EA

[UKGuy]

BBM

I apologize for posting this concept in different threads, but here goes.

Staging is only applicable if the stager wanted someone else to find it. Since a RN was found, the logical assumption is that the evidence in the WC was not meant to be found (at least not in the Ramsey house).

If anything in the WC was indeed manipulated to confuse investigators, I believe the stager expected the body to eventually be found in its new location....a brain teaser all in itself.

WhereAreTheyNow,
I am not certain your premise is valid (bbm). There was multiple staging in this case and its primary purpose was to remove forensic evidence which included JonBenet's body.

The Ransom Note offers a rationale for the above movement, albeit an apparently self defeating one, but what else can the R's do?

The wine-cellar is not really a staged crime-scene, its more a deposition site for forensic evidence, there is not much about the wine-cellar that lends itself to the image of a crime-scene, even JonBenet has been wiped down, redressed and wrapped in a blanket, hardly the epitome of a crime scene victim?

.
.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm with you UKGuy: cause of death WAS strangulation, and I'll agree that it was probably deliberate, too.

But why does the strangulation have to be done by a Person #2? Isnt that what you're saying here?

A more acceptable TO ME view would be one perp only, with the violent behavior gradually escalating until the final & vicious deed... And THEN the perp went running for parental help, assuming that he even did so. (Im not totally convinced of that yet. When i was nine, i could certainly have written that ransom note! andalso, style & appearance of handwriting can definitely be passed along to offspring just like brown or blue eyes. But i digress).

I realize Im not citing evidence to back up what is essentially my emotional point of view. Im just finding it difficult to envision it going boom Attack in the bedroom! Boom Tie her up! Knock her out! Carry her (quietly) Down the Stairs!

See? In my mind the perp convinced her-- & probably himself, Almost -- by being gentle and kind at first. Once she screamed however (once he hurt her), The game was done. Then is when i think he acted out the sexual assaults, once he was sure that she really WAS unconcious, which he ascertained by various pokings with train tracks and broken paintbrush handles and possibly a half dressed Barbie-type doll.

Im open to other ideas, though, which is why i ask.

renah,
Thats what I am suggesting. Who did what, where and when really depends on which RDI you support.

The staging in the wine-cellar tends to color peoples perception of what took place.

Put another way I do not think assuming one person did it all can explain all the forensic evidence.

The strangulation by person #2 is done to finish off JonBenet, then once downstairs, at some point the paintbrush handle is applied to stage her death.

Lets put it this way I doubt the paintbrush handle traveled upstairs.


Another perspective is that the basement forensic evidence cannot reflect what took place upstairs, since its purpose is to obscure any such view.

It could be PDI, its more probable that its JDI since a sexual assault is involved, when you consider the circumstantial evidence available then BDI becomes more compelling, which seems to suggest BR lost his marbles on the night of 12/25/1996.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree and disagree with you on this one, UKG. I agree that the broken paintbrush handle was added after she was already dead, because it doesn’t work as implied and because of the hair that was entangled in the knots. But I still don’t believe the cord was originally wrapped around her neck with deadly intent. I think it was applied loosely and then tightened to the point of strangulation from the unintended accident.


I won’t belabor the point over where the head injury occurred. I think it happened in the basement (along with all the other injuries), but I know why you still believe it happened in her bedroom (blood on her pillow). Kolar thinks it happened in the kitchen, but didn’t explain why until pressed for an answer about it in one of Tricia’s previous webcasts. I understood him to say basically that it was because of his theory that the head blow was dealt as a reaction to an argument over the pineapple (but this doesn’t account for how a ten-year-old would be able to get an unconscious body down to the basement afterwards).


Seems like you are trying here to tie everything we know up into one event. You are associating the poop all over the place to unconsciousness and a loss of bowel control, and resulting soiled hands to the fecal smearing everywhere. I don’t think loss of sphincter control is something associated with unconsciousness, and I suspect the fecal smearing is unrelated to the actual event of JonBenet’s death. But I could be wrong on this, so if you can still imagine that as a possible scenario, so be it.


BTW, speaking of the blood on her pillow (implied from an interview question), did you realize (I didn’t) how much scattered blood there was on various items in the basement? Not only was there smeared blood on her thighs, in her genitals, and in her panties -- but her blood was also found on the white blanket, the pink nightgown lying on it, and the shirt she was wearing. Maybe everyone else knew this but me, but I just recently ran across it looking at the DNA report screen caps from TV.

otg,

BTW, speaking of the blood on her pillow (implied from an interview question), did you realize (I didn’t) how much scattered blood there was on various items in the basement? Not only was there smeared blood on her thighs, in her genitals, and in her panties -- but her blood was also found on the white blanket, the pink nightgown lying on it, and the shirt she was wearing. Maybe everyone else knew this but me, but I just recently ran across it looking at the DNA report screen caps from TV.

