Evidence you can't explain

[Linda7NJ]

I agree, to a point. If you took toddlers in jeans and a T shirt and paraded them around on stage pedos would still show up. Tart them up and it becomes a pedos paradise. JMO



What difference does it make if she walked in or was asleep?

The importance is the Ramsey lied. And lied...and lied. They lied even about stupid stuff that doesn't even matter.

Innocent people have no reason to lie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[gramcracker]

gramcracker,
consistent actually refers to the current collection of evidence, i.e. there is nothing therein which will contradict whatever I am asserting.

Coroner Meyer is asserting there is nothing within the injuries that I have survielled which suggests that there is any other explanation for JonBenet's internal injuries other than a finger or digit was used?

The critical point to consider is the then collection of evidence this might have increased, so nullifying the consistent claim?

You decide.

maybe I'm missing something. (?) I'm saying that, in the context of the AR, the evidence collected was termed consistent with what the coroner had learned, found, seen, discovered, experienced in the past re digital penetration

consistent with - C/W - a phrase used by practitioners of the 'visual arts' of medicine, ie pathology and radiology, in which a diagnosis is based on a subjective interpretation of a particular pattern in a tissue, organ, or body region

cause of death was massive blunt force trauma consistent with a high speed front-end impact; independent autopsy determined that the official state autopsy findings were not consistent with positional asphyxia and his lungs were consistent with rapid onset death; an autopsy showed Ayala sustained injuries consistent with a fall; autopsy results are consistent with suicide by hanging; the strongest evidence in the autopsy report is most consistent with murder; the 25-year-old died due to asphyxia consistent with strangulation; autopsy revealed head injuries consistent with beating; autopsy found blunt force trauma to the right neck and soft tissues consistent with inflicted injury; the autopsy showed that Ms. Schiavo's condition was consistent with a person in a persistent vegetative state

 

[solodadd]

While not impossible to explain, i've often wondered why it is that no matching duct tape was found in the home.

from what i understand, there are some indications that one end of the cord was melted, indicating it may have been a new roll of cord that was used in this crime.

however, i havent seen any evidence that suggests the tape was a new roll. when most people purchase these items, its because they have a use in mind for them. considering this roll was in the home, logic suggests it was intended for use in the home. otherwise, it wouldve been on the plane, or boat, etc.

evidence suggests that the ramseys were not sophisticated criminals, so i do not buy into any theories of them using tape off of a doll, back of a portrait, etc. for those same reasons, i dont see them going back and removing duct tape from places it had already been used in the home.

of course, that night, it may have started as a new roll, but the piece put over jbr's mouth was not the first piece removed from the roll, and any previous piece(s) was discarded with the cord, missing tablet pages, etc.

looking back, it seems like finding evidence of previous use in the home wouldve been good evidence against the ramseys, and something that i wouldve expected to find. of course, just as good, wouldve been the gathering of financial records in the beginning, and getting to McGuckins(sp) hardware before the security footage was erased... whether that was for the cord or tape.

 

[dodie20]

I agree, to a point. If you took toddlers in jeans and a T shirt and paraded them around on stage pedos would still show up. Tart them up and it becomes a pedos paradise. JMO



What difference does it make if she walked in or was asleep?

Well for one thing, if she was asleep, there would have been no interaction with anybody so no conflict. But, like you, I don't see the motivation to lie and then stick to the lie, even after BR said she was awake and walked in. They could have easily said, maybe she was awake afterall, but she went straight to bed, but they didn't, so I think we're missing a piece of evidence here, maybe dealing with the phone records or some such. For instance, if LE has some kind of tangible evidence of something happening or something said, the Rs could refute that by saying 'no way, JB was asleep". The Rs changed a lot of stories, but this is one of those areas that they didn't back away from though, so it must be important. moo

 

[gramcracker]

What difference does it make if she walked in or was asleep?

