JR's profile

[UKGuy]

if RDI I can totally understand why the RN was written,makes sense
I can totally guess why JB's body was wiped off/cleaned
I can totally guess why she needed to be redressed
I can also totally understand why she was placed in the wine-cellar

I can find a reasonable explanation for each of these actions

what always bothered me though (and at the same time fascinated me and made me come back to this case) is that freaking garrote .murder weapon or part of the staging,doesn't matter to me,it screams SICK mind to me.

IF it was just part of the staging,why this brutal detail added?the RN and everything else would have been enough.why use PR's brush anyway?after it was used to create art with.it's sick.
IF it was the murder weapon then the murder is sicker than most of us believe as well.
IF it was a sex game gone wrong,why leave it there on her neck in the first place?

tons of questions and none of the answers I come up with FIT any of my theories.

IMO the minute I (or anyone else) will figure this out maybe everything will make sense.just MOO.

every theory I come up with gets blocked by this detail which drives me nuts cause I don't get it.it's not like a normal person thinks of such a staging,doesn't matter how panicked.you just don't think of doing THAT IMO.yes,write a RN,clean the body,I get it.

what's with the garrote I wanna know cause no matter how innocent some wanna make it sound (ah it was at hand,they wanted it to look like an intruder did it,was just another part of a staging,etc) it's SICK and only a SICK person would think(add) of it IMO.

madeleine,
I would suggest the garrote may have been applied as the first attempt at a crime-scene staging, which may have been intended to mask any other neck injuries JonBenet has. If you look closely at the crime you can see two scenarios e.g. an abduction and a bedtime assault. Although both appear similar they use different terms. One is a kidnapper the other is an intruder, or IDI.

We know that the abductor has not come to sexually assault JonBenet in her bed, and we assume that the intruder has not come to carry JonBenet off, otherwise she would not have been found in the wine-cellar.

So maybe you can see two different crime-scene stagings somehow mixed up, down in the wine-cellar, complete with pink barbie nightgown and doll?

In a macabre sense its as if JonBenet is a homicide advert then the proof of delivery would be the garotte, since nearly everyones first response will be thats what killed her?

As I have mentioned before it could be that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was found inside JonBenet and that this fact has been redacted.

Also we cannot be certain that the ligature and piece of paintbrush handle were applied down in the basement. This might actually be the remnants from a prior staging, despite its location, requiring JonBenet to be nude. We can be reasonably sure that the wine-cellar was a rushed job. So the garotte might simply represent what they could not remove given time constraints?

The garrote is my answer to all the undoing protagonists. Why bother cleaning up, and redressing JonBenet simply to leave her with a grotesque ligature around her neck. Not very princess like is it?


.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

madeleine,
I would suggest the garrote may have been applied as the first attempt at a crime-scene staging, which may have been intended to mask any other neck injuries JonBenet has. If you look closely at the crime you can see two scenarios e.g. an abduction and a bedtime assault. Although both appear similar they use different terms. One is a kidnapper the other is an intruder, or IDI.

We know that the abductor has not come to sexually assault JonBenet in her bed, and we assume that the intruder has not come to carry JonBenet off, otherwise she would not have been found in the wine-cellar.

So maybe you can see two different crime-scene stagings somehow mixed up, down in the wine-cellar, complete with pink barbie nightgown and doll?

In a macabre sense its as if JonBenet is a homicide advert then the proof of delivery would be the garotte, since nearly everyones first response will be thats what killed her?

As I have mentioned before it could be that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was found inside JonBenet and that this fact has been redacted.

Also we cannot be certain that the ligature and piece of paintbrush handle were applied down in the basement. This might actually be the remnants from a prior staging, despite its location, requiring JonBenet to be nude. We can be reasonably sure that the wine-cellar was a rushed job. So the garotte might simply represent what they could not remove given time constraints?

The garrote is my answer to all the undoing protagonists. Why bother cleaning up, and redressing JonBenet simply to leave her with a grotesque ligature around her neck. Not very princess like is it?


.

(bolded by me)

I think there're a few reasons.

One, I think they wanted to attract attention to a cause of death other than the skull fracture that only the killler (and someone else) knew was there until the coroner discovered it at autopsy. Consciousness of guilt - they knew the head wound was there whether it was immediately visible or not, and wanted a more obvious cause of death to blame. Maybe they even thought the skull fracture might not be discovered, I don't know. IMO.