Yes I did. This has been discussed before, i.e. whether blood was transferred onto the blanket etc?

I am assuming that there is no blood spatter stains in the basement. With the bloodstain on her pillow along with the feces and whatever else we have not been told about. I think JonBenet's bedroom is the original primary crime-scene.

The head injury may have taken place in the basement, where things happen is not as important as why they take place. I reckon JR played a major role in promoting the basement as the crime-scene.

I do not think we are very far apart. I just happen to think people place far too much emphasis on the staged elements, which skews their perception of events.

I suspect the fecal smearing is unrelated to the actual event of JonBenet’s death.

It might be unrelated. Yet we have remarks about BR's pants being found on JonBenet's bedroom floor, we have BR's touch dna on the bloodstained pink barbie nightgown, we have BR's fingerprints on items at the breakfast bar. There is no smoking gun, so I am simply attempting to explain away, what is some quite bizarre forensic evidence found in a millionares house.



.

 

[UKGuy]

Trying not to sound dumb, but where did all the blood smears come from? With her injuries, I don't see a large amount of blood being possible to have a lot of smears.

Venom,
JonBenet was bleeding internally. There is debate as to whether this was the result of staging to hide an acute sexual assault or the consequence of the latter?

I think it was DeeDee who said dead people do not bleed? Suggesting the bleeding and subsequent wipe down all took place prior to JonBenet being ligature asphyxiated?

So aspects of what took place and where might be influenced as to whether you think its staging or part of the events leading up to JonBenet's death?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Venom,
JonBenet was bleeding internally. There is debate as to whether this was the result of staging to hide an acute sexual assault or the consequence of the latter?

I think it was DeeDee who said dead people do not bleed? Suggesting the bleeding and subsequent wipe down all took place prior to JonBenet being ligature asphyxiated?

So aspects of what took place and where might be influenced as to whether you think its staging or part of the events leading up to JonBenet's death?

.

the

Dead people do not "bleed" but blood can ooze before it gels. The blood found internally was actually a small amount. But there was blood that had been wiped from her thighs and pubic area and that had to come from vaginal injuries while alive and had to be of significant amounts as as to run down her thighs and require wiping away.
Blood can be tested to see whether is is oxygenated or not, but in the case of blood that has come from someone who has JUST died I don't know whether it would indicate that. It is hard to say whether she was wiped down while still alive. But I do believe that both the wiping and the panties were done at the same time. My guess is the bleeding occurred while she was alive and the wiping and redressing occurred after death. Had she been jabbed (say, with the paintbrush) after death as a way to cover up sexual abuse I do not think she would have bled per se down her thighs.

 

[txsvicki]

Was the wiped blood that showed up on top of the thighs or between the thighs on the inside? I can't remember past discussions about that.

 

[Tadpole12]

I've long thought that Purple V at her neck was from grabbing and twisting tightly a shirt. I've actually seen an identical mark on a child caused by that. That mark IMO lead me to believe it was made by Patsy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

heyya Linda7NJ,

That's an interesting observation.

I was considering JK's comments
with respect to manual/initial strangulation :

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...as-true-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern

If the defensive fingernail marks do exist, then JBR would have been conscious before the strangulation, at least one of them?

at 32:52
JK: If you follow ....
Dr. Werner Spitz suggests.

Then following that,
that bite of pineapple
there might of been
a grabbing of the t-shirt
that she was wearing at the time
and the twisting of that around
the throat accounts for the bruise on the front
side of her throat and larynx
There's some indication
of some fingernail scratches there,
Perhaps she was trying to
loosen up that grip.

 

[Linda7NJ]

heyya Linda7NJ,

That's an interesting observation.

I was considering JK's comments
with respect to manual/initial strangulation :

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websle...as-true-crime-radio-sunday-night-8-pm-eastern

If the defensive fingernail marks do exist, then JBR would have been conscious before the strangulation, at least one of them?

at 32:52
JK: If you follow ....
Dr. Werner Spitz suggests.

Then following that,
that bite of pineapple
there might of been
a grabbing of the t-shirt
that she was wearing at the time
and the twisting of that around
the throat accounts for the bruise on the front
side of her throat and larynx
There's some indication
of some fingernail scratches there,
Perhaps she was trying to
loosen up that grip.

