I am sure there were gift tags with the recipient's name on them. But no one that I know writes what is IN the box after it is wrapped. She knew the panties were in a box marked for Jenny, buy likely had more than one box for Jenny- so a few boxed for Jenny had to be opened to find them.
Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that
- Thread starter Solace
- Start date
I am sure there were gift tags with the recipient's name on them. But no one that I know writes what is IN the box after it is wrapped. She knew the panties were in a box marked for Jenny, buy likely had more than one box for Jenny- so a few boxed for Jenny had to be opened to find them.
DeeDee249,
If there were gift-tags then why do we need to open all these gifts? Did JonBenet's re-dresser remove both the remaining size-12's, and the associated gift-wrapping? If they were all gift-wrapped then the police questions on this topic are redundant since the name-tags will tell them the intended recipient, and allow the gifts to be associated one-to-one with each gift, with any gift-wrapping left over with the name Jenny on it, as the original wrapping for the size-12's?
But Patsy also said she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer, so which version is correct? Also if the size-12's were not to be found in JonBenet's panty drawer, and they were not to be found down the basement beside all the other xmas-gifts, but were later discovered in a Ramsey packing crate and returned, what does that tell you?
Nowhere did Patsy say this, nowhere is it reported that more than one, or even one opened xmas-present was name-tagged with the name Jenny. If it had been then surely the crime-scene photographs would have referred to this?
Patsy lied about the size-12's being in JonBenet's panty drawer, she also likely lied that they were being/to be, gift-wrapped down in the basement e.g. not linked to her specifically. Whats more likely is that they were in a drawer, not wrapped, somewhere upstairs, and that John used them to redress JonBenet not Patsy. This is why Patsy had to lie, she was attempting to explain something done by someone else, a person she was covering for.
Some people think this could suggest a BDI?
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
PP's evidence removal service was in action.
then why all the unwrapped gifts?
..I'm not following you...you said the same when we were discussing the black pants and underwear.how does this suggest BDI?
JMO8778,
Sure, but it suggests slightly more e.g. that the alleged lies, were actually lies, and that the truth is not as speculated?
Here is some on the fly speculation: They were all unwrapped because JonBenet had opened all the gifts, so Patsy whacked her on the head for doing this!
Who knows why the gifts were unwrapped, it could be something was being searched for, but who would unwrap gifts that they had recently wrapped? I am not convinced one iota that Patsy unwrapped those gifts, she was no dumbo, if she had originally wrapped them, she would have known which gift contained the size-12's. imo, the gift-wrapping rationale is alike the size-12's, its been injected into the PDI to keep it consistent, whereas, as you know I reckon Steve Thomas's PDI is inconsistent!
JMO8778,
I forget the context of my previous BDI remarks, but we know that JonBenet and Burke had shared a bed, was it Christmas eve, or the night before. Anyway how about Burke and JonBenet sharing a bed on the night of her death, how about Burke doing something to JonBenet that causes her to scream, he whacks her on the head. With Burke possibly redressing JonBenet in the size-12's taken from her bedroom dresser drawer, the rest is a re-staging by his parents, telling him to be quiet and fake being asleep once the police arrive, but that we would all be leaving soon after this?
I remain to be convinced that Patsy placed those size-12's on JonBenet. She knew where her size-6's were, she would have known, panic or not, that that that size of underwear must mean that JonBenet was awake after being placed in bed, since the parents said they placed her sleeping to bed, having deliberately placed those size-12's on her she then lies twice about their original location. I reckon the size-12's are a mistake that Patsy would not have made. Wednesday or not, their enlarged size invalidates the day-of-the-week rationale, since you cannot then assume JonBenet wore these to the White's since its patently obvious anyone seeing JonBenet wearing them would have commented on the size before the day-of-the-week?
Also if you accept that the urine-stained size-12's and longjohns was as a result of a post-mortem urine-release prior to her being placed into the wine-cellar. Then JonBenet must have been redressed in the size-12's upstairs, not in the basement as the result of a xmas-gift search? Hence the importance of JonBenet being wiped clean twice, and why it introduces an inconsistency into the PDI!
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
I can't really see BR doing that.He was only 9 at the time.what would he care what day of the wk they were?
good points,UK,it's just that ppl have brain glitches sometimes,esp. in the hectic holiday season.I can very easily see Patsy getting mixed up over what is in each box,gifts tags or not.She probably had a lot of wrapping to do that yr.
