Evidence you can't explain

[madeleine]

Hi guys.

I am a long time lurker here and have a topic that I have wanted to start for a while but never have. This case is pretty convoluted with real evidence, staging and incompetent police work all muddying the waters. Is there anything about this case that doesn't make sense to you, that you just can't fit no matter how you look at it? I thought it may help if we hash it out and someone else may have a way of looking at it you haven't considered before.

For example, the ransom note troubled me for a long time. I am RDI but I couldn't understand why they would write it. Why not just ring the police saying "We woke up and our daughter is missing"? Surely that would have the same effect without the possibilty of the RN being traced back to them? I read other people's ideas on it but nothing clicked for me. Then I read something and it fell into place - the RN points outside the house (I think it was SuperDave but not 100% sure). If you call the police with a missing child, they search the house, they investigate the family. If you call with a ransom note, they start looking outside the house, outside the family.

I'd like RDI, IDI and fence-sitters to post. It would be great if we could work on this together.

@bold
yeah,the cord around her neck.the only explanation I got for it after :banghead: for years thinking of it is that it was placed around her neck to cover for manual strangulation or something...

 

[Detective Pinkie]

@bold
yeah,the cord around her neck.the only explanation I got for it after :banghead: for years thinking of it is that it was placed around her neck to cover for manual strangulation or something...

Yes Madeleine, this is now my biggest sticking point. The only way that cord makes sense to me is that it was to cover up prior strangulation or marks around her neck, yet it seems that there is no evidence for that.

This is the sort of thing I was looking for - elements of this case that people's theories just can't explain or you can see no logic behind (even crazy logic). Even if you have an explanation maybe you are not entirely sold on it.

 

[chlban]

The War and Peace of Ransom Notes has always been a huge clue for me.
Clearly it was a diversion. In a real kidnapping for ransom they take the kid out of the house asap. in a kidnapping so they can molest and or kill the child they don't bother with writing even a short ransom note. Why would they? And what "intruder" is going to take the time to write that, inside the house, on their paper using their pen?

Add to that the dramatic nature of the ransom note. That has Patsy written (pardon the pun) all over it. Beheading, hence, grow a brain, drama.

Then, if you could get past all that nonsense the letter clearly says not to notify anyone not even a stray dog. Now, I could see still contacting LE, of course, but I am pretty sure any sane person, no mattter how panicked they were, would mention to LE, "they threatened her life if we called you" or something to that effect. But the Ramseys? Nope, no mention to LE of the potential threat of the "kidnappers" knowing they were contacted, but instead, let's go ahead and invite half of Boulder over as well. Nothing says it's time for a party like having your child "kidnapped".

Then where is the great concern about when the kidnappers are supposed to call? Anyone waiting anxiously by the phone? Anyone even acknowledging that it is the time the kidnapers said they would call? Nope, not a thing.

Then you have the parents of the child, who one would assume would be leaning on and clinging to each other during this time of horror. I mean, we have all seen even parents that are divorced clinging to each other when their children are missing. I still remember poor David Smith standing by that monster Susan while she put on her show although they were separated and had both moved on. But the Ramseys couldn't even look at each other?

So, the body has not even been found yet, and as far as I am concerned they are guilty. Then add refusing to cooperate, hiring lawyers immediately, because everyone knows that's the first thing you do when your child has been murdered in your home, the fiber evidence, the conflicting stories, etc, etc. etc,

While I don't claim to have the definitive explanation as to exactly what happened in that house that night, I cannot fathom how anyone could truly beleve the intruder theory. One of the Ramsey's is responsible for that child's death and at least two of them participated in the cover up , although exactly when the second one became part of the cover up I am not certain. JMO, of course.

 

[Venom]

chlban- Excellent post! Sums up everything that builds up to guilt...imo.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Thanks for all the contributions to this thread. There has been some great stuff here but I think a lot of people have missed the point.

I don't want to know what people think is hinky about this case or point out problems with other people's versions of events. I want to know what blows a hole in YOUR theory. If you are RDI, PDI, JDI, IDI can you fit every element of the case into your theory? If you are a fence-sitter what makes you stay there and not pick a side? Is there any part of this that makes you say "If I could just explain why THIS happened, I could solve this thing"?

