Forensic evidence

[Solace]

Not many people left that are IDI, I think. There just wasn't time for an intruder to do all that was done that night. But a lot of people go back and forth among the short list of surviving Rs. Including JAR. Maybe Grandpa, too.
Of course, the killer(s) wouldn't have been bungling around in the dark down in the basement...they knew where all the light switches were. I've never read that anyone noticed lights on in the basement. Though the wineceller had no windows, the other rooms did. I've read neighbors mentioning lights left off that ususally were on, and the "weird" moving lights a neighbor saw in the R kitchen. Obviously the flashlight, as the killers moved about the kitchen. I once though maybe it was JBR and BR sneaking down to the kitchen for that infamous pineapple snack (we really don't know whether BR had eaten any pineapple also, do we?) But those 2 kids would not have wiped the flashlight AND BATTERIES down to remove their fingerprints. So that theory is out in my mind, at least. No, that was the Rs moving about AFTER the murder, writing the note, planning their coverup. BR admits to being awake, hearing voices. If his parents had discovered his sister dead in the house, he would have heard more than hushed voices! He'd have heard anquished screaming! And his parents would have rushed in to be sure HE was safe. After all, if this was a legimate intruder murder, how could a parent be sure their OTHER child wasn't lying dead somewhere in the house, even if the note only mentioned their daughter.

And since Burke said he heard "noises", it would stand to reason that Patsy and John would have heard them too and would have checked on them or called the police. But they did not need to since they were the ones making the "noises". And that is why John says I took a melatonin and I wish I had not because I might have been able to save her.

 

[Solace]

Several people on this thread have suggested that there's no way JR would have staged JBR's body like a sex crime, as the father would be the natural suspect in such a case.

However, as I've discussed before, the evidence strongly suggests that the vaginal wound was inflicted BEFORE JBR actually died--possibly after the head blow, and before the strangulation.

So, if PR is the killer, and if this is the 'rage attack' so many assume it to be, then the following things happen:

PR causes the head wound, either violently striking JBR over the head with the flashlight, or slamming the little girl as hard as she can against some hard surface in the bathroom.

She then examines her apparently lifeless daughter and believes her to be dead.

Now, she carries JBR to the basement, removes her long johns and underwear, inflicts the wound, wipes up the blood, replaces the underwear with the size-12 pair, replaces the long johns, fashions the garrote, and then strangles JBR with it, not realizing she's actually killing JBR at that moment.

(Or, possibly, the business with the wound and the redressing comes before the removal of JBR to the basement; sequence is nearly impossible to determine.)

Fibers from JR's clothing are found on JBR's body, in the area that has been wiped up.

What does all of this mean? Does PR not see that JR will be a natural suspect in the death of JBR, particularly given the sexual wound? Does PR not further see that using JR's clothing to clean JBR will throw immediate and terrible suspicion on him? Moreover, what possible reason could there be to inflict a sex wound and then attempt to cover up that wound?

In my opinion, there are only three possible ways of accounting for all of this if either parent is involved at all:

One, PR did all of these things on purpose to throw suspicion on JR. Which then makes it very difficult to explain why JR would work so hard to keep her out of jail; he's a smart man, and would have many questions about how his shirt fibers ended up in such a sensitive area of JBR's body.

Two, PR did all of these things on purpose to hide evidence of sexual abuse being committed by someone other than JR. This would explain her willingness to inflict a sexual wound, clean it up to further 'muddy' evidence, and even to be careless about JR's clothing fibers. Unfortunately, this requires a level of self-possession and cunning on the part of someone who has just accidentally killed her own daughter that is hard to accept as reality; it also requires a level of altruism, because even a lecherous family member would be a better suspect than PR herself, right?

Three, JR inflicted the sexual wound, but then hid it, because in this instance the wound is not intended to make JBR's death look like a sex crime, but only to compromise evidence of prior sexual abuse and to create confusion about whether such abuse even happened. IF that was ever his intent, you must admit that it succeeded admirably.

So, there might be a motive for a father to inflict a sexual wound on a child--if he had been abusing her prior to her death.

But because of the timing--wound inflicted before death occurred--whoever inflicted that wound MUST be the person who killed JBR.

To me, that wound is the single most important feature of the case. Create a plausible scenario that would have PR inflicting that wound before she even 'finishes the job' so to speak, and you will convince me that she's the killer.

