Premeditated?

[Mama2JML]

midwest mama,
Certainly not unthinkable. This scenario reminds me of another theory where JR sets PR up, she finds the RN and dials 911, despite him carefully planning every step, except PR ignoring the conditions outlined in the RN!

Its more likely an R molested and killed JonBenet then staged it all with another R in mind to become the main suspect.


Anyway your suggested Hiree, is that a word, would also have to molest JonBenet as part of the plan to fool the other, just where do you find such wicked Hiree's?

Someone undoubtedly seriously physically assaulted JonBenet, her body bears the contusions and abrasions as evidence of this, along with her sexual asault as related by Coroner Myers.

So one question might be: was she physically assaulted first, then sexually assaulted or the other way round? I reckon its the latter option.

Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet she complained, attempted to resist, so her abuser physically attacked her, enraged that she would decline his attention?

Does the feces in JonBenet's bedroom belong to her, did it result from an autonomic response to anal penetration, did her assailant lose it at being soiled, so wiped it where ever?

Since all three R's convened for the 911 call, as agreed later by the R's themselves, but which was not part of the original version of events, this tells you all three R's colluded in that version of events, i.e. they all know what happened!

For me the sexual assault strongly suggest a male R was initially involved. He sexually assaulted JonBenet, either in his bedroom or JonBenet's then physically assaulted her once resistance was offered, or the feces caused an explosion of rage, either way she was assaulted, possibly being held by the neck to prevent her leaving, resulting in her becoming unconcious? The same male may have also whacked her on the head, or one of the remaining two R's might have done this as a first attempt at staging her death, when this failed, with a noticable interval of time, she was then ligature asphyxiated.

The rest is simply staging, this is why she is in the basement and not left lying naked on a bed upstairs, posed as the victim of a psychopathic pedophile. Each R likely had input into the staging, possibly the first R dressed her in the pink barbie nightgown, maybe another R said use the whittling knife to cut the ligature to size, another R suggested lets dress her in Wednesday day of the Week size-12's, all this input allows everyone to consider their favorite RDI theory to be the one?

If its not BDI why would the GJ not indict the obvious R?



.

If BDI, any of "it", then where's his DNA?

 

[2 percent]

RDI is full of mysteries like that.

It is “completely illogical that the Ramseys would call LE over to the house before they had cleaned up some of the evidence pointing to them.”

And, let’s not forget that some of that evidence included a body, and it is “completely illogical that the Ramseys would call LE over to the house before they had disposed of the body.”

Just as it is “completely illogical that the Ramseys would fake a kidnapping unless they did in fact intend to dispose of the body.

Some items were disposed of. Some items were left behind. Who do the items left behind point to? The Ramseys. Who do the items removed point to? We don’t know. Maybe the Ramseys, maybe someone else. Evidence that could point to the Ramseys was left behind and evidence that could MAYBE be traced to someone else was removed.

I know that you are RDI and I’m not going to bother trying to change your mind on that, but wouldn’t it be completely logical for an intruder to remove items that could point to him while leaving the evidence that wouldn’t point to him?
...

AK

How did the intruder enter and leave? Specifically, like you indicated with the Ramseys, why would they leave without taking things that would tend to incriminate them?

I look forward to your participation in the discussion

 

[Anti-K]

How did the intruder enter and leave? Specifically, like you indicated with the Ramseys, why would they leave without taking things that would tend to incriminate them?

I look forward to your participation in the discussion

I have no idea how the killer entered the home. He probably came through one of the doors, and I tend to believe that he exited via the butler door. But, who knows?

I don’t really understand what you’re asking here: why would they [the killer] leave without taking things that would tend to incriminate them? Please clarify.
...

AK

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,
Certainly not unthinkable. This scenario reminds me of another theory where JR sets PR up, she finds the RN and dials 911, despite him carefully planning every step, except PR ignoring the conditions outlined in the RN!

Its more likely an R molested and killed JonBenet then staged it all with another R in mind to become the main suspect.


Anyway your suggested Hiree, is that a word, would also have to molest JonBenet as part of the plan to fool the other, just where do you find such wicked Hiree's?

Someone undoubtedly seriously physically assaulted JonBenet, her body bears the contusions and abrasions as evidence of this, along with her sexual asault as related by Coroner Myers.

So one question might be: was she physically assaulted first, then sexually assaulted or the other way round? I reckon its the latter option.

Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet she complained, attempted to resist, so her abuser physically attacked her, enraged that she would decline his attention?

Does the feces in JonBenet's bedroom belong to her, did it result from an autonomic response to anal penetration, did her assailant lose it at being soiled, so wiped it where ever?

Since all three R's convened for the 911 call, as agreed later by the R's themselves, but which was not part of the original version of events, this tells you all three R's colluded in that version of events, i.e. they all know what happened!

