What was "The Plan"?

[BlueCrab]

You are saying, the body WAS wiped down, this wasn't an opinion expressed in Thomas' or Arndt's affidavits,this is information directly from the autopsy? I have never seen this, could you please direct me to a source? I do recall, Arndt suggested in an interview that Meyer said it was a possibility, however, so were semen stains at that stage of the investigation.

Sissi,

JonBenet had likely been wiped down by the killer. Page 57, PMPT pb:

"The coroner told the police that the blood smears on the skin and the fibers found in the folds of the labia indicated that the child's pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. The blood smears also contained traces of fibers."

Edited to add that the police thoroughly searched the house and all of the clothing in the house and the source of the dark blue fibers was never found. It is my theory that the source of the fibers on JonBenet was an item of clothing worn by the perp (the fifth person in the house that night, invited in by a Ramsey) and the cloth exited the crime scene when the perp exited the house.

JMO

 

[sissi]

Sissi,

JonBenet had likely been wiped down by the killer. Page 57, PMPT pb:

"The coroner told the police that the blood smears on the skin and the fibers found in the folds of the labia indicated that the child's pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. The blood smears also contained traces of fibers."

Edited to add that the police thoroughly searched the house and all of the clothing in the house and the source of the dark blue fibers was never found. It is my theory that the source of the fibers on JonBenet was an item of clothing worn by the perp (the fifth person in the house that night, invited in by a Ramsey) and the cloth exited the crime scene when the perp exited the house.

JMO

I understand, and this may very well be the truth, however, it is a Stev'ism, nothing in the coroners report has ever said this. Given that most of our information is based on the very book you reference, it is as solid as most of what we believe. Thanks for finding the source.
IMO

 

[Ivy]

K777angel posted:
The note and cord around her wrists and neck were staging. Attempts to HIDE the head blow, sexual abuse and for a time - the body.

I too believe the wrist cords were staging, but I think the neck cord was used to strangle her. I think the strangulation occurred very close in time to the head blow...so close, in fact, as to be nearly simultaneous with it.

I believe BDI and that John and Patsy may not have known about the head blow. Regardless, I don't think the neck cord was placed after death to draw attention away from the invisible head blow or the nearly invisible signs of sexual abuse. Why would the killer, no matter who it was, want to draw attention away from the head blow, and how would strangling JonBenet's dead body draw attention away from the signs of sexual abuse? Anyway, as I said, I believe the neck cord was instrumental in her death. I do not believe that John and Patsy defiled JonBenet's body in any way when they staged the scene.

imo

 

[BlueCrab]

I too believe the wrist cords were staging, but I think the neck cord was used to strangle her. I think the strangulation occurred very close in time to the head blow...so close, in fact, as to be nearly simultaneous with it.

Ivy,

Neither the rope around the neck nor the rope around the wrists were staging.

JonBenet was a victim of erotic asphyxiation, an extremely dangerous masturbation technique, and both ligatures are normally needed to perform EA. The neck ligature cuts off air to the brain during the orgasm, thus enhancing the orgasm, and the wrist ligature keeps the subject from involuntarily ripping off the neck ligature at the last minute and thus ruining the enhanced orgasm.

There's tons of EA (two people, one masturbating the other) and AEA (one person masturbating solo) information on the web. Please read some of it. Just type Erotic Asphyxiation or Autoerotic Asphyxiation into your search engine. The JonBenet case cannot be properly understood until people accept the fact that the device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was for erotic asphyxiation sex, and it likely killed her.

JMO

 

[Ivy]

BC, I recall reading some Internet info on EA techniques...and you may be right that the wrist cords were not staging either, if the sexual play that led to JonBenet's death was EA.

imo

 

[sissi]

Ivy,

Neither the rope around the neck nor the rope around the wrists were staging.

JonBenet was a victim of erotic asphyxiation, an extremely dangerous masturbation technique, and both ligatures are normally needed to perform EA. The neck ligature cuts off air to the brain during the orgasm, thus enhancing the orgasm, and the wrist ligature keeps the subject from involuntarily ripping off the neck ligature at the last minute and thus ruining the enhanced orgasm.

