Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[UKGuy]

Assuming it was Burke who delivered the head blow a short time after JonBenet ate the pineapple (pineapple goes through the digestive tract very fast if eaten without other food) - why did the stager of the scene later feel it necessary to put the too large size 12-underwear on her?

rashomon,
The simplest explanation is that that a crime-scene was being staged, but her size-6 underwear was either forensically contaminated or bloodstained or both, so another pair was required.

And it might have been Burke who redressed JonBenet in them?

I reckon both John and Patsy would see the error of redressing JonBenet in size-12's, they are adults and as Patsy stated JonBenet would wear any day of the week which came to hand, so the Wednesday detail is really only significant to the acute abuser.

Some of the mistakes made in the staging is exactly that which a child might make but not an adult.


.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

rashomon,
The simplest explanation is that that a crime-scene was being staged, but her size-6 underwear was either forensically contaminated or bloodstained or both, so another pair was required.

And it might have been Burke who redressed JonBenet in them?

I reckon both John and Patsy would see the error of redressing JonBenet in size-12's, they are adults and as Patsy stated JonBenet would wear any day of the week which came to hand, so the Wednesday detail is really only significant to the acute abuser.

Some of the mistakes made in the staging is exactly that which a child might make but not an adult.


.

UKGuy

Thanks for sharing your theory. I kind of sensed you leaned toward the BDI theory, which would explain away some of the anomalies in this case (such as the discrepancy in when JBR went to bed and the pineapple on the table), but there are certain things I can't quite rationalize with that theory.

Do you believe that BR did part of the staging, and the parents did the rest? You don't seem to believe that the sexual molestation and head trauma were part of the same event, but then why would anyone wipe her down and change her underwear if not to hide evidence of a sexual assault? BR obviously did not write that ransom note, and IMO wasn't capable of tying the sophisticated knot on the garrote. Which brings me back to "why" JR and PR would choose such a grotesque way of finishing JBR off if they were merely covering up for something BR did. A pillow over the face would have accomplished the same result.

Also, the staging of both a sexual assault/murder and kidnapping was ludicrous and not believable. The FBI sure picked up on that. That's what makes me think that the perpetrator, perhaps, intended to remove the body from the house at some point, but that that was no longer an option once the 911 call was made and LE arrived.

It was well documented from friends and associates of the R's that PR was all about social status. I think her involvement in the cover up came later, after everything hit the fan, and her reason may have been related to that. Look at what Cindy Anthony did for the sake of appearances in that family. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. JMO of course.

 

[Chewy]

Surprised that people can't even conceive of the idea of JBR waking up and realizing she wet the bed and trying to put on her own underpants thereby grabbing the wrong size, thinking she didn't want to get in trouble on Christmas, then she herself going down and eating some pineapple.

Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it happened the only way you can imagine it.

This is a logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity.

“”At what point did you reject the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand how good the idea is?
—Dilbert[1]

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.

Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated minor premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy

Thanks for sharing your theory. I kind of sensed you leaned toward the BDI theory, which would explain away some of the anomalies in this case (such as the discrepancy in when JBR went to bed and the pineapple on the table), but there are certain things I can't quite rationalize with that theory.

Do you believe that BR did part of the staging, and the parents did the rest? You don't seem to believe that the sexual molestation and head trauma were part of the same event, but then why would anyone wipe her down and change her underwear if not to hide evidence of a sexual assault? BR obviously did not write that ransom note, and IMO wasn't capable of tying the sophisticated knot on the garrote. Which brings me back to "why" JR and PR would choose such a grotesque way of finishing JBR off if they were merely covering up for something BR did. A pillow over the face would have accomplished the same result.

Also, the staging of both a sexual assault/murder and kidnapping was ludicrous and not believable. The FBI sure picked up on that. That's what makes me think that the perpetrator, perhaps, intended to remove the body from the house at some point, but that that was no longer an option once the 911 call was made and LE arrived.

It was well documented from friends and associates of the R's that PR was all about social status. I think her involvement in the cover up came later, after everything hit the fan, and her reason may have been related to that. Look at what Cindy Anthony did for the sake of appearances in that family. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. JMO of course.

PrincessSezMe,

Do you believe that BR did part of the staging,

Yes, amateurish staging and a false version of events for his parents.

You don't seem to believe that the sexual molestation and head trauma were part of the same event, but then why would anyone wipe her down and change her underwear if not to hide evidence of a sexual assault?

They don't have to be, they might be different events separated by a small time period. Hiding evidence of a sexual assault speaks for itself, note not even the Coroner knew JonBenet had sustained a head injury, so why the parents?

Its logically possible for the head bash to represent initial staging that failed, so they moved on to the ligature.

Which brings me back to "why" JR and PR would choose such a grotesque way of finishing JBR off if they were merely covering up for something BR did.

Precisely because its staging, its intended to offer an obvious cause of death, and also possibly cover up any prior manual strangulation.

Also, the staging of both a sexual assault/murder and kidnapping was ludicrous and not believable.

Sure but the R's knew any claims had to stand up in a court of law, so staging a crime-scene offers them a way out. It also allows for the original forensic evidence to be removed.

If it is BDI then I cannot imagine BR running to his parents saying I just molested JonBenet and whacked her on the head, guess what, she is not moving anymore!

BR would have attempted some kind of cleanup and minimal staging. Once his parents reviewed the crime-scene they would have decided what to keep or discard.

Its possible JonBenet was staged in her own bedroom as the victim of some psychotic pedophile. Hence the bloodstain on her pillow?