For me the sexual assault strongly suggest a male R was initially involved. He sexually assaulted JonBenet, either in his bedroom or JonBenet's then physically assaulted her once resistance was offered, or the feces caused an explosion of rage, either way she was assaulted, possibly being held by the neck to prevent her leaving, resulting in her becoming unconcious? The same male may have also whacked her on the head, or one of the remaining two R's might have done this as a first attempt at staging her death, when this failed, with a noticable interval of time, she was then ligature asphyxiated.

The rest is simply staging, this is why she is in the basement and not left lying naked on a bed upstairs, posed as the victim of a psychopathic pedophile. Each R likely had input into the staging, possibly the first R dressed her in the pink barbie nightgown, maybe another R said use the whittling knife to cut the ligature to size, another R suggested lets dress her in Wednesday day of the Week size-12's, all this input allows everyone to consider their favorite RDI theory to be the one?

If its not BDI why would the GJ not indict the obvious R?



.

A couple of responses UK....one to your post on another thread about the gloves being from two hands, which goes right back to the comment from the FBI about there being "two hands" involved. But we also have to consider they said, "look to the parents".

But, instead of two parents, maybe one parent assisting someone else who was brought in to take care of the "problem"....JB threatening to rat on her parental/family/family friend abuser(s)?

If the "hiree" was heinous enough to plan to kill a child, why not be capable of a molestation that would have been thought would serve to "cover" any previous molestation. Deflection. If there was a severe enough sexual attack on the child, would they have thought it could have been the cause of any vaginal damage that might have been discovered later upon inspection....that previous abuse would become masked? That the parent being fooled could then only believe the sexual damage occurred as a result of the attack that night?

As far as the GJ indictment of the parents - this is one of the two charges:

The other count said the Ramseys did “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”


Burke could NOT have been suspected or charged with first degree murder. The GJ brought back a vote for both of the parents because they did not have enough clear evidence to make a choice as to which parent should specifically be incriminated and I believe they did not want to take a chance on naming only one and having it be the wrong one. They simply had to bring in an indictment based on probable cause, then the case could have been taken through full investigation which might have led to a singular arrest and trial. They were covering their bases, IMO, so as not to let anyone slip through a crack. Consider this: L. Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, told the Denver Post “What we have here is a release of a sliver of the evidence that the grand jury looked at and reviewed. It's just based on incomplete evidence.”

Probable cause brings votes for indictments. It's up to the DA to make an arrest, build a case, and get to trial. Charges can be brought against a suspect for anything case related once there is an indictment. There was probable cause to suspect either of the Ramseys, or even both, in assisting another someone to get away with first degree murder, which, according to Colorado law COULD NOT have been charged against a 9 year old child.

Last note: the autopsy noted nothing unusual about anal trauma, so I cannot put your thought about the feces into play.

I can offer, with regard to any BDI involvement in the staging or coverup of the crime, that the pink nightgown found with the blanket in the WC did render forensic evidence linked to Patsy and Burke. I can easily allow for Burke to have become aware of the whole crime anytime between the beginning and the end, and of him becoming a part of whatever had to be done to try to stage a psychotic kidnapper/killing gone sexually awry. As a 9 year old, it would not be hard to accept as gospel this threat: "you tell anyone what went on here, you'll end up dead just like your sister".

 

[Venom]

I have no idea how the killer entered the home. He probably came through one of the doors, and I tend to believe that he exited via the butler door. But, who knows?

I don’t really understand what you’re asking here: why would they [the killer] leave without taking things that would tend to incriminate them? Please clarify.
...

AK

BBM- I'm not speaking for 2 percent, I was wondering what he/she meant by that question and thought of this:
Why would an intruder use the notepad and pen and not take them with him? Fingerprints and tdna could have been left on those items.

 

[2 percent]

I have no idea how the killer entered the home. He probably came through one of the doors, and I tend to believe that he exited via the butler door. But, who knows?

Do you believe an intruder did this? If so, it seems to me entry is the most important part of the theory.

I don’t really understand what you’re asking here: why would they [the killer] leave without taking things that would tend to incriminate them? Please clarify.
...

AK

I asked first! :floorlaugh:

I will be more specific. Why highlight the discrepancies in the RDI theory and not the IDI theory? One being that if an IDI, why is there no evidence of entry?
What venom said

 

[bettybaby00]

As far as the GJ indictment of the parents - this is one of the two charges:

The other count said the Ramseys did “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”


Burke could NOT have been suspected or charged with first degree murder. The GJ brought back a vote for both of the parents because they did not have enough clear evidence to make a choice as to which parent should specifically be incriminated and I believe they did not want to take a chance on naming only one and having it be the wrong one. They simply had to bring in an indictment based on probable cause, then the case could have been taken through full investigation which might have led to a singular arrest and trial. They were covering their bases, IMO, so as not to let anyone slip through a crack. Consider this: L. Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, told the Denver Post “What we have here is a release of a sliver of the evidence that the grand jury looked at and reviewed. It's just based on incomplete evidence.”