For example, I am RDI but the use of the cord doesn't make any sense to me if RDI is true (and it sounds like Madeleine has a problem with it too). I am yet to hear an explanation for it's use that fits the evidence and makes sense within the context of my theory. The cord only works for me if it was used to cover up something that happened to JB's neck prior and from what I have read that is not the case. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected or you may have an idea that helps me fit the cord into my scenario but so far I haven't seen one that makes enough sense to me.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thanks for all the contributions to this thread. There has been some great stuff here but I think a lot of people have missed the point.

I don't want to know what people think is hinky about this case or point out problems with other people's versions of events. I want to know what blows a hole in YOUR theory. If you are RDI, PDI, JDI, IDI can you fit every element of the case into your theory? If you are a fence-sitter what makes you stay there and not pick a side? Is there any part of this that makes you say "If I could just explain why THIS happened, I could solve this thing"?

For example, I am RDI but the use of the cord doesn't make any sense to me if RDI is true (and it sounds like Madeleine has a problem with it too). I am yet to hear an explanation for it's use that fits the evidence and makes sense within the context of my theory. The cord only works for me if it was used to cover up something that happened to JB's neck prior and from what I have read that is not the case. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected or you may have an idea that helps me fit the cord into my scenario but so far I haven't seen one that makes enough sense to me.

IMO the cord was necessary because the person doing the killing didn't have the physical strength to manually strangle her with bare hands. Or with only the rope, that person needed the leverage the paintbrush handle provided. For that reason, I ruled out John as being the one with the garrote. He didn't need it.

What stops me from saying it was all Patsy ...and throws a wrench in it for me is Burke being whisked away that morning. Burke not being really checked on at all that morning before Fleet went to fetch him from his bed. That kid didn't even act surprised, didn't ask questions..... Weird!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Steely Dan]

Thanks for all the contributions to this thread. There has been some great stuff here but I think a lot of people have missed the point.

I don't want to know what people think is hinky about this case or point out problems with other people's versions of events. I want to know what blows a hole in YOUR theory. If you are RDI, PDI, JDI, IDI can you fit every element of the case into your theory? If you are a fence-sitter what makes you stay there and not pick a side? Is there any part of this that makes you say "If I could just explain why THIS happened, I could solve this thing"?

For example, I am RDI but the use of the cord doesn't make any sense to me if RDI is true (and it sounds like Madeleine has a problem with it too). I am yet to hear an explanation for it's use that fits the evidence and makes sense within the context of my theory. The cord only works for me if it was used to cover up something that happened to JB's neck prior and from what I have read that is not the case. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected or you may have an idea that helps me fit the cord into my scenario but so far I haven't seen one that makes enough sense to me.

If someone could explain the RN to me, my opinion would change. I'm RDI.

 

[chlban]

[

What stops me from saying it was all Patsy ...and throws a wrench in it for me is Burke being whisked away that morning. Burke not being really checked on at all that morning before Fleet went to fetch him from his bed. That kid didn't even act surprised, didn't ask questions..... Weird!!!

Interesting. That is one of the main reasons I do think it was all Patsy-at that point. I think John soon became complicit in the cover up.

However, I think if John had figured it out that early, he wouldn't have let Burke go, just in case Burke had seen or heard something. That is also why I could never buy into BDI. IMO, there is no way they would let him go like that if he was guilty or if he even knew what had happened. I mean, of course at that point he could know about the fake kidnapping, but I don't think he realized his mother had killed JB and covered it up.

The cord doesn't bother me, I think it was just part of the staging, like the Ransom note.

I honestly can't think of anything that I cannot make sense of in terms of RDI. All I have to do is remind myself of Patsy's histrionic personality and her determination to put on such a false picture for the world to see. Her whole life was "staging". She just continued on with it when the unthinkable happened.

 

[FrayedKnot]

I can't explain the eeriness of putting on the correct day of the week underwear (Wednesday = Christmas) but the completely wrong size (size 12 on a 6 year old).

It's like the perp is an idiot savant or OCD (or just plain weird).

It bears a strong resemblance to the interesting hairdos and outfits my preschoolers sport when Daddy is in charge that morning.

I have had kids who are completely toilet "trained" show up in a too-small diaper and a confused expression, girls with some seriously wonky pigtails, and one child wearing those reef walker swimming shoes in February.

These children are all living, however, so the missteps by Dad are sorta cute.

But the big panties seem likely to be a Dad mistake. No offense to Dads. It's just not typically their "thing".

 

[UKGuy]

It bears a strong resemblance to the interesting hairdos and outfits my preschoolers sport when Daddy is in charge that morning.

I have had kids who are completely toilet "trained" show up in a too-small diaper and a confused expression, girls with some seriously wonky pigtails, and one child wearing those reef walker swimming shoes in February.

