Has the case fizzled a bit?

[Flatlander]

FW reported to investigators that he went back down to the WC after he came up ahead of John upon the discovery of JB, and handled the duct tape and a cigar box. Handling the duct tape I guess I can understand since it was on JB's mouth, but why would he have wanted to handle the cigar box?

John Ramsey was questioned about the cigar box during one of his interviews as well.

Anyone know of any information available about this other than JR responding he kept his Cubans there? Would FW have wanted to take a couple of them back upstairs for someone to smoke?

I read the following site posted by Cynic and thought I would take a look at JB's autoposy photo's again. It looks to me that her head is bent forward:
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

You might find the following to be of interest:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cigar-box.htm

Thanks Cynic for the link! Possibly her head was resting on the cigar box. Some might ask if this was the case ... why put JB's head on a cigar box. Possibly PR pointing to JR like JR handing over PR notepad to the BPD.

Wondering what was JR motive for killing JB so violantly to those that are of the opinion that he was the killer? Personally I believe it was a hugh accident that lead to a hugh cover up by both parents. Also worth noting in Cynic's post is that JR golf clubs were out of place as well as the cigar box.
Hummm ... wonder if Fleet moved the cigar box since he touched it?

 

[cynic]

If JonBenet was taken to the basement by a parent, with her consent, then kidnapping wouldn't apply.

Of course.

If she was killed in her bedroom, and moved to the basement afterwards, would that be considered kidnapping?

No, that would be moving a dead body.
If the blow that fractured her skull was delivered in the bedroom and she was moved to the basement where she was then asphyxiated, that would be kidnapping.

Also, the circumstances of almost any murder could be regarded as aggravated by kidnapping under the technical definition you've presented. I'm not faulting you, but I do see something very shaky in such attempts to apply kidnapping so broadly, especially when it appears irrelevant.

That’s not true, more than enough examples exist where the court has ruled with respect to whether kidnapping has occurred in extremely varied circumstances.
Many are plain enough and convictions go unchallenged, some of the more technical cases have gone to appellate courts and have been resolved there.
One of several issues that have been resolved is that movement of an individual is not considered kidnapping if it is merely incidental to what appears to be the primary crime being committed.
For example, a robber enters a store with a gun and asks for money. The clerk gives him the money in the cash register, but the robber has inside information and knows that they keep more money in a back room. He forces the clerk to the back room and gets him to open the safe and give him the money. The movement here is a continuous part of, and incidental to, the armed robbery and would not be considered kidnapping.

If someone is guilty of murder, then that should be guilt enough.

As a prosecutor, you need to ask yourself what charge or charges would be most likely to succeed in putting the defendant behind bars for the lengthiest amount of time.

As far as John is concerned, he's obviously not going to be motivated to tell anyone what really happened, so accusing him of kidnapping is going to be as pointless as accusing him of murder. Since we don't know and can't know the exact details of what happened, but we can put together a circumstantial case pointing directly at John as the sole perpetrator of both the sexual assault and the murder, then as I see it that's clearly the way to go.

By far the easiest road to prosecuting John would be felony murder with the underlying felony being sexual assault on a child. However, Kolar implies that there may be evidence to suggest that Burke may have been responsible for the chronic and /or the acute sexual assault and as I indicated in my prior post, #36, the age difference between JBR and BR is unfortunately to close to make it sexual assault on a child.
This would then leave, IMO, the difficult road of felony murder via kidnapping as the only option.
That said, I fully acknowledge the problems associated with a trial centering around a felony murder charge.
Prosecution via the felony murder charge has one primary benefit as I’ve mentioned before, it doesn’t matter who did what, as long as it could be proven that John played a role in the furtherance of the crime he might be found guilty of felony murder.
This is why the felony murder charge is often used successfully to prosecute gang members who either refuse to testify against one another or point the finger against one another.

I completely disagree that there is no way to know who did what as far as the assault and murder are concerned. If you read my blog you'll see why I feel so strongly that John did both. And I also feel strongly that a convincing case can be made for this in a court of law. I invite you to read my blog for the details.

