JonBenet's murder was a Premeditated Murder?

[UKGuy]

I thought it was more to the right side of her head though? in the pic of her skull,it appears to be on top,but it's really said to be on the right side of her head,I believe.

possibly;the flashlight might have been in hand for such a dark place,if someone didn't want to turn the light on.only other obvious reason is if Patsy took it to get JB up from bed to go to the bathroom.

JMO8778,

I thought it was more to the right side of her head though? in the pic of her skull,it appears to be on top,but it's really said to be on the right side of her head,I believe.

I accept its not exactly on the top of her head, that aside, the force in G's required to puncture her skull and create the near splitting in two fissure of her skull simply did not arrive as the result of an accident.

possibly;the flashlight might have been in hand for such a dark place,if someone didn't want to turn the light on.only other obvious reason is if Patsy took it to get JB up from bed to go to the bathroom.

Quite possibly since it follows from the PDI, but it looks like JonBenet never hit her bed, e.g. no evidence her pajamas were ever worn that night, she was awake and walking about since she consumed pineapple, whatever the initial circumstances I seriously doubt it had anything to do with bedwetting, since I reckon she was never in her bed.

The crime-scene was staged to appear as if JonBenet had been in bed, this was part of the parents alleged sequence of events. I reckon the JonBenet in bed scenario is simply a convenient fiction supplied by the parents to corroborate their story.

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene and the three main features that are intended to be hidden from us are JonBenet's manual strangulation, masked by the garroting, prior sexual molestation, masked by the use of the paintbrush or finger, and the location her initial injuries were inflicted, masked by the creation of the wine-cellar crime-scene.

So someone has gone from strangling JonBenet to very quickly deciding that she must not be afforded any medical assistance and should be killed. So its possible that once the wine-cellar was selected JonBenet was bludgeoned about the head to fake a crime-scene death, followed up by the garroting?

Assuming that JonBenet's head injury occured separately from her initial manual strangulation, then applying occam its seems reasonable to factor in the flashlight as the object employed to deliver the blow to her head, else why wipe it clean?

So in a sense JonBenet's head injury is similar to her size-12's, its out of place. The vaginal assault, the garroting, the transporting of her body to the basement are all in keeping with a bedtime abduction, but the head injury does not hide or cover up anything, its not even visible to the naked eye.


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

I accept its not exactly on the top of her head, that aside, the force in G's required to puncture her skull and create the near splitting in two fissure of her skull simply did not arrive as the result of an accident.

that's what I keep coming back to,too.and remember Fuhrman said it was not an accident,that it was 'quite intentional'.I do respect his opinion;I think he's knowledgeable enough to know for sure.

Quite possibly since it follows from the PDI, but it looks like JonBenet never hit her bed, e.g. no evidence her pajamas were ever worn that night, she was awake and walking about since she consumed pineapple, whatever the initial circumstances I seriously doubt it had anything to do with bedwetting, since I reckon she was never in her bed.

I don't think so either,at the most she may have fallen asleep watching tv,on the other end,IMO.

The crime-scene was staged to appear as if JonBenet had been in bed, this was part of the parents alleged sequence of events. I reckon the JonBenet in bed scenario is simply a convenient fiction supplied by the parents to corroborate their story.

they didn't really even do a good job of that..I suspect the asleep in the car story also had another motive...ie-JR carried JB when she was unconscious or dead..he had to account for that.And he took her shoes off as well...he had to account for that.Patsy took her coat off..no big deal,she would have anyway in the house...but...she it appears she was the one who put the lj's on her...so she had to account for that as well,in case any forensic evidence turned up.
THAT said...what does that tell you? It appears the attorneys told them to tell this story??? It appears the attorneys also know that at some point, JR carried a dead or unconscious JB ?? ..so how much else do they know??? Did JR or Patsy state what really happened,or did JR have enough crime knowledge to figure out he'd better account for evidence on her from doing these things after she was unconscious/dead?

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene and the three main features that are intended to be hidden from us are JonBenet's manual strangulation, masked by the garroting, prior sexual molestation, masked by the use of the paintbrush or finger, and the location her initial injuries were inflicted, masked by the creation of the wine-cellar crime-scene.