Two, I think they thought it would deflect suspicion from them to anyone else. What parent could possibly fasten that merciless ligature around their baby's tiny little neck and yank it so tight that it ends up looking like it did? The number of IDI that refuse to believe either J or P could have done that shows how successful that was. It's not that hard to imagine - it HAS to be that tight to be convincing. Either you tighten it up good and tight or you go to jail, and jail was not an option for John and Patsy. IMO.

Three, I think they were attempting to conceal or confuse any evidence of a manual strangulation occurring before the ligature. I do suspect that the person abusing JonBenet either grabbed her by the neck and left a mark or had her snatched up by the collar and twisted it tight, which left a mark. IMO.

Four, if Patsy's precious child beauty pageant queen has to die, it can't just be an average, ordinary, everyday deal...it has to be a dramatic scenario befitting of a little princess. It has to be something people will talk about, something she can really work with, to get that attention as the mother of a dead beauty queen I think she loved. IMO.

And five, the American Girl doll theory offers a good explanation for me, and JonBenet had at least one. I've seen how they suggest you use tape to secure down the string at the back of the neck holding the head on, and it looks so much like the set up on JonBenet's neck that it gives me the creeps. IMO.

I strongly suspect the tape over JonBenet's mouth came from the American Girl doll JonBenet had that was dressed in navy blue - was her name Molly?

I also strongly suspect that the evidence of that left with Aunt Pam when she raided the Ramsey house in a police jacket, loading down a cruiser with items that should never have left the house until the investigation was over. IMO.

 

[DeeDee249]

I am in the middle of the JonBenet chapter of "Mortal Evidence" by Dr. Cyril Wecht (and others). There are some errors, to be sure (he claims JR carried her up with the white blanket, which was not the case - crime photos show it in heap on the wineceller floor, the pink nightie on top). Of course, he was not actually there at the time, and the fact that the coroner reported encountering the body in situ as being covered by a blanket (really an afghan pulled off a living room chair by JR after Det.Arndt moved her body from the foyer were JR placed her to the living room rug under the Christmas tree.) I shudder every time I read that.
But of one thing he is absolutely correct and very clear. There was very clear evidence of both previous and acute (at the time of death) sexual abuse. He also is confounded by the inability of the prosecutors and coroner to address this very important aspect of the crime. He states very clearly why he felt the two causes of death came so close together as to practically occur at the same time, and both occurred with an already dying JB. He feels the garrote was NOT staging, and was part of sexual activity with JB that night. This lends credence to her screaming during the activity, and the head bash being inflicted as a knee-jerk reaction to the scream- to shut her up FAST. He feels neither the garrote nor the bash was intended to kill her. He states that the abuser likely was surprised when pressure on the vagus nerve caused her to collapse. However, this muddies the waters on the head bash. That itself would have caused her to collapse immediately. The pressure on the vagus nerve would do the same, and then she wouldn't have screamed. I'll have to see what, if anything, he thinks about the head bash.

 

[UKGuy]

(bolded by me)

I think there're a few reasons.

One, I think they wanted to attract attention to a cause of death other than the skull fracture that only the killler (and someone else) knew was there until the coroner discovered it at autopsy. Consciousness of guilt - they knew the head wound was there whether it was immediately visible or not, and wanted a more obvious cause of death to blame. Maybe they even thought the skull fracture might not be discovered, I don't know. IMO.

Two, I think they thought it would deflect suspicion from them to anyone else. What parent could possibly fasten that merciless ligature around their baby's tiny little neck and yank it so tight that it ends up looking like it did? The number of IDI that refuse to believe either J or P could have done that shows how successful that was. It's not that hard to imagine - it HAS to be that tight to be convincing. Either you tighten it up good and tight or you go to jail, and jail was not an option for John and Patsy. IMO.

Three, I think they were attempting to conceal or confuse any evidence of a manual strangulation occurring before the ligature. I do suspect that the person abusing JonBenet either grabbed her by the neck and left a mark or had her snatched up by the collar and twisted it tight, which left a mark. IMO.

Four, if Patsy's precious child beauty pageant queen has to die, it can't just be an average, ordinary, everyday deal...it has to be a dramatic scenario befitting of a little princess. It has to be something people will talk about, something she can really work with, to get that attention as the mother of a dead beauty queen I think she loved. IMO.

And five, the American Girl doll theory offers a good explanation for me, and JonBenet had at least one. I've seen how they suggest you use tape to secure down the string at the back of the neck holding the head on, and it looks so much like the set up on JonBenet's neck that it gives me the creeps. IMO.

