Steve Thomas's Theory/Murder Timeline

[Chrishope]

BBM. I agree regarding PR making the call, since I do not feel she "faked" it. But I have to add that JR would not have allowed the call, IF he had been in the vicinity of PR picking up the phone when she did. Their story of the happenings from the time she said she found the note and him being fully dressed to greet arriving officers has more than one explanation on record, and I find it completely possible she started that call before he could get her stopped. I think Burke coming into the vicinity and her having made that call in spite of the warnings, was plenty to get JR snappy at BR with "we're not talking to you", when BR was thought to have asked them questions at the end of the call.

Will you share your reasons for an intruder doing the redressing, and I also would be interested in hearing more about your "handle" assessment. I wondered if anyone in forensics ever unwrapped the handle to look for fingerprints and or DNA of any sort under the knot, since I would expect the "handle" to be wiped as were the batteries.

I too would like to hear some rationale for the intruder ddoing the redressing.

Presumably the handle would be wiped for prints, if handled with bare hands. It would be hard to tie the knot that holds the handle with gloves on, or at least gardening gloves. I would think the DNA would be largely useless unless it belonged to a stranger who had no business being in the house; and even then.......

 

[Mama2JML]

I too would like to hear some rationale for the intruder ddoing the redressing.

To conceal the sexual assault?

Presumably the handle would be wiped for prints, if handled with bare hands. It would be hard to tie the knot that holds the handle with gloves on, or at least gardening gloves. I would think the DNA would be largely useless unless it belonged to a stranger who had no business being in the house; and even then.......

BBM

Not sure what you mean, please elaborate...

According to Kolar, foreign, male DNA was found on the wrist bindings and the "garrote".

 

[Chrishope]

To conceal the sexual assault?

BBM

Not sure what you mean, please elaborate...

According to Kolar, foreign, male DNA was found on the wrist bindings and the "garrote".

Ramsey DNA on Ramsey household items means little or nothing.

"foreign" DNA. if tDNA, would mean no more than the tDNA on the the LJs.

If foreign male DNA is on the wrist bindings and garrotte, why isn't Kolar IDI?

 

[UKGuy]

Birefringence is the optical property of a material having a refractive index that depends on the polarization and propagation direction of light.[SUP][1][/SUP] These optically anisotropic materials are said to be birefringent (or birefractive). The birefringence is often quantified as the maximum difference between refractive indices exhibited by the material. Crystals with asymmetric crystal structures are often birefringent, as well as plastics under mechanical stress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

This is from Wiki - not always a solid source but this matches up with all the other returns I got. I have never heard the word birefringent before. Does this mean that crystal or some kind of plastic crystal was found? Was the material ever identified?

Salem

Spoken as a member and not a moderator.

Salem,
BBM: No, in Steve Thomas' book he tells us that a splinter was found inside JonBenet. i.e. a splinter of wood. birefringent is a property of many materials when light is shined on them, i.e. a laser, this yields a number which allows the material to be identified. Wood or cellulose is a birefringent material which has a specific known index or number.

birefringent foreign material is the phrase used by Coroner Meyer, which tells us the material underwent a particular procedure, yet the Coroner does not identify the material which could be code for a technical redaction. i.e. the missing piece of the painbrush handle may have been left inside JonBenet?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Working from bottom to top;

I don't see that any theory can be "tested" in any meaningful sense. The closest we could come would be a trail.

All theories depend on believing some action is credible or not. All theories require conjecture as to why certain things were done. It really comes down to what each individual "sleuth" finds convincing. W/o a trial to settle the matter, we will forever be going 'round and 'round because we believe different things are likely/unlikely.

The cleaning and redressing wouldn't be redundant in a plan to dump the body. One must consider the very real possibility of the body being discovered under a pile of leaves, in a culvert, at the bottom of a ravine, etc, even if it's days/weeks afterward. Once found, the body should be dressed, if dressed at all, as JBR was dressed at the time she went to bed. (At least in a manner consistent with how the Rs said she was dressed for bed) It would be odd indeed were she dressed in her own clothes, but different clothes than what she wore to bed. At least, it would be odd given the R's story -"we put her to bed, we went to bed ourselves, we woke up to find a RN, yada yada yada."

