JonBenet's Skull Fractures: The Weapon

[otg]

I had thought I would go next to narrowing down the size of the cylinder that I believe could have caused the shape and size of the depressed fracture. But I think instead (maybe to wrap up my case for why I think it was a cylinder, or maybe because some have already speculated on the 8” long crack in her skull), I’ll go on first to the linear fracture.

When I started down this road, it was mostly because of the realization that the depressed fracture was an almost perfectly shaped oval, rather than the rectangle that Dr. Meyer wrote in the AR. (As wengr pointed out, it’s not just an oval, but it’s actually an ellipse as close as we can tell from the only photo we have of it -- the differences being a little more technical than most here probably want to discuss. But we can talk about that later.) I wasn’t thinking about the linear crack and how it might have occurred, or why the good doctor thought he saw a rectangular hole. But when I started thinking about it, I realized why the linear crack happened. Ask yourself, what kind of force would be necessary to cause the skull to crack open with the crack (fracture line) radiating outwardly from the hole as it did.

Several posters (on one forum or the other) have already referred to head injuries that they, or someone in their family, had at one time or another. As I recall, they all mentioned that they might have had enough force to cause a fracture, but no one had a depressed fracture that resulted in brain damage or death. While this is anecdotal, it speaks to the fact that it takes much more force to cause this type of fracture than a linear fracture, which usually does not require treatment by a doctor. In fact, sometimes a fracture (or even a hairline fracture) may have occurred, but since no serious complications develop, it is not even known that the fracture was there. The human body is an amazing creation, and it is constantly working to repair and heal injuries on its own. Unless there is damage to the brain or underlying membranes or vasculature, the bone itself will heal.

So why or how, in this case, did the object that caused the depressed fracture also cause the linear fracture?

Okay, it’s time for another video to illustrate what I believe happened. This one includes another experiment with food, and then an animation I put together showing from three different angles the forces involved in the head blow. I should mention that in the first segment of the animation, you'll have to imagine that you can see through the cylindrical object. Just for the record (and especially for BOESP), I haven’t yet ruled out the possibility that the cylindrical shape is stationary and JonBenet was shoved, or her head pushed into what caused the fracture. Either way, I believe the result would be the same. (We can get into that later.) The point up to here is that whatever caused the fracture was cylindrically shaped where it came in contact with her skull, and it caused both the depressed and the linear fractures.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP1vZhTIRtE"]Depressed Fracture Forces - YouTube[/ame]

 

[otg]

malice green -- 1992

-hit in the head repeatedly with police maglite
-multiple scalp lacerations (viewable in pic @ first link below)
-no skull fracture

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Malice_Green

http://www.larrynevers.com/autopsyreports.htm

Funny you should bring up Malice Green, redheadedgal. D'ya know who testified about the autopsy results in the trial of the cops who hit him over the head?

None other than Dr. Lucy Rorke (-Adams). In her testimony, she gives a very thorough explanation of what she looks for during an autopsy of the brain. I think I could find the link, if anyone is interested.

 

[midwest mama]

Funny you should bring up Malice Green, redheadedgal. D'ya know who testified about the autopsy results in the trial of the cops who hit him over the head?

None other than Dr. Lucy Rorke (-Adams). In her testimony, she gives a very thorough explanation of what she looks for during an autopsy of the brain. I think I could find the link, if anyone is interested.

What?? You haven't posted it yet?? You're killin' us, otg!

P.S. Did the Beatles know something about Maxwell's Silver Hammer that we should know?

 

[Nikolaus]

Hello otg,
is it true that your recent video-clip contains music protected by EMI??? (It says so!)
I'm very sad that i can not watch it here in Germany.

P.S.: I adore your intelligent analysis and am only too curious to learn about the cause of the crack!

 

[otg]

What?? You haven't posted it yet?? You're killin' us, otg!

When I first read about the 45 to 160 mins., I started looking into Dr. Lucy, and also what she would have been looking at that she would base her opinion on. I believe she was wrong about the length of time between the two COD's for two reasons -- one of which I was led to in this testimony. But I warn you if you find the opening and decide to follow the rabbit: it's a deep hole. I plan to take on exactly that when I finish with the subject of this thread.

Regardless of that though, the linked transcript is long but a very interesting and informative read.

P.S. Did the Beatles know something about Maxwell's Silver Hammer that we should know?

The song just seemed to work for me. I like using music that somehow ties in to the subject matter, and it was the right length with a few adjustments in the video. (BTW, I'm disappointed no one has caught the second reference in the "Weapon Shapes" video.) There is a YT video that illustrates what the Maxwell Edison song is about -- too reprehensible even for me to post because of the gore (even though it's just animation). So I don't even want to post the entire link, but if you're interested... watch?v=rIMGgBLOwfg.

 

[Nikolaus]

Aaah, I see!
So it's true about the music. Otherwise I nearly had suspected team Ramsey for trying to get rid of uncomfortable postings ;-)

 

[otg]

Hello otg,
is it true that your recent video-clip contains music protected by EMI??? (It says so!)
I'm very sad that i can not watch it here in Germany.

P.S.: I adore your intelligent analysis and am only too curious to learn about the cause of the crack!