I strongly suspect the tape over JonBenet's mouth came from the American Girl doll JonBenet had that was dressed in navy blue - was her name Molly?

I also strongly suspect that the evidence of that left with Aunt Pam when she raided the Ramsey house in a police jacket, loading down a cruiser with items that should never have left the house until the investigation was over. IMO.

Nuisanceposter,

Maybe they even thought the skull fracture might not be discovered, I don't know. IMO.

Could be, might also be they did not give any degree of importance to a head injury, after all, nobody noticed it until the autopsy, and an internal, at that.

Two, I think they thought it would deflect suspicion from them to anyone else.

100% here.

Three, I think they were attempting to conceal or confuse any evidence of a manual strangulation occurring before the ligature. I do suspect that the person abusing JonBenet either grabbed her by the neck and left a mark or had her snatched up by the collar and twisted it tight, which left a mark. IMO.

This I think may have been the main reason, but was the garotte per se, a calculated move. IMO yes. Why, to offer a staged explanation for actute molestation?

I strongly suspect the tape over JonBenet's mouth came from the American Girl doll JonBenet had that was dressed in navy blue - was her name Molly?

Yes I agree, the doll is somehow connected with JonBenet's death. Otherwise why bother ordering up a new one and have it mailed to a corporate address, sneaky that.

I also strongly suspect that the evidence of that left with Aunt Pam when she raided the Ramsey house in a police jacket, loading down a cruiser with items that should never have left the house until the investigation was over. IMO.

Absolutely, this act alone saved the R's, without the removal of, lets say, JonBenet's forensically stained size-6, and presumably Wednesday underwear, the R's would be sitting in some penitentiary or be on death row, dealing in appeals. The fact she was allowed to do this suggests there was collusion between BPD and Team ramsey at a high level. Patently the tom toms had already sounded.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I am in the middle of the JonBenet chapter of "Mortal Evidence" by Dr. Cyril Wecht (and others). There are some errors, to be sure (he claims JR carried her up with the white blanket, which was not the case - crime photos show it in heap on the wineceller floor, the pink nightie on top). Of course, he was not actually there at the time, and the fact that the coroner reported encountering the body in situ as being covered by a blanket (really an afghan pulled off a living room chair by JR after Det.Arndt moved her body from the foyer were JR placed her to the living room rug under the Christmas tree.) I shudder every time I read that.
But of one thing he is absolutely correct and very clear. There was very clear evidence of both previous and acute (at the time of death) sexual abuse. He also is confounded by the inability of the prosecutors and coroner to address this very important aspect of the crime. He states very clearly why he felt the two causes of death came so close together as to practically occur at the same time, and both occurred with an already dying JB. He feels the garrote was NOT staging, and was part of sexual activity with JB that night. This lends credence to her screaming during the activity, and the head bash being inflicted as a knee-jerk reaction to the scream- to shut her up FAST. He feels neither the garrote nor the bash was intended to kill her. He states that the abuser likely was surprised when pressure on the vagus nerve caused her to collapse. However, this muddies the waters on the head bash. That itself would have caused her to collapse immediately. The pressure on the vagus nerve would do the same, and then she wouldn't have screamed. I'll have to see what, if anything, he thinks about the head bash.

DeeDee249,
Can you remember back to John Ramsey's or Fleet White's account of the wine-cellar? Do you recall either saying we saw JonBenet wrapped in a white blanket with a pink nightgown and barbie doll lying next to or on top of her?

So how did the pink barbie nightgown arrive on top of the white blanket, what is all that about?

Does this suggest that the pink nightgown was hidden inside the white blanket, only to be revealed once JR removed it? If so, where was the barbie doll at this point, I wonder if Fleet White noticed, he had three looks into the wine-cellar that day more than anyone else. Assuming JR did not unknowingly precede him?

But of one thing he is absolutely correct and very clear. There was very clear evidence of both previous and acute (at the time of death) sexual abuse.

I agree 100%. JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide staged as an abduction.

He feels the garrote was NOT staging, and was part of sexual activity with JB that night.

Well, I must differ. Consider you have just indulged in some form of EA with JonBenet, for whatever reason, vagus nerve or head bash, she dies. So after recovering from the shock, you set about staging some kind of crime scene, and having done so, why would you leave the garrote around her neck, or even wish have LEA have a clue to look in that direction?

