CASCU Analysis of Crime

[UKGuy]

All due respect, UKGuy, but I think you're missing my point.

Why add to the sexual abuse? Because it was chronic, not acute. Because it would show that abuse had been occurring in the past, not necessarily in the very recent past. Because once the police find evidence of chronic abuse they're probably going to arrest one or both parents.

Change that to a violent, acute injury that is inflicted the same night as the murder, and you change the whole complexion of the crime. Suddenly, we can blame any vaginal abnormalities on the murdering pedophile intruder, not on JR or PR or BR or anyone else who had regular access to the child.

Even today some of the experts disagree about the chronic abuse, though most do seem to believe it did happen. But the acute injury inflicted the night of the murder did exactly what it was supposed to do: hopelessly confuse the physical evidence of chronic abuse.

So the real question then becomes, why not stage JBR to look like she was the victim of a sex crime?

Because that is the one thing the perpetrator simply cannot afford to do.

In order to do everything that must be done by morning, the perp needs help. The non-murdering R must be convinced to give that help, and there's simply no way that will happen if the n.m.R believes that the other R adult is a murder and/or an abuser.

So stage the crime to look like JBR might have been the victim of a sibling rage attack, carefully conceal ALL evidence suggesting a sex crime, and you've got a pretty good chance of getting the n.m.R. to believe you and agree to help in the cover-up.

Then, re-stage the crime, but be careful even in the RN to make it sound like a kidnapping gone bad.

Look at it this way: no one who first saw JBR's body on the 26th seems to have thought that she looked like the victim of a pedophile. The body wrapped in the blankets looked more like a child snatched from her bed than a pedo's victim: only when the blankets fall away does the first incongruous note of those 'tied' hands start to register.

And it will take a full autopsy before anyone even starts to think "sex crime."

And somebody wanted it that way.

Dru,
I am not unsympathetic to what you suggest, just that the rationale for hiding chronic abuse with acute abuse seems weak, but this may simply be an indication of amateur staging?

So the real question then becomes, why not stage JBR to look like she was the victim of a sex crime?

Precisely, and if not, why any acute injury, which will bring the searchlight of attention?

JonBenet's acute vaginal injury was either inflicted prior to any head injury or asphyxiation, or after one of the latter events.

The question on the table is really was JonBenet's acute injury an instance of current sexual molestation, or an attempt at staging?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

John says that when he "found" her, that she was wrapped like a "papoose", in that blanket. It is in his interview...I posted it over at FFJ, but will bring it here, if needed. His exact words..."she was wrapped like a papoose". He says that several times...because the interviewer wants to make sure of what he is saying. Anyway...I beleive that they were trying to "mask" the sexual assault (done with the paintbrush)...and in their frantic minds, they thought that wrapping her like a "papoose" ...would distract from that. They had probably all planned to skip the country, before the autopsy was done...that is why John was on the phone, that morning..making plans for the "remaining family members'...and why Pam P. grabbed everybody's passports.

That I believe! He expected to be out of state when the autopsy was done. I think what he really wanted was to leave the state before her body was found.

 

[BBB167893]

Remember as sharp as those two are, they are not forensic experts, nor are they crime scene experts.

Experts have said that these were amateurs...putting together a crime they have seen only in movies.

Like I've tried to say: there's a big difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

[UKGuy]

Like I've tried to say: there's a big difference between knowledge and wisdom.

SuperDave,

Hey its a crime forum not philosophy 101. Now I know the difference between information and knowledge, but wisdom, whats that?


.

 

[BBB167893]

Diddn't mean to be so "Kung Fu" all of a sudden.

Well, think of the position that they were in. All they knew was the form, not the substance. They had an idea of what a crime scene would look like, but how much practice did they have. They had the knowledge of how to do something, but no true understanding of it. I mean, you wouldn't learn to swim on dry land, would you? If you've never driven before, and are suddenly given the keys to a Ferrari and told, "hit the road," is anyone really going to be shocked if you get into an accident?

But, if that's too cryptic, let's get literal: my meaning was, they had the means, but no real experience. I mean, just how many crime scenes had they staged before? How much real, firsthand know-how did they have?

