Evidence you can't explain

[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]

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

It could very well be JonBenet's smearing. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[otg]

Using sexual abuse to hide prior sexual abuse, and then attempting to cover up the sexual abuse by cleaning up and hiding the evidence of it is just not plausible, and obviously was not successful. I just don’t see why so many seem to want to cling to this idea. The evidence that remained pointing to the sexual aspect of this (the vaginal injuries, the wiped blood on her legs, and the questionable use of the paintbrush) should tell us the reason for everything that happened. I think the problem is thinking like an adult to try and figure out something we think of as only an adult subject.

 

[otg]

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

Sorry, Linda, I don't want to hijack Pinkie's excellent thread here. I will give you [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9510484#post9510484"]this link[/ame] where I went into a little detail on it.

 

[otg]

(snipped for brevity)

Interesting reading concerning the timeline and the type of makeup Patsy used:

From the June 1998 Patsy Ramsey interview at http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Interesting, B, about the makeup. I hadn't paid that much attention to it before because I thought LE was simply trying to distract her while getting an idea of the timeline before she called 911. But after reading it again, I can't help but wonder if there was something else they were getting at. I wonder if the makeup Patsy used was birefringent. Many have speculated about that birefringent material as being talc from surgical type gloves. I always thought it was most likely flaked varnish/paint from the paintbrush. But whatever it was must have been tested, and if the testing found it could have been makeup, that could be why they were trying to find out exactly the type of makeup Patsy used.

:waitasec: Just a thought.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I also can't explain away the fact that John didn't notice the rope around his daughters neck and remove it.

John pretended to not be sure she was dead...

The first thing anyone does when finding their child unconscious, would be to say the child's name, automatically because of genuine denial & assume the child was sleeping.
being unable to rouse the child... I would think a parent would scream for help and try to figure out what the problem was.

Instead, what does John do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[BOESP]

(snipped for brevity)

I wonder if the makeup Patsy used was birefringent. Many have speculated about that birefringent material as being talc from surgical type gloves.

:waitasec: Just a thought.

I'd speculate that it was since she was approaching forty and was probably a good candidate for "anti-aging" makeup. Refraction and reflection can play great tricks on old lady wrinkles and lines. :wink:

 

[Detective Pinkie]

First off, thanks for all the responses. I was a little worried this thread would sit quiet and slowly disappear off the front page. Great to see the amount of discussion going on.

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

So you don't believe that the cord was staging? If the person used the cord and brush because they were not strong enough to do it manually then it can't be considered accidental in any way, right? What about the head wound, how does that fit in with deliberate strangulation?

While I find the R's behaviour toward Burke that morning odd, I don't think it is inexplicable, just points to their knowledge of what was really going on, to me. I believe they didn't check on him because they knew he wasn't in danger and they sent hin away to stop him from being questioned by the police. It means he knew (or the Rs suspected he knew) more than they let on.

 

[BOESP]

I think the Ramseys also expected JonBenet's body to be found (one way or another) and they didn't want Burke to see her in that condition. Iow, I think there were several reasons for sending him away that morning.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

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".

I have always suspected this to be true but it does not explain why the replacement underwear had to be the Wednesday pair. You just tell the police that she wore those pair all day instead. And doing it in the off chance that someone at the party may remember that she wore Wednesday underpants seems a big risk for a maybe. I think her being in way too big undies is going to raise more questions than why someone at the party thinks she wore different underpants than what her parents claim she wore. Would the question of the underpants be raised if not for the size difference? I am beginning to suspect the choice of underwear was not for the benefit of the police.

 

[gramcracker]

IMO the cord was necessary because the person doing the killing didn't have the physical strength to manually strangle her with bare hands.

I've always thought they lacked the emotional strength to do it bare-handed. which was also demonstrated by it being done from behind

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.

clearly demonstrating #1 that there was previous abuse and #2 that there was knowledge of it

9-20-13: today a GJ member said, and I'm quoting here, we didn't know who did what, but we felt the adults in the house may have done something that they certainly could have prevented, or they could have helped her, and they didn't
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/2...jonbenet-murder-indictment/?intcmp=latestnews

It could very well be JonBenet's smearing. IMO

PR said JB's favorite snack was pineapple and BR's favorite was chocolate. maybe stopping her brother from eating HER chocolate mattered more than eating it herself

 

[Detective Pinkie]

I think the Ramseys also expected JonBenet's body to be found (one way or another) and they didn't want Burke to see her in that condition. Iow, I think there were several reasons for sending him away that morning.

Yes that is one too and that leads back to them looking guilty as they expected a body to be found.

 

[Linda7NJ]

First off, thanks for all the responses. I was a little worried this thread would sit quiet and slowly disappear off the front page. Great to see the amount of discussion going on.



So you don't believe that the cord was staging? If the person used the cord and brush because they were not strong enough to do it manually then it can't be considered accidental in any way, right? What about the head wound, how does that fit in with deliberate strangulation?