The redressing can only hide what happened from one of the Rs who is ignorant of the details. With the body in the house, there is no reasonable expectation it won't be found, (that much we seem to agree on) and once found, the coroner will examine it in detail. The SA can't be "hidden" except that the officers on the scene won't know about it, but that really isn't important. The coroner will know, the next day. Likewise, any possible prior neck injury. So all the "staging" you're talking about does nothing at all to hide anything from the authorities, except in a very temporary way. It would hide those details from another family member ignorant of such details.

The size 12s however, don't seem to fit either your theory, or mine. They hide nothing temporarily, as they are obscured by LJs. As soon as the coroner pulls down the LJs, there's a problem. They don't fit my theory either, as she likely was not wearing size 12s at bedtime.

The received wisdom of the lead investigator, ST, was that it was an RDI case.

Chrishope,

I don't see that any theory can be "tested" in any meaningful sense. The closest we could come would be a trail.

Any theory can be tested against the prevailing evidence. A lack of evidence or some inconsistency means the theory cannot be tested. Any theory lacking sufficient evidence has the provisional status of a hypothesis.

.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Any theory can be tested against the prevailing evidence. A lack of evidence or some inconsistency means the theory cannot be tested. Any theory lacking sufficient evidence has the provisional status of a hypothesis.

.

So, to get down to cases, all theories of the case are hypothesis because none can be fully tested against the agreed upon evidence (as opposed to the "possible maybe" evidence). For example, it's a fact, agreed upon by all IDI/RDI that Patsy placed the 911 call, and any theory has to account for that. It's not a fact agreed upon by all that there was a scream (because Stanton is not a very credible witness) so a theory may dismiss that "evidence" all together. But that still leaves us having to interpret individually why PR would (or wouldn't) place the 911 call with the body in the basement, and likewise interpret several other facts that are agreed upon. There is a RN, but it's not a fact that PR wrote it. It's written on Patsy's writing tablet, but that doesn't rule out (absolutely) an intruder writing it. There is a broken window, but did JR really break it months earlier? The body is in the WC, but is it staged or is it merely out of site pending removal? JB ate pineapple, but with whom, why, and is it connected to the crime or completely incidental? And so on, and so on.

So, Doc's theory is at least as testable as any other. He necessarily makes conjectures as to what the evidence tells us, just as you do. To his credit, he confines himself to the agreed upon facts and ignores the red herrings.

 

[Mama2JML]

So, to get down to cases, all theories of the case are hypothesis because none can be fully tested against the agreed upon evidence (as opposed to the "possible maybe" evidence). For example, it's a fact, agreed upon by all IDI/RDI that Patsy placed the 911 call, and any theory has to account for that. It's not a fact agreed upon by all that there was a scream (because Stanton is not a very credible witness) so a theory may dismiss that "evidence" all together. But that still leaves us having to interpret individually why PR would (or wouldn't) place the 911 call with the body in the basement, and likewise interpret several other facts that are agreed upon. There is a RN, but it's not a fact that PR wrote it. It's written on Patsy's writing tablet, but that doesn't rule out (absolutely) an intruder writing it. There is a broken window, but did JR really break it months earlier? The body is in the WC, but is it staged or is it merely out of site pending removal? JB ate pineapple, but with whom, why, and is it connected to the crime or completely incidental? And so on, and so on.

So, Doc's theory is at least as testable as any other. He necessarily makes conjectures as to what the evidence tells us, just as you do. To his credit, he confines himself to the agreed upon facts and ignores the red herrings.

What are the "agreed upon facts" to which you refer and which elements of the crime do you consider to be red herrings? (Genuinely interested.)

 

[BBB167893]

To conceal the sexual assault?