I do not think I have ever seen or heard of a recorded case of EA activity with a girl as young as JonBenet. With a child as young as this it is a misnomer to even use the EA acronym, since for JonBenet it would not have felt in the least Erotic. EA is predominantly a male activity, think David Carradine, females do engage, but not in the same numbers as males, certainly not six year old girls.

Like most theories Dr. Cyril Wecht's vagus compression theory cannot be refuted as it represents a distinct possibility, but given we are dealing with a staged crime-scene, its more likely that the garrote is a calculated element of staging.

So alike the Undoing concept, any EA proponent has to explain why incriminating forensic evidence was left in place, despite wiping JonBenet down, redressing her, applying restraints and duct-tape etc?

That is Dr. Cyril Wecht's vagus compression theory implies Patsy was indulging in EA with JonBenet since her fibers are all over the garotte.


p.s. Watched a USofA documentary about this guy, Jeffrey, who was a sperm donor and agrees to meet lots of his children. The likeness and similarity in habits across all these different children is remarkable. Anyway one is from Boulder, Colorado, so I got to see some of the scenery in that area, and it looked quite nice, green and hilly. The child was a son of two same gender women, who tellingly stated, we can do nearly everything for him, except teach him how to be a man. Cute!


.

 

[Peepers]

This is a good conversation. I cant decide which one of the R's did it, but I think them sending Burke out that morning adds more credence that it could have been Burke who killed his sister accidentally. Obviously P and J were not worried that Burke might say something that would incriminate them while out of their sight. If they thought Burke knew something THEY did, they would have kept a closer eye on him imo

 

[DeeDee249]

Neither FW nor JR has given detailed information on what they saw in the wineceller, as far as what we have available to us.

The Barbie doll was not seen (in the photo) ON TOP of the white blanket, but a few feet away. The pink nightie can be seen lying on top of the white blanket, but both items are kind of in a heap, not out flat. We have no way of knowing how or if it was observed by FW, JR or anyone else. Tricia's sources have told her that there was, in fact, a boxed Barbie doll in the room. The doll appears to be the 1996 Holiday Barbie, which of course, would have been a popular gift that year. Anyone who wants to see what the doll looked like has only to Google it and it should pull up a photo. Holiday Barbies are collected by adults as well as children, and are usually kept in the box. They are not usually taken out of the box and played with, though they certainly can be.
When shown crime photos of the wineceller, and of the white blanket specifically, JR says to police "that wasn't supposed to be there" in reference to the pink blanket. I think we can all agree that was an odd thing to say, as neither the blanket OR the nightie was supposed to be there- nor was a dead little girl.
From his comment, it can be suggested that what he was really saying was that the pink blanket had stuck to the white blanket by static cling, as the white blanket had been pulled from the basement dryer and it was not noticed at the time. The stagers MEANT to have the white blanket there because it was needed to cover the body and to "protect" the body from the dirty, moldy concrete floor of the WC. No intruder would care about leaving the body of a child they had just killed on a concrete floor. There would be no need to cover her nor place her blanket under her. They'd simply have left her there. But a parent, staging a scene like that, would almost surely have had a need to cover her up and place something underneath the body.

FW has never made any public comment about the blanket, the nightie or the doll that I am aware of. He may have told police, and I assume he was questioned about what he saw when he accompanied JR into the WC.

 

[UKGuy]

Neither FW nor JR has given detailed information on what they saw in the wineceller, as far as what we have available to us.

The Barbie doll was not seen (in the photo) ON TOP of the white blanket, but a few feet away. The pink nightie can be seen lying on top of the white blanket, but both items are kind of in a heap, not out flat. We have no way of knowing how or if it was observed by FW, JR or anyone else. Tricia's sources have told her that there was, in fact, a boxed Barbie doll in the room. The doll appears to be the 1996 Holiday Barbie, which of course, would have been a popular gift that year. Anyone who wants to see what the doll looked like has only to Google it and it should pull up a photo. Holiday Barbies are collected by adults as well as children, and are usually kept in the box. They are not usually taken out of the box and played with, though they certainly can be.
When shown crime photos of the wineceller, and of the white blanket specifically, JR says to police "that wasn't supposed to be there" in reference to the pink blanket. I think we can all agree that was an odd thing to say, as neither the blanket OR the nightie was supposed to be there- nor was a dead little girl.
From his comment, it can be suggested that what he was really saying was that the pink blanket had stuck to the white blanket by static cling, as the white blanket had been pulled from the basement dryer and it was not noticed at the time. The stagers MEANT to have the white blanket there because it was needed to cover the body and to "protect" the body from the dirty, moldy concrete floor of the WC. No intruder would care about leaving the body of a child they had just killed on a concrete floor. There would be no need to cover her nor place her blanket under her. They'd simply have left her there. But a parent, staging a scene like that, would almost surely have had a need to cover her up and place something underneath the body.

