Premeditated?

[midwest mama]

Fascinating post, DeDee. I will respectfully try to respond by inserting comments and snipping part of your original post.

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.


snipped,.....


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.

LE reported smelling urine on her beauty/beast sheets, which had to have been changed after LHP changed them into another set on Dec. 23rd.

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

The cord bindings looked as if they were applied while she was wearing the white/star shirt from the way they looked around the sleeves of the shirt. And stains on the shirt would have been in keeping with other other fluids found on her body above the neck at autopsy, which lead me to believe she was wearing the shirt when the head blow occurred.

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.

Is is possible that enough fibers from Patsy's sweater jacket could have been transferred to JB's hair and clothing during the time she might have had to get JB ready for the party? Or even during the party? And as the cord was wielded around JB, could the fibers have moved through secondary transfer onto every item mentioned below, especially if the paintbrush was broken after it was tied into the cord and the extra piece placed into the paint tray? I don't know.

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.

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

snipped.......

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.

Was this item specified anywhere?

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.

Yes, I believe it highly probable she was somehow restrained for a good amount of what happened to her.

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.

I cannot agree. If someone was hired, they were admitted into the home making it unnecessary to have a forced entry. There was the rumor of a "secret Santa" visit, with JR making a public statement about JB's trust and love of Santa. "His" so-called Santa suit was taken into evidence. Could it have been worn by someone easily let in and out of the house?
As much as we want to dispel the unidentified tDNA as being meaningless, it could also be meaningful. After all, it's the only thing that helps keep the IDI theory somewhat afloat.

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.

I believe it possible there was an attempt made by the JB's killer to put her body into the Samsonite to be taken out of the house later. I think the killer decided it wasn't going to work and that's what set the redressing and wrapping of her body into the white blanket into motion.

snipped....

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.

How do you know it came with a black belt? The photo of her outfit laid out on the bed also shows a long multi-colored item laid among the items...kind of fuzzy and narrow. Could it have been used as a tie belt or a scarf she might have worn with the outfit. I have always been puzzled by that item.

snipped.....

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.

I believe it's possible that the Dr. Suess was part of something that happened the night of the 23rd Christmas party, and tucked into the suitcase for some reason. I know which book you are talking about, having posted about it on the thread "The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham, etc..." in my post #119. I can't see how that suitcase and it's contents are NOT connected to this crime somehow.


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

Didn't know about the girl, feces and hay. Yuck.

snipped......

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.

LHP said she put clean bedsheets on JB's bed the 23rd and they were not the Beauty/Beast sheets. So, if JB had worn the Barbie gown and bloodied it and the pillowcase sometime during the night of the 23rd, the sheets were changed off just prior to all of that happening during the night. Did Patsy come in to potty her at midnight and discover that she needed the sheets changed off? If so, she would have had to change her out of wet bedclothes most likely also, which means the Barbie gown could have gone on at the same time as the Beauty/Beast sheets. The bloody stuff could have then happened any time during the night or into the next day as Christmas eve approached.


snipped....

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

above BBM. s-b-t-c- Eerie or a code or ???????

 

[Mama2JML]

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


.

Right, according to Kolar... When had JonBenet last worn the nightgown? How did it end up in the wine cellar? We don't know. Is Burke responsible for the sexual assault of his sister? The evidentiary DNA collected from the victim's panties, long johns, & fingernails certainly doesn't lend any credence to your theory.

 

[UKGuy]

Right, according to Kolar... When had JonBenet last worn the nightgown? How did it end up in the wine cellar? We don't know. Is Burke responsible for the sexual assault of his sister? The evidentiary DNA collected from the victim's panties, long johns, & fingernails certainly doesn't indicate such.

Mama2JML,
Your rhetorical questions simply add impetus to the consideration that its BDI?

Now the longjohns, the fingernails and panties, are hardly counterfactual evidence that an IDI scenario took place?

Each can be explained away as the consequence as some form of staging?

It appears you mistakenly represent the evidence of staging to reflect that of an individual other than a Ramsey!

 

[DeDee]

Fascinating post, DeDee. I will respectfully try to respond by inserting comments and snipping part of your original post.


LE reported smelling urine on her beauty/beast sheets, which had to have been changed after LHP changed them into another set on Dec. 23rd.


The cord bindings looked as if they were applied while she was wearing the white/star shirt from the way they looked around the sleeves of the shirt. And stains on the shirt would have been in keeping with other other fluids found on her body above the neck at autopsy, which lead me to believe she was wearing the shirt when the head blow occurred.


