Questions you'd like answers to...

[MaryNo]

I've read the books, and found them lacking as far as what set this into motion. I tend to lean away from that. It seems like an odd shaped puzzle piece being forced into the frame to finish the picture. Thank you, UKGuy! I've always respected your well thought out posts.
Userid: Thank you! I knew about all of the bedwetting, and ran that around in my head with the rest of the evidence; clothing, Patsy being tired, and on her last nerve. When I look at the entire scene; particularly the fecal matter, I get more pent up rage than I do
"standing on his/her last nerve, and she/he lost it" emotion. This was overkill. I feel pre-meditation all over this scene. I found this to be calculated. Thanks again!

 

[Dragognosis]

"I feel pre-meditation all over this scene."

Bingo.

 

[UKGuy]

I've read the books, and found them lacking as far as what set this into motion. I tend to lean away from that. It seems like an odd shaped puzzle piece being forced into the frame to finish the picture. Thank you, UKGuy! I've always respected your well thought out posts.
Userid: Thank you! I knew about all of the bedwetting, and ran that around in my head with the rest of the evidence; clothing, Patsy being tired, and on her last nerve. When I look at the entire scene; particularly the fecal matter, I get more pent up rage than I do
"standing on his/her last nerve, and she/he lost it" emotion. This was overkill. I feel pre-meditation all over this scene. I found this to be calculated. Thanks again!

MaryNo,

BBM: Definitely, someone went postal on JonBenet, planned or not. Who thinks if this happened then this might be reflected in a disorganized crime-scene?

PDI does not fly for me since Patsy simply undermines her own attempts at evasion with the inconsistent staging, size-12's anyone?

The only way I can imagine PDI is if John rides to the rescue at the last minute changing Patsy's staging, but only partially, to that of the Kidnapping Scenario?

We know both parents were involved in the staging as the Grand Jury tell us so, we just do not know the name of the person they were staging for?

There are people who refer to Undoing and Telepathy in their RDI theories in an attempt to explain the forensic evidence, yet Burke Ramsey's handed down longjohns to the millionares daughter and the size-12's do not evoke an image of domestic normality, particularly when Patsy says that she herself went into JonBenet's bathroom and fetched the longjohns from one of her drawers, patently disregarding the size-12's and the opportunity to replace them with any Day Of The Week size-6 underwear available in JonBenet's underwear drawer, then blithely put them on JonBenet ignoring the size-12's completely?

Patsy is on record saying she never knew what underwear JonBenet wore to the White's Christmas Party as after JonBenet bathed she was not present when JonBenet dressed herself, Red Turtleneck's apart.

Similary when JonBenet was allegedly carried to bed, Patsy never noticed if JonBenet was wearing underwear when she removed her black velvet pants, only that no underwear would have been apparent.

The fecal aspects might be overplayed as it could simply represent coincidental artifact, and Patsy has explained this by JonBenet's lapsed toileting?

Yet at critical points of this case, e.g. Burke Ramsey's longjohns and the Pajama Bottoms alleged to have belonged to Burke Ramsey both are to be explained as JonBenet wearing handed down clothing.

In what appears to be a primary crime-scene this seems to be a stretch?

Anyone wonder why Burke's Pajama Bottoms along with JonBenet's Pink Pajama Bottoms were never entered into evidence?

From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar; pages 367-70:

"I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997 interview with former Ramsey nanny – housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.

There were other police reports in the files that documented what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.

Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries had been made during the processing of the crime scene during the execution of search warrants following the discovery of JonBenét’s body. "

Prior to James Kolar's speculation regarding the fecal aspect we have Holly Smith, former head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stating she had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions."

The thing is if there are innocent explanations for the fecal matter then why was Holly Smith dropped from the case and her autobiography redacted to remove any Ramsey details?

Consider its Kolar who informs us, not Holly Smith, that a red satin candy box smeared with fecal material was found in JonBenet's bedroom. Yet in her interview Holly Smith recounts seeing the same red satin candy box, minus the fecal material, oversight or accident, you decide?

