accident?
- Thread starter JMO8778
- Start date
UKGuy,UKGuy said:
The underwear could have bee changed because it might have contained semen stains from John Ramsey or
the panties had been soiled in case it was toilet rage (the urine found at the crime scene in JB's underwear was probably from post-mortem release and the Ramseys may not have been aware that this happened).
JB could have been wiped because the stager of the scene wanted to see if the wound inflicted would look convincing enough.
The paintbrush injury is one of the key elements in all this. For it either was sexual assault in the true sense or staging. There is no in-between.
I wouldn't it put past John to have been abusing his daughter, but I just can't see him inflicting such an injury on JB for sexual gratification. For this would mean John is a sadist.
Who in your opinion inflicted the paintbrush injury on JB and why?
The paintbrush injury in itself would not have been fatal, so why the transition from sexual assault to murder? When did the head bash come into play?
I'd be interested in hearing your time line, for certain aspects of your theory are diametrically opposed to mine, and I'd like to get the whole picture of your theory.
You think that the staging was done to hide a first-degree murder - I think the staging was done to hide manslaughter committed in a rage.
rashomon,
I have already outlined a timeline for the staging events in another thread, as you know these are tenuous and for some contentious.
Is it not patent that both notions of a staged Murder and Toilet Rage are inconsistent with the crime-scene evidence?
.
The crime scene is important in many ways not least for what it does not contain. There is an alternate reason as to why JonBenet's underwear was changed and it has nothing to do with semen. This is becoming a mantra but the blankets are important, for more than one reason. One of which is I believe they were not wet with urine, which suggests where in any timeline they must have been wrapped around JonBenet, that is any stager could plainly see that JonBenet was wet through with urine, post-mortem or not.
We do not really know if there was a paintbrush injury, remember Coroner's Meyer's remarks were, that in his opinion, JonBenet had been penetrated digitally. So the sexual assault may be actual?
If there is no forensic evidence being withheld e.g. the missing piece of the paintbrush was not recovered from her vagina? Then its likely that Patsy penetrated JonBenet!
I have already outlined a timeline for the staging events in another thread, as you know these are tenuous and for some contentious.
Absolutely, an accident would have been staged as an accident, there was more than one staging, the wine-cellar staging was constructed to match elements of the ransom note. Why should one parent back the other up for killing his/her daughter to such an extent they substitute a murder for an accident where is the percentage in that? Also the theory that Toilet Rage was the catalyst for JonBenet's death I consider to be inconsistent with the staged forensic evidence e.g. why stage a murder to mask an accidental death resulting from some toileting issue, only to leave JonBenet in underwear and longjohns that are wet through with urine and visible to the naked eye?
Is it not patent that both notions of a staged Murder and Toilet Rage are inconsistent with the crime-scene evidence?
.
Eagle1
Former Member
SuperDave said:
SD, I'd try to explain better if you gave me any clue what part you don't get.
Assuming this is addressed to me since it's right below mine.
Doing such a web search was to try to find out if the Ramseys fit the usual description in any way. I'm sure that's not what you don't get. The preponderance of the results showed they, the R's, didn't, but then there was the major exception, the mother who cooked her baby daughter.
The main point I suppose was that in about 43 percent of cases studied, no definite motive could be ascertained. But that only about 2 percent of homicides are of this type. Of course I'm still of the opinion that all of the facts aren't in yet and may never be, still neutral, not accusing the parents, just doing what checking could be easily done.
What was the reason in your opinion?
But suppose JB shed the urine via post-mortem release after the blanket had been wrapped around her, and the R's didn't notice it anymore?
It is true that the blanket was not wet with urine, but even if an already wet JB was wrapped in it, the blanket obviously did not pick up any urine either.
But the paintbrush injury was no injury which penetrated the vagina, for it was inflicted in the vestibulum.
I think that Meyer spoke of digital penetration because the width of JB's vaginal orifice was more consistent with chronic digital than with chronic penile penetration.
It had nothing to do with the paintbrush injury.
Dr.McCann stated that the instrument (paintbrush or whatever it was) had not ony been shoved in, but jabbed in, and that in case the child had been alive and conscious, this injury would have been extremely painful (but not fatal in any way). And I just can't see John or Patsy doing this to an alive and conscious JB.
Which is why I believe that the paintbrush injury was done for staging purposes: to lay out a false trail.
It is true that JB's genital area was wiped, but maybe the Ramseys wiped her because they wanted to dump her body outside and did not want to leave a blood trail in the house?
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
But the splinter was found,and IMO it came from the paintbrush handle,which was used to penetrate her to simulate a sexual assault,which she bled from.I'm not sure she would be as likely to bleed if it had been digital,esp. since it seems she'd been compromised before that night.UKGuy said:
I agree.
Do you think the staging started in JB's bed, and was later moved to the basement,since the fibers were found in her bed?And do you think the greenery in her hair was planted there, or did it accidently get there as someone was carrying her down the stairs and her hair got caught in it from the railing it was draped on?
That's what I thought you meant.
Remember: if I can prove they did it, I need not prove they were the sort who could do it.
Yes, it had to look worse than it was.
I do. I think the basement was "plan B" and that it did get snagged on the way down.
JMO8778 said:
JMO8778,
Possibly! The person who broke the paintbrush handle into pieces left shards of wood just outside the wine-cellar door, so if this person had digitally penetrated JonBenet, he/she may have had some debri/splinters left on their hand, and transferred this to JonBenet?