Is is possible that enough fibers from Patsy's sweater jacket could have been transferred to JB's hair and clothing during the time she might have had to get JB ready for the party? Or even during the party? And as the cord was wielded around JB, could the fibers have moved through secondary transfer onto every item mentioned below, especially if the paintbrush was broken after it was tied into the cord and the extra piece placed into the paint tray? I don't know.

Was this item specified anywhere?

Yes, I believe it highly probable she was somehow restrained for a good amount of what happened to her.

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.


I cannot agree. If someone was hired, they were admitted into the home making it unnecessary to have a forced entry. There was the rumor of a "secret Santa" visit, with JR making a public statement about JB's trust and love of Santa. "His" so-called Santa suit was taken into evidence. Could it have been worn by someone easily let in and out of the house?
As much as we want to dispel the unidentified tDNA as being meaningless, it could also be meaningful. After all, it's the only thing that helps keep the IDI theory somewhat afloat.


I believe it possible there was an attempt made by the JB's killer to put her body into the Samsonite to be taken out of the house later. I think the killer decided it wasn't going to work and that's what set the redressing and wrapping of her body into the white blanket into motion.

snipped....

How do you know it came with a black belt? The photo of her outfit laid out on the bed also shows a long multi-colored item laid among the items...kind of fuzzy and narrow. Could it have been used as a tie belt or a scarf she might have worn with the outfit. I have always been puzzled by that item.

snipped.....

I believe it's possible that the Dr. Suess was part of something that happened the night of the 23rd Christmas party, and tucked into the suitcase for some reason. I know which book you are talking about, having posted about it on the thread "The Suitcase - Duvet, Sham, etc..." in my post #119. I can't see how that suitcase and it's contents are NOT connected to this crime somehow.


WARNING: graphic content


Didn't know about the girl, feces and hay. Yuck.

snipped......

LHP said she put clean bedsheets on JB's bed the 23rd and they were not the Beauty/Beast sheets. So, if JB had worn the Barbie gown and bloodied it and the pillowcase sometime during the night of the 23rd, the sheets were changed off just prior to all of that happening during the night. Did Patsy come in to potty her at midnight and discover that she needed the sheets changed off? If so, she would have had to change her out of wet bedclothes most likely also, which means the Barbie gown could have gone on at the same time as the Beauty/Beast sheets. The bloody stuff could have then happened any time during the night or into the next day as Christmas eve approached.


snipped....


above BBM. s-b-t-c- Eerie or a code or ???????

Midwest mama:
LE reported smelling urine on her beauty/beast sheets, which had to have been changed after LHP changed them into another set on Dec. 23rd.

Correct. If LHPs recollection is right, then The Beauty and the Beast sheets and pillowcase were placed on her bed after LHP changed the sheets earlier the day on Dec. 23.

To a person unaccustomed to smelling the putrid odor of urine and feces in a bedroom, it would not be surprising if the odor in her bedroom was not almost overwhelmingly offensive given JBRs history for urinating in her bed. And the fact that someone smeared poop on candy and it was in the pjs that were on her bedroom floor. JBRs bathroom toilet was not flushed after being used.

We do not know if the Beauty and the Beast sheets were still wet from urine on Dec. 26, only that the report is that they smelled of urine.

midwest mama:
The cord bindings looked as if they were applied while she was wearing the white/star shirt from the way they looked around the sleeves of the shirt. And stains on the shirt would have been in keeping with other other fluids found on her body above the neck at autopsy, which lead me to believe she was wearing the shirt when the head blow occurred.

More than likely, JBR never removed the white shirt once she put it on Dec. 25 while dressing earlier to go the White's Christmas dinner party. Evidence of her body fluids, from her mouth, are on the right side of the white shirt with her head also turned toward the right side at TOD.

With medical experience involving many severe traumatic head injuries, most likely, JonBenet vomited after the brain was injured from the powerful blow to the head. Her stomach was nearly empty of all but a very small amount of liquid at autopsy.

Further, it is possible she began frothing out of the mouth following the brain injury caused by the potentially fatal blow. The possible vomiting and/or frothing did not prevent JBR from breathing.

IOW, the body fluids that came from her mouth [and nose, if any] did not block her airway passages for the next hour that she lived. Then, the nylon cord wrapped tightly around her throat blocked her airway passages.

