The Turtleneck Theory

[madeleine]

Did LE take the turtleneck into evidence?

Maybe it had blood on it or something else more incriminating,like sperm or something...
why lie about it and why prepare to wash it in the middle of the night?

 

[UKGuy]

Did LE take the turtleneck into evidence?

Maybe it had blood on it or something else more incriminating,like sperm or something...
why lie about it and why prepare to wash it in the middle of the night?

madeleine,

Exactly, why mention that JonBenet was wearing it to bed then retract it. Something going on here ...


.

 

[Steely]

Steely,
Interesting ideas. For me its staging all the way here. Too many people confuse the staging for crime-scene evidence. Consider the blood-stained pink barbie nightgown which some contend arrived in the wine-cellar via static cling, so then we discover a barbie doll, static cling anyone?

Lets assume a PDI, e.g. a bedwetting scenario. So what does Patsy do with JonBenet's urine-soaked size-6 underwear? Well she washes them out under the tap in the bathroom, then wrings them out by hand and hangs them up to dry. Then she looks in JonBenet's underwear drawer for another pair of size-6's?

What you do not do is make her size-6's vanish and redress her in size-12's, just what is all that about?

All the stuff that is in the wine-cellar but we reckon should not be there, is there for one of two reasons.

1. Its staging plain and simple.

2. Its a prior crime-scene relocated.

If there were not direct evidence of prior molestation e.g close to the time of death, then a PDI seems a reasonable explanation.

As per the autopsy report, and Coroner Meyer's verbatim remarks regarding digital penetration and sexual contact then it seems inescapable that we have a sexually motivated homicide. And not one arising from an accident which is then hidden behind staging.

Patsy's slip regarding the red turtleneck suggests it played a part in her death or the staging?



.

I think the red turtleneck MAY have played a part in her death in what I guess you could call my still developing Christmas Photo Theory and it's spin-off my Curling Iron Theory which is a PR RDI theory which sounds ridiculous when you think about it unless you try to imagine you were PR. It is very similar to LE's bedwetting theory but it involves PR desperately wanting to have Christmas PHOTOS at the house and spills on the red turtleneck and rinsing because she wanted to take that red turtleneck with them for MORE photos so she rinsed it and was going to put it in the drier but...you get the idea. It isn't sexually motivated because like the bed-wetting theory it is a fit of rage and with the Curling Iron sub-theory the physical abuse starts with a curling iron on the face (not a stun gun) and JB grabbing the rod (heart not drawn but a scorch) and the scream from the bathroom and JB somehow hitting her head and then the cover-up because of the BURNS which would be child abuse.

I've written about these theories on some other threads. Before anyone jumps on me...just let me say, I am on the fence and lean towards RDI but I haven't completely ruled out IDI. I'm looking at the evidence and taking one potential suspect and trying to imagine as many possible scenarios that I can which fits with the evidence and what I think might have been the underlying motives for possible actions they may have made. Yep, I'm wildly speculating but with an intent to do so as analytically as possible with the little puzzle pieces we have at our disposal.

As far as being a sexually motivated homicide...I think that is very possible but I haven't ruled out other scenarios where the sexual aspect of this could have been a desperate attempt at staging. From what I know of sexual abuse, I cannot rule out that the prior sexual contact was committed by someone not in the house that night. On the other hand, I can't rule out that the death of Jon Benet was NOT sexually motivated but the person who had the prior contact was in the house that night.

 

[txsvicki]

What if the person who raped JonBenet had been in the home lots of times and had all the stuff needed for that night stashed in the paint tote knowing that it was not going to be used in the next day or so. This person could have had even been in the home and precut the cords in her room and stashed them there under the mattress leaving the cord fibers in the bed. JonBenet's bedwetting got worse in a year's time after she was fully potty trained. I don't think she was strangled with a turtleneck, but with that cord. Maybe she was going to tell who had been bothering her in that past year.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,

Exactly, why mention that JonBenet was wearing it to bed then retract it. Something going on here ...


.

btw I just remembered something.ST says in his book that officer X (sorry don't recall who he is talking about now) handed over his notes (what he wrote that morning in the R home about what was going on there and what the R's answered,etc) way too late,something like one year later?anyone know why?:waitasec:I found that very strange when I read about it.i hope nobody in the DA's office messed with the cops notes,those notes are very important IMO,since they didn't bother to collect the evidence properly....at least those notes should be able to tell us what went on that morning....