Certainly possible. Iirc the DNA under her nails was mostly her own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[greenpalm]

I have definitely entertained the thought of the killer not wanting to use bare hands on her. This is assuming that the head blow was first and separated from the strangulation. (Which most analysis of the autopsy supports). I've always concluded that she was being finished off, because either the killer thought she was already dead or nearly so, or wanted to end any suffering (maybe she was seizing?), or because they had concerns about long term care for a child with permanent brain damage from a debilitating head injury and death was preferred. In any case I've always thought the person who strangled her with the garrote could not be sure the head blow would kill her, or would kill her quickly enough, and so the strangulation was intended to finish the job

As has been pointed out by someone else, If one merely wanted to end her suffering, all they had to do was hold their hand over her nose and mouth. Creating a garrote to do that would be the very non intuitive. No way a parent would use that to end suffering. So I think you are off-base if you are suggesting that. In all respects, using the garrote was an intentional, cold blooded act of premeditated murder, not a mercy killing and not just staging.

Yes, and my point was, that putting their hand over her nose & mouth would be using their bare hands and the killer found that distasteful. IMO Additionally I didn't say that they "merely" wanted to end her life. staging was one factor. I just didn't happen to be talking about it in this post.

There were other extremely complicated factors. There were many other ways to kill her, including tossing her just outside the basement window in the freezing weather and snow, that they didn't choose. Why? Psychologically, because they were unsavory to them (or at least one of them) as her parents. And/Or because they weren't sure she dead. That's why.

This case is clearly extremely bizarre, I can't begin to explain it all but I do have opinions, they are different from the opinions of others. That's why I word my comments to reflect that as in the bits in the above quote to which you responded, which I've now put in bold.

I don't typically abandon my opinion immediately upon reading another poster who has a different one.

The primary purpose of my original post about the garrote was to agree with the original poster that the garrote was not indicative of Erotic Asphyxia.

 

[otg]

Neither did she bite her lips or tongue nor is her tongue swollen. These attributes are almost always seen in a ligature strangulation without secondary causes such the blunt force trauma JonBenet suffered. I think she was so near death at the time the ligature was tightened that whoever did it probably thought JonBenet was already dead.

Yes, you are correct about the tongue in many ligature strangulations. But as you point out, that is without additional factors such as the blunt force trauma. While by itself it is not enough to draw a conclusion, it does (IMO) add credence to the belief that the head blow came first causing unconsciousness, thereby negating the possibility that she might bite her tongue or lips during strangulation. But all we know about any tongue swelling is that the coroner didn't mention it. The only mention of her tongue in the AR is:

The tongue is smooth, pink-tan and granular.
There is slight drying artifact of the tip of the of tongue.
Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no hemorrhage or traumatic injury.​

Iirc, on the right side of JonBenet's face, on the lower area just beside her mouth, it looks like dried mucous with slight tinges of brown or perhaps it is vomitus. That makes me think that dried material came with the head trauma.

I agree. It looks like to me in the only photo we have of it that it has tinges of brown indicating it could have blood in it, but Meyer contradicts that. Again from the AR:

On the right cheek is a pattern of dried saliva and mucous material which does not appear to be hemorrhagic.
​

For what it's worth, I thought she looked translucently pale. I didn't notice any livor mortis on the face but maybe I've forgotten.

It's hard to say about the livor mortis since we don't have a picture showing both sides of her face at the same time to compare the two sides. So probably we shouldn't try to read too much into the color of her face. But as renah pointed out [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9954487#post9954487"]earlier in this thread[/ame], "the possible tone changes" are usually described as "being very extreme and unmistakable".

The reason I mention the livor mortis on her face is not because I can see it, but because of what Meyer wrote -- one more time -- from the AR:

Possible petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surfaces of the right upper and lower eyelids, but livor mortis on this side of the face (right) makes definite identification difficult.​

 

[otg]

parents have moods, and good days and bad days. hormone fluctuations can play a part in how a person feels, although I have no idea if PR was still menstruating or receiving HRT. many things (headache, anxiety, tension, schedules, deadlines, feeling rushed, a disagreement with a spouse/SO, bratty kids) can cause anger and resentment regarding an event/behavior today that was easy to overlook last week. especially when a situation triggers an awareness that things are not perfect, however infrequently/randomly that awareness surfaces before being stifled yet again

I understand about moods (I have a wife:giggle: ). But I don't really see how something she was so casual about, and apparently as unconcerned about, as she was about letting a toilet go unflushed until someone else came and flushed it for her, or having smeared and dropped poop all over the place, or not paying any attention when her kids last bathed... I just don't think in that person's worst mood they could loose it and kill their child over something like a wet bed. I've tried to consider it, especially after I read Steve Thomas' theory (who I have a great deal of respect for). But it just doesn't fit with all I see as more important evidence. But I do still believe Patsy was up to her neck in involvement in altering the crime scene -- and she wrote the RN.

