cynic,
I agree, I included the LHP quote for completeness, since if the size-12's were in JonBenet's bedroom then it would make the sourcing a less difficult question.
.
The Wine Cellar
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195- Latest: girlhasnoname
cynic,
I agree, I included the LHP quote for completeness, since if the size-12's were in JonBenet's bedroom then it would make the sourcing a less difficult question.
.
qtc
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- -1
bold is mine...
so, did LE find "days of the week" panties in JB underwear drawer that were in her size? I am just wondering...
Wonder why she would want to keep both sets, since it would be years before she could fit in them properly.
Unfortunately it's not clear what PR purchased and we have no source to tell us what was specifically found by LE, other than the fact that 15 pairs of panties were removed from the home during the execution of 2 search warrants.
I also addressed the issue, to some degree, in the middle of this post:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6162441&postcount=264"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - If JonBenet's death was an accident...[/ame]
I truly believe that the size 12/14 undies were not there that morning to be found, for a reason. I can see the person responsible for putting them on JonBenet, being in a hurry to complete their task. It was a gruesome task for a parent to have to stage their daughter following a murder in their own home. I am sure they also knew WHO was responsible and all the details involved.
If I were in a hurry, after wiping down BLOOD from my 6 year old daughters genital area, I would be overwrought and not thinking at all clearly. I would most likely have opened the package, taken out a pair and may have noticed, or thought it possible that there were finger prints or DNA evidence, possibly JonBenets blood, on the package. That simply wouldn't do. So, what to do? Make that package disappear and buy another to be turned in later. I felt the size 12 pair of undies was a good argument for IDI. I am STILL astounded that the R's turned them in. I know I keep saying that, but it is truly amazing if you really think about it.
I said this the other day, so I agree with you 100%. From having Patsy write the letter, then later saying he thought it was written by a woman, putting the size 12's on JonBenet, not something that a Mother would do as well as the fact that PATSY bought them. How and why should he know about gift undies?
Moving JAR's suitcase and making sure that everyone and their Uncle knew it was JAR'S, lawyering up HIS family, but not Patsys. Everything John did was to try and deflect from himself. If someone else got sold down the river, so be it.
This is a situation of 'thou protests too much'. Lies, discrepancies, odd actions, selling those that are loyal to you down the river. He is an evil man imho. I think Patsy was compliant with the plan, as it kept her out of jail.
Sorry, I'll back off now.:banghead:
txsvicki
Active Member
About the posted transcript between John and Lou Smit: I've never been able to figure out exactly what is being discussed. I know that there was a chair propped against the wine cellar door, but what is meant by having to move the chair and step over things, move it back, and having to step over things to get out? Do they mean that there were things previously blocking the little hall going to the wine cellar door, and everything was put back into the same disorder after the "intruder" left JonBenet inside?
No. I'll try to explain it so you can picture it in your mind. As you walk down the basement stairs, you look straight ahead at the laundry area, and the door to the WC. The laundry area us cluttered with 2 golf bags, artificial Christmas decorations, etc. To the right, unseen in that photo, is the area where the paint tote was found and a closed door to the room the Rs called the "train room" (because the train set was kept set up in there- the kids always played in that room). It is this door which LS and JR are discussing. This is also the room where the suitcase was found, and where the broken window was found. In FRONT of this CLOSED door, was a chair. If the "intruder" had come IN that way (through the broken window), they would have had to push the chair out of the way through a closed door (easy enough- just push the door out). I have to question whether such a person would have then took the time to put the chair back.
BUT if the "intruder" got OUT that way (which is what LS said) then, we have a problem- because how do you close a door behind you and then pull a chair against it through a CLOSED door? When LE asked JR about that, he said the intruder was able to do it because he was "clever". Right.
One thing I want to clarify about that broken window- we are talking about a SMALL piece of glass that JR admitted he broke that previous summer and they never fixed. We are not talking about a hole in the window large enough for a person to climb through. Put that along with the fact that the heavy window grate (which would have been quite noisy to move) was covered with an UNBROKEN spider web.
LS had a hard time squeezing in that window- it would have been so much harder to go OUT that way, not to mention that the suitcase would have fallen over as soon as someone tried to climb on it.
There were plenty of unlocked doors in the house. No one went in or out that window. No one went in or out the doors either. The killer had no need to leave. They lived there.
Agatha_C
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,309
- Reaction score
- 23
Excellent DeeDee,
I've always wondered how JR climbed through that window in his underwear, with all those little and big pieces of broken glass and didnt cut himself? Or removed his pants and not his shoes!
