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

[DeDee]

Just one quick question about gastric juices, if anyone knows. I do understand that the body stops digesting when it dies. But at the same time if you are left with small amounts of food, basically soaking in gastric acid, would it continue to break down? It's not steak it's pineapple?

Yes, it would sloooowly continue to break down but by different enzymes since Oxygen is no longer available for cell function but glucose is. There is a particular order in which the cells begin to break down and die then decompose. Special enzymes are sent out to annihilate the remaining cellular material. Bloating is a sign of this.

Someone who had recently ingested a big meal before dying would be a gold mine for bacteria during putrefaction which doesn't begin until the second day. Having a green abdomen is a sign of this.

By the time she was received at the morgue 24 hours after death, JonBenét's body would be placed in a cooler to impede the further decomposition of tissues.

Are you wondering if decomposition destroyed some stomach contents?

 

[DeDee]

3.When a report reads "no prints,"… …it means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it... …The term "no prints" does not mean that there were no marks or smears - it means that if any markings were present, they lacked sufficient detail to be of evidentiary value. ("Fingerprints: What They Can & Cannot Do!," The Print, Volume 10, number 7, June 1994, pp. 1-3. Emphasis in original) Quote and source provided by Internet poster Anti-K.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682474/First Floor

 

[Chewy]

Yes, it would sloooowly continue to break down but by different enzymes since Oxygen is no longer available for cell function but glucose is. There is a particular order in which the cells begin to break down and die then decompose. Special enzymes are sent out to annihilate the remaining cellular material. Bloating is a sign of this.

Someone who had recently ingested a big meal before dying would be a gold mine for bacteria during putrefaction which doesn't begin until the second day. Having a green abdomen is a sign of this.

By the time she was received at the morgue 24 hours after death, JonBenét's body would be placed in a cooler to impede the further decomposition of tissues.

Are you wondering if decomposition destroyed some stomach contents?

Thanks for this great post. Yes I'm curious if the decomposition continued to erode the pineapple. Seems to me something sitting in a pool of gastric acid would continue to break down.

 

[Anti-K]

Wiping JonBenet's pubic region is also not consistent with an intruder. IMO

It makes no sense. Neither does re-dressing her and covering her with that blanket from the dryer.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wiping Jonbenet's pubic region is consistent with someone wishing to remove forensic evidence. It is consistent with someone wishing to remove evidence of their actions. It is consistent with someone wishing to misdirect from the sexual aspect of their crime. All of these (and, more) are things that might motivate anyone – intruder included - to wipe the pubic region.

We probably disagree on the degree of redressing that occurred, but this is something that can also be explained as a possible attempt to misdirect from the sexual aspect of the crime – something that most anyone could be motivated by – intruder included.

I know profilers talk about things like undoing, and remorse and restoring of dignity to the victim, etc. things that might indicate a personal, emotional connection between perpetrator and victim. Yet, these are states that can exist for anyone independent of real-life relationship.

Of these three things – the wiping, the redressing, and the blanket – the blanket is the one that is the most curious to me.
..

AK

 

[tovarisch]

People, Lew Tolstoy claimed he remembered the moment of his own birth; terrible pain and an incredibly bright light (when already outside). He was genius and I tend to believe he did remember.
I remember some moments of my childhood starting from 4 y.o. When I was 6 y.o. I remember I had already some sense of style and when one day I inherited beautiful silk skirt from my older cousin I could not wait to grow up, the same day I put it on, turned one or two times at the waist to make it shorter and fit and went right outside and I thought I`m the prettiest girl. I remember dressing myself at 6 y.o. MYSELF, not by my mother. Mother did only my hair, and helped if needed. Not panties, no. . . I`m from family of educators.
I want to ask women here on the website, why some people think it`s not probable and not possible that JonBenet dressed herself completely from panties to suit. That was her day; she won the battle of style with her mother for the first time. Including the oversized panties, don`t we all did sometimes the same when were children, just turn around the waist and everything would fit? JonBenet thrown the hated red turtleneck, squeezy nasty old panties and undesirable pants all over the bathroom, that`s was the scene.. And it was typical for the Ramsey`s children by the house maid Linda`s observation.
Why some people believe that either Patsy or killer ONLY would put on Jonbenet new fresh panties, but never in the world would she herself?? I`m puzzled.

 

[aussiesheila2]

you are correct. I was wrong, it was not in the thread we are reading, and I apologize. it was in this thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240126&page=3

"were the batteries factory-installed?"

Thank you very much gramcracker for giving a source for your comment. I take it you sourced DeeDee's post #58 on that thread (please correct me if I'm wrong) where she states "The flashlight was found to have been wiped clean, not merely from prints. The batteries had also been found to have been removed, wiped clean, and replaced"
The trouble I have with this is that these are just the words of another poster, who I am not accusing of lying, I just think she is repeating some incorrect information she read elsewhere. I would really like a reference to her source to check this out.

The whole idea of prints being wiped off one item that is then left in full view is so absurd to my mind, even from any point of view (RDI or IDI), that I really think there was an original report from CBI that said "No prints detected" and that it meant what Bunk and others are saying ie that they couldn't pick up any prints clear enough for comparison purposes. I think certain BPD detectives then got bit carried away with their interpretation of the original CBD report

 

[Linda7NJ]

People, Lew Tolstoy claimed he remembered the moment of his own birth; terrible pain and an incredibly bright light (when already outside). He was genius and I tend to believe he did remember.

I remember some moments of my childhood starting from 4 y.o. When I was 6 y.o. I remember I had already some sense of style and when one day I inherited beautiful silk skirt from my older cousin I could not wait to grow up, the same day I put it on, turned one or two times at the waist to make it shorter and fit and went right outside and I thought I`m the prettiest girl. I remember dressing myself at 6 y.o. MYSELF, not by my mother. Mother did only my hair, and helped if needed. Not panties, no. . . I`m from family of educators.