While I find the R's behaviour toward Burke that morning odd, I don't think it is inexplicable, just points to their knowledge of what was really going on, to me. I believe they didn't check on him because they knew he wasn't in danger and they sent hin away to stop him from being questioned by the police. It means he knew (or the Rs suspected he knew) more than they let on.

I do believe the rope was staging... But it had to look believable and over the top with dramatic flair. The staging needed to create a scenario that a small foreign faction of kidnapping pedophiles would likely employ !

I'm not married to any specific scenario and can create a plausible one for each and every Ramsey. The only ones I can't come up with ...John Ramsey alone.... Burke alone..., aside from that I can get them working in tandem every which way but "intruder"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think the Ramseys also expected JonBenet's body to be found (one way or another) and they didn't want Burke to see her in that condition. Iow, I think there were several reasons for sending him away that morning.

But what's the reason no one made sure he wasn't dead in bed ?

Everyone knows boys are more important to cultures where small foreign factions reside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Detective Pinkie]

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.

.

No disrespect and we all have our opinions, but I believe that psychology is important to most, if not all, cases and understanding why helps to work out who (or maybe too much Agatha Christie). I am RDI but I can't fix on who actually did what because there is too much to me that is unexplained. I think "why the cord" is important.

I have to believe that either the cord wasn't staging and the intended use was to kill JB or that it was staging and someone was emotionally cold enough to tighten it enough to kill her. Now I thought that the evidence points more to staging (and please correct me if I am wrong) than deliberate use of the cord, but if that is what happened there is a bunch of stuff that no longer fits. If it was staging, I can't imagine being able to do that to anyone's child, let alone my own, even if I thought they were already dead. Either way, the psychology of the person able to do either of these acts will help to point at the perpetrator.

What works for me is that the use of the cord is important enough that it overcomes the pain, the squeamishness of using it on JB. My only idea is that it hides or directs away from other evidence and it seems that that is unsupported by facts.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No disrespect and we all have our opinions, but I believe that psychology is important to most, if not all, cases and understanding why helps to work out who (or maybe too much Agatha Christie). I am RDI but I can't fix on who actually did what because there is too much to me that is unexplained. I think "why the cord" is important.

I have to believe that either the cord wasn't staging and the intended use was to kill JB or that it was staging and someone was emotionally cold enough to tighten it enough to kill her. Now I thought that the evidence points more to staging (and please correct me if I am wrong) than deliberate use of the cord, but if that is what happened there is a bunch of stuff that no longer fits. If it was staging, I can't imagine being able to do that to anyone's child, let alone my own, even if I thought they were already dead. Either way, the psychology of the person able to do either of these acts will help to point at the perpetrator.

What works for me is that the use of the cord is important enough that it overcomes the pain, the squeamishness of using it on JB. My only idea is that it hides or directs away from other evidence and it seems that that is unsupported by facts.

The rope around her neck could have been to coverup the earlier altercation where JonBenet was grabbed up by her shirt leaving that triangular bruise at the front of her neck that can not be explained away by the rope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Steely Dan]

But what's the reason no one made sure he wasn't dead in bed ?

Everyone knows boys are more important to cultures where small foreign factions reside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

BBM

Al Quaeda did it!!

 

[dodie20]

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.

From what I've read lately, it looks like there might have been a substantial time lapse between the head bash and the strangling and the strangulation might have been done to finish JB off. IMO, maybe the perp thought JB was already dead or would surely be dead by the time he/she went back down to the basement. When she was found still alive, maybe the rage part of the attack had disappeared and the perp couldn't stand to use his/her bare hands to finish the job, so as an act of distancing, used the garrote. IDK of course, because I've never been in a situation like this, but I think this theory makes sense. Some people can rationalize a lot of things, and maybe the idea of a cord seemed less involved. And I can understand that rationale, up to a point. moo

 

[dodie20]

Another thing about that cord...awhile back, someone linked a Larry King interview where PR was having a heated debate with Steve Thomas and at one point she point blank asked him, (and I'm relying on a written transcript here), " you must have conjured something in your head for you to come out and call me a murderer of my child. I want to hear 1 through 10. When did I write this ransom note? Before or after I killed JonBenet? This whole exchange really bothered me. 1st of all, what kind of mother could utter the words, 'before or after I killed (insert your child's name here)'? Secondly, I don't know what rumors were going around about the ransom note, but dang!!! She boldly put the possibility out there that it could have been written BEFORE the murder. And as far as I know, as far as suspecting the parents was concerned, this was seen as an accident gone bad with a cover up and the note being part of that cover up. So, on the surface anyway, PR's hypothetical scenario question seemed kind of pointless. But now that we know there might have been a time lapse between the head bash and strangulation, in hindsight, it looks like PR might have let something slip...that the note was written before the murder.

 

[madeleine]

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:

IMO the splinters ended up there by transfer,whoever broke the stick touched JB afterwards {maybe when wiping her off?}