Yes I think there was a prior staging upstairs in another bedroom, which one I am not certain about. The green garlanding was most likely picked up as she was carried down the spiral staircase to the basement.
.
rashomon,
The real reason JonBenet's genital area was wiped, was to effect a change of plan, the revised staging was that she was to be abducted sleeping from bed.
This suggests the ransom note came last, that is if it had been thought up first, then JonBenet may not have been sexually assaulted?
Which implies that there was more than one staging event?
.
I'll expand on this in a new thread if the evidence confirms my assumptions.
We went over this already, and I thought we agreed, the post-mortem release would have occurred when she was moved at some point, remember all those neccessary movements?
Yes it may have been a dual purpose assault e.g. she may have been actually sexually assaulted concurrent with or prior to her death, and the staging is meant to mask this rather than any chronic abuse. Otherwise by assaulting JonBenet sexually the perpetrator is running up a large red flag saying take a look here! With no sexual assault the only evidence will be that of chronic abuse and anyone can be historically blamed for that, but any sexual assault that night, like the staged murder can be pinned on the killer!
mmm how do you know they planned to remove her body naked from the house?
The real reason JonBenet's genital area was wiped, was to effect a change of plan, the revised staging was that she was to be abducted sleeping from bed.
This suggests the ransom note came last, that is if it had been thought up first, then JonBenet may not have been sexually assaulted?
Which implies that there was more than one staging event?
.
UKGuy,
Do you really think John or Patsy inflicted this extremely painful and downright sadistic injury to JB while she was alive and conscious?
We don't 'know' anything, all we can do is speculate. And since for obvious reasons, many victims of sexual assault are found dead without their clothes on, I think it is possible that the R's wanted to do that.
This is one explanation, but not the only explanation imo.
But what do you think was the Ramseys' original staging event? Leave a sexually assaulted child lying there in her own home? Do you think that would have been enough?
What was their 'plan A' in your opinion?
I believe the ransom note came first, and that only after they realized they couldn't dump JB's body outside, they introduced the bizarre sexual predator elements.
Solace said:
Solace,
The ransom note is just what it says e.g. JonBenet has been abducted from her bed. No mention of sexual assault or garroting.
We assume JonBenet had her size-6 pants replaced with size-12 underwear, and that she was wiped down?
So why does JonBenet's killer need to do all this, whats the purpose, JonBenet is dead?
imo the reason is to effect a change of plan, where the staging has to mirror the ramsom note, so JonBenet is redressed and wiped down, voila no apparent sexual assault. So if the ransom note was the first idea, there would be no need to sexually assault JonBenet, hence no need to wipe her down, most likely no need for a garrote either.
All this assumes there was a prior staging which was constructed along the lines of a predatory sexual assault?
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
That reminds me of something I have always wondered about in DOI.The R's don't seem to point out anything that's insignifigant to their cause,so I have to wonder about the comments JR made about PR packing on Xmas day for the trip to Charlevois.(sp).He said that PR was doing some preparation for the packing in Melinda's, as well as JAR's room, and I think he ref. to some things on one of the dressers and on one of the beds,and said JB's pagent costumes were in Melinda's closet(or one of them,I don't have my book on me at the moment).I think there was a pagent costume of JB's laid out on the beds.I've always thought that perhaps he was trying to say those rooms were empty,when in fact maybe there was a guest staying in them.But I wonder if there could have been an item or items discovered in those rooms they need to account for.UKGuy said:
Or with the sack of rope supposedly found in JAR's room,maybe he's trying to say that wasn't there before,as PR would have surely noticed it when packing.Or perhaps there is some item of evidence being held back by police they want to account for?(that the public doesn't know about).Any thoughts as to why he might refer to those rooms? Maybe it's nothing, but it stuck out at me for some reason.
Eagle1
Former Member
SuperDave said:
But you can't, you know, SuperDave. I'm afraid reality is, nobody can prove PR or anyone else did it.
JMO8778 said:
JMO8778,
Its likely that the police are holding something back, they nearly always do. Sometimes its something recovered from the crime-scene that becomes significant afterwards.
Re:Rooms; John does seem to suggest things in this manner, his vegas remarks were in a similar vien. Its possible he was suggesting a reason for any apparent use of the rooms, since if they were empty why all this stuff lying around? e.g. Patsy may have been sleeping in one of these rooms. From memory the closet was used as an overflow for JonBenet's costumes and clothes?
imo JonBenet was moved down to the basement to remove her from the true crime-scene, somewhere upstairs, depending on your favorite theory this can be her toilet, her bedroom, JR's bedroom etc.
.
rashomon said:
rashomon,
As I mentioned the timeline is contentious, but I reckon two different stagings were completed, the second to mirror elements in the ransom note.
I cannot speak for the stager, but if you accept that the garrote was added, lets assume after she was strangled, and after the use of the ligature and this was completed outside the door of the wine-cellar, then this appears to be intended as part of the 2nd staging? I'm assuming it was not JR at a later time.
Given the contusions and abrasions on JonBenet's neck including her head injuries etc, I doubt removal of the garrote would have been that significant, she was still dead apparently strangled it may be this that was being masked by adding a crime-scene element that the stager thought would add realism to the crime-scene, something which profilers look for, since this is what distinguishes the fake from the real.
.
UKGuy, you may have seized on it. If the note had come first, there wouldn't have been any real need for all the other window-dressing.
I don't.
Never tell me I can't do something, Eagle1! All I want is one chance to make my case to the world. Then we'll see what's what.