There's tons of EA (two people, one masturbating the other) and AEA (one person masturbating solo) information on the web. Please read some of it. Just type Erotic Asphyxiation or Autoerotic Asphyxiation into your search engine. The JonBenet case cannot be properly understood until people accept the fact that the device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was for erotic asphyxiation sex, and it likely killed her.

JMO

You are right, this was AE, it was practiced by the perp as indicated by his very intricate knots ,choice of cord, closure of the ends, and length as demonstrated from paintbrush to neck to wrists. (I believe they were cut at some point in a resuscitation effort.) I am not certain this murder took place in the Ramsey home. Because there is no area to match her urine stains,not on a carpet ,basement surface, or her bed, I believe she was returned dead. Has anyone considered two perps living very nearby, one dropping off the note through the opened butler door, while the other hides her body in the "wine cellar". Why weren't the neighbors interviewed? Isn't this how they discovered Westerfield's involvement in the Danielle case?
IMO

 

[Ivy]

sissi...that the knots were intricate is a fallacy. My sons, who were in Cub Scouts when they were 9 going on 10 like Burke was when JonBenet died, could both tie knots lots more complex than those knots. My eldest could tie fancy knots behind his back, using cooked spaghetti for cord. Another thing... there's nothing peculiar or special about the type of cord used on JonBenet or in the way the ends were finished. If there was any cord left, any of the three Ramseys could easily have removed it from the house and discarded it, since none of the three was searched before they left the house that morning. I've always found it suspicious that John took two walks that evening...one with his friends and one by himself. He could easily have gotten rid of any excess cord, along with other evidence.

Do you really think that someone actually removed JonBenet from the house, then killed her and returned her body? How, pray tell? Think of the logistics such an undertaking would involve. But mostly, why, pray tell? Once the body was discovered, there'd be no ransom money.

imo

 

[lannie]

This is interesting ,Sally, if you were the intruder or Patsy , where would you place the ransom note. While hundreds of details have been hashed over (and over )since 1996, I don't recall this particular issue being addressed.
If I wanted it to look like an intruder I would place the note on the child's bed. Most parents would look carefully in a child's room if the child hadn't answered their calls.
Early on, in an interview, Linda Pugh said Patsy would often leave purses and other items on these steps ,items she wished to have carried upstairs. I would expect a Pugh or anyone that knew Patsy's habits to leave it on the steps, but I don't believe Patsy would have done this.
imo

as you stated sally (patsy was in the habit of placing things on the steps )that she wanted taken care of ,she was in a panic that early morning & did this placing of note from habit .it made no sence to any one else but to Patsy it was how she did things.

 

[K777angel]

Sissi maybe this will help. From the Affadavit for Search Warrant:

Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the area of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area.
Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth."

 

[K777angel]

This is what the affadavit says regarding fibers and hair Dr. Meyer found on JonBenet:

"Det. Arndt stated to your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair on the outside of the shirt.
Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased. Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber."

Nowhere have I seen that these fibers are called "blue" though. Just "dark."

And it states "hair" - not just "a hair." Dark. Wonder if any had it's roots?
You can extract DNA if a hair has it's follicle intact.

 

[TLynn]

I remember reading that the fibers on JonBenet were consistent with the comforter found in the suitcase. Not a match, as it can't be a scientific match - but consistent with.

 

[BlueCrab]

And it states "hair" - not just "a hair." Dark. Wonder if any had it's roots?
You can extract DNA if a hair has it's follicle intact.

Angel,

DNA can now be extracted from a hair without the root intact by using mitochondrial DNA testing.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

I remember reading that the fibers on JonBenet were consistent with the comforter found in the suitcase. Not a match, as it can't be a scientific match - but consistent with.

TLynn,

You are apparently right about the "dark" fibers on JonBenet's inner thighs and labia being BLACK, and not dark blue. I can't find the source for the fibers being dark blue.