This was abandonded in favor of the wine-cellar crime-scene, which is really a dump-site, with the wine-cellar functioning as depositary to hide JonBenet from public view thereby justifying the R's belief in the ransom note.

Some think the basement was the original crime-scene, I do not, I think it was one of the bedrooms.



.

 

[UKGuy]

Surprised that people can't even conceive of the idea of JBR waking up and realizing she wet the bed and trying to put on her own underpants thereby grabbing the wrong size, thinking she didn't want to get in trouble on Christmas, then she herself going down and eating some pineapple.

Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it happened the only way you can imagine it.

This is a logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity.



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Chewy,
Boulder Police Department were incredulous when no size-12 underwear was found anywhere in the house, including JonBenet's underwear drawer.

.

 

[thefragile7393]

I can clearly see someone in the fam....no clue of who exactly anymore.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chewy]

Chewy,
Boulder Police Department were incredulous when no size-12 underwear was found anywhere in the house, including JonBenet's underwear drawer.

.

Why were they incredulous?

 

[Whaleshark]

...because Patsy said JBR must have put them on herself, from her own underwear drawer, from the bloomies panty package that comes in sets of days of the weeks, that just never got to Jenny, who the intended gift of size 12 underwear would have been for...

so, police are wondering -- ok, then where is the rest of the underwear, if JBR put them on herself, from her own underwear drawer, according to Patsy's offered explanation - a size six times too large in the first place...?

 

[UKGuy]

Why were they incredulous?

Chewy,
Because, despite as you suggest, JonBenet dressing herself in a brand new pair of size-12 Bloomingdale underwear.

No pairs were to be found anywhere in the house!


So they considered if the intruder had brought them with him into the house.





.

 

[Chewy]

Right because it's completely inconceivable that a child who participated on pageant circuits could have at one time or another over months accidentally picked up someone else's new underwear when either she or her mother were gathering up their things to go home.

It's impossible.

 

[Whaleshark]

that's possible, I suppose.

but i guess someone should have told Patsy to come up with that story then, rather than the one she offered...especially when she made sure to show up years later with a matching size 12 days of the week bloomies underwear set to corroborate her story -- just to satisfy that glaring issue...

rather than just say she must have been mistaken and probably picked them up somewhere else....

 

[Chewy]

Or the cops overlooked them because cops always find everything they are looking for

 

[Whaleshark]

yeah, you're probably right. they probably overlooked the rest of the size 12s in the underwear drawer...

 

[SapphireSteel]

BDI is not only incredibly unlikely, it is also physically impossible.

Burke was another victim.

:banghead:

 

[Chewy]

Perhaps they were not in the underwear drawer, huge stretch I know to think they may have been somewhere else.....

 

[Whaleshark]

BDI is not only incredibly unlikely, it is also physically impossible.:

Not true.

Burke was another victim.

Maybe so.

 

[BOESP]

Why were they incredulous?

Where were the other six pair of size 12s? Pretty incredulous that only one pair, according to your theory, was in the drawer and out of all those panties in the drawer that were in JonBenet's size, according to you, she selected the one pair of panties that were several sizes too large for her.

 

[BOESP]

Or the cops overlooked them because cops always find everything they are looking for

And blaming the cops is the first line of defense for the defense team, followed by "some other dude did it."

Most of your questions have been addressed and re-addressed on this board. The search engine would give you a lot of answers to your questions.

 

[Whaleshark]

Perhaps they were not in the underwear drawer, huge stretch I know to think they may have been somewhere else.....

again, that's possible. strange that jonbenet would be able to find them, though, to put on in the middle of the night, and no one else could find them.
remember, Patsy said there was a package of the bloomies for Jenny, not one single pair from a pageant, even stating where she bought the gift..

so, if she was mistaken, and didn't feel the need to provide the rest of the underwear, it wouldn't have been produced and turned in years later...

so even though there are immense possibilities -- if you are saying that her offered story is wrong, then you are saying she is lying anyway... all the way down to producing the package of the rest of the size 12s years later to back up her story.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
The simplest explanation is that that a crime-scene was being staged, but her size-6 underwear was either forensically contaminated or bloodstained or both, so another pair was required.

And it might have been Burke who redressed JonBenet in them?

I reckon both John and Patsy would see the error of redressing JonBenet in size-12's, they are adults and as Patsy stated JonBenet would wear any day of the week which came to hand, so the Wednesday detail is really only significant to the acute abuser.

Some of the mistakes made in the staging is exactly that which a child might make but not an adult.

I agree about the stager of scene thinking it necessary to remove JonBenet's size-6 underwear, but don't think 9-year-old Burke got the idea to orchestrate this type of staging, during which he also must have thought of hiding the remaining size 12's from the Bloomies set.

The size-12 undewear remains one of the most puzzling items of the crime scene though.
For if the stager wanted to replace Jonbenet's forensically contaminated size 6s, why not just take another size-6 pair from her underwear drawer? All of JonBenet's underwear had 'days of the week' on them, so why not just take another pair that had 'Wednesday' on it?
(It is of course possible that no size-6 Wednesday pair could be found in JonBenet's drawer because they all happened to be in the laundry, but imo this is not very likely).

So what could be the most likely reason for the stager to choose the size-12 Bloomies? Maybe JonBenet had worn size-6s of the same brand, and the stager wanted to make sure that the body would be discovered wearing the same brand of underwear - for JonBenet often used to ask others to help her cleaning herself up after using the toilet (which is quite unusual for a six-year old btw), so the stager may have been considered the possibility of guests at the Whites' having seen the size-6 Bloomies on her).