Me:
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.

Your response:
Is is possible that enough fibers from Patsy's sweater jacket could have been transferred to JB's hair and clothing during the time she might have had to get JB ready for the party? Or even during the party? And as the cord was wielded around JB, could the fibers have moved through secondary transfer onto every item mentioned below, especially if the paintbrush was broken after it was tied into the cord and the extra piece placed into the paint tray? I don't know.

An excellent argument for secondary fiber transfer, midwest mama! Only, I disagree that the red fibers from Patsy's Essential's sweater jacket, that she wore the evening of Dec. 25, were deposited in key places directly involving the murder scene to be due to secondary transfers.

Here is why: Four of those red fibers are on the tape. One is found in the knot of the cord at the back of her daughter's neck. Not in her hair. It the very knot tied at the back of her daughter's neck. Another red PR fiber is on the white blanket but she claimed to have never worn that red sweater jacket in the basement but still another red fiber from PRs clothing is in the paint tote near the broken paint brush. IMO, a jury would never conclude these significant red fibers of PRs did not come during the commission of the crime. Arguably, one just never knows about juries.

The white nylon cord fiber evidence proves that, at one time, while the Beauty and the Beast sheets were on JBRs bed, so was the white nylon cord. How do we know the cord was tied there? We do not know that the cord was tied while she was on her bed. We do not know when nor where the nylon cord was tied onto JBR or at least I don't know, att.

Me:
There was one artifact stuck to her tongue.

Your response:
Was this item specified anywhere?

Yes, in the AR. BBBM

Here at PB:
•Mouth.
1."The teeth are native and in good repair."
2."The tongue is smooth, pink-tan and granular."
3."No buccal mucosal trauma is seen."
4."The frenulum is intact."
5."There is a slight drying artifact of the tip of the tongue."

And here at Crimeshots:
...The frenulum is intact. There is slight drying artifact of the tip of the tongue. On the right cheek is a pattern of dried saliva and mucous material which does not appear to be hemorrhagic.

And here at thedenverchannel.com:
The teeth are native and in good repair. The tongue is smooth, pink-tan and granular. No buccal mucosal trauma is seen. The frenulum is intact. There is slight drying artifact of the tip of the tongue.

midwest mama:
How do you know it came with a black belt?

After the search warrant, CS photo #386 was shown to PR:

(0463-16)
TRIP DEMUTH: All right. Go back here. 386, do you recognize those articles of clothing?
PATSY RAMSEY: This is her little velvet belt.
TRIP DEMUTH: That is photo 386, it is the article of clothing on the right of the picture. What belt?
PATSY RAMSEY: Little Gap belt.
TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
PATSY RAMSEY: She would have worn to the White's. I can't tell where the (inaudible). The ones that (inaudible). Zip up. These kind of look like a plastic waist. I can't tell.
TRIP DEMUTH: All right.
PATSY RAMSEY: What is in the towel?
TRIP DEMUTH: Is that JonBenet's mattress that goes around that?
PATSY RAMSEY: Probably, yeah. Yeah, because I had to fasten it (inaudible).

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

Your response:
above BBM. s-b-t-c- Eerie or a code or ???????

Nice catch, midwest mama.

Midwest mama, these are not all of your important responses from your previous post that I intend to reply to. Only this happy little body needs to become horizontal for a while. Thank you, in advance, for understanding and for the respectful discussion.

:seeya:

 

[DeDee]

Mama2JML,
Your rhetorical questions simply add impetus to the consideration that its BDI?

Now the longjohns, the fingernails and panties, are hardly counterfactual evidence that an IDI scenario took place?

Each can be explained away as the consequence as some form of staging?

It appears you mistakenly represent the evidence of staging to reflect that of an individual other than a Ramsey!

Pardon the interjection, please.

IMO, the fingernail evidence, the nail clippings evidence, would be totally disregarded if I was on the jury panel due to the highly irregular fact that the ME, Dr. Meyers, used improper methods for collecting the fingernail evidence.

Dr. Meyers used the same nail clippers, as he possibly did on other individuals. Secondly, he used the same nail clippers for each one of her nails, without wiping the nail clipper clean, in between each nail clipping. That sinks the fingernail evidence for me.

It might be helpful to know if her hands were free enough from her assailant to try to claw the cord from around her throat. The previous blow to the head prob prevented that defensive activity.