JR had some awesome super powers. He had super duper powers. He could see and reach through walls and closed doors. Crawl through broken glass and remove his pants like a Chippendale's dancer ( hey if I had to suffer the visual so do you).
This was more than divine intervention it was a pact with the devil.
Just like Charlie Sheen! WINNING! (NOT)
Here is a recap of JRs statements about the issue from his 1998 interview
JOHN RAMSEY: I came down the stairs. I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked. We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door. Some old things. I moved the chair, went into this room, went back in here. This window was open, maybe that far.
LOU SMIT: And was there lighting down there or anything at that time?
JOHN RAMSEY: I don't specifically, I don't remember that it was on. The lights were probably off, which would have been normal.
LOU SMIT: How would you have been able to basement with the lights off, or was it
JOHN RAMSEY: With the lights off at night it would have been hazardous because there's a lot of junk piled in here. This door was kind of blocked with boxes and a little chair. And you could move the chair and then walk right in. But it would have been pitch black; it would have been tough.
LOU SMIT: Did you say you had to move that chair to get in?
JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, when I came down, I mean, one of the things I noticed, okay, that door is still blocked?
MIKE KANE: What do you mean it was blocked?
JOHN RAMSEY: Well, there were some boxes and there was like a barstool kind of thing sitting there. It wasn't obvious to me that anybody had gone through because I had to move the chair to get in, which I did. And then I came back in here and I noticed the window was broken, which fits from when I did it. But the window was open slightly.
LOU SMIT: I wanted to direct your attention, if you could, John. This photograph 71, and
especially in the entryways there and into the various rooms. Now this must have been taken fairly early on the morning of the 26th.
Can you describe what you see there? Is there anything out of place or is there anything
different from the way you remember it. Because you said you went down into that area.
JOHN RAMSEY: What is difference is, I think that the door is blocked by this drum table.
Here's the chair I said was brought to the door. And it's not. I moved the chair to get into the door. If this was taken before I was down there -- well I put it back. When I went down there, that chair was kind of blocking that entrance right there. And there was something else on the other side, whatever it was. But all I had to do was move that chair, then I walked into the room.
LOU SMIT: That's the first time down?
JOHN RAMSEY: Right. In this picture here, I would have had to move that drum table and the Easter basket in that room. So that's different.
LOU SMIT: So you say that that's been moved. Which way would you say that's been moved?
JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember the Easter baskets there at all. But it would have had to
have been moved. The drum table was over, and the chair was also blocking the door.
LOU SMIT: So do you think that the chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?
JOHN RAMSEY: Correct.
LOU SMIT: In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the training room, gets out, let's say, that window?
JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
LOU SMIT: How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?
JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know. All I'm saying is, that is different than when I went down there.
LOU SMIT: Okay, let's say that you go down there?
JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm. All I want to show is that that chair was kind of sitting right in
here, and there was something else here. I don't know what it was. It could have been that
(INAUDIBLE).
LOU SMIT: You go down, that's what you see?
JOHN RAMSEY: I go down, I say, ooh, that door is blocked. I move the chair and went in the room.
LOU SMIT: So you couldn't have gotten in without moving the chair?
JOHN RAMSEY: Correct.
LOU SMIT: But when you went to the train room, you had move these things in order to get into the train room?
JOHN RAMSEY: Right. I had to move the chair.
LOU SMIT: The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him.
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. That's correct.
LOU SMIT: Because that would have been his exit?
JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
LOU SMIT: Okay.
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It was blocked. He'd have to move something to get into the room.
LOU SMIT: And he would have had to move it back, if he was in there trying to get out, is that correct?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
LOU SMIT: So that's not very logical as far as
JOHN RAMSEY: I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny little clues around, they certain are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left.
At the foot of the stairs to the basement, there is a door to the immediate left which is to a washroom. Directly ahead and slightly to the left is a door leading to a hallway that has the wine cellar at the end.
Directly ahead and slightly to the right is a door leading to the train room.
To the right is a hallway with a few doors leading to a laundry room and storage rooms.
At one point in the interview JR deviates from his generic description of chair to describing a barstool kind of thing as the object which blocked the train room entrance. He also refers to boxes in front of the door.
In the graphic below I used a picture of a chair to illustrate the area, although in reality it may have been a barstool.
Unfortunately there are no publicly available pictures of the area in front of the train room, but the basement was by all accounts a somewhat cluttered mess.
The shot of the hallway leading to the wine cellar gives us some idea of the clutter that was around.
I think that some of where I differ from your characterizations centers around semantics.
Staging, as defined by profilers, refers to “when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of police. There are two reasons why someone employs staging, to redirect the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim's or victim's family.”
In this case a prime example of staging, from an RDI perspective, is the ransom note.
