The bed-wetting theory

[BBB167893]

How does this bed look to you.Like someone just peed in it?

No, I can't say it does. But by the same token, it doesn't look like anyone SLEPT in it, either. And certainly not like they were pulled from it.

Hmm. You know, maddy, it's been said that the sheets on JB's bed were changed sometime during the night. I believe it. No six-y/o I ever knew, including me, ever left a bed that neat!

 

[BBB167893]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Clothing

Long White Underwear
•Description. "There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red and blue stripe." (Autopsy Findings)
•Urine Stains on Long Underwear. "The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified." (Autopsy Findings)



White Wednesday Panties
Autopsy Findings
•Description. "Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waistband."
•Stains on Underwear. "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 in maximum dimension."



This probably means that she wet herself/urine was released AFTER she was redressed,shortly before or when she was dying,right?
Her bladder would have been empty if she wet the bed BEFORE(while sleeping) being killed and taken to the basement or?

Not necessarily, maddy. The statements you found tend to support the idea that there wasn't all that much urine when she died. So, she could have urinated, bed or otherwise, and the bladder would start to fill up again. When she died, as most bodies do, hers evacuated on its own.

 

[BBB167893]

Is it fact that the Wednesday pair belonged to the R's?

Yes. PR bought them in NY for a niece, but JB insisted on keeping them.

Was the package ever found?

The Rs turned it over to the cops THREE YEARS later.

How sure are we that she was indeed redressed that night?

Pretty sure. It would have been fairly difficult for her to move around smoothly that night with the big ones on.

Did she have her own package of bloomies (weekdays),and so on.

Yes. It was stated that JB had panties just like that in her own size. I'd have to look and see where that was stated, though.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Thanks, Madeleine. For me, the Wednesday Bloomies are probably the biggest piece of evidence. Aside from everything else, I cannot fathom how an intruder would have known about these panties. As a mother of two daughters it's hard for me to believe that Patsy put these on JB (or allowed her to wear them that day), so why did she have them on when she was murdered? Sorry for getting soooo off topic!

LHP knew about them. LHP knew what was in the dryer up to the time when Joni was found.

 

[DeeDee249]

This has always been a confusing issue for me.
I couldn't find all the info I needed re the panties,not even from the interviews.
Is it fact that the Wednesday pair belonged to the R's?Was it really new?Was the package ever found?If yes,did one pair miss from it?How do we know that she didn't borrow the pair from a friend?If she put those on that would mean she wasn't redressed that night.How sure are we that she was indeed redressed that night?Did she have her own package of bloomies (weekdays),and so on.

Patsy ADMITTED she bought them. That was not in dispute. What was i dispute is whether JB wore them that day or whether they were put on her after she was dead. When asked about them, Patsy freely admitted they were the ones she bought for her niece. However, Patsy said she didn't remember of she bought JB her own set. I believe I'd remember that, it was only a month before. Also, LE were not able to find ANY Bloomie's Day Of The Week panties in JB's drawers or anywhere else in the house. But Patsy did send what she said were the remaining panties to LE a few years later.
Testing could have determined if the panties were new or had been laundered. Detergent residue will remain in small (but testable) amounts in fabric. Of course, the panties on JB were taken into evidence along with the longjohns and white shirt, where I HOPE they still remain.

 

[DeeDee249]

So, no one has any clue at all. Nice.

We have a clue, but there can be no proof. JB wet the bed most nights. But unless someone was there that morning to feel the sheets to see if they were wet, no one would be able to answer that. Even if they were wet, they'd be dry by the time LE came and surely by the time they were taken into evidence and tested. Dried urine WAS found, but it can't be determined by ANY testing method exactly when it was left. As with most forensic evidence, it can't be "dated" or proven when it was left. She could have wet the bed the night of the 23rd, or 24th and simply not had the sheets changed. If she wet Christmas Eve, with Christmas being what is usually is for most families and with a party that day and an extended trip planned for the next day, it wouldn't be surprising that Patsy didn't change the sheets.
JB's longjohns and panties both had dried urine on the anterior (front) surface. There was no corresponding urine stains on the white blanket (which probably came right out of the basement dryer) so it can be presumed that she did not release the urine after she was wrapped. Then, too, she was found on her back, and the urine stains indicate release while lying on her stomach.

 

[madeleine]

You'll have to explain that statement, maddy.

It's something I just noticed.

Considerable proof. For one thing, we have the autopsy report itself. Then we have the statements of Henry Lee, Werner Spitz, Tom Henry and Ronald Wright, among others.

Nope,not proof,you have their personal opinions.And there are other experts who disagree.
And you know that Smit is not one of my fav. players in this case but what he says here makes a lot of sense to me.

If you try to apply a garotte or ligature after death, it is white in color.

Q. What is white?

A. Red is before death, the mark that is left by the garotte. Red is before dead. White is after death.

Q. In terms of the marks found on the body of the victim?

A. That is correct.

------------------

The marks are definitely red.


And there's also Wecht's explanation which also makes a lot of sense to me.


