Questions you'd like answers to... #2

[Nate_Bro]

Following

 

[Mimsy2]

I would like to know some thoughts ont what the SBTC stands for in the signature of the RN "S.B.T.C - Victory"
Has Anyone considered it to be "Shall Be The Conqueror the Conqueror ...Victory? "

 

[icedtea4me]

I would like to know some thoughts ont what the SBTC stands for in the signature of the RN "S.B.T.C - Victory"
Has Anyone considered it to be "Shall Be The Conqueror the Conqueror ...Victory? "

Shall Be The Conqueror? No. That was from the JMK debacle 14 years ago.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=S.B.T.C.

 

[Mimsy2]

Shall Be The Conqueror? No. That was from the JMK debacle 14 years ago.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=S.B.T.C.

I was thinking more along the lines of William the Conqueror and no relation to JMK.

 

[icedtea4me]

I was thinking more along the lines of William the Conqueror and no relation to JMK.

Okay and you were thinking more along the lines of William the Conqueror because...?

 

[Stevem3]

Stevem3,
1) You cannot determine race from dna only a likely geographic region.

2) Nope, but its not a full sample anyway. It was just a face saving, book keeping exercise.

3) Not certain, I cannot recall any bloodstains being itemized?

4) John's eyesight is very, very poor, so poor he is not allowed by federal law to fly his own plane, hence he employed a flight pilot.

Fleet White looked into the wine-cellar early that morning and saw nothing unusual, including smell, etc!

5) The coroner said JonBenet died via strangulation which appears to have taken place in the basement, more specifically possibly the wine-cellar.

.

Thanks for this. Regarding the blood stains My thoughts are if she bled heavily then there should be some blood on a floor that could be picked up.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for this. Regarding the blood stains My thoughts are if she bled heavily then there should be some blood on a floor that could be picked up.

Stevem3,
The only blood itemized was on the pink barbie nightgown left in the wine-cellar, and on JonBenet's thighs, etc.

.

 

[Mimsy2]

Okay and you were thinking more along the lines of William the Conqueror because...?

I'm sorry I'm not always good at going in depth with my thoughtsexpression when they're off the top of my head

Okay and you were thinking more along the lines of William the Conqueror because...?

I am sorry, I am not good at going into depth with my thoughts when they are off the top of my head. I have just recently started looking into this case a little deeper. My reason for asking about the “S.B.T.C. Victory” signature was that I feel it is quite important to who may have pinned the RN.

At present I am thinking it may either stand for Saved by the Cross or Shall be the Conquer. My reasoning for thinking this is considering an RDI theory (I am considering a few including trying to make an IDI fit). For that reason I feel that it must be tied to religion or literature in some shape form or fashion. In my experience most people who have a love of literature also enjoy English/British history and literature. It is just a thought I had and when it crossed my mind, I investigated William the Conqueror’s Laws. Upon looking into those and reading through them it just piqued my curiosity and I wondered if anybody else had any thoughts about it.

As far as the possibility of it being “Saved by the Cross” that could either tie to religion/literature or IMO religion alone(as in saved from this earth and the sins upon it by the cross and all it stands for).

 

[Stevem3]

there are some things about this case that will never be known, but they are details that drive you nutz - here's a few I have, what are yours?

1. Why was it so important to the Ramseys' story that JonBenet was asleep when they got home and was taken directly to bed? Burke said she woke up and helped carry stuff into the house. We know she had pineapple, so why lie about her being asleep? It seems as though it would have been easier to say that she woke up when they pulled into the garage, they futzed around and had a snack and then went to bed - why was it important enough to lie about it? It's as if they were afraid to have anyone know the child was on the first floor that night between those hours - why? Did something happen in that part of the house?

2. Why did Burke act so strangely that morning? Why did he pretend to be asleep, and why didn't his parents wake him up and ask him if he had seen or heard anything in the night? Why when his father came up to get him to take him to White's house, did he remain silent and not ask any questions? That's not the way nine year old boys act - they want to know everything that's going on and if a cop walks in the house, they're fascinated by him, and want to know why he's there. This kid did not ask ONE question or exhibit any fear or curiosity at all. (In my opinion, someone put the fear of God in this kid to keep him quiet. I can hear it now, "no matter what anyone asks you, you say you don't know, do you hear me?? Do you want Mom and Dad in jail?? Don't say anything!!!, I mean it, Burke!!!) And I don't care what anyone says about everyone being "different", nine year old boys don't act like that in that kind
of situation - he didn't even ask, "is JonBenet going with us to the Whites?"