Ohhhhhhhhh, Nikolaus, I'm so sorry. I got the notification when I posted it (and one of the others) that viewers in Germany wouldn't be able to hear it because of EMI. I've had worse run-ins with EMI. One video I posted of a trip to Croatia had the entire sound stripped from a 10-minute video because I used a short 2-minute song clip by Izzy Kamakawiwo'ole.

Anyway, do you know how to use proxies? If not, watch the following video. The relevant part for you begins at about the one minute mark:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgeckQfIt4"]NixiePixel Howto - Hide Your IP Address - YouTube[/ame]

...And welcome to WS, Nikolaus!

 

[Nikolaus]

Thank you very much, otg
I will get into the subject after a little nap, hope I will be able to use this technique!

 

[wengr]

Thanks Otg for more excellent analysis.
As you know I concur with the concept that the weapon was likely cylindrical in cross section. However, fwiw in my opinion it could be otherwise. I believe that a shaft with an oval, eliptical, etc. cross section would produce the same result. Actually a shaft with only a rounded cross section on the leading edge would produce the same result. The answer may lie in analysis of the length to width ratio. I am trying to work up a helpful method of evaluating his at present. Sadly an approximation is all that can be hoped for as to my knowledge we do not have access to a scan of JB's skull and it's unique contours.

 

[otg]

Thanks Otg for more excellent analysis.
As you know I concur with the concept that the weapon was likely cylindrical in cross section. However, fwiw in my opinion it could be otherwise. I believe that a shaft with an oval, eliptical, etc. cross section would produce the same result. Actually a shaft with only a rounded cross section on the leading edge would produce the same result. The answer may lie in analysis of the length to width ratio. I am trying to work up a helpful method of evaluating his at present. Sadly an approximation is all that can be hoped for as to my knowledge we do not have access to a scan of JB's skull and it's unique contours.

(bbm)
You are exactly correct, wengr. Additionally, if an object had an exact shape of the depressed fracture, it also would produce this "imprint" on anything it hit. But if such an object did exist, it would most likely have sharp edges that would have caused more scalp damage than was noted. Also, the entire weapon does not necessarily have to be cylindrical -- only the part that came in contact with her head. But then, how many different objects could that be? And then, what (of those objects) was available and readily accessible at the time this happened? And then finally, which of all these possibilities is the most likely?

ETA:
To the point of accessible and likelihood... I included in the first demo, a kitchen rolling pin. I've never heard it mentioned as a possible weapon in this case. I "discovered" it while looking through my house for objects of various diameters to use in the video. But I would imagine that the R's had one (even if it was only used by "the help"). So we can assume it to be available. But if the head blow occurred in JBR's bedroom, it wouldn't be readily accessible. If on the other hand, if the head blow happened in the kitchen, as Kolar has said he believes, then the accessibility of the rolling pin goes up.

Hope this helps explain how I'll be looking at this further down the road -- and maybe even helps anyone else in the discussion. I don't want this to be simply a monologue. Help me here. I'm still struggling with it myself.

 

[Bayareamom]

Hi everyone,

I used to post here a long time ago - way back when, so I'm really trying to get up to speed with all of this. So apologies if I seem a little behind with the rest of you as to your knowledge!

I've just finished reading Kolar's book and although I found it a very interesting read, I didn't find that much 'new evidence' was released by Kolar, as was the hyped up promo for the book. (I guess my being on Websleuths many years ago, is one reason I didn't find much in the way of new information in the book.)

But one piece of evidence Kolar DID reveal in his book, which really surprised me, was the issue as to the feces smeared box of chocolates. So upon reading that bit of new information (new to me at any rate), I started wondering how that box of chocolates may have been related to the events which ultimately transpired that night - because it most assuredly has 'something' to do with this case.

I recall reading - in Wecht's book if I'm not mistaken - that Linda Hoffman-Pugh stated she had once witnessed a grapefruit sized ball of poop in JonBenet's bed. She stated to the police - within this same statement to the police - (while questioned the day after JonBenet's body was found) that JonBenet wet her bed nearly every day and that Patsy would almost always have JonBenet's bed stripped, sheets, etc., washed and in the dryer before her (Linda's) arrival at the Ramsey home.

So I started wondering WHY the fecal matter was found by Linda on one particular day, when she had already indicated that Patsy ALWAYS had the sheets washed and in the dryer - every morning - PRIOR to Linda's arrival at the Ramsey home. Obviously, there could be any number of reasons, but what if one of those reasons was that Patsy really hated dealing with poop, but didn't mind so much, cleaning up urine soaked sheets. Neither issue is pleasant, but let's face it, cleaning up poop out of bed sheets isn't something isn't as easy as simply throwing urine stained sheets into the washer.

I started wondering about that box of chocolates; it seems obvious to me that someone within the police department must have, at some point, had that fecal matter tested in a lab. Wouldn't you think the police department would know who that fecal matter came from? I mean, either way, it's obviously got to be from either JonBenet or Burke. Somehow, I just cannot see Burke pooping in his bathroom, smearing himself with his own fecal matter, then walking down to JonBenet's bedroom and smearing it all over her box of chocolates.

So given that Linda has stated on the record that she witnessed a grapefruit sized poop in JonBenet's bed on at least one occasion, let's just go with the supposition that that box of chocolates was smeared with fecal matter that belonged to JonBenet.