Anyone can have knowledge out of books. But life is the true teacher.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[UKGuy]

Diddn't mean to be so "Kung Fu" all of a sudden.

Well, think of the position that they were in. All they knew was the form, not the substance. They had an idea of what a crime scene would look like, but how much practice did they have. They had the knowledge of how to do something, but no true understanding of it. I mean, you wouldn't learn to swim on dry land, would you? If you've never driven before, and are suddenly given the keys to a Ferrari and told, "hit the road," is anyone really going to be shocked if you get into an accident?

But, if that's too cryptic, let's get literal: my meaning was, they had the means, but no real experience. I mean, just how many crime scenes had they staged before? How much real, firsthand know-how did they have?

Anyone can have knowledge out of books. But life is the true teacher.

Here endeth the lesson.

SuperDave,

Is it Kane, when faced with such wisdom, bows and says Yes Master ?

For me its when the crime-scene exhibits inconsistencies , or stuff that is just plane out of place?

Dr Sam Sheppard's case has been revised recently using blood analysis strongly suggesting a staged crime-scene , now where is richard kimberly these days?


.

 

[Dru]

JonBenet's acute vaginal injury was either inflicted prior to any head injury or asphyxiation, or after one of the latter events.


.

UKGuy, JBR's acute vaginal injury had to be inflicted after she was unconscious. Had to be.

Look at the autopsy. There's no bruising of the thighs or labia. There's no sign of trauma, either vaginal or external, associated with a forced penetration. The injury to the hymen is relatively "clean" as opposed to jagged or strikingly irregular, and it's a single wound.

All of which means that JBR lay entirely still while it was inflicted--before, during, and after what would have to be an unbelievably painful violation.

I could see someone hypothesizing that JBR had been abused often enough to be docile or compliant while abuse was taking place. But even if that were true, there is simply no way she would have remained still once the pain of that wound registered; she would have moved automatically, involuntarily, and sharply or strongly away from the source of the pain.

But the autopsy doesn't show that. The autopsy suggests that she didn't move at all--and that means that she wasn't conscious before, during, or after this wound was inflicted.

When I first started reading this board, I "tried on" all kinds of theories: IDI, PDI, JRDI, and combinations of those. I tried to see the toilet rage theory, the "caught committing abuse" theory, even the pedophile intruder theory.

But I kept coming back to that wound.

It doesn't fit. It's all wrong. It stands out as the one thing that most theories can't explain at all, at least not believably.

I mean, all respect to SuperDave, but no matter how amateur a person committing a crime is at crime-scene staging, I just can't buy that no more than one hour after a head blow which has not quite killed your child you would insert some object inside her, taking the risk of leaving far more physical evidence than you have to, solely because you think, "Hey, a sex-crime scenario will make the police look elsewhere!" and then completely fail to capitalize on that by actually staging a sex-crime, choosing to write a phony politically motivated, "we hate JR" RN instead.

That wound, in my opinion, can only really be explained if we believe these two things:

One, that it was inflicted not to point to some pedo intruder, but to point away from someone in the R household who knew there would be clear evidence of chronic abuse if he/she didn't corrupt that; and
Two, that only one of the two stagers knew anything about the wound at all.

To me, and I know I might be wrong, allowing those two possibilities makes so many more strange things about this case begin to make some kind of sense, from the RN to the size-12 underwear to the wiping down/redressing of JBR to BR's knife being found close to the crime scene to JR's anxiety about his golf clubs to JR's shirt fibers being found where they were to a poster's theory about PR's rings causing the "stun gun" marks and what this would mean re: PR's sweater fibers and the garrote to JR's 'need' for the body to be found before Melinda and her fiance arrived to, well, to several other things, but this is enough to go on for now.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, JBR's acute vaginal injury had to be inflicted after she was unconscious. Had to be.

Look at the autopsy. There's no bruising of the thighs or labia. There's no sign of trauma, either vaginal or external, associated with a forced penetration. The injury to the hymen is relatively "clean" as opposed to jagged or strikingly irregular, and it's a single wound.

All of which means that JBR lay entirely still while it was inflicted--before, during, and after what would have to be an unbelievably painful violation.