I want to ask women here on the website, why some people think it`s not probable and not possible that JonBenet dressed herself completely from panties to suit. That was her day; she won the battle of style with her mother for the first time. Including the oversized panties, don`t we all did sometimes the same when were children, just turn around the waist and everything would fit? JonBenet thrown the hated red turtleneck, squeezy nasty old panties and undesirable pants all over the bathroom, that`s was the scene.. And it was typical for the Ramsey`s children by the house maid Linda`s observation.

Why some people believe that either Patsy or killer ONLY would put on Jonbenet new fresh panties, but never in the world would she herself?? I`m puzzled.

Because they were put on after she was sexually assaulted and wiped down.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aussiesheila2]

you are correct. I was wrong, it was not in the thread we are reading, and I apologize. it was in this thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240126&page=3

"were the batteries factory-installed?"

Thank you very much gramcracker for giving a source for your comment. I take it you sourced DeeDee's post #58 on that thread (please correct me if I'm wrong) where she states "The flashlight was found to have been wiped clean, not merely from prints. The batteries had also been found to have been removed, wiped clean, and replaced"
The trouble I have with this is that these are just the words of another poster, who I am not accusing of lying, I just think she is repeating some incorrect information she read elsewhere. I would really like a reference to her source to check this out.

The whole idea of prints being wiped off one item that is then left in full view is so absurd to my mind, even from any point of view (RDI or IDI), that I really think there was an original report from CBI that said "No prints detected" and that it meant what Bunk and others are saying ie that they couldn't pick up any prints clear enough for comparison purposes. I think certain BPD detectives then got bit carried away with their interpretation of the original CBD report and this is where the whole "wiped clean of prints" nonsense originated

 

[tovarisch]

Because they were put on after she was sexually assaulted and wiped down.



Who said so ?
They were urine stained, seems to me at the moment of death. They had blood spot and DNA of the unknown male right in the blood spot, seems to me that they were not put AFTER the assult.
Wiping?
Might be instead of bath taking ? Jonebenet had not had bath for couple days.

 

[THE BUNK]

The whole idea of prints being wiped off one item that is then left in full view is so absurd to my mind, even from any point of view (RDI or IDI), that I really think there was an original report from CBI that said "No prints detected" and that it meant what Bunk and others are saying ie that they couldn't pick up any prints clear enough for comparison purposes. I think certain BPD detectives then got bit carried away with their interpretation of the original CBD report and this is where the whole "wiped clean of prints" nonsense originated

aussiesheila2

Do you believe the intruder wore gloves? And if so why did he leave touch DNA...yet no fingerprints?

 

[Mama2JML]

Excerpt from Carnes order, 04.31.2003:

"Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.)"​

 

[Mama2JML]

Regarding distal stain 007-2, an excerpt from FF (p.137):

"Laberge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI’s initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva..." (Kolar, 2012)​

 

[THE BUNK]

"Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.)"

was this before, or after the aunt came disguised to pick up items.

Brown cotton fibers like that of a work jacket worn by a hardware store clerk? or any of the hundred people that might pick it up while shopping for those items to purchase?

Also keep this in mind, whatever clothing John had used to prepare Jonbenet's body would potentially have blood on it. It would make sense for Jon to dispose of all his clothes and then change when meeting the cops. Maybe that was why he was dressed in new clothes and Patsy was still in her old clothes. John needed to clean up.

 

[THE BUNK]

"Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.)"

I wonder if those brown fibers might be consistent with a robe or flannel pajamas? or even slippers.

Would the police have taken into account nightwear in the home?

 

[Mama2JML]

was this before, or after the aunt came disguised to pick up items.

Before. Pam Paugh was escorted by Det. Everett on the 12.28.96.

Brown cotton fibers like that of a work jacket worn by a hardware store clerk? or any of the hundred people that might pick it up while shopping for those items to purchase?

Maybe? Although, investigators thought the the brown fibers may have come from a type of work gloves.

Also keep this in mind, whatever clothing John had used to prepare Jonbenet's body would potentially have blood on it. It would make sense for Jon to dispose of all his clothes and then change when meeting the cops. Maybe that was why he was dressed in new clothes and Patsy was still in her old clothes. John needed to clean up.

Doubtful.

(BTW, this thread is for intruder-based theories only.)

 

[THE BUNK]

Doubtful.

(BTW, this thread is for intruder-based theories only.)

I know, I'm questioning the intruder based theory. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[BOESP]

Excerpt from Carnes order, 04.31.2003:

"Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.)"​

BBM. I have trouble believing everything in the Ramsey home was tested for fiber comparison. Also, there is no way to know what was taken from the home before it could be tested.

 

[THE BUNK]

Maybe? Although, investigators thought the the brown fibers may have come from a type of work gloves.

Which would be odd. Cause that would mean that the intruder wore gloves. Work gloves none the less.

Work gloves that could be purchased at the same store as the tape and rope.

 

[THE BUNK]

Doubtful.

Explain why you feel this is doubtful.

 

[Mama2JML]

Also keep this in mind, whatever clothing John had used to prepare Jonbenet's body would potentially have blood on it. It would make sense for Jon to dispose of all his clothes and then change when meeting the cops. Maybe that was why he was dressed in new clothes and Patsy was still in her old clothes. John needed to clean up.
...
Explain why you feel this is doubtful.

If IDI, John Ramsey wasn't involved. (This is the IDI thread.)

If RDI, I can elaborate in an appropriate thread. Your call.