IF this is the case, how would you imagine Patsy would have handled this? And WHY would JonBenet do such a thing?

Just perhaps, JonBenet had soiled her bed that night, AFTER she'd been put to bed. Patsy stayed up, packing, etc., in preparation for their morning trip to Michigan. Supposing JonBenet, knowing how angry Patsy would get (from prior incidents), looked for something to wipe her hands off (now soiled with fecal matter) and the first thing she grabbed to wipe herself off with, were the overalls that Patsy later on told the police she was rinsing out in the hallway sink, the morning of the ransom note.

So I'm wondering if JonBenet was either in bed after she soiled her bed, OR she was up and trying to wipe herself OFF with those pair of overalls, when Patsy may have come into JonBenet's room and discovered her daughter's mishap.

And that's when Patsy lost it.

I'm just wondering - could this be a viable situation?

Also, I'm just about re-reading "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town." On page 485, it states the following, "After the release of the autopsy report, Bryan Morgan, another of John Ramsey's attorneys, sat down with Ramsey to explain ITS CONTENTS. Throughout his professional life, Morgan had done this with many of his clients, MOST OF THEM GUILTY OF THE CRIMES THEY WERE CHARGED WITH (emphasis mine). The attorney went through every detail of the coroner's findings with Ramsey, who became despondent and broke down. Morgan, who was likely to have had his doubts about Ramsey's innocence, watched his client closely. That was when the attorney discovered that Ramsey did not even KNOW HOW JONBENET HAD DIED (emphasis mine). What Morgan observed told him that John Ramsey had not killed his daughter."

Here is my opinion as to what I think may have happened that night:

I think Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note; I believe that with all my heart and soul. She has openly stated that she believes that whoever wrote that note, killed her daughter.

It is quite clear to me after all the re-reading of the books that I have on this case, that the police department did NOT feel John Ramsey had either ever abused his little daughter OR had anything to do with her murder. John's daughter and the rest of his family and close associates/friends, were ALL - at some length - interviewed by the police and Thomas openly admits that they could find NOTHING in John's background which would indicate to them, that there had been any untoward behavior with John toward any of his children.

That left Patsy. And the fact that Patsy ALONE could not be excluded as being the author of that ransom note, when so many others HAD been excluded, speaks volumes.

I recall that a portion of that ransom note, stated that John should use that good southern common sense of his, etc., so forth, and have wondered if this was Patsy's way of telling John to understand what they were dealing with, after that horrendous night.

In other words, it was PATSY who lost it with JonBenet and after going into a panic, covered up her deed(s). I do not feel Burke OR John had anything to do with JonBenet's murder, but I DO believe that at some point, John, being the intelligent person that he is, and knowing his wife/family the way that he MUST have, figure out as he was going through the paces at some point, that he was now involved in a horrid nightmare.

John had just had to live through the death of one of his beloved daughters; he now realizes his wife - his longer suffering wife (cancer) - has done something so monstrous, and he is determined at all costs, to protect the family that he has left.

To me, this would have been John's motive, for his own part, in this horrific cover-up; Patsy's motive, was because of her own involvement and her need to continue on with the illusion that this family was perfect and that some intruder MUST have committed this crime, because surely no one in her perfect family could have done so.

But Patsy was always about the illusion; the perfect family, perfect children, perfect husband. In Patsy's mind, she was bigger than life and she was a bulldog with her determination in keeping up that illusion.

I know this post is already far too long; I do have other points I would love to share, but I think this will do for now!

 

[UKGuy]

Hi everyone,

I used to post here a long time ago - way back when, so I'm really trying to get up to speed with all of this. So apologies if I seem a little behind with the rest of you as to your knowledge!

I've just finished reading Kolar's book and although I found it a very interesting read, I didn't find that much 'new evidence' was released by Kolar, as was the hyped up promo for the book. (I guess my being on Websleuths many years ago, is one reason I didn't find much in the way of new information in the book.)

But one piece of evidence Kolar DID reveal in his book, which really surprised me, was the issue as to the feces smeared box of chocolates. So upon reading that bit of new information (new to me at any rate), I started wondering how that box of chocolates may have been related to the events which ultimately transpired that night - because it most assuredly has 'something' to do with this case.

I recall reading - in Wecht's book if I'm not mistaken - that Linda Hoffman-Pugh stated she had once witnessed a grapefruit sized ball of poop in JonBenet's bed. She stated to the police - within this same statement to the police - (while questioned the day after JonBenet's body was found) that JonBenet wet her bed nearly every day and that Patsy would almost always have JonBenet's bed stripped, sheets, etc., washed and in the dryer before her (Linda's) arrival at the Ramsey home.

So I started wondering WHY the fecal matter was found by Linda on one particular day, when she had already indicated that Patsy ALWAYS had the sheets washed and in the dryer - every morning - PRIOR to Linda's arrival at the Ramsey home. Obviously, there could be any number of reasons, but what if one of those reasons was that Patsy really hated dealing with poop, but didn't mind so much, cleaning up urine soaked sheets. Neither issue is pleasant, but let's face it, cleaning up poop out of bed sheets isn't something isn't as easy as simply throwing urine stained sheets into the washer.