Otherwise, all the speculation about PR being tired, drinking, taking medication, being up too late, being frustrated with the bedwetting, planning to give a recalcitrant child a dye job at midnight, or even douching a six-year-old, interesting though these speculations might be, do not and can not explain the urgent need to inflict a penetrating wound to the vagina of a child who is not yet dead (even if the killer believes she is)--and then take measures fairly quickly before or after the strangulation to clean up the evidence of this wound!!

OR, Patsy pulls her off the bed with such force she is strangling her right there and leaves her thumb print and drags her and throws her into the bathtub back of the head first and inflicts a lethal injury. I think John helped with the staging downstairs - Rocket found a great answer by Patsy when she was being interviewed "I screamed for John and John screamed for me from the basement". I think she is telling the truth there. I think she may have gotten the "supplies" and John did the staging and that is how his fibers get on JB.

 

[rashomon]

Because he worked for the Ramseys, he invented a defence for them which had no basis in fact, and he promoted the intruder theory which as an experienced investigator he knew to be rubbish, do not forget he had access to the evidence, we have not, and we can see it is a fantasy defence!

Lou Smit did not work for the Ramseys - he was employed by the DA's office.
I do believe that Smit (unlike Alex Hunter, who was simply to much of a coward to push the case forward against the Ramseys) was in fact convinced of the Ramseys' innocence. He swallowed their staged scene hook, line and sinker.

 

[Albert18]

...To me, that wound is the single most important feature of the case. Create a plausible scenario that would have PR inflicting that wound before she even 'finishes the job' so to speak, and you will convince me that she's the killer....

I think the number one problem was to explain why JonBenet was in the house and dead. A sex crime was chosen as the explanation. Three steps were taken to sell that explanation; the cord around the neck, tying of the wrists, and the injury to JB's vagina.

You can't have a sex crime without some kind of sexual type injury. I think what was done was all that person could stomach.

So why the cleanup? Because she is your baby girl. My guess is feces prompted the cleanup. Urine isn't important, but feces are a completely different story.

 

[rashomon]

I'm not sure there is supporting evidence for the idea that Patsy thought JonBenet was dead after the head injury was inflicted. Based on the severity of the head injury in conjunction with JonBenet's abrasions and contusions in conjunction with the sex assault, it appears to me to be a sequence of child abuse culminating in murder. Patsy may have intentionally placed the ligature around JonBenet's neck, tying it off relatively tightly, for the purpose of suffocating a still living, but unconscious JonBenet. The broken paint brush handle may have been added some time after that for effect as part of the staging.

But if the vaginal wound was inflicted after JB had died from ashphyxiaton, there would have been no bleeding.

 

[Solace]

Lou Smit did not work for the Ramseys - he was employed by the DA's office.
I do believe that Smit (unlike Alex Hunter, who was simply to much of a coward to push the case forward against the Ramseys) was in fact convinced of the Ramseys' innocence. He swallowed their staged scene hook, line and sinker.

And don't forget Lou Smit's wife was also dealing with cancer as was Patsy and he felt sorry for Patsy.

 

[Solace]

Lou Smit did not work for the Ramseys - he was employed by the DA's office.
I do believe that Smit (unlike Alex Hunter, who was simply to much of a coward to push the case forward against the Ramseys) was in fact convinced of the Ramseys' innocence. He swallowed their staged scene hook, line and sinker.

This is true, he was hired by the DA's office and he exploited that position - totally unprofessional.

 

[Solace]

I think the number one problem was to explain why JonBenet was in the house and dead. A sex crime was chosen as the explanation. Three steps were taken to sell that explanation; the cord around the neck, tying of the wrists, and the injury to JB's vagina.

You can't have a sex crime without some kind of sexual type injury. I think what was done was all that person could stomach.

So why the cleanup? Because she is your baby girl. My guess is feces prompted the cleanup. Urine isn't important, but feces are a completely different story.

The cleaning of the victim, namely a child, is often found when a parent kills a child - cleaning or placing the child in a place where an intruder would not - lovingly, yes I did say lovingly - wrapping the child up - this is all evidence of someone close to the child.

 

[UKGuy]

Lou Smit did not work for the Ramseys - he was employed by the DA's office.
I do believe that Smit (unlike Alex Hunter, who was simply to much of a coward to push the case forward against the Ramseys) was in fact convinced of the Ramseys' innocence. He swallowed their staged scene hook, line and sinker.

rashomon,

Lou Smit did not work for the Ramseys - he was employed by the DA's office.

