Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[ScarlettScarpetta]

DeDee thanks for all these amazing informative thought provoking posts!

 

[Mama2JML]

It is seldom that I see anyone acknowledge there being 3 sets of twin abrasions. TY

I don't think we can be certain, but it seems quite plausible the third pair of "abrasions", noted by Dr. Meyer in the AR, were likely a result of the same implement used to make the other two paired "abrasions" of similar dimensions.

This reminds of something I've always found curious: How did LE & the ME's photos of JonBenet's legs, feet, etc. remain so well hidden while others were stolen, leaked, and legally published over the years? Might there be "secrets" (information/evidence) that hasn't been disclosed, purposely, by the many insiders who've shared their story &/or analysis all these years?...

These are the items removed from the body of JonBenet Ramsey. I excluded the obvious cord, long johns, etc.

Green (?)
Green flakes
Trace evidence
Piece of paper
White fiber
Hairs/fibers

So, which one of these items is the visible white fleck that is on her face when the photo is taken while she is under the Christmas tree? For reference, it is located at FFJ autopsy photos on post #10.

I would hope the "fleck" was noticed & collected. ...trace evidence, probably.

As well as other locations on the internet, I studied the photos on FFJ to determine the faint line between the twin abrasions on her back in posts #2 & 10. It's the photo on the far right in post #2 and with the ruler in post #12.

There is a line between the two marks on her left leg in the sundress photo, also shown in post #12.

This is the image that I studied to determine a thin, straight, white line on her face that stops just above the darkest abrasion and turns downward at an angle to the right of the dark abrasion. Perhaps it is remants from the tape's adhesive. The clearly visible smaller abrasion, where the tape and white fleck once was, is the twin stun gun mark of the larger abrasion.
[modsnip]

Another photo I linked a while back, appears to depict a rather distinct difference in the flesh where I surmise the tape had been applied. (Interesting side note: The tape lifted from the blanket, w/what you and I perceive to be a staple, doesn't align with the dimensions of the aforementioned area around the victim's mouth.)

Yes. I, too, believe the red marks around her throat and neck tell us that the cord was tightened, slightly released and repositioned, before the head injury occurred; then, she was strangled until death. Evidence supports that JonBenet lived up to at least 60 minutes between the first assault with the cord and her death.

I am no expert, but I agree. Your conjecture seems more likely, to me, than the consensus most popular among posters here. JMHO.

Even though it is human nature to not want to believe she suffered terribly, these events, the stun gun, the nylon cord, the bloody rape, the head injury, tell us that this was not a sudden death for this lovely child.

Absolutely. We'd all like to believe there was little to no suffering, but the evidence you've mentioned and an in depth analysis of the autopsy report paints a dark, drawn-out & disturbing demise.

When time permits, please do elaborate.

Another unpopular notion: Some level of suspension, possibly...

This topic is overwhelming & confusing, but I want to know the purpose & function (or lack thereof) of the cord, handle, and so much more. I just don't feel confident accepting the staging argument as a blanket explanation for many of the more bizarre elements of the crime scene, when much of this evidence appears to be contradictory. As well, I think the victim's body suggests brutality & overkill. The hypothetical "accident" scenarios I've come across simply do not accommodate many pertinent facts (I.e. AR, & physical/forensic evidence) and require much speculation.

 

[DeDee]

Thanks for that! What this show me is ST had no evidence that supported his theory. Jmo


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

ScarlettScarpetta, reading STs book found me quite dismayed. His theory regarding Patsy's bedwetting rage that led to an accidental, but fatal, head injury was based on a red turtleneck shirt belonging to JonBenet that he never saw. ST did not know if the red shirt was wet. ST did not know if the red turtleneck was wet from urine.

Therefore, Steve Thomas' theory of PR being the cause of JBRs deadly head blow and that PR "staged" the strangulation was based on an assumption and completely without evidentiary foundation.

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9948"]Steve Thomas Deposition - Wolf Case - September 21, 2001 - Forums For Justice[/ame]


356 - 358

Q. Page 286, you make reference to a
17 red turtleneck being stripped off of JonBenet
18 when it got wet from I guess her bed
19 wetting.
20 MR. DIAMOND: Where are you?
21 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph
22 down "I concluded the little girl had worn
23 the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother
24 originally said, and that it was stripped off
25 when it got wet."

Q. Did anybody tell you that they
15 found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
16 A. No, this is what I am surmising
17 in the hypothesis.

21 Q. Did it have any type of urine
22 stain on it?
23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never
24 have looked at it personally.

OMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

ScarlettScarpetta, reading STs book found me quite dismayed. His theory regarding Patsy's bedwetting rage that led to an accidental, but fatal, head injury was based on a red turtleneck shirt belonging to JonBenet that he never saw. ST did not know if the red shirt was wet. ST did not know if the red turtleneck was wet from urine.



Therefore, Steve Thomas' theory of PR being the cause of JBRs deadly head blow and that PR "staged" the strangulation was based on an assumption and completely without evidentiary foundation.



Steve Thomas Deposition - Wolf Case - September 21, 2001 - Forums For Justice





356 - 358

















OMO

That's not entirely true that he based his opinion solely on a wet turtleneck.
There are more reasons that lead to his theory.
More children are physically abused and killed over toileting issues than can be imagined!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeDee]

RSBM

This reminds of something I've always found curious: How did LE & the ME's photos of JonBenet's legs, feet, etc. remain so well hidden while others were stolen, leaked, and legally published over the years? Might there be "secrets" (information/evidence) that hasn't been disclosed, purposely, by the many insiders who've shared their story &/or analysis all these years?...

Absolutely and without a doubt there are unrevealed "secrets" such as the adult Dr. Seuss book. Lou Smit avoids mentioning the adult book even when discussing the suitcase and its contents.

I would be interested in seeing photos of the soles of her feet that have been described as having lint of them. And, of course, the two abrasions on the back of her leg, etc.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/05/25/jonbenet-search-for-truth-part-ii/

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-photos.htm

I would hope the "fleck" was noticed & collected. ...trace evidence, probably.

I'll need to again read Arndt's comments for obtaining the Search Warrants but, as I recall, she noticed Meyer's remove trace evidence while at the home on the 26th.

Det. Tom Trujillo was assigned the tasks of investigating hair and fiber evidence as well as the stun gun theory and possibly other areas, as well. With that in mind, rereading Patsy's April 30, 1997 interview transcript, may provide additional clues.

Another photo I linked a while back, appears to depict a rather distinct difference in the flesh where I surmise the tape had been applied. (Interesting side note: The tape lifted from the blanket, w/what you and I perceive to be a staple, doesn't align with the dimensions of the aforementioned area around the victim's mouth.)

Do you recall which thread you posted the photo as I am interested in viewing it? I have not spent a great deal of time studying the photo of the tape that has described as being upside down and/or turned around.

Another unpopular notion: Some level of suspension, possibly...

This topic is overwhelming & confusing, but I want to know the purpose & function (or lack thereof) of the cord, handle, and so much more. I just don't feel confident accepting the staging argument as a blanket explanation for many of the more bizarre elements of the crime scene, when much of this evidence appears to be contradictory. As well, I think the victim's body suggests brutality & overkill. The hypothetical "accident" scenarios I've come across simply do not accommodate many pertinent facts (I.e. AR, & physical/forensic evidence) and require much speculation.

Suspension is highly likely given the nature of the crime and the total length of the nylon cord involved.

The only "staging" that I see in the crime is the RN that purports a kidnapping.

I have an ongoing process of composing what appears to be a short list of items that are missing from the crime scene that includes the 9 pages missing from interior of the RN pad as being one item.


OMO

 

[Anti-K]

ScarlettScarpetta, reading STs book found me quite dismayed. His theory regarding Patsy's bedwetting rage that led to an accidental, but fatal, head injury was based on a red turtleneck shirt belonging to JonBenet that he never saw. ST did not know if the red shirt was wet. ST did not know if the red turtleneck was wet from urine.

Therefore, Steve Thomas' theory of PR being the cause of JBRs deadly head blow and that PR "staged" the strangulation was based on an assumption and completely without evidentiary foundation.

Steve Thomas Deposition - Wolf Case - September 21, 2001 - Forums For Justice


356 - 358








OMO

Thomas later (after his book) went on to admit that Jonbenet had net even worn the red sweater.

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

[Chat log provided per About.Com Crime Page]
November 14, 2000
NOTE: This chat log was edited by the About.com Host to exclude errors and unessential conversation not specific between Mr Thomas and the Host.
Steve Thomas Chat (November 14, 2000)

<snip>
crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?
stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day.
<snip>
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

Oops! Apologies for the double post.

AntiK, thank you for the clarification of the chat I had already read. It does not change the fact, that in his book, he based his "rage over bedwetting" theory on a red shirt that he never saw.

 

[Mama2JML]

Do you recall which thread you posted the photo as I am interested in viewing it?

I am glad you asked! Thanks...

I thought I had posted the photo/link on this thread, but when I went through the pages I realized the post was on an older, now closed IDI thread.