I started wondering about that box of chocolates; it seems obvious to me that someone within the police department must have, at some point, had that fecal matter tested in a lab. Wouldn't you think the police department would know who that fecal matter came from? I mean, either way, it's obviously got to be from either JonBenet or Burke. Somehow, I just cannot see Burke pooping in his bathroom, smearing himself with his own fecal matter, then walking down to JonBenet's bedroom and smearing it all over her box of chocolates.

So given that Linda has stated on the record that she witnessed a grapefruit sized poop in JonBenet's bed on at least one occasion, let's just go with the supposition that that box of chocolates was smeared with fecal matter that belonged to JonBenet.

IF this is the case, how would you imagine Patsy would have handled this? And WHY would JonBenet do such a thing?

Just perhaps, JonBenet had soiled her bed that night, AFTER she'd been put to bed. Patsy stayed up, packing, etc., in preparation for their morning trip to Michigan. Supposing JonBenet, knowing how angry Patsy would get (from prior incidents), looked for something to wipe her hands off (now soiled with fecal matter) and the first thing she grabbed to wipe herself off with, were the overalls that Patsy later on told the police she was rinsing out in the hallway sink, the morning of the ransom note.

So I'm wondering if JonBenet was either in bed after she soiled her bed, OR she was up and trying to wipe herself OFF with those pair of overalls, when Patsy may have come into JonBenet's room and discovered her daughter's mishap.

And that's when Patsy lost it.

I'm just wondering - could this be a viable situation?

Also, I'm just about re-reading "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town." On page 485, it states the following, "After the release of the autopsy report, Bryan Morgan, another of John Ramsey's attorneys, sat down with Ramsey to explain ITS CONTENTS. Throughout his professional life, Morgan had done this with many of his clients, MOST OF THEM GUILTY OF THE CRIMES THEY WERE CHARGED WITH (emphasis mine). The attorney went through every detail of the coroner's findings with Ramsey, who became despondent and broke down. Morgan, who was likely to have had his doubts about Ramsey's innocence, watched his client closely. That was when the attorney discovered that Ramsey did not even KNOW HOW JONBENET HAD DIED (emphasis mine). What Morgan observed told him that John Ramsey had not killed his daughter."

Here is my opinion as to what I think may have happened that night:

I think Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note; I believe that with all my heart and soul. She has openly stated that she believes that whoever wrote that note, killed her daughter.

It is quite clear to me after all the re-reading of the books that I have on this case, that the police department did NOT feel John Ramsey had either ever abused his little daughter OR had anything to do with her murder. John's daughter and the rest of his family and close associates/friends, were ALL - at some length - interviewed by the police and Thomas openly admits that they could find NOTHING in John's background which would indicate to them, that there had been any untoward behavior with John toward any of his children.

That left Patsy. And the fact that Patsy ALONE could not be excluded as being the author of that ransom note, when so many others HAD been excluded, speaks volumes.

I recall that a portion of that ransom note, stated that John should use that good southern common sense of his, etc., so forth, and have wondered if this was Patsy's way of telling John to understand what they were dealing with, after that horrendous night.

In other words, it was PATSY who lost it with JonBenet and after going into a panic, covered up her deed(s). I do not feel Burke OR John had anything to do with JonBenet's murder, but I DO believe that at some point, John, being the intelligent person that he is, and knowing his wife/family the way that he MUST have, figure out as he was going through the paces at some point, that he was now involved in a horrid nightmare.

John had just had to live through the death of one of his beloved daughters; he now realizes his wife - his longer suffering wife (cancer) - has done something so monstrous, and he is determined at all costs, to protect the family that he has left.

To me, this would have been John's motive, for his own part, in this horrific cover-up; Patsy's motive, was because of her own involvement and her need to continue on with the illusion that this family was perfect and that some intruder MUST have committed this crime, because surely no one in her perfect family could have done so.

But Patsy was always about the illusion; the perfect family, perfect children, perfect husband. In Patsy's mind, she was bigger than life and she was a bulldog with her determination in keeping up that illusion.

I know this post is already far too long; I do have other points I would love to share, but I think this will do for now!

Bayareamom,
You could be correct. I like your reason for Patsy washing the overalls. A lot of the evidence suggests PDI.

Except one thing. Someone molested JonBenet 12/25/1996. Then she was killed.

So I reckon it was a male Ramsey who did it.

Steve Thomas had to invent special circumstances to explain away JonBenet's molestation both chronic and acute.


.

 

[Bayareamom]

Well, I'll keep going here -

As I've said in my above post, I have just read Kolar's book, re-read Wecht's book, and am now finishing up with - yet again - Schiller's book, in trying to re-familiarize myself with this case.

I realize Kolar is somewhat aligned with the BDI theory, but that's just never resonated with me for some reason. One reason would be that the Ramseys had Burke so quickly taken out of their home that following morning. I cannot imagine that Burke would have been able to compose himself with his family's adult friends on the way to the White home. Just imagining him behaving in such a way as to be determined 'normal' under the BDI theory, and now finding himself in a car with two adult friends of his parents and keeping it all together, just does not resonate.

It is quite possible that JonBenet and Burke would have explored one another's bodies, as children are want to do at various developmental stages in their life times (I did this as well with a friend of mine when I was a little older than Burke), but going from what is perceived as a very normal thing to do, to then stating that Burke must have had something to do with JonBenet's murder, is a bit of a stretch for me.