I have read through your blog, and although you have clearly put a significant amount of work into your presentation, I believe you have seriously underestimated the cross-finger pointing defense which has been outlined by Vincent Bugliosi and Wendy Murphy and mentioned in my earlier post #36
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8415713&postcount=36"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Has the case fizzled a bit?[/ame]

In your blog you seem to indicate that pointing the finger at Patsy or Burke wouldn’t work because the information needed to point the finger of blame would need to be elicited from John.
"To save himself he would be forced to testify that either his wife or son or both were the ones who assaulted and murdered his daughter. Even assuming that were true, it's unlikely he'd be willing to do this, as it would totally undermine his credibility and very likely backfire. If he were willing to take the stand, however, and finally, after all this time, offer an explanation of what actually happened, I, along with many others, would most certainly be all ears "
John would never be allowed to testify by any defense attorney with any sense whatsoever.
He wouldn’t need to, PDI and BDI theories could be brought in through others, including but not limited to Steve Thomas and James Kolar, for example.
It could also simply be “accidently” brought out in the opening statement by a defense attorney. Remember the Casey Anthony trial and the completely unfounded allegations spewed out by Jose Baez regarding sexual abuse of Casey by George? Was testimony regarding this ever ellicited from Casey? No.

Whether you chose to believe it or not, there is a very significant amount of evidence pointing to Patsy and according to Kolar, Burke.
That evidence coupled with the following, typical, jury instruction would see John walking out of the court room a free man.
"If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions - one of innocence, the other of guilt - the jury must, of course, adopt the conclusion of innocence."
or
"If the evidence points to two conclusions, one consistent with the defendant's guilt, the other consistent with the defendant's innocence, the jury are bound to reject the one of guilt and adopt the one of innocence, and acquit the defendant.”

 

[Flatlander]

Of course.
No, that would be moving a dead body.
If the blow that fractured her skull was delivered in the bedroom and she was moved to the basement where she was then asphyxiated, that would be kidnapping.
That’s not true, more than enough examples exist where the court has ruled with respect to whether kidnapping has occurred in extremely varied circumstances.
Many are plain enough and convictions go unchallenged, some of the more technical cases have gone to appellate courts and have been resolved there.
One of several issues that have been resolved is that movement of an individual is not considered kidnapping if it is merely incidental to what appears to be the primary crime being committed.
For example, a robber enters a store with a gun and asks for money. The clerk gives him the money in the cash register, but the robber has inside information and knows that they keep more money in a back room. He forces the clerk to the back room and gets him to open the safe and give him the money. The movement here is a continuous part of, and incidental to, the armed robbery and would not be considered kidnapping.
As a prosecutor, you need to ask yourself what charge or charges would be most likely to succeed in putting the defendant behind bars for the lengthiest amount of time.
By far the easiest road to prosecuting John would be felony murder with the underlying felony being sexual assault on a child. However, Kolar implies that there may be evidence to suggest that Burke may have been responsible for the chronic and /or the acute sexual assault and as I indicated in my prior post, #36, the age difference between JBR and BR is unfortunately to close to make it sexual assault on a child.
This would then leave, IMO, the difficult road of felony murder via kidnapping as the only option.
That said, I fully acknowledge the problems associated with a trial centering around a felony murder charge.
Prosecution via the felony murder charge has one primary benefit as I’ve mentioned before, it doesn’t matter who did what, as long as it could be proven that John played a role in the furtherance of the crime he might be found guilty of felony murder.
This is why the felony murder charge is often used successfully to prosecute gang members who either refuse to testify against one another or point the finger against one another.
I have read through your blog, and although you have clearly put a significant amount of work into your presentation, I believe you have seriously underestimated the cross-finger pointing defense which has been outlined by Vincent Bugliosi and Wendy Murphy and mentioned in my earlier post #36
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Has the case fizzled a bit?

In your blog you seem to indicate that pointing the finger at Patsy or Burke wouldn’t work because the information needed to point the finger of blame would need to be elicited from John.
"To save himself he would be forced to testify that either his wife or son or both were the ones who assaulted and murdered his daughter. Even assuming that were true, it's unlikely he'd be willing to do this, as it would totally undermine his credibility and very likely backfire. If he were willing to take the stand, however, and finally, after all this time, offer an explanation of what actually happened, I, along with many others, would most certainly be all ears "
John would never be allowed to testify by any defense attorney with any sense whatsoever.
He wouldn’t need to, PDI and BDI theories could be brought in through others, including but not limited to Steve Thomas and James Kolar, for example.
It could also simply be “accidently” brought out in the opening statement by a defense attorney. Remember the Casey Anthony trial and the completely unfounded allegations spewed out by Jose Baez regarding sexual abuse of Casey by George? Was testimony regarding this ever ellicited from Casey? No.