JMO8778
mmm, kind of shows how focused on the day-of-the-week you are. The day-of-the-week may not be significant, but it is if you wish to allude to an unknown person who may have seen JonBenet wearing a Wednesday day-of-the-week pair of panties, but we do not know this, they have been a Friday pair chosen at random. I'm speculating that Burke fished a clean pair of underwear out of her bedroom dresser and redressed her, or similarly John did it, the real issue being, a mistake was made, a real bad mistake, that blows away the claims about JonBenet being asleep. So who is likely to make such a mistake: an Intruder, Burke, John, or Patsy? I reckon we can rule out any Intruder and Patsy, particularly Patsy since she would have known to at least get the size correct. Most people dont seem to get it , if the assertion is that JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's so to match the alleged day-of-the-week size-6's, OK, thats fine, excellent logic, but should the size not match too, since the person who potentially saw JonBenet wearing a Wednesday pair of size-6's, would also see that they were size-12's or very big on JonBenet, and thats its this feature that would be noted, or stand out, since the Wednesday feature is mundane, and of no real import. So by the PDI's own logic JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's not because they had Wednesday printed on them, but because they are size-12's and that JonBenet wore a pair of size-12's to the White's, and this is the real reason the remaining size-12's vanished, they had to! Burke was younger when he whacked JonBenet on the head, they have shared beds before, redressing JonBenet in the size-12's seems like a male mistake to me?
Sure but a crime-scene was effectively staged, nobody can conclusively say if the head blow came first or last, evidence was removed, some mistakes were made, but they tend to be staging mistakes. Note the flashlight was wiped clean, and not left say in the wine-cellar intact. No panic there.
Patsy may get mixed up over whats in what box, but why is she redressing JonBenet in a pair of oversized panties that will blow her story about JonBenet being placed sleeping to bed. Unless of course JonBenet was already wearing a pair of size-12's, but then she would not need to be opening any gifts, since they are already open! So imo the assumption that Patsy found the size-12's in the basement generates contradictions regardless of whichever feature, e.g. day-of-the-week or size, you assume they were chosen for?
Also if you keep adding get out of jail clauses to make the Underwear issue consistent in the PDI, it just underlines something wrong with it? e.g. ignore the contradictions, lets assume the PDI is correct, and Patsy redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, this is planned behaviour she goes looking for that underwear and not her size-6's, she then proceeds to complete the crime-scene staging.
So she must really know that at some point someone somewhere is going to ask, why is JonBenet wearing a pair of size-12's, and all she needs to do is leave the remaining size-12's in JonBenet's bedroom or bathroom, problem solved. She does not to do this and has no answer to where those size-12's were located e.g. they were in JonBenet's panty drawer and they were in the basement. So at every step she makes mistakes right up to lying to the investigators.
I'm suggesting this is not a mistake Patsy would make?
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
(I'll have to get to the rest later),but perhaps of more importance,there is also a major mistake that JR would not have made..that is,he handed over the shirt he was wearing that night...yet there were fibers from it found on JB,in quite an inconspicuous place I might add.To me this suggests JR had already went to bed,and had put his shirt in the laundry chute,which landed it in the basement.I'm sure I read they had one and that's where it went.I believe the maid said he always used it...anyway...even if he did hear JB scream,at some point,Patsy was alone with JB's body,as a set-up for JR ,she used the shirt to wipe down JB,in case JR didn't go along with covering for her.Perhaps that's even part of why she might have been wiped down twice,if indeed she was?
I'm not sure what to make of the rest of underwear going missing.perhaps they thought size wouldn't be noticed;it sounds as it they wanted investigators to think that what was on her was part of a set she already owned..so the rest of the pack disappears.what does that tell you then? It screams that JB also had a pair of Wed.size 6's that disappeared.I think it's like Deedee said...they never thought size would be such a huge issue.When it was,they 'rediscovered' the rest of the size 12's.I do think the fact they said Wed. on them overruled their size...plus she was likely laying down,so in that position,would they have really looked like they were going to fall off her?
JMO8778,
I'm going to rest too, so I'll answer you in full later. imo the size-12's are a staging mistake, not an oversight on Patsy's behalf.
I still stand by my premise that the DAY on the panties was the most important thing. Otherwise, any of her old panties would have sufficed. But there was only one other Wednesday pair-in the set that was wrapped as a gift for Jenny.