 

[otg]

I think there may be a misconception of what the AR is addressing when it states, “There is slight drying artifact of the tip of the tongue.” It is not something stuck to her tongue.

The word artifact is used in different contexts to mean different things. In medical forensics, it refers to a postmortem change that might be misinterpreted. From Importance of Correct Interpretation of Postmortem Artifacts in Medicolegal Autopsies:

Postmortem artifact is defined as “any change caused or a feature introduced into a body after death, that is likely to lead to misinterpretation of medically significant antemortem findings”. In the context of Forensic Pathology an artifact can be defined as a spurious postmortem presentation which stimulates a finding which would be significant in the course of antemortem events. Artifacts can be broadly divided into two groups i.e., those introduced in the period between Death and Autopsy and those introduced during autopsy (Table).
​

In ligature strangulations, and even more so in suspensions, pressure is applied to the base of the tongue when the ligature is high enough on the neck. This causes the tongue to protrude from where it is usually kept within the moist environment of the mouth. After time, the exposed tongue begins drying beginning at the tip. When it does, it turns dark and can be misinterpreted as being bruised.

I won’t post the picture here because it is pretty graphic, but if anyone cares to see another male victim whose tongue demonstrates this effect, you can click on this link. It comes from this page which is from a pretty good article on postmortem changes. But be forewarned, IT IS VERY GRAPHIC and NOT for the faint-hearted. (In fact, if you go through all the sections, you’ll feel afterwards like repeating the famous line spoken by the kid in the movie The Sixth Sense.)

The significance of how this relates to JonBenet is open for debate. The “slight drying artifact” noted in the AR is an indication that her tongue had been exposed to the air long enough for it to begin drying out. I don’t know how long it takes for this to occur, but a medical examiner who is familiar with the phenomenon may be able to estimate how long it would have taken. We know that the tape over her mouth was removed by John Ramsey when he “discovered” her body. Shortly afterwards it was covered. Then it was hours before the coroner claimed the body, bagged it, and removed it to the morgue. When the body was covered, and certainly once it was bagged, there should not be much more drying because of exposure to the air. While the tape was over her mouth, there should be no drying of the tongue due to exposure to the air. So what this calls into question is whether the length of time between the tape being removed and the body being covered and bagged is enough to allow the drying to occur. Or OTOH, does this “artifact” mean that perhaps the length of time required for it to occur indicates that the tape was not over her mouth from the TOD until it was removed by John? It could be an indication that the tape was not placed over her mouth until much later after her death.

 

[DeeDee249]

One thing about the tape - we don't know for SURE whether it was placed on her still body right after unconsciousness, right after death, when she was placed in the wine cellar, or when JR possibly may have gone down to the wine cellar during his missing 2 hours.
We don't know for sure whether the afghan thrown over her body was left there until the coroner got there that night. (I assume it was).
My thought as to the exact position of her body as it was wrapped in the blanket is that the blanket was under her body and the sides of the blanket were pulled around her torso, with legs and head exposed. FW would know, he saw her right when JR did. He knows which of the several versions of how her body was positioned and covered is the correct one. Of course, his knowledge is based on how she was at the time JR found her. Her tongue may have been exposed for hours before it was covered with the tape. Interesting- LE noted a "perfect set of lip prints" on the tape (indicating she was not moving when it was put there, and did not struggle against it. However, I see no mention that evidence of a tongue print or her tongue touching the tape at all. To me, this could possibly mean that the tip of her tongue may have already begun to dry out when the tape was placed. Also, in her autopsy photos where you can see her chin and open mouth, her tongue doesn't look as dark as the tongue in the link above.

 

[DeDee]

:blushing: Respectfully snipped portions, including the links to the postmortem site, where it is now bookmarked for later.

I think there may be a misconception of what the AR is addressing when it states, “There is slight drying artifact of the tip of the tongue.” It is not something stuck to her tongue.

The word artifact is used in different contexts to mean different things. In medical forensics, it refers to a postmortem change that might be misinterpreted.