I could see someone hypothesizing that JBR had been abused often enough to be docile or compliant while abuse was taking place. But even if that were true, there is simply no way she would have remained still once the pain of that wound registered; she would have moved automatically, involuntarily, and sharply or strongly away from the source of the pain.

But the autopsy doesn't show that. The autopsy suggests that she didn't move at all--and that means that she wasn't conscious before, during, or after this wound was inflicted.

When I first started reading this board, I "tried on" all kinds of theories: IDI, PDI, JRDI, and combinations of those. I tried to see the toilet rage theory, the "caught committing abuse" theory, even the pedophile intruder theory.

But I kept coming back to that wound.

It doesn't fit. It's all wrong. It stands out as the one thing that most theories can't explain at all, at least not believably.

I mean, all respect to SuperDave, but no matter how amateur a person committing a crime is at crime-scene staging, I just can't buy that no more than one hour after a head blow which has not quite killed your child you would insert some object inside her, taking the risk of leaving far more physical evidence than you have to, solely because you think, "Hey, a sex-crime scenario will make the police look elsewhere!" and then completely fail to capitalize on that by actually staging a sex-crime, choosing to write a phony politically motivated, "we hate JR" RN instead.

That wound, in my opinion, can only really be explained if we believe these two things:

One, that it was inflicted not to point to some pedo intruder, but to point away from someone in the R household who knew there would be clear evidence of chronic abuse if he/she didn't corrupt that; and
Two, that only one of the two stagers knew anything about the wound at all.

To me, and I know I might be wrong, allowing those two possibilities makes so many more strange things about this case begin to make some kind of sense, from the RN to the size-12 underwear to the wiping down/redressing of JBR to BR's knife being found close to the crime scene to JR's anxiety about his golf clubs to JR's shirt fibers being found where they were to a poster's theory about PR's rings causing the "stun gun" marks and what this would mean re: PR's sweater fibers and the garrote to JR's 'need' for the body to be found before Melinda and her fiance arrived to, well, to several other things, but this is enough to go on for now.

Dru,

JBR's acute vaginal injury had to be inflicted after she was unconscious. Had to be.

Maybe, but I have not seen any evidence backing this claim up?

To my knowledge there is no blood on the blankets, no blood on her longjohns, no blood outside the wine-cellar, which is of interest. Yet there was patently blood on her genitals and thighs.

That wound, in my opinion, can only really be explained if we believe these two things:

One, that it was inflicted not to point to some pedo intruder, but to point away from someone in the R household who knew there would be clear evidence of chronic abuse if he/she didn't corrupt that; and
Two, that only one of the two stagers knew anything about the wound at all.

I do not see any difference between some pedo intruder and pointing away from someone in the R household to some other external person, both are alleged intruders, as are the ransom note kidnappers.

Two, that only one of the two stagers knew anything about the wound at all.

And should this knowledgable person be Patsy, since her fibers were discovered in the knotting on the garrote, and on the tape on her mouth?

Also you must explain why after having this vaginal wound inflicted JonBenet was then cleaned up, wiped down, redressed in clean size-12 underwear, and urine-soaked longjohns, then wrapped inside two white blankets? In what manner does that capitalize on staging a sex-crime and point to an external intruder?

imo the better explanation, uncomfortable as it seems, is that JonBenet's sexual wound may have occurred first, and not neccessarily caused by the paintbrush, that may represent staging, and is giving us the problems it was designed to create? This assumption is then consistent with her being wiped down and her assault being hidden beneath layers of clothing.

Also the autopsy strongly suggests that JonBenet was being sexually molested prior to her death, e.g. vaginal inflammation, add to this Coroner Meyer's verbal remarks regarding digital penetration then it seems inescapable that JonBenet was being sexually molested, which may have led directly to her vaginal injury and subsequent scream?

The forensic evidence does not support any intruder, bedwetting, douching, or corporal punishment theories, it does not say none of these ever occurred only that at the time of her death there is no evidence to demonstate their existence.


.

 

[Solace]

UKGuy, JBR's acute vaginal injury had to be inflicted after she was unconscious. Had to be.

