Sequence of Events Questioned

TLynn

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
350
Reaction score
13
Website
Visit site
Working the maze backward:

JonBenet's longjohn's had a urine stain on the front - which would mean, if releasing urine upon death, she died on her stomach.

The oversized panties were stained with urine as well...mixed with a spot of blood.

Wouldn't this mean that JonBenet was NOT "redressed" after the murder - but before? If after the murder, wouldn't the oversized panties be dry? Especially if wiped down before the redressing.

So, if the "wiping down" happen before the oversized panties were put on - then was JonBenet still alive when "wiped down" and "redressed."

The blood was mixed with urine, so the molestation could have taken place within the redressing period. At that point, wouldn't JonBenet still be alive?

The oversized panties were in her bedroom - doesn't it make more sense that the redressing occurred in her bedroom - as to the killer running upstairs (while JonBenet still alive), pulling out the drawer and picking "Wednesday" - to run back down the stairs to redress her body in the cellar.

There was never a matching urine stain found (on floor, bedding, etc.) that I know of... So where, on her stomach, did JonBenet die? Where is the urine stain?
 
TLynn:

Yes could be sequenced differently, but BlueCrab will suggest that the urine on her size-12 panties are post-mortem release, and he may be 100% correct. I dont know.

Another possibility is only her underwear was swapped and the urine from her longjohns soaked her pants by osmosis. A long shot but we dont know the relative urine staining of each piece of clothing.

Thats why I made that semi-dramatic Location ... Smoking Gun post. Personally I dont think she was killed in the basement, more probably her bedroom. Can you see Burke sleeping in a bed where his sister has just been popped?

Patsy never re-dressed that day, how about Burke , what was he wearing going over to Fleet Whites house. Did he ever go to bed? Why did John hand in two pairs of trousers months later, because he had amnesia as per normal, or did he also wear the same clothes, changing only when he had his early morning forensic cleansing shower ?

The basement scenario was staged , we know this for many reasons, it was probably one of many too, it was unfinished, little details suggest references to elsewhere e.g her white-blanket, her barbie nightgown.

But since her sexual assault was part of the staging, why bother to wipe her down!
 
UKGuy said:
But since her sexual assault was part of the staging, why bother to wipe her down!


UKGuy,

The sexual assault wasn't part of the staging. The sexual assault was the reason for the staging.

The perp(s) wiped down JonBenet's body in the thighs and crotch areas, re-dressed her in clean panties, wrote a fake ransom note, and then brutalized the body in a naive effort to hide the sexual aspects of the murder and make it look like sadistic foreign terrorists had committed the crime.

JMO
 
TLynn said:
Working the maze backward:

JonBenet's longjohn's had a urine stain on the front - which would mean, if releasing urine upon death, she died on her stomach.

The oversized panties were stained with urine as well...mixed with a spot of blood.

Wouldn't this mean that JonBenet was NOT "redressed" after the murder - but before? If after the murder, wouldn't the oversized panties be dry? Especially if wiped down before the redressing.

So, if the "wiping down" happen before the oversized panties were put on - then was JonBenet still alive when "wiped down" and "redressed."

The blood was mixed with urine, so the molestation could have taken place within the redressing period. At that point, wouldn't JonBenet still be alive?

The oversized panties were in her bedroom - doesn't it make more sense that the redressing occurred in her bedroom - as to the killer running upstairs (while JonBenet still alive), pulling out the drawer and picking "Wednesday" - to run back down the stairs to redress her body in the cellar.

There was never a matching urine stain found (on floor, bedding, etc.) that I know of... So where, on her stomach, did JonBenet die? Where is the urine stain?



TLynn,

I agree with you that the stains on the front of JonBenet's underwear and longjohns meant that she was lying on her stomach when she released the urine. But I don't agree that the urine was released immediately after death.

My friend who is an emergency room physician told me he has never seen a dead body release its urine immediately after death, and over the years he has seen a lot of people immediately after death (I know there are some on this forum who don't agree with this).

IMO the urine was released from JonBenet's body after she was dead and had been cleaned up and re-dressed in the clean size 12-14 panties. This would mean that she had originally been on her stomach for a time, or even posed in such a way as to cause the urine to stain the front of her clothes, and then moved and placed in the position she was eventually found -- on her back.

