Is The Location A Smoking Gun?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
KATKAT19691 said:
why do you assume that because the panties were size 12 she did not put them on herself. We are talking about a child, who liked the days of the week panties very much and she would not have cared it they fit or not. Most kids could careless if cloths fit only if they like them. An adult would be the only one that would consider this unapprop. I was just wondering why everyone assumes the size of the panties is such a big deal?

Kat
imo
Now the size 12 panties, white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band, were supposed to have been purchased by Patsy as a gift for JBR's female cousin.

ok her underwear might have no relevance beyond her personal taste. But I could suggest that JonBenet chose them to match in some manner her mother's choice of dressing to the christmas party. I think I read somewhere that Patsy wore black slacks and a red turtleneck sweater, as did JonBenet , who maybe wanted the correct day of the week.

But JonBenet was partially redressed after death. And I think her pants were part of that redressing, and that in the mind of the person doing the redressing they were intended to convey a message, a very simple, subtle one of regularity and coherence. JonBenet was a clothes aware girl, and her uncritically selecting size-12 pants to wear does'nt work for me, more so when we know they were intended as a gift.

So who would want to dress JonBenet in day of the week pants, which denoted the correct day? Why would this be important beyond consistency? Possibly only to the person who removed her original pants?
So for me those size 12 pants, like her pony tails, and her barbie nightdress are curiosities that dont appear to be random features of a murder!

I still think the location is a smoking gun, since it would either confirm or re-inforce a RDI or IDI theory. I suspect that due to two intersecting attempts at staging, we have contrary to occams principle allowed objects to multiply beyond neccessity.

I think she was killed upstairs, it may have been an accident, it may have been part of some sexual play where bondage was used, or it may have been an intruder.
 
Didn't Jonbenet balk at her mother's suggestion that they dress alike? Is that when she actually kicked her mother in the shin, or was that another occasion?

She didn't want to wear the red top, if I remember correctly. So I really don't think her reason for liking the panties was that they were anything like her mother.
 
I definately think the actual location of her death will be a pretty big help in the investigation.
 
UKGuy said:
To determine the actual location of Jonbenet's death, may allow the selection of a more likely WDI.

The staging allows you to decide a WDI mostly but not wholly upon where she met her death.
So you can have PDI, AEADI,upstairs, or BDI, IDI downstairs, then shoehorn the surrounding evidence to fit, because it really does. So the staging tends to partition the WDI's.

There are some facts, that are not bound by a WDI, e.g. the Pineapple, the Paintbrush, the Nightdress, the size 12 Panties, The Torch. And the more contentious: Burkes remarks on the 911 call "What did you find".

The Pineapple tells us JonBenet was awake and alive approx 12.30am, or later, in the company of someone she trusted.

The Paintbrush tells us its role in the asphyxiation, which is likely to be located firmly in the basement.

The Nightdress tells us someone had to involuntarly stop the staging at some point, the intention had been to leave JonBenet in her night clothes, suggesting removal from her bed.

The Torch tells us, someone involved in her death, forensically cleaned that torch. Why was it used at all, there are lights in the basement?

The size 12 Panties tells us, Jonbenet never put these on, she was dressed in those by someone unversed in selecting female underwear in a hurry. I assume * upstairs * in JonBenet's room she will have had a drawer full of underwear reflecting her personality and age.

Some of these "facts" tend to make some WDI's more credible than others. e.g. AEADI: The use of the paintbrush is explained by its prior use as part of a AEA device, evidenced by fibers in the bed upstairs. But who in the household would ignore other close to hand tools, and saunter down to the basement, have a eureka moment, then casually break and destroy, a useful tool belonging to the the lady of the house?

So either she was killed upstairs or in the basement. Whichever you choose tends to influence your choice of WDI. BlueCrab has invoked AEA to explain the incongruity of the paintbrush from downstairs killing her upstairs! But an adult tutor is missing from this WDI, even the grand jury, chooses to ignore this aspect.

If BDI upstairs or downstairs why is he asking "What did you find?". And if the rationale for the staging is the snowfall, why did the same snowfall not deter the other asumed 3rd party from leaving with some forensic evidence?

So I "think" JonBenet was physically restrained prior to her death, possibly by the use of some ad-hoc device, which kept her hands away from her body, and her neck upright, this device such as an improvised harness, or household item may have caused the pressure point marks, which are also consistent with a stun gun. The use of the Paintbrush suggests this took place somewhere in the basement.