I wouldn't necessarily leave out the head injury...she had that ponytail on top of her head..it appears they wanted to hide that,too.also,why wipe blood from her eyes and ears and maybe mouth(I suspect they did),if the head injury is part of the staging? I suspect it was done to make sure she was dead.

So someone has gone from strangling JonBenet to very quickly deciding that she must not be afforded any medical assistance and should be killed. So its possible that once the wine-cellar was selected JonBenet was bludgeoned about the head to fake a crime-scene death, followed up by the garroting?

see above;but I do believe her death was decided upon quickly....I suspect any parent who held out even the slightest bit of hope would have waited 2-3 hrs to see if she would come around,which in that case,there would have been some swelling from the head wound.It's obvious no one waited around for that to happen.

Assuming that JonBenet's head injury occured separately from her initial manual strangulation, then applying occam its seems reasonable to factor in the flashlight as the object employed to deliver the blow to her head, else why wipe it clean?

I think so too.else why not just put it back in the drawer;I realize they were afraid someone might have seen the light from it in the kitchen,but even so,an 'intruder' would likely have had a light w. him,which is not so strange in itself.

 

[UKGuy]

that's what I keep coming back to,too.and remember Fuhrman said it was not an accident,that it was 'quite intentional'.I do respect his opinion;I think he's knowledgeable enough to know for sure.


I don't think so either,at the most she may have fallen asleep watching tv,on the other end,IMO.



they didn't really even do a good job of that..I suspect the asleep in the car story also had another motive...ie-JR carried JB when she was unconscious or dead..he had to account for that.And he took her shoes off as well...he had to account for that.Patsy took her coat off..no big deal,she would have anyway in the house...but...she it appears she was the one who put the lj's on her...so she had to account for that as well,in case any forensic evidence turned up.
THAT said...what does that tell you? It appears the attorneys told them to tell this story??? It appears the attorneys also know that at some point, JR carried a dead or unconscious JB ?? ..so how much else do they know??? Did JR or Patsy state what really happened,or did JR have enough crime knowledge to figure out he'd better account for evidence on her from doing these things after she was unconscious/dead?

I wouldn't necessarily leave out the head injury...she had that ponytail on top of her head..it appears they wanted to hide that,too.also,why wipe blood from her eyes and ears and maybe mouth(I suspect they did),if the head injury is part of the staging? I suspect it was done to make sure she was dead.

see above;but I do believe her death was decided upon quickly....I suspect any parent who held out even the slightest bit of hope would have waited 2-3 hrs to see if she would come around,which in that case,there would have been some swelling from the head wound.It's obvious no one waited around for that to happen.

I think so too.else why not just put it back in the drawer;I realize they were afraid someone might have seen the light from it in the kitchen,but even so,an 'intruder' would likely have had a light w. him,which is not so strange in itself.

JMO8778,

that's what I keep coming back to,too.and remember Fuhrman said it was not an accident,that it was 'quite intentional'.I do respect his opinion;I think he's knowledgeable enough to know for sure.

I used to think it might be accidental and possibly concurrent with her strangulation, but with more information about head injuries available, I now think it was deliberate, and intentional.

they didn't really even do a good job of that..I suspect the asleep in the car story also had another motive...ie-JR carried JB when she was unconscious or dead..he had to account for that.And he took her shoes off as well...he had to account for that.Patsy took her coat off..no big deal,she would have anyway in the house...but...she it appears she was the one who put the lj's on her...so she had to account for that as well,in case any forensic evidence turned up.
THAT said...what does that tell you? It appears the attorneys told them to tell this story??? It appears the attorneys also know that at some point, JR carried a dead or unconscious JB ?? ..so how much else do they know??? Did JR or Patsy state what really happened,or did JR have enough crime knowledge to figure out he'd better account for evidence on her from doing these things after she was unconscious/dead?

Well Patsy also forgot to account for the fibers in the garrote, and those on the tape. Well the fictional undressing and placement of a sleeping JonBenet to bed requires someone to do it, and any forensic deposits would help to corroborate this, an absence might raise questions about their version of events e.g. were John's fingerprints on JonBenet's shoes? I reckon JR/PR knew enough to clean things up, but not enough to realize the importance of the pineapple or her size-12's etc. Its more likely that their attorney's would tell them what not to say, and how to do it, e.g. I forget I'm not certain etc.