Probable cause brings votes for indictments. It's up to the DA to make an arrest, build a case, and get to trial. Charges can be brought against a suspect for anything case related once there is an indictment. There was probable cause to suspect either of the Ramseys, or even both, in assisting another someone to get away with first degree murder, which, according to Colorado law COULD NOT have been charged against a 9 year old child.

".

Snipped...

I really, really, really, REALLY wish we had a "legal questions" thread on this forum. I know that on the Travis alexander forum there were a couple of AZ attorneys who participated, and would clarify any AZ points of law people had regarding that case.

I understand the general concept of the CO law which states a minor under 10 can not be charged with a crime, but to me the details beyond that get a little murky. I've tried to google the info with no success--nothing I've ever come across states explicitly that such a minor can't even be considered a suspect....charged, no. A suspect? I can't get that info to my satisfaction.

Without that info, it's hard to know--IMO--whether or not the GJ was indeed referencing BR, bc even though he can't be charged with 1st degree murder, there was according to the GJ a 1st degree murder committed. A crime they felt was "facilitated" by the parents.

If someone has a link that better clarifies the law I would love to see it!

If the law is as restrictive as has been discussed within this forum, it needs to be changed. I'm not suggesting that kids that young be prosecuted (I have mixed feelings...glad it's not my responsibility to make such a decision) but perhaps the law can be changed in a manner where at least the case can be considered closed.

As far as LWs comments regarding the indictments. I can't and won't give any value to his statements. He was hired to "get the Rs off" and is only going to make public statements that further that purpose. Consider his ongoing statements regarding the Rs "exoneration" he knows that what ML did was beyond highly unusual. In fact if the shoe were on the other foot, he would be in court fighting it like hell, citing every reason imaginable that this is not "normal procedure." All in the name of what's best for his client(s). This is what he is paid to do after all.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM- I'm not speaking for 2 percent, I was wondering what he/she meant by that question and thought of this:

Why would an intruder use the notepad and pen and not take them with him? Fingerprints and tdna could have been left on those items.

Not if they were wearing gloves which has been suggested.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[2 percent]

Snipped...

I understand the general concept of the CO law which states a minor under 10 can not be charged with a crime, but to me the details beyond that get a little murky. I've tried to google the info with no success--nothing I've ever come across states explicitly that such a minor can't even be considered a suspect....charged, no. A suspect? I can't get that info to my satisfaction.

Colorado law states a child is not criminally responsible for a crime when they are under 10. Now that sounds a little general but it isn't. They can be considered a suspect and can be questioned, even confess but they cannot be punished by the legal system if they are under 10 because they have been deemed to not understand what they did

Here is where the murkiness comes in, though. I find it unlikely that the child is just given back to the parents and left alone. I imagine Child Protective Services will get involved to assess the home situation...especially if the murder was of a family member, in the house. But that's as far as it will go.

Without that info, it's hard to know--IMO--whether or not the GJ was indeed referencing BR, bc even though he can't be charged with 1st degree murder, there was according to the GJ a 1st degree murder committed. A crime they felt was "facilitated" by the parents.

Even if BR were to be considered too young to be responsible, JR and PR are certainly of age to be tried as conspirators and/or of tampering, etc. Just because the murderer may have been untouchable it doesn't mean the murder didn't happen and anyone else involved isn't equally guilty.

If someone has a link that better clarifies the law I would love to see it!

This is part of it.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Competency of Child Witnesses(2011).pdf

Page 7.

If the law is as restrictive as has been discussed within this forum, it needs to be changed. I'm not suggesting that kids that young be prosecuted (I have mixed feelings...glad it's not my responsibility to make such a decision) but perhaps the law can be changed in a manner where at least the case can be considered closed.

It usually is considered closed when a resolution is found. Even if no one is held responsible it is considered a closed case. If this one isn't closed, it means there BR has not been deemed responsible. That may be where the GJ was heading. Maybe not.

 

[bettybaby00]

Colorado law states a child is not criminally responsible for a crime when they are under 10. Now that sounds a little general but it isn't. They can be considered a suspect and can be questioned, even confess but they cannot be punished by the legal system if they are under 10 because they have been deemed to not understand what they did

Here is where the murkiness comes in, though. I find it unlikely that the child is just given back to the parents and left alone. I imagine Child Protective Services will get involved to assess the home situation...especially if the murder was of a family member, in the house. But that's as far as it will go.