So it appears JonBenet was taking part in some form of sadistic ritual within the basement. She may have been roped upside down, with some cord forming a harness around her ankles and waist area. Those pressure point marks reflecting the affect of gravity by the harness or roping. But there was a serious mis-calculation, and an accident, possibly she swung down in mid-air her head hitting something, inadvertently causing a * hidden * trauma, and the complexity of the roping prevents her rapid extrication. She expires!

The perpetrator is shocked and astounded this was not meant to happen. Possibly she is left hanging, the door blocked with obstacles. How can it be explained away, certainly not by an accident. The perpetrator returns and some roping is removed, the device dismantled, she is cleaned up, her naked body redressed, placed in a blanket, a kidnap and ransom note scenario is agreed and planned, but then the snowfall rules that out.


From hereon there are ad-hoc changes to the plan, the perpetrator keeps remembering possible pieces of damaging evidence, and returns to remove them, or improves upon the staging, even re-positioning the original pose, and adding *different* bindings etc. Later as the body has still not been discovered, more artifacts are added to the body, such as tape around the mouth. Possibly the garrotte knotting is refashioned to appear as an AEA. Yet again later still, she is moved from her original location along with her nightdress to the wine cellar, and is readied to be redressed again, but circumstance prevents this and she is discovered where she was.


The paintbrush suggests to me that she was killed in the basement, and her nightdress implies she was to have been thought as having travelled from upstairs to downstairs. Portrayed and staged as the act of a sexually sadistic perpatrator, so to encompass those elements that could not be changed, rather than that of a financially motivated kidnapper since JonBenet was now dead.
UK Guy, you seem to be heavily into trying to work out what happened and posting a lot of deeply considered ideas, and as I wasn't sure of your overall theory I dug this up.

I think I agree pretty much with most of what you have stated above.

I would like to make a few points though where I do not agree.

First the torch. Was it really forensically cleaned? I got from my reading that it was dirtyish and that John Ramsey, when shown a photo of it didn't think it was his. And yes, why use it when the house was lit? My thinking is that it was used by old McSanta to find his way in the outside darkness from his house to the Ramsey's. The older people get the more unsteady on their feet they become and their eyesight has become pretty crappy too, so they like the security of a torch. As he would have been wearing his Santa gloves at the time he would have left no fingerprints.

Second the Barbie nightgown. I am still struggling with this but I don't find your explanation satisfactory either. I think there is more evidence that has come out which contradicts the earlier published evidence that is quoted in Schiller's book. I read it in the Wolf vs Ramsey court transcript. Until we are clearer on the state of the size 12 panties and the nightgown I think it's a bit of a waste of time to theorize.

Thirdly, the so called staging. I don't think there is was much staging as you seem to think there was. I think it was more a case of cleaning up the basement for all obvious signs of 'activity'. This involved removing all the incriminating evidence that was lying around but which unfortunately couldn't include the body. They had to just hide this as well as they could so they put it in a corner of the winecellar.

You say that the scene, and I presume you mean the state of the body, was portrayed and staged as the act of a sexually sadistic perpetrator. I think it WAS the act of a sexually sadistic perpetrator and the body had been hidden by his accomplices and it was their intention that it would not be discovered at all.

Fourthly, with the ad hoc changes made, and I agree with you, I think there were ad hoc changes made (although mine different from the ones you have suggested) - you seem to be saying that BEFORE JonBenet was accidentally killed they were going to stage a kidnapping. Why would they need to do this? What would they be needing to cover up? And you also seem to be saying that AFTER she was accidentally killed they decided to stage it as the act of a sexually sadistic perpetrator. Then why would they leave a ransom note?

Maybe I am just not understanding the meaning of what you have written and you might like to correct me
 
aussiesheila,

Thanks for your remarks, part of the intention behind this post was to explore what part staging played in the death of JonBenet, and if any theories are constrained by where JonBenet's body was found. No doubt I could have simplified some aspects.

Flashlight or torch:
This had no fingerprints on it, or on the batteries inside, so it had been wiped clean.

Some people consider it was used to bludgeon JonBenet and inflict her head trauma?

This aspect of forensic cleansing may extend as far as the tea-glass found near by the bowl of pineapple, which I believe was also fingerprint free?

The Barbie nightdress: IMO It is alike the pineapple snack, whereas the latter speaks for JonBenet being awake and alive at a particular period in time, the former tells us that whomever decided to place the nightdress next to JonBenet after she was killed was interrupted, since he/she never finished dressing her in it.