Wecht's explanation is as follows: "If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying."

 

[madeleine]

No, I can't say it does. But by the same token, it doesn't look like anyone SLEPT in it, either. And certainly not like they were pulled from it.

Hmm. You know, maddy, it's been said that the sheets on JB's bed were changed sometime during the night. I believe it. No six-y/o I ever knew, including me, ever left a bed that neat!

Who said it?

And re leaving the bed so neat,it depends on how the sheets are attached to the matress I guess.

 

[madeleine]

Patsy ADMITTED she bought them. That was not in dispute. What was i dispute is whether JB wore them that day or whether they were put on her after she was dead. When asked about them, Patsy freely admitted they were the ones she bought for her niece. However, Patsy said she didn't remember of she bought JB her own set. I believe I'd remember that, it was only a month before. Also, LE were not able to find ANY Bloomie's Day Of The Week panties in JB's drawers or anywhere else in the house. But Patsy did send what she said were the remaining panties to LE a few years later.
Testing could have determined if the panties were new or had been laundered. Detergent residue will remain in small (but testable) amounts in fabric. Of course, the panties on JB were taken into evidence along with the longjohns and white shirt, where I HOPE they still remain.

Well it should be simple then.
If PR's touch DNA is on the new panties ,there's your proof that they weren't brought by an intruder.
If JB's touch DNA is on them I guess it means she put them on herself.

 

[MurriFlower]

We have a clue, but there can be no proof. JB wet the bed most nights. But unless someone was there that morning to feel the sheets to see if they were wet, no one would be able to answer that. Even if they were wet, they'd be dry by the time LE came and surely by the time they were taken into evidence and tested. Dried urine WAS found, but it can't be determined by ANY testing method exactly when it was left. As with most forensic evidence, it can't be "dated" or proven when it was left. She could have wet the bed the night of the 23rd, or 24th and simply not had the sheets changed. If she wet Christmas Eve, with Christmas being what is usually is for most families and with a party that day and an extended trip planned for the next day, it wouldn't be surprising that Patsy didn't change the sheets.
JB's longjohns and panties both had dried urine on the anterior (front) surface. There was no corresponding urine stains on the white blanket (which probably came right out of the basement dryer) so it can be presumed that she did not release the urine after she was wrapped. Then, too, she was found on her back, and the urine stains indicate release while lying on her stomach.

No, I think you are assuming too much.

The longjohns and panties had urine stains. This could have been from when she was taken from her bed or from when she was killed. The white blanket may not have been wrapped around her until after death, or it might have been used to subdue her by wrapping it around her arms, but her bottom half would have been unwrapped due to the sexual assault. The white blanket was probably from her own bed. The urine stain in her bed may have occurred when she was taken from her bed or at any time prior to that.

Interesting that LE didn't check the bed on the morning she was found missing. No surprise, just another thing they missed.

 

[madeleine]

I remember reading somewhere that they found JB's footprints in the basement which means she was alive/standing.Anyone knows anything about this?And weren't her feet dirty?
If all this is true doesn't this mean she was killed in the basement?This changes the scenario completely and makes the bed-wetting theory even more ridiculous.

 

[DeeDee249]

I remember reading somewhere that they found JB's footprints in the basement which means she was alive/standing.Anyone knows anything about this?And weren't her feet dirty?
If all this is true doesn't this mean she was killed in the basement?This changes the scenario completely and makes the bed-wetting theory even more ridiculous.

That's something I read, too, but I am not sure it really happened. I woud have expected to see much more made of it. I would have hoped the coroner would have swabbed the soles of her feet to see it the white mold from the wineceller floor was present, and I don't believe he did. I don't recall seeing that it was ever an issue, and obviously an alive JB standing in the wineceller would be a VERY big issue in the case; that meant she wasn't carried unconscious or dead down the stairs, and increases the likelihood that both the head bash and the strangulation happened in the basement, as JB would have no reason to be in the wineceller that night. And THAT rules out any "toilet rage/slamming into a faucet, sink or tub edge" cause of the head bash. THEN I seen the head bash as happening as a reaction to her scream.

 

[BBB167893]

It's something I just noticed.

Okay.

Nope,not proof,you have their personal opinions.

How is that not proof? These guys are routinely asked for opinions like that because of their expertise. Moreover, even if that doesn't do it for you, there's still the matter of the autopsy report. It clearly lists extensive blood in the head and brain swelling to such an extent that the outer folds were flattened against the skull. Brain swelling takes time.

And there are other experts who disagree.

The vast majority is with me, last I checked.

And you know that Smit is not one of my fav. players in this case but what he says here makes a lot of sense to me.

If you try to apply a garotte or ligature after death, it is white in color.

Q. What is white?

A. Red is before death, the mark that is left by the garotte. Red is before dead. White is after death.

Q. In terms of the marks found on the body of the victim?

A. That is correct.

------------------

The marks are definitely red.