Even if BR were to be considered too young to be responsible, JR and PR are certainly of age to be tried as conspirators and/or of tampering, etc. Just because the murderer may have been untouchable it doesn't mean the murder didn't happen and anyone else involved isn't equally guilty.



This is part of it.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Competency of Child Witnesses(2011).pdf

Page 7.



It usually is considered closed when a resolution is found. Even if no one is held responsible it is considered a closed case. If this one isn't closed, it means there BR has not been deemed responsible. That may be where the GJ was heading. Maybe not.

BBM, that's what I'm talking about! LOL

As for your link, thank you. But is it me...it only seems to be addressing whether or not a minor can testify in a trial, not whether or not they can be tried and or convicted of a crime. Am I I being dumb?

I will say on a side note that the statues regarding minors testifying (basically no) outlined in the link speak to abuse and molestation being the only exceptions. :scared:

 

[UKGuy]

If BDI, any of "it", then where's his DNA?

Mama2JML,
Well its on the Pink Barbie Nightgown, found deposited in the wine-cellar!


.

 

[midwest mama]

Not if they were wearing gloves which has been suggested.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. [/QUOTE

Wearing gloves would easily explain why no unusual prints were lifted from the pad or pen....since those found from Patsy should not be suspect as it was "her" pad.

With unsourced brown fibers having been found elsewhere, I have no problem accepting the possibility of the killer wearing gloves at some time during the process of the crime.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM- I'm not speaking for 2 percent, I was wondering what he/she meant by that question and thought of this:
Why would an intruder use the notepad and pen and not take them with him? Fingerprints and tdna could have been left on those items.

No one had even heard of tDNA in Dec. of ’96, so I don’t think this would have been a concern for anyone. As to fingerprints, I think the obvious answer is that the author took whatever steps he felt necessary to avoid leaving any.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Do you believe an intruder did this? If so, it seems to me entry is the most important part of the theory.



I asked first! :floorlaugh:

I will be more specific. Why highlight the discrepancies in the RDI theory and not the IDI theory? One being that if an IDI, why is there no evidence of entry?
What venom said

Yes, you asked first, but I didn’t understand the question (neither did Venom, so I’m not alone on that) and I asked you to clarify it so that I could better answer it.

And, yes, I do think this crime was committed by an intruder. As to his point if entry/exit, I already answered that but will do so again: I have no idea how the killer entered the home. He probably came through one of the doors, and I tend to believe that he exited via the butler door. But, who knows?
...

AK

 

[Scandigirl]

The blow to JB's head has been overwhelmingly declared by top forensic specialists to have been done with extreme force. Add to that the fact that the blow landed as it did, and I have to imagine seeing someone taking good aim with great intent. And I have to imagine JB being in a position facing away from the perp, as others have also speculated on this forum.

Given the type of wrist ligatures that were found on JB, I think it very possible she could have been initially gagged, then bound somehow to something by her wrists for a period of time long enough to stabilize her and execute the head blow. The loop ties on the wrist ligature would have allowed for her wrists to be quickly released once she was struck, and a gag could have quickly been removed, leaving no marks of any kind. A cloth gag of some sort could have accounted for some of the unsourced fibers.

I need to think about this for a while, but the 911 call from the party on the 23rd sticks in my craw as a reason why someone might have come to the decision that JB would have to be silenced.

And the clues which point directly to Patsy could have easily been part of a setup for her to be the one to take the fall in the event that the killer could not succeed in following plan A, which I think included being able to get the body out of the house as soon as the police could be deflected on a hunt away from the house for a bogus kidnapper.

Would it have been unthinkable that someone could have been hired to do the deed by ONE of the parents, with the plan to fool the other? And in case that went awry, the other parent would have to be set up st the killer?? JMO

Hi Midwest mama, I think your post is spot on in many ways, and certainly in line with my thinking. I agree and have thought myself that the 911 call on the 23rd is just too much of a consequence, and could have somehow given someone a sense of urgency and a need to silence JB, and quickly. This ties in with Nom de Plume's earlier post, which I also agree with- that, to me, the murder shows elements of possible ritualistic abuse, and again the sudden need to silence JB. I think BR could possibly have been a victim of this type of abuse as well, and also possibly a witness and maybe even a participant- who knows?

Only speculation, and it is really horrible... Luckily, I have certainly never come across this kind of thing in my own life, as I'm sure most people haven't... But, on the other hand, I don't believe in being naive to think it can't/doesn't happen, and as this whole murder is so unusual, (and the Ramsey family seem to be very unusual too), I can't rule it out.

As Nom de Plume has suggested, could this tie in with Patsy's comment about how could this happen "to another child"? I don't know, but could this mean there are/were others, and Patsy knew about it? I know most people assume this comment refers to Burke, but can we be sure?