Black fibers from John Ramsey's black shirt were found in the crotch of JonBenet's panties. But those black fibers are apparently different than the numerous "dark" fibers found on JonBenet's inner thighs and in the folds of her labia from the wiping down.

If the fibers on the thighs and labia are black, but not the fibers from John's black shirt, then it seems that John Andrew's black and gold comforter, which was in the blue suitcase found in the basement, was the likely source of the "missing" cloth that was used to wipe down JonBenet.

The blue suitcase contained JAR's black and gold comforter and pillow sham from his bed, and a Dr. Seuss book. JAR's semen was on the comforter.

I think JonBenet was sexually molested and killed in the basement while lying on the black and gold comforter.

JMO

 

[sissi]

There were brown fibers on the tape as well as the red and other fibers about which we have no information. The hair on the tape was described as a hair from a beaver, other hairs on her hands have been described as "animal",however ,no source for these has been revealed. ( don't ya think think know....of course they do..it's one of the few "holdouts" leading to a perp) IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

,

I think JonBenet was sexually molested and killed in the basement while lying on the black and gold comforter.

JMO

TLynn,

I know that John Andrew Ramsey has been your main suspect for a long time.

Are you aware of the telephone conversation that was overheard that stated Patsy Ramsey "swung" at the perp because HE was "doing it again" and accidentally hit JonBenet? It could not be determined who "HE" was from the overheard conversation. Could it have been JAR?

That was an EA device wrapped around JonBenet's neck, and JAR was at the age of most practitioners of erotic asphyxiation (teens and in the twenties).

Under these circumstances the whole Ramsey family might have cooperated to cover up the truth of what really happened.

I know JAR has what seems to be an ironclad alibi, but I wonder. It was JAR's blue suitcase; It was JAR's comforter and pillow sham from his bed (the crime scene photo of JAR's bedroom shows the comforter and sham missing); It was JAR's semen on the comforter; a Dr. Seuss childrens' book in JAR's suitcase; and fibers from JAR's comforter were found on JonBenet's inner thighs and in the folds of her labia. It all sure looks suspicious.

JMO

 

[K777angel]

TLynn,

I know that John Andrew Ramsey has been your main suspect for a long time.

Are you aware of the telephone conversation that was overheard that stated Patsy Ramsey "swung" at the perp because HE was "doing it again" and accidentally hit JonBenet? It could not be determined who "HE" was from the overheard conversation. Could it have been JAR?

That was an EA device wrapped around JonBenet's neck, and JAR was at the age of most practitioners of erotic asphyxiation (teens and in the twenties).

Under these circumstances the whole Ramsey family might have cooperated to cover up the truth of what really happened.

I know JAR has what seems to be an ironclad alibi, but I wonder. It was JAR's blue suitcase; It was JAR's comforter and pillow sham from his bed (the crime scene photo of JAR's bedroom shows the comforter and sham missing); It was JAR's semen on the comforter; a Dr. Seuss childrens' book in JAR's suitcase; and fibers from JAR's comforter were found on JonBenet's inner thighs and in the folds of her labia. It all sure looks suspicious.

JMO

Whoa, whoa! Now there is absolutely no indication or source at all that the black fibers found on JonBenet from being wiped down were from that comforter in the suitcase! The police knew the comforter was there, knew there were black fibers found on JonBenet, knew it had John Andrew's semen stains on it - AND - he is plenty old enough to arrest and convict. Yet he wasn't arrested. Because he is NOT the perp.
Secondly, just where did you get this information that the comforter and pillow sham were 'missing' from John Andrew's bed? I've seen the police photo too. There was definitely a comforter on that bed. Black striped.
I do not think it was THAT blanket in the suitcase.