It is an aspect of the staging that can only be attributed to the parents, not to BR. I doubt BR would bother changing her panties at all. IF he had been the one to cause the skull fracture, that is the ONLY thing I can see him having done. BR at age 9 - just LOOK at him in the photos- was a slightly- built kinda dorky looking kid. I can't see him strangling his sister with that garrote; breaking the paintbrush and inserting it in her vagina; carrying her down unconscious down the spiral stairs to the basement.
IF he had struck her fatally with the flashlight, bat, etc. that's one thing. But from that point on, his parents took over with the staging. But there is still something that doesn't sit right. If they needed to cover up this accident with BR, why stage a strangulation? Why not just say that the intruder caused the skull fracture and leave it at that? Well-there are two other suspicious aspects of this crime that have to be staged- a LARGE abrasion on her neck indicating a possible strangulation with fabric (like her shirt collar)-the garrote tried to hide that aspect. AND the significant amount of bleeding from her vagina from forceful penetration. That was "taken care of" by wiping her down and changing her panties.
I simply cannot see him doing all of this ALONE. It was either BR and JAR, with both PR and JR having reason to coverup for their sons, or BR was not involved. He knows something, but was not himself involved.
It is an aspect of the staging that can only be attributed to the parents, not to BR. I doubt BR would bother changing her panties at all. IF he had been the one to cause the skull fracture, that is the ONLY thing I can see him having done. BR at age 9 - just LOOK at him in the photos- was a slightly- built kinda dorky looking kid. I can't see him strangling his sister with that garrote; breaking the paintbrush and inserting it in her vagina; carrying her down unconscious down the spiral stairs to the basement.
IF he had struck her fatally with the flashlight, bat, etc. that's one thing. But from that point on, his parents took over with the staging. But there is still something that doesn't sit right. If they needed to cover up this accident with BR, why stage a strangulation? Why not just say that the intruder caused the skull fracture and leave it at that? Well-there are two other suspicious aspects of this crime that have to be staged- a LARGE abrasion on her neck indicating a possible strangulation with fabric (like her shirt collar)-the garrote tried to hide that aspect. AND the significant amount of bleeding from her vagina from forceful penetration. That was "taken care of" by wiping her down and changing her panties.
I simply cannot see him doing all of this ALONE. It was either BR and JAR, with both PR and JR having reason to coverup for their sons, or BR was not involved. He knows something, but was not himself involved.
I also can see where LE accepted PR's lame description of "those were a few partially wrapped presents" and never bothered to look further. I never remember reading where evidence lists mentioned what was in ANY of those boxes, regardless of who they were for. ANYTHING found in the same room with the dead body of a murdered child should have been confiscated and thoroughly searched. It is obvious they were not. Then they turn around and allow a relative of the "suspects" to have free, unsupervised access to a crime scene. And here we are wondering where the rest of the panties are and whether there were name tags on the boxes. It'd be comic if it wasn't so tragic.
There was so much in this case that was ignored and overlooked that I am surprised they even took photos.
There was so much in this case that was ignored and overlooked that I am surprised they even took photos.
DeeDee249,
I agree, Pamela Paugh's evidence raid must have sent out negative signals to the rest of the BPD, it simply shouts conspiracy to me, and always has done. Another theory I have is that BJPDI together, roping in Pamela Paugh, Susan Stine and associated friends, long after making a few cellphone calls prior to dialling 911. The only contentious point is was this a conspiracy motivated by loyalty to family, and money, or did it include another factor e.g. a shared lifestyle?
If there had been name-tags on those xmas-gifts, and one was tagged Jenny, we would have heard about it by now. The RST would have publicized this, since it partially confirms Patsy's story.
.
DeeDee249,
An outline BDI is that Burke for whatever reason whacked JonBenet, the rest is staging by the parents, only they would cover for Burke.
Its entirely possible that the whole wine-cellar crime-scene is staged e.g. that JonBenet's head injury was applied after she was manually asphyxiated, at some point she was sexually assaulted, and wiped down, then the garrote was applied. That is for some unknown reason, someone really did intentionally kill JonBenet, then it was faked as an intruder murder?
