Steve Thomas's Theory/Murder Timeline

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by midwestphd, Feb 6, 2013.

  1. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I had asked for a theory of the JBR case that was objectively testable w/o recourse to conjecture. Obviously I asked for too much.
     


  2. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The 12s could have become wet by contact with the LJs, but that would mean the LJs were put on (or pulled back up) prior to urination, which means prior to death. If she then had a postmortem release, and the culprit decided to leave the wet LJs on her, why bother removing them to put on too big panties?

    The correct sized panties were never found, or at least never (publicly) identified from all the panties in the house. Anti-Ks take accounts for the missing panties by realizing that there were no missing panties, she was wearing size 12s before the assault.

    This would also fit with PR's claim that 12s were in JBRs room available for her to wear.

    While there is no way to prove any of this, Anti-Ks take strikes me as the most likely.

    I think you are correct that the blood on the panties seeped out later.
     
  3. Anti-K

    Anti-K New Member

    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It just seems to me, and of course I could be wrong, that if the urine came after the blood then the urine would have “washed” the blood away. Panties are pulled down for the assault. Assault occurs, area is wiped. Panties pulled back up, blood is deposited. If the blood came after the urine, than the urine probably came before the assault.

    Or, let’s have it your way. The urine is on the leggings and is transferred onto the new panties. This means the urine must have come before the leggings were removed. So, we have the urine, then the leggings and panties pulled down and removed. Assault occurs, area is wiped. Panties pulled back up, blood is deposited.

    You see, even in your version, the urine comes when she was alive because the assault occurred at or near point of death and we can reasonably say that the leggings/panties were pulled down for the assault.

    BTW, why would they completely remove and then replace urine soaked leggings?
    ...

    AK
     
  4. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,827
    Likes Received:
    3,225
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chrishope,
    If you understand the concept you do not need me to supply you with any theory, select your own and test the evidence against the theory, its that simple.

    e.g. Steve Thomas' theory or DocG's, one will yield a result the other will not.


    .
     
  5. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,827
    Likes Received:
    3,225
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DeeDee249,
    BBM: ITA. Coroner Meyers Autopsy Report both verbal and written back this interpretation up. It is what it appears to be, i.e. a staged crime-scene, someone has decided to cleanup and redress JonBenet, and from the R's own version of events we know this to be the case since they factor the longjohns into their account, whilst Patsy conveniently never noticed what underwear JonBenet was wearing: ramnesia strikes!

    No blood on the longjohns suggests they were placed on her after the cleanup aspect had been completed. The blood on the pink barbie nightgown should not be there at all, never mind the touch-dna, if it arrived by static adhesion, since surely the blanket would have shielded the nightgown?

    The blood on the pink nightgown might have arrived accidentally during the cleanup phase or as a consequence of a sexual assault, real or staged? The location of the spots of blood might be a critical indicator?

    Then we have the splinter or birefringent foreign material to account for. A minimal explanation for this is it was transferred to JonBenet from the person who constructed the paintbrush/ligature device accidentally. This suggests the paintbrush handle was broken in advance of her being cleaned up.

    Alternatively the paintbrush handle was broken and used to stage a sexual assault, with the remainder incorporated into the ligature as an afterthought?

    The latter is my favorite explanation since the paintbrush is not required as the ligature visually suggests the cause of death.

    I reckon someone staged a sexual assault to mask a prior sexual assault and similarly the ligature/paintbrush handle device is there to mask/obscure a prior neck injury.

    The size-12's are relevant wrt other RDI theories, since they do not tell us why there were no size-12 underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

    Which as an aside really place the focus on either JR or BR. We know BR had visited the basement earlier that day and allegedly partially opened some gifts, q.v. Kolar, so if the size-12's were down there?

    Which tells us BR might be the person doing some of the staging, bizarre as it seems. Kolar suggested that JonBenet was whacked on the head in the breakfast bar then taken down to the basement.

    Cleaning up JonBenet and partially redressing her is something a 9-year old could do, as might be staging a sexual assault with a paintbrush handle?

    The rest might simply be an exercise in damage limitation by the parents with PR smashing the basement window and factoring in the samsonite suitcase, which later JR vetoes and opts for the wine-cellar scenario. All of which suggests regardless of which RDI you favor the initial staged crime-scene probably had JonBenet lying somewhere in full view, i.e. her bedroom, floor of the basement?

