Evidence you can't explain

New Posts

madeleine said:
yep,it's weird ,it seems that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing....so many conflicting elements!MAYBE they ran out of time and they both took care of different things without having a specific plan?you do whatever you THINK might look good and I'll take care of the rest?if so,the lack of communication between them {seems they already had this probleml} came back and bit them in the @ss...
Click to expand...

I think it was partially lack of communication or miscommunication but I am starting to lean further towards there being staging for the police and staging for someone else. Why stage it to look like a weird sex predator but wipe her down and change her underwear? It sends 2 different messages. Perhaps there was evidence that they didn't want the police to find or perhaps someone lied about what really happened and didn't want the co-stager to know.
 
otg said:
Face it, UKG, we can interpret this any way we choose. But let's just remember exactly what Meyer wrote, and what he was reported to have said, and not start putting our own interpretations into account as something that he said. Penetration with anything is sexual contact -- whether it is a result of lascivious behavior or some form of misdirected punishment. Meyer's reported statement of something "consistent with digital penetration" simply implies that the object used was most likely similar in shape and size to a finger. The paintbrush would fit that description, as well as a finger. That doesn't mean that both were used, and it doesn't mean that something else might have been used. However, with the additional information that material consistent with the paintbrush was found in her vagina, MOO is that the missing end of the paintbrush is what caused the acute vaginal injuries found during the autopsy.
Click to expand...

Digital penetration has always meant a finger to me. That's how I remember it being described at the time.


To nobody in particular. The tone of some of these posts seems really condescending. Can't we all just get along?
 
BTW, thanks songbird. I'd forgotten how huge that house actually was.
 
BOESP said:
The injuries described in the autopsy and in the above post by UKGuy also seem consistent with Steve Thomas's theory of corporal cleansing, which could be considered sexual in nature if it involved cleaning JonBenet's privates. The ropes could also play a part in corporal cleansing as a restraining device.
Click to expand...
about the corporal cleaning, (really just straight up abuse with a military sounding name), and the bedwetting theories...now that we know about the feces covered chocolate, does the bed wetting theory still stand, or does this add another dimension? Has Steve Thomas commented on this information? Is it something he was aware of way back then but decided to keep under wraps? I'm very curious about this, because IMO, JB may have done the smearing and again IMO, this could be cause for a mother to rage. I've seen reports that BR suffered from these issues, and I think it's likely that his sister either inherited the predisposition or learned the behavior from exposure. all moo
 
(snipped)
Steely Dan said:
Digital penetration has always meant a finger to me. That's how I remember it being described at the time.
Click to expand...
But the descriptive term is "consistent with". Meyer didn't say she was digitally penetrated. He said the injuries were consistent with digital penetration -- meaning they were what would be expected if something similar in shape and size were used. It may seem like a minor difference, but it is important in knowing exactly what he intended to say.
 
chlban said:
[

Interesting. That is one of the main reasons I do think it was all Patsy-at that point. I think John soon became complicit in the cover up.

However, I think if John had figured it out that early, he wouldn't have let Burke go, just in case Burke had seen or heard something. That is also why I could never buy into BDI. IMO, there is no way they would let him go like that if he was guilty or if he even knew what had happened. I mean, of course at that point he could know about the fake kidnapping, but I don't think he realized his mother had killed JB and covered it up.

The cord doesn't bother me, I think it was just part of the staging, like the Ransom note.

I honestly can't think of anything that I cannot make sense of in terms of RDI. All I have to do is remind myself of Patsy's histrionic personality and her determination to put on such a false picture for the world to see. Her whole life was "staging". She just continued on with it when the unthinkable happened.
Click to expand...
This is where I've pretty much stood ever since I heard about the case just after it happened.

I think Patsy lost her temper with JonBenet in the bathroom and struck her as punishment for soiling her underwear. JonBenet fell and hit her head on the edge of the bathtub and lost consciousness, displaying a low respiration rate. Patsy panicked, thinking she was dead, so took her down to the basement and decided to stage a murder by an intruder.

I think there were a few things that Patsy didn't realise - firstly that JonBenet wasn't dead from her head and hitting the tub, and that she had been sexually abused previously. I think it was a surprise for Patsy to learn that.

I think the too big underwear is explained by the fact that it would have been gift wrapped in the basement and was handy (because Patsy hadn't cleaned her up already when she'd taken her to the bathroom earlier). When Patsy was cleaning up from the accident she had a spur of the moment idea to molest her as part of the staging - after all, that would fit well with the story she was inventing. I think she would have been disgusted by the thought but justified it by thinking 'well what do I have to lose - I've just killed my daughter. I don't want to go to jail. I can't let my son lose his mother AND his sister, so I'm doing this for Burke's sake'. I think the paintbrush for the garotte was the same as the underwear - convenient - it was handy because it was already there in the basement and it gave Patsy a way to stage and build a story that she concocted as she went. I waver between thinking John initially had no idea what happened but worked it out pretty quickly, and him interrupting Patsy and helping to stage it after she convinced him of the need to. They wouldn't have wanted even a hint of disharmony to sully their public image. A manslaughter charge from hitting a child and causing her death would certainly do that.

The ransom note was explained in a link I've given previously - it gives the statistics as 1 in 55 million that Patsy didn't write it. That's conclusive enough for me. There is no reasonable doubt.