The point about the above is that the staging quite effectively masks or hides the original circumstances surrounding JonBenet's death, which is what makes external assumptions injected into the PDI, such as the Wednesday pair contentious. They may simply be on JonBenet because they are panties and not because they have the Wednesday feature or are size-12's?
Its safe to assume that the size-12's were not in JonBenet's panty drawer or located down in the basement, why, because we have no forensic evidence to confirm either of these assumptions.
Bear in mind that what ever Patsy says about the underwear question may be lies, evasions, to prevent further lines of questioning, remember this is a mother who cannot remember if JonBenet washed or showered, or changed her panties prior to visiting the Whites, despite saying she was the person who always supervised JonBenet showering, bathing, washing etc. Returning from the White's and on undressing JonBenet, again Patsy says she never noticed what underwear JonBenet was wearing. So when Patsy tells you the size-12's were a gift for Jenny, and that they were to be/were being gift-wrapped in the basement, you must remain skeptical. Patsy may have been gift wrapping in her bedroom, keeping the gifts in her dresser drawer, but removed them all to the basement, as part of an evidence purge?
Your assumption that the day-of-the-week on the panties was the most important feature is based on what?
Stretching rationale, and its here that issues about panic and confusion go out the window, whomever selected the size-12's then thought mmm yesterday was Wednesday, so out the seven choices I'll pick the Wednesday pair? We have no knowledge what day-of-the-week pair JonBenet had been wearing prior to her death.
Of course, and you are trying to sell me the premise that Patsy ignored her size-6's in preference to a pair of size-12's, simply on the basis of the day-of-the-week, but totally ignore what everyone now recognizes as a big big mistake, that anyone seeing JonBenet wearing those size-12's , would remember not the day-of-the-week, the day-of-the-week is incidental, expected decoration on a pair of panties, its not out of place. But the size 12, is! Particularly when Patsy tells us she bought them for a girl nearly twice JonBenet's age and height.
Patsy has to know questions will eventually flow from JonBenet wearing size-12 underwear, yet she has no answers. She has to know prior to redressing JonBenet that those size-12's will suggest that JonBenet was dressed in those after arriving back from the White's, unless JonBenet was wearing a pair of size-12's to the Whites, and it is this that there was an argument over. It is the size of the size-12's that is the most visually noticable feature, not the day-of-the-week, which whilst relevant, is mundane on a pair of panties. So by the PDI's own logic its this feature that was being simulated?
The size-12's are not a mistake that Patsy would make, given she did, why has she no explanation for their use. I reckon John or Burke redressed JonBenet in those size-12's. LHP the housekeeper said she saw the unopened size-12's in JonBenet's bedroom dresser drawer, or they were kept in Patsy and John's bedroom, where John after cleaning up JonBenet simply redresses her in the size-12's?
The size-12's are a staging element gone wrong, we know that, the feature that tells us this is the panty-size. OK the size-12's were possibly selected as they were new, clean, and forensically free of evidence, but given Patsy's account of placing the longjohns onto JonBenet. We can infer that this size-12 redressing occurred after her being dressed in longjohns, which throws the focus directly onto Patsy, is this a mistake that she would make? Knowing that this may occur why did she not simply select any pair of size-6's?
JMO8778,
If John handed his shirt over then he must have retrieved it from the within the basement, but you suggest Patsy had used it to wipe down JonBenet, would this not be evident e.g. the shirt would be crumpled and stained with blood?
Well the assumptions about the size-12's simply don't make sense. I reckon they are simply PDI assertions made to make the PDI more consistent, thats fine if they did not generate further inconsistencies, but they do. If Patsy says she placed JonBenet sleeping into bed, after placing the longjohns on her, then who undressed her and placed the size-12's on her? It cannot have been an intruder, since thats not part of the PDI, so why would Patsy plan such a situation?
It might be better to assume that the size-12's are chosen randomly until you can prove otherwise.
The remaining size-12's must have been removed for one or both of the following reasons.
1. JonBenet wore a pair of size-12's to the White's party.
2. The redresser left forensic evidence on the tube of panties.
Now in reason 1. someone may have seen JonBenet in the toilet at the Whites? And in reason 2. the person whose evidence is on the tube, is someone other than Patsy. You can expect to see Patsy's dna, fingerprints on the tube since she purchased it, no big deal?
So if Patsy redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, she has no real need to distance herself from the tube of size-12's, she could just fling them onto JonBenet's bedroom floor, and claim JonBenet must have changed herself?