Whether you chose to believe it or not, there is a very significant amount of evidence pointing to Patsy and according to Kolar, Burke.
That evidence coupled with the following, typical, jury instruction would see John walking out of the court room a free man.
"If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions - one of innocence, the other of guilt - the jury must, of course, adopt the conclusion of innocence."
or
"If the evidence points to two conclusions, one consistent with the defendant's guilt, the other consistent with the defendant's innocence, the jury are bound to reject the one of guilt and adopt the one of innocence, and acquit the defendant.”

So all this to say that just like Casey Anthony all evidence could be brought to the table but JR could get away with it?

What about JR shirt fibers found in the crotch of the size 12 bloomies. If we stick with the R's story ... PR put her to bed and didn't see JB again until JR found her in the cellar. How did his shirt fibers worn to the Whites party and not worn the next morning get there?

What about Fleet White testimony? Would that get JR any closer to :jail:?

 

[DeeDee249]

I read the following site posted by Cynic and thought I would take a look at JB's autoposy photo's again. It looks to me that her head is bent forward:
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html



Thanks Cynic for the link! Possibly her head was resting on the cigar box. Some might ask if this was the case ... why put JB's head on a cigar box. Possibly PR pointing to JR like JR handing over PR notepad to the BPD.

Wondering what was JR motive for killing JB so violantly to those that are of the opinion that he was the killer? Personally I believe it was a hugh accident that lead to a hugh cover up by both parents. Also worth noting in Cynic's post is that JR golf clubs were out of place as well as the cigar box.
Hummm ... wonder if Fleet moved the cigar box since he touched it?

Her head was not bent during the crime or afterwards, except on the autopsy table. In that last crime photo, it was the coroner who tilted her head backwards (chin up) to photograph the ligature on her throat. In all other photos her head is straight.

 

[cynic]

So all this to say that just like Casey Anthony all evidence could be brought to the table but JR could get away with it?

LOL, yes I suppose that’s true.

What about Fleet White testimony? Would that get JR any closer to :jail:?

At issue is not so much the amount of evidence linking John to the crime, the issue is if there exists evidence pointing to Patsy and Burke that would lead to reasonable doubt in the mind of jurors in terms of who was responsible, ultimately, for JonBenet's death. For example, asphyxiation quickly ended JonBenet’s life and it’s wasn't John’s fibers entwined in the ligature.
The problem with attempting to charge JR with murder is that the defense team would simply point to Patsy and Burke.
The felony murder option gets around that problem but brings its own set of problems.
I do, however, think that that would be the only possible charge with any hope of success.

 

[midwest mama]

GREAT POSTS, Cynic and DocG !!

Indictment and prosecution of John Ramsey seems plausible. But, unless there is a great wave of stoic bravery about to wash over the BPD and Garnett, I guess we have no choice but to wait patiently for a miracle. lease:

 

[midwest mama]

Sure, but we still have to prove JR's involvement in the crime.

Too bad some of the Websleuthers can't call for an indictment!

Then we'd have a shot at doing just that!

We'd have lots of cooked rice to serve up at the Victory party! MOO :great:

 

[cynic]

I don't see it that way at all. The most serious obstacle to prosecution would be the mindset of the prosecutors themselves, based on the long standing belief (myth) that, aside from an intruder, Patsy is the only one who could have written the ransom note.

There is good reason for seeing Patsy all over that note. Cina Wong, David Liebman, Ted Widmer, Gideon Epstein, Chet Ubowski, some of the best experts in the field have identified Patsy.
The analysis over at FFJ by Cherokee is both impressive and convincing.
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404"]Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Forums For Justice[/ame]

I have also bumped my thread with some of Cina Wong’s charts.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121568"]The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

On that basis, prosecution stops dead when the defense points to the early 911 call, which Patsy would NOT have made if she wrote the note -- or if "the Ramseys" were conspiring together to stage a kidnapping. So that tack goes nowhere and has gone nowhere for 16 years. For details, see my blog…

What you are really saying is that if YOU were Patsy, YOU would not have made the early 911 call. Just because you wouldn’t do something that doesn’t mean that it didn’t make perfect sense on some level to Patsy and or John at that moment in those circumstances.