I recall reading somewhere on this forum (and maybe DeeDee can help me with this), a statement of a listing of events, which states that JonBenet would, oft times, be taken into the bathroom by Patsy and screams would emanate from JonBenet when she was in the bathroom, with Patsy. I don't recall ever having heard this before, and I find this very (appallingly so), intriguing. Corporal punishment comes to mind, especially after having read this statement about JonBenet's screams when being in a bathroom, after a peeing accident, with Patsy.

So this is just another reason why I am aligned with Steve Thomas on this one; that the injuries so clearly defined in the autopsy report as being abrasions and/or erosion of her vaginal area, indicates penetration, but not penetration by an adult male penis. As Wecht states in his book, to HIM, JonBenet's vaginal injuries were the result of some sort of object and/or a finger, having been inserted into her vaginal opening, and thus causing the damage which was observed during the autopsy.

I see Patsy as quite possibly a victim in her own right; I think there is strong evidence, given the plethora of statements by various acquaintances of hers, friends and other relatives, that Patsy Rramsey did NOT come from a balanced, if not somewhat dysfunctional, background. Patsy was also exceedingly intelligent and by all acounts from various of her high school friends, she was a driven woman - to succeed. Even in those days, Patsy was quite the consummate actress, having proven this during one of the pageants she entered and then won. If memory serves, she performed some sort of a dramatic scene and it was this drama scene caught the eye of the Judges. She ultimately won the award for talent (can't remember the name of the award, or the pageant that this was in).

So - there's the obvious backdrop to Patsy's issue with drama; quite literally, she'd proven herself capable in the theatric arena as well.

I realize Mothers are perceived, on a global basis, as the nurturers, the care-givers of our children. People just cannot always accept that Mothers can, and often have, killed their own offspring and/or harmed them in quite vicious, emotional ways. It happens more than most of us would care to admit.

I would imagine that there was a lot more to Patsy's character and persona than most were every privy to. Patsy was left to take care of their homes, their children, etc., so forth, while John was quite often away on business trips.

Speaking of business trips, I recently read in one of my books that JonBenet would often chat up with the Ramsey gardener. Scott was his name (last name or first name, cannot recall). The gardener recalls that on one particular occasion, JonBenet told him that her Dad was gone, away on a business trip, and that she REALLY MISSED HIM. The gardener states that JonBenet teared up when she spoke of her father.

What little girl, if she was horribly abused by her dad on a consistent basis, would tear up and profess to really, really miss him? Doesn't make any sense to me. John was gone A LOT...which leaves two other people of whom were around JonBenet a lot more than John, Patsy and Burke.

I've already stated why I don't think Burke had anything to do with any of this. But again, that's just my opinion.

 

[UKGuy]

(bbm)
You are exactly correct, wengr. Additionally, if an object had an exact shape of the depressed fracture, it also would produce this "imprint" on anything it hit. But if such an object did exist, it would most likely have sharp edges that would have caused more scalp damage than was noted. Also, the entire weapon does not necessarily have to be cylindrical -- only the part that came in contact with her head. But then, how many different objects could that be? And then, what (of those objects) was available and readily accessible at the time this happened? And then finally, which of all these possibilities is the most likely?

ETA:
To the point of accessible and likelihood... I included in the first demo, a kitchen rolling pin. I've never heard it mentioned as a possible weapon in this case. I "discovered" it while looking through my house for objects of various diameters to use in the video. But I would imagine that the R's had one (even if it was only used by "the help"). So we can assume it to be available. But if the head blow occurred in JBR's bedroom, it wouldn't be readily accessible. If on the other hand, if the head blow happened in the kitchen, as Kolar has said he believes, then the accessibility of the rolling pin goes up.

Hope this helps explain how I'll be looking at this further down the road -- and maybe even helps anyone else in the discussion. I don't want this to be simply a monologue. Help me here. I'm still struggling with it myself.

otg,

So we can assume it to be available. But if the head blow occurred in JBR's bedroom, it wouldn't be readily accessible. If on the other hand, if the head blow happened in the kitchen, as Kolar has said he believes, then the accessibility of the rolling pin goes up.

You must demonstrate it happened in the kitchen first, otherwise you might be guilty of confirmation bias.

I reckon it simply depends on what you think took place. i.e. was JonBenet's sexual assault and head injury more or less simultaneous, e.g. something close to hand was used.

Alternatively was JonBenet sexually assaulted and whilst being constrained by her neck she fell into a coma. Subsequently someone visits the kitchen returns with a rolling pin, and whacks JonBenet above her parietal lobe?

A metal door handle in the shape of a globe might inflict such an injury if someone was fighting with JonBenet, holding her by neck, to keep her from fleeing via the door, but when JonBenet falls unconcious she collapses backwards onto the handle.

The latter is a bit contrived but is in accord with the idea of an accidental death.



.

 

[Bayareamom]

By the by, I neglected to say that I really do believe this death was accidental. I don't for one moment, doubt that. To ME, the fact that JonBenet's body was wrapped up in a blanket when John found her, that there was a red heart drawn on her palm and that she'd been found with a Barbie nightgown near her body, speaks to the heartbreak and anguish of the person who did this to her.

Patsy.