I reckon this case will be solved one day as too many people have inside information which will eventually leak.

.

 

[Dragognosis]

"PDI does not fly for me since Patsy simply undermines her own attempts at evasion"

There were no attempts at evasion.

 

[Cottonstar]

MaryNo,

BBM: Definitely, someone went postal on JonBenet, planned or not. Who thinks if this happened then this might be reflected in a disorganized crime-scene?

PDI does not fly for me since Patsy simply undermines her own attempts at evasion with the inconsistent staging, size-12's anyone?

The only way I can imagine PDI is if John rides to the rescue at the last minute changing Patsy's staging, but only partially, to that of the Kidnapping Scenario?

We know both parents were involved in the staging as the Grand Jury tell us so, we just do not know the name of the person they were staging for?

There are people who refer to Undoing and Telepathy in their RDI theories in an attempt to explain the forensic evidence, yet Burke Ramsey's handed down longjohns to the millionares daughter and the size-12's do not evoke an image of domestic normality, particularly when Patsy says that she herself went into JonBenet's bathroom and fetched the longjohns from one of her drawers, patently disregarding the size-12's and the opportunity to replace them with any Day Of The Week size-6 underwear available in JonBenet's underwear drawer, then blithely put them on JonBenet ignoring the size-12's completely?

Patsy is on record saying she never knew what underwear JonBenet wore to the White's Christmas Party as after JonBenet bathed she was not present when JonBenet dressed herself, Red Turtleneck's apart.

Similary when JonBenet was allegedly carried to bed, Patsy never noticed if JonBenet was wearing underwear when she removed her black velvet pants, only that no underwear would have been apparent.

The fecal aspects might be overplayed as it could simply represent coincidental artifact, and Patsy has explained this by JonBenet's lapsed toileting?

Yet at critical points of this case, e.g. Burke Ramsey's longjohns and the Pajama Bottoms alleged to have belonged to Burke Ramsey both are to be explained as JonBenet wearing handed down clothing.

In what appears to be a primary crime-scene this seems to be a stretch?

Anyone wonder why Burke's Pajama Bottoms along with JonBenet's Pink Pajama Bottoms were never entered into evidence?

From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar; pages 367-70:


Prior to James Kolar's speculation regarding the fecal aspect we have Holly Smith, former head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stating she had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions."

The thing is if there are innocent explanations for the fecal matter then why was Holly Smith dropped from the case and her autobiography redacted to remove any Ramsey details?

Consider its Kolar who informs us, not Holly Smith, that a red satin candy box smeared with fecal material was found in JonBenet's bedroom. Yet in her interview Holly Smith recounts seeing the same red satin candy box, minus the fecal material, oversight or accident, you decide?

I reckon this case will be solved one day as too many people have inside information which will eventually leak.

.

Only after John Ramsey and Michael Bynum pass on.

 

[UKGuy]

Only after John Ramsey and Michael Bynum pass on.

Cottonstar,
Sure, you can bet your bottom dollar that JR is doing contingency planning, care home for JR?

Burke just does not cut it after his Dr Phil outing, although will JR advise him to stay away from the media?

Once JR leaves us it will be open season on the JonBenet case, just think of those evidence cages in the Colorado State Depositary waiting to divulge their secrets" Oh we found Burke's Pajama Bottoms or You like to see all of JonBenet's underwear removed from the house, OK here are some photos

There are some revealing documentaries yet to be published !

.

 

[TL4S]

Hi, I'm new to the JBR case, other than heading the occasional news story back in '96. Some questions:

1) If you go with the RDI scenario, I don't understand the reasoning behind staging a strangulation, especially paired with the RN. They're two entirely different plays.

2) The RN, IMO, sounded angry towards JR, with sarcasm and the works. Might that be relevant?

3) A garrote seems so odd to me, and the cord binding, duct tape, indications of possible SA...feels like some kind of kink for the killer. Whether intentional or not, it ended as a snuff. Were any of the people looked into known for sexual deviance?

