Known rope in the house

[otg]

otg,
So how do we reconcile Coroner Meyer's vebatim remarks about digital penetration and sexual contact?

Do you think he might know the difference between a sexual assault and a genital injury?

I think we've been through this before, UKG. No sense in rehashing it all. Bottom line: any vaginal injury that is "consistent with digital penetration" (or consistent with anything else that can be imagined, for that matter) is a sexual contact!

If the acute injury is not staging then it forms part of the phase of injuries prior to her head bash?

Absolutely.

If so, then this offers Patsy further rationale to make a garrote from the ligature and paintbrush handle, e.g. muddy the waters?
.

Yes (assuming Patsy to be the one who did that part of the staging).
.

 

[UKGuy]

I think we've been through this before, UKG. No sense in rehashing it all. Bottom line: any vaginal injury that is "consistent with digital penetration" (or consistent with anything else that can be imagined, for that matter) is a sexual contact!


Absolutely.


Yes (assuming Patsy to be the one who did that part of the staging).
.

otg,

Bottom line: any vaginal injury that is "consistent with digital penetration" (or consistent with anything else that can be imagined, for that matter) is a sexual contact!

I doubt this, since that would make all staging sexual contact.


.

 

[otg]

(snipped)
I know, I know, you would ask me: how about these 90 min between the head blow and strangulation?....I don't know what to say!!! I wish I would never learned about...

Don't anyone put too much money on that 90-minutes. Or what was it... 45 minutes to two hours? That's one person's opinion, and I don't think it's right. I don't have time to put it all together yet, but I will, and I'll post it here on this thread when I get it all put together.
.

 

[otg]

otg,

I doubt this, since that would make all staging sexual contact.
.

I'm sorry, UK, maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. I don't follow you at all on that.
.

 

[UKGuy]

Nehemiah, while I would like to be able to point to something John Walsh said as confirmation of my claim about the hanging, I think he must have been mistaken. I'm not sure if he got this confused with another case, or if (as BobC once speculated) there is a passage in PMPT about someone claiming at one time that JB was found "hanging in a secret dumbwaiter" at some point, but I believe whatever he was thinking -- he was mistaken.

It seems like someone else prominent had said something relating to her having been hanged, but I can't remember now who it was. In any event, I firmly believe that this is what happened based on what evidence we are privy to, and I'm glad you bumped this thread so we could read it.
.

otg,
Perfect Murder/Perfect Town, excerpt

Later, a different writer had lunch with another attorney representing the Ramseys. At times, the writer raised his voice above the ambient noise of the restaurant, loud enough to be overheard from nearby tables. At 2:00 P.M., the attorney said he had to leave but suggested that the writer finish his meal, which he did. Moments later, a woman approached his table and sat in the booth where the writer’s guest had been seated. She was well dressed and spoke in a soft voice.

WOMAN: I hope you don’t mind. You see I’m a friend of a grand juror. This case is so complicated. I don’t know if I’m allowed to talk to you or if my friend should have been talking to me.

WRITER: I’m sure she knows the law better than I. Someone must have explained it to her.

WOMAN: I don’t know. It’s so confusing that she has had to go to her astrologer for help.

WRITER: Is that so?

WOMAN: Do you know about that secret room the Ramseys built for $150,000? I don’t know what they did in that room, the one on the ground floor.

WRITER: I didn’t know.

WOMAN: And you must know about the dumbwaiter on the second floor. That’s where they found some of her blond hair. Caught in the door. And you know they used chloroform on her? They think she was taken that way.

WRITER: I didn’t know about the dumbwaiter.

WOMAN: I didn’t know either until I was told.

With that, the woman got up and went back to her table.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm sorry, UK, maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. I don't follow you at all on that.
.

otg,
If I kill my daughter then fake her death by any means and inflict a genital injury, internal or external. Then I do not consider that a sexual assault.


.

 

[otg]

otg,
If I kill my daughter then fake her death by any means and inflict a genital injury, internal or external. Then I do not consider that a sexual assault.
.

Perhaps that is what you would consider, UK, but the law would consider it sexual assault.