I don't profess to have a 'theory' as to all that may have happened that night, but I do go along with Wecht as to his various statements regarding this case. One, you have an obviously staged event, here. I don't think for one moment, that the strangulation had something to do with a sexual 'game' gone awry. I don't believe a young boy of nine, having been raised in the manner he was raised (also a somewhat geeky/nerdy type of kid), would have had the knowledge as to the use of a garrotte, on his sister. I don't 'think' he whacked his sister on the head, either. He COULD have, of course, but that just does not resonate with me.

I keep coming back to PATSY. Don't forget - this woman was known to have been on various types and forms of medication, not only for her cancer related issues, but for her emotional state at times. SSRI's are KNOWN to cause psychosis in many people. (I am a former legal researcher and I've researched medical issues as to vaccines, safety, and autism for almost twenty years, now.)

So this medication issue with Patsy is another reason I've intuited that Patsy's losing it that horrific night, was caused by various escalating, causative factors, i.e., she was exhausted what with all of her Holiday preparations; she was under an enormous amount of 'self' pressure to ensure her house was 'up to snuff' for the annual Christmas walk-thru of their home; she and John were busy shopping, wrapping presents, etc., before Christmas morning and getting ready for their trip, etc.

I would imagine that PATSY was responsible for the majority of the above and from what I've read as to the statements made by Linda Hoffman-Pugh and other friends/relatives of Patsy's, Patsy had trouble keeping her house together - according to her standards - EVEN with almost daily household help. Linda Pugh stated that when she would arrive at the Ramsey home in the mornings, the house would be a wreck. She also states that Patsy's own mother would admonish Patsy about the messy home and would tell Patsy that Linda's job was to CLEAN, NOT to pick up after Patsy and her children.

ALL of this leads me to imagine that Patsy was NOT the well put together individual that she wanted others to believe, she was. I see signs of a person in somewhat inner turmoil, floundering somewhat in her determination to continue the facade of the perfect family that she, for whatever reason, was determined to uphold, at whatever cost.

I don't believe that she saw JonBenet as an 'individual.' I believe that JonBenet was considered by Patsy, as an 'extension of HER SELF.' You can call this some sort of personality disorder, a type of self-centeredness, or what have you, but whatever the reason, Patsy was determined that JONBENET would continue with the facade of perfection, that Patsy had so painstakingly micromanaged for herself, for many, many years.

But she eventually snapped. All that 'self' pressure could no longer be maintained. Patsy was living on a very tenuous thread by that Christmas night and all it took was for something to cause her to snap - and snap she did.

She didn't mean to kill her beloved daughter. I truly believe that. But she also could not fathom that her now quite obviously imperfect family, would be torn to shatters by public ostracism and persecution, so she composed herself enough to follow a game plan and the rest as they say, is history.

Unfortunately, the first few Boulder cops that showed up that morning violated the first tenants of the police academy when it comes to crimes of this sort. The Ramseys should have immediately been separated and questioned; NO others should have been allowed in that home, whether they thought they had a kidnapping or not. Evidence as to a kidnapping were STILL to be found in that home, yet we all know what happened there.

So a little bit of luck went into this game planning and in the end, unlike the rest of us who would most likely have landed in jail shortly afterwards, someone walked away with a murder on their hands.

 

[OpenMind4U]

By the by, I neglected to say that I really do believe this death was accidental. I don't for one moment, doubt that. To ME, the fact that JonBenet's body was wrapped up in a blanket when John found her, that there was a red heart drawn on her palm and that she'd been found with a Barbie nightgown near her body, speaks to the heartbreak and anguish of the person who did this to her.

Patsy.

I don't profess to have a 'theory' as to all that may have happened that night, but I do go along with Wecht as to his various statements regarding this case. One, you have an obviously staged event, here. I don't think for one moment, that the strangulation had something to do with a sexual 'game' gone awry. I don't believe a young boy of nine, having been raised in the manner he was raised (also a somewhat geeky/nerdy type of kid), would have had the knowledge as to the use of a garrotte, on his sister. I don't 'think' he whacked his sister on the head, either. He COULD have, of course, but that just does not resonate with me.

I keep coming back to PATSY. Don't forget - this woman was known to have been on various types and forms of medication, not only for her cancer related issues, but for her emotional state at times. SSRI's are KNOWN to cause psychosis in many people. (I am a former legal researcher and I've researched medical issues as to vaccines, safety, and autism for almost twenty years, now.)

So this medication issue with Patsy is another reason I've intuited that Patsy's losing it that horrific night, was caused by various escalating, causative factors, i.e., she was exhausted what with all of her Holiday preparations; she was under an enormous amount of 'self' pressure to ensure her house was 'up to snuff' for the annual Christmas walk-thru of their home; she and John were busy shopping, wrapping presents, etc., before Christmas morning and getting ready for their trip, etc.

I would imagine that PATSY was responsible for the majority of the above and from what I've read as to the statements made by Linda Hoffman-Pugh and other friends/relatives of Patsy's, Patsy had trouble keeping her house together - according to her standards - EVEN with almost daily household help. Linda Pugh stated that when she would arrive at the Ramsey home in the mornings, the house would be a wreck. She also states that Patsy's own mother would admonish Patsy about the messy home and would tell Patsy that Linda's job was to CLEAN, NOT to pick up after Patsy and her children.