5x5 mentioned earlier that the Ramsey's would have done anything to protect themselves, and I agree. They wanted to obviously protect themselves from the police and going to jail, and their reputations. Could they also have been protecting themselves from anyone else? Or, could they have needed to make sure that any other people involved in a broader, background sense, were not exposed or associated, even indirectly, with the crime in any way?

Midwest mama, your idea about one (or both) Ramsey's possibly hiring someone else to "do the deed" for them is also very interesting, something I've considered, and might be very likely, plus it might explain a lot of the confusing things, that don't seem to quite add up. Also, the idea that one Ramsey could have set out to fool the other, even as a back-up plan in case Plan B failed... Could it have been that both Ramsey's believed different things about what happened that night?

All interesting speculation, of course! So many endless questions! Not saying any of this is definately right or anything, just sharing and exploring some thoughts.

 

[questfortrue]

Snipped...

-RSBM-
Without that info, it's hard to know--IMO--whether or not the GJ was indeed referencing BR, bc even though he can't be charged with 1st degree murder, there was according to the GJ a 1st degree murder committed. A crime they felt was "facilitated" by the parents.

If someone has a link that better clarifies the law I would love to see it!

If the law is as restrictive as has been discussed within this forum, it needs to be changed. I'm not suggesting that kids that young be prosecuted (I have mixed feelings...glad it's not my responsibility to make such a decision) but perhaps the law can be changed in a manner where at least the case can be considered closed.

RSBM

You and me both wishing we had more legal interpretation for answers about child crimes! Not much info on the 'net.

Back in 1999 it’s my thought that BR was not on the radar as a “suspect”. I know MK, prosecuting attorney for the GJ, said on more than one occasion that BR was a “witness”, not a “suspect.” After the close of the GJ, the spokesperson for the DA’s office made a statement that BR was not a suspect in this case.

The question would be since MK uses both terms – suspect and witness – is this just word games, because they cannot charge him with a crime? Something I can’t answer. But I did find out on another item I was misinformed about, and it is in regard to the charges of first degree murder and child abuse in the second charges against PR and JR.

From a Boulder lawyer website re child abuse Colorado Statute 18-6-401:
(a) Where death or injury results, the following shall apply:
(I) When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in death to the child, it is a class 2 felony except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (7).
Here’s paragraph c of this subsection (7)
(c) When a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child, such person commits the crime of murder in the first degree as described in section 18-3-102 (1) (f).
Section 18-3-102 (1) (f) essentially applies a first degree murder charge to anyone who causes the death of a child under 12 and that person(s) is in a position of trust.

BR would have been too young to have been "in a position of trust" regards JB.

______________________

Boulder is known as the home of strudy rugged Colorado men, climbing mountains, skiing high peaks. But when it came to this case, no rugged men with the "tener cojones" to get a GJ in place early, subpoena phone records in a timely manner, go to trial. No court trial, no resolution. And likely the 2 remaining R's are content to "go on with their lives."
~ RIP JB

 

[Venom]

No one had even heard of tDNA in Dec. of ’96, so I don’t think this would have been a concern for anyone. As to fingerprints, I think the obvious answer is that the author took whatever steps he felt necessary to avoid leaving any.
...

AK

I know there was no tdna back then, I was meaning more on the lines of fingerprints.

Do you or anyone else know if the door knobs were ever dusted for fingerprints? I don't recall ever reading if they were or weren't, and with how things have been handled with this case...

 

[bettybaby00]

You and me both wishing we had more legal interpretation for answers about child crimes! Not much info on the 'net.

Back in 1999 it’s my thought that BR was not on the radar as a “suspect”. I know MK, prosecuting attorney for the GJ, said on more than one occasion that BR was a “witness”, not a “suspect.” After the close of the GJ, the spokesperson for the DA’s office made a statement that BR was not a suspect in this case.

The question would be since MK uses both terms – suspect and witness – is this just word games, because they cannot charge him with a crime? Something I can’t answer. But I did find out on another item I was misinformed about, and it is in regard to the charges of first degree murder and child abuse in the second charges against PR and JR.

From a Boulder lawyer website re child abuse Colorado Statute 18-6-401:
(a) Where death or injury results, the following shall apply:
(I) When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in death to the child, it is a class 2 felony except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (7).
Here’s paragraph c of this subsection (7)
(c) When a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child, such person commits the crime of murder in the first degree as described in section 18-3-102 (1) (f).
Section 18-3-102 (1) (f) essentially applies a first degree murder charge to anyone who causes the death of a child under 12 and that person(s) is in a position of trust.

BR would have been too young to have been "in a position of trust" regards JB.