IMO the Ramseys found JonBenet's body hours before they called 911, and she was in an entirely different position when they found her. John moved the body to give her a measure of dignity in death before they called 911.

There were no stains on the floor because the underwear and longjohns had absorbed all of the urine.

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
UKGuy,

The sexual assault wasn't part of the staging. The sexual assault was the reason for the staging.

The perp(s) wiped down JonBenet's body in the thighs and crotch areas, re-dressed her in clean panties, wrote a fake ransom note, and then brutalized the body in a naive effort to hide the sexual aspects of the murder and make it look like sadistic foreign terrorists had committed the crime.

JMO
BlueCrab:
Thanks for your clarification.

Are you proposing prior sexual abuse, and sexual abuse during the time frame leading up to her murder, THEN a further assault to hide the prior sexual aspects leading upto her murder, i.e. by using a digit or paintbrush handle, accompanied by brutalization of her body?

We know she was intimately violated no amount of wiping down can conseal that. She suffered many tissue injuries, So just what can you hide by wiping her down? If her body was delibertately brutalized as part of the staging, why not not leave it as such, why sanitize it? Do the sadistic terrorists have some kind of prepubescent aesthetic, which requires application, even during the staging of a murder ?

Or does this suggest there was more than one staging event ?
 
I agree she urinated post-mortem - so why were her panties changed prior?

What was wrong with the ones she had on....

Bluecrab, I don't believe there were no stains on the floor because the "longjohns had absorbed all of the urine." There would still be a wet spot of urine somewhere - even if only damp.
 
UKGuy said:
BlueCrab:
Thanks for your clarification.

Are you proposing prior sexual abuse, and sexual abuse during the time frame leading up to her murder, THEN a further assault to hide the prior sexual aspects leading upto her murder, i.e. by using a digit or paintbrush handle, accompanied by brutalization of her body?

We know she was intimately violated no amount of wiping down can conseal that. She suffered many tissue injuries, So just what can you hide by wiping her down? If her body was delibertately brutalized as part of the staging, why not not leave it as such, why sanitize it? Do the sadistic terrorists have some kind of prepubescent aesthetic, which requires application, even during the staging of a murder ?

Or does this suggest there was more than one staging event ?



UKGuy,

When I mentioned brutalization of the body I was referring to the extreme tightening of the ligature around the neck and the horrendous hit on the head, probably with a baseball bat. Both of these acts likely occurred after death and, IMO, were done solely for effect. The perps wanted the scene to look like foreign terrorists did it in order to direct attention away from the house. The killer knew the sexual aspects of the crime, if detected, would suggest the involvement of a Ramsey family member.

Sex was the obvious motivation behind the crime. JonBenet had been internally violated and there was a sexual device wrapped around her neck pointing toward a sexual game -- erotic asphyxiation .

And there is evidence in the autopsy report that suggests JonBenet died of asphyxiation DURING the sexual assault. "Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen" means no white blood cells had showed up yet to protect the vagina injury, even though blood had been coming from the injury. JonBenet apparently died between the time the injury occurred (during penetration) and before the white cells had a chance to get there.

Thus, the evidence as I see it points to a likely accidental death during the sexual assault, but brutalization of the body during the staging trying to make the death look like the work of foreign terrorists.

I theorize that children committed the crime and completed most of the naive staging before being discovered by John and Patsy. The kids likely had help from one older accomplice.

JMO
 
TLynn said:
I agree she urinated post-mortem - so why were her panties changed prior?

What was wrong with the ones she had on....



TLynn,

The size 6 panties JonBenet had obviously been wearing likely had evidence from the killer on them, so the killer changed them and wiped down that part of the body. The size 6 panties are missing from the crime scene.

However, the size 12-14 underwear the killer got from the underwear drawer in JonBenet's bathroom indicated he didn't know much about dressing little girls. John and Patsy would have known better than to put underwear on JonBenet that were twice her normal size. IOW, I think 9 year-old boys re-dressed JonBenet.

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
UKGuy,
The kids likely had help from one older accomplice.

JMO

If so, the older accomplice likely picked out the replacement panties.