What purpose would that serve?

 

[Mama2JML]

What purpose would that serve?

To misdirect the investigation? To "save face"? To disguise the underlying motive? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Anti-K]

That's as good a critique as I've ever seen. I agree in general, that it seems odd that JR would allow the phone call. However, if he was on the other side of the kitchen when she picked up the phone she could dial 911 before he could stop her. Once dialed, the call is "in", even if she hangs up (or JR hangs up the phone) the dispatcher should call back and/or dispatch a patrol unit to the address.

IOWs JR would have to be within arms length of PR at all times. Difficult to do, not to mention slightly suspicious.

In the bad 'ol days before 911 service, when you had to know and dial the 7 digit number for the local police, it would be hard for Doc to make the case. These days, if JR was 4 or 5 steps away when PR picked up the phone ....

It only seems odd that Mr Ramsey would allow the 911 call if one presupposes that Mr Ramsey is guilty.
.

It’s fine to say that Mr Ramsey “would have to be within arms length of PR at all times.” But, this isn’t true. He would only need to be near the telephone or be near her when she discovered the note. And that should have been easily accomplished. Or, as mentioned before, he could have “discovered” the note himself. Look at these threats. We can’t call the police.

Nothing could have been more important, and nothing could have been easier.

In the ’97 and ’98 interviews Mrs Ramsey states that Mr Ramsey told her to call 911. Indeed, most accounts tell us this. There are no accounts in which Mr Ramsey tries to stop or delay the call, and no accounts in which the matter is even discussed.

There simply is no evidence or fact to show that Mr Ramsey was concerned with preventing the 911 call. Mr Ramsey, at minimum, allowed that call to be made and he may have actually instigated the call.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If tied as per the "Delmar England" instructions on FFJ, it will slip only in direction of tightening.

The point we should take is that the garrotte as we find it on the body, is quite capable of asphyxiating her. Whether or not the garrotte is staged is another issue, but it could be the "actual" instrument of her strangulation.

It could also have been the actual instrument, but altered later.

One reason the handle might be broken is that it was only a paintbrush, hardly made for applying such force, if indeed the handle was used to pull on the standing end of the line.

Actually, Delmar England’s knot is not supposed to slide at all. He claimed that the loop around the victim’s neck was of a fixed size. Despite this he does describe a knot which does slide. His description lacks some clarity and so can be tied more than one way. I’ve done this, and posted instructions and photographs and video of it. I’ve corresponded with Delmar, and I’ve taken up all his challenges and have disproved virtually all of his claims regarding knots and the, as he called it, “physics, physics, physics” (of which he knew little). I posted much of this in video from, somewhere.
.

The paintbrush was a handle. No force was applied with it, it was simply held onto while pulling the cord tight. Shortening it by breaking it would have had no effect on its use as a handle. I’ve done these experiments, too!!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I too would like to hear some rationale for the intruder ddoing the redressing.

Presumably the handle would be wiped for prints, if handled with bare hands. It would be hard to tie the knot that holds the handle with gloves on, or at least gardening gloves. I would think the DNA would be largely useless unless it belonged to a stranger who had no business being in the house; and even then.......

Jonbenet was found wearing over-sized panties, but they had blood and urine on them. This strongly suggests that these are the panties that she was wearing when assaulted. So, I find the claim that someone changed her panties to be unconvincing.

IMO, this means that the only redressing that occurred was to pull the victim’s panties and leggings back up after the molestation and wiping. I don’t see anything mysterious or revealing in this act.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

To conceal the sexual assault?

BBM

Not sure what you mean, please elaborate...

According to Kolar, foreign, male DNA was found on the wrist bindings and the "garrote".