But if JonBenet was already wearing a pair of size-12's that became bloodied, and these were replaced by another pair of size-12's e.g the Wednesday pair, to preserve appearances, then removing the remaining 5 pairs not only takes care of any potential incriminating evidence in terms of fingerprints, dna etc. It also prevents any awkward questions about the location of the missing pair?
Applying Occam's Razor to 1. & 2. and assuming 2. as a minimal reason, then its not Patsy who needs to hide her association with the size-12's, its more likely to be either Burke or John, and you get a cigar if you put your money on John?
So I reckon its John that did the cleaning up of JonBenet, including redressing her in those size-12's, maybe Patsy was busy writing the ransom note at this point?
.
I think it could have been either parent who put on the size 12s. And I have said numerous times that I think the Rs were genuinely surprised that the size of the panties became such an issue. As far as they were concerned, they were girls' panties and that was that.
In my mind- there are only 2 reasons for those particular panties to be used for redressing her.
Either they were needed because the original panties also said Wednesday and there was a risk of someone having helped her on the toilet at the White's and seen them.
OR they were the panties that were closest at hand. Using her own would have meant going up two floors to her room/bathroom to get a clean pair. PR knew there were panties right there in the basement where they also had applied the garrote and done the rest of the staging.
If they were simply used because they were there, interesting that the stagers grabbed the "Wednesday" pair- Christmas WAS a Wednesday that year. Was PR so anal that even in death her daughter HAD to wear the correct day of the week? Maybe, but most likely I feel it was because her original panties also said Wednesday.
We'll never really know.
In my mind- there are only 2 reasons for those particular panties to be used for redressing her.
Either they were needed because the original panties also said Wednesday and there was a risk of someone having helped her on the toilet at the White's and seen them.
OR they were the panties that were closest at hand. Using her own would have meant going up two floors to her room/bathroom to get a clean pair. PR knew there were panties right there in the basement where they also had applied the garrote and done the rest of the staging.
If they were simply used because they were there, interesting that the stagers grabbed the "Wednesday" pair- Christmas WAS a Wednesday that year. Was PR so anal that even in death her daughter HAD to wear the correct day of the week? Maybe, but most likely I feel it was because her original panties also said Wednesday.
We'll never really know.
DeeDee249,
I agree, but given the mistake made I reckon it was John. It also suggests that the story about JonBenet being placed into her bed sleeping came after she was dressed in the size-12's?
I disagree, by your own account, an R deliberately opened the xmas-gifts searching for just those size-12's, when the obvious choice is to go to her panty drawer and take out a clean pair?
Anyone at the White's seeing JonBenet in a Wednesday pair of panties would be able to also confirm if they were loose or tight fitting on her, did they hang down like the size-12's would e.g were they a size-6 pair panties?
We could all be wrong and the size-12's were chosen as you suggest, on the basis they were close to hand, and the Wednesday selection on the basis that the selector wanted the day-of-the-week on the panties to match that current day, anally as you suggest?
That is the size-12's have no real significance beyond them being girl's panties?
That I reckon would have been John's perspective, Patsy would have recognized the size-12's might raise a red-flag?
If we can agree that beyong being girl's panties the size-12's have no real significance, then maybe their utility lay in simply covering up a sexual assault, e.g. they are staging to effect a visual barrier?
Now did the discovery that there were blood stains on the size-12's lead to her being wiped down, followed by realizing that she was still alive, so she was whacked on the back of the head, as she lay face down, with the flashlight, then garroted?
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
..in thinking about it,I suspect they didn't want to go back upstairs again and risk waking up BR.If Patsy was working alone at that point,then she had to worry that JR might wake up as well.
An example of that is the fact JB's room wasn't really staged to appear an intruder removed her from her bed,nor was it cleaned up to any degree,(other than the bed),I suspect.It appears they were afraid to go back up there,after removing basic evidence,and taking the body to the basement.
I suspect the reason for choosing them was 3-fold...1- they were convenient..2- they said Wed. on them and 3-(perhaps this was most important?) they were NEW and clean...no R dna on them.That would have been especially important,since JB had vaginal injuries.
not sure about that,when desperation set in,anything was possible.just look at the RN and the slack way her arms were tied...that says a lot.
could be another reason,yes.