Yes, I've read all of that before. And to me, it illustrates a common, if fundamental, misunderstanding. He assumes (without basis) that staging cannot exist until after the person is factually dead, even though he admits that his own experience with staged crime scenes is VERY limited. Contrast that with his conduct at the Quantico meeting. He could have said something. But he didn't.

And there's also Wecht's explanation which also makes a lot of sense to me.

Wecht's explanation is as follows: "If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying."

I have great respect for Dr. Wecht. I think he has a lot to offer. But unlike those I mentioned, he was not an intimate part of this case. He made his opinion very early on. I'm just saying.

Who said it?

LHP specifically mentioned that the bed looked as if it had been made. Also, it's a very common observation among those posters with kids.

And re leaving the bed so neat,it depends on how the sheets are attached to the mattress I guess.

I don't know. What about the coverings?

I remember reading somewhere that they found JB's footprints in the basement which means she was alive/standing.Anyone knows anything about this?

That's a claim made by two of the Ramseys' private investigators. And we all know by now what their job was. I've not heard any other source make that claim.

And weren't her feet dirty?

I don't know. Although, what kid's aren't?

If all this is true doesn't this mean she was killed in the basement?This changes the scenario completely and makes the bed-wetting theory even more ridiculous.

IF any of it is true, which I doubt. Moreover, who's to say how old the print was, IF it existed? I think DD's got this one spot on.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Okay.

How is that not proof? These guys are routinely asked for opinions like that because of their expertise. Moreover, even if that doesn't do it for you, there's still the matter of the autopsy report. It clearly lists extensive blood in the head and brain swelling to such an extent that the outer folds were flattened against the skull. Brain swelling takes time.

I have great respect for Dr. Wecht. I think he has a lot to offer. But unlike those I mentioned, he was not an intimate part of this case. He made his opinion very early on. I'm just saying.

You mean the other "experts" were present at the autopsy? Is that what "intimate part" of the case means?

"These guys are routinely asked for opinions like that because of their expertise."

Are you suggesting that Wecht isn't quite the expert these others are; are you attempting to imply that he isn't the most sought after forensic pathologist in the world and his opinion isn't valued more than any other in his field?

Don't omit the most relevant fact. They only found one and a half teaspoons of blood in her brain, not nearly enough to support that she wasn't dead or near death when someone brutally and with incredible force cracked her hardened skull bone eight and one half inches long and crushed a large rectangular portion of her skull right into her brain. That type of damage, specifically the detached rectangular piece of bone which separated from the rest of her skull and driven into her brain, takes enormous power.

 

[WHITEFANG]

"In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch."

 

[madeleine]

I don't know. Although, what kid's aren't?

It's important though,no?WHERE she got dirty,in the basement or not.

DeeDee explained it more clearer.

I woud have expected to see much more made of it. I would have hoped the coroner would have swabbed the soles of her feet to see it the white mold from the wineceller floor was present, and I don't believe he did.

 

[WHITEFANG]

It's important though,no?WHERE she got dirty,in the basement or not.

DeeDee explained it more clearer.

SuperDave View Post
I don't know. Although, what kid's aren't?

The key phrase, "I don't know."

 

[BBB167893]

You mean the other "experts" were present at the autopsy? Is that what "intimate part" of the case means?

No, that's not it. But the others had much greater access to the case file. As far as I know, Wecht never had that.

Are you suggesting that Wecht isn't quite the expert these others are; are you attempting to imply that he isn't the most sought after forensic pathologist in the world and his opinion isn't valued more than any other in his field?

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. In fact, he made a few observations I'd like to see you address. That said, he had limited information at the time.

Don't omit the most relevant fact. They only found one and a half teaspoons of blood in her brain, not nearly enough to support that she wasn't dead or near death when someone brutally and with incredible force cracked her hardened skull bone eight and one half inches long and crushed a large rectangular portion of her skull right into her brain.

I didn't omit it at all. It's not a fact; it's been accepted as truth, but that doesn't make it fact. The autopsy specifically describes three separate areas of bleeding. There's more than enough support for it. And even if it WERE fact, don't forget what Kerry Brega said: it's common to get massive skull fractures with hardly any bleeding at all.

That type of damage, specifically the detached rectangular piece of bone which separated from the rest of her skull and driven into her brain, takes enormous power.

Like the kind brought on by an explosion of anger? Don't forget that this was a CHILD's skull.

 

[BBB167893]

It's important though,no?WHERE she got dirty,in the basement or not.

DeeDee explained it more clearer.

DD's just that good.

 

[Bennettras]

Don't omit the most relevant fact. They only found one and a half teaspoons of blood in her brain, not nearly enough to support that she wasn't dead or near death when someone brutally and with incredible force cracked her hardened skull bone eight and one half inches long and crushed a large rectangular portion of her skull right into her brain. That type of damage, specifically the detached rectangular piece of bone which separated from the rest of her skull and driven into her brain, takes enormous power.

BBM

Please define enormous power. Swinging an instrument, perhaps one which has a handle, how-ever-many inches long, and a much heavier, hard end, like a pick axe or hammer for example, takes swinging and gravity, not enormous power.