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE:
http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh563/mama2jml/8dda6735.jpg

I have not spent a great deal of time studying the photo of the tape that has described as being upside down and/or turned around.

AK's assessment may be correct, but I have some reservations. The only photographs of tape (to which we have access) just don't seem to 'fit', literally & figuratively.

 

[DeDee]

That's not entirely true that he based his opinion solely on a wet turtleneck.
There are more reasons that lead to his theory.
More children are physically abused and killed over toileting issues than can be imagined!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was no intention to imply STs theory for the rage from bedwetting was based solely by relying on a wet, red turtleneck. ST also based his theory on urine stained bed sheets that he never saw nor did he know if the sheets tested positive for creatinine. He was told that JBs bed sheets smelled of urine. His deposition reveals these facts.

Some of us recognize STs book to be filled with vital information garnered by someone who investigated JBRs murder. Some also admit that he used hearsay, second hand information, suppositions and innuendos to reach his conclusion. However, no need to rely on that as fact when you can check out the WS "No Staging" thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210599&highlight=Patsy

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I simply do not believe there is enough evidence to show that after Christmas day, her mother was so incensed she killed her child because she wet the bed. There is no evidence of anything of the sort. I don't see any sheets that were wet from that night. Who knows what he smelled but people all have different sniffers and without proof, It is just his say so.
Maybe if the child was found beaten to death, I mean not just in her head but all over, I have had kids that wet the bed, You get up, Change the child, Change the sheets, yes it is annoying at 4 am but the thought of hurting them for something THEY CAN NOT CONTROL does not enter your mind. She loved this child. She did not beat her or choke her to death.. Sorry.. No proof of that at all.. JMO

 

[Starry Night]

Not sure how/why I stumbled into this sad case tonight but I did. I remember so well when it happened. The internet was fairly new. I followed her case for a very long time.
Her death still haunts me because of the brutality and shocking circumstances around it-the time it happened-family background etc.
I don't believe for one minute that any of her family had anything to do with her murder.
I fully believe she was targeted...along with the family.

JMO

 

[DeDee]

Evidence:

Wire near body 1 7 KKY

Wire tied in knot 1 5 BAH

When reading Kirk Komrick's thesis a while back, he mentioned the wire, in his opinion, had been used as a training type instrument for learning how to tie knots.

Although we do not know the length of the wire inside the WC, could the wire have been used as a suspension tool in combination with the nylon cord?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have seen over and over that people think that IDI are pro ramsey.

I know for me that could not be farther from the truth. I am not pro Ramsey. I am pro JonBenet. I am pro Justice and truth. I am pro finding the real answers to what happened through substantiated evidence and fact.

I don't see the two linked. I was just wondering about the rest of people who think it was not the Ramseys.

 

[Mama2JML]

The murder of 6 year-old, Bonnie Clarke:

"Bonnie was killed some time after 12.30am on December 21, 1982. She was digitally raped and suffocated. There was no semen present and her body appeared to have been wiped down. When found, Bonnie's bedclothes were pulled over her naked body and there was a stab wound in her chest. Her bloodied pyjamas were stuffed between her bed and the wall.

There was no sign of forced entry. Police noted that, while the back door was unlocked to allow two dogs in the house access to the rear yard, the house was a minefield for unwary intruders who, to enter through the back door, would have to negotiate past hanging baskets and a beaded curtain, which was noisy when disturbed. Also, the dogs, habitually noisy with strangers, had not barked...

...

Early attempts to solve her murder could be seen as a case study of a flawed investigation.

...

The original Bonnie Clarke inquiry foundered on the lead investigator's belief, formed early on, that Bonnie's mother was responsible for her death.

During a stalled court trial earlier this year, Mrs Wishart confirmed that Detective Senior Sergeant Eric Lilley, who had worked on the case originally, had accused her of being mentally unstable; of having telephoned a parents' helpline; of being violent towards Bonnie and finally of murdering her. 'He made me feel: there's no sperm, so there's no male involved. You are it,' Mrs Wishart told the trial.

...

A journalist inquiring about the case in February 1983 was told there was no need for publicity because by then police knew who was responsible."​

Link to full article: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245106693.html?from=storyrhs

 

[DeDee]

RSBM

A journalist inquiring about the case in February 1983 was told there was no need for publicity because by then police knew who was responsible."[/i][/indent]

Link to full article: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245106693.html?from=storyrhs

Interesting that you posted this story today, Mama2JLM, when just last night I was reading from the FBI website regarding the Lindberg kidnapping and other points of interest.