I wouldn't necessarily leave out the head injury...she had that ponytail on top of her head..it appears they wanted to hide that,too.also,why wipe blood from her eyes and ears and maybe mouth(I suspect they did),if the head injury is part of the staging? I suspect it was done to make sure she was dead.

I'm not leaving it out, I'm trying to highlight the crime-scene features that were intended to be masked or obscured e.g. they would be visible in the original location where JonBenet was initially assaulted.

The wiping away of blood also took place around her thighs and genitals, not just her face, so we know this was part of the staging, its intended to portray a JonBenet removed sleeping from her bed, not assaulted and bloodied in her bedroom.

How would a ponytail hide a head injury that was invisible anyway, also if JonBenet was placed into bed sleeping, and she never went to the Whites with asymmetric ponytails, how did they arrive on her and why? KISS suggests they are staging e.g. fake appearances, but alike the size-12's not very clever.

Although you can swing either way on the head injury, if you stand back and consider all her injuries, it is the head injury that is the most violent, the vaginal assault or garroting do not match it, her manual strangulation whilst also violent is not on the same scale.

This is what makes me think JonBenet's head injury was inflicted intentionally possibly with staging in mind e.g. done down in basement using the flashlight? It appears her head injury was intended as the final blow, not simply the consequence of some accident. Why not just garrote JonBenet and make that act extreme and violent, as it was none of JonBenet's internal neck structures were compressed or damaged, so we know this was not really intended as an act that would kill JonBenet.

I find the alternative theory e.g. an accidental head injury followed by a very short period of deliberation then the garroting of JonBenet to death, to be naive. Its too loose and vague, why no medical attention following an unexpected accident, how come the injury so high on her head nearly splits her skull in two? Even some vehicle accident injuries do not split your head open, the force required to achieve this does not match the G-Forces generated by those from domestic accidents.

Just consider the range of injuries inflicted upon JonBenet, take into account the type of staged crime-scene, e.g. domestic, does her head injury not appear to be out of place?

Here is some uninformed speculation. We know JonBenet was awake and not asleep as alleged, and from the state of her bed, it appears she was never in it. Now I'll suggest if JonBenet had had some unexpected toileting incident e.g. she wet herself while fully dressed then would this not be apparent on her black velvet pants? So if her black velvet pants show no signs of being involved in anything does this suggest these had been removed just prior to her death along with her size-6's. If she had been wearing them when assaulted there would be the potential for forensic debri accumulating even post-mortem urine-release? And with her pink pajamas lying under her bed pillows and size-6's in her panty drawer why was she redressed in longjohns and size-12's, this part of the Ramsey version of events does not add up?



.

 

[rashomon]

I thought it was more to the right side of her head though? in the pic of her skull,it appears to be on top,but it's really said to be on the right side of her head,I believe.

Yes, the injury was on the right side of the skull, near the back of the head. It was not on top of the head.

Picture of the victim's skull ***ATTTENTION - GRAPHIC PHOTOI

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetskull1.jpg

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
You may be correct. I am not entirely convinced about the sequence of events, athough it does appear that there was a short period of time between JonBenet being initially assaulted and whichever method was used to finally kill her. Otherwise there should have been a measurable swelling of her brain, since all the methods used in her homicide lead to brain-swelling. This will be why Coroner Meyer's remarks e.g.



links both events asphyxia by strangulation and craniocerebral
trauma since either independently or in concert lead to hypoxia and potential subsequent brain-swelling, but nowhere in the autopsy report do the words swell , enlarged, edema occur the latter being the technical term for brain-swelling!

This means its possible that JonBenet was manually strangled to the point of near-death, followed soon after with the head blow and garroting both intended as staging, but not in the fake sense since the violence was real!

I do not think the blow to JonBenet's head was accidental I watched a program which measured the forces to a child's head, from falling from a chair to the floor, and from being shaken violently, and neither would kill the child. With her head injury being near the top of her head, its not a place for an accident to occur, maybe the back, the front, low on the side, all from falls, but not the one inflicted?

So I wonder now if the wine-cellar represents a more complete staging along with last-minute wiping away of blood, than we considered before?