    Coroner Myers use of the phrase birefringent foreign material is ambiguous in that it could be singular or plural.


    .
     
  6. elannia

    elannia Active Member

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    So do you think she could have been wearing the pink gown after arriving home then maybe she was redressed in the white GAP shirt and longjohns afterwards?
     
  7. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We know she wore the gap shirt to the party. Photos form the party prove that.

    PR claims to have placed the LJs on her at bedtime and doesn't recall anything unusual about the underwear.

    What happens next is pure speculation. If you theorize she was wearing the barbie nightgown during the assault, it must have been pulled up, then blood deposited after it was pulled down, which would be after the wipe down. But then why remove it and redress in too big panties and LJs? If she wasn't wearing the barbie nightgown, why is it there? Why does it have blood on it? It could be, as UKGuy suggests, that the blood was an incidental transfer after the cleanup.

    Anti-Ks take, imo, has a lot of merit. There was no concern about leaving her in urine soaked clothes, and there wouldn't be, because in IDI (real or staged) the intruder is responsible for her death, and she had a postmortem release of urine -exactly what the police/coroner should find, whether the body is in the house, or dumped elsewhere.

    The intruder (real or fictitious) would have no reason to redress her -redress her as in changing to clothes she did not wear to bed/did not have on prior to the SA- so probably the culprit simply put back on (or pulled back up) what JBR had been wearing just prior to SA.

    Additionally, since the LJs obscure the size 12s (but do not hide SA from the coroner) there really isn't much need to use panties of any size. That the culprit simply put back on (pulled back up) what she had been wearing makes a good deal of sense.
     
  8. questfortrue

    questfortrue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What Elannia wonders is entirely possible. We only know from what PR stated as to how JB was dressed for bed. From the autopsy is this statement: The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained, and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

    So the coroner confirms the urine stains on both panties and ljs. (There was another interesting speculation raised by Dr. Judith Densen Gerber pertaining to whether this was only a small release of urine. If it was a small amount of urine it suggests that there could have been a bedwetting incident, as in ST’s theory, or she had gone to the bathroom before bed shortly before everything happened.) But given the anterior stain on the ljs, it would fit that she was lying on her stomach at the time of death, and as DeeDee mentions, the blood droplets may have occurred when she was moved and after her strangulation. She wouldn't necessarily have been alive and bleeding. It may simply have been a minor couple of drops which shifted to her panties during removal to the wc.

    An additional consideration, if JB had worn the huge Bloomies under her black pants to the W party (which I personally doubt), they would have slid down along with the black pants which were removed by PR when JB was redressed in ljs for bed. It'd seem the elastic is too big around JB's waist and hips for them to have remained on her. PR claimed to have no knowledge as to how JB came to be wearing the huge Bloomies. Someone, imo, redressed her in those Bloomies after she was unconscious. moo
     
  9. elannia

    elannia Active Member

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Thanks. IMO there is no way patsy would have put those size 12 bloomies on her before going to the party. And if JB wanted to wear them she would have been very uncomfortable at the party with those on. We know what she wore to the White's party but I think she put on the pink nightgown when they returned home. I am guessing that Patsy put her back into that shirt and put the lj's on her after whatever happened Just to make it look like she she was asleep when they got home. I think the red turtleneck balled up on the counter was maybe there from earlier when she wanted JB to wear it but I wonder why patsy told LE she had out her to bed in that? The black pants soiled in the BR were they the ones she were to the party? IMO she? put those panties on her afterwards to make it seem an intruder did it. MOO
     
  10. questfortrue

    questfortrue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    IIRC, there was a pair of black pants laid neatly on the adjacent twin bed which were thought to have been worn to the party.
     
  11. elannia

    elannia Active Member

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ok. I have seen that pic... so could the ones in the bathroom be the pair patsy had wanted her to wear to the party with the red turtleneck or is it the same pants?
     
  12. WhoKnowsWhat

    WhoKnowsWhat New Member

    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unfortunately, my brother is back in ICU for the 3rd time in a month so I don't want to ask him now. I know when his hands peeled the oncologist said they would adjust his chemo so I imagined his hands quit peeling. He didn't mention it when I saw him in ICU the 1st time but he did look at his hands and mention how swollen they were from all the IV's. I would think he would have said something if he noticed he no longer had fingerprints.
     
