A new thought

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
If the killer wanted to ensure Jon Benet's death..one head bash wouldn't do that. I would think strangulation alone would be sufficient. Or of course, simply slit her throat.

The more and more I think about it...the killer either did not care whether she was dead or thought she was dead already. Killer seemed more interesting in making it seem like she was strangled and molested after a kidnap attempt.

????
The child was struck with an object using extreme force, plus she was brutally asphyxiated by ligature and you think the killer didn’t care if she was dead.
This is a truly bizarre comment. It doesn’t seem like she was strangled just as it doesn’t seem that she was molested. Both acts did occur and there should be no argument or disagreement over this. Facts are facts and these are facts. Good grief!
...

AK
 

THE BUNK

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
456
Reaction score
5
The child was struck with an object using extreme force, plus she was brutally asphyxiated by ligature and you think the killer didn’t care if she was dead.

1. Struck only once. Not repeatedly. If he wanted to ensure her death he would have struck multiple times. It's also questionable whether this wound was a high velocity or low velocity hit.

For all we know this wound was caused by him dropping her body.


2.Asphyxiation is not a guarantee of death.
In the killers case it may just be a sexual act that was not done to kill her.

3.If the killer wanted to guarantee death, he would have used a knife.
Unless for some reason...he was unwilling to use one.

The prescence of the head bash and the garrotte is equal to the prescence of the body and the ransom note. Two things that do not make sense together. Unless the other is a piece of false evidence.

If the ransom note is fake and the garrotte is fake, this case makes all the sense in the world.

You know have a little girl dead with head wound in her parents house.

The problem with many theorists is that they are assuming that all the evidence in this case is correct. Hence, they are trying to tie things that don't fit into one theory that fits all the evidence. Evidence that was fabricated.
 

Frigga

New Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
5,229
Reaction score
29
1. Struck only once. Not repeatedly. If he wanted to ensure her death he would have struck multiple times. It's also questionable whether this wound was a high velocity or low velocity hit.

For all we know this wound was caused by him dropping her body.


2.Asphyxiation is not a guarantee of death.
In the killers case it may just be a sexual act that was not done to kill her.

3.If the killer wanted to guarantee death, he would have used a knife.
Unless for some reason...he was unwilling to use one.

The prescence of the head bash and the garrotte is equal to the prescence of the body and the ransom note. Two things that do not make sense together. Unless the other is a piece of false evidence.

If the ransom note is fake and the garrotte is fake, this case makes all the sense in the world.

You know have a little girl dead with head wound in her parents house.

The problem with many theorists is that they are assuming that all the evidence in this case is correct. Hence, they are trying to tie things that don't fit into one theory that fits all the evidence. Evidence that was fabricated.


This is a most excellent post and even better (BBM) point. Thanks The Bunk!
 

Theonly1

New Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
18
[/B]

This is a most excellent post and even better (BBM) point. Thanks The Bunk!

Sorry quoted wrong person. It was a high-velocity hit from behind which could not have been accomplished by dropping or falling. Please do not ask for links. Those opinions and reports are all over the internet. Otherwise, I have no other issues with Bunks' comments.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
Heyya otg

Men seem to learn (or inherently understand)-otg ......
ya kidding me right?

Men may learn or understand but women KNOW. We just KNOW. Even if you don't think we know- we know. Everything- especially what you don't want us to know or don't think we know. And if we don't know ....we'll find out.
 

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
1. Struck only once. Not repeatedly. If he wanted to ensure her death he would have struck multiple times. It's also questionable whether this wound was a high velocity or low velocity hit.

For all we know this wound was caused by him dropping her body.


2.Asphyxiation is not a guarantee of death.
In the killers case it may just be a sexual act that was not done to kill her.

3.If the killer wanted to guarantee death, he would have used a knife.
Unless for some reason...he was unwilling to use one.

The prescence of the head bash and the garrotte is equal to the prescence of the body and the ransom note. Two things that do not make sense together. Unless the other is a piece of false evidence.

If the ransom note is fake and the garrotte is fake, this case makes all the sense in the world.

You know have a little girl dead with head wound in her parents house.

The problem with many theorists is that they are assuming that all the evidence in this case is correct. Hence, they are trying to tie things that don't fit into one theory that fits all the evidence. Evidence that was fabricated.
1. Struck with sufficient force to kill. That’s a fact.
2. Yes, asphyxiation is a guarantee of death. And, in this case it was the cause of death (associated with...). That’s a fact.
3. I find it hard to believe that you are being serious. This child was obviously and intentionally killed – twice (head blow and asphyxiation)!

The head blow and the asphyxiation make perfect sense together and if you do a little reading you’ll find that these two acts often go together.

The ransom note I fake, but there is nothing fake about the garrote.
...

AK
 

bettybaby00

Active Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
9
Men may learn or understand but women KNOW. We just KNOW. Even if you don't think we know- we know. Everything- especially what you don't want us to know or don't think we know. And if we don't know ....we'll find out.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 

noneareworthy

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
The answer lies in the chronic sexual abuse of JBR which the R's needed to cover up.

However, they did take her to the doctor on a regular basis for uti or whatever...why balk at an accidental head injury?
 

midwest mama

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
36
:bump:

How did John and Patsy Ramsey determine Jonbenet had been bashed in the head versus poisoned or suffocated or electrocuted or choked on a gumdrop or had a seizure or suffered some other catastrophic injury? Even the coroner had no clue there was head trauma.