saying she was asleep meant there were no questions about what she did or what anyone did in relation to her when they got home, or what time she went to bed. was she overstimulated/overtired and fussy? they were leaving very early the next morning: did she refuse to go to sleep/keep getting out of bed? was there a toileting/soiling incident? were the kids fighting? because I view the parents' version as a lie, I suspect that they were hiding something connected with the main event

 

[dodie20]

saying she was asleep meant there were no questions about what she did or what anyone did in relation to her when they got home, or what time she went to bed. was she overstimulated/overtired and fussy? they were leaving very early the next morning: did she refuse to go to sleep/keep getting out of bed? was there a toileting/soiling incident? were the kids fighting? because I view the parents' version as a lie, I suspect that they were hiding something connected with the main event

Here's something else to consider. Maybe the Rs weren't surprised at all to hear about the pineapple. Maybe that's precisely why they did lie ...because they knew that when investigators compared the time of digestion to the time of the head bash, there could have been no way that they were asleep and didn't hear anything. If they admitted that JB was awake, then the next logical step would have been that she had a snack before going to bed. So, better to say she was already asleep. IMO, lying about her being asleep might have been them distancing themselves from what started a chain of events. JB=awake=snack=bash. moo

 

[Chrishope]

The ransom note was written as a way to explain the dead body. The note threatened to kill her if they spoke to ANYONE. She was already dead, so all the parents had to do was put the threat in the note and talk to EVERYONE. Police, friends, clergy..all with cars parked in front of their supposedly "watched" house. Any "kidnapper" watching would have seen a parade of people they "talked to" going into the house. Then they could use that as an excuse as to why she was killed- because they "talked" to people when they were threatened not to. That is the single most valid reason for writing the note. Kidnappers do not write 3-page notes and do not leave the victim behind- dead or alive. The body was THERE- and no way were they going to dump her anywhere.

This can't be correct. The note sets up a situation in which JBR is killed in retaliation for not following the instructions. Once the body is found in the house and autopsied it becomes obvious she was dead several hours prior to the Rs talking to everybody , the parade of people, and the police cars showing up.

You have JBR being killed in "retaliation" several hours before the events that trigger the retaliation. The Rs were, imo, smart enough to see the error here.

As far as the panties- this has long been discussed here as well. There are a few reasons why those panties could have been chosen. Patsy admitted buying the size 12 set for her niece- to be mailed to her after they returned from the trip. They were likely wrapped in a gift box right there in the basement, so no need to walk back up to her room for her own. ALL JB's panties were collected as evidence and all had fecal stains. Don't think for one second that Patsy would want her daughter to be found in stained underwear. That being said- remember BLOOD was found in and around JB's vagina and also found to have been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. Her own panties have been bloodied/soiled and the size 12s were brand new fresh from the package. There is also the possibility that JB may have been wearing an identical Wednesday pair in her own size (Patsy claimed not to remember whether she bought a pair for JB as well as her niece and I can't believe she didn't). Had that been the case, there was a risk that someone at the White's party may have noticed those novelty "Wednesday" panties as JB was known to ask any adult in earshot to help her wipe herself in he bathroom. If police asked- they might have remembered and if she was wearing a different pair when found the Rs might have felt it was suspicious.
As far as the too-big size: keep in mind that JB was wearing them UNDER her own longjohns. It was not apparent just from looking at her in situ as she was brought up that they WERE too big. That was not discovered until her autopsy. I honesty do not think the parents ever thought anyone would make a big deal out of the size of her panties. Patsy covered herself by saying that she had simply put them in JB's drawer and she dressed herself in them. But the rest of the set was not there, and was sent along to police 5 YEARS later STILL IN THE PACKAGE- so obviously Patsy was lying about putting them in the drawer. Also, the panties she was wearing were tested and found to be brand new and UN-laundered.

 

[Chrishope]

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.

While this doesn't run along the lines of elements I can't explain, it seems that one obvious explanation for the "garrote" is that it's a very effective means of killing. I'm not sure why it doesn't make sense to you.