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/

When you combine the statistics with the information in this link it's more than convincing:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
 
Detective Pinkie said:
I think it was partially lack of communication or miscommunication but I am starting to lean further towards there being staging for the police and staging for someone else. Why stage it to look like a weird sex predator but wipe her down and change her underwear? It sends 2 different messages. Perhaps there was evidence that they didn't want the police to find or perhaps someone lied about what really happened and didn't want the co-stager to know.
Click to expand...
After Kolar released the feces covered chocolate information, it has me rethinking a few things. Maybe this wasn't a bedwetting issue, maybe it was a soiling issue. If JB soiled herself and this is what led to the confrontation, then she very well could have been so dirty that she had to be cleaned up... not out of undoing or love, but to hide the motive for the confrontation. This would also explain why her underwear was changed...because the original pair was freshly stained. Just a theory and moo
 
gramcracker said:
that could be. body oil is a known print-conductor but it's not the only one. JR had taken a shower and I guess we could assume he didn't use lotion, hair products, shaving cream, etc that morning. but I bet PR (who didn't bathe JB for days at a time) at the very least had moisturizer and/or lotion and Clinique Clinique or Chanel Chanel foundation on her hands, and hair spray from patting her "do" into place. that's also assuming they didn't get anything on their fingers from touching their faces, or the stair rails on their trips up and down, and JR didn't get anything on his fingers while checking the house. many surfaces, especially stair rails, are covered with residues which are easily picked up by hands/fingers (like furniture oil/polish)
Click to expand...

Try as I might, I can't find the source for a few things related to Patsy's parenting. It's not that I doubt any of the dedicated sleuthers who've posted this information over the years - I'm just eager to get my hands on the reference materials/articles/interviews that I've missed over the years.

On this subject - Patsy's parenting, or, I'm my opinion, her lack thereof - I've seen reference made to soiled underwear and lack of bathing - where did this come from? Just curious - I've not yet read the Kolar book, so that could be the source for some of the materials I missed.

Thanks to anyone who can steer me in the right direction!

(Great thread subject, btw, and KoldKase - I miss your posts already.)
 
dodie20 said:
about the corporal cleaning, (really just straight up abuse with a military sounding name), and the bedwetting theories...now that we know about the feces covered chocolate, does the bed wetting theory still stand, or does this add another dimension? Has Steve Thomas commented on this information? Is it something he was aware of way back then but decided to keep under wraps? I'm very curious about this, because IMO, JB may have done the smearing and again IMO, this could be cause for a mother to rage. I've seen reports that BR suffered from these issues, and I think it's likely that his sister either inherited the predisposition or learned the behavior from exposure. all moo
Click to expand...

On a web page dedicated to Steve Thomas and his work on JonBenet's case, he makes a statement that he has never changed his mind about who did what and why: http://www.forstevethomas.com.

Also, down at the bottom is a clickable section that has his comments on the lawsuit with the Ramseys.
 
Simply Caustic said:
Try as I might, I can't find the source for a few things related to Patsy's parenting. It's not that I doubt any of the dedicated sleuthers who've posted this information over the years - I'm just eager to get my hands on the reference materials/articles/interviews that I've missed over the years.

On this subject - Patsy's parenting, or, I'm my opinion, her lack thereof - I've seen reference made to soiled underwear and lack of bathing - where did this come from? Just curious - I've not yet read the Kolar book, so that could be the source for some of the materials I missed.

Thanks to anyone who can steer me in the right direction!

(Great thread subject, btw, and KoldKase - I miss your posts already.)
Click to expand...

Welcome Simply Caustic. Most of the info you requested is found in links to videos, photos, etc., or transcripts at either https://www.acandyrose.com in the JonBenet section or at http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/index.php . Some of the information is duplicated but each site also has unique information.
 
Linda7NJ said:
I don't even understand the idea of corporal cleansing. Is that really even a thing? I've never heard of it before this case...and for years it was was actually my job to know these things....I've never heard or read about a single incidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

Linda, don't make me take the wire brush to you........:thewhip:
 
Simply Caustic said:
Try as I might, I can't find the source for a few things related to Patsy's parenting. It's not that I doubt any of the dedicated sleuthers who've posted this information over the years - I'm just eager to get my hands on the reference materials/articles/interviews that I've missed over the years.

On this subject - Patsy's parenting, or, I'm my opinion, her lack thereof - I've seen reference made to soiled underwear and lack of bathing - where did this come from? Just curious - I've not yet read the Kolar book, so that could be the source for some of the materials I missed.

Thanks to anyone who can steer me in the right direction!

(Great thread subject, btw, and KoldKase - I miss your posts already.)
Click to expand...

Yes. Kolar book is the source for much of these statements as is Steve Thomas'.:seeya:
 
no matter the context I've always taken the term "consistent with" as a concise and commonly accepted way of saying "prior experience tells us this is found when a circumstance or action occurs". I think "consistent with digital penetration" means that his professional experience tells him that it occurred, and that a digit was used and not an instrument/object
 
JB may have soiled herself when/after she lost consciousness
 
I wonder if the Ramsey's had ever gotten sicko pervert "fan" mail for JB- or had family or friends commented negatively that JB's pageant stuff would attract pervs?
Because then I can see a strong reason why R(s) might stage it in the way they did. It would point strongly to an unknown that certain people in their circle already feared.
 
gramcracker said:
no matter the context I've always taken the term "consistent with" as a concise and commonly accepted way of saying "prior experience tells us this is found when a circumstance or action occurs". I think "consistent with digital penetration" means that his professional experience tells him that it occurred, and that a digit was used and not an instrument/object
Click to expand...

gramcracker,
consistent actually refers to the current collection of evidence, i.e. there is nothing therein which will contradict whatever I am asserting.

Coroner Meyer is asserting there is nothing within the injuries that I have survielled which suggests that there is any other explanation for JonBenet's internal injuries other than a finger or digit was used?

The critical point to consider is the then collection of evidence this might have increased, so nullifying the consistent claim?

You decide.



.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 3,262 (members: 156, guests: 3,106)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
3,106
Total visitors
3,262
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,585
Messages
17,971,355
Members
228,830
Latest member
LitWiz
Back
Top