I bumped up this thread rather than start a new one, since Anyhoo brought a line of theory into the forum a few days ago asking us to consider that JB was not killed in her home, but transported there very soon after.

DeeDee249 has done a great job keeping us reminded about the livor mortis indicating that JB was placed in the position in which she was found almost immediately following her death.

Many experts have opined that JB's head bash came first, with a time period following for up to 90 minutes before the ligature strangulation. Combine that with the fact that livor mortis indicates she was placed into the wine cellar very soon after she died, and IMO, I can accept Anyhoo's proposal that JB received the head bash at a location outside her home, provided she was brought home unconscious by the R's, where the rest of the crime then took place.

For me, it answers the question of the R's knowing what rendered her unconscious to begin with, and also explains the vaginal assault, both those that showed prior, healed abuse, and that associated with the crime itself. It explains why, if JB was being sexually abused with their knowledge at another location the night of the crime, they would have tried to mask that and present her as a victim of sadistic strangulation by a pedophile kidnapper.

This is just the beginning of a new theory of thought. There are surely many unanswered questions that we should take a look at that could help us decide if this fits in with a theory that leads us to consider JB was being used in kiddie prostitution the night of her death. Sickening premise, yes, but might be the only avenue that helps us hook up details of the crime that have not otherwise made much sense.

The most important one to me right now is, if the R's had to strangle her and had planned to have a "ransom note" set up the crime as a kidnapping gone awry, why did they not go the extra mile and dispose of her body before calling 911?
 

elannia

Active Member
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
416
Reaction score
38
Website
plus.google.com
:bump:



I bumped up this thread rather than start a new one, since Anyhoo brought a line of theory into the forum a few days ago asking us to consider that JB was not killed in her home, but transported there very soon after.

DeeDee249 has done a great job keeping us reminded about the livor mortis indicating that JB was placed in the position in which she was found almost immediately following her death.

Many experts have opined that JB's head bash came first, with a time period following for up to 90 minutes before the ligature strangulation. Combine that with the fact that livor mortis indicates she was placed into the wine cellar very soon after she died, and IMO, I can accept Anyhoo's proposal that JB received the head bash at a location outside her home, provided she was brought home unconscious by the R's, where the rest of the crime then took place.

For me, it answers the question of the R's knowing what rendered her unconscious to begin with, and also explains the vaginal assault, both those that showed prior, healed abuse, and that associated with the crime itself. It explains why, if JB was being sexually abused with their knowledge at another location the night of the crime, they would have tried to mask that and present her as a victim of sadistic strangulation by a pedophile kidnapper.

This is just the beginning of a new theory of thought. There are surely many unanswered questions that we should take a look at that could help us decide if this fits in with a theory that leads us to consider JB was being used in kiddie prostitution the night of her death. Sickening premise, yes, but might be the only avenue that helps us hook up details of the crime that have not otherwise made much sense.

The most important one to me right now is, if the R's had to strangle her and had planned to have a "ransom note" set up the crime as a kidnapping gone awry, why did they not go the extra mile and dispose of her body before calling 911?

I was wondering myself what was going on in those 90 minutes after the head bash. Why would someone wait so long to strangle her.
 

Tawny

Bye
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
64
Entertaining the newest theory...

If this party thing was a regular occurrence or whatever, what could have happened that JBR was injured so gravely? Why would the participants damage their plaything so severely? If she were misbehaving or resisting, why would a blow to the head be the answer in a room full of adults?
 

chlban

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
1,142
Reaction score
162
:bump:

For me, it answers the question of the R's knowing what rendered her unconscious to begin with, and also explains the vaginal assault, both those that showed prior, healed abuse, and that associated with the crime itself. It explains why, if JB was being sexually abused with their knowledge at another location the night of the crime, they would have tried to mask that and present her as a victim of sadistic strangulation by a pedophile kidnapper.

This is just the beginning of a new theory of thought. There are surely many unanswered questions that we should take a look at that could help us decide if this fits in with a theory that leads us to consider JB was being used in kiddie prostitution the night of her death. Sickening premise, yes, but might be the only avenue that helps us hook up details of the crime that have not otherwise made much sense.

The most important one to me right now is, if the R's had to strangle her and had planned to have a "ransom note" set up the crime as a kidnapping gone awry, why did they not go the extra mile and dispose of her body before calling 911?

Rspectfully snipped.

There a a couple of viable theories on that. One, is that they could not risk being seen leaving the house, because that would have been entirely unexplainable.

My own personal theory is based on the fact that I think PDI. While it's possible she would have feared being seen by a neighbor leaving the house in the middle of the night, I think it is far more likely that she feared that she would wake up John or he would wake up and realize that she was gone along with a car, which would have been really hard to explain.
 

zencompass

Hope springs eternal
Joined
Jul 16, 2014
Messages
5,842
Reaction score
40,078
The scenario which makes the most sense to me is that JR did everything as it started with JB threatening to tell on JR for the sexual molestation and somehow he hit her on the head and he staged everything, wrote the note and PR phoned the police when she saw the note. JMO
 

zencompass

Hope springs eternal
Joined
Jul 16, 2014
Messages
5,842
Reaction score
40,078
He took the 90 minutes to figure out his next steps and he knew he had the time to write the note and stage everything. JMO
 
Top