 

[DeeDee249]

What if the person who raped JonBenet had been in the home lots of times and had all the stuff needed for that night stashed in the paint tote knowing that it was not going to be used in the next day or so. This person could have had even been in the home and precut the cords in her room and stashed them there under the mattress leaving the cord fibers in the bed. JonBenet's bedwetting got worse in a year's time after she was fully potty trained. I don't think she was strangled with a turtleneck, but with that cord. Maybe she was going to tell who had been bothering her in that past year.

There were NO cord fibers in the bed. There were HEMP ROPE fibers there. There was a rope of that type, which Patsy said BR was always playing with, found in an adjacent bedroom. In her interviews, Patsy mentions BR always dragging a rope around "always trying to make a boat or something" (her words). If BR was playing with it, the fibers would be on the rugs/floors, and easily got into the bed that way.
JB wasn't raped. There was no penetration with a penis or semen found either in her, on her, or anywhere in the crime scene with the exception of semen sourced to JAR on a comforter in the suitcase found in the basement.
Patsy had her housekeeper move the tote to the basement from the Butler's Pantry to make room for a coat rack for the R's party on the 23rd.
I do agree that if someone had been "bothering" her as you put it, she may have been at the point where she was going to tell someone.
She was definitely strangled with the cord that was found around her neck, deep ligature furrow and all, but there is speculation that she may have been strangled FIRST with something else, something softer like a scarf or shirt, and the reason why the ligature was made was to hide that.

 

[txsvicki]

Thanks for clarifying about the rope fibers. I can't seem to find info with all the up to date correct facts in one place. But, I disagree about rape though. She was, (I guess a word, would be) poked and injured with an object thought to be a paint brush handle or could have even been digital. To me, that is rape even if it could have been staging or really sexually motivated.

 

[Toltec]

Toltec,

Sure could be, do you have a source for JonBenet's pink pajama pants ending up in Burke's bedroom?

Must admit these are alike the red turtleneck: they fit in somewhere but where?

.

I read it in one of the interrogations...went through the 1998 one and I am still looking. I want to find it and will post it when I do.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks for clarifying about the rope fibers. I can't seem to find info with all the up to date correct facts in one place. But, I disagree about rape though. She was, (I guess a word, would be) poked and injured with an object thought to be a paint brush handle or could have even been digital. To me, that is rape even if it could have been staging or really sexually motivated.

You are correct in the sense that penetration with something other than a penis would still be considered rape. But some people might be confused, and wonder why no semen was found, etc. Legally, rape would be the act of penetration itself, but I think it confuses things (that are confusing enough) to refer to her sexual assault as rape. By no means, as you are correct, am I suggesting you not use that description- I just prefer not to myself.

 

[otg]

btw I just remembered something.ST says in his book that officer X (sorry don't recall who he is talking about now) handed over his notes (what he wrote that morning in the R home about what was going on there and what the R's answered,etc) way too late,something like one year later?anyone know why?:waitasec:I found that very strange when I read about it.i hope nobody in the DA's office messed with the cops notes,those notes are very important IMO,since they didn't bother to collect the evidence properly....at least those notes should be able to tell us what went on that morning....

Maddie, I think several months or so into the investigation the BPD investigators were ordered to hand over to the DA’s office all their notes, diaries, and personal observations about the case; but the lawyer for the BPD told Beckner not to allow it because of constitutional reasons. If one of them got a little protective of his personal notes after that, I can kind of understand it. Seems like this happened after the DA's office found out that the BPD had gotten the recording of the 911-call enhanced on their own without "getting approval" from the DA first. This was when the two departments were really starting to butt heads.
.

 

[madeleine]

Maddie, I think several months or so into the investigation the BPD investigators were ordered to hand over to the DA’s office all their notes, diaries, and personal observations about the case; but the lawyer for the BPD told Beckner not to allow it because of constitutional reasons. If one of them got a little protective of his personal notes after that, I can kind of understand it. Seems like this happened after the DA's office found out that the BPD had gotten the recording of the 911-call enhanced on their own without "getting approval" from the DA first. This was when the two departments were really starting to butt heads.
.

otg,no I am sure it was something different because ST sounded disappointed,even critical.it was in the same chapter where he talks about Arndt getting flowers from the R's ,basically he points out mistakes officers made.