Also why would anyone vaginally assault JonBenet during the staging process, then cover it up?

An MD who posted on a JBR forum said that manual strangulation leaves very distinct marks on the neck, and JonBenet did not have these marks. She also said that the triangular red abrasion on the neck looks far worse than it was (a mere abrasion). It only looks bad in the photo because of the color which is just the result of capillary damage beneath the skin.
The word 'parchment-like' also points to it being a peri-mortem or post-mortem abrasion, which often have this kind of texture.

 

[UKGuy]

An MD who posted on a JBR forum said that manual strangulation leaves very distinct marks on the neck, and JonBenet did not have these marks. She also said that the triangular red abrasion on the neck looks far worse than it was (a mere abrasion). It only looks bad in the photo because of the color which is just the result of capillary damage beneath the skin.
The word 'parchment-like' also points to it being a peri-mortem or post-mortem abrasion, which often have this kind of texture.

rashomon,
Sure but not having those marks does not mean it was not manual, the MD is just stating it was not a particular kind of manual strangulation. Did she rule out manual asphyxiation by fabric compression?

 

[JMO8778]

rashomon,
Sure but not having those marks does not mean it was not manual, the MD is just stating it was not a particular kind of manual strangulation. Did she rule out manual asphyxiation by fabric compression?

right...Dr Spitz said she was manually strangled by her shirt collar being twisted first.Ruthie's site also has a pic of someone who was strangled w. a scarf,and the marks look a lot similar to JB's.Patsy was questioned about a scarf,I believe? I don't know if JR was or not.I also found it odd that JR's gift to leave w. her in the casket was a scarf he put around her neck.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have a theory about those black velvet pants that JBR wore to the White's and a toileting accident.
When PR is being interviewed and shown photos by LE, she is specifically asked about a pair of black child's pants shown in a photo. The pants contain underwear that is visibly soiled. In a photo, it would not be apparent what material the pants were made of. They'd just look black. When asked, PR says that they look like JBR's "play pants" (as opposed to "dress pants" like the velvet pants). She is also asked about the soiling, and specifically asked about when those pants were last worn, and how long they may have lain (in their soiled state) on the floor. PR glosses right over this, saying that, yes she doesn't wipe well, so that's why they are soiled, etc.
It is pretty much an established fact that JBR wore black velvet pants to the White's. They should have been SOMEWHERE in that house if they were not on the body. If PR undressed JBR in her room and pulled off the black velvet pants from a sleeping JBR they should have been somewhere in that bedroom. If she was awake, they could have been in her bathroom. I believe the photo LE was asking about shows black pants in the bathroom. I don' t ever recall seeing that a pair of child's black velvet pants and panties soiled with fecal matter were ever taken into evidence. Where did they go? Those pants in the photo likely contained the original panties that she wore to the White's. I have never read of what became of those pants. I DO know that the Rs should have been asked to turn over to LE ALL the clothes that she had worn that day BEFORE they even left the house. They were not.
I guess we can thank Aunt P for the removal of those clothes.

 

[JMO8778]

I have a theory about those black velvet pants that JBR wore to the White's and a toileting accident.
When PR is being interviewed and shown photos by LE, she is specifically asked about a pair of black child's pants shown in a photo. The pants contain underwear that is visibly soiled. In a photo, it would not be apparent what material the pants were made of. They'd just look black. When asked, PR says that they look like JBR's "play pants" (as opposed to "dress pants" like the velvet pants). She is also asked about the soiling, and specifically asked about when those pants were last worn, and how long they may have lain (in their soiled state) on the floor. PR glosses right over this, saying that, yes she doesn't wipe well, so that's why they are soiled, etc.
It is pretty much an established fact that JBR wore black velvet pants to the White's. They should have been SOMEWHERE in that house if they were not on the body. If PR undressed JBR in her room and pulled off the black velvet pants from a sleeping JBR they should have been somewhere in that bedroom. If she was awake, they could have been in her bathroom. I believe the photo LE was asking about shows black pants in the bathroom. I do t ever recall seeing that child's black velvet pants and panties soiled with fecal matter were ever taken into evidence. Where did they go? Those pants in the photo likely contained the original panties that she wore to the White's. I have never read of what became of those pants. I DO know that the Rs should have been asked to turn over to LE ALL the clothes that she had worn that day BEFORE they even left the house. They were not.
I guess we can thank Aunt P for the removal of those clothes.