These children are all living, however, so the missteps by Dad are sorta cute.

But the big panties seem likely to be a Dad mistake. No offense to Dads. It's just not typically their "thing".

FrayedKnot,
Or even a brother?


.

 

[FrayedKnot]

FrayedKnot,
Or even a brother?


.

Check. And mate.

Well played, UK, well played.

BDI was always my gut feeling even right after this happened. My PDI/J helped cover position was only acquired after reading more.

But often our first impressions are right on.......

I will say I still am in the PDI/JDI camp right now, but B always posed a conundrum for me.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for all the contributions to this thread. There has been some great stuff here but I think a lot of people have missed the point.

I don't want to know what people think is hinky about this case or point out problems with other people's versions of events. I want to know what blows a hole in YOUR theory. If you are RDI, PDI, JDI, IDI can you fit every element of the case into your theory? If you are a fence-sitter what makes you stay there and not pick a side? Is there any part of this that makes you say "If I could just explain why THIS happened, I could solve this thing"?

For example, I am RDI but the use of the cord doesn't make any sense to me if RDI is true (and it sounds like Madeleine has a problem with it too). I am yet to hear an explanation for it's use that fits the evidence and makes sense within the context of my theory. The cord only works for me if it was used to cover up something that happened to JB's neck prior and from what I have read that is not the case. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected or you may have an idea that helps me fit the cord into my scenario but so far I haven't seen one that makes enough sense to me.

Detective Pinkie,
This case has many elements. Some are productive when analysed others less so.

Why the cord was used is not important, why part of the paintbrush handle was employed is not important.

Until you recognize this you will forever be looking for The Reason i.e. the final piece in a jigsaw.

What is of interest is the parents behaviour wrt BR. Their cumulative actions from alibies to relocation away from the family house, all add up to making BDI a much more consistent theory than any of the alternatives.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

FrayedKnot,
Or even a brother?


.

While BDI is something I lean more and more towards, I do not believe he had anything at all to do with the staging. This is not something I can see him doing. I don't think he knew about the panties wrapped in the basement at all, and I do not believe he would have removed her old ones, searched for and found new ones and redressed her. I do not believe he was the one who wiped her down. That isn't something a kid that age would do. He'd just leave her where she collapsed.

Someone else did the staging.

 

[otg]

@bold
yeah,the cord around her neck.the only explanation I got for it after :banghead: for years thinking of it is that it was placed around her neck to cover for manual strangulation or something...

Yes Madeleine, this is now my biggest sticking point. The only way that cord makes sense to me is that it was to cover up prior strangulation or marks around her neck, yet it seems that there is no evidence for that.

This is the sort of thing I was looking for - elements of this case that people's theories just can't explain or you can see no logic behind (even crazy logic). Even if you have an explanation maybe you are not entirely sold on it.

First of all, I have to tell you, Pinkie, this is an excellent idea for a thread. It should spark (and already has) some good discussions.

On the above quotes by you and Maddie, I’ve seen others question whether the ligature could have been used as a way of hiding manual strangulation. There are two things (IMO) that make that unlikely. Mainly, there are no marks on her neck that would indicate manual strangulation. There are no thumb or finger bruises, no parallel “pinch bruises” that are often found between the assailant’s fingers (sometimes called “railway bruises” because of their running parallel to one another), no fingernail indentations or abrasions (crescent-moon shaped), nothing to indicate a strangulation done with someone’s hands. And if there were such marks that had been left behind, they would be too large to be covered by the small diameter of the cord. So I don’t believe there was ever any manual strangulation. And if there had been, it would not be masked or covered by the ligature.

Instead, there are marks left on JonBenet’s neck that show exactly what did happen. The problem comes in interpreting what those marks mean. To me, what is important to explain is the white blanched line on her lower neck (sometimes called an “argent” line in ligature strangulations), the angle of that line, the concentrated area of petechial hemorrhages above it, the large triangular bruise on the left side of her neck, and of course the final position (and angle) of the ligature and its resulting furrow. The stick tied to the end of the ligature around her neck needs to be explained as well, but IMO it is unquestionably staging that was applied after she was already dead (this because of the hair entangled in the cord wrapped around and tied to it). Because of its presence on the cord, too many people (LE included) fail to see how the ligature was actually used. It was the single most successful piece of staging in the entire crime scene -- more so than the infamous RN because everyone (almost) is able to see through its lack of legitimacy.