Also, and very importantly - in order to consider John Andrew as a suspect in JonBenet's death, you must ignore very important evidence.
Patsy Ramsey's jacket fibers were found ENTWINED in the cord wrapped around JonBenet's neck. Very damaging factual evidence against her. Those same fibers were also found in the paint tote where the paintbrush was taken from and broken. She obviously was involved in the 'garrote' part of the crime/staging. Do you really think she would help cover up for John Andrew?
No way in hades! He was in college. And not only that - he was IN ATLANTA at the time of the murder. And he came to Boulder the next day.
Don't you think if he somehow snuck to Boulder from Atlanta during the night (this is so ridiculous) just to molest JonBenet - and he ended up KILLING her - that he would stay AWAY and not return to Boulder? (after he snuck back to Atlanta during the night of course).
I do not think his sister, friends, mother in Atlanta would all lie for him. They'd have to KNOW what he did in order to know they needed to lie for him.
No way. Didn't happen. Too much evidence pointing to those 3 in the house that night.
I mean - what would be the point of lying about Burke being awake during the 911 call if he had nothing to do with it all and why would they NEED him to be "asleep" through it all and spiritied away from it all and the cops probing questions if he was not involved?

Where did you read about Patsy's overheard phone conversation about him "doing it again" and swinging at him? This theory went around early on and the police considered it as well. Couldn't "him" - in fact be John afterall?
Don't you find it interesting that of all the slander and libel lawsuits the Ramseys have filed - not a one has been on behalf of John Ramsey??
And I am reminded of what Alex Hunter said. He said, "You'd be very surprised at who the focus of the investigation" was, or ended up being.
The majority of the public think that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter.
We'd not be surprised at that.
It WOULD be a surprise however if it were John or Burke. The only two that I can see Patsy covering for. Which she did.

 

[Ivy]

The ATM photo of JAR shows he was in Atlanta when JonBenet died. The photo wasn't crystal clear, but forensic analysts can compare measurements (distance between the eyes, width of nose bridge, length of nose, distance between cheek bones, etc.) to identify idividuals from photos.

It makes no sense whatsoever to think JAR made a quick, logistically difficult, if not impossible, trip to Boulder to molest JonBenet, or molest her with the plan to then kill her, and then high-tail it back to Atlanta, only to leave for Boulder again right away. If he wanted at her, he could have waited till they were all in Michigan.

JAR told LE he thought forgiveness would be the proper punishment for the killer. JAR knew BDI. That's why he said that.

imo

 

[K777angel]

The ATM photo of JAR shows he was in Atlanta when JonBenet died. The photo wasn't crystal clear, but forensic analysts can compare measurements (distance between the eyes, width of nose bridge, length of nose, distance between cheek bones, etc.) to identify idividuals from photos.

It makes no sense whatsoever to think JAR made a quick, logistically difficult, if not impossible, trip to Boulder to molest JonBenet, or molest her with the plan to then kill her, and then high-tail it back to Atlanta, only to leave for Boulder again right away. If he wanted at her, he could have waited till they were all in Michigan.

JAR told LE he thought forgiveness would be the proper punishment for the killer. JAR knew BDI. That's why he said that.

imo

Exactly Ivy. If JAR wanted to molest JonBenet - he had plenty of opportunity awaiting him in Michigan. It's just crazy talk to think the perp was him.

My #1 suspect still is Burke. But I am aware there could be some evidence we do not know about that may point to John. I just doubt it. I don't see it.
All the actions of the Ramseys - and inactions where expected - FIT with a BDI theory.
The bottom line is this: The Boulder Police, I believe, KNOW the killer of JonBenet Ramsey was one of the 3 members of her family that was in the house that night. They KNOW the crime scene was staged to cover up for that person. What they cannot PROVE (<---- the operative word here) beyond a reasonable doubt, is WHO did WHAT. You MUST be able to do that in order to charge someone. And because Burke Ramsey was not even "chargeable" under Colorado law - if he were indeed discovered to have been the perp, no one else could then be charged as an "accessory" either.
And the Boulder District Attorney's office knew that the Ramseys high-powered lawyers would rip their case to shreds in a trial with all the mess they made of the crime scene (not being secured) and with the shennanigans and unethical behavior on Alex Hunter's part (when he was in cahoots with a tabloid journalist!). Hunter knew that and did not want to put HIMSELF through that kind of embarassement as well.
So - they had no choice but to shelve the case. ONLY because it could not stand up in a trial against Haddon, Morgan and friends.
NOT because they do not KNOW who the killer and stagers were.
Sad. No justice (in this life) for that little girl.