The only hope for prosecution is to recognize that John and John alone is responsible for both the murder and the coverup, which means he must have manipulated a basically innocent Patsy into supporting his version of what was said prior to the phone call and also his tall tale about the early window breakin.
The problem for the prosecutors, as for you and so many others, including most on this forum, is the unwillingness to let go of what has become the prevailing myth of the case, the myth that "the Ramseys" were both involved, but it's impossible to tell who did what. That's not true. Only one of them was involved, the other was innocent. So there's no need to worry about who did what. John did it ALL. (You'll notice that I say nothing about Burke as his involvement strikes me as extremely unlikely (see my previous post).

Finger pointing means that that option would be prosecutorial suicide.

As I see it, there is no way the defense would use the possibility of Patsy or Burke being the killer, with John functioning only as an accessory after the fact, to argue for reasonable doubt. That would be an extremely dangerous strategy to follow, because it would imply that John knows what actually happened and has been lying through his teeth for years.

Do you think that if John was facing life in prison that he would care about anything else but staying out of prison? Do you think there is any regret on the part of Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson in utilizing every dirty trick in the book to beat the murder charges that they faced? They would do it again in a heartbeat.

It could work only if the lawyers were willing to permit John to take the stand, and as you yourself have suggested, that's extremely unlikely. And if he did take the stand, he'd be admitting to perjury, his credibility would be shredded, and the jury would have no good reason to believe him in any case, so reasonable doubt would be trumped by strong suspicion that this guy is desperately trying to get off by pointing the finger at his dead wife, who can't defend herself. And if he didn't take the stand, then the defense would have to argue reasonable doubt on the basis of innuendos, all of which would weaken John's credibility and make him out to be a self serving *advertiser censored*.

BBM
As per my previous comments, let’s look at John’s decision.
On the one hand, free as a bird, but widely viewed as a self serving bas***d.
On the other hand, in prison for life, but not viewed as a self serving bas***d, rather, a monster who bashed in the skull of his own daughter and further proceeded to asphyxiate her. How precisely is this “better,” in other words, why would he chose this?
Once again, I’ll bring up Casey Anthony, was she worried about her credibility or reputation when she brazenly threw her own father under the bus?

The most serious challenge for the prosecution would be the decision of the forensic doc specialists to rule John out as writer of the note. But that argument could certainly be countered.

The most serious challenge in my opinion would be the collective evidence pointing away from John as the sole perpetrator. This evidence would form the basis for finger pointing which in turn would generate reasonable doubt.

In sum, I feel confident the only obstacles to prosecution would be 1. the prosecutors inability to see through the smoke and mirrors to the truth of this case and 2. the lack of will to prosecute in the face of all the embarrassing blunders of the past 16 years.

There are certainly multiple reasons for why the case has not proceeded to trial.
I would love to see some DA roll the dice and let a jury take a look at the case but then there's reality.

 

[Flatlander]

TThere are certainly multiple reasons for why the case has not proceeded to trial.
I would love to see some DA roll the dice and let a jury take a look at the case but then there's reality.

Yep, then there is the reality of the past 16 years. Yet with your knowledge Cynic, I would love to hear your take on the multiple reasons why this case has not proceeded to trial. I am sure it will be enlightening. Thanks again for your posts.

 

[Flatlander]

Her head was not bent during the crime or afterwards, except on the autopsy table. In that last crime photo, it was the coroner who tilted her head backwards (chin up) to photograph the ligature on her throat. In all other photos her head is straight.

DeeDee249, I realize you know your stuff but I was looking at the following photo (Right side of JonBenet's face). I thought this picture was taken under the Christmas tree but upon looking at it again obviously her hands are bagged.
http://www.crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249, I realize you know your stuff but I was looking at the following photo (Right side of JonBenet's face). I thought this picture was taken under the Christmas tree but upon looking at it again obviously her hands are bagged.
http://www.crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

You know your stuff too. She WAS under the Christmas Tree when that photo was taken. Her hands were bagged in situ where they encountered the body (under the tree) by the coroner's team. If you look closely, you'll see the pattern of the living room rug under her.