Well I saw Lou Smit appearing in a few Tracy documentaries, complete with suitcase full of evidence, along with Patsy and John making appearances to tell us how vilified they have been, and that there is an intruder out there because Lou's team has the evidence.

I do believe that Smit (unlike Alex Hunter, who was simply to much of a coward to push the case forward against the Ramseys) was in fact convinced of the Ramseys' innocence. He swallowed their staged scene hook, line and sinker.

Well for thousands of years people have believed in a forthcoming apocalypse and the appearance of the messiah. You are welcome to your belief but I tend to the view that the Ramsey money and influence counts for more than mere sympathy or naive credulity on Lou Smit's behalf. He was an experienced investigator, possibly more so than Steve Thomas, yet he went on to invent a homicide scenario that had no basis in fact, all fabricated to wrap around the Ramsey claim that an intruder killed their daughter, I call that working for the Ramsey's!

.

 

[UKGuy]

I think the number one problem was to explain why JonBenet was in the house and dead. A sex crime was chosen as the explanation. Three steps were taken to sell that explanation; the cord around the neck, tying of the wrists, and the injury to JB's vagina.

You can't have a sex crime without some kind of sexual type injury. I think what was done was all that person could stomach.

So why the cleanup? Because she is your baby girl. My guess is feces prompted the cleanup. Urine isn't important, but feces are a completely different story.

Albert18,

I think the number one problem was to explain why JonBenet was in the house and dead. A sex crime was chosen as the explanation.

How does a sex crime explain a homicide?

So why the cleanup?

Therein lies a mystery particularly for the PDI stagers, e.g. why bother staging a sexual assault only to then hide it from view?


.

 

[UKGuy]

But if the vaginal wound was inflicted after JB had died from ashphyxiaton, there would have been no bleeding.

rashomon,

Does this mean JonBenet's death was premeditated, since a decision was taken not only to construct a sexual assault prior to her death, but to then subsequently kill her?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Several people on this thread have suggested that there's no way JR would have staged JBR's body like a sex crime, as the father would be the natural suspect in such a case.

However, as I've discussed before, the evidence strongly suggests that the vaginal wound was inflicted BEFORE JBR actually died--possibly after the head blow, and before the strangulation.

So, if PR is the killer, and if this is the 'rage attack' so many assume it to be, then the following things happen:

PR causes the head wound, either violently striking JBR over the head with the flashlight, or slamming the little girl as hard as she can against some hard surface in the bathroom.

She then examines her apparently lifeless daughter and believes her to be dead.

Now, she carries JBR to the basement, removes her long johns and underwear, inflicts the wound, wipes up the blood, replaces the underwear with the size-12 pair, replaces the long johns, fashions the garrote, and then strangles JBR with it, not realizing she's actually killing JBR at that moment.

(Or, possibly, the business with the wound and the redressing comes before the removal of JBR to the basement; sequence is nearly impossible to determine.)

Fibers from JR's clothing are found on JBR's body, in the area that has been wiped up.

What does all of this mean? Does PR not see that JR will be a natural suspect in the death of JBR, particularly given the sexual wound? Does PR not further see that using JR's clothing to clean JBR will throw immediate and terrible suspicion on him? Moreover, what possible reason could there be to inflict a sex wound and then attempt to cover up that wound?

In my opinion, there are only three possible ways of accounting for all of this if either parent is involved at all:

One, PR did all of these things on purpose to throw suspicion on JR. Which then makes it very difficult to explain why JR would work so hard to keep her out of jail; he's a smart man, and would have many questions about how his shirt fibers ended up in such a sensitive area of JBR's body.

Two, PR did all of these things on purpose to hide evidence of sexual abuse being committed by someone other than JR. This would explain her willingness to inflict a sexual wound, clean it up to further 'muddy' evidence, and even to be careless about JR's clothing fibers. Unfortunately, this requires a level of self-possession and cunning on the part of someone who has just accidentally killed her own daughter that is hard to accept as reality; it also requires a level of altruism, because even a lecherous family member would be a better suspect than PR herself, right?

Three, JR inflicted the sexual wound, but then hid it, because in this instance the wound is not intended to make JBR's death look like a sex crime, but only to compromise evidence of prior sexual abuse and to create confusion about whether such abuse even happened. IF that was ever his intent, you must admit that it succeeded admirably.