There isn't much to support manual strangulation, so the reason it was used might be that it was very effective. Also very quiet.

Though I tend to think the blow to the head was not intended to cause that much damage, some people consider that the blow may be intentional to knock her out so she wouldn't feel the pain of strangulation.

 

[Chrishope]

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.

.

Here's one instance where I can agree with UKGuy. If you try to explain every detail you'll never have a theory because they all have "problems" for the reason mentioned - some elements just do not get us far and don't really need to be (and often can't be) accounted for.

 

[Chrishope]

I still stick to my opinion re this....if they wanted to make it look like a sick pedo did it they wouldn't have bothered to wipe her off,redress her,clean the blood,etc...

:moo:

Absolutely correct.

The way the body was found, and the remaining evidence still in the WC after she was "found" do not suggest a sexual killing. Only at autopsy will any sexual angle become apparent. The scene was not staged to suggest a pedo. Thus, imo, the note was not meant to suggest a pedo.

 

[Chrishope]

Re: Pineapple

If both PR/JR were in on the coverup, and one of them knew about the pineapple, then there seems to be no reason to lie about it. The story line does not have to be that she was carried up to bed. The story line could just as easily have been that the kids were served a pineapple snack, then JB went to bed. The 5 or 10 minutes spent eating pineapple are not critical, the bogeyman can still come in the house and kill JBR even though she ate pineapple before going to bed.

Why the lie? One possibility is that neither parent knew she ate pineapple, hence they failed to account for it in their story. Another is that one parent knew, and the other did not. A lone JDI or lone PDI theory might have the guilty parent knowing about the pineapple but the innocent one not knowing. The guilty one can't tell that he/she knows about the pineapple.

 

[Chrishope]

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.

In the spirit of the thread, something that is difficult to make sense of, for me, is the RN business about a SFF.

I will not bother looking at it from IDI perspective. In RDI scenarios it doesn't seem necessary. In fact it tends to undermine the credibility of the RN.

In a "kidnapping gone bad" theory, the kidnappers are working for a SFF which implies organization and a focus on particular goals. Why then does it go "bad"?

In the DocG theory, which is the one I currently favor, there also seems to be no need for this. In fact JR's comment about it being an "inside job" contradict the notion of it being organized by a SFF.

 

[chlban]

[

What difference does it make if she walked in or was asleep?

[/QUOTE]

JMO, but I always thought they lied about that because if she was asleep when they got home and was just put into bed, there would have been no confrontation or argument between Jonbenet and Patsy, which is what I believe happened.

Sort of the theory that "we took her straight to bed because she was asleep and never saw her again until the body was found". Just another part of the staging IMO.

 

[BOESP]

In the spirit of the thread, something that is difficult to make sense of, for me, is the RN business about a SFF.

I will not bother looking at it from IDI perspective. In RDI scenarios it doesn't seem necessary. In fact it tends to undermine the credibility of the RN.

In a "kidnapping gone bad" theory, the kidnappers are working for a SFF which implies organization and a focus on particular goals. Why then does it go "bad"?

In the DocG theory, which is the one I currently favor, there also seems to be no need for this. In fact JR's comment about it being an "inside job" contradict the notion of it being organized by a SFF.

I agree with almost everything you said above Chrishope but I think too much emphasis is placed on the ransom note. It is a fake note used as a part of the staging. That staging was done by a non-criminal who was desperate to take the focus off the real situation. Beyond that, the note means nothing, except for "Who Wrote The Note?"

Patsy wrote the note and nothing will persuade me otherwise.

In the Larry King interview when Steve Thomas asks Patsy if she agrees that whoever wrote the note was the killer, Patsy says yes, she agrees. Her body language, verbiage, voice modulation, inflections, etc. indicate she is truthful, imo.

She could have disagreed.