 

[otg]

otg,no I am sure it was something different because ST sounded disappointed,even critical.it was in the same chapter where he talks about Arndt getting flowers from the R's ,basically he points out mistakes officers made.

I'm looking for it, Maddie. This link will put you at about that spot.
.

 

[madeleine]

found it

page 130,chapter 12

"Although putting Trujillo on evidence would remove him from fieldwork,he seemed to have a problem with priorities,and I was concerned that his slowness in accomplishing tasks might hinder the testing of evidence.For instance,a full year passed before he completed his report on the initial Atlanta trip."

Sorry,the report was about the trip not that morning,still....

and

"The first officer was having difficulty in recollecting ceratin events."

Didn't he take any notes??
wth was wrong with these people????????


this case is DOOMED.

 

[otg]

Maddie, I ran across this news item along the line of police notes that were not turned in. I know it’s not what you were looking for earlier, but I don’t remember hearing this before. After reading it, it leads me to ask a lot of questions. Maybe you and others can think of a few more.


Highlights from: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/811058/detail.html

A former Boulder police detective who supervised Patsy Ramsey's handwriting analysis testified on Thursday she never filed a report on the session.

Linda Arndt also said that she took her notes on the analysis with her when she resigned from the department.

Under cross-examination Thursday by police lawyer Ted Halaby, Arndt said that she did not have time to write a report on Patsy Ramsey's handwriting analysis, although she had reported other events in the investigation.

Patsy Ramsey was tested to see if she was the writer of the ransom note found in the family's home before 6-year-old JonBenet's body was discovered on Dec. 26, 1996.

Halaby said that police did not learn about the existence of Arndt's notes until last year during preparations for the trial of her lawsuit. He said Arndt could have been fired if her superiors knew she was withholding notes.

(my bold)
​

Wait a minute! Patsy “was tested to see if she was the writer of the ransom note before JonBenet’s body was discovered?”

Excuse me, but why was Patsy being tested that early? I suppose if you believe in the innocence of the Ramseys, you might say it was because the police decided early on in their guilt, yada, yada, yada, and never looked for the “real killer”. On the other hand, if you believe in some sort of culpability on the part of the Ramseys, you might say that the police were smart enough to have seen early on through the charade.

But we’re talking here about LA -- the same LA who moved the body a second (or third) time and covered it asking everyone present to join hands in a circle around the body and pray. Why did she ask for handwriting exemplars from Patsy before anyone knew it wasn’t a kidnapping? Was she a handwriting expert or a certified document examiner? (No.) Was she focused like a laser on what was really going on and trying to get to the source of the crime? (I’ll let you decide that for yourself, but my answer would be a resounding “no”.)

Maybe this was after the FBI had been there and suggested they look at the parents. Maybe it was their suggestion that she get handwriting samples. Did she also get samples from John?

And finally, I would ask, did they ever get all of this from her after finding out about it? Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what the first PR handwriting exemplars looked like before JonBenet’s body was “discovered” and before PR and JR knew they were “under an umbrella of suspicion”? Maybe this is the reason an attorney friend said, ”You better get a lawyer, John.”
.

 

[madeleine]

they didn't have time to write their reports...... :banghead:
this is what I was asking about in my new thread.....is this about incompetence or something else cause I CAN'T believe some LE officers are THIS DUMB!!!!! :banghead:
I am getting paranoid but I am starting to believe all these people were bought off cause I can't imagine they were all THAT incompetent and THAT stupid!!!SORRY!

 

[madeleine]

btw,what do we know about this Trujillo guy anyway?
cause ST's depo is full of Trujillo said,Trujillo did,Trujillo was in charge,Trujillo told me.. but on the other hand ST kinda criticized Trujillo in his book.....

 

[madeleine]

seems that Trujillo was in charge of the evidence and everything we heard about the fibers etc comes from his mouths....so who is he,I mean do we know more about him

 

[Toltec]

Wasn't it Trujillo and Arndt who were present at the Autopsy?

 

[DeeDee249]

Wasn't it Trujillo and Arndt who were present at the Autopsy?

Yes, they were both present.

 

[DeeDee249]

btw,what do we know about this Trujillo guy anyway?
cause ST's depo is full of Trujillo said,Trujillo did,Trujillo was in charge,Trujillo told me.. but on the other hand ST kinda criticized Trujillo in his book.....

I think ST wasn't happy about the way Trujillo handled some aspects of the investigation.