Tunnel Vision and Satis&#64257;cing

Tunnel vision (or incrementalism) develops from a narrow focus on a limited range of alternatives. “It results in the [police] of&#64257;cer becoming so focused upon an individual or incident that no other person or incident registers in the of&#64257;cer’s thoughts. Thus, tunnel vision can result in the elimination of other suspects who should be investigated. Equally, events that could lead to other suspects are eliminated from the of&#64257;cer’s thinking.”16 Satis&#64257;cing is the selection of the &#64257;rst alternative that appears good enough. These heuristics might work well for simple errands, such as buying a hammer, but they are ill suited to the task of solving complex investigations.
The murder of an attractive 23-year-old female whose 2-year-old son was the only witness can illustrate these hazards.17 Detectives received a tip regarding a man who, for the next year, became their investigative focus. After a covert operation to obtain further incriminating information, they &#64257;nally arrested him. At the trial, the judge quickly threw out most of the prosecution’s evidence, calling the covert operation misconceived. The charges were withdrawn, and the man was released. One detective later commented, “Maybe the team got an idée &#64257;xe. Maybe they got stuck thinking it had to be [him]. No one dared to challenge that thinking until it got to the judge. But, it’s a terrible mess.”18 Several years later, enhanced DNA from the victim’s clothing pointed toward a psychopath now detained inde&#64257;nitely in a secure hospital.19

[ame="http://officialcoldcaseinvestigations.com/showthread.php?t=4685"]CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE FAILURES - Cold Case Investigations[/ame]


Do:

&#9726;Own the decision, but bring in others to better understand the various issues involved.
&#9726;Recognize when you may be partial, and ask a trusted peer to check your bias.
&#9726;Regularly revisit decisions you have made to ensure they remain valid.

http://leb.fbi.gov/2011/december/leadership-spotlight-leadership-tunnel-vision

Although OT, I did not realize this about Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf:

On March 2, 1932, after a conference with the Attorney General, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had contacted the headquarters of the New Jersey State Police at Trenton, New Jersey. He officially informed the organization that the U.S. Department of Justice would afford Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, the assistance and cooperation of the FBI in bringing about the apprehension of the parties responsible for the kidnapping.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/the-lindbergh-kidnapping

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The murder of 6 year-old, Bonnie Clarke:

"Bonnie was killed some time after 12.30am on December 21, 1982. She was digitally raped and suffocated. There was no semen present and her body appeared to have been wiped down. When found, Bonnie's bedclothes were pulled over her naked body and there was a stab wound in her chest. Her bloodied pyjamas were stuffed between her bed and the wall.

There was no sign of forced entry. Police noted that, while the back door was unlocked to allow two dogs in the house access to the rear yard, the house was a minefield for unwary intruders who, to enter through the back door, would have to negotiate past hanging baskets and a beaded curtain, which was noisy when disturbed. Also, the dogs, habitually noisy with strangers, had not barked...

...

Early attempts to solve her murder could be seen as a case study of a flawed investigation.

...

The original Bonnie Clarke inquiry foundered on the lead investigator's belief, formed early on, that Bonnie's mother was responsible for her death.

During a stalled court trial earlier this year, Mrs Wishart confirmed that Detective Senior Sergeant Eric Lilley, who had worked on the case originally, had accused her of being mentally unstable; of having telephoned a parents' helpline; of being violent towards Bonnie and finally of murdering her. 'He made me feel: there's no sperm, so there's no male involved. You are it,' Mrs Wishart told the trial.

...

A journalist inquiring about the case in February 1983 was told there was no need for publicity because by then police knew who was responsible."​

Link to full article: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245106693.html?from=storyrhs

Reading the details of this case, It is entirely possible that the person who committed the murder of JBR could have indeed been committing other crimes against other women without it resembling the murder of JBR.

This man not only killed BC but attacked other women of other ages.

"Bonnie was killed some time after 12.30am on December 21, 1982. She was digitally raped and suffocated. There was no semen present and her body appeared to have been wiped down. When found, Bonnie's bedclothes were pulled over her naked body and there was a stab wound in her chest. Her bloodied pyjamas were stuffed between her bed and the wall."



I wonder if the BPD ever even looked for cases in which something like this occurred.. Thanks for finding this Mama.

From what I am reading, He was released in 1994.. Does anyone know where he was after that until he was caught and convicted for Bonnie's crime? I know he is in Australia.. But dang.. Some things are eerily similar. I am trying to read it all but am getting pulled in many directions.

 

[Mama2JML]

Interesting that you posted this story today, Mama2JLM, when just last night I was reading from the FBI website regarding the Lindberg kidnapping and other points of interest.