______________________

Boulder is known as the home of strudy rugged Colorado men, climbing mountains, skiing high peaks. But when it came to this case, no rugged men with the "tener cojones" to get a GJ in place early, subpoena phone records in a timely manner, go to trial. No court trial, no resolution. And likely the 2 remaining R's are content to "go on with their lives."
~ RIP JB

Thank you for the info!!!

 

[Anti-K]

I know there was no tdna back then, I was meaning more on the lines of fingerprints.

Do you or anyone else know if the door knobs were ever dusted for fingerprints? I don't recall ever reading if they were or weren't, and with how things have been handled with this case...

I don’t recall any specific reference to the fingerprinting of any door handles. I don’t think they would have found anything, anyway. If not RDI, then the evidence suggests a killer who was, as stated in the RN, familiar with police tactics and countermeasures; someone who used that familiarity to minimize his forensic trace (disturb as little as possible, only touch what is absolutely necessary, wear gloves, watch where you walk, don’t leave anything behind that can be traced back to you and take away anything that can be traced back you, etc).

I have a preference for IDI theories that posit a killer who entered the home after the Ramseys were all in bed for the night. But, let’s say that he did enter while the Ramseys were out. If this were the case, than he would not want the Ramseys to suspect his presence or to see anything unusual or out of place when they returned home that night. So, he could not afford to leave any sign of his entry, he would have to make sure the notepad and the pen were back in place.

So, here we have two reasons for an intruder to intentionally take whatever steps he felt were necessary to minimize as much as possible any certain evidence of his presence.
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

The blow to JB's head has been overwhelmingly declared by top forensic specialists to have been done with extreme force. Add to that the fact that the blow landed as it did, and I have to imagine seeing someone taking good aim with great intent. And I have to imagine JB being in a position facing away from the perp, as others have also speculated on this forum.

Given the type of wrist ligatures that were found on JB, I think it very possible she could have been initially gagged, then bound somehow to something by her wrists for a period of time long enough to stabilize her and execute the head blow. The loop ties on the wrist ligature would have allowed for her wrists to be quickly released once she was struck, and a gag could have quickly been removed, leaving no marks of any kind. A cloth gag of some sort could have accounted for some of the unsourced fibers.

I need to think about this for a while, but the 911 call from the party on the 23rd sticks in my craw as a reason why someone might have come to the decision that JB would have to be silenced.

And the clues which point directly to Patsy could have easily been part of a setup for her to be the one to take the fall in the event that the killer could not succeed in following plan A, which I think included being able to get the body out of the house as soon as the police could be deflected on a hunt away from the house for a bogus kidnapper.

Would it have been unthinkable that someone could have been hired to do the deed by ONE of the parents, with the plan to fool the other? And in case that went awry, the other parent would have to be set up st the killer?? JMO

My apologies, in advance, for the length of this post. It just would not be the same all chopped into various posts on multiple threads. Besides, this post and this thread is about premeditation. *The graphic content is clearly marked in case anyone wishes to skip that small portion.

The blow to JB's head has been overwhelmingly declared by top forensic specialists to have been done with extreme force. Add to that the fact that the blow landed as it did, and I have to imagine seeing someone taking good aim with great intent. And I have to imagine JB being in a position facing away from the perp, as others have also speculated on this forum.

Yes, I believe this to be an accurate description, midwest mama. The force required to knock a hole out of her skull and create an 8" fracture was intended to kill or, in the very least, to incapacitate JonBenet.

Perhaps JBR wore a blindfold of some type, perhaps the sleeping mask, or a silk scarf, to further prevent her from realizing the blow about to occur. Is there evidence of this possibility?

Or the strike against her head could have occurred while she was lying on her bed, maybe while she slept. If so, her bladder would have released onto the bed sheets. But since she was still alive, her body functions have slowed, causing blood carrying oxygen to supply the most vital organs, thus, her kidneys continued to function. She lived another hour or so after her critical head injury occurred which is enough time for the bladder to accumulate urine for output.

Some of the cord bindings were most likely applied while on her bed since the cords' fibers were vacuumed from them.

Patsy's Essential sweater jacket fibers are tied into the knot, so whether or not Patsy tied the knots, her sweater jacket was nearby the white cord for any transfer to occur in the places that they are located, including but not limited to her paint tote where one part the broken paint brush is found.

The killer either wore the Essential sweater or toted Patsy's sweater jacket to the basement along with JonBenet.

August 2000 Patsy Ramsey Atlanta Interview - from a candyrose:
0200
3 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
4 probably fair. Based on the state of the
5 art scientific testing, we believe the fibers
6 from her jacket were found in the paint
7 tray, were found tied into the ligature found
8 on JonBenet's neck, were found on the blanket
9 that she is wrapped in, were found on the
10 duct tape that is found on the mouth, and
11 the question is, can she explain to us how
12 those fibers appeared in those places that
13 are associated with her daughter's death.

