Forensic evidence

[JMO8778]

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!!

I'l have to get back to the rest later;this is becoming a long thread.Anyway,I think they had planned to get her out of the house(I think the RN lines point to that,ie-'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel'),and for some reason abandoned that plan.I think the staged sexual wound was for 2 purposes,1-an attempt to cover past abuse and 2-an attempt to make it appear a kidnapping pedo assaulted her after removing her from the house.
OK...they then changed their minds about getting her out of the house...soooo...now they have the problem of a victim in the house with a sexual assault....JR KNOWS he will be suspect for this...so in an attempt to hide it...he wipes her down,redresses her and changes her underwear,replacing it w the too large ones (bc it is important to him they say WED. on them,since it was a bedtime 'abduction' that night,even though they are too big).He then covers her with the blanket.
What was the first thing JR tried to do after JB's body was found?? He tried to get out of town.WHY?? He knew full well there was likely still evidence of the sexual assault,and that he could get arrested and charged for it...all of it,inc. the murder itself.JMO.

 

[JMO8778]

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.

I've taken that bf,it never knocked me out,not even the 3 mg. tablet.

 

[JMO8778]

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.

I think so too.I think JR carried her to the basement.I think she was wiped of blood coming from her ears,eyes and maybe mouth,while on her bed(thus the blood on the pillowcase),due to PR's med supply drawer being found open.
It's possible she wiped her off bf getting JR,so he wouldn't be as angry and shocked from seeing the blood.
I think PR got the rope from the AG doll and JR cut it while still in her room,due to the fibers found on the bed from it.

 

[JMO8778]

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.

as far as tying her wrists,I think JR did that,and he did it loosely,just for that reason...BUT...when he 'found' her,he pretended they were bound 'tightly',even thought they weren't,b/c he KNEW they weren't(he tied them ,after all),and b/c he didn't want that to point to him as being the sexual abuser..better to say the intruder bound them tightly,as he was planning on taking her with him(at first).
I think this is the one thing he forgot to redo after changing the staging to cover the staged sexual assault,after they decided not to get her outside the house.Maybe that's why he went to the basement when Arndt lost track of him.

 

[JMO8778]

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

How old was he then,anybody know? B/c I know that generation can be pretty naive sometimes.My mom thought Blanche Taylor Moore (this case was here in NC,if anyone recalls it) was a good christian woman,bc one of her friends that knew her said so.Ughhhh...yea,that's why they had to dig up every man she ever had in her life,inc. her dad too,I believe.She arsenic poisoned all of them,inc. her minister husband(who lived to tell about it,thankfully).Meanwhile,I was hoping they'd lock her up and throw away the key !! 'Good christian women' don't do that.She can pretend all she wants to.I never bought it.
My point is that some ppl really can be that naive.

 

[JMO8778]

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

It was.His job was to be objective.He wasn't.

 

[JMO8778]

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?

I don't think death occurred at that moment.I do think she was manually strangled,then the head wound occured shortly thereafter.The ligature was an attempt to hide that fact.

 

[rashomon]

[All quotes from UKGuy]

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.

UKGuy,

Yes of course the Ramseys would announce this in public: that they were vilified. All perps who refuse to confess to their crime will scream the same thing from the rooftops.
As soon as the Ramseys realized that Smit actually bought their story, they took advantage of that situation, and he became "our" Lou Smit to them. Someone like Smit was the best thing which could happen to them. Everythng, simply everything in this case worked for the Ramseys. :banghead:

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!

It is true that in interviewing John Ramsey, Smit sounded more like the Ramseys' defense lawyer. But you can't say he "worked for the Ramseys", for this is factual misinformation which for example could lead new posters to the wrong conclusion that he was hired by the Ramseys. Therefore let's be as precise as possible: Smit was hired by the DA's office.

Yes, Smit was an experienced investigator, but he was also retired and may have been 'past his prime'. Only 72 hours after he was hired by the DA's office, not yet having read a fraction of the case file, and no yet having met John and Patsy, he told the baffled detectives at a first briefing: "I don't think it was the Ramseys."
On his first meeting with the detectives, he had spoken at length about The Heather Dawn Church case, "as if the murder of that little girl might be the blueprint for this case too." (ST, p. 148).
He had sucessfully resolved this case, which I think got to his head, making him biased toward parental innocence.
I don't see Smit as someone who would have let himself be bribed by the Ramseys. More like someone who was emotionally too involved with them (his own wife suffered from cancer too, and like John and Patsys he was an avid church goer, prayed a lot etc.). Another thing which imo came into play was Smit's personal ambition. I think he wanted to repeat his success in the Heather Dawn Church case with the Ramsey case.