 

[Eldee]

So if I take the spotlight off BR for just a moment....
JB is awake when they get home and says she is hungry. It has been a long day and everyone is tired and they say no.... it is time for bed... Judging by the wilfulness and spoiled little girls you can see on toddlers and tiaras JB stands her ground firm and says I WANT PINEAPPLE!!! I WANT PINEAPPLE!!! Nerves are frayed PR or JR has had enough and slaps her...too hard, she hits her head on the kitchen counter and there is no pulse.
What to do?? What to do??? They concoct these elaborate plan of the intruder to cover up the murder. Could be as simple as that. Or, they carried her upstairs screaming she want pineapple, later on, she sneaks down stairs and gets into the pineapple, where she is caught and someone is absolutely furious.

 

[chlban]

[in the Larry King interview when Steve Thomas asks Patsy if she agrees that whoever wrote the note was the killer, Patsy says yes, she agrees. Her body language, verbiage, voice modulation, inflections, etc. indicate she is truthful, imo.

She could have disagreed.

[/QUOTE]

Sort of like how Jeffrey Macdonald proclaimed for years that when they DNA tested the hair found in Collete's hand they would have their murderer. When it was finally tested the hair was his. So, turns out, he was telling the truth about that all along.

I too believe Patsy wrote the note and I really cannot be convinced otherwise. I do not believe John had any part in writing it and, in fact, I think he would have never allowed it to be shown to the police. He had to see how ludicrous it was.

 

[Eldee]

He also recalled an incident just days before JonBenet's killing when Patsy had her sitting atop a friend's convertible in the Christmas parade waving to people along the way. "Patsy's mother later told me that a strange man approached the car during the parade and it made her uncomfortable. I think about these things now and it makes me cringe. We were so naive. I now believe with all my heart that it's not a good idea to put your child on public display."

From the mouth of John Ramsey, still trying to deflect blame.

Has this ever been mentioned before in the past 15 years about a strange man at the parade?
It seems to me he can't remember a lot of really important things but he can remember something said 15 years ago by his mother-in-law about someone at a parade. Now, he can find another reason it was an intruder. The pageants again. The more he watched the tidbits of toddlers and tiaras, the more he can deflect the blame off of him.

http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/John-Ramsey-Regrets-Putting-JonBenet-Beauty-Pageants-40407.html

http://www.etonline.com/news/119909_John_Ramsey_Regrets_Putting_JonBenet_in_Pageants/index.html

 

[cubbeegirl]

While not impossible to explain, i've often wondered why it is that no matching duct tape was found in the home.

from what i understand, there are some indications that one end of the cord was melted, indicating it may have been a new roll of cord that was used in this crime.

however, i havent seen any evidence that suggests the tape was a new roll. when most people purchase these items, its because they have a use in mind for them. considering this roll was in the home, logic suggests it was intended for use in the home. otherwise, it wouldve been on the plane, or boat, etc.

evidence suggests that the ramseys were not sophisticated criminals, so i do not buy into any theories of them using tape off of a doll, back of a portrait, etc. for those same reasons, i dont see them going back and removing duct tape from places it had already been used in the home.

of course, that night, it may have started as a new roll, but the piece put over jbr's mouth was not the first piece removed from the roll, and any previous piece(s) was discarded with the cord, missing tablet pages, etc.

looking back, it seems like finding evidence of previous use in the home wouldve been good evidence against the ramseys, and something that i wouldve expected to find. of course, just as good, wouldve been the gathering of financial records in the beginning, and getting to McGuckins(sp) hardware before the security footage was erased... whether that was for the cord or tape.

I have always wondered if perhaps that roll of Duck Tape made
Its way out of that house via John Ramseys golf bag that he
So deaperately needed retrieved for him in the dead of winter....

 

[gramcracker]

or when Pam Paugh raided the house and drove away with a carload of ... funeral clothing

 

[cubbeegirl]

or when Pam Paugh raided the house and drove away with a carload of ... funeral clothing

Exactly !