Yes and from the transcript,it appears Patsy is evasive and gets upset when asked about those pair of pants.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

I used to think it might be accidental and possibly concurrent with her strangulation, but with more information about head injuries available, I now think it was deliberate, and intentional.

..well,a child's skull isn't as hard as an adults,still,she was hit with such force...some ppl use that as an excuse to say a parent couldn't have done it..I don't think that at all.
Patsy's 'Lazarus' line makes me suspicious that she really did want her dead,and that it was done intentionally...IOW-she used that line to make it appear she *didn't want her dead...IOW,'raise her from the dead, b/c I don't want her to be dead!!!!',when she really did.

Well Patsy also forgot to account for the fibers in the garrote, and those on the tape. Well the fictional undressing and placement of a sleeping JonBenet to bed requires someone to do it, and any forensic deposits would help to corroborate this, an absence might raise questions about their version of events e.g. were John's fingerprints on JonBenet's shoes? I reckon JR/PR knew enough to clean things up, but not enough to realize the importance of the pineapple or her size-12's etc. Its more likely that their attorney's would tell them what not to say, and how to do it, e.g. I forget I'm not certain etc.

yes they were evasive as well,still,they all had to sit down and figure out what to say b/f the interviews took place,so I wonder what all exactly was taken into account when they came up w/ it.

I'm not leaving it out, I'm trying to highlight the crime-scene features that were intended to be masked or obscured e.g. they would be visible in the original location where JonBenet was initially assaulted.

I got ya.

The wiping away of blood also took place around her thighs and genitals, not just her face, so we know this was part of the staging, its intended to portray a JonBenet removed sleeping from her bed, not assaulted and bloodied in her bedroom.

right.

How would a ponytail hide a head injury that was invisible anyway, also if JonBenet was placed into bed sleeping, and she never went to the Whites with asymmetric ponytails, how did they arrive on her and why?

it appears they were trying to hide something...someone being able to feel the head injury right away perhaps? to direct attention to the garrote as cause of death...Patsy may not have realized what all an autopsy entails.

Although you can swing either way on the head injury, if you stand back and consider all her injuries, it is the head injury that is the most violent, the vaginal assault or garroting do not match it, her manual strangulation whilst also violent is not on the same scale.

This is what makes me think JonBenet's head injury was inflicted intentionally possibly with staging in mind e.g. done down in basement using the flashlight?

the only thing about that is Patsy asks the interviewer,when seeing the photos of her bed 'I don't see any blood,do you?'.To me that suggests the head injury occurred in her room,with JB possibly laid out flat on the bed,and that could be the reason the pillow was moved.

It appears her head injury was intended as the final blow, not simply the consequence of some accident. Why not just garrote JonBenet and make that act extreme and violent, as it was none of JonBenet's internal neck structures were compressed or damaged, so we know this was not really intended as an act that would kill JonBenet.

right,I think it was done just to hide the manual strangulation by her shirt collar,and direct cause of death to that.

I find the alternative theory e.g. an accidental head injury followed by a very short period of deliberation then the garroting of JonBenet to death, to be naive. Its too loose and vague, why no medical attention following an unexpected accident, how come the injury so high on her head nearly splits her skull in two? Even some vehicle accident injuries do not split your head open, the force required to achieve this does not match the G-Forces generated by those from domestic accidents.

indeed,while someone could have lost their temper and not realized their own strength,it's also possible it was done intentionally and with intent to kill...*not that it was planned in advance,but was a decision made in the heat of the moment.also consider the scream heard ended abruptly...it sounds as though she was silenced on purpose..

Just consider the range of injuries inflicted upon JonBenet, take into account the type of staged crime-scene, e.g. domestic, does her head injury not appear to be out of place?

it does,I agree.

Here is some uninformed speculation. We know JonBenet was awake and not asleep as alleged, and from the state of her bed, it appears she was never in it. Now I'll suggest if JonBenet had had some unexpected toileting incident e.g. she wet herself while fully dressed then would this not be apparent on her black velvet pants? So if her black velvet pants show no signs of being involved in anything does this suggest these had been removed just prior to her death along with her size-6's. If she had been wearing them when assaulted there would be the potential for forensic debri accumulating even post-mortem urine-release?