Not saying I think the kids were involved, but that probably it was someone older who noticed day-of-the-week panties in the drawer and assumed they would fit or they wouldn't be there, and that since they said Wednesday, nobody would notice they'd been changed. Very dumb. Yes, there was probably evidence, maybe blood, on whatever panties she'd been wearing after the visit to the Whites'. If she was wearing Daphne's, then both that pair and the Wednesday pair she wore to the Whites are missing, correct?

(Or, might JonBenet have felt humiliated by having to wear Daphne's underwear, enough to herself want to open the new package, forgetting about the size? We'll never know, but she WAS very opinionated about what she'd wear, may have made a huge issue of it if she was really awake.)

Any wetness on her bed sheet would have dried by the time anyone examined it, but there were no yellow stains, and the broken paint brush piece was found in the boiler room just outside the wine cellar door.
 
This make sense if Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and hit her over the head with a flashlight instead of John...and the Ramsey's must have thought they killed her.

Both are guilty and both cover it up...after all it was an accident. But they can't have the world learn CEO John was having an incestial relationship with his little daughter. And heaven forbid an ex-beauty kills in a rage, the Ramseys are more protective of their 'image' than their daughter.

And so begins the coverup...John strangled JonBenet and Patsy wrote the ransom note.

After all, they spent far more money and time, defending and trying to get back their reputation than find the ''killer" of their daughter....in fact the Rams have set stumbling blocks to anyone trying to assist them or help the children's foundation.

Fake phone numbers, email numbers that no longer exists, a reward that went 'poof', and so on.

Yeah it is possible the Rams are covering for Burke also...that scenario makes sense too.

And it could have been Patsy alone, covering up John's abuse of JonBenet, when Patsy accidentally killed her daughter.
 
Let us not forget the 'flashlight' 'the tool ?', ramnesia again. If I remember correctly, no one in the Ramsey family remembered just 'where it was kept normally'. WE have speculated over time, that Patsy used it to creep down the stairs to do her midnight 'get JonBenet up BEFORE' she wets the bed routine.

But as I recall it was seen on the kitchen counter the morning of the 26th? My memory is fading.

I find myself wondering IF there was an ample supply of JonBenets size 6 panties, in the same location as the NEW weekday size 12 pantie package??



.
 
The Wednesday pair that JonBenet wore to the Whites' were rinsed out by FW for some reason, and before anyone asks, I don't remember which book, evidently not Schiller's or ST's or Carelton Smith's, all of which I'm almost done checking, for the runner outside at dawn.

I remember reading somewhere that FW put his little girl's panties on JonBenet. Knowing how stubborn she was about her clothes, maybe that was humiliating, and maybe she even took them off right there, went home w/out any. Would anyone put it past her?

Which would go along with Miss Daisey's theory, (I think is brilliant) that JonBenet got the black shirt fibers by putting her arms around her dad's neck and her legs around him, to be carried to the car and into the Rs' house.
JonBenet may even have insisted on a pair of panties out of the pkg they were saving for her cousin. We know how the kid was. Pretty strong-willed. Didn't she actually kick her mother in the shin during an argument?
ABOUT WHAT SHE WOULD OR WOULDN'T WEAR? Maybe because she was being abused, she needed some extra control and indulgence.

Some will say Patsy was having another scene with the child and lost control. Not necessarily. I'm just trying to explain what happened to 2 pairs of panties that night. Was going to say maybe the Whites' carpet, or Daphne's bed where JonBenet lay down for a while, had a urine spot, (giving them as much of a motive because FW could react pretty strongly, even had a gun in Atlanta, if I'm not mistaken) until TLynn said the big panties were urine-stained, corresponding to the location of the stains on the longjohns, I'm assuming (?) If that didn't match, she'd wet the longjohns at the Whites', most likely.

Anyone have Singular's book, and the parents' Death of Innocence? See anything about the runner outside at dawn? There were 38 REGISTERED sex offenders in the area, who evidently weren't looked at.
 
Camper said:
I find myself wondering IF there was an ample supply of JonBenets size 6 panties, in the same location as the NEW weekday size 12 pantie package??


Camper,

There were 15 pairs of panties in JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom. All were size 4 and size 6, except the package of new day-of-the-week size 12-14 panties that were still in its plastic package, except for one pair missing -- Wednesday.