 

[Flatlander]

You know your stuff too. She WAS under the Christmas Tree when that photo was taken. Her hands were bagged in situ where they encountered the body (under the tree) by the coroner's team. If you look closely, you'll see the pattern of the living room rug under her.

Thanks DeeDee249. I thought that was a rug underneath her but unsure because of the failure to take body temp. at the scene of the crime. I understood it to be a really quick in and out ordeal.

So question, is JB still in full rigor when these photo's were taken? It does look to me like her head is slightly bent forward in that one particliar photo?
Thanks again DeeDee249!

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks DeeDee249. I thought that was a rug underneath her but unsure because of the failure to take body temp. at the scene of the crime. I understood it to be a really quick in and out ordeal.

So question, is JB still in full rigor when these photo's were taken? It does look to me like her head is slightly bent forward in that one particliar photo?
Thanks again DeeDee249!

At that point (8 pm on the 26th) she had been dead about 20 hours, so she was still in full rigor. He head may look different to you because her body has been rolled to the side a bit in order to take the photo. You of course notice the coroner's metal ruler across the body and she was likely rolled on to her other side as well. Remember, we don't have ALL the photos.
By the time of her autopsy at 8 am the next morning (the 27th) she had been dead about 36 hours and rigor was beginning to subside. This is noted in the autopsy report where Mayer noted milder rigor in certain joints.
According to the autopsy, as well as Det. Arndt's witnessing, JB followed a very predictable 36 hour arc. 12 hours to form, 12 hours in full rigor, 12 hours to abate.

 

[Flatlander]

At that point (8 pm on the 26th) she had been dead about 20 hours, so she was still in full rigor. He head may look different to you because her body has been rolled to the side a bit in order to take the photo. You of course notice the coroner's metal ruler across the body and she was likely rolled on to her other side as well. Remember, we don't have ALL the photos.
By the time of her autopsy at 8 am the next morning (the 27th) she had been dead about 36 hours and rigor was beginning to subside. This is noted in the autopsy report where Mayer noted milder rigor in certain joints.
According to the autopsy, as well as Det. Arndt's witnessing, JB followed a very predictable 36 hour arc. 12 hours to form, 12 hours in full rigor, 12 hours to abate.

DeeDee249, thanks for the rigor info. I looked at the photot again and it looks to me like her head is below the elbow line. This to me would mean that her head was bent slightly forward. Maybe I am not looking at the picture correctly. Why I wonder do I see her head bent? I think this is an important clue if FW did indeed find JR cigar box under her head.

 

[cynic]

Yep, then there is the reality of the past 16 years. Yet with your knowledge Cynic, I would love to hear your take on the multiple reasons why this case has not proceeded to trial. I am sure it will be enlightening. Thanks again for your posts.

Thanks Flatlander, I don’t believe this will be all that enlightening, but here it is.
(It's not for lack of evidence.)


· Failure by the BPD to initially identify the situation they were dealing with and allocate the time and resources to properly secure and process the crime scene.
· Failure of the DA’s office to help investigators in the early and most crucial phase of the investigation.
· Fear of an embarrassing defeat at the hands of a high powered, expensive, defense team.
· Focus on potential avenues of reasonable doubt rather than focusing on firming up the case against the Ramseys.

The last three points would best typify the issues surrounding the first four years of the JonBenet case under Alex Hunter.
Alex Hunter was a pathetic DA whose primary “skill” was that of plea bargaining.
He seemed unwilling to take any risks whatsoever. A case would have to be provable beyond ALL doubt in order to proceed to trial.
His ethics were questionable as the Smika case demonstrated.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon1226.htm
The fuzzy ethics leave the door open to conspiracy theories involving back room deals to keep the Ramseys out of jail. Ongoing “chumminess” with the Ramsey legal team and his failure to obtain routine records in the case was both inexplicable and extremely suspicious.