4) Has it been determined undoubtedly if the flashlight was the blunt object? The torch? That seems important as it might place the location she was hit. I guess I think it makes sense it happened during the strangling struggle, or immediately prior.

TIA. Forgive if I am repeating old discussions!

 

[UKGuy]

Hi, I'm new to the JBR case, other than heading the occasional news story back in '96. Some questions:

1) If you go with the RDI scenario, I don't understand the reasoning behind staging a strangulation, especially paired with the RN. They're two entirely different plays.

2) The RN, IMO, sounded angry towards JR, with sarcasm and the works. Might that be relevant?

3) A garrote seems so odd to me, and the cord binding, duct tape, indications of possible SA...feels like some kind of kink for the killer. Whether intentional or not, it ended as a snuff. Were any of the people looked into known for sexual deviance?

4) Has it been determined undoubtedly if the flashlight was the blunt object? The torch? That seems important as it might place the location she was hit. I guess I think it makes sense it happened during the strangling struggle, or immediately prior.

TIA. Forgive if I am repeating old discussions!

TL4S,

1) If you go with the RDI scenario, I don't understand the reasoning behind staging a strangulation, especially paired with the RN. They're two entirely different plays.

Sure that's one of the RDI case anomalies, there are many. The reasoning is JonBenet lapsing into a coma cannot be portrayed as an accident so to mask a prior strangulation, which possibly used the ligature alone, the broken piece of paintbrush is combined with the ligature to fake a different crime scene? Moving JonBenet from upstairs to downstairs requires an explanation hence the RN, or the Intruder. Of course it does not work, but hey this is Milionaire Land where whatever they think is somehow privileged.

2) The RN, IMO, sounded angry towards JR, with sarcasm and the works. Might that be relevant?

If the RN fake so might its contents be.

3) A garrote seems so odd to me, and the cord binding, duct tape, indications of possible SA...feels like some kind of kink for the killer. Whether intentional or not, it ended as a snuff. Were any of the people looked into known for sexual deviance?

Presumably so, BPD checked out the sexual motive side of things, adding everything else into the mix it appears as if its simply staging designed to deflect focus on the killer.

4) Has it been determined undoubtedly if the flashlight was the blunt object? The torch? That seems important as it might place the location she was hit. I guess I think it makes sense it happened during the strangling struggle, or immediately prior.

Nope, nor has the barbell in JonBenet's bedroom been ruled out, seen in some bedroom photographs.

 

[akh]

Hi, I'm new to the JBR case, other than heading the occasional news story back in '96. Some questions:

1) If you go with the RDI scenario, I don't understand the reasoning behind staging a strangulation, especially paired with the RN. They're two entirely different plays.

2) The RN, IMO, sounded angry towards JR, with sarcasm and the works. Might that be relevant?

3) A garrote seems so odd to me, and the cord binding, duct tape, indications of possible SA...feels like some kind of kink for the killer. Whether intentional or not, it ended as a snuff. Were any of the people looked into known for sexual deviance?

4) Has it been determined undoubtedly if the flashlight was the blunt object? The torch? That seems important as it might place the location she was hit. I guess I think it makes sense it happened during the strangling struggle, or immediately prior.

TIA. Forgive if I am repeating old discussions!

The quickest answer to give you something to consider for RDI, what if the strangulation was not actually part of the staging?
What if PR or JR found JBR not only hit in the head (which they may have even not realized) but obviously strangled?
That removes any chance of claiming she fell, or the children were playing and it was a horrible accident. It also takes it from them seeing her lifeless and no obvious injury, yet still be certain she is beyond help so they need to stage a kidnapping with a strangulation, to a more obvious scenario where they can see she is beyond help.

So the clean up, duct tape, tied wrists, and ransom note might all be part of the staging (and the clean up might've just been trying to conceal or manipulate some evidence) but the rest was the actual crime that removed not only all doubt what had happened, but any chance of explaining it away as an accident.

If either parent was to have been the killer, what reason would the other have to keep the family together? Why would they want that other parent with BR?