  13. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,827
    Likes Received:
    3,225
    Trophy Points:
    113
    elannia,
    Yes its likely she was wearing the pink barbie nightgown, as she appears to have been readied for bed, i.e she has assymetric ponytails, not something that would be worn to the White's party, and a detail unaccounted for in the Ramsey version of events. Also BR's touch-dna was found on the pink nightgown along with spots of her own blood, which is consistent with her wearing it, a freshly laundered nighgown should not exhibit so much forensic transfer.

    The white gap top was worn to the White's party. JonBenet was definitely redressed in the longjohns and size-12 underwear, which is another detail unaccounted for by many RDI theories, and the Ramsey version of events.

    Alternatively the pink nightgown was part of a prior staging event which was abandonded. Also Patsy's remarks about the red turtleneck might represent either what she did originally wear on returning home, or was part of an abandoned staging?

    The bugaboo for the R's version of events is the pineapple snack, with PR and BR's fingerprints on the pineapple bowl in the breakfast bar, and PR and BR's touch-dna on the pink nightgown, all suggesting BR and PR was in close contact with JonBenet prior to her death?

    .
     
  14. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,827
    Likes Received:
    3,225
    Trophy Points:
    113
    questfortrue,
    Does this suggest that JonBenet was cleaned up with subsequent movement of internally accumulated blood yielding 0.5 inch stains? So when did the drops of JonBenet's own blood arrive on the pink barbie nightgown?

    .
     
  15. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If PR put the LJs on, after the crime, that means that PR selected the size 12 panties, or ignored them when putting on the LJs. Both seem unlikely don't they? If PR was involved in the redressing JBR almost certainly would have been in the correct size panties, as there were many available in the house. PR must have been ignorant of the size 12s.
     
  16. questfortrue

    questfortrue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It’d just be my speculation how blood arrived on the nightgown. But we know she had bled from the sa, and it’s possible some arrived on the nightgown when she was redressed. Making an assumption she was redressed.

    I’ve some additional thoughts in reply to your recent questioning regarding BR involved in staging, or at least cover up of the sa. (BTW, very thought provoking post.)

    The coroner spoke to both Arndt and Trujillo and commented that JB had suffered an injury consistent with vaginal penetration—digital or otherwise. (PMPT) What seems to be vague is whether there was an assault before the paintbrush.

    If there was an assault before the paintbrush, then it might change some theories of the event. I’ve considered if the autopsy might support two assaults. E.g., the autopsy lists an abrasion on her hymen and just inside the vaginal vault: A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1x1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen.

    According to Kolar, this from WRKI: As further insult, the perpetrator is believed to have inserted the broken end of the paintbrush, used as a handle in the garrote, into her vagina at or near the time of her death.

    However, as also noted in the autopsy Meyer wrote: along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. It’s possible that the hyperemia on the right side and posteriorly within the vaginal vault was not caused by the jagged end of a paintbrush; that injury is not noted as an abraded area (abrasion vs. reddish hyperemia.) Anyway, two sa injuries might influence the way we view the combination of a perp and one or more stagers.

    To the question about staging and BR, here’s only a few things I’ve looked at, but don’t have a fixed conclusion on.

    --The timing between the head blow and the strangulation was thought to be 45 minutes give or take. It might have been longer or shorter. If it was a short time, then I can see the paintbrush jab by BR as having occurred. This assault was thought to have occurred perimortem, or shortly before her death. BR then could have “conceivably” cleaned her up and redressed her. It’s possible, but it’d be a theory which needs to incorporate how her strangulation occurred . . .

    --The short timing between the paintbrush jab and her death by strangulation could be an issue in terms of looking at BR as participating at this juncture. The experts say the jab was close to the time of her death. This happening close to the strangulation is obviously complicated as ws sleuthers have discussed this for years: Was she accidentally strangled first (partially or fully) or was the ligature totally a parental construct to mislead LE that an evil intruder strangled JB? Except for existence of fibers in the neck ligature which raises questions, doesn’t seem like proof of which scenario happened.

    --One other thing on the paintbrush injury. I’ve read others’ commentary that if one is attempting to portray a pedophile intruder, why clean her up and hide the paintbrush injury. Why even injure her with a paintbrush, if she had already been molested. That’s just a truly perplexing component to the ‘staging.’ It would fit best if BR were responsible for the paintbrush injury. Back to the quandary about the timing between head injury and strangulation. Just not sure.