To hide the sexual assault. This seems like a good explanation for the redressing and the wiping. And, the wrapping in a blanket. Maybe, even for the ransom note (to hide from himself and/or others his true motivation and desire).
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

So, to get down to cases, all theories of the case are hypothesis because none can be fully tested against the agreed upon evidence (as opposed to the "possible maybe" evidence). For example, it's a fact, agreed upon by all IDI/RDI that Patsy placed the 911 call, and any theory has to account for that. It's not a fact agreed upon by all that there was a scream (because Stanton is not a very credible witness) so a theory may dismiss that "evidence" all together. But that still leaves us having to interpret individually why PR would (or wouldn't) place the 911 call with the body in the basement, and likewise interpret several other facts that are agreed upon. There is a RN, but it's not a fact that PR wrote it. It's written on Patsy's writing tablet, but that doesn't rule out (absolutely) an intruder writing it. There is a broken window, but did JR really break it months earlier? The body is in the WC, but is it staged or is it merely out of site pending removal? JB ate pineapple, but with whom, why, and is it connected to the crime or completely incidental? And so on, and so on.

So, Doc's theory is at least as testable as any other. He necessarily makes conjectures as to what the evidence tells us, just as you do. To his credit, he confines himself to the agreed upon facts and ignores the red herrings.

Chrishope,

So, to get down to cases, all theories of the case are hypothesis because none can be fully tested against the agreed upon evidence (as opposed to the "possible maybe" evidence).

No, some theories are immediately testable, others such as DocG's are not, since it relies on events in the future, this does not mean DocG's theory is incorrect, only that it cannot be verified.

Any hypothesis or combination thereof along with evidence, in the R's case, e.g. forensic evidence constitutes a theory. As in a jury trial we at websleuths can apply our minds and weigh up the proposed evidence and come to a decision as to whether any particular theory has legs.

As I mentioned before DocG's theory has no basis as a prosecution case, it lies more in the realm of Rudyard Kipling's Just So stories.

.

 

[UKGuy]

First of all, I’m not persuaded by an RDI theory. I’m not persuaded by any theory; I’m persuaded by evidence.
.

Restaging, un-staging, incomplete staging, etc are speculative positions only.
.

The evidence strongly suggests that the handle, with the victim’s hair caught up in it, was used to pull the ligature tight. So, we could say that that was its purpose: to hang onto while pulling the ligature tight.

The length of the handle is meaningless as far as “torque” goes. It only needs to be long enough to fit the hand. It’s just something to hang onto while pulling. It’s just a handle.

As an aside: redundancy is often good, even necessary. Redundancy makes for improved functionality and reliability. It makes things safe. Nothing wrong with redundancy. Mind you, I don’t consider redundancy to be a meaningful observation when in reference to the handle.
...

AK

Anti-K,

First of all, I’m not persuaded by an RDI theory. I’m not persuaded by any theory; I’m persuaded by evidence.

Does this mean you do not know what you are talking about since you are only informed by forensic evidence currently in the public domain?

.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no evidence that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was left inside of the victim. “birefringent foreign material” was found inside the victim; but that is all.
.

The handle was used to tighten the garrote. It was pulled. Hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle was pulled out of the victim’s head and neck area when the handle was pulled. This really happened. It was not staged.
.

I’m not sure what you mean by, “part of a prior crime-scene.” I don’t know how that Barbie night gown being in the WC changes anything that I’ve said.
...

AK

Anti-K,

I’m not sure what you mean by, “part of a prior crime-scene.” I don’t know how that Barbie night gown being in the WC changes anything that I’ve said.

BBM: this demonstrates your lack of knowledge across the various RDI theories. Search on crime scene staging here at websleuths should assist in an elaboration.

What is more fascinating, and possibly revealing, is that the paint brush was broken into pieces and that one piece was placed back into the paint tote. Why? This act unnecessarily connects the garrote to the home. It is something that a Ramsey, a Ramsey concerned enough to wipe fingerprints, wear gloves, dispose of items, etc, would not do. It contradicts their supposed intent.

Your reasoning suggests that the bloodstained pink barbie nightgown should also have been removed, it was not, and demonstrates that there was not any supposed intent

.