Given the type of wrist ligatures that were found on JB, I think it very possible she could have been initially gagged, then bound somehow to something by her wrists for a period of time long enough to stabilize her and execute the head blow. The loop ties on the wrist ligature would have allowed for her wrists to be quickly released once she was struck, and a gag could have quickly been removed, leaving no marks of any kind. A cloth gag of some sort could have accounted for some of the unsourced fibers.

There are definitely brown fibers belonging to an item involved in the crime.
Regarding the unsourced fibers:

Brown fibers:
Lou Smit Deposition (Atlanta, Georgia) Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Action

I want to ask you whether there were a number of fibers found at the crime scene -- being the house, JonBenet's body, her clothing, the blanket -- a number of fibers that were found that have never been identified or sourced to any item or individual.

A. Yes. There are many fibers, unexplained fibers, without a source found not only on the body of JonBenet but on the duct tape, on the bindings, also on the broken piece of the paintbrush. There are many, numerous fibers found at the crime scene that have not been explained.

Q. And does that include brown cotton fibers?

A. Yes. Brown cotton fibers are found on the broken piece of the paintbrush. Brown cotton fibers are found on the duct tape, on the ligature, and on the body of JonBenet.

None of the brown cotton fibers were sourced along with the pink and purple fibers located on adhesive side of the tape.


While a cloth gag would prevent screams from being heard, wouldn't it leave fibers in or around her mouth that would later appear on the tape? Would a silk scarf or a brown cloth item leave telltale fibers if she had been gagged with the scarf or cloth across her mouth, between her lips, that is tied lightly in the back, before the tape was applied? IOW, transferring unsourced brown fibers onto the tape. There was one artifact stuck to her tongue.

If JonBenet was blindfolded with a mask or scarf and/or gagged with a silk scarf or a piece of brown cotton cloth then that places JBR in a highly vulnerable position.

Add the ligatures and the killer has all but total control over this child to be fatally struck on the head. The killer had an hour during which time she could be poked, prodded, raped and then strangled.

If the murder was determined to be a must, after being propelled by the events involved in the 911 call on Dec. 23, then the killer had a short amount of time to plan and execute the child's death. Not impossible.

If a "hit man" was hired for the dastardly deed, it was in short order. Never happened. Evidence does not support a "hit man" or hired killer.

Oh, but there is that pesky duvet and sham in the blue suitcase that must be accounted for with the matching fibers found on her body, her vagina, the tape and the white blanket.

JAR's dried semen on the blue duvet and sham can be ruled out of the equation. The latest possible time that the suitcase arrived at the Ramsey home, with the duvet and sham inside stained with JAR's DNA, was December 19 when JAR flew to GA.

Therefore, the Samsonite was in the home on Dec. 23, the same evening of the R Christmas party. This is the evening that I believe JonBenet wore her pink Barbie nightgown to bed that was later found with red stains on it. And, to be fair, BR and Patsy's tDNA were located somewhere on the pink gown.

It's the same pink Barbie nightgown found in the basement on the Dec. 26 along with her body. Her bed pillow's case also showed evidence of a couple of red stains. These two items, the pink Barbie gown and the Beauty and the Beast pillowcase, may have been stained with her red fluid sometime on the night of Dec. 23 throughout and until the morning of Dec. 24, and until whatever time she changed into play clothes or at least until she is changed into the purple velvet dress for Christmas Eve services followed by their dinner at Pasta Jay's.

If JBR wore the red stained Barbie gown on Dec. 23 and on the night of Dec. 24, she wore the 2pc pale pink pjs shown of her in the Christmas morning pictures taken on Dec. 25, then, from Dec. 25 morning she wears the pale pink pjs until she changes. By 4:30pm, we know she was wearing the white Gap shirt, black velvet pants and vest with, iirc, little black boots trimmed with [faux] animal fur that zipped in the front.

The black velvet Gap outfit came with a black belt; however, I am not sure it was used in the commission of the crime or even if she wore the black velvet belt to the White's home.

JonBenet's body was discovered on Dec. 26 wearing the same long sleeved starred Gap shirt she had worn to the White's dinner party, along with white long johns stained in the front with urine, and size 12 day of the week panties with a tight garrote pulled around her neck and wrapped in her favorite white blanket with the stained pink Barbie nightgown and placed on the cold and moldy floor of the concrete cellar.

This evidence directly ties the December 23 events with the killing on December 25, immho, oc.

I need to think about this for a while, but the 911 call from the party on the 23rd sticks in my craw as a reason why someone might have come to the decision that JB would have to be silenced.

Also, regarding the date of Dec. 23, the date of the R Christmas party and first 911 call, we have never been privy to learning when nor how the Dr Seuss book came to be placed inside the 7lb Samsonite that belonged to JAR via Lucinda.