Look at the autopsy. There's no bruising of the thighs or labia. There's no sign of trauma, either vaginal or external, associated with a forced penetration. The injury to the hymen is relatively "clean" as opposed to jagged or strikingly irregular, and it's a single wound.

All of which means that JBR lay entirely still while it was inflicted--before, during, and after what would have to be an unbelievably painful violation.

I could see someone hypothesizing that JBR had been abused often enough to be docile or compliant while abuse was taking place. But even if that were true, there is simply no way she would have remained still once the pain of that wound registered; she would have moved automatically, involuntarily, and sharply or strongly away from the source of the pain.

But the autopsy doesn't show that. The autopsy suggests that she didn't move at all--and that means that she wasn't conscious before, during, or after this wound was inflicted.

When I first started reading this board, I "tried on" all kinds of theories: IDI, PDI, JRDI, and combinations of those. I tried to see the toilet rage theory, the "caught committing abuse" theory, even the pedophile intruder theory.

But I kept coming back to that wound.

It doesn't fit. It's all wrong. It stands out as the one thing that most theories can't explain at all, at least not believably.

I mean, all respect to SuperDave, but no matter how amateur a person committing a crime is at crime-scene staging, I just can't buy that no more than one hour after a head blow which has not quite killed your child you would insert some object inside her, taking the risk of leaving far more physical evidence than you have to, solely because you think, "Hey, a sex-crime scenario will make the police look elsewhere!" and then completely fail to capitalize on that by actually staging a sex-crime, choosing to write a phony politically motivated, "we hate JR" RN instead.

That wound, in my opinion, can only really be explained if we believe these two things:

One, that it was inflicted not to point to some pedo intruder, but to point away from someone in the R household who knew there would be clear evidence of chronic abuse if he/she didn't corrupt that; and
Two, that only one of the two stagers knew anything about the wound at all.

To me, and I know I might be wrong, allowing those two possibilities makes so many more strange things about this case begin to make some kind of sense, from the RN to the size-12 underwear to the wiping down/redressing of JBR to BR's knife being found close to the crime scene to JR's anxiety about his golf clubs to JR's shirt fibers being found where they were to a poster's theory about PR's rings causing the "stun gun" marks and what this would mean re: PR's sweater fibers and the garrote to JR's 'need' for the body to be found before Melinda and her fiance arrived to, well, to several other things, but this is enough to go on for now.

You are right Dru. Very good post. Very good.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree. If the stager/killer/molester wanted it to look like a sex crime killing, they would have not wiped the blood from JBR's thighs. That type of killing is usually pretty grisly. Obviously the blood found in her vagina was not apparent, only discovered at autopsy. I have not made up my mind, but to me I think the killer(s) wanted to hide the sexual aspects of the crime. Why else wipe her down? If it was staged an an erotic asphyxiation gone wrong-maybe. But then why wipe her off?
As far as covering her with her white blanket, I think it was used to move/drag the body into the wineceller. I think the assault and murder occured in the basement, but not in the wineceller. I just don't think the killer(s) would attempt it in her bedroom, with her brother within earshot, unless he was involved somehow. While I will never be able to rule out ANY R, I feel less likely that BR was involved. The only way that works for me is if JAR was also involved. I just can't see BR, the immature, scrawny 9-year old being capable of causing that head wound for one, and the staging for another.
He knows something- that's for sure. But I don't think he was involved.

 

[Dru]

You are right Dru. Very good post. Very good.

Solace, thank you!!:blushing:

 

[Solace]

Solace, thank you!!:blushing:

Dru, thank you. You made some very good points. There would have been more injury if she had been awake while assaulted with the paintbrush. That is it. There would have been finger prints left on her thighs or in that area. It would be just too painful.

 

[DeeDee249]

And if she had been awake while this was being done, she'd have been squirming around, and the injuries would likely have been worse. No matter how frightened, NO child would be still during something like that.

 

[Ames]

And if she had been awake while this was being done, she'd have been squirming around, and the injuries would likely have been worse. No matter how frightened, NO child would be still during something like that.

I totally agree! That wound would have been alot worse if she had of been conscious.