ALL of this leads me to imagine that Patsy was NOT the well put together individual that she wanted others to believe, she was. I see signs of a person in somewhat inner turmoil, floundering somewhat in her determination to continue the facade of the perfect family that she, for whatever reason, was determined to uphold, at whatever cost.

I don't believe that she saw JonBenet as an 'individual.' I believe that JonBenet was considered by Patsy, as an 'extension of HER SELF.' You can call this some sort of personality disorder, a type of self-centeredness, or what have you, but whatever the reason, Patsy was determined that JONBENET would continue with the facade of perfection, that Patsy had so painstakingly micromanaged for herself, for many, many years.

But she eventually snapped. All that 'self' pressure could no longer be maintained. Patsy was living on a very tenuous thread by that Christmas night and all it took was for something to cause her to snap - and snap she did.

She didn't mean to kill her beloved daughter. I truly believe that. But she also could not fathom that her now quite obviously imperfect family, would be torn to shatters by public ostracism and persecution, so she composed herself enough to follow a game plan and the rest as they say, is history.

Unfortunately, the first few Boulder cops that showed up that morning violated the first tenants of the police academy when it comes to crimes of this sort. The Ramseys should have immediately been separated and questioned; NO others should have been allowed in that home, whether they thought they had a kidnapping or not. Evidence as to a kidnapping were STILL to be found in that home, yet we all know what happened there.

So a little bit of luck went into this game planning and in the end, unlike the rest of us who would most likely have landed in jail shortly afterwards, someone walked away with a murder on their hands.

First of all, WELCOME Bayareamom!!! and secondly, THANK YOU for such an excellent post!

I have a question. How do you see the molestation part fits 'Patsy Did It' scenario?

Again, welcome!!!!

 

[deca]

Openmind4U- I believe bayareamom said that Patsy was the abuser of JB.

I agree with a lot of what you said, bayareamom- but my question is WHY would JR "go along" with the cover up? Whether he was involved with the staging or not, at some point that morning he decided to thwart justice. What do you think his reasons were? Loyalty to PR?

 

[Bayareamom]

Hello, OpenMind, and THANK you for that lovely welcome!

I used to work in the legal field - for over 22 years. I started out as a legal secretary, but gradually throughout the years, I became more or less, a legal assistant, helping paralegals and attorneys involved with our cases, in all manner of issues. What strikes me the most with the Ramsey case, is that the average lay person's lack of understanding as to how the judicial system works, i.e., how clients are 'perceived' by their attorneys and therefore, how the attorneys therefore, will navigate the waters as it pertains to the case at hand.

The Ramseys were most definitely kept from being interviewed by the police because of the very real potential that they were GUILTY. Remember, the longer the time-frame from the moment the body was discovered, to the time the Ramseys were interviewed by the police, enabled their attorneys to not only prep their clients as to their responses to any questions posed, but it also provided a certain amount of time in between within which to provide the Ramseys with a "I don't know," or an "I don't remember, " response.

So given the Ramseys' first interview with the police department was some four months after the body was found, this is the first thing that I thought of. I know this will anger a lot of you when I say this, but the Ramsey attorneys WERE JUST DOING THEIR JOBS. They were protecting their clients and acting, therefore, within the boundaries of the law as it pertains to legal representation. IF they hadn't done this, they would be violating their oath of office re: representation of their clients.

So I immediately sensed, just with the behavior and actions of the Ramsey attorneys, that a presumption of guilt (re: their clients) had already been presumed.

To me, a great detective is not only someone who looks with a keen eye at all the physical evidence, but a great detective also knows how to use his/her intuition. In that respect, I think SOME of the Boulder Detectives, such as Steve Thomas, were EXCELLENT in that regard. In spite of all the mishaps by the police in the beginnings of this case, I do believe there was some really great detective work going on in the scenes.

Unfortunately, some of the most basic of items requested during the various investigative scenarios, were thwarted by the DA's office, such as the request for warrants for phone records, receipts, etc. These are just BASIC items of interest and under any normal investigative process, those records would have been sought - no problem. But that didn't happen; I can't tell you how many times Steve Thomas states that it was times like this, when just basic search warrants were not granted - that SO frustrated the detectives, just trying to do their jobs.

As far as PDI: The first book I re-read just a few short weeks ago, was Wecht's. I think Wecht is right on the money with his findings, with one lone exception. I do NOT believe JonBenet's killer was involved in some sort of a sexual game gone awry. I think this was PART OF THE STAGING.

Everyone keeps talking about John Ramsey's intelligence, but Patsy was HIGHLY intelligent, as her high school and collegiate records indicate. She was used to being in 'control.' I don't think she was truly as patient with her children as most people had assumed. I think, behind closed doors, Patsy lost it with her kids in perhaps more ways than most would have realized. You never really know what truly goes on behind closed doors, and this would include doors attached to a very expensive home.

I see, according to Wecht's autopsy report summary, that JonBenet was violated BEFORE Christmas Day and not just during that night. Wecht stated that he felt that some of the chronic injuries to JonBenet's vaginal area could have been caused no less than a few days PRIOR to that night; she also had acute injuries to her vagina as well, which of course means that someone violated JonBenet that evening, in the same area as the chronic injuries had occurred.