Deedee has a pretty good explanation for that...perhaps she had an accident and Patsy was trying to undress her,since Dr Spitz she had a shirt on,and a struggle ensued from there.Patsy loses it,strangles her w/ the shirt collar,then hits her on the head w. the flashlight after she screams.JR is getting undressed,and he hears her and comes running....she is unconscious,they put her flat on the bed to see what,if anything,can be done,any blood that occurred from the injury is wiped away from her head,and JR removes her shoes at some point,b/f carrying her to the basement.
I also think she was placed down in the hallway where the RN was found,since JR tried to account for his underwear fibers there...maybe someone thought about calling 911,since the phone was right there...but for whatever reason,that idea was nixed and she was taken to the basement instead,so BR wouldn't see her.

And with her pink pajamas lying under her bed pillows and size-6's in her panty drawer why was she redressed in longjohns and size-12's, this part of the Ramsey version of events does not add up?



.

in haste,perhaps Patsy didn't realize they were there when she moved the pillow..although it appears they wanted something thicker to put on her,to hide the staged injury? maybe the Barbie gown was nixed for that reason as well.

 

[DeeDee249]

The picture of JBR's bed in the crime photos shows a pink garment that seems to be one half of the pink pajamas. Many kids place pajamas under their pillow after one wearing. This is so they can be worn again without placing them back in a drawer with freshly washed clean PJs.
PR mentions she couldn't find the bottoms, so she pulls on the long johns instead. If the pink garment shown is the top, that can explain the long johns. In lifting away the pillow, the bottoms may have been grabbed up with the pillow and missed. There seems to be another pink bit of fabric at the end of the bed under the pillow- this may be the bottoms.
It isn't unusual to leave a shirt worn in the day on a tired child when dressing them for bed. I myself have done that with my own child; I am sure many moms have done the same. So the explanations about the long johns may actually be factual. Just because the Rs lied about what happened to their daughter doesn't mean there wasn't some events that were factual.

 

[JMO8778]

The picture of JBR's bed in the crime photos shows a pink garment that seems to be one half of the pink pajamas. Many kids place pajamas under their pillow after one wearing. This is so they can be worn again without placing them back in a drawer with freshly washed clean PJs.
PR mentions she couldn't find the bottoms, so she pulls on the long johns instead. If the pink garment shown is the top, that can explain the long johns. In lifting away the pillow, the bottoms may have been grabbed up with the pillow and missed. There seems to be another pink bit of fabric at the end of the bed under the pillow- this may be the bottoms.

yes,that's what I was thinking.

It isn't unusual to leave a shirt worn in the day on a tired child when dressing them for bed. I myself have done that with my own child; I am sure many moms have done the same. So the explanations about the long johns may actually be factual. Just because the Rs lied about what happened to their daughter doesn't mean there wasn't some events that were factual.

could be,but what if she didn't,and someone noticed she wasn't wearing them at the White's,or Patsy may have worried that someone had helped her in the bathroom there? so then Patsy comes up w. the 'I put them on her after w got back' story..IOW,she's trying to account for them being on her.
There is somewhere in her interview where she's describing putting them on her,and it appears she slipped and it sounds as if she's putting them on an unconscious JB,from the way she says it.I'll have to look for that.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Patsy's 'Lazarus' line makes me suspicious that she really did want her dead,and that it was done intentionally...IOW-she used that line to make it appear she *didn't want her dead...IOW,'raise her from the dead, b/c I don't want her to be dead!!!!',when she really did.

I hadn't ever thought of that, and wow, that's a really interesting observation.

I had always thought Patsy's Lazarus act was partly her putting on what she thought was an Oscar-worthy performance to cement her image of innocence, and partly her own religious zeal being acted out in what Patsy saw as an appropriate time and place for such zeal...but the Rs seemed to do a lot of that "say opposite of what it was to misdirect."

Like JR explaining in DOI that the killer had to be an intruder with some experience in crime that strangled JB and then hit her, when evidence indicates the killer was a resident that was completely criminally-unsophisticated, who hit JB on the head and then strangled her. I think it's important to keep that in mind when trying to puzzle through what happened to JonBenet.