Patsy tried to downplay the fact that JonBenet was wearing size 12-14 when found murdered. When asked what size JonBenet normally wore, Patsy said 8-10. There were no size 8-10 panties in the house. There were only size 4's and size 6's.

JMO
 
Eagle1 said:
Which would go along with Miss Daisey's theory, (I think is brilliant) that JonBenet got the black shirt fibers by putting her arms around her dad's neck and her legs around him, to be carried to the car and into the Rs' house.
.



Eagle,

That scenario would be an almost impossible secondary transfer of fibers. The black fibers from John's black shirt were found in the CROTCH of JonBenet's panties. JonBenet was wearing slacks, not a dress (which remotely might have allowed such a transfer).

JMO
 
Eagle1 said:
The Wednesday pair that JonBenet wore to the Whites' were rinsed out by FW for some reason, and before anyone asks, I don't remember which book, evidently not Schiller's or ST's or Carelton Smith's, all of which I'm almost done checking, for the runner outside at dawn.

I remember reading somewhere that FW put his little girl's panties on JonBenet. Knowing how stubborn she was about her clothes, maybe that was humiliating, and maybe she even took them off right there, went home w/out any. Would anyone put it past her?

Eagle, I remember reading where FW had put clothing (panties) on JBR in times past, but I don't remember it being on Christmas Night. Can you source that, also, while you're looking for the runner?

Anyone else know if this is accurate?
 
FW changing panties either on Christmas, my only source is my memory of what I have read, and I don't remember my source for reading it either.

Thanks BC.



.
 
BlueCrab said:
UKGuy,

When I mentioned brutalization of the body I was referring to the extreme tightening of the ligature around the neck and the horrendous hit on the head, probably with a baseball bat. Both of these acts likely occurred after death and, IMO, were done solely for effect. The perps wanted the scene to look like foreign terrorists did it in order to direct attention away from the house. The killer knew the sexual aspects of the crime, if detected, would suggest the involvement of a Ramsey family member.

Sex was the obvious motivation behind the crime. JonBenet had been internally violated and there was a sexual device wrapped around her neck pointing toward a sexual game -- erotic asphyxiation .

And there is evidence in the autopsy report that suggests JonBenet died of asphyxiation DURING the sexual assault. "Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen" means no white blood cells had showed up yet to protect the vagina injury, even though blood had been coming from the injury. JonBenet apparently died between the time the injury occurred (during penetration) and before the white cells had a chance to get there.

Thus, the evidence as I see it points to a likely accidental death during the sexual assault, but brutalization of the body during the staging trying to make the death look like the work of foreign terrorists.

I theorize that children committed the crime and completed most of the naive staging before being discovered by John and Patsy. The kids likely had help from one older accomplice.

JMO
BlueCrab:

Your BDI is fairly consistent and explains most of the evidence, so its a good runner.

Now you write:
"The killer knew the sexual aspects of the crime, if detected, would suggest the involvement of a Ramsey family member.

Sex was the obvious motivation behind the crime. JonBenet had been internally violated and there was a sexual device wrapped around her neck pointing toward a sexual game -- erotic asphyxiation"

So why did killer not remove the erotic asphyxiation device, does this not still point to a Ramsey family member, even more so than her sexual assault which was initially hidden?

One distinct BDI inconsistency seems to be:
Assuming the grand jury know Burke did it, and since he was beneath the age of criminal resposibility in Colorado, his records have been sealed.

But if there was an older accomplice teenage or adult these are culpable persons, and fall under the federal or state statutes. There is no need to seal the accomplice's records and give him a get out of jail card is there, so why was the accomplice not charged with some felony?

So to explain this inconsistency I would assume that whether Burke was innocent or guilty the grand jury would probably request his records and transcripts sealed. And that this may be normal practise in Colorado when a child is involved. Many institutions do this where children are involved in crimes either as victims or witness. Sometimes they do not even issue the parents names knowing this can identify the children?
 
Just like to agree with what BlueCrab writes about them, and add I think JonBenet's everyday underwear was stored in her bathroom, and those Day of the Week Bloomingdales were kept in her bedroom. Intended as a gift for Patsy's niece Jenny Davis, who was then aged about 11 or 12. The police when interviewing Patsy let her know they only removed size-4 or size-6 pants from the bathroom, after she said she had placed the size-12's in the bathroom!