But if BDI.... that would be a reason to circle the wagons and protect him. They could blame themselves for not recognizing the signs, or ignoring them hoping things would improve or never believing he'd take things this far.

To me BDI is the Occam's razor answer.

Whether intentionally or not, the cover story, and RN, might've even given him a mental out to think that no matter what he did, somebody else came in later and tried to kidnap her and killed her.

And of course his cover story was the simplest of all... He only had to say he went to bed and was asleep until awakened that morning after the kidnapping.

 

[TL4S]

TL4S,


Sure that's one of the RDI case anomalies, there are many. The reasoning is JonBenet lapsing into a coma cannot be portrayed as an accident so to mask a prior strangulation, which possibly used the ligature alone, the broken piece of paintbrush is combined with the ligature to fake a different crime scene? Moving JonBenet from upstairs to downstairs requires an explanation hence the RN, or the Intruder. Of course it does not work, but hey this is Milionaire Land where whatever they think is somehow privileged.


If the RN fake so might its contents be.



Presumably so, BPD checked out the sexual motive side of things, adding everything else into the mix it appears as if its simply staging designed to deflect focus on the killer.


Nope, nor has the barbell in JonBenet's bedroom been ruled out, seen in some bedroom photographs.

Thanks for all the information! I didn't know anything about the barbell. Coming into this over 20 years after the fact, there's so much info to sift through!

 

[TL4S]

The quickest answer to give you something to consider for RDI, what if the strangulation was not actually part of the staging?
What if PR or JR found JBR not only hit in the head (which they may have even not realized) but obviously strangled?
That removes any chance of claiming she fell, or the children were playing and it was a horrible accident. It also takes it from them seeing her lifeless and no obvious injury, yet still be certain she is beyond help so they need to stage a kidnapping with a strangulation, to a more obvious scenario where they can see she is beyond help.

So the clean up, duct tape, tied wrists, and ransom note might all be part of the staging (and the clean up might've just been trying to conceal or manipulate some evidence) but the rest was the actual crime that removed not only all doubt what had happened, but any chance of explaining it away as an accident.

If either parent was to have been the killer, what reason would the other have to keep the family together? Why would they want that other parent with BR?

But if BDI.... that would be a reason to circle the wagons and protect him. They could blame themselves for not recognizing the signs, or ignoring them hoping things would improve or never believing he'd take things this far.

To me BDI is the Occam's razor answer.

Whether intentionally or not, the cover story, and RN, might've even given him a mental out to think that no matter what he did, somebody else came in later and tried to kidnap her and killed her.

And of course his cover story was the simplest of all... He only had to say he went to bed and was asleep until awakened that morning after the kidnapping.

You make some very good points about the family staying together. Some of the items I've read online makes me wonder about ongoing abuse of both children. There's so much info out there, and not all of it is fact, so it's hard to know.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for all the information! I didn't know anything about the barbell. Coming into this over 20 years after the fact, there's so much info to sift through!

TL4S,
The barbell might not be material. You should borrow Kolar's book Foreign Faction from your local library and read up on the case, his book is the most recent and other than his implicit theory, its mostly factual and a pretty good read.

.

 

[TL4S]

TL4S,
The barbell might not be material. You should borrow Kolar's book Foreign Faction from your local library and read up on the case, his book is the most recent and other than his implicit theory, its mostly factual and a pretty good read.

.

Thanks! I'll check it out.

 

[TL4S]

There are so many threads on this case that I'm not sure where to post. Any suggestions are appreciated, but I'll stick with this one for now.

I don't have a theory yet, since I'm still reading and researching, but a couple things stick out to me.

First is why JR took the duct tape off JB's mouth right after he found her. IMO, if he had been the one to stage anything with her body, why would he do that? That feels like a natural panic response. IDK.

Secondly, I've seen in the autopsy report that birefringement foreign material was present in the vaginal wall/hymen area. I know some minerals, such as mica, have birefringent properties. These are often used in cosmetics and nail polish. That bothers me.