Given just that bit of information, I would suggest that given the enormity of the pressure I am assuming Patsy MUST have been under during her holiday preparations, translated into issues with JonBenet as well. I'm always reminded of that saying that I used to hear when I was a new mom, "Happy Mommy, Happy Baby."

Given the enormous pressure Patsy must have put on herself when preparing for the holidays, I have absolutely no doubt that the CHILDREN were feeling some of that pressure as well. That's just normal. And - given that sort of pressure, would it be too far of a stretch to 'assume' that perhaps JonBenet had an escalation of sorts as to her bedwetting and soiling of the bed, issues?

I would say this is quite probable.

It seems possible to me that JonBenet was, during the time-frame leading up to her murder, very likely was dealing with frequent urinating accidents and/or soiling herself. Patsy could have become more than a little upset with JonBenet in this regard and by the time of this incident that Christmas night, lost it.

The injuries to JonBenet's vagina are, I would imagine, the result of some type of corporal punishment on Patsy's part.

 

[Bayareamom]

Hi deca,

As I've stated in one of my above posts, John Ramsey had already lost one beloved daughter, Beth, in an automobile accident a few years prior to JonBenet's death. It was reported by just about everyone of whom had been interviewed by either police officers and/or reporters, that Beth's death just devastated John; it was indicated by most that John was changed forever after her death. He became more 'inward' with his emotions (and this with a man that most likely never really showed many of his emotions in the first place). He's indicated in several interviews, since, that he believes that the showing of one's emotions IS A VERY PRIVATE THING.

So John's already lost one daughter, a death he's still not over yet, if ever, by the time of JonBenet's death, and now he's had to deal with his wife's cancer issues. He realizes he may lose Patsy to cancer, given her Stage 4 diagnosis. He would have every right to assume that Patsy may very realistically DIE in the not too distant future.

So now there's this added burden he's already carrying - he could very well lose his wife to cancer, leaving him with two young children alone to raise. This is a man who by all acounts, is driven to succeed. John is gone from his home a LOT; this, too, has been verified with all the accounts given by the police as to their interviews with John's various co-workers and friends who knew him.

At some point, and I'm not exactly sure when this would have occurred, but in going through the paces the following morning on the 26th, John realized with absolute horror that Patsy has lost it.

NO ONE knows just EXACTLY what words had been spoken in the Ramsey home leading up to that horrific night, but JOHN DID. He probably knew his wife better than most. By all accounts, John and Patsy seemed to have a close relationship (seemed being the key word here). It's quite likely that, when John would arrive at home, Patsy would give him the low down as to the days or weeks' events and of course, what was probably discussed between the two parents was the discussion as to both children's bed-wetting/soiling, issues. And don't forget - there were three books given to John and Patsy BY THE PAUGHS, which indicate there were, indeed, some real issues with both those kids; one book was about children growing up too fast...can't remember what the other two books were about. But still, it was apparent to the police when these books were found, that someone in that family's background already realized there were some issues as to the way they were being raised.

So John would have, obviously, realized there were these issues with the kids. I would imagine that he may have SUSPECTED, even if Patsy hadn't told him, that Patsy would have, at times, lost it with either one or both of the kids, when it came to certain issues.

NO ONE is a perfect parent. I know I'm not. We have a really terrific kid, but he really did give us some issues when he was younger. We all, at some point or another, have lot patience with our kids. But given the enormous pressure I see in Patsy's and John's lives back there in Boulder, it seems to be there was an additional line of pressure there that most people simply don't have to contend with.

So again, as I've stated, I think at some point when he was walking through the paces that morning, John realized he was walking in the middle of a nightmare. He was intelligent enough, perhaps, to realize that something horrendous had occurred and that Patsy, herself, had something to do with it. I think THIS is why he elected to have Burke taken out of their home so early the next morning, leaving with Fleet White and another male friend, to take Burke to the Fleet White home.

I think John very well suspected that PATSY had EVERYTHING to do with what happened to JonBenet. I do not feel in any way that John had anything to do with the writing of that mother and peace of a ransom note. THAT WAS ALL PATSY.

And John knew that. I think John may have felt that the police may suspect something along these lines and given his innate intelligence and therefore the need to protect his son, he ensured to have Burke taken out of that home IF something was perhaps said by the police to indicate the feeling that Patsy may have had something to do with either JonBenet's supposed kidnapping, or her murder.

OR John could have suspected that Patsy WOULD SNAP when the police started arriving and he wanted to ensure that Burke wasn't around when this happened.

Either scenario, he wanted that kid out of their home and away from the crime scene.

His motive? As I've said, John's motive was the preservation of his remaining family unit. Again, he'd just lost his beloved Beth a few years prior to JonBenet's death. I cannot imagine that he would have been able to sustain himself now witnessing his long suffering wife wasting away in prison. I honestly don't think John could have coped at that point.

He realized his wife lost it and perhaps realized, as horrific as this sounds, that he had to protect Patsy and Burke, whatever the cost.

I am in no way - if this is what happened - condoning this behavior. But I DO UNDERSTAND it, IF this is what happened.

 

[deca]

bayareamom: You make a very logical argument. I am just not certain if John and Patsy had a close relationship.
I always thought they had a "tolerable" relationship (we are together and there aren't enough problems to get a divorce but we really aren't in love- we make a decent partnership). To be honest, I am not sure were I got that assumption, so you may be right.