Undoing, which is a subset of staging, refers to actions taken by the perpetrator of a crime to help reduce feelings of remorse through activities which often take the form of comforting or cleaning the victim.
Again, technically, the entire home is what I would refer to as the crime scene.
The fact that JBR was discovered in the wine cellar does not make it the crime scene.
Generally then, since there were elements of staging, (such as the ransom note,) this was a staged crime scene.
I think many RDI proponents believe that much of what happened to JBR happened elsewhere, as do I.
Quite the contrary, these are elements that would serve the purpose of “comforting” JonBenet, and consequently fall under the category of undoing.
I can’t say that is not true, however, JR didn’t say that these things were wrapped in the blanket with JBR, they may have been beside the blanket, for example.
FW may have walked in the room after JR had unwrapped JBR from the blanket and may be unable to provide any help with this issue, regardless, we have no statements from him on the matter either.
It doesn’t matter to me whether they were inside, or just outside the blanket, they would still qualify as undoing.
Absolutely, that’s why I don’t put them in that category; they are all elements of undoing.
I agree, there was a ransom note and an alleged kidnapping; therefore JBR had to be “missing.”
The point of undoing, however, is that if a parent committed this crime it’s quite unlikely that they would leave JBR naked or “uncomfortable.”
I agree that this was simply the final resting place.
Perhaps, who knows? It may be just as likely that a blanket was laid down in the wine cellar, JBR laid on top, and the blanket wrapped around as we discussed in an earlier post.
Could be, but as per my point above, certain things may have been “assembled” in the wine cellar as well.
Given that the paint tote was just outside the wine cellar on a carpeted floor, there is evidence to suggest that some of the final elements of staging and undoing happened there.
He couldn't have reached it without a chair. JR said he use the latch to keep the kids out of there (the WC). But as we all know...there WAS a chair.
Thanks DeeDee.
The chair is a baffler.
Not much of a barricade,
maybe in the mind of a child.
Why aren't there any overt clues pointing to JR,
if the IDI was purposely dispensing clues?
or did I miss those particular items?
The chair is a baffler.
Not much of a barricade,
maybe in the mind of a child.
Why aren't there any overt clues pointing to JR,
if the IDI was purposely dispensing clues?
or did I miss those particular items?
Agatha_C
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,309
- Reaction score
- 23
And a suitcase!!!
I can't imagine that type of lock keeping a child, a couple of weeks away from his 10th birthday, out of a room. A 6 year old, yes.
As far as clues pointing directly to JR, his Israeli sweater fibers, his open, circled bible passage, the fact he states he carried JonBenet up to bed and lied about Burke being awake during the 911 phone call. That's just off the top of my head.
His methods of deflection, concern me more.
As far as clues pointing directly to JR, his Israeli sweater fibers, his open, circled bible passage, the fact he states he carried JonBenet up to bed and lied about Burke being awake during the 911 phone call. That's just off the top of my head.
His methods of deflection, concern me more.
Cynic,
Douglas and Munn (1992) Define the concept of staging which other literature considers unacceptable. e.g.
page 251
According to Brent Turvey, what makes this definition so problematic for other researchers is that the actions of those individuals protecting the victim or or the victims family do not have criminal intent!
For staging to occur, a whole new set of circumstances must be intentionally rendered through the actions of an offender, not merely the concealment of evidence and/or circumstances.
Much of what may be described as undoing I prefer to term as a Precautionary Act which are behaviors committed by an offender before, during, or after an offense that are concsiously intended to confuse, hamper, or defeat investigative or forensic efforts for the purposes of concealing their identity, their connection to the crime, or the crime itself.
As much as possible I try to avoid technical terms. In crime scene literature a Secondary Scene is any location where there may be evidence of criminal activity outside of the Primary Scene. A Primary Scene is where the offender engaged in the majority of their attack or assault on the victim. So it is in this sense that I do not consider the wine-cellar a staged crime-scene e.g. its status is that of a Secondary Scene. And in the Ramsey household there is more than one Secondary Scene.
You may be correct, but this is not an interpretation I would place upon those items. I prefer to view these items arriving in the wine-cellar as the result of a precautionary act. Also some of the elements used in the staging fall under the category of opportunistic e.g. the garrote.
Quite and these appear to me as both precautionary and opportunistic in nature.
The size-12 Bloomingdale underwear that JonBenet was discovered wearing at the autopsy. Do these represent undoing?
.
Yes there has been some quibbling about semantics amongst a few profilers.
There is no disagreement, however, with the primary definition of staging which is to redirect the investigation away from the most logical suspect.
In the JonBenet case, staging was for the purpose of redirecting the investigation away from the logical suspects, the family.