Well for thousands of years people have believed in a forthcoming apocalypse and the appearance of the messiah.

Oh, you should tell that to people like Trip DeMuth, an ex-member of the DA's office who to this day is still waiting for the intruder to appear. Trip DeMuth who lectured SteveThomas that he as a father of two daughters could not conceive parents could have done this to their child. Steve Thomas' dry reply was that children's homicide statistics tell another story as to what parents can do to their offspring.

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.

For the reasons outlined above, I don't think that Ramsey money played a role when it comes to Lou Smit. Smit is not a type like Lin Wood, nor a type like Hunter who was afraid of the Ramseys' influence because he was more a politician than a tough prosecutor (even Lou Smit himself commented on this).
I think Smit's personal ambition and emotional involvement did play a role, but not the Ramseys' money.

 

[JMO8778]

[All quotes from UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Yes of course the Ramseys would announce this in public: that they were vilified. All perps who refuse to confess to their crime will scream the same thing from the rooftops.
As soon as the Ramseys realized that Smit actually bought their story, they took advantage of that situation, and he became "our" Lou Smit to them. Someone like Smit was the best thing which could happen to them. Everythng, simply everything in this case worked for the Ramseys. :banghead:


It is true that in interviewing John Ramsey, Smit sounded more like the Ramseys' defense lawyer. But you can't say he "worked for the Ramseys", for this is factual misinformation which for example could lead new posters to the wrong conclusion that he was hired by the Ramseys. Therefore let's be as precise as possible: Smit was hired by the DA's office.

Yes, Smit was an experienced investigator, but he was also retired and may have been 'past his prime'. Only 72 hours after he was hired by the DA's office, not yet having read a fraction of the case file, and no yet having met John and Patsy, he told the baffled detectives at a first briefing: "I don't think it was the Ramseys."
On his first meeting with the detectives, he had spoken at length about The Heather Dawn Church case, "as if the murder of that little girl might be the blueprint for this case too." (ST, p. 148).
He had sucessfully resolved this case, which I think got to his head, making him biased toward parental innocence.
I don't see Smit as someone who would have let himself be bribed by the Ramseys. More like someone who was emotionally too involved with them (his own wife suffered from cancer too, and like John and Patsys he was an avid church goer, prayed a lot etc.). Another thing which imo came into play was Smit's personal ambition. I think he wanted to repeat his success in the Heather Dawn Church case with the Ramsey case.


Oh, you should tell that to people like Trip DeMuth, an ex-member of the DA's office who to this day is still waiting for the intruder to appear. Trip DeMuth who lectured SteveThomas that he as a father of two daughters could not conceive parents could have done this to their child. Steve Thomas' dry reply was that children's homicide statistics tell another story as to what parents can do to their offspring.


For the reasons outlined above, I don't think that Ramsey money played a role when it comes to Lou Smit. Smit is not a type like Lin Wood, nor a type like Hunter who was afraid of the Ramseys' influence because he was more a politician than a tough prosecutor (even Lou Smit himself commented on this).
I think Smit's personal ambition and emotional involvement did play a role, but not the Ramseys' money.

Well -said,it seems he was hired to 'find' an intruder,or theory of one anyway,and that's just what he did.I think he again wanted to be a hero,and that got in the way of rational thinking.But he failed miserably in this case;there never was an intruder.

 

[rashomon]

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?

The forensic evidence indicates that JonBenet was

- alive when the head blow was delivered (forensic evidence: bleeeding inside the brain)
- alive when the vaginal wound was inflicted (forensic evidence: the wound bled)
- alive when the ligature was put around her neck (forensic evidence: pinpoint hemorrhages, so-called 'petechiae')

My time line is: head blow (which sent JB into a deep coma) - vaginal wound - asphyxiation with the ligature.

But how could the Ramseys have believed JonBenet was already dead when they realized that the vaginal wound bled?

 

[JMO8778]

The forensic evidence indicates that JonBenet was

- alive when the head blow was delivered (forensic evidence: bleeeding inside the brain)
- alive when the vaginal wound was inflicted (forensic evidence: the wound bled)
- alive when the ligature was put around her neck (forensic evidence: pinpoint hemorrhages so-called 'petechiae')

My time line is: head blow (which sent JB into a deep coma) - vaginal wound - asphyxiation with the ligature.

But how could the Ramseys have believed JonBenet was already dead when they realized that the vaginal wound bled?

I'd like to think they just didn't have that kind of forensic knowledge,but who knows.IOW,did they think she could still bleed a bit shortly after death?
But then we don't know how much she did bleed.

 

[rashomon]

How does a sex crime explain a homicide?

it was the staging of a sex crime. Why do people who have committed a crime stage a scene? Because they want to hide the true nature of the crime. The sexual assault and garrote scene was staged to hide the true reason why JonBenet was attacked: parental rage which resulted in a near-deadly head blow. jmpo

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?

Imo nothing in this case was premeditated. The whole staging business following the head blow was a jumbled mess, indicating panic-driven attempts to hide the real reason for JonBenet's death.

 

[coloradokares]

it was the staging of a sex crime. Why do people who have committed a crime stage a scene? Because they want to hide the true nature of the crime. The sexual assault and garrote scene was staged to hide the true reason why JonBenet was attacked: parental rage which resulted in a near-deadly head blow. jmpo


Imo nothing in this case was premeditated. The whole staging business following the head blow was a jumbled mess, indicating panic-driven attempts to hide the real reason for JonBenet's death.[/quote

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[coloradokares]

it was the staging of a sex crime. Why do people who have committed a crime stage a scene? Because they want to hide the true nature of the crime. The sexual assault and garrote scene was staged to hide the true reason why JonBenet was attacked: parental rage which resulted in a near-deadly head blow. jmpo


Imo nothing in this case was premeditated. The whole staging business following the head blow was a jumbled mess, indicating panic-driven attempts to hide the real reason for JonBenet's death.[/quote

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Also from personal exerience I am recovering from a severe bleed into the brain All I had was very shallow respiraton. Had scuh a weak pulse it was undetectable till fight for life put me on support. They were going to discontinue hydration I was a canidate for enforcement of my living will!! I changed that trust me. If experts can error on such matters I have no problem with panicked parents thinking she was dead not deeply unconcious

 

[Solace]

it was the staging of a sex crime. Why do people who have committed a crime stage a scene? Because they want to hide the true nature of the crime. The sexual assault and garrote scene was staged to hide the true reason why JonBenet was attacked: parental rage which resulted in a near-deadly head blow. jmpo


Imo nothing in this case was premeditated. The whole staging business following the head blow was a jumbled mess, indicating panic-driven attempts to hide the real reason for JonBenet's death.

Agreed, there was no plan to go home and kill JonBenet that night. It is a tragedy of rage. She was exhausted and took it out on JonBenet. She did not realize her own strength and when people get angry they are NOT thinking about how strong they are and how careful they should be.

 

[Dru]

The forensic evidence indicates that JonBenet was

- alive when the head blow was delivered (forensic evidence: bleeeding inside the brain)
- alive when the vaginal wound was inflicted (forensic evidence: the wound bled)
- alive when the ligature was put around her neck (forensic evidence: pinpoint hemorrhages so-called 'petechiae')

My time line is: head blow (which sent JB into a deep coma) - vaginal wound - asphyxiation with the ligature.:clap:

But how could the Ramseys have believed JonBenet was already dead when they realized that the vaginal wound bled?

(emphasis added by Dru)

Rashomon, you have asked the million dollar question. How, indeed? Even if he/she/they lacked the medical knowledge, IF the vaginal wound was INTENDED to be postmortem staging, then there had to be a serious "oh, no!" moment when that wound bled enough to need to be cleaned up and to necessitate a change of JBR's underwear.

Which raises the question, Was that wound actually intended to be postmortem staging?

Or was the vaginal wound simply intended to cover/confuse evidence of prior sexual abuse, inflicted very shortly after the head blow, but before the strangulation? In other words, was the person who inflicted the head blow more worried about the presence of internal evidence of sexual abuse than he/she was about the immanent death of JBR?

Bear in mind that of the two adult R's, one is KNOWN to have the kind of temper that erupts in rage. He admitted to kicking the kitchen door in his anger at PR over the "Raul" incident, and he also assaulted a tabloid reporter (the report I read said that JR would have 'thrown the reporter to the ground' had he not been restrained by his friends).

This, and the vaginal wound, do not, of course, prove that JR had anything to do with the death of JBR. But I still see him as the far likelier suspect of the two adult Ramseys!

 

[coloradokares]

(emphasis added by Dru)

Rashomon, you have asked the million dollar question. How, indeed? Even if he/she/they lacked the medical knowledge, IF the vaginal wound was INTENDED to be postmortem staging, then there had to be a serious "oh, no!" moment when that wound bled enough to need to be cleaned up and to necessitate a change of JBR's underwear.

Which raises the question, Was that wound actually intended to be postmortem staging?

Or was the vaginal wound simply intended to cover/confuse evidence of prior sexual abuse, inflicted very shortly after the head blow, but before the strangulation? In other words, was the person who inflicted the head blow more worried about the presence of internal evidence of sexual abuse than he/she was about the immanent death of JBR?

Bear in mind that of the two adult R's, one is KNOWN to have the kind of temper that erupts in rage. He admitted to kicking the kitchen door in his anger at PR over the "Raul" incident, and he also assaulted a tabloid reporter (the report I read said that JR would have 'thrown the reporter to the ground' had he not been restrained by his friends).

This, and the vaginal wound, do not, of course, prove that JR had anything to do with the death of JBR. But I still see him as the far likelier suspect of the two adult Ramseys![/quote

I do not think they thought if she bled she isnt dead!! They knew she appeared dead and seriously enough so they were staging like mad hatters to invent an intuder and stay out of jail

 

[rashomon]

(emphasis added by Dru)

Rashomon, you have asked the million dollar question. How, indeed? Even if he/she/they lacked the medical knowledge, IF the vaginal wound was INTENDED to be postmortem staging, then there had to be a serious "oh, no!" moment when that wound bled enough to need to be cleaned up and to necessitate a change of JBR's underwear.

Which raises the question, Was that wound actually intended to be postmortem staging?

Or was the vaginal wound simply intended to cover/confuse evidence of prior sexual abuse, inflicted very shortly after the head blow, but before the strangulation? In other words, was the person who inflicted the head blow more worried about the presence of internal evidence of sexual abuse than he/she was about the immanent death of JBR?

Bear in mind that of the two adult R's, one is KNOWN to have the kind of temper that erupts in rage. He admitted to kicking the kitchen door in his anger at PR over the "Raul" incident, and he also assaulted a tabloid reporter (the report I read said that JR would have 'thrown the reporter to the ground' had he not been restrained by his friends).

This, and the vaginal wound, do not, of course, prove that JR had anything to do with the death of JBR. But I still see him as the far likelier suspect of the two adult Ramseys!

The question is how much medical knowledge did the Ramseys have and how much clear thinking was to be expected from them in this extreme situation.
I believe not realizing that JB was still alive (though the wound bled) was confused thinking on their part. Confused thinking is the constant which can be observed in virtually all aspects of the staging. The loosely tied wrist ligatures for example which did not restrain, with a 15-inch space of cord between the hands. The ransom note with its 'small foreign faction' nonsense and inane words like 'two gentlemen' and 'advise you to be rested' reflects this confused thinking too. I think the Ramseys were only operating on some barely functioning 'mental auto-pilot' on that fatal night. Hardly surprising, considering the situation they found themselves in.

The fibers from Patsy's jacket which were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle, in the paint tray in and on the duct tape implicate her as the stager of the garrote scene. jmpo

 

[UKGuy]

The forensic evidence indicates that JonBenet was

- alive when the head blow was delivered (forensic evidence: bleeeding inside the brain)
- alive when the vaginal wound was inflicted (forensic evidence: the wound bled)
- alive when the ligature was put around her neck (forensic evidence: pinpoint hemorrhages, so-called 'petechiae')

My time line is: head blow (which sent JB into a deep coma) - vaginal wound - asphyxiation with the ligature.

But how could the Ramseys have believed JonBenet was already dead when they realized that the vaginal wound bled?

rashomon,

Whatever the Ramsey's believed, they went ahead and wiped away the blood. The results of the black florescent light used to view the body including the pubic area of JonBenet showed there was blood smearing.

So at three distinct points the Ramseys knew JonBenet was alive, e.g. head injury, strangulation, and vaginal wound.

So her death was premeditated, since there were three points at which medical assistance may have been sought.

I note you leave out the probability of the manual strangulation as another point in time, an inconveniant detail of course.


.

 

[coloradokares]

The question is how much medical knowledge did the Ramseys have and how much clear thinking was to be expected from them in this extreme situation.
I believe not realizing that JB was still alive (though the wound bled) was confused thinking on their part. Confused thinking is the constant which can be observed in virtually all aspects of the staging. The loosely tied wrist ligatures for example which did not restrain, with a 15-inch space of cord between the hands. The ransom note with its 'small foreign faction' nonsense and inane words like 'two gentlemen' and 'advise you to be rested' reflects this confused thinking too. I think the Ramseys were only operating on some barely functioning 'mental auto-pilot' on that fatal night. Hardly surprising, considering the situation they found themselves in.

The fibers from Patsy's jacket which were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle, in the paint tray in and on the duct tape implicate her as the stager of the garrote scene. jmpo

****I think you are right, they were on panic auto pilot!! They envisoned all their wealth power and prestige going right out the window. That is why the staging was so ......bizzare. Staging within staging