The idea that Patsy was doing the same thing in the Lazarus speech is insightful thinking in that regard. Here comes SD's Snow White Theory, which I think would explain a lot. I believe Patsy had a streak of jealousy and resentment buried deep in her towards her daughter (her rival), and maybe she was glad JB was dead on some level - that's another explanation for "Victory!" I've heard before, but not applied to the Lazarus speech.

Good observation, JMO, same with this:

the only thing about that is Patsy asks the interviewer,when seeing the photos of her bed 'I don't see any blood,do you?'.To me that suggests the head injury occurred in her room,with JB possibly laid out flat on the bed,and that could be the reason the pillow was moved.

What a strange comment, especially when there was some mention of blood on a pillow case at some time...questions about a possible bloody nose episode.

"I don't see any blood.." Possible translation: I don't see it because if it was there, I cleaned up so it wouldn't be seen. Now I don't see it...do you? I just did the best I could.

 

[daffodil]

right...Dr Spitz said she was manually strangled by her shirt collar being twisted first.Ruthie's site also has a pic of someone who was strangled w. a scarf,and the marks look a lot similar to JB's.Patsy was questioned about a scarf,I believe? I don't know if JR was or not.I also found it odd that JR's gift to leave w. her in the casket was a scarf he put around her neck.

I dont think he put it round her neck,didnt Patsy say in DOI he covered her up with it like a "last blanket of love"?

 

[Ames]

I hadn't ever thought of that, and wow, that's a really interesting observation.

I had always thought Patsy's Lazarus act was partly her putting on what she thought was an Oscar-worthy performance to cement her image of innocence, and partly her own religious zeal being acted out in what Patsy saw as an appropriate time and place for such zeal...but the Rs seemed to do a lot of that "say opposite of what it was to misdirect."

Like JR explaining in DOI that the killer had to be an intruder with some experience in crime that strangled JB and then hit her, when evidence indicates the killer was a resident that was completely criminally-unsophisticated, who hit JB on the head and then strangled her. I think it's important to keep that in mind when trying to puzzle through what happened to JonBenet.

The idea that Patsy was doing the same thing in the Lazarus speech is insightful thinking in that regard. Here comes SD's Snow White Theory, which I think would explain a lot. I believe Patsy had a streak of jealousy and resentment buried deep in her towards her daughter (her rival), and maybe she was glad JB was dead on some level - that's another explanation for "Victory!" I've heard before, but not applied to the Lazarus speech.

Good observation, JMO, same with this:


What a strange comment, especially when there was some mention of blood on a pillow case at some time...questions about a possible bloody nose episode.

"I don't see any blood.." Possible translation: I don't see it because if it was there, I cleaned up so it wouldn't be seen. Now I don't see it...do you? I just did the best I could.

I posted part of Patsy's interview..where she says that some cleaning fluid is OUT OF PLACE. My guess is that this is what Patsy used to clean up the crime scene with. Saying that it is out of place..is just another misdirection by her. She probably thought..."Okay, now if I say that this cleaning fluid is out of place..they will probably think that I am innocent, because WHY would I even mention anything about the cleaning fluid being out of place, if I were the one to have used it last. They will think that the intruder used it, and didn't put it back where it belonged".
Unlike the PEN and NOTEPAD...the "intruder" put these things back....didn't he? SO, why not the cleaning fluid?? He seemed to be neat and tidy...everything in its place.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Sure but not having those marks does not mean it was not manual, the MD is just stating it was not a particular kind of manual strangulation. Did she rule out manual asphyxiation by fabric compression?

She wasn't asked this, but the second (circular, lower) mark on JonBenet's neck was a mere abrasion with neither petechiae nor bruising. Imo it came from the stager's fumbling with the cord before it ended up higher in its final place around the neck.

But I think it is also possible that the second mark came from Patsy's twisting JonBenet's turtleneck in a rage without a conscious attempt to strangle her.

 

[JMO8778]

I dont think he put it round her neck,didnt Patsy say in DOI he covered her up with it like a "last blanket of love"?

maybe so,I don't have my books here,but you may be right.

 

[JMO8778]

I hadn't ever thought of that, and wow, that's a really interesting observation.