Tunnel Vision and Satis&#64257;cing

Tunnel vision (or incrementalism) develops from a narrow focus on a limited range of alternatives. &#8220;It results in the [police] of&#64257;cer becoming so focused upon an individual or incident that no other person or incident registers in the of&#64257;cer&#8217;s thoughts. Thus, tunnel vision can result in the elimination of other suspects who should be investigated. Equally, events that could lead to other suspects are eliminated from the of&#64257;cer&#8217;s thinking.&#8221;16 Satis&#64257;cing is the selection of the &#64257;rst alternative that appears good enough. These heuristics might work well for simple errands, such as buying a hammer, but they are ill suited to the task of solving complex investigations.
The murder of an attractive 23-year-old female whose 2-year-old son was the only witness can illustrate these hazards.17 Detectives received a tip regarding a man who, for the next year, became their investigative focus. After a covert operation to obtain further incriminating information, they &#64257;nally arrested him. At the trial, the judge quickly threw out most of the prosecution&#8217;s evidence, calling the covert operation misconceived. The charges were withdrawn, and the man was released. One detective later commented, &#8220;Maybe the team got an idée &#64257;xe. Maybe they got stuck thinking it had to be [him]. No one dared to challenge that thinking until it got to the judge. But, it&#8217;s a terrible mess.&#8221;18 Several years later, enhanced DNA from the victim&#8217;s clothing pointed toward a psychopath now detained inde&#64257;nitely in a secure hospital.19

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE FAILURES - Cold Case Investigations


Do:

&#9726;Own the decision, but bring in others to better understand the various issues involved.
&#9726;Recognize when you may be partial, and ask a trusted peer to check your bias.
&#9726;Regularly revisit decisions you have made to ensure they remain valid.

http://leb.fbi.gov/2011/december/leadership-spotlight-leadership-tunnel-vision

The Lindbergh case is heart-wrenching, as are all cases of kidnapping turned murder. I imagine you have researched Leopold & Loeb, too, but it is worth mentioning the RN in Bobby Franks' kidnapping (& murder) shares many characteristics with the JBR ransom note.

Thank you for the FBI info; "to err is human", but the ability to admit so is an admirable trait too few possess. I wonder what difference more women in LE might have?...

 

[Mama2JML]

Reading the details of this case, It is entirely possible that the person who committed the murder of JBR could have indeed been committing other crimes against other women without it resembling the murder of JBR.

Absolutely.

This man not only killed BC but attacked other women of other ages.

"Bonnie was killed some time after 12.30am on December 21, 1982. She was digitally raped and suffocated. There was no semen present and her body appeared to have been wiped down. When found, Bonnie's bedclothes were pulled over her naked body and there was a stab wound in her chest. Her bloodied pyjamas were stuffed between her bed and the wall."

The intruder even tucked her in. ...so disturbing.

I wonder if the BPD ever even looked for cases in which something like this occurred.. Thanks for finding this Mama.

From what I am reading, He was released in 1994.. Does anyone know where he was after that until he was caught and convicted for Bonnie's crime? I know he is in Australia.. But dang..

Where there's one...

Some things are eerily similar. I am trying to read it all but am getting pulled in many directions.

I understand, ME TOO!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It looks like they know he stayed in Australia. But, we know how people study crimes.

I am glad you found this. It surely shows that strangers can do things that can be misconstrued as something a family member or loved one would do.

 

[Mama2JML]

"WOOD: Number one, police interrogations do not have to be fair, and they don't have to be truthful.

...

WOOD: I know they asked John Ramsey about fibers during his interrogation, and I know for a fact that the information was not true in terms of the location of those fibers.

...

KING: They say there's evidence of fibers from John's clothing on Jon Benet. Here is the father's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)​

LEVIN: Mr. Ramsey, it is our belief, based on forensic testing that there are hairs that are associated -- that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent to us that are found in your daughter's underpants, and I want to refute...

J. RAMSEY: Bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I don't believe that. I don't buy it. If you're trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter...

LEVIN: Mr. Ramsey, I'm not trying to...

J. RAMSEY: Well, I don't believe it. That's ridiculous.

L. WOOD: I think you are too, Bruce. Let's move on. Why don't you move on.

J. RAMSEY: That's disgusting.

B. LEVIN: No, I am not.

...

J. RAMSEY: The question is, how did fibers of your shirt get in your daughter's underwear? I say that is not possible. I don't believe it. That's ridiculous.​

(END VIDEO CLIP)​

KING: So you're saying police invent things to try to get respondents to respond?

WOOD: That was invented. We know that there were black fibers found, they claim, but there were no black fibers found in the areas of Jon Benet's underwear, as claimed in that question."

***************

Link to Entire Transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/12/lkl.00.html