In the United States, the definition of sexual assault varies widely between the individual states. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network defines sexual assault as "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling."
The National Center for Victims of Crime states:

“Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent.​

And in U.K., it varies also, but here is England and Wales:

England and Wales

Sexual assault is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which defines "sexual assault" as when a person (A)

1. intentionally touches another person (B),
2. the touching is sexual,
3. B does not consent to the touching, and
4. A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

And in my home state, I'm proud to say it is even more specific:

Texas

Penal Code, Sec. 22.011.(a) creates the offence of sexual assault. It reads:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally or knowingly:

(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or
(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
​

(2) intentionally or knowingly:

(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor;
(C) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;
(D) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(E) causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor.
​

So I'm sorry, UK, but if you "kill (your) daughter then fake her death by any means and inflict a genital injury, internal or external," whether in the U.S., or the U.K., you have committed sexual assault of that child.

Can it be any more clear than that?

All of the above is from:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault"]Sexual assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
.

 

[dodie20]

I think a certain degree of speculation comes into it of course, but the speculation needs to eprtain to facts and not because people make assumptions and then point the finger at everything a person says or does without due cause; i find it abbhorrent thet everything the Ramsey's have said or done has been "proof" or evidence in the minds of some as guilt: they are being accused of the most heinous crime imaginable without due cause in my opinion.

I believe the packet of size 12 underwear was later located when the Ramsey's belongings were moved but they denied knowledge of them - not sure on that.

Maybe they never made an issue about the missing piece of the brush because they went too quickly on the assumption that this was staging or some erotic thingy - but then why was one half of the brush there and the head of the brush in the paint tray?

Are we back to bungled police work AGAIN????

I think we need to speculate on the facts alone - and yes this does include behaviour and the Ramseys were deemed by professionals to have acted accordingly with the parents of a murdered child and not with the behaviour of child murdering parents.

I think to speculate we need to keep our minds as open as possible and not to pick a target without cause and then try to make some facts fit.

The scream for example is not a fact. It is a possibility and a very vague and questionable one.

Does sticking to fact include not making up dialogue? because any conversation between BR and some trusted home invader, relies completely on speculation. I don't mind reading somebody's speculations, as long as there's some kind of reasonable evidence to back it up, but fantastical theories, just cause confusion. OTOH, it is a fact that a neighbor reported hearing a child scream. Now, some people want to discredit this witness, and I'm ok with that, but I, for one, choose to believe her account, and I base that belief on fact, not speculation. MOO. Also, do you have a link handy where professionals deemed that the R's acted accordingly? and I have to ask...professionals at what? Their lawyers were professionals, so to speak, so I was just wondering. MOO.

 

[thenagain]

Does sticking to fact include not making up dialogue? because any conversation between BR and some trusted home invader, relies completely on speculation. I don't mind reading somebody's speculations, as long as there's some kind of reasonable evidence to back it up, but fantastical theories, just cause confusion. OTOH, it is a fact that a neighbor reported hearing a child scream. Now, some people want to discredit this witness, and I'm ok with that, but I, for one, choose to believe her account, and I base that belief on fact, not speculation. MOO. Also, do you have a link handy where professionals deemed that the R's acted accordingly? and I have to ask...professionals at what? Their lawyers were professionals, so to speak, so I was just wondering. MOO.

I have already said it is fair to speculate around the facts - hearsay is not a fact - gossip is not a fact - by law these things need to be backed up by evidence to become facts.

The neighbour did not report a scream - someone she knew told the police she had maybe heard a scream around those days and that someone else had screamed from delight upon receiving a wonderful christmas gift and that the scream-hearer later said she had not physically literally heard a scream but had picked up on what she felt was JBs negative vibe or some such coming from the house - either she heard a scream or she didn't - in my opinion based on the facts of her wishy washy changing of the story - nothing she says can be deemed credible and therefore I remove the scream from the list of viable facts relating to or pertaining to the case.

Maybe JB screamed - maybe she didn't; the difference it makes to some people is why then did the parents not hear it - well maybe they were drugged or chloroformed as well or jabbed in their beds with needles or had their drinks spiked at a party earlier or any one of a number of things - exhaustion... or maybe there was no scream - etc etc etc - so to me I cross the scream off from what I am looking at - the facts alone tell me JonBenet was deliberately targeted with premeditation and killed by a torture mechanism which was used to restrain her for the purpose of torture both mental and physical for the perp's personal satisfaction derived from a need for total control. My speculation about the perp's character is not derived because i do or don't think he should or shouldn't be dressed or waking make-up at any given time but because of his choice of device. It is evil.

 

[thenagain]

Does sticking to fact include not making up dialogue? because any conversation between BR and some trusted home invader, relies completely on speculation. I don't mind reading somebody's speculations, as long as there's some kind of reasonable evidence to back it up, but fantastical theories, just cause confusion. OTOH, it is a fact that a neighbor reported hearing a child scream. Now, some people want to discredit this witness, and I'm ok with that, but I, for one, choose to believe her account, and I base that belief on fact, not speculation. MOO. Also, do you have a link handy where professionals deemed that the R's acted accordingly? and I have to ask...professionals at what? Their lawyers were professionals, so to speak, so I was just wondering. MOO.