· Eight long years with a friend of the Ramseys in the DA’s office, Mary Lacy.
Lacy’s bias was appalling and was best illustrated by her blind willingness to pursue and charge a man (Karr) against who they had no evidence whatsoever linking him to the death of JonBenet.
That coupled with Lacy’s ridiculous and unjustified “exoneration” of the Ramseys further complicated any future legal proceeding against a Ramsey.

· The passage of time and with it, death and issues involving fading memories.

The death of Patsy Ramsey is problematic in a few respects, one of which is the fact that her passing renders most of what she said as hearsay which could never be used in a trial.
The 911 call is exempt.

Stan Garnett had the misfortune to inherit all of this in 2009 and he has returned the case to the BPD.
I believe that presently the primary issue is the fear of taking a complex circumstantial case to trial against what would undoubtedly be a “dream team” defense with plenty of ammunition on hand with which to raise reasonable doubt.
We have seen what can happen when the combination of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt (regardless of whether it is merely fabricated speculation as in the Casey Anthony case) meets a susceptible jury.
That does not mean to say that the case is not “winnable” but it is FAR less “winnable” today than it was in 1997.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249, thanks for the rigor info. I looked at the photot again and it looks to me like her head is below the elbow line. This to me would mean that her head was bent slightly forward. Maybe I am not looking at the picture correctly. Why I wonder do I see her head bent? I think this is an important clue if FW did indeed find JR cigar box under her head.

I looked again too, and I just don't see what you see. Her elbows seem to be at chin level, with her hands up in front of her face, like a boxer would hold his hands. This isn't her "head below the elbow line". When JB was described by Arndt as bring brought up with her "arms over her head" it gave the impression that her arms were STRAIGHT up over her head, and that may not have been the case. The familiar drawing of her body also gave that erroneous impression- it was drawn by someone who never saw her body and was drawn from descriptions only.
Rigor mortis can pull joints into as flexed position as the muscles ratchet tighter and tighter. With no glucose in the cells, calcium ions become trapped and lactic acid builds up, causing the muscles to contract and they cannot relax. It it most usually seen in the knees and elbows. It is entirely possible that JB's arms might have actually been across her stomach or even at her sides when she was first placed in the wineceller, and rigor mortis pulled them up to flex at the elbow. Or they could have been straight up with her arms next to her ears. Rigor could have pulled them downwards, flexing the elbows into their right-angle position. Since no one saw the body before rigor set in (with the exception of the person(s) who physically put her in the wineceller), we will never know. It really has no bearing on the case anyway, nor does it matter whether her head was on something like a cigar box.
We don't know exactly what FW said to police, but I have not read anything which reports him saying there was a cigar box under head. He went into the wineceller a few seconds after JR, and her body remained on the floor for at least a few moments- long enough for him to touch her foot. I have never seen him corroborate JR's statements that he tried to perform CPR or tried to untie the wrist ligatures. I doubt JR did either of these things. If he had, FW would have seen it. Frankly, we don't even know if LE asked FW whether JR did these things. But you can't perform CPR on a body in full rigor- and we all know there were NO ligature marks on her wrists. The cords on her wrists were never tight.

 

[otg]

Just a couple of notes here...

I think the only thing that initially brought up the business about the cigar box being used to prop up JBR's head came from the Swamp Queen in hir desire to insert hirself into the case and appear to have inside knowledge. IOW, it's a red herring -- it stinks, so put it out with the rest of yesterday's garbage.

Excellent description on the process of rigor, DD. From my understanding, it can be misleading when a body is found because some muscles/joints may flex/contract as it occurs.

As to the wrist "restraints" (using the word very loosely here), John claimed to have tried to untie JonBenet. I think he did make an attempt at this -- for show at least, knowing FW was right behind him. If you look at the cords in the following photo, you can see in the lower wrist ligature that there appears to be two loops. I believe this is where he probably pulled part of the cord through the knot in an apparent attempt at loosening her "restraints" so she could get up and throw her arms around him. Of course, in reality he knew this wouldn't happen.

I don't remember when he first came up with the "giving her CPR" claim (one of the police interviews I think), but I don't think it was part of his original story. And when he did bring it up, he was kind of "iffy" about it as to whether he did or not. (Personally, I don't believe he did. He couldn't even hold her stiff, stinking body close to him when her brought her up the stairs with everyone looking on. He certainly wouldn't put his mouth on hers to attempt CPR on what he knew to be a dead body.)
​

.
​

 

[Flatlander]

Just a couple of notes here...