 

[JMO8778]

John says that when he "found" her, that she was wrapped like a "papoose", in that blanket. It is in his interview...I posted it over at FFJ, but will bring it here, if needed. His exact words..."she was wrapped like a papoose". He says that several times...because the interviewer wants to make sure of what he is saying. Anyway...I beleive that they were trying to "mask" the sexual assault (done with the paintbrush)...and in their frantic minds, they thought that wrapping her like a "papoose" ...would distract from that. They had probably all planned to skip the country, before the autopsy was done...that is why John was on the phone, that morning..making plans for the "remaining family members'...and why Pam P. grabbed everybody's passports.

right on ! hiding the sexual wound means it won't be found until autopsy..the head wound as well...and by that time,I think they'd planned on being out of there...but the attorneys convinced them they'd be ok for now..and to go on CNN..so it seemed they were talking and cooperating..as w the lines ...'anything anyone wants,we will comply' or something along those lines was what they said on CNN.
could Pammy have been charged w anything if they'd left the country...for getting their passports???Not in Boulder though, I'm sure.

 

[JMO8778]

All due respect, UKGuy, but I think you're missing my point.

Why add to the sexual abuse? Because it was chronic, not acute. Because it would show that abuse had been occurring in the past, not necessarily in the very recent past. Because once the police find evidence of chronic abuse they're probably going to arrest one or both parents.

Change that to a violent, acute injury that is inflicted the same night as the murder, and you change the whole complexion of the crime. Suddenly, we can blame any vaginal abnormalities on the murdering pedophile intruder, not on JR or PR or BR or anyone else who had regular access to the child.

Even today some of the experts disagree about the chronic abuse, though most do seem to believe it did happen. But the acute injury inflicted the night of the murder did exactly what it was supposed to do: hopelessly confuse the physical evidence of chronic abuse.

So the real question then becomes, why not stage JBR to look like she was the victim of a sex crime?

Because that is the one thing the perpetrator simply cannot afford to do.

In order to do everything that must be done by morning, the perp needs help. The non-murdering R must be convinced to give that help, and there's simply no way that will happen if the n.m.R believes that the other R adult is a murder and/or an abuser.

So stage the crime to look like JBR might have been the victim of a sibling rage attack, carefully conceal ALL evidence suggesting a sex crime, and you've got a pretty good chance of getting the n.m.R. to believe you and agree to help in the cover-up.

Then, re-stage the crime, but be careful even in the RN to make it sound like a kidnapping gone bad.

Look at it this way: no one who first saw JBR's body on the 26th seems to have thought that she looked like the victim of a pedophile. The body wrapped in the blankets looked more like a child snatched from her bed than a pedo's victim: only when the blankets fall away does the first incongruous note of those 'tied' hands start to register.

And it will take a full autopsy before anyone even starts to think "sex crime."

And somebody wanted it that way.

I think they would cover for each other if each was guilty of something,or guilty of allowing something to happen(sexual abuse).And at the least,I think JR is guilty of sexually abusing JB.
That said,JR's behavior is very suspect just for someone who's doing nothing more than covering for his wife.He was all to anxious to be seen on CNN,to be seen and photographed at church,putting blame on friends(even in the RN),immediately blaming former friends at that,trying to get out of town asap,thinking of leaving the country...and to this very day...dating Beth Twitty..it's all too much.He's got something to hide.I doubt he would think of leaving the country over something Patsy alone was guilty of...I think he'd have turned her in first...he had too much to lose in the USA...a good job,money,investments and his older kids for starters.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO,

I promise I am being serious.

ok,but why would I think you weren't serious?

Why would wiping her down give John time to make her getaway.

b/c if it isn't obvious..if it looks like she was just taken from her bed and killed....it won't be found until autopsy.JR TRIED to get out of town bf that occurred...he knew he would be suspect for the condition her v. was in.He even thought of leaving the country !!

Why would an assault make him any more suspect than the body being there.

b/c he being the adult male of the house,dead body w. sexual abuse found in house..once he's suspect for the sexual abuse,he would be more likely to have been suspect for the murder itself as well..a motive,perhaps.

If they find JonBenet, they are going to hold the parents there. John knows this. Once she is reported missing, no one goes anwhere.