So, there might be a motive for a father to inflict a sexual wound on a child--if he had been abusing her prior to her death.

But because of the timing--wound inflicted before death occurred--whoever inflicted that wound MUST be the person who killed JBR.

To me, that wound is the single most important feature of the case. Create a plausible scenario that would have PR inflicting that wound before she even 'finishes the job' so to speak, and you will convince me that she's the killer.

Otherwise, all the speculation about PR being tired, drinking, taking medication, being up too late, being frustrated with the bedwetting, planning to give a recalcitrant child a dye job at midnight, or even douching a six-year-old, interesting though these speculations might be, do not and can not explain the urgent need to inflict a penetrating wound to the vagina of a child who is not yet dead (even if the killer believes she is)--and then take measures fairly quickly before or after the strangulation to clean up the evidence of this wound!!

Dru,

However, as I've discussed before, the evidence strongly suggests that the vaginal wound was inflicted BEFORE JBR actually died--possibly after the head blow, and before the strangulation.

Or it was inflicted before the head blow or the strangulation, the latter being an attempt to silence JonBenet?

The use of the paintbrush may be an attempt to mask the original sexual assault, Coroner Meyer opined at the autopsy in the company of witnesses that JonBenet had been engaged in sexual activity prior to her death e.g.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

That is, digital penetration , is distinct from a paintbrush insertion!


.

 

[Dru]

Dru,

Or it was inflicted before the head blow or the strangulation, the latter being an attempt to silence JonBenet?

The use of the paintbrush may be an attempt to mask the original sexual assault, Coroner Meyer opined at the autopsy in the company of witnesses that JonBenet had been engaged in sexual activity prior to her death e.g.


That is, digital penetration , is distinct from a paintbrush insertion!


.

There is one huge, gaping problem with the idea that the vaginal wound was inflicted before the head blow.

JBR's body showed no evidence of a struggle. Not only that, but the wound to the vagina was a 'clean' wound; that is, it was a simple penetrating wound with no associated trauma.

Ask anyone who has examined child sex victims whether a penetrating injury severe enough to cause bleeding can be inflicted on a motionless, compliant child who is NOT unconscious, and they will tell you that it's not possible.

There would be several of the following indications on JBR's body if the wound had been inflicted while she was conscious (and please note, I never say 'paintbrush wound,' as I think there's no clear evidence as to what was used; it could have been anything from someone's hand to the paintbrush to some other object unknown and unaccounted for):

-bruising of her legs, especially in the thigh area.
-bruising of the sensitive labial skin, which would have to be held forcibly apart.
-some sign that JBR's hands/arms had actually been restrained; bruising etc. associated with the wrist restraints.
-most importantly, the wound to the vagina would have shown evidence that the victim had moved during its infliction; it wouldn't be a 'clean' wound. Even a compliant person isn't going to remain completely still if something this painful happens; there will be motion, and the wound will appear larger, ragged, incomplete, or signify in some way that motion has taken place. There is no evidence in the autopsy that JBR moved during the infliction of this injury.

So what does this mean?

It means that JBR was not conscious when that wound was inflicted, which does not prove, but DOES strongly suggest, that the head blow came first.

Is their any corroboration of that possibility?

Yes. The wound bled; there is forensic evidence that blood was cleaned up from JBR's legs, so there was at least a visible amount of blood. But if the wound had been inflicted after death, there would have been at best a tiny or insignificant amount of bleeding; in all probability there would be no blood at all.

But if you theorize "head blow--strangulation (death)--infliction of wound" then you can't account for the blood.

And if you theorize "strangulation--head blow--infliction of wound" you also can't account for the blood.

And if you theorize "strangulation--infliction of wound--head blow" then some of the forensic evidence regarding the strangulation/head blow becomes problematic; even if you can explain the physical evidence, you're left with the problem of the wound being inflicted on a still-living child, and while incomplete strangulation would probably cause some level of loss of consciousness it's not as definite as the level of unconsciousness which would clearly and definitely be caused by a blow to the head of that force being delivered.

The one thing that is clear in all of this is that the head blow and strangulation did NOT occur simultaneously, as some PDI people theorize. There was no "twisting of turtleneck at the same moment as the slamming into the bathtub" event, because if death had occurred at that moment, the vaginal wound inflicted later would not bleed.

See why I think this vaginal wound may be the most important clue in the case?