 

[twizzler333]

Do you have to put actual undeniable facts in a lawsuit when filing it or can you put what you believe to be the facts?

 

[TLynn]

Just when you think you're out of it - they suck you back in. JAR is top of my list of suspects and, yes, he has an "alibi" but not one that was pounded by the police.

The fibers on JonBenet were consistent with the JAR comforter (according to either the CBI or FBI, can't remember which) - and as Bluecrab mentions - all the crime scene elements are related to JAR - including his SEMEN. To completely ignore that is what's ridiculous.

When you state Patsy Ramsey's fibers were found in the cord - the same "consistent with" applies - you cannot scientifically "match" fibers.

I don't know of a telephone conversation being overheard (I'd like more info) but I do remember that the FBI's theory is that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet, went to swing at him with the flashlight, but hit JonBenet instead - and that started the cover-up.

There is no picture of JAR at an ATM - that picture circulated the internet (it showed no face and then disappeared), it was not evidence. The EVIDENCE was a receipt that JAR's lawyer gave to the police. It was a dated, timed, ATM paper receipt.

Now, what college kid (or adult for that matter) keeps an ATM receipt for cash withdrawal (not a deposit, mind you) for over a month? Perhaps, someone who needed it as an alibi...?

JAR's motive would not have been "molestation" as posted (why not wait until Michigan, etc.) - it would have been more like a couple of college kids, having seen the move "Ransom" (JAR stated it resembled his family), being drunk/drugs (which is in JAR's history) and obnoxious one night and conjuring up the whole scenario.

The three boys were all from Atlanta and went to school in Boulder (small foreign faction), one was a pilot and lived near the Jeffco Airport.

The morning of the murder, John asked Archuletta how long it would take the plane to get ready to fly to Atlanta - Archuletta stated a "couple of hours." WHY? The plane was ready to leave that morning for Michigan....

Archuletta was NOT at the airport when John called -- he had to return the call. Archuletta now owns John's plane (did Archuletta fly JAR back to Atlanta). If you've read DOI, John certainly uses private planes and they have played "cat and mouse" with them.

John brags (DOI) how incompetent the BPD were and uses the fact that they did NOT check his plane hangars. (I do believe they only checked maintenance records for one plane).

Of course, Patsy would cover for JAR....John lost Beth, John lost JonBenet - could/would Patsy allow for John to lose another child? And the black cloud that would always hang over their family?

The neighbor Barnhill said he saw JAR arrive at the house that afternoon (only changed his story AFTER JR's "defense building" detectives got at him). And if it wasn't JAR - why wasn't this "stranger" approaching the house the number one suspect?! Why wasn't that followed through...instead of swept under a rug and forgotten about...

John got an attorney for JAR, Melinda and ex-wife - yet, Patsy's side of the family was unrepresented. The police weren't allowed to speak to them.

A deal was made to "clear" JAR and Melinda as a negotiating tool for a Ramsey interview. Why was that so important, if the alibi was so tight.

Why the sudden change of plans for Christmas to be in Charlevoix? Perhaps, JAR was caught molesting JonBenet earlier and he was "kicked out" of the house. That would explain the "incest" in the dictionary and the reason JAR's bedroom is called the "Guest Room." Melinda's room stayed "Melinda's Room." Why did JAR no longer have a room in that house?

And, if JAR's "forgiveness" statement was for Burke - who told him Burke was the culprit? Do you think Patsy and John would reveal that - and when...? When they were sitting in the car with Melinda's boyfriend (forgot his name for now). NOPE! When they were surrounded by friends? NOPE.

Why did JAR's friend (Brad, I believe) volunteer he once slept in JonBenet's bed (was he afraid of trace evidence being found).

JAR and/or his college buddies are viable suspects - and should've been looked at harder. PMPT quotes the police as believing there was a window of opportunity - and keep in mind the time difference between the two states.

There are certainly pieces missing from the puzzle of this murder...