 

[Mama2JML]

If our favorite 'Patsy' wrote the RN, then Mrs. Ramsey had all the reason in the world NOT to call 911. Likewise, if Mr. Ramsey penned the note, then he had all the more reason to prevent a call to LE.

BBM

It only seems odd that Mr Ramsey would allow the 911 call if one presupposes that Mr Ramsey is guilty.
.

It’s fine to say that Mr Ramsey “would have to be within arms length of PR at all times.” But, this isn’t true. He would only need to be near the telephone or be near her when she discovered the note. And that should have been easily accomplished. Or, as mentioned before, he could have “discovered” the note himself. Look at these threats. We can’t call the police.

Nothing could have been more important, and nothing could have been easier.

In the ’97 and ’98 interviews Mrs Ramsey states that Mr Ramsey told her to call 911. Indeed, most accounts tell us this. There are no accounts in which Mr Ramsey tries to stop or delay the call, and no accounts in which the matter is even discussed.

There simply is no evidence or fact to show that Mr Ramsey was concerned with preventing the 911 call. Mr Ramsey, at minimum, allowed that call to be made and he may have actually instigated the call.
...

AK

WORD.
:thewave:

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Does this mean you do not know what you are talking about since you are only informed by forensic evidence currently in the public domain?

.

No, it does not mean that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Nor did I say that I was persuaded by FORENSIC evidence. I said, evidence. And, I did not say that I was persuaded ONLY by evidence. I am also persuaded by the proper application of reason, and a critical assessment of evidence and various claims; and so on...

Regardless, the point is that I am not persuaded by any theory. Theory comes last. Theory is the end result. The evidence may persuade me in accepting a theory, but a theory will never persuade me of anything.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

BBM: this demonstrates your lack of knowledge across the various RDI theories. Search on crime scene staging here at websleuths should assist in an elaboration.


Your reasoning suggests that the bloodstained pink barbie nightgown should also have been removed, it was not, and demonstrates that there was not any supposed intent

.

No, UKGuy, “this” demonstrates my “lack of knowledge” regarding what YOU mean by “part of a prior crime-scene.”
.
The “supposed intent” to which I refer is the intent to dispose of items that might be self-incriminating or otherwise connect the crime to the home; for instance, disposing of pages from the notepad, the roll of tape, the remainder of the cord, or the brown, cotton gloves (if they were gloves); etc. Breaking the paint brush and placing the brush end in the paint tote contradicts this intent.
The Barbie night gown is very different from the tape, or the garrote or the ransom note. It wasn’t used to commit the crime. It is simply there. Why? We don’t know. But, it isn’t incriminating for anyone. So, my reasoning doesn’t suggest that it should have been removed.

However, if the night gown was incriminating to the Ramseys, then the fact that it was not removed would support what I am saying about the paintbrush: it contradicts the supposed intent.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

No, UKGuy, “this” demonstrates my “lack of knowledge” regarding what YOU mean by “part of a prior crime-scene.”
.
The “supposed intent” to which I refer is the intent to dispose of items that might be self-incriminating or otherwise connect the crime to the home; for instance, disposing of pages from the notepad, the roll of tape, the remainder of the cord, or the brown, cotton gloves (if they were gloves); etc. Breaking the paint brush and placing the brush end in the paint tote contradicts this intent.
The Barbie night gown is very different from the tape, or the garrote or the ransom note. It wasn’t used to commit the crime. It is simply there. Why? We don’t know. But, it isn’t incriminating for anyone. So, my reasoning doesn’t suggest that it should have been removed.

However, if the night gown was incriminating to the Ramseys, then the fact that it was not removed would support what I am saying about the paintbrush: it contradicts the supposed intent.
...

AK

Anti-K,

The Barbie night gown is very different from the tape, or the garrote or the ransom note. It wasn’t used to commit the crime. It is simply there.

Oh my and how do you know all this stuff?

I think resident websleuths are more than capable of adjudicating between the relevant facts.


Your reasoning appears ad-hoc and partial, definitely not upto websleuths standards.


.