3. How did that blood get in the underwear? She's been wiped clean, but there is blood on the crotch panel - so she had to have had them on, been injured, wiped clean, and then the underwear put back on with the longjohns with the urine stain in the front - otherwise, how could the blood have gotten there? Which means she had that pair of underwear on, she was injured, the underwear were pulled up, and then someone thought better of it, pulled them down, wiped her clean and then pulled the underwear back up. How else could the blood have gotten on that part of the underwear?

4. Patsy Ramsey was so insistent on the ransom note being on the spiral staircase, saying, "and that's how I come down every morning." How would an intruder know that? Why not leave it in her bed, or on the kitchen counter or the windshield of the car, or the steps leading down from their bedroom, where the parents would be sure of seeing it. And why would she never admit to having read the damned thing? Or why wouldn't she read it in the first place? If it was my kid, I'd of have it memorized. She insinuated to LE that it was 'weird" that Fleet White knew it so well - well, anyone with a brain and a heart would be reading that note over and over wondering if there was anything about it that could tell them who killed that little girl. What's weird, is that Patsy Ramsey didn't do that.

This baloney that the parents shouldn't be suspected because of their behavior, because everyone acts "differently" is just that - baloney. If everyone acted differently, we wouldn't have societal norms, we wouldn't have traditions, we wouldn't know how to act appropriately in situations. Not to get into anything too esoteric, but there is a biological mechanism in the brain called "theory of mind mechanism". It allows us to understand and act appropriately in society, because we observe appropriate behavior and store those reactions in the brain. These parents didn't act in the way innocent parents act - they go on tv, but can't talk to the police. They call a lawyer the very day it happened, and then refuse to be interviewed, they have investigators on Dec. 27th, taking statements from people who were there that day and don't even inform the police. They give physical evidence but won't talk to the cops or take polygraphs or do one thing to remove themselves as suspects in the case. Things have to make sense and this just does not make any sense at all.

___

Thread #1

The metal on concrete sound that Mr. Stanton heard, do we know how long after the scream that was ? And we have confirmed that Mrs. Stanton woke him up after hearing the scream ?

 

[proust20]

Is it firmly established that the blow to the head preceded the strangulation? I thought that it was supposed to be in that order; but Cyril Wecht is of the opinion that it was the other way around. He cites that there wasn't much bleeding from the head injury to back up his view. It is interesting to consider that the head was struck to cover up what Wecht considers an accidental death during a sex game.

 

[UKGuy]

Is it firmly established that the blow to the head preceded the strangulation? I thought that it was supposed to be in that order; but Cyril Wecht is of the opinion that it was the other way around. He cites that there wasn't much bleeding from the head injury to back up his view. It is interesting to consider that the head was struck to cover up what Wecht considers an accidental death during a sex game.

proust20,
No it has not. The autopsy report does not offer a sequence of events.

JonBenet was a 6-year old girl nobody in the house needed to whack her on the head to restrain her, never mind strangle her.

We are not talking about a serial killer scenario here, there is no obvious MO, no weapon signature, little evidence, but plenty staged items, what does that suggest?

JonBenet might have been held in a choke hold, where unintentionally she slipped into a coma?

Everything else might simply be staging, e.g. the head blow as a failed attempt at masking the
choke hold consequences, and the ligature/paintbrush device as follow up, complete with a Ransom Note that reads like a Directors Final Cut?

Note that JonBenet's head injury was not discovered until the autopsy was underway.

The autopsy report says JonBenet died from a lack of oxygen caused by the effects of both the head blow and the ligature strangulation.

This conclusion does not prevent prior activity before JonBenet was whacked on the head and strangled!

Possibly suggesting the head blow and ligature strangulation was deliberate staging?

.

 

[proust20]

proust20,
No it has not. The autopsy report does not offer a sequence of events.

JonBenet was a 6-year old girl nobody in the house needed to whack her on the head to restrain her, never mind strangle her.

We are not talking about a serial killer scenario here, there is no obvious MO, no weapon signature, little evidence, but plenty staged items, what does that suggest?

JonBenet might have been held in a choke hold, where unintentionally she slipped into a coma?