I feel it was fair to speculate over the possibility of Burke having been aware of more than we know because of his statements and behaviour. I think it is then fair to speculate over the truth behind the ransom note and how it came to be derived being as I do not for one minute believe the Ramsey's wrote it - it was written in the house possibly during the carrying out of the crimes - we have a time span possibly of up to 2 hours between the blow and death and maybe more time before the blow to the head... if Burke knows more then i feel it is fair to speculate on exactly how much more he knowsl to see if the facts might fit any given scenario - but when they clearly don't or are based on targeted hate then this is not only wrong but blinds a person's perspective I feel.

 

[UKGuy]

Perhaps that is what you would consider, UK, but the law would consider it sexual assault.


And in U.K., it varies also, but here is England and Wales:

And in my home state, I'm proud to say it is even more specific:

So I'm sorry, UK, but if you "kill (your) daughter then fake her death by any means and inflict a genital injury, internal or external," whether in the U.S., or the U.K., you have committed sexual assault of that child.

Can it be any more clear than that?

All of the above is from:
Sexual assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

otg,
Thanks for the clarification. So was JonBenet sexually assaulted prior to her head bash or after, or both?

.

 

[midwest mama]

.... but maybe a couple of color pictures might help explain the ribbon:

​

.

OTG posted the above photos during some discussion posts about a ribbon possibly being around JB's neck causing the lower set of marks on her anterior neck. My concern was about a "ribbon" shown in a crime scene photo hanging out of the suitcase. Whether or not someone might have removed such a ribbon and tossed it into JAR's suitcase along with the duvet and Dr. Seuss book.

OTG's photos in color show the ribbon to appear pink, not matching the blue of the case. One of the suitcases in the lower photo shows a strap inside the case, but it looks close in color to the case. I did think it was 'possible' a strap could have been hanging out, but after looking at the photo again, I just think the ribbon is too fragile looking to be an interior suitcase strap. I also see what looks like a tiny rust colored mark near where the ribbon comes out of the suitcase, but can't tell if it's a reflection of sorts.

But here is some info that was posted on FFJ by KoldKase just yesterday, which drew me back to wondering about that ribbon:

Here's a quote from JR during an interview with ST about the suitcase:

"Somebody obviously spent some time there, and I guess found their way around the house the same time, but my, I mean my theory is that someone came in through the basement window. Because it was a new Samsonite suitcase also sitting right under the window, and you would have had to, you could have gotten into the house without that, but you couldn’t have gotten out that window without something to step on. And to even have known those windows were there, wouldn’t have been obvious to somebody who just was walking by."

The dark blue color of the NEW suitcase that JR is talking about should have matching interior straps that would be blue in color, right? And probably would not appear to be smooth satin-type ribbon, as is showing in the photo? (New doesn't mean it isn't JARs, but interesting JR referred to it as "a new Samsonite", rather than JAR's suitcase).

 

[UKGuy]

OTG posted the above photos during some discussion posts about a ribbon possibly being around JB's neck causing the lower set of marks on her anterior neck. My concern was about a "ribbon" shown in a crime scene photo hanging out of the suitcase. Whether or not someone might have removed such a ribbon and tossed it into JAR's suitcase along with the duvet and Dr. Seuss book.

OTG's photos in color show the ribbon to appear pink, not matching the blue of the case. One of the suitcases in the lower photo shows a strap inside the case, but it looks close in color to the case. I did think it was 'possible' a strap could have been hanging out, but after looking at the photo again, I just think the ribbon is too fragile looking to be an interior suitcase strap. I also see what looks like a tiny rust colored mark near where the ribbon comes out of the suitcase, but can't tell if it's a reflection of sorts.

But here is some info that was posted on FFJ by KoldKase just yesterday, which drew me back to wondering about that ribbon:

Here's a quote from JR during an interview with ST about the suitcase:

"Somebody obviously spent some time there, and I guess found their way around the house the same time, but my, I mean my theory is that someone came in through the basement window. Because it was a new Samsonite suitcase also sitting right under the window, and you would have had to, you could have gotten into the house without that, but you couldn’t have gotten out that window without something to step on. And to even have known those windows were there, wouldn’t have been obvious to somebody who just was walking by."