Not quite...JR apparently made a few phone calls ...likely bf the 911 call was made.
And he apparently DID think he could leave,as that's just what he tried to do after he found her.

What has wiping her down have to do with anything. It really baffles me what you are saying. So please help me out, I am trying to understand this case.

not sure why you're baffled.
I didn't wipe her down, only the person who did knows for sure why it was done, but...
I can only guess they wanted it to appear a bedside KN abduction done by the SFF in the note...the sexual staging is out of place,and was likely done for one or more reasons: an attempt to hide previous abuse,or a former staging.
What would you do if you were in JR's position?There is a dead body in the house..with a sexual element to it.Even if you didn't kill that person,and were covering for someone else..would you not want that to be noticed right away,if you want time to make your getaway...just as JR tried to do???Because that's just what he *tried to do..I think that's important..don't forget that plane would still be ready to go too..for the previously planned trip..if LE had found her right away,as I think he thought they would do.

BTW,that's just why I think JR is guilty of more than just covering for Patsy.

 

[JMO8778]

Well, we only have the Ramsey family's account of what went on before the 911 call that morning to go on, and who knows if they're all telling the truth about Burke hearing anything? Who says Burke woke up to terror in his parents' voices? Maybe he woke up to anger - such as them arguing with each other over the events and calling police and friends. I think Burke heard commotion, and came to investigate, only to be sent back to his room and later told what to say to LE.

If John snapped at him on the 911 tape like they say, then it sounds like JR was already in a finicky mood and not up to dealing with anything but the matter at hand - notifying police there was an alleged kidnapping. Burke coming in and asking questions was not part of the Rs plan, so he needed to be silenced and sent back to his room so the adults can do what they need to do without a kid underfoot.

JR never behaved as if he thought this was a real kidnapping - he let hysterical-acting Patsy make the phone calls, he didn't tell her to tell police about the death threats, he didn't stop her from calling unnecessary people over despite threats, he didn't get his son up and question him on what he may have heard/seen that might answer who did this, he didn't keep his son next to him in case something should happen to Burke (who knows if the KN is still in the house or not? Your youngest was taken from her bed, how can JR be so sure he isn't lying in wait for Burke now?), and he thought nothing of the threat on JB's head or Burke's by sending Burke out to go to the Whites - with no police escort.

With all of that, I simply do not believe that JR wasn't aware that this wasn't an authentic kidnapping in any way, shape, or form. Either he knew, or he cares nothing about the safety of either of his youngest children.

yes,and Patsy frantically called the friends immediately after calling 911...they wanted them there as a buffer bet. them and LE when the body was found..I believe they were frantic for those friends to arrive bf LE did !!

 

[JMO8778]

Toltec,

Wiping JonBenet down would serve to remove any evidence linking someone to her assault.

Redressing JonBenet in size-12 underwear serves to hide any visible signs of sexual assault, as does wrapping her in blankets.

Some see this as a change of tactics, with the ransom note stating kidnap as a motive, a sexual assault is particularly incongruous.

So to gain time, the sexual assault is hidden, and a kidnap staged, in the hope by the time anything implicating them is discovered they might be in another state?


.

exactly ! It's important to look at what JR DID try to do...he thought he *could leave...or at least he was going to try to.
Remember they weren't normal folks..they had some clout..and could pull a few strings..or at least they thought they could at that moment in time.. which they did get away with later on.

 

[JMO8778]

I agree Toltec, but JMO seems to think the wiping down of JonBenet has meaning in that they were covering up the assault.

why wipe her down in the first place,if not to hide something??why not just leave what's there...or for that matter...leave her exposed,without the blankets and the new underwear??
B/c the RN pointed to a bedside KN..not a sexual predator.That had to be hidden for now.I think JR' s thought was...'ok...LE will read the note...JB is found 'beheaded',just like the note says..and wrapped in blankets,as if nothing more happened than she was taken from her bed and strangled w a garrote.LE will see that me and the rest of my family are in danger from the FF, sooo...I get to leave town with them to keep us all safe'.Just what he tried to do.
Solace,what answer would satisfy you?