I had always thought Patsy's Lazarus act was partly her putting on what she thought was an Oscar-worthy performance to cement her image of innocence, and partly her own religious zeal being acted out in what Patsy saw as an appropriate time and place for such zeal...but the Rs seemed to do a lot of that "say opposite of what it was to misdirect."

..that's what makes me suspect of her line;it sounds planned in advance,and it sounds like she was thinking 'boy,I'd better act like I don't want her to be dead!!!',and why would she be thinking this if she really wanted her to be alive?

Like JR explaining in DOI that the killer had to be an intruder with some experience in crime that strangled JB and then hit her, when evidence indicates the killer was a resident that was completely criminally-unsophisticated, who hit JB on the head and then strangled her. I think it's important to keep that in mind when trying to puzzle through what happened to JonBenet.

right on.

Here comes SD's Snow White Theory, which I think would explain a lot. I believe Patsy had a streak of jealousy and resentment buried deep in her towards her daughter (her rival), and maybe she was glad JB was dead on some level -

I think so,too.

that's another explanation for "Victory!"

I thought PP really gave it away when she said Patsy 'got her victory' when she died..I mean,comon' now...she had to have known what Patsy meant by victory,and that she wrote the RN.

What a strange comment, especially when there was some mention of blood on a pillow case at some time...questions about a possible bloody nose episode.

"I don't see any blood.." Possible translation: I don't see it because if it was there, I cleaned up so it wouldn't be seen. Now I don't see it...do you? I just did the best I could.

yep.

 

[UKGuy]

She wasn't asked this, but the second (circular, lower) mark on JonBenet's neck was a mere abrasion with neither petechiae nor bruising. Imo it came from the stager's fumbling with the cord before it ended up higher in its final place around the neck.

But I think it is also possible that the second mark came from Patsy's twisting JonBenet's turtleneck in a rage without a conscious attempt to strangle her.

rashomon,

But I think it is also possible that the second mark came from Patsy's twisting JonBenet's turtleneck in a rage without a conscious attempt to strangle her.

Why do those that promote the PDI always seek to absolve Patsy from any responsibility. She may have deliberately strangled JonBenet via fabric compression, then regretted it belatedly.

Knowing what we know about the forensic evidence e.g. the extent, and the variety of JonBenet's injuries, should inform us that her neck injuries and head fracture all occuring in an accidental manner is highly improbable!


.

 

[UKGuy]

I hadn't ever thought of that, and wow, that's a really interesting observation.

I had always thought Patsy's Lazarus act was partly her putting on what she thought was an Oscar-worthy performance to cement her image of innocence, and partly her own religious zeal being acted out in what Patsy saw as an appropriate time and place for such zeal...but the Rs seemed to do a lot of that "say opposite of what it was to misdirect."

Like JR explaining in DOI that the killer had to be an intruder with some experience in crime that strangled JB and then hit her, when evidence indicates the killer was a resident that was completely criminally-unsophisticated, who hit JB on the head and then strangled her. I think it's important to keep that in mind when trying to puzzle through what happened to JonBenet.

The idea that Patsy was doing the same thing in the Lazarus speech is insightful thinking in that regard. Here comes SD's Snow White Theory, which I think would explain a lot. I believe Patsy had a streak of jealousy and resentment buried deep in her towards her daughter (her rival), and maybe she was glad JB was dead on some level - that's another explanation for "Victory!" I've heard before, but not applied to the Lazarus speech.

Good observation, JMO, same with this:


What a strange comment, especially when there was some mention of blood on a pillow case at some time...questions about a possible bloody nose episode.

"I don't see any blood.." Possible translation: I don't see it because if it was there, I cleaned up so it wouldn't be seen. Now I don't see it...do you? I just did the best I could.

Nuisanceposter,
I agree Patsy is always trying to place a spin on questions, or interpret evidence as possibly out of place except when she disowns it like the pineapple bowl.

I believe Patsy had a streak of jealousy and resentment buried deep in her towards her daughter (her rival),

Well with Patsy's distaste for particular forms of sex with John, and her ongoing fight with cancer, some have suggested that JonBenet replaced her in this role, so jealousy and resentment along with her loss of youth contrasted with that of JonBenet's may have been a factor.