 

[Solace]

rashomon,


Well I saw Lou Smit appearing in a few Tracy documentaries, complete with suitcase full of evidence, along with Patsy and John making appearances to tell us how vilified they have been, and that there is an intruder out there because Lou's team has the evidence. This is after he resigned.



Well for thousands of years people have believed in a forthcoming apocalypse and the appearance of the messiah. You are welcome to your belief but I tend to the view that the Ramsey money and influence counts for more than mere sympathy or naive credulity on Lou Smit's behalf. He was an experienced investigator, possibly more so than Steve Thomas, yet he went on to invent a homicide scenario that had no basis in fact, all fabricated to wrap around the Ramsey claim that an intruder killed their daughter, I call that working for the Ramsey's! We are dealing in facts here. He was on the District Attorney's payroll. He came to believe that the Ramseys did not do it. He does align himself with the ever sleazy Michael Tracey, and that speaks volumes, but I think he actually believes they are innocent.

.

I know you don't want to hear them, but you should read them anyway.

 

[Solace]

There is one huge, gaping problem with the idea that the vaginal wound was inflicted before the head blow.

JBR's body showed no evidence of a struggle. Not only that, but the wound to the vagina was a 'clean' wound; that is, it was a simple penetrating wound with no associated trauma.

Ask anyone who has examined child sex victims whether a penetrating injury severe enough to cause bleeding can be inflicted on a motionless, compliant child who is NOT unconscious, and they will tell you that it's not possible.

There would be several of the following indications on JBR's body if the wound had been inflicted while she was conscious (and please note, I never say 'paintbrush wound,' as I think there's no clear evidence as to what was used; it could have been anything from someone's hand to the paintbrush to some other object unknown and unaccounted for):

-bruising of her legs, especially in the thigh area.
-bruising of the sensitive labial skin, which would have to be held forcibly apart.
-some sign that JBR's hands/arms had actually been restrained; bruising etc. associated with the wrist restraints.
-most importantly, the wound to the vagina would have shown evidence that the victim had moved during its infliction; it wouldn't be a 'clean' wound. Even a compliant person isn't going to remain completely still if something this painful happens; there will be motion, and the wound will appear larger, ragged, incomplete, or signify in some way that motion has taken place. There is no evidence in the autopsy that JBR moved during the infliction of this injury. Excellent post.

So what does this mean?

It means that JBR was not conscious when that wound was inflicted, which does not prove, but DOES strongly suggest, that the head blow came first.

Is their any corroboration of that possibility?

Yes. The wound bled; there is forensic evidence that blood was cleaned up from JBR's legs, so there was at least a visible amount of blood. But if the wound had been inflicted after death, there would have been at best a tiny or insignificant amount of bleeding; in all probability there would be no blood at all.

But if you theorize "head blow--strangulation (death)--infliction of wound" then you can't account for the blood.

And if you theorize "strangulation--head blow--infliction of wound" you also can't account for the blood.

And if you theorize "strangulation--infliction of wound--head blow" then some of the forensic evidence regarding the strangulation/head blow becomes problematic; even if you can explain the physical evidence, you're left with the problem of the wound being inflicted on a still-living child, and while incomplete strangulation would probably cause some level of loss of consciousness it's not as definite as the level of unconsciousness which would clearly and definitely be caused by a blow to the head of that force being delivered.

The one thing that is clear in all of this is that the head blow and strangulation did NOT occur simultaneously, as some PDI people theorize. There was no "twisting of turtleneck at the same moment as the slamming into the bathtub" event, because if death had occurred at that moment, the vaginal wound inflicted later would not bleed. But death did not occur at that moment, she was still alive but unconscious. Was her brain swollen? Anyone can chime in.

See why I think this vaginal wound may be the most important clue in the case?

See above.

 

[JMO8778]

I found out that you are right. I was thinking there were no windows in the cellar, but wasn't sure. Here is what doesn't make sense. I have seen floor plans of the Ramsey's basement, and there are more than three rooms down there. John and Patsy both, have said that it was a mess, with things thrown down there...it was an obstacle course. Especially for an intruder that was trying to dodge all of the obstacles in the dark. If an intruder did it, which he didn't, but if he did...why in the world did he bring the flashlight back up to the kitchen, and take the time to wipe off prints, and then go BACK down into the cellar...in the dark...and climb back out from the window that he came in from? He could have simply taken the flashlight with him. Even if he had of used the front door...he would have still had to have been able to see...to FIND the door, and then outside. I can't figure out either, how the intruder supposedly, in the dark, knew that the cellar door had a latch on it, and then found it in the dark and latched it after leaving JB's body in there. Not only would an intruder NOT do that...latch a door...what was the purpose...but, he wouldn't have known it was there....IT WAS DARK.

and he also put the grate back(causing the neighbor to hear the scraping sounds..which I think were the paint cans being moved in the WC,it was near the flow vent),and simulataneously left open the butler door.wow.