I have my doubts the book was placed inside by JAR. I think JAR was floored to learn the title of the adult's book. But that was alright, for everyone and anyone involved, since his daddy hired an attorney for him, his sister, Melinda, and his mom, Lucinda.

No. JAR would not have to reveal the actual title of the book nor would he, just as importantly, be required to answer questions about the contents found inside his mom's Samsonite that contain fibers directly related to the murder. JAR wanted the murderer of his 6yo half-sister JonBenet to be forgiven.


WARNING: graphic content


Dr. Suess books are innocent and fun to read, silently or aloud. They are entertaining. His work is legendary. His books are classics. Dr. Suess only wrote children's books except that for the one, and only one, that he wrote with nude drawings in 1939 which was meant strictly for adults.

Having seen these nude drawings online, they do not necessarily fall into the category as pornographic in nature. They do, however, promote the idea that total nudity is appropriate, natural, preferred.

One particular page has a drawing of a squatting nude girl who is depositing her feces onto the pile of hay outside of a barn. With the horses looking on.

The second and last printing of the adult Dr. Seuss book with nude drawings was in 1989, thus, making it fairly rare 7 years later in 1996 since the sales were not successful.

I wonder if an adult bookstore in Denver would have sold such a novelty item.

IIRC, no one in Denver publically came forward with having recognized JR as a patron of an adult bookstore but did LE check in other cities, such as Tucson, where JR conducted some of his rumored 1994-95 extramarital pleasure with KB? Incidentally, KB was petite at 5' and 92 pounds at the time. She said JR specifically requested this information before meeting with her. IIRC, she was a blonde.


GRAPHIC CONTENT ENDS


But, back to the blue duvet and sham,

"According to the CBI, fibers from the sham and comforter were found on JonBenet's shirt, on her vaginal area, on the duct tape, on the hand ligature, and inside the body bag." (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32, p. 68)

Steve Thomas does not dispute this blue duvet and sham fiber fact in his deposition. The blue duvet fibers were found on her vaginal area.

When BR is asked, in his interview by the CPS person, with LE watching in the other room, about what may have happened to his sister, he responded, by saying, that he knew what happened to his sister. She was carried quietly down to the basement.

For Rs neighbor, Ms. Stanton, to have heard a little girl's shrill scream, a scream lasting long enough to waken her, sometime after midnight, then JonBenet would have to have been alive and near the boiler room, where the open duct leads directly outdoors, just feet from where JBR last released her bladder, outside of the entry into the concrete hellhole, where she was wrapped in the white blanket that was her favorite.

Her favorite? But her mother, could not remember tucking her daughter's favorite white blanket around her on Christmas night at bedtime. Patsy feigned not knowing, by claiming, that her daughter gets too hot at night. Patsy never admitted to covering JonBenet with her favorite blanket on Christmas night but she admits to tucking in the sheet around her real tightly, you know, then kissing her goodnight.

BORGs know the favorite white blanket was most likely downstairs in the basement clothes dryer at TOD and was never pulled off her bed that night.


Follow the evidence:


Fibers from the white cord were on JonBenet's Beauty and the Beast bed sheets where the red stained pillowcase was, too. Fibers from Patsy's sweater jacket are found in the knots of the white cord. The red fiber found on the white blanket is from PRs Essential's sweater jacket. Also found on the white blanket is a fiber from the Samsonite's blue duvet and sham. A blue duvet and sham fiber is on JonBenet's white shirt. A fiber from the blue duvet is in the coroner's body bag when inspected by the ME.


One investigator suggested that it was possible that at one time, the black tape was stuck onto Patsy's Essential's sweater jacket since four, according to ST, four of those type fibers were found on the adhesive side of the tape.

The Tape Fibers:
CellMark laboratories, who conducted the testing on the duct tape, found, red, blue, pink, purple and brown cloth fibers, and animal fur probably beaver.


The evidence tells me that if JBR wore the pink Barbie nightgown with the red stains on it during the night of Dec. 23 then that is likely the same time her pillowcase was stained with red fluid. As well, Dec. 23 is the same night the first 911 call was placed. Dec. 23 is also when JonBenet was said to be found sitting, in a somewhat pouting position, on the steps leading from the kitchen on the first floor to the butler's kitchen. JonBenet expressed that she did not feel pretty. What could have taken her prettiness away?

She did not feel pretty the evening of the Rs party on Dec. 23. We know she did not look pretty when JR brought her cold body up from the basement on Dec. 26 at 1:08 or appx 12 hours after she was brutally murdered.

Her parents buried her body on New Year's Eve in GA. The next day, while in GA, they went to CNN studios in Atlanta and performed their first of what would become several televised interviews.

JonBenet was buried with a scarf, a bracelet, a tiara and a cat.