I won't try to explain here what I think this all says, but I had to speak up about the manual strangulation not being likely. My explanation of how it happened is hard for people to accept, even though it accounts for all of the neck injuries.

 

[Venom]

What I don't seem to understand is the paintbrush handle being stuck in her. (I hate to word it that way) Was it intended to try to hide prior abuse? Or was it to stage what someone thought a kidnapper would do? Or it even could have been part of the abuse from her abuser.
:dunno:

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

While BDI is something I lean more and more towards, I do not believe he had anything at all to do with the staging. This is not something I can see him doing. I don't think he knew about the panties wrapped in the basement at all, and I do not believe he would have removed her old ones, searched for and found new ones and redressed her. I do not believe he was the one who wiped her down. That isn't something a kid that age would do. He'd just leave her where she collapsed.

Someone else did the staging.

I'm with you, DeeDee. I think BR did the initial crime and then the parents did every wacky diversion they could come up with to hide it and the sexual assaults as well.

I mentioned it previously, but any kid that can smear feces on his sis's box of chocolate is a sick, hateful being. Really sick. Scary sick.

moo

 

[FrayedKnot]

I'm with you, DeeDee. I think BR did the initial crime and then the parents did every wacky diversion they could come up with to hide it and the sexual assaults as well.

I mentioned it previously, but any kid that can smear feces on his sis's box of chocolate is a sick, hateful being. Really sick. Scary sick.

moo

Or one who has been sexually abused. JMO

 

[FrayedKnot]

What I don't seem to understand is the paintbrush handle being stuck in her. (I hate to word it that way) Was it intended to try to hide prior abuse? Or was it to stage what someone thought a kidnapper would do? Or it even could have been part of the abuse from her abuser.
:dunno:

My feeling is that is was staging intended to hide the previous sexual abuse. The perp probably thought damaging her vagina with a paintbrush would hide all the signs of previous abuse.

But it did not.

 

[Linda7NJ]

While BDI is something I lean more and more towards, I do not believe he had anything at all to do with the staging. This is not something I can see him doing. I don't think he knew about the panties wrapped in the basement at all, and I do not believe he would have removed her old ones, searched for and found new ones and redressed her. I do not believe he was the one who wiped her down. That isn't something a kid that age would do. He'd just leave her where she collapsed.

Someone else did the staging.

Yes, I agree. Perhaps after he couldn't get her up after whacking her with the golf club again, or the flashlight, or the bat. He tried. He even jabbed her with the train track trying to wake her up.

Then he woke up ....Patsy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Linda7NJ]

First of all, I have to tell you, Pinkie, this is an excellent idea for a thread. It should spark (and already has) some good discussions.

On the above quotes by you and Maddie, I’ve seen others question whether the ligature could have been used as a way of hiding manual strangulation. There are two things (IMO) that make that unlikely. Mainly, there are no marks on her neck that would indicate manual strangulation. There are no thumb or finger bruises, no parallel “pinch bruises” that are often found between the assailant’s fingers (sometimes called “railway bruises” because of their running parallel to one another), no fingernail indentations or abrasions (crescent-moon shaped), nothing to indicate a strangulation done with someone’s hands. And if there were such marks that had been left behind, they would be too large to be covered by the small diameter of the cord. So I don’t believe there was ever any manual strangulation. And if there had been, it would not be masked or covered by the ligature.

Instead, there are marks left on JonBenet’s neck that show exactly what did happen. The problem comes in interpreting what those marks mean. To me, what is important to explain is the white blanched line on her lower neck (sometimes called an “argent” line in ligature strangulations), the angle of that line, the concentrated area of petechial hemorrhages above it, the large triangular bruise on the left side of her neck, and of course the final position (and angle) of the ligature and its resulting furrow. The stick tied to the end of the ligature around her neck needs to be explained as well, but IMO it is unquestionably staging that was applied after she was already dead (this because of the hair entangled in the cord wrapped around and tied to it). Because of its presence on the cord, too many people (LE included) fail to see how the ligature was actually used. It was the single most successful piece of staging in the entire crime scene -- more so than the infamous RN because everyone (almost) is able to see through its lack of legitimacy.

I won't try to explain here what I think this all says, but I had to speak up about the manual strangulation not being likely. My explanation of how it happened is hard for people to accept, even though it accounts for all of the neck injuries.

Oh please explain here!!!

I think most of us here can pretty much accept anything ...most of us have followed pretty horrific cases... Nothing shocks me anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free