 

[JMO8778]

I don't know why I didn't think about that flashlight earlier. RED FLAG...the intruder didn't take it with him, instead he wiped off the prints, placed it on the kitchen counter...and stumbled around in the dark, trying to get out of the house. I haven't ran into a poster in a long time, that still believes IDI theory....but, I am sure that there are still some out there. My question is WHY with all of these inconsistancies, lies and red flags....is there ANYBODY out there left, that still believes that a intruder did it. And it makes me sick, that the Ramsey's weren't arrested ON THE SPOT.

I totally agree,and even worse to me,esp since I live in NC,(home of the name calling borgers state).. is that there are ppl who KNOW better and still refuse to admit it,and they spread lies as well.But like I'd said b/f ,no one *from around here would do that.

 

[JMO8778]

Not many people left that are IDI, I think. There just wasn't time for an intruder to do all that was done that night. But a lot of people go back and forth among the short list of surviving Rs. Including JAR. Maybe Grandpa, too.
Of course, the killer(s) wouldn't have been bungling around in the dark down in the basement...they knew where all the light switches were. I've never read that anyone noticed lights on in the basement. Though the wineceller had no windows, the other rooms did. I've read neighbors mentioning lights left off that ususally were on, and the "weird" moving lights a neighbor saw in the R kitchen. Obviously the flashlight, as the killers moved about the kitchen. I once though maybe it was JBR and BR sneaking down to the kitchen for that infamous pineapple snack (we really don't know whether BR had eaten any pineapple also, do we?) But those 2 kids would not have wiped the flashlight AND BATTERIES down to remove their fingerprints. So that theory is out in my mind, at least. No, that was the Rs moving about AFTER the murder, writing the note, planning their coverup. BR admits to being awake, hearing voices. If his parents had discovered his sister dead in the house, he would have heard more than hushed voices! He'd have heard anquished screaming! And his parents would have rushed in to be sure HE was safe. After all, if this was a legimate intruder murder, how could a parent be sure their OTHER child wasn't lying dead somewhere in the house, even if the note only mentioned their daughter.

right on,and I think JR used the night vision goggles for the basement staging,altho in the WC,he could have just turned the light on and shut the door,maybe he did to check the final elements of it all,although I think he missed the barbie gown being there somehow.

 

[rashomon]

[Dru]To me, that wound is the single most important feature of the case. Create a plausible scenario that would have PR inflicting that wound before she even 'finishes the job' so to speak, and you will convince me that she's the killer.

I think the number one problem was to explain why JonBenet was in the house and dead. A sex crime was chosen as the explanation. Three steps were taken to sell that explanation; the cord around the neck, tying of the wrists, and the injury to JB's vagina.

You can't have a sex crime without some kind of sexual type injury. I think what was done was all that person could stomach.

So why the cleanup? Because she is your baby girl. My guess is feces prompted the cleanup. Urine isn't important, but feces are a completely different story.

ITA with your assessment, Albert.
The Ramseys tried to create a 'raped and strangled' scenario, because this is what often happens to victims of a sexual crime. They introduced an additional bizarre element (the so-called garrote) designed to direct the attention away from the parents as possible perps.

 

[JMO8778]

I'm not sure there is supporting evidence for the idea that Patsy thought JonBenet was dead after the head injury was inflicted. Based on the severity of the head injury in conjunction with JonBenet's abrasions and contusions in conjunction with the sex assault, it appears to me to be a sequence of child abuse culminating in murder. Patsy may have intentionally placed the ligature around JonBenet's neck, tying it off relatively tightly, for the purpose of suffocating a still living, but unconscious JonBenet. The broken paint brush handle may have been added some time after that for effect as part of the staging.

she may have been seizuring as well...I think it's very likely.and so it becomes very hard to say she thought JB was dead.some say JB was unconcious b/c she didn't claw at the rope...if she was having a full body seizure,her hands wouldn't have permitted her to do so.