I accept that children can wear underwear sizes larger than normal, or wear them back to front etc, generally they dont bother too much the same way an adult does.

But in this instance Patsy cannot remember when JonBenet last changed her underwear, last had a bath, what she was wearing when she played outdoors on her Xmas gift Bike, if JonBenet changed to go over to the Whites, if her underwear came off as she removed JonBenet's black velvet pants that night. When the soiled pants on the bathroom floor had been placed there.

So Patsy knows that there is something important about those size-12 pants that goes beyond them simply being nearly double Jonbenet's size.

I suspect there was multiple stagings of JonBenet that night/morning and those involved were not clued up on each others actions, so are forced to have memory loss on those details that they possibly did not collude in.

Now one way out of this underwear saga for the police is to ask Fleet and Priscilla White if they escorted or assisted JonBenet to the bathroom that evening, since its likely they could at least pin down what she may have been wearing?

I have never read anywhere that Fleet White changed JonBenets underwear that evening. If he did its a big deal.

But given the nature of JonBenet's death it would not surprise me if the White's were to deny ever assisting JonBenet, Fleet especially may think he would be being lined up as the main suspect! Wonder if this was the reason for the heated exchange at the funeral. After all JR was to later finger Fleet White as a possible perp!
 
UKGuy said:
BlueCrab:

Your BDI is fairly consistent and explains most of the evidence, so its a good runner.

Now you write:
"The killer knew the sexual aspects of the crime, if detected, would suggest the involvement of a Ramsey family member.

Sex was the obvious motivation behind the crime. JonBenet had been internally violated and there was a sexual device wrapped around her neck pointing toward a sexual game -- erotic asphyxiation"

So why did killer not remove the erotic asphyxiation device, does this not still point to a Ramsey family member, even more so than her sexual assault which was initially hidden?

One distinct BDI inconsistency seems to be:
Assuming the grand jury know Burke did it, and since he was beneath the age of criminal resposibility in Colorado, his records have been sealed.

But if there was an older accomplice teenage or adult these are culpable persons, and fall under the federal or state statutes. There is no need to seal the accomplice's records and give him a get out of jail card is there, so why was the accomplice not charged with some felony?

So to explain this inconsistency I would assume that whether Burke was innocent or guilty the grand jury would probably request his records and transcripts sealed. And that this may be normal practise in Colorado when a child is involved. Many institutions do this where children are involved in crimes either as victims or witness. Sometimes they do not even issue the parents names knowing this can identify the children?



UKGuy,

There are several scenarios that could have occurred in which children were involved with an older accomplice but the older accomplice walked. Here's some of them:

1. The cops and the grand jury may not have known of his existence. For instance, the testimony in the Atlanta interviews of 2000 revealed the cops had never even heard of Nathan Inouye.

2. The older accomplice's invovement could have been minimal compared to the damage the young boys did, so rather than bring charges, which would likely reveal the names of the children, the D.A. decided to do nothing.

3. The older accomplice would have benefited from a coverup that extended from the D.A.'s office all the way to the governor's office and kept a lid on the case and a virtual impossibility to collect crucial evidence, such as the December cellphone calls of John Ramsey.

4. The Ramsey family was involved in familial incest that included children and people from out of the family. Ratting out the adult killer would spill the beans and everybody would end up in jail.

JMO
 
It would appear then that - JonBenet's panties were changed and she was wiped down after a sexual assault/molestation -

But it also appears that she was alive during the incident - as the urine release at death (or soon after) was on the oversized panties (Bluecrab, I didn't find anything in a quick research on whether urine releases at death or how long afterward)

After the wipe down, someone opened the new package and took out Wednesday's panties - WEDNESDAY! It was Wednesday - was this to be a replacement - hopefully, undiscovered....? But they were too big.

Were overnight diapers going to be put on under them? The diaper box was pulled out from above the washer/dryer cupboard in the hallway outside of JonBenet's bedroom?

So far, it appears that all of this is taking place in JonBenet's bedroom - except the material found in her vagina was consistent with the broken paint brush.

Was this paint brush molestation done after the original molestation to "cover it up?"
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
652
Total visitors
722

Forum statistics

Threads
589,921
Messages
17,927,691
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top