bare by the R's as soon as they could get PR's sister into it, but one item left the house openly on the very day of the crime...just something that makes me wonder. I've mentioned before the idea that JR's concern over his golf clubs may make sense here, too--since BR had actually hit JBR with a golf club once, what would stop JR from placing a club near JBR's body and trusting PR to make the obvious assumption?
Once JR showed PR the body, the staging for LE's benefit began in earnest. JR sends PR to write the note, but probably realizes quite soon that they won't be dumping the body after all. The alternate plan is contrived but the note is left--they have to have a reason to cancel that morning flight.
I could go on, but that's probably enough for now. One final thing, though--the blanket wrapped around JBR was there just in case some more blood had gotten onto the new underwear. IMO, JR wasn't taking any chances that it might seep onto the longjohns before PR saw the body again, and at that point any knowledge of sexual assault would have upset the applecart, so to speak.
Dru,
There has been no mention of this, neither is there any mention of blood stains on the longjohns?
Or JonBenet was constrained and held by her top around her neck, until she lost consiousness, possibly during a sexual assault. Her head injury may coincide with her asphyxiation?
The person may have been sexually enraged?
Interesting, the accident theorists have no credible explanation for this inconsistency. An issue with the above explanation is, if John wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in those size-12's would he not realize that Patsy would know immediately that those size-12's were wrong, so why did he not go to her underwear drawer and use a pair of size-6's? So are you suggesting that John faked a sexual assault to fool the police, then changed his mind so to fool Patsy, then having accomplished all of this, how do you reckon he convinced Patsy to construct a garrote for JonBenet?
Possibly or to simply hide any evidence of a sexual assault at all. Since JonBenet had already been wiped down, by using her size-6's, John's israeli shirt, or both, then at this point it would be evident JonBenet's longjohns were urine-soaked, and if a bedwetting had triggered this then surely a clean pair of longjohns should be in order?
imo the reason for the inconsistency is that there was a change of plan, in the first instance e.g. the sexual assault, probably played some part in the initial staging, in the wine-cellar staging, for some reason, the sexual assault was not required so it was cleaned up and hidden beneath multiple layers of material.
Wiping JonBenet down, and redressing her in those size-12's is like the pineapple snack. Both are discovered at the autopsy stage, and the former merits the question: how come an accidental death requires a fake sexual assault which is then hidden from view. Answers on a postcard.
.
DeeDee249,
The operations required to wipe JonBenet down, redress her in size-12's, redress her in longjohns, all require JonBenet to be naked from the waist down. It also means if this took place after she had had a postmortem release of urine, then this would have been evident to whomever was doing the redressing, if the urine-release had occurred earlier either due to fear or at death, then again the fact they are urine-soaked should be evident? e.g. they removed her size-6 underwear and blood smears, but neglected her urine-soaked longjohns?
Or the size-6's were also used to wipe JonBenet down. I agree the day-of-the-week has a significance for someone, although it could be argued it is simply a coincidence?
Accident theorists say Patsy would never do such a thing?
.
"Reckless Disregard" is what I meant UK. And what are you so touchy about AMES for? What has she done to you or myself for that matter. I am asserting what I believe happened that night with some very credible facts. You are assuming that John wanted JB to perform a sex act and she refused and he killed her. You also stated that he wanted to wait until Christmas to "inflict some pain on her". That assumption to me is beyond the pale. Quite frankly, I do not see anyone backing up that theory, but anything is possible.
See above.
Here you go.
Solace,
Lets see now, if JonBenet releases urine and soaks her underwear then her longjohns, why should the blankets in which you said she had been lovingly wrapped not also have some urine transferred to them?
No its not been itemised anywhere and thats the point!
.
Well let me tell you something UK and I will have to get a little graphic to prove my point. A friend of mine had her monthly period and she soaked clean through to her pantyhose. She had inserted a tampax and used a napkin. The interesting thing is NOT ONE DROP OF BLOOD GOT ON HER UNDERWEAR. It soaked through to her pantyhose but none on her underwear. So when I say how do you know it got on the blanket, I AM SERIOUS. And that is my point. Because you do not know that it did.
We are talking about forensics here, not what you think has to be because urine was on her underwear and her longjohns. It is not necessarily true that it got on the blanket.
Solace,
But what if it has, as I already mentioned before this is not something that can know.
But just like the investigators will be able to definitively tell you, whether JonBenet wore those size-12's to the White's party, they will also be able to tell you if urine has seeped through onto the blankets, since they were forensically examined!
The importance of this lies in being able to work out the sequence of events e.g. wipe down, redressed , postmortem urine-release, wrapped in blankets or assault/death and associated urine-release, then a wipe down and redress, followed by blankets?
Exactly UK, so I would suggest you stop assuming that there was urine on the blanket. It has never been mentioned that there was. It was only mentioned that urine was on the underwear and the longjohns. I am dealing with what we know.
Also, the investigators cannot definitely tell you whether or not she wore the size 12's to the party.
Solace,
Of course they can, and they can do similar with the blankets re:urine, you must review your forensics 101.
.
Enlighten me on how they would know whether she wore them to the party. I am always eager to learn.
And when you say they can do similar tests on the blanket re urine, are you saying they can tell whether the blanket and the urine were at the party also?
For your reading pleasure, it is never to late to learn. Scroll down to the "red" one.
Criminal homicide is a malum in se crime, and every legal system contains some form of prohibition or regulation of criminal homicide.
Homicidal crimes in some criminal jurisdictions include:
- murder/murder in English law
- manslaughter/manslaughter in English law
- voluntary manslaughter
- involuntary manslaughter
- Intoxication manslaughter
- Death by dangerous driving
- reckless manslaughter
- Criminal Homicide
- culpable homicide (in Scots law)
- negligent homicide
- Criminally negligent homicide
For your reading pleasure, it is never to late to learn. Scroll down to the "red" one.
Criminal homicide is a malum in se crime, and every legal system contains some form of prohibition or regulation of criminal homicide.
Homicidal crimes in some criminal jurisdictions include:
- murder/murder in English law
- manslaughter/manslaughter in English law
- voluntary manslaughter
- involuntary manslaughter
- Intoxication manslaughter
- Death by dangerous driving
- reckless manslaughter
- Criminal Homicide
- culpable homicide (in Scots law)
- negligent homicide
- Criminally negligent homicide
Solace,
Well there you go, but it is USA law that has jurisdiction, and I guess there will be a similar concept?