The dark blue color of the NEW suitcase that JR is talking about should have matching interior straps that would be blue in color, right? And probably would not appear to be smooth satin-type ribbon, as is showing in the photo? (New doesn't mean it isn't JARs, but interesting JR referred to it as "a new Samsonite", rather than JAR's suitcase).

midwest mama,
John must be implying something that is lost on us. I'm assuming that John is not suggesting that the intruder brought the suitcase with him, since its a new Samsonite suitcase, i.e. unknown to John.

If I was an intruder I would look for a box or a chair to stand on, not some suitcase which might collapse as I manhandle JonBenet and myself out that window.

And if I were John seeking to stage such an entrance I would place a chair in front of the window.

So possibly that Samsonite suitcase harbors a clue that has been lost on everyone?


.

 

[Chrishope]

midwest mama,
John must be implying something that is lost on us. I'm assuming that John is not suggesting that the intruder brought the suitcase with him, since its a new Samsonite suitcase, i.e. unknown to John.

If I was an intruder I would look for a box or a chair to stand on, not some suitcase which might collapse as I manhandle JonBenet and myself out that window.

And if I were John seeking to stage such an entrance I would place a chair in front of the window.

So possibly that Samsonite suitcase harbors a clue that has been lost on everyone?


.

As we see on the video that was shown on the Daily Beast there is a chair nearby. The LS photo we have all seen of the suitcase under the window was framed in such a way to exclude the chair. The chair would be more stable.

So yes, we've either ignored the clue, or downplayed it, not giving it the importance JR thought it should have.

 

[UKGuy]

As we see on the video that was shown on the Daily Beast there is a chair nearby. The LS photo we have all seen of the suitcase under the window was framed in such a way to exclude the chair. The chair would be more stable.

So yes, we've either ignored the clue, or downplayed it, not giving it the importance JR thought it should have.

Chrishope,
I wonder what John thought must be so obvious, the suitcase is just a suitcase, its not on my list of homicide accessories, so where's the beef John?

I'll bet he reads here while he sips his bourbon, and tells his new wife the plebs don't have a clue LOL!



.

 

[rashomon]

Whose suitcase was it? John Andrew Ramsey's?

 

[DeeDee249]

Whose suitcase was it? John Andrew Ramsey's?

Yes. I believe both parents identified the suitcase as one belonging to JAR. He used it going back and forth to campus (only a few minutes away). The dark comforter that was found in it was from his dorm room.

 

[dodie20]

Yes. I believe both parents identified the suitcase as one belonging to JAR. He used it going back and forth to campus (only a few minutes away). The dark comforter that was found in it was from his dorm room.

and this had to have made LE check him out, but yet he was cleared. IMO, LE probably went over him with a fine tooth comb, so there was nothing there. So, what was his stuff doing in the crime scene? Was someone trying to cast suspicion his way? or was his stuff just being stored in the basement? Didn't JR make a comment that these things didn't belong down there? moo

 

[DeeDee249]

and this had to have made LE check him out, but yet he was cleared. IMO, LE probably went over him with a fine tooth comb, so there was nothing there. So, what was his stuff doing in the crime scene? Was someone trying to cast suspicion his way? or was his stuff just being stored in the basement? Didn't JR make a comment that these things didn't belong down there? moo

Yes, JR did make that comment. However....the comforter found in the suitcase was semen-stained. It was supposedly the comforter from his bed in his dorm room. It is very possible he brought it home from college to launder over the Christmas break. LHP said that the washer and dryer in the basement were the only ones that were full-size (the set outside JB's bedroom near JAR's bedroom was a small apartment-size set). The reason why JB's white blanket was always laundered in the basement was because it did not fit it the smaller washer. With that in mind, I am sure JAR's comforter only fit in the basement washer too. That would be an explanation why the suitcase and the comforter were in the basement.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, JR did make that comment. However....the comforter found in the suitcase was semen-stained. It was supposedly the comforter from his bed in his dorm room. It is very possible he brought it home from college to launder over the Christmas break. LHP said that the washer and dryer in the basement were the only ones that were full-size (the set outside JB's bedroom near JAR's bedroom was a small apartment-size set). The reason why JB's white blanket was always laundered in the basement was because it did not fit it the smaller washer. With that in mind, I am sure JAR's comforter only fit in the basement washer too. That would be an explanation why the suitcase and the comforter were in the basement.

DeeDee249,
The comforter as a size consideration, yes, but what has a suitcase to do with a washing machine?

Was John attempting to frame JAR?


.