..she would have at least been unconscious before that,since the ligature and tape indicate no struggle.if so,then she was manually strangled first,then the rest done after that? I keep coming back to the fact a scream would have been better heard from the the basement.Even Thomas said he hoped JB was not conscious the vaginal injury occurred,so there is a chance she may have awoken at that point?
If this is the true scenario,then it indicates first degree murder,does it not?
Something I noticed in DOI is JR omits the flashlight from causing the head injury,and states he thinks it occurred when an intruder slammed her head against the floor.That makes me think even more that the FL may have been the object that caused the head injury.
..I was also thinking back to the movie,PMPT.In the first scene,Patsy, JB and BR are buying golf club covers for JR as a Christmas gift.I don't know if this really occurred,or was just part of the movie.if it did happen,does that suggest something,ie-JB may have been struck with a covered golf club?
JMO8778,
JonBenet's bedroom was not intended to be the focus of her death, that aspect lay with the wine-cellar and the garrote. I agree with you in general though since JonBenet's pajamas were left on the bed, yet Patsy used longjohns, duh! Makes me even more confident that the longjohns were staging?
You could be correct, but why size-12's, is that not a red-flag. I've considered that John used a dark pair of size-12's to wipe her down, if there was a dark pair? And as you suggest because they were clean no R dna on them he selected the Wednesday pair. If there was no molestation I find it difficult to work out why a pair of size-6's would not suffice?
Well someone whacked Jonbenet about the face she has an abrasion or is it a contusion on the right side of her face, from memory another one on her back shoulder and on her leg somewhere? So she was hit with something solid probably prior to or in conjunction with being manually strangled. If that had occurred because she fell, I reckon more of her face would have been injured, and there are no marks on her hands or arms to suggest defensive reflex action? The abrasion on her face may even come from the flashlight?
Occam would suggest that she was physically assaulted resulting in those contusions or abrasions, then manually strangled. With the rest of her injuries being as a result of intentional staging e.g whacked on the head with the flashlight then garroted to mask the manual strangulation and the internal bleeding coming from a staged sexual assault.
But why hide the sexual assault, or even hide it beneath size-12's and longjohns, why even bother with the size-12's and longjohns? Thats what annoys me about this theory. I reckon its the most concise theory that incorporates all the elements.
.
The contusions on her face and back are actually the small, round "rust colored abrasions" that have been suggested as stun gun burns. It is not indicative of the kind of bruising that would occur if she had been hit or "knocked around the face". These small round abrasions are not described as contusions. A contusion is a "black & blue" or bruise. There IS a description of a contusion on her posterior shoulder. It can be seen in a crime scene photo. This photo does not appear on "acandyrose" but does appear in some other site's photos. One of the sites is http://www.jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The+Body
You have to scroll through and find "shoulder injury" and click on the highlighted "photo" link. The pic can be confusing- ONLY HER SHOULDER appears in the photo, and the photo is dark- but you can tell she is lying on her stomach on the autopsy table. You can clearly see the contusion (bruise).
I don't remember if t was here or FFJ were I was asked if I remembered where the pics of the log grabber were found. I found it- it was on Ruthie's site, as I thought. You have to scroll to "Jameson factor" and click in that- the photo is in that section. It shows the wineceller with the floor safe and the large piece of sheet metal and the paint cans. The log grabber is clearly seen on the floor and marked with an arrow. If I can post the link I will.
Actually, you can get there easily from http://www.acandyrose.com
Just go to "Other People's Pages" and click on "Ruthee's Murder Library" site. Then you'll see all the boxes with different pages. Click on "Jameson Factor" and this photo with the log grabber is the first one that pops up.
Actually, you can get there easily from http://www.acandyrose.com
Just go to "Other People's Pages" and click on "Ruthee's Murder Library" site. Then you'll see all the boxes with different pages. Click on "Jameson Factor" and this photo with the log grabber is the first one that pops up.
DeeDee249,
Thanks for the link, yes they are mostly abrasions, the ones on her back and shoulder could be explained away as occuring when her body was moved, but the one on the right side of her face is so specific and without accompanying marks or contusions makes it difficult to explain as resulting from being dragged.
It appears that somone has pulled JonBenet lets say off some object or out of some object, this asumes those abrasions are not from a stun-gun, or as a result of a physical assault. Patsy or John would not need to drag JonBenet they could easily lift her, not unless the dragging is deliberate to avoid forensic deposits?