Everything else might simply be staging, e.g. the head blow as a failed attempt at masking the
choke hold consequences, and the ligature/paintbrush device as follow up, complete with a Ransom Note that reads like a Directors Final Cut?

Note that JonBenet's head injury was not discovered until the autopsy was underway.

The autopsy report says JonBenet died from a lack of oxygen caused by the effects of both the head blow and the ligature strangulation.

This conclusion does not prevent prior activity before JonBenet was whacked on the head and strangled!

Possibly suggesting the head blow and ligature strangulation was deliberate staging?

.

 

[proust20]

The 'overkill' is the most puzzling question. It's impossible to ascertain if the head injury is covering up for the strangulation, or rather the other way around. If the head injury came 1st, there is the assumption that the strangler was aware of that injury, which is most likely though not certain.
Isn't it logical that the person who molested JBR is also her killer?
After all, the abuse of the night of the murder is consistent with the previous abuse revealed in the autopsy.

 

[UKGuy]

The 'overkill' is the most puzzling question. It's impossible to ascertain if the head injury is covering up for the strangulation, or rather the other way around. If the head injury came 1st, there is the assumption that the strangler was aware of that injury, which is most likely though not certain.
Isn't it logical that the person who molested JBR is also her killer?
After all, the abuse of the night of the murder is consistent with the previous abuse revealed in the autopsy.

proust20,

The 'overkill' is what most folks have to get over, since it likely represents a series of staging events, all backed up by the various Ramsey versions of events?

If the head injury came 1st, there is the assumption that the strangler was aware of that injury, which is most likely though not certain.

This assumption might well be wrong.

Isn't it logical that the person who molested JBR is also her killer?

No, since either John, Patsy or Burke may have molested her with one of the remaining residents killing her by asphyxiation.

One way to resolve this is to work your way through the options:

What we know about JonBenet's injuries:
1. Neck Injury
2. Head Injury
3. Genital Injury

The Autopsy Report says:
Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

Which translates into plain english as strangled and whacked on the head.

So an assumed sequence of events for JonBenet's injuries might be:
3. Genital Injury
2. Head Injury
1. Neck Injury

An alternative sequence could be:
3. Genital Injury
1. Neck Injury
2. Head Injury
1. Neck Injury

Here 1. Neck Injury does double duty as the result of a head choke hold and that from the use of the ligature device.

So the person who actually killed JonBenet i.e. by asphyxiation, might not be the same person who sexually assaulted her, that night or previously?

.

 

[proust20]

What explanation was given as to why DA Hunter would not allow LE access to the R's phone records? This is one of the most blatant aspects of the cover up. Certainly, this was done because there was something to hide. Perhaps, there was a call previous to the 911 on the 26th? Interestingly, PR is said to have called Nedra constantly. Could there have been a call to her about the staging?

 

[David Rogers]

What explanation was given as to why DA Hunter would not allow LE access to the R's phone records? This is one of the most blatant aspects of the cover up. Certainly, this was done because there was something to hide. Perhaps, there was a call previous to the 911 on the 26th? Interestingly, PR is said to have called Nedra constantly. Could there have been a call to her about the staging?

It is possible the phone records are available.

 

[UKGuy]

It is possible the phone records are available.

David Rogers,
You Cannot Be Serious!


Of course they are available, all phone records are archived then after a period transferred to the relevant communications authority where they stored, usually for ever.

Same applies to internet records, even companies that go bankrupt have their records archived.

.

 

[David Rogers]

David Rogers,
You Cannot Be Serious!


Of course they are available, all phone records are archived then after a period transferred to the relevant communications authority where they stored, usually for ever.

Same applies to internet records, even companies that go bankrupt have their records archived.

.

After all these years saying there were no phone records it seems there may be records.

 

[proust20]

So JR called a lawyer before the 911 call? If that is true, the entire timeline is thrown off. However, a previous call to PR's does not surprise since the refusal to hand over the phone records can only indicate deception. Has anyone else heard about this?

 

[UKGuy]

After all these years saying there were no phone records it seems there may be records.

David Rogers,

There is records, just like financial transactions and the IRS, any telecom has to keep records for a set period, after which they get transferred to some federal agency to be archived.

Maybe after a hundred years they might really delete stuff, so if they really wanted to know if calls were made from the Ramsey household, they can find out.

.