Evidence of IDI...?

[BBB167893]

"Third, I question your last point about the head wound preceeding the strangulation. From what I've read, I thought it was the other way around - based on the wound not bleeding very much, which means her heart had stopped, or nearly stopped, which must have been due to strangulation."

Chrishope, bleeding is not the key in head wounds. Head wounds have been known not to bleed at all. It's the SWELLING that's the key.

"I suppose the Ramseys could have staged it that way to make a domestic assault look like a pervy sex murder - but it just begs the question as to why the Ramseys would know how to fashion a garrote."

They didn't have to! The knot expert said that ANYONE could have tied this thing!

""I lean towards an intruder because the Ramsey's have been found innocent by a judge"

The judge was ruling in a libel case in which no evidence was PRESENTED.

Read this:

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm

"So don't ya think we should eliminate the handwriting as proof that Patsy did it?"

What for? It's just ONE part of the LARGER case.

"My problem with this is why did he stop to put the grate back in place?"

With the hose and grill on top of it.

"The cord was tied with a fixed knot and not a noose knot, and it was "built" on her neck with no signs of struggle from JB. Her wrists show no signs of struggle. The tape shows no signs of struggle."

That's all correct.

 

[Chrishope]

"Third, I question your last point about the head wound preceeding the strangulation. From what I've read, I thought it was the other way around - based on the wound not bleeding very much, which means her heart had stopped, or nearly stopped, which must have been due to strangulation."

Chrishope, bleeding is not the key in head wounds. Head wounds have been known not to bleed at all. It's the SWELLING that's the key.

The autopsy report states there is no indication of inflamation.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-40966

 

[aspidistra]

This is true of course...if a person wants to get in badly enough, or they are reckless enough, they will go in without giving regard to alarms. I don't rule such a person out...I just don't think they fit well.

Looking at the Ramsey residence would scream alarms at me...and makes me cautious of them.
So...if they were of no consequence to the perp, then yes, he was reckless. The perfection of the crime if committed by an intruder though...does not suggest as reckless person, I think. If the DNA on Jonbenet holds no worth...such an intruder left absoutely no trace of his existence in the home.

I think in the Hutchens tapes she mentions that he chose a window that was not connected to the alarm system, that he felt would not be checked every night, and he went and unlocked it to allow him to get in at a later time. Remember in this version, he told her he was at their Xmas party, which we know was on Dec 23. So far there is no proof of this at all, and it may be a lie. (CNN has been unsuccessful in getting a statement from the brother so far). But then obviously if there was an intruder he did get in, and possibly even outside he was capable of finding a window not connected to an alarm system , even if he'd never been in the house before (he did have some experience with houses presumably since his father was in construction and his resume lists renovating houses).

I wonder if he is mixing up timelines and days in his stories to Wendy because of the pineapple story. All along we have the theory that the killer fed pineapple to the girl, but in the tapes he is feeding pineapple to her at the previous party. I don't think pineapple was really featured in both events...if it was at all. That is why I think a lot of his words are just fabricated from reading about the case, even if he DID do it. To obfuscate.

Furthermore, as for his not leaving any traces of himself (or little enough that he went free for 10 years), we have heard from the maid in his hotel that he was obsessively fastidious, everything had to be just so, his shoes lined up; his bed remade if it was not perfect. And in old reports of the case we read that the body appeared to have been wiped down, cleaned, after the attack, and then redressed. This fits in with his desire not to leave a mess, which is apparently a deep seated personality trait. It appeared on the plane as well when he changed his shirt twice, combed his hair; and when he felt he had to wear a nice shirt and tie in public... this is a man who already started turning into a woman...and I found several old posts speculating that the killer or the writer of the ransom note was a female because of the feminine elements (wordy note, exclamation marks, feminine handwriting, cleaning and staging the body with the Barbie nightgown, etc.).

 

[Louisa]

[snip]Furthermore, as for his not leaving any traces of himself (or little enough that he went free for 10 years), we have heard from the maid in his hotel that he was obsessively fastidious, everything had to be just so, his shoes lined up; his bed remade if it was not perfect. And in old reports of the case we read that the body appeared to have been wiped down, cleaned, after the attack, and then redressed. This fits in with his desire not to leave a mess, which is apparently a deep seated personality trait. It appeared on the plane as well when he changed his shirt twice, combed his hair; and when he felt he had to wear a nice shirt and tie in public... this is a man who already started turning into a woman...and I found several old posts speculating that the killer or the writer of the ransom note was a female because of the feminine elements (wordy note, exclamation marks, feminine handwriting, cleaning and staging the body with the Barbie nightgown, etc.).

Excellent observation, aspidistra. If Karr is indeed involved in the crime, his fastidious nature may well help explain the relatively few pieces of forensic evidence we have at the crime scene, and his desire to become a female may explain the feminine nature of the ransom note. Another good example of why it's important to just let this play out in its own time. Eventually we'll see whether these things connect or not.

 

[Chebrock]

This couldn't have happened because the paper and pen used to write the note were found in the home. Who ever wrote it felt very comfortable in the house.

Unless he broke in and wrote the note before the Ramsey's got home.

 

[Chebrock]

The only person who went through the basement window was Steve Thomas, the detective. He did it as a test to see if it was possible and was mostly likely the one who put the suitcase under the window and disturbed the leaves. These items are used to back up the intruder theory but were done after Jon Benet died.

why do u ask the question and then anything a person might use to support an intruder theory u say is bogus - even if its true..dna-window open, the fact that the parents have been cleared of involvement..yada
Just state why it isnt-dont ask for anything to counter it- you take that away - even DNA.