The ransom note, the clearest example of staging, introduced a fictional intruder or intruders for police to pursue.
“Undoing” shares nothing in common with “precautionary acts.”
Turvey and others describe precautionary acts as including; disguises, gloves, voice alteration, use of a blindfold on the victim, commission of a crime under cover of darkness and or in a secluded location, removing and or destroying evidence etc.
The point of precautionary acts is self preservation. The perpetrator is taking action to reduce the possibility of getting caught or prosecuted for the crime.
An example of a precautionary act in the Ramsey case would be wiping down the flashlight and the batteries within.
Undoing, on the other hand, is all about remorse. A parent involved in the death of their child, especially if it was accidental would be very likely to experience deep remorse.
Although it is not inevitable that they would resort to acts of undoing to help cope with their remorse, it is probable and profilers have documented a number of such incidents over the years.
Doing positive things for the victim becomes a psychological “salve” for a hurting conscience.
Placing a toy or doll near a child, wrapping them up for comfort, cleaning a wound, this has nothing to do with misdirecting police, or precaution, it has everything to do with making the perpetrator feel better about the horrific act that they have just committed.
I agree that technical terminology can serve to bog us down rather than be helpful in some instances. That being said, rooms or areas within a home are not divided into primary and secondary crime scenes, to the best of my knowledge. I remember discussing this with respect to a hypothetical involving JonBenet being transported away from the home and her body being dumped or buried. In this case the home would be the primary crime scene and the vehicle and burial site would be secondary crime scenes.
Distinguishing between primary and secondary crime scenes:
There may be more to a crime scene than first meets the eye. In fact, more than one crime scene may exist, depending upon how the crime was committed — not to mention where. Crime scenes therefore are considered either primary or secondary. The primary crime scene is where a crime actually occurred. A secondary crime scene is in some way related to the crime but is not where the actual crime took place.
In a bank robbery, for example, the bank is the primary scene, but the get-away car and the thief's hideout are secondary scenes. In the case of a killer who commits a murder in someone's home but transports the victim's body to a river for disposal, the victim's home is the primary scene, and the killer's vehicle and the point along the river where the body was dumped are secondary scenes.
Forensics: Assessing the Scene of the Crime, Douglas P. Lyle
I agree, many items would be included. This was not a premeditated crime; items were utilized from within the home as they were needed.
Yes, redressing is a common act of undoing.
I guess my bottom line is this. Whoever did this to JonBenet could have left a significantly bloodied, semi-nude corpse laying on cold, dusty, mildewy concrete floor surrounded by nothing familiar, or perhaps even dumped outside.
This would actually be “better” staging as it would point with greater clarity toward an intruder as outlined in the RN, someone with no emotional investment in JonBenet.
Instead she was cleaned up, redressed, covered and comforted.
Why? I contend it’s for the same reason as in the following case.
The following case exemplifies undoing. A son stabbed his mother to death during a fierce argument. After calming down, the son realized the full impact of his actions. First, he changed the victim’s bloodied shirt and then placed her body on the couch with her head on a pillow. He covered her with a blanket and folded her hands over her chest so she appeared to be sleeping peacefully. This behavior indicated his remorse by attempting to emotionally undo the murder. Other forms of undoing may include the offender’s washing up, cleaning the body, covering the victim’s face, or completely covering the body. The offender engages in these activities not because he is attempting to hide the victim but because he may be feeling some degree of remorse.
Crime Classification Manual, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, page 34
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
are there two stagers in this case?
the RN seems to be written by a cold blooded calculated person who knew she/he needs something in order to divert attention (planning,calculation)
then we have JB wrapped in a blanket.
i don't think the same person did both
i think the one who wiped off JB's body and redressed her was the calculated one.doesn't matter how it happened,it can't be easy,there are people who just can't/wouldn't do it.
but that had to be done also,to remove evidence.
so I guess what I wanna say is,IMO
one wrote the note,cleaned and redressed JB (PR)
and the other one wrapped her in the blanket (sign of remorse,love,whatever) and IMO this person was JR.
the RN seems to be written by a cold blooded calculated person who knew she/he needs something in order to divert attention (planning,calculation)
then we have JB wrapped in a blanket.
i don't think the same person did both
i think the one who wiped off JB's body and redressed her was the calculated one.doesn't matter how it happened,it can't be easy,there are people who just can't/wouldn't do it.
but that had to be done also,to remove evidence.
so I guess what I wanna say is,IMO
one wrote the note,cleaned and redressed JB (PR)
and the other one wrapped her in the blanket (sign of remorse,love,whatever) and IMO this person was JR.