(BTW, Patsy had already had all the female parts removed during her ovarian cancer treatment.)

 

[otg]

How would you account for Linda Hoffman-Pugh's statements about Patsy taking JonBenet to the bathroom then hearing JonBenet screaming and Patsy yelling? I took Ms. Pugh's statements to imply that Patsy was cleaning JonBenet after JonBenet soiled herself.

When I was a child, and when I got caught saying something I shouldn't have said (to put it mildly :blushing: ), my mother (never my dad) would take me into the bathroom and force a wet bar of soap into my mouth. Her logic, I guess, was that my "dirty mouth" had to be cleaned out. If any neighbor had been able to heard my screams (we didn't have a housekeeper), I'm sure they would have called the police or CPS.

Maybe not the same situation as JonBenet and Patsy, but LHP didn't see what was going on with the door closed.

Sorry, BOESP. I'm just not a believer in the "corporal cleansing" theory. I won't criticize anyone else if that is what they think happened, but it just doesn't fly with me. I had a hard time with it before, but after Linda7NJ's post, I can't really see it at all.

 

[DeeDee249]

Was the wiped blood that showed up on top of the thighs or between the thighs on the inside? I can't remember past discussions about that.

I have only seen it described as being wiped from the pubic area and thighs. I don't think there is any doubt that it came from her vagina. Blood was noted inside the vagina in semi-liquid form. (it had started to gel at that point)

 

[otg]

Trying not to sound dumb, but where did all the blood smears come from? With her injuries, I don't see a large amount of blood being possible to have a lot of smears.

That's not a dumb question. It's hard to imagine there being blood on that many items considering the lack of obvious injuries. But the amounts of blood found on each of these items could be miniscule or faint enough to have only been apparent under special lighting. For example, we know that the blood in her panties was only two very small spots, and the wiped blood on her legs didn't show up until it was illuminated with a Wood's lamp.

Since most people (myself included) think she was changed into the white blouse during staging, it shouldn't have any blood on it. I would suggest that the blouse could have gotten a small amount of blood on it from the abrasion on her right shoulder. She wouldn't continue bleeding from it postmortem, but if it was fresh (and I think it was) it would have a small amount of blood on the surface. The stager(s) might not have seen the blood on it because it would be like a smear on the inside of the blouse that wasn't seen after it was put on her.

The nightgown might have been what she was wearing during the molestation. In which case, it could have been on her when the shoulder abrasion happened, or it could have gotten some blood on it by it brushing up against something else during the staging (or even during the molestation itself). Not knowing anything about its location or the amount, I don't think we'll be able to know without more information.

I don't think the blanket was being used during the molestation, so I don't think it had a large amount of blood on it. Like the other items, if it had any obvious blood from the molestation, I don't think it would have been left with her body.

This was all new information to me when I found out about it, so I can only guess. But each item was tested, and the DNA results confirmed that it was JonBenet's blood.

 

[otg]

Was the wiped blood that showed up on top of the thighs or between the thighs on the inside? I can't remember past discussions about that.

I have only seen it described as being wiped from the pubic area and thighs. I don't think there is any doubt that it came from her vagina. Blood was noted inside the vagina in semi-liquid form. (it had started to gel at that point)

From search warrants:

In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light to view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.
​

From the AR:

EVDENCE: Items turned over to the Boulder Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and hair from clothing and body surfaces; ligatures; clothing, vaginal swabs and smears; rectal swabs and smears; oral swabs and smears; paper bags from hands; fingernail clippings; jewelry; paper bags from feet; white body bag; samples of head hair, eyelashes and eyebrows; swabs from right and left thighs and right cheek; red top and purple top tubes of blood.
​

Of course, they thought at the time the fluorescent areas might be semen. But the swabs taken and analyzed showed it to be blood. By the location given in the search warrant, there should be no doubt where the blood came from.

 

[DeeDee249]

Photos taken at the White's party (and still in police custody as evidence" PROVE JB was wearing the white shirt she was found in at that party. However we don't know whether she was changed out of the party clothes and into a nightie or something else, and then redressed into the white shirt as part of the staging. The only certainty is she was wearing the white shirt at the White's and also when she was found.