FW has never made any public comment about the blanket, the nightie or the doll that I am aware of. He may have told police, and I assume he was questioned about what he saw when he accompanied JR into the WC.

DeeDee249,

The Barbie doll was not seen (in the photo) ON TOP of the white blanket, but a few feet away.

And presumably not boxed?

The pink nightie can be seen lying on top of the white blanket, but both items are kind of in a heap, not out flat.

Sure so why should the pink nightgown be lying on top of the blanket, did an investigator place it there, could it have been used as a contrast in a forensic photograph

We have no way of knowing how or if it was observed by FW, JR or anyone else.

Sure, but since we can see it, and following our observation it must be reasonable to ask why did Fleet White not notice the Barbie Doll, if it was lying close to JonBenet, or the pink nightgown, if it was not enclosed within the white blanket?

I can accept Fleet White may have missed JonBenet earlier that day due to poor visibility, but a Barbie Doll is akin to a small child, its presence on the floor must surely be a red flag for any person searching for JonBenet. So presumably Fleet White also missed the Barbie Doll?

Holiday Barbies are collected by adults as well as children, and are usually kept in the box. They are not usually taken out of the box and played with, though they certainly can be.

Good point. Which suggests to me then, its part of the staging, or residue following a search for the size-12's?

From his comment, it can be suggested that what he was really saying was that the pink blanket had stuck to the white blanket by static cling, as the white blanket had been pulled from the basement dryer and it was not noticed at the time.

It can be so suggested, but a counter is that you are putting words in his mouth, he may have simply been being clever and stating the obvious. He could have said the same thing as : That should be up in JonBenet's bedroom.

Lets consider static cling as an explanation for the presence of the pink nightgown. If it was hidden on the underside of the white blanket, then when the blanket was rolled around JonBenet to form a papoose, how come it was missed, similarly if it was on the inside of the blanket how come it was missed? That is Fleet White, Patsy Ramsey, and John Ramsey all missed the pink nightgown.

Explanations that rely on random, unexpected events, such as vagus nerve compression or static cling to understand forensic evidence, do not seem to explicate more obsfucate.

The origin of the Barbie Doll is interesting since Patsy never stated it was an intended gift, was it not JonBenet's?

The stagers MEANT to have the white blanket there because it was needed to cover the body and to "protect" the body from the dirty, moldy concrete floor of the WC.

The blanket is part of the staging as is the barbie doll and pink nightgown, what it is intended to represent is open to interpretation. It could simply be that JonBenet was intended to have been dumped outdoors, but the fallback position was the wine-cellar. Leaving JonBenet in the house was an error in terms of the staging e.g ransom note, which suggests another outcome was intended?

FW has never made any public comment about the blanket, the nightie or the doll that I am aware of. He may have told police, and I assume he was questioned about what he saw when he accompanied JR into the WC.

Is that not interesting. I never heard Patsy say much about the Barbie Doll either. Only John told us with conviction that the nightgown should not have been present!


.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Barbie Doll WAS boxed. She seems to be in her cellophane/cardboard presentation box- the kind they all come in. The photo is on one of the threads somewhere.

 

[UKGuy]

The Barbie Doll WAS boxed. She seems to be in her cellophane/cardboard presentation box- the kind they all come in. The photo is on one of the threads somewhere.

DeeDee249,
Is it this picture:

I find it difficult to make out the doll , never mind a box.



.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Is it this picture:

I find it difficult to make out the doll , never mind a box.



.
.

That is not the photo I meant. It shows the pink fabric, but not the doll. The photo I mean shows more of the room- the doll is a few feet away.
Anyone have that photo saved?

 

[DeeDee249]

Take a good look at that filthy floor, covered with white mold. Is this the kind of room ANYONE, let alone Patsy, would use to wrap presents in? Or hide them? (like they said) NO. Those presents were found in that room for one reason. They were unwrapped to look for a clean pair of Bloomies panties. The ones admittedly bought for JB's older cousin and likely wrapped up with other gifts to be mailed out after Patsy returned home from the family vacation. (like she said).