    --So then, in an RDI scenario, one arrives at the concept of whether someone was “overthinking” the situation, or possibly that 2 adults were involved in staging and had different ideas. One adult decides to mask the first sa with another injury. (PR protecting BR?) The other adult decides JB should be cleaned up and redressed. (JR not wanting to advertise a sa which many might blame him for?)

    These are just some thoughts, and I’ve so many more questions than answers. No fixed theory on any scene, except my interpretation that it’s RDI. All JMHO
     
  17. elannia

    elannia Active Member

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ok. So lets say she was wearing her normal size panties when she arrived home dressed for bed... put on the pink gown. I think when she was redressed(whoever did this) put her in the size 12's thinking they could throw everyone off (like someone saying why would patsy or whoever put those panties on JB. So I think it was meant so people wouldnt think she put those panties on her but an intruder did it. And an intruder wouldnt care either way. Why would an intruder care about what size panties she wore or which ones to put her in. And would he have put the panties somewhere knowing he was going to redress her. How did he know where they were. I think the only way he could have done this is if he was in the house while they were gone and he went searching around. Sorry probably some flaws in there. I get on a roll and cant stop
     
  18. Anti-K

    Anti-K New Member

    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The blood is from the sexual assault. If the tip of the paint brush was used, than maybe it had blood on it, and that blood dripped a bit here, a bit there...
    .

    It seems unlikely that someone would change Jonbenet from the white top and into the nightgown only to remove the night gown and replace the white top. And, why would they do this in the WC? Did they have the white top with them, or did they have to make a special trip upstairs to get it?

    If they removed the night gown and the panties, than why did they only dispose of the panties (add that to the list of missing items!) and leave the night gown?
    .

    Sadly, the only evidence that even hints at a possibility that Jonbenet was redressed is the fact that she had on over-sized panties.
    ...

    AK
     
  19. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Let's try it this way: Sexual assault while alive resulting in bleeding from the vaginal injuries- she screams, is bashed on the head. Falling immediately unconscious or even comatose, but still alive. The blood is wiped from her thighs and pubic area, then the size 12 panties are selected to take the place of panties she had been wearing, which may have been bloodied or otherwise soiled. Then the long johns are pulled back up over the big panties. Both are clean and dry at this point. I believe the head bash came first, so at this point the strangulation occurs on an already unconscious, possibly comatose, maybe thought-to-be-dead JB, who is still alive. The strangulation finally ends her life. At the moment of death, primary flaccidity occurs and her bladder voids, soaking both long johns and big panties. The few drops of blood occur AFTER the urine release and are insufficient to bleed through to the long johns. Whoever left her in the wine cellar is unaware of the blood in the panties. Dead people don't bleed, but blood can ooze from a dead person, especially before it gels. I have never seen it stated that the WHITE BLANKET had urine stains on it, so the clothing would have been dry enough not to wet the blanket by that time. The urine stains were anterior (on the front) but she was on her back when placed on the blanket, which was loosely pulled over her torso, probably not in close enough contact with the long johns to wet the blanket. Also don't discount Patsy's feelings about having JB appear dressed as normally as possible. She was specifically asked by LE about the presence of panties and whether she had noticed how huge they were on her. Patsy was asked whether she recalled JB wearing such huge panties when she dressed her daughter for bed, as she claimed she did. Patsy replied that she would have noticed if JB hadn't been wearing any panties, but seemed to brush off the size aspect. Some kids wear undies under pajamas, some don't. It differs in families. It sounds like JB was always in panties under her pajamas, so I can see her being dressed this way that night. To me, this is a logical explanation of how the huge panties, stained long johns and tiny blood drops all came together that night.
     
  20. elannia

    elannia Active Member

    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    And if JB was was asleep why not just leave her in the white top. Be much more comfortable than the red turtleneck whichbshe originally stated she put on her. And she was asleep so why bother changing her (waking up while being changed) so I believe Burke when he said she walked in behind Patsy and she dressed her for bed in the pink nightgown. Maybe thats why the gown was in the WC... she was wearing it and when whoever redressed her forgot to get it or left it not knowing about the blood. MOO
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice