Head blow vs strangulation

[UKGuy]

I believe it was neither an accident not a first-degre murder, but manslaughter (a rage attack) followed by a cover-up.
Rage attack does not have to mean that toilet issues were the reason for it.
The forensic evidence implicates Patsy as the main stager of the scene: fibers from her jacket were found in the garrote, on the duct tape, and in the paint tray - in locations associated with JB's death.
In all probability she wrote the ransom note.
If John killed JB because he wanted to prevent her from spilling the beans, then why did Patsy stage the scene?

rashomon,

I believe it was neither an accident not a first-degre murder, but manslaughter (a rage attack) followed by a cover-up.

So its not an accident, but a rage attack, which may be sexual in origin, so whether it is manslaughter or 1st degree murder is up for debate, I think the latter.

Rage attack does not have to mean that toilet issues were the reason for it.

Sure and the current forensic evidence is inconsistent with Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory, including bedwetting, or underwear soiling!

The forensic evidence implicates Patsy as the main stager of the scene: fibers from her jacket were found in the garrote, on the duct tape, and in the paint tray - in locations associated with JB's death.
In all probability she wrote the ransom note.
If John killed JB because he wanted to prevent her from spilling the beans, then why did Patsy stage the scene?

Not 100% you have neglected any possible role played by John, a kiss assumption would have Patsy playing a supporting role, encouraging JonBenet's abusive relationship via the pageants etc.

Your question is bi-directional, why did John help cleanup the original crime-scene and JonBenet's genitals, and if he was not involved why did he not just dial 911 and report Patsy?


.

 

[Solace]

rashomon,


So its not an accident, but a rage attack, which may be sexual in origin, so whether it is manslaughter or 1st degree murder is up for debate, I think the latter.


Sure and the current forensic evidence is inconsistent with Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory, including bedwetting, or underwear soiling!


Not 100% you have neglected any possible role played by John, a kiss assumption would have Patsy playing a supporting role, encouraging JonBenet's abusive relationship via the pageants etc.

Your question is bi-directional, why did John help cleanup the original crime-scene and JonBenet's genitals, and if he was not involved why did he not just dial 911 and report Patsy?


.

Is it at all possible that Patsy is overcome with remorse and John feels for her because the child is dead and there is no purpose served by subjecting her to jail. He knows she will die soon also. This is possible my friend.

 

[UKGuy]

Is it at all possible that Patsy is overcome with remorse and John feels for her because the child is dead and there is no purpose served by subjecting her to jail. He knows she will die soon also. This is possible my friend.

Solace,

Yes I guess so, but if he is that calculating and he knows she will die soon also then why should John risk his liberty and reputation, if there is no purpose served by subjecting her to jail?

On that basis Patsy should be stepping forward and saying to John I only have months to live, I did it, but I did not really mean to do it, so I'll dial 911 now and ask for assistance?

So either way you can see, there must have been collusion, they were jointly involved, they both conspired to do the staging, both defended each other during interviews and in the media, both had multiple versions of events for that tragic night, although we do not know to which extent either was involved, or if it was a joint venture, it is patent both played some part in the death of JonBenet.

Because it was staged it simply does not appear to be what it actually was, most likely a sexual abuse case resulting in a homicide followed by staging?


.

 

[Dru]

...you could have a situation where JR does it, creates a first 'staged' crime scene designed to do just one thing, which is convince PR that BR did it, and then count on PR's desire to protect her son to obtain her cooperation in assisting with the staging, writing the RN, and generally going along with things.

I really do think that's what happened, just my opinion of course. I think the only motive that makes sense in this murder is a cover-up for abuse, I think the most likely abuser would be JR, and I don't think PR would have helped him with staging et. al. if she'd had any notion. But if he could have convinced her that BR would be taken away from them for having done this, I think she'd do whatever it took to keep her only surviving child safe.

 

[Toltec]

Toltec,

I agree, without the autopsy photographs it would be difficult to decide, but these and the details in the autopsy report confirm each other.

Either Coroner Meyer is deliberately ambiguous in his autopsy report or he considers one of two things occurred 1. JonBenet was ligature strangled at an earlier point using the ligature discovered on her neck, or 2. Some other ligature was used at an earlier point


.

Perhaps with the silk scarf that was missing from the wet bar?

Crime Scene Detectives found the scarf on top of a sink-cabinet combination (the Ramseys called it the wet bar) cut into the wall on the first floor near the bottom of the spiral staircase.

 

[UKGuy]

Perhaps with the silk scarf that was missing from the wet bar?

Crime Scene Detectives found the scarf on top of a sink-cabinet combination (the Ramseys called it the wet bar) cut into the wall on the first floor near the bottom of the spiral staircase.

Toltec,

Yes could have been a scarf, anything of that nature, of course this adds more anecdotal evidence to BlueCrab's BDI theory.


As a starting off point I would assume it was a shirt collar, or some part of JonBenet's clothing, which for some reason makes this balled up turtleneck seem more relevant, but I cannot factor it in, unless JonBenet was wearing it, when she was strangled, then it was removed and replaced with her white gap-top, and the story about the argument over what to wear to the White's was fabricated to explain away the turtleneck being out and any recent dna or hair fibers from JonBenet etc.

Curiously the turtleneck can also be fitted into BlueCrab's BDI, so its not an exclusive theory.

As I said before I now reckon, although the autopsy report has the correct conclusions, head injury, asphyxiation etc, Coroner Meyer was playing along with the staged elements in JonBenet's death. The photographs show JonBenet was not strangled with the ligature found on her neck, and we know the ligature is staging, she has the fabric compression marks on the front of her neck, which indicate a manual strangulation, she also has a severe depressed skull fracture, either of these injuries would have been enough to kill her, her head injury, if she had recovered, would have left her brain damaged. So it is difficult to escape the conclusion that she was deliberately killed!



.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Not 100% you have neglected any possible role played by John, a kiss assumption would have Patsy playing a supporting role, encouraging JonBenet's abusive relationship via the pageants etc.

Your question is bi-directional, why did John help cleanup the original crime-scene and JonBenet's genitals, and if he was not involved why did he not just dial 911 and report Patsy?

I wrote that Patsy was the main stager of the scene (not the sole stager), for the forensic evidence implicates John in the staging of the scene too.

Whoever of the Ramseys killed JB, the spouse helped in the cover-up.
I think the reason was to save what was left from the family - an attempt to spare Burke the horrible shock of having to realize that one of his parents had killed his little sister, and might be sent to prison for it. Burke would not only have lost a sibling, but also a parent.
Public image played a role too. John and Patsy Ramsey, belonging to the upper crust of society, confessing to having been involved in their daughter's death - no, they would never have been able to live with that.

 

[Toltec]

Toltec,

Yes could have been a scarf, anything of that nature, of course this adds more anecdotal evidence to BlueCrab's BDI theory.


As a starting off point I would assume it was a shirt collar, or some part of JonBenet's clothing, which for some reason makes this balled up turtleneck seem more relevant, but I cannot factor it in, unless JonBenet was wearing it, when she was strangled, then it was removed and replaced with her white gap-top, and the story about the argument over what to wear to the White's was fabricated to explain away the turtleneck being out and any recent dna or hair fibers from JonBenet etc.

Curiously the turtleneck can also be fitted into BlueCrab's BDI, so its not an exclusive theory.

As I said before I now reckon, although the autopsy report has the correct conclusions, head injury, asphyxiation etc, Coroner Meyer was playing along with the staged elements in JonBenet's death. The photographs show JonBenet was not strangled with the ligature found on her neck, and we know the ligature is staging, she has the fabric compression marks on the front of her neck, which indicate a manual strangulation, she also has a severe depressed skull fracture, either of these injuries would have been enough to kill her, her head injury, if she had recovered, would have left her brain damaged. So it is difficult to escape the conclusion that she was deliberately killed!



.

I am having trouble with the red turtleneck playing into this crime.

On the one hand, I can see Patsy putting the red turtleneck on JonBenet because it would be warmer, along with the longjohns for her when she gets on the plane.

On the other hand, if JonBenet was wearing the turtleneck when she was hit over the head, I cannot picture Patsy balling it up like that and throwing it on the bathroom counter.

On the other other hand, if the red turtleneck was removed during the struggle and before JonBenet was struck, then that turtleneck would play a part.

 

[Dru]

I tend to think the red turtleneck is a red herring.

If it had been used to manually strangle JBR, the collar would have been twisted out of shape, and there might have been other forensic evidence recoverable on it as well.

It seems like the turtleneck's importance hinges on the fact that PR cried when she saw it, and that she and JBR might have fought over what JBR was going to wear to the White's. A classmate of mine was killed in a car accident, and her mother's pain and grief was greatly heightened by the fact that the last words she had spoken to her daughter were in anger; they had a fight, and my classmate went for a walk (probably to cool down) and was hit by a car. So to me PR's crying over the turtleneck has a natural explanation, and considering how 'in control' both she and JR could be over the circumstances in this crime, the fact that she could 'let' herself cry over the turtleneck is to me an indication that it has no sinister meaning.

 

[UKGuy]

I am having trouble with the red turtleneck playing into this crime.

On the one hand, I can see Patsy putting the red turtleneck on JonBenet because it would be warmer, along with the longjohns for her when she gets on the plane.

On the other hand, if JonBenet was wearing the turtleneck when she was hit over the head, I cannot picture Patsy balling it up like that and throwing it on the bathroom counter.

On the other other hand, if the red turtleneck was removed during the struggle and before JonBenet was struck, then that turtleneck would play a part.

Toltec,

Same here, but I think all the forensic evidence may be significant, for although it may not implicate someone, it may help to minimise the relevance of any particular theory e.g. the pineapple and intruder, bedwetting and urine-soaked underwear.

Another take on the red turtleneck is that after being cleaned up JonBenet's 1st staging took the form of being placed back into her bed, wearing the red turtleneck, to hide the abrasions on her neck?

It may be JonBenet changed into the red turtleneck after arriving back at the house, possibly for the travel reasons you suggest, I reckon it plays some part.

Patsy's explanation is one of the rare occassions she offers an account of events with excellent memory recall, so personally I consider it suspect.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I tend to think the red turtleneck is a red herring.

If it had been used to manually strangle JBR, the collar would have been twisted out of shape, and there might have been other forensic evidence recoverable on it as well.

It seems like the turtleneck's importance hinges on the fact that PR cried when she saw it, and that she and JBR might have fought over what JBR was going to wear to the White's. A classmate of mine was killed in a car accident, and her mother's pain and grief was greatly heightened by the fact that the last words she had spoken to her daughter were in anger; they had a fight, and my classmate went for a walk (probably to cool down) and was hit by a car. So to me PR's crying over the turtleneck has a natural explanation, and considering how 'in control' both she and JR could be over the circumstances in this crime, the fact that she could 'let' herself cry over the turtleneck is to me an indication that it has no sinister meaning.

Dru,

If it had been used to manually strangle JBR, the collar would have been twisted out of shape, and there might have been other forensic evidence recoverable on it as well.

Any other recoverable forensic evidence may have been covered by Patsy saying JonBenet wore it then wanted to wear her white gap top, hence the alleged argument? I agree it may have been twisted out of shape, but we do not know what state it was in when taken as evidence, although balled up it may be twisted?

It may be a red herring, but imo each piece of forensic evidence has played some role in JonBenet's death, even if it may have been earlier in the day e.g. her soiled jeans on the bathroom floor.

The red turtleneck certainly fits into BlueCrab's BDI EA theory.


.

 

[Dru]

UKGuy, I think one of the most frustrating things in discussing this case are the sheer number of things we don't know.

That said, by 'forensic evidence' on the turtleneck I guess I was thinking that if JBR had worn it at the time of her death, and it had then had to be removed from her dead or dying body, some evidence of that fact would be present, e.g. some traces of the mucous on her face someone mentioned on another thread being transferred at that time to the shirt. I would think that even if PR had said, well, she was crying when we fought over the shirt, there would be some evidence connecting the turtleneck to JBR's dead body, if it had indeed been removed from her body and replaced with the white Gap top.

If I understand BC's EA theory (I'm not sure I do, completely) the 'breath control' device would have been over the turtleneck, if JBR had still been wearing it. In that case, I think there'd be at least some fiber evidence of that, in that along with PR's fibers on the rope there'd be 'turtleneck fibers' of some kind.

Though I respect all posters and their theories, I don't really buy this particular BDI scenario. My objections include (but aren't necessarily limited to) the following:

-the time element. Though we don't know exactly what time the R's arrived home the night of the murder, we do know from several sources that it was unlikely they reached home before 9pm. Even if the children were in bed by 9:30pm and the adults by 10pm (earlier than any scenario suggested so far) we then have to believe that sometime later BR and his 'unknown' friend (was the friend known to be spending the night, btw? or did BR have to sneak downstairs and let the friend in?) convinced JBR to go downstairs quietly with them, fed her some pineapple, fashioned the 'elaborate' garrotte, engaged in sex games, and then 'accidentally' kill JBR, though not until the minimum two hour pineapple digestion process takes place. BR and his 'friend' then write the RN (? have I got that right?) and sneak back to bed; JR and PR stumble upon the corpse later, and frantically stage a crime scene. All of this must take place between 10pm and 5:52am; in fact, even if you assume the parents to be in bed by 10pm, I think you'd have to give them at least a half-hour to be asleep before the children decide to go play sex games with each other. Honestly, it strains the bounds of credibility to believe that so many different people can be sneaking around that house eating pineapple, fashioning EA devices (did they have a book or something? I've known lots of 9-year-olds, but have never known one so jaded with sex that he has to string up his little sister to create a scenario; just sayin'.), writing the 'war and peace' of ransom notes, and wiping down and staging the body, all in what at its most generous estimation is approximately a seven-hour window.

-the ransom note. Even if you get around the time element problem, BlueCrab appears to believe that BR wrote the RN. Now, I know there was a dictionary handy, but again this strains credibility. The ease of writing and the overall articulate nature of the note, the good grammar and (to me the kicker) correct punctuation, and the use of the inverted carat to insert the word 'not' all argue loudly against its having been written by anyone that young. I could buy that a boy could write a note which borrows heavily from movies and television, but I can't buy the idea that a nine-year-old knows how to use periods and commas correctly, knows that an exclamation point signals the end of a sentence and therefore requires that the next word in the sentence begin with a capital letter, or understands the principles of contractions and correctly uses an apostrophe in such words as "Don't."

-the presence of an unknown person in the house that night. If I could believe that someone besides the R's was in the house that night, I could be an IDI! But there's simply no evidence that anyone else was there on that night. The R's calling all their neighbors over the next day may have been intended to confuse and contaminate the crime scene, but BR was sent away; no little friend was called to come keep him company, a logical proceeding if someone else had been there that night and might have left evidence of his presence in the house.

-the complete lack of a specific type of evidence. If this was an actual, bona fide sex crime committed by men of any age, you'd expect a certain substance to be found on, near, or in the body (sorry if that's too graphic.) This would be even more true of pre-adolescent males, would it not? But the only trace of any substance of the type to which I'm referring was found on the blanket belonging to JAR, and was traced to him, if I'm not mistaken.

-the silence of BR himself. Now, I know this one's a bit arguable, but I think if he'd been responsible for the crime, he would have been the most likely to reveal that fact at some point, to someone. Given that he couldn't be prosecuted anyway, wouldn't he at some time in his life have either deliberately or inadvertently revealed the truth?

-the Karr debacle. If the State of Colorado believes it knows the truth about the death of JBR, and by its own laws has to protect the minor involved in the crime, why such an expensive and public fiasco of bringing into custody a man that basic police work would have cleared long before the DNA test?

Sorry this is so long. There are other, minor points against BDI in general and BC's theory, in my opinion, but these are the major ones.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

It may be long, but you've summed up just about every question I had pertaining to BC's BDI theory. Great post, Dru.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

-the presence of an unknown person in the house that night. If I could believe that someone besides the R's was in the house that night, I could be an IDI! But there's simply no evidence that anyone else was there on that night.

Simply no evidence?

2 1/2 pages of handwriting, unmatched to any household member. Handwriting is normally used to establish one's identity (your signature on a check, for instance).

Unknown male DNA found mixed in with JBR's blood.

Cord brought in from the outside.

 

[BlueCrab]

UKGuy, I think one of the most frustrating things in discussing this case are the sheer number of things we don't know.

That said, by 'forensic evidence' on the turtleneck I guess I was thinking that if JBR had worn it at the time of her death, and it had then had to be removed from her dead or dying body, some evidence of that fact would be present, e.g. some traces of the mucous on her face someone mentioned on another thread being transferred at that time to the shirt. I would think that even if PR had said, well, she was crying when we fought over the shirt, there would be some evidence connecting the turtleneck to JBR's dead body, if it had indeed been removed from her body and replaced with the white Gap top.

If I understand BC's EA theory (I'm not sure I do, completely) the 'breath control' device would have been over the turtleneck, if JBR had still been wearing it. In that case, I think there'd be at least some fiber evidence of that, in that along with PR's fibers on the rope there'd be 'turtleneck fibers' of some kind.

Though I respect all posters and their theories, I don't really buy this particular BDI scenario. My objections include (but aren't necessarily limited to) the following:

-the time element. Though we don't know exactly what time the R's arrived home the night of the murder, we do know from several sources that it was unlikely they reached home before 9pm. Even if the children were in bed by 9:30pm and the adults by 10pm (earlier than any scenario suggested so far) we then have to believe that sometime later BR and his 'unknown' friend (was the friend known to be spending the night, btw? or did BR have to sneak downstairs and let the friend in?) convinced JBR to go downstairs quietly with them, fed her some pineapple, fashioned the 'elaborate' garrotte, engaged in sex games, and then 'accidentally' kill JBR, though not until the minimum two hour pineapple digestion process takes place. BR and his 'friend' then write the RN (? have I got that right?) and sneak back to bed; JR and PR stumble upon the corpse later, and frantically stage a crime scene. All of this must take place between 10pm and 5:52am; in fact, even if you assume the parents to be in bed by 10pm, I think you'd have to give them at least a half-hour to be asleep before the children decide to go play sex games with each other. Honestly, it strains the bounds of credibility to believe that so many different people can be sneaking around that house eating pineapple, fashioning EA devices (did they have a book or something? I've known lots of 9-year-olds, but have never known one so jaded with sex that he has to string up his little sister to create a scenario; just sayin'.), writing the 'war and peace' of ransom notes, and wiping down and staging the body, all in what at its most generous estimation is approximately a seven-hour window.

-the ransom note. Even if you get around the time element problem, BlueCrab appears to believe that BR wrote the RN. Now, I know there was a dictionary handy, but again this strains credibility. The ease of writing and the overall articulate nature of the note, the good grammar and (to me the kicker) correct punctuation, and the use of the inverted carat to insert the word 'not' all argue loudly against its having been written by anyone that young. I could buy that a boy could write a note which borrows heavily from movies and television, but I can't buy the idea that a nine-year-old knows how to use periods and commas correctly, knows that an exclamation point signals the end of a sentence and therefore requires that the next word in the sentence begin with a capital letter, or understands the principles of contractions and correctly uses an apostrophe in such words as "Don't."

-the presence of an unknown person in the house that night. If I could believe that someone besides the R's was in the house that night, I could be an IDI! But there's simply no evidence that anyone else was there on that night. The R's calling all their neighbors over the next day may have been intended to confuse and contaminate the crime scene, but BR was sent away; no little friend was called to come keep him company, a logical proceeding if someone else had been there that night and might have left evidence of his presence in the house.

-the complete lack of a specific type of evidence. If this was an actual, bona fide sex crime committed by men of any age, you'd expect a certain substance to be found on, near, or in the body (sorry if that's too graphic.) This would be even more true of pre-adolescent males, would it not? But the only trace of any substance of the type to which I'm referring was found on the blanket belonging to JAR, and was traced to him, if I'm not mistaken.

-the silence of BR himself. Now, I know this one's a bit arguable, but I think if he'd been responsible for the crime, he would have been the most likely to reveal that fact at some point, to someone. Given that he couldn't be prosecuted anyway, wouldn't he at some time in his life have either deliberately or inadvertently revealed the truth?

-the Karr debacle. If the State of Colorado believes it knows the truth about the death of JBR, and by its own laws has to protect the minor involved in the crime, why such an expensive and public fiasco of bringing into custody a man that basic police work would have cleared long before the DNA test?

Sorry this is so long. There are other, minor points against BDI in general and BC's theory, in my opinion, but these are the major ones.

Dr U,

Nice post. In regard to your timeline, just about everything you listed in your above post actually occurred, so from a timeline standpoint it doesn't make any difference what theory is inserted. It would have taken Patsy, or John, or Burke, or an intruder, or anyone else, all about the same time to complete.

BlueCrab

 

[Dru]

Dr U,

Nice post. In regard to your timeline, just about everything you listed in your above post actually occurred, so from a timeline standpoint it doesn't make any difference what theory is inserted. It would have taken Patsy, or John, or Burke, or an intruder, or anyone else, all about the same time to complete.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Hi! It's just 'Dru;' I'm not a Dr. of anything.

But an objection, sir. You say, "just about everything...actually occurred..." but it's the 'just about' that I'm quibbling about, so to speak.

The murder happened. The staging happened. The RN happened.

The children waiting for their parents to fall asleep so they could sneak downstairs (into the basement?) for an elaborate sex game that would have taken heaven only knows how long from the first, um, endeavors until the (intended or otherwise) death of JBR? Not so much, IMO.

And since you've been kind enough to talk to me personally (as a newbie I appreciate it!) can I ask: what about the pineapple?

Was it, as Smit guesses, just a snack lying around in a Tupperware container in JBR's room?

Did BR and his friend lure JBR downstairs with the promise of a snack, and then go from there? (Unlikely, IMO; I can't imagine a sleepy, cranky six-year-old agreeing to go quietly to a freezing basement in the middle of the night in a Colorado winter, with an intruder or her own brother, for some measly pineapple.)

Did PR or JR give the kiddies the pineapple before bedtime? When? 9? 10? If so, why didn't they mention it? In fact, why would it be important to pretend that JBR was asleep when they got home if BDI?

How does the pineapple factor in to this theory?

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

Hi! It's just 'Dru;' I'm not a Dr. of anything.

But an objection, sir. You say, "just about everything...actually occurred..." but it's the 'just about' that I'm quibbling about, so to speak.

The murder happened. The staging happened. The RN happened.

The children waiting for their parents to fall asleep so they could sneak downstairs (into the basement?) for an elaborate sex game that would have taken heaven only knows how long from the first, um, endeavors until the (intended or otherwise) death of JBR? Not so much, IMO.

And since you've been kind enough to talk to me personally (as a newbie I appreciate it!) can I ask: what about the pineapple?

Was it, as Smit guesses, just a snack lying around in a Tupperware container in JBR's room?

Did BR and his friend lure JBR downstairs with the promise of a snack, and then go from there? (Unlikely, IMO; I can't imagine a sleepy, cranky six-year-old agreeing to go quietly to a freezing basement in the middle of the night in a Colorado winter, with an intruder or her own brother, for some measly pineapple.)

Did PR or JR give the kiddies the pineapple before bedtime? When? 9? 10? If so, why didn't they mention it? In fact, why would it be important to pretend that JBR was asleep when they got home if BDI?

How does the pineapple factor in to this theory?

Dru,

The pineapple is important because it establishes several things:

1. There was no intruder. JonBenet would not have willingly come downstairs and snacked on pineapple with him at the breakfast room table as he sipped on a glass of tea. She would have screamed bloody murder had she been taken from her bed and forcefully carried downstairs by a stranger. She was quiet. JonBenet knew her killer.

2. The digestion rate of the pineapple in the small intestine indicates that JonBenet had eaten it about one to two hours before she died. There was no other food in the digestive system except for fecal matter in the large intestine, indicating that, before snacking on the pineapple, she hadn't eaten anything since having dinner at the White's dinner party approximately six hours prior. Therefore, the death likely occurred somewhere around 1:00 AM on the 26th, presumably while the parents slept and one to two hours after sitting peacefully at the breakfast room table with someone she knew.

3. The strange "setting" at the breakfast room table, which included a waterglass with a spent tea bag in it, and a small Lennox China bowl containing fresh pineapple and an oversized silver serving spoon sticking out of it, indicated the setting was that of children.

4. The bowl and the waterglass contained the fingerprints of Burke Ramsey.

Why were the children sitting at the table? Why was the outside security light turned off that night for the first time in years? Were the children waiting for the pre-planned arrival of the fifth person in the house that night -- the killer?

BlueCrab

 

[Toltec]

Simply no evidence?

2 1/2 pages of handwriting, unmatched to any household member. Handwriting is normally used to establish one's identity (your signature on a check, for instance).



John Ramsey: ...but the fact that, okay, maybe there is a few similarities in (Patsy's) writing, that's about it, I mean if somebody is trying to frame you, that's just too - that's too lucky.

Lucky indeed...

 

[Solace]

Simply no evidence?

2 1/2 pages of handwriting, unmatched to any household member. Handwriting is normally used to establish one's identity (your signature on a check, for instance).



John Ramsey: ...but the fact that, okay, maybe there is a few similarities in (Patsy's) writing, that's about it, I mean if somebody is trying to frame you, that's just too - that's too lucky.

Lucky indeed...

So John, does that mean you think Patsy wrote the note?>>

 

[Dru]

Dru,

The pineapple is important because it establishes several things:

1. There was no intruder. JonBenet would not have willingly come downstairs and snacked on pineapple with him at the breakfast room table as he sipped on a glass of tea. She would have screamed bloody murder had she been taken from her bed and forcefully carried downstairs by a stranger. She was quiet. JonBenet knew her killer.

2. The digestion rate of the pineapple in the small intestine indicates that JonBenet had eaten it about one to two hours before she died. There was no other food in the digestive system except for fecal matter in the large intestine, indicating that, before snacking on the pineapple, she hadn't eaten anything since having dinner at the White's dinner party approximately six hours prior. Therefore, the death likely occurred somewhere around 1:00 AM on the 26th, presumably while the parents slept and one to two hours after sitting peacefully at the breakfast room table with someone she knew.

3. The strange "setting" at the breakfast room table, which included a waterglass with a spent tea bag in it, and a small Lennox China bowl containing fresh pineapple and an oversized silver serving spoon sticking out of it, indicated the setting was that of children.

4. The bowl and the waterglass contained the fingerprints of Burke Ramsey.

Why were the children sitting at the table? Why was the outside security light turned off that night for the first time in years? Were the children waiting for the pre-planned arrival of the fifth person in the house that night -- the killer?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab, I'd like to take your points one at a time, if I may.

1. I agree that there was no intruder. But why would an exhausted six-year-old willingly accompany her nine-year-old brother down to the kitchen for a pineapple snack in the middle of the night? The children would have had to wait at least until their parents were in bed, if not longer, to do this, at which time JBR would most likely have been asleep. What we know of the relationship between JBR and BR seems like a fairly typical brother/sister relationship, in that they had the normal fights and squabbles siblings have. What would make an unwilling and tired kid get up, just because her brother wanted her to?

2. First, I've never heard 'one to two' hours as the likely digestion rate of the pineapple. Instead, I've heard 'two to four' or even 'two to five' for the pineapple to end up where it was (it wasn't in the stomach, IIRC). Second, time of death hasn't been conclusively determined, though I tend to agree that her death probably took place between midnight and 2am. Third, there's no real reason to presume her parents were both asleep when she died, especially considering that at least one of them appears to have been involved in a cover-up. Fourth, although the pineapple was found on the breakfast room table, there is no certain indication that any of it was consumed there, by JBR or anyone else.

3. This is the one that bugs me most. You, and other people, refer to the table as having an odd 'setting' (PR called it a 'setup') and conclude that since the adults in the house wouldn't have set the table this way, the children must have done so. But there is nothing to indicate that the table was ever actually 'set' in this way! Let me explain. It's Christmas, and your meals are not taken according to the usual routine. Pancakes are made late in the morning, and perhaps a bowl of pineapple ends up on the table, as a kind of accompaniment to the main dishes. Later the bowl is covered with plastic wrap or a lid (if it has one) and placed back into the fridge. This isn't the ordinary procedure; you have plastic containers, etc. But you're going out of town the next day and any food not eaten before you leave will be thrown away later, either by you or by your cleaning lady, so it doesn't seem worth the effort to clean up 'properly.' You go out to dinner at a friend's house; it's late when you return. You make a cup of tea; noticing that your son has left an empty water glass on the table, you dump the teabag into it, so you won't have to put a hot tea bag straight into the trash. Your daughter appears, ready for bed, but asking for a snack. You sigh, open the fridge, rummage around, and pull out the bowl of pineapple. You look for a spoon to dish it up with, but your daughter, trying to be helpful, has grabbed a spoon out of the drawer. It's way too big, but it doesn't matter, and you help her scoop the pineapple onto a paper plate. She asks if she can take it into the living room and watch her brother and father build a toy; you agree to the idea, tell her to throw the plate away when she's done, and head to the basement to finish wrapping gifts you're taking with you the next day.

See? No setup. No formal, "here, sit down and eat this," kind of meal. Something that probably went into and out of PR's mind until the pineapple became a crucial contradiction to the R's story that JBR was asleep when they arrived home.

4. The bowl and waterglass also contained PR's fingerprints. And BR's could have been placed on them at any time before or even after the murder; he could have fiddled with the things on the table while waiting to go to the White's house the morning of the 'kidnapping.'

There's just no evidence at all that BR and JBR were sitting at that table in the middle of the night, waiting for a third party to the 'sex game and murder' scenario.