That was the purpose of the nightdress, she was intended to be portrayed as being abducted from her bed, taken downstairs and violently sexually assaulted and strangled by a noose.

Basement staging: Rather than removing evidence from the basement some people might suggest it was relocated there from upstairs, including JonBenet's body!

Whichever theory you suscribe to it can help to view the death of JonBenet as a "staged homicide" the staging might only be superficial or it may extend over multiple stagings enacted by different people, you might even be able to see aspects of the different stager's personalities outlined by the items they choose to dress JonBenet?

JonBenet may have been dead prior to her body being transported to the wine-cellar. Once there she may have had a noose placed around her neck, a painbrush broken to create a noose handle, and too sexually assault her, then she was intended to be re-dressed in her Barbie nightdress.

This is what I term as a revised staging since a prior staging should have appeared to reflect a kidnapping, not a lustful homicide! Previous to this she may have been re-dressed and cleaned up simply as a provisional forensic removal exercise.

The ransom note was part of an earlier staging, its likely JonBenet's body was to be removed from the house, but whatever it was that caused that to be dropped, JonBenet was to become not a kidnapped girl, but an abducted girl, this caused a revision in her staging e.g. the location of her body, the clothing she wore, even her status as a victim to that of a girl sadistically sexually assaulted!
 
Does anyone know if she was sexually assaulted with the paintbrush handle before her death...or after?
 
KATKAT19691 said:
why do you assume that because the panties were size 12 she did not put them on herself. We are talking about a child, who liked the days of the week panties very much and she would not have cared it they fit or not. Most kids could careless if cloths fit only if they like them. An adult would be the only one that would consider this unapprop. I was just wondering why everyone assumes the size of the panties is such a big deal?

Kat
imo[/QUOTE

JonBenet could not even recognize her families names....what makes you think she would recognize the word "Wednesday"? And furthermore, a young girl does not ask what day of the week it is.
 
>>JonBenet could not even recognize her families names....what makes you think she would recognize the word "Wednesday"? And furthermore, a young girl does not ask what day of the week it is.<<

I find it strange that JonBenet couldnt even recognize her family name. She was in kindergarten, Im not sure how long she had been in kindergarten...school over here stats in say early feb. but maybe school starts later over there, but even if it started in May...it is 6 months till Dec when christmas holidays start and the end of the school yr.
I cant imagine that in that time, JonBenet hadnt learnt to read and write. My 6 yr old could read and write after 3 months of kindergarten. It was amazing....prior to going to school, he could just write his name and could do the alphabet and basic counting.
By all accounts, JonBenet was a very capable little girl, I am amazed how well she could do things like stand on her head and do the hula hoop. I would have thought she was clever enough to have learnt the basics of reading and writing after one yr at school.
 
Toltec said:
KATKAT19691 said:
why do you assume that because the panties were size 12 she did not put them on herself. We are talking about a child, who liked the days of the week panties very much and she would not have cared it they fit or not. Most kids could careless if cloths fit only if they like them. An adult would be the only one that would consider this unapprop. I was just wondering why everyone assumes the size of the panties is such a big deal?

Kat
imo[/QUOTE

JonBenet could not even recognize her families names....what makes you think she would recognize the word "Wednesday"? And furthermore, a young girl does not ask what day of the week it is.
I assume you are talking about the names on the presents she needed help with. They were probably written in script and not printed. My recollection is she was doing very well at reading in kindergarten. But that would have only involved printed letters. She and many other girls would be interested in what day it was if she wanted to wear the right underpants.
 
UKGuy said:
BlueCrab:

Thanks for your remarks.

Now:
"Burke likely asked "What did you find?" because it's the only way he could have phrased the question in regard to whether the parents had found JonBenet. For instance, if he had asked "Did you find JonBenet's body?" it would have revealed to his parents that he had been involved."

QUOTE]

How can you discuss a tape that no one has ever heard and more than likely does not even exist.
This is how lies become facts.
There is no enhanced 911 tape with BR voice on it.
 
>>There is no enhanced 911 tape with BR voice on it.<<

Gee zman you sound just like Toth making statements like that. You do not know there is no tape.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
2,094
Total visitors
2,200

Forum statistics

Threads
601,840
Messages
18,130,514
Members
231,160
Latest member
jamiestews06
Back
Top