I think the only thing that initially brought up the business about the cigar box being used to prop up JBR's head came from the Swamp Queen in hir desire to insert hirself into the case and appear to have inside knowledge. IOW, it's a red herring -- it stinks, so put it out with the rest of yesterday's garbage.

Excellent description on the process of rigor, DD. From my understanding, it can be misleading when a body is found because some muscles/joints may flex/contract as it occurs.

As to the wrist "restraints" (using the word very loosely here), John claimed to have tried to untie JonBenet. I think he did make an attempt at this -- for show at least, knowing FW was right behind him. If you look at the cords in the following photo, you can see in the lower wrist ligature that there appears to be two loops. I believe this is where he probably pulled part of the cord through the knot in an apparent attempt at loosening her "restraints" so she could get up and throw her arms around him. Of course, in reality he knew this wouldn't happen.

I don't remember when he first came up with the "giving her CPR" claim (one of the police interviews I think), but I don't think it was part of his original story. And when he did bring it up, he was kind of "iffy" about it as to whether he did or not. (Personally, I don't believe he did. He couldn't even hold her stiff, stinking body close to him when her brought her up the stairs with everyone looking on. He certainly wouldn't put his mouth on hers to attempt CPR on what he knew to be a dead body.)
​

.
​

Since you guys have been discussing this case for years I will except that the cigar box is a red herring. I did find it listed at items of interest as the scene of the crime:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-baggagecheck.htm
And it was discussed with JR and PR per interegation.

So apprently I am not looking at the photo correctly. Sorry DeeDee249. It simply looks to me that her chin is below her arm. But I will except as truth what you and ogt say about the cigar box. It was news to me that I had spotted before is all.

Thanks to you both. I agree with you otg about the CPR and the ligature.

 

[DeeDee249]

Since you guys have been discussing this case for years I will except that the cigar box is a red herring. I did find it listed at items of interest as the scene of the crime:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-baggagecheck.htm
And it was discussed with JR and PR per interegation.

So apprently I am not looking at the photo correctly. Sorry DeeDee249. It simply looks to me that her chin is below her arm. But I will except as truth what you and ogt say about the cigar box. It was news to me that I had spotted before is all.

Thanks to you both. I agree with you otg about the CPR and the ligature.

I am sure there WAS a cigar box in the wine cellar. I recall reading about it too. I just don't recall ever reading that it had been under her head.
As for the photo of JB on the rug- there is no correct way to look at it- it is simply how it looked to you, that's all.
Either way, it makes no difference to the investigation anyway. If you look at the OTHER photo of her head on that same page, you'll see her head was tilted WAY back, to expose the ligature furrow. That photo clearly shows the blue plastic "sheet" in the morgue, so we know that was taken the next day during the autopsy. By then, rigor mortis was beginning to abate, and her body easier to position. In the photo on the living room rug, she is in full rigor and basically laid on the rug "frozen" into the position she was in when she was found, except she was rolled on her side to take that photo. I am sure there are other photos, including her having been rolled onto her OTHER side, where positioning the body is limited by the rigor mortis.

 

[Flatlander]

I am sure there WAS a cigar box in the wine cellar. I recall reading about it too. I just don't recall ever reading that it had been under her head.
As for the photo of JB on the rug- there is no correct way to look at it- it is simply how it looked to you, that's all.
Either way, it makes no difference to the investigation anyway. If you look at the OTHER photo of her head on that same page, you'll see her head was tilted WAY back, to expose the ligature furrow. That photo clearly shows the blue plastic "sheet" in the morgue, so we know that was taken the next day during the autopsy. By then, rigor mortis was beginning to abate, and her body easier to position. In the photo on the living room rug, she is in full rigor and basically laid on the rug "frozen" into the position she was in when she was found, except she was rolled on her side to take that photo. I am sure there are other photos, including her having been rolled onto her OTHER side, where positioning the body is limited by the rigor mortis.

DeeDee249, here is a link for the cigar box in question:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cigar-box.htm