 

[madeleine]

Okay,please let me know if I got this right cause it's confusing me.
As far as I know LE got that set of big underwear panties years later from the Ramsey team.This means they never found any at the crime scene right?Did they NOT collect as evidence everything that was in the basement?All those boxes (wrapped,unwrapped)?:waitasec:

 

[UKGuy]

Take a good look at that filthy floor, covered with white mold. Is this the kind of room ANYONE, let alone Patsy, would use to wrap presents in? Or hide them? (like they said) NO. Those presents were found in that room for one reason. They were unwrapped to look for a clean pair of Bloomies panties. The ones admittedly bought for JB's older cousin and likely wrapped up with other gifts to be mailed out after Patsy returned home from the family vacation. (like she said).

DeeDee249,
So what do you reckon then? Were the presents found in the wine-cellar simply brought there to search out the size-12's? Or how about like other items they were dumped in there, just like JonBenet, out of view?


These were first posted by KoldKase, is this the doll you are referring to?

...

KoldKase has zoomed in on some parts here:

...

...

...

Now over at FFJ, Cherokee suggests that the Barbie Doll was redacted from the evidence list, here is his image of that list:

So the question now is: What was the doll doing in the basement and why was it deemed so important to have it redacted? This might explain why this topic was never followed up during Patsy's Atlanta interview.

 

[UKGuy]

Okay,please let me know if I got this right cause it's confusing me.
As far as I know LE got that set of big underwear panties years later from the Ramsey team.This means they never found any at the crime scene right?Did they NOT collect as evidence everything that was in the basement?All those boxes (wrapped,unwrapped)?:waitasec:

madeleine,

As far as I know LE got that set of big underwear panties years later from the Ramsey team.

Correct.

This means they never found any at the crime scene right?

100% Correct, no size-12's in the wine-cellar or anywhere else in the house.

Did they NOT collect as evidence everything that was in the basement?All those boxes (wrapped,unwrapped)?

We asume they did, it was taken to be the primary crime-scene, so everything should have been bagged and tagged.


.

 

[Agatha_C]

That's a very good point, because for all the suggestions that have been made about the sexual assault being part of the staging, the reality is that the sexual assault was not emphasised at all, she was redressed and wiped, the sexual assault was in fact hidden.

And there is the big "Boogaboo." Why does a child rapist/murderer need to hide the fact that a child was raped? Why leave her behind in that grotesque garrote with her hands tied above her head and tape on her mouth, yet hide the rape/molestation? Why redress her? Why would this intruder care? an intruder as sick as this one was made to appear wouldnt have cared.

Theres one answer to all those questions>>>> There wasnt an intruder!

 

[madeleine]

And there is the big "Boogaboo." Why does a child rapist/murderer need to hide the fact that a child was raped? Why leave her behind in that grotesque garrote with her hands tied above her head and tape on her mouth, yet hide the rape/molestation? Why redress her? Why would this intruder care? an intruder as sick as this one was made to appear wouldnt have cared.

Theres one answer to all those questions>>>> There wasnt an intruder!

a sick pedo wouldn't have wrote such a RN.a ransom kidnapper wouldn't have risked raping the victim and spend so much time with cleaning,redressing her.one is totally contradicting the other IMO.here's where the staging went totally WRONG.which makes me wonder how many people were involved in the staging and if one knew about what the other does.

 

[Agatha_C]

a sick pedo wouldn't have wrote such a RN.a ransom kidnapper wouldn't have risked raping the victim and spend so much time with cleaning,redressing her.one is totally contradicting the other IMO.here's where the staging went totally WRONG.which makes me wonder how many people were involved in the staging and if one knew about what the other does.

It was all over kill. As if two people had two very different ideas of what a crime scene should or would look like and both went about setting those scenes up. The right hand did not tell the left what it was doing. Or thats how I see it and apparently you as well Maddie my Dear.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Its even possible as UK has said, that more than one staging took place. Maybe there is what they staged together and then what each added after the fact. The two hours JR was AWOL might have been his time of embellishment and with a house full of LE and friends, he couldnt very well share what he had done with Patsy, leaving her in the dark... JMHO

 

[wonderllama]

I suggest that if anything, JR tried to 'unstage' the scene a bit, I can only imagine if PR staged the scene she would have gone over the top, you know, given her pageant history etc.

 

[Agatha_C]

I suggest that if anything, JR tried to 'unstage' the scene a bit, I can only imagine if PR staged the scene she would have gone over the top, you know, given her pageant history etc.

Miss Pageantry herself.... Valid point Wonder of all wonders...