 

[UKGuy]

There are so many threads on this case that I'm not sure where to post. Any suggestions are appreciated, but I'll stick with this one for now.

I don't have a theory yet, since I'm still reading and researching, but a couple things stick out to me.

First is why JR took the duct tape off JB's mouth right after he found her. IMO, if he had been the one to stage anything with her body, why would he do that? That feels like a natural panic response. IDK.

Secondly, I've seen in the autopsy report that birefringement foreign material was present in the vaginal wall/hymen area. I know some minerals, such as mica, have birefringent properties. These are often used in cosmetics and nail polish. That bothers me.

TL4S,
Read a decent book, such as Kolars, then you can visit threads as it suits you.

In Steve Thomas' book he refers to the birefringement foreign material as a splinter, which suggests its from the paintbrush handle, i.e. its wood or/and veneered.

Its entirely possible that the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet but redacted from the public domain?

If the Coroner is able to state that he found birefringement foreign material this means it was the result of a Lab Test, meaning the Coroner knows precisely what the material is, e.g. talcum powder, wood, mica, etc.

So that's why there is likely to be more to this angle than some suspect?

.

 

[TL4S]

TL4S,
Read a decent book, such as Kolars, then you can visit threads as it suits you.

In Steve Thomas' book he refers to the birefringement foreign material as a splinter, which suggests its from the paintbrush handle, i.e. its wood or/and veneered.

Its entirely possible that the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet but redacted from the public domain?

If the Coroner is able to state that he found birefringement foreign material this means it was the result of a Lab Test, meaning the Coroner knows precisely what the material is, e.g. talcum powder, wood, mica, etc.

So that's why there is likely to be more to this angle than some suspect?

.

Thanks again for the great information. I do plan to read one of the books, neither of which is available at my local library system, unfortunately. I did wonder the same thing about the birefringement foreign material being of relation to what people have said about that paint brush. Paint residue itself might have birefringent properties?

I do feel that foreign material is an important angle to this story. Wish we knew more about it.

 

[neesaki]

I’m sure I missed this somewhere or just plain forgot, but Why were some of BR’s and JB’s still wrapped and in the basement when she was found? TIA

 

[David Rogers]

I’m sure I missed this somewhere or just plain forgot, but Why were some of BR’s and JB’s still wrapped and in the basement when she was found? TIA

It is possible they were for a second Christmas in Michigan with John’s other kids.

 

[Userid]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that the only presents that were still wrapped in the wine cellar belonged solely to BR -- and this was because BR's birthday was soon after Christmas (in January), so the parents were waiting to give him said presents until his birthday. They purchased the presents for both his B-day and Christmas at the same time, and set a couple or so aside to have something to give him on his actual B-day.

 

[UKGuy]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that the only presents that were still wrapped in the wine cellar belonged solely to BR -- and this was because BR's birthday was soon after Christmas (in January), so the parents were waiting to give him said presents until his birthday. They purchased the presents for both his B-day and Christmas at the same time, and set a couple or so aside to have something to give him on his actual B-day.

Userid ,

John tells Lou Smit:

20 JOHN RAMSEY: Well Patsy had gotten a bunch
21 of gifts at FAO Schwartz up in New York in early
22 December, some of which were for them were for
23 Burke's birthday, which was in January. She didn't
24 know they were in the closet exactly,

Gotta wonder why not?

0273 13 LOU SMIT: You notice how the packages seem
14 to be partially opened. Can you explain this?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I can't.
16 LOU SMIT: So Patsy had gone there and
17 just kind looked to see what was (INAUDBILE)?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: It's possible. (INAUDIBLE) I mean,
19 you can figure out what's in them. The cigar box
20 was sitting on a paint can, or something like
21 that. And I believe it shouldn't have.

John is saying he knew what was in the packages.

Then there is the size-12's along with Burke claiming to have opened the gifts on Christmas Day Afternoon.

Looks like the Partially Opened Gifts are just like the Barbie Nightgown, i.e. part of the case, and that they have been dumped in the wine-cellar out of view?

.