The significance of how this relates to JonBenet is open for debate. The “slight drying artifact” noted in the AR is an indication that her tongue had been exposed to the air long enough for it to begin drying out. I don’t know how long it takes for this to occur, but a medical examiner who is familiar with the phenomenon may be able to estimate how long it would have taken. We know that the tape over her mouth was removed by John Ramsey when he “discovered” her body. Shortly afterwards it was covered. Then it was hours before the coroner claimed the body, bagged it, and removed it to the morgue. When the body was covered, and certainly once it was bagged, there should not be much more drying because of exposure to the air. While the tape was over her mouth, there should be no drying of the tongue due to exposure to the air. So what this calls into question is whether the length of time between the tape being removed and the body being covered and bagged is enough to allow the drying to occur. Or OTOH, does this “artifact” mean that perhaps the length of time required for it to occur indicates that the tape was not over her mouth from the TOD until it was removed by John? It could be an indication that the tape was not placed over her mouth until much later after her death.

BBM

“There is slight drying artifact of the tip of the tongue.” It is not something stuck to her tongue.

In speed reading, one should never confuse the word of nor the word on, especially when analyzing a child's AR.

My head bows to your rapid correction in my misreading which, of course, altered my reasoning, kind person that you are, otg.

The “slight drying artifact” noted in the AR is an indication that her tongue had been exposed to the air long enough for it to begin drying out. I don’t know how long it takes for this to occur, but a medical examiner who is familiar with the phenomenon may be able to estimate how long it would have taken.

Perhaps it was easier to perceive of the small artifact to be caused by an item left inadvertently by the nylon cord or from a possible gag, than, it is, to realize, exactly what this means for JonBenet and the horrific ending of her life as she knew it. She truly encountered a monster on December 25, 2006.

Whoever it was, in that hellhole of a basement, left this little angel there for twelve hours after she died.

So, if RDI, who would be able to sit just one floor directly above where their precious baby girl was left for dead for twelve hours?

Perhaps, it was someone preferring a proper burial since the murder was of such unspeakable terror for JonBenet.

... a medical examiner who is familiar with the phenomenon may be able to estimate how long it would have taken.

Indeed, it would be interesting to learn more about without the task of researching and drawing my own conclusions. Is there a coroner in the house? Would JBRs tongue need to be protruding from between her lips for the tip her tongue, during the process of dehydration, to become a postmortem artifact?

It could be an indication that the tape was not placed over her mouth until much later after her death.

I agree that the artifact indicates the tape was applied well after TOD, say around 11:00am, and, most likely, not ripped off her lips as JR described, and this could be a reason why Fleet White revisited the concrete room where the white blanket with the tape was still located. FW reached down and picked up that short length of black tape. Oh, to know of his thoughts.

Not a qualified mortician here, but when a person dies, in the supine position or face-up, their lower jaw begins to relax. Thereby, the mouth becomes agape as rigor begins. That is, unless the lower jaw can be held closed otherwise the person dies and goes into rigor with their mouth open and jaws apart.


This is how the tongue artifact shines a light on the timeline:

When the body was covered, and certainly once it was bagged, there should not be much more drying because of exposure to the air. While the tape was over her mouth, there should be no drying of the tongue due to exposure to the air.

:seeya:

 

[Anti-K]

I think the “perfect set of lip prints” is an exaggeration, but I agree that the tape was almost certainly put in place after the victim had been rendered incapable of resisting it – unconscious/comatose or otherwise near death.

I think there is reason to consider that the tape was put on her mouth before death. There are stains on the tape and mucous/saliva from the victim. Would the tape stick to mouth if the mucous/saliva was there first? Also, there is the white flake on her face and the (looks to me like) corresponding hole in the tape possibly caused by the stun gun or some other object that was used on the side of her face, and this injury occurred before death.

Was she covered head-to-toe? I mean, after the body was brought upstairs. Regardless, I don’t think a blanket over the body would have had much effect on drying of the tip of the tongue.
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

Fascinating post, DeDee. I will respectfully try to respond by inserting comments and snipping part of your original post.

Thank you, midwest mama.

Was this item specified anywhere?

The artifact was the tip of her tongue not an artifact on the tongue as otg kindly posted earlier today.

LE reported smelling urine on her beauty/beast sheets, which had to have been changed after LHP changed them into another set on Dec. 23rd.

This is what otg posted when asked how could the family tolerate the ammonia odor of urine and other such bodily functions on a regular basis:

To anyone who walked into the Ramsey hellhole, it must have been noticeable unless (as I’ve speculated before) there were air fresheners everywhere, especially on the first floor. The door going to the basement was usually closed, but the second floor must have reeked. But to the regular inhabitants, it probably wasn’t even noticed since it was the norm. There are many terms for the phenomenon of not noticing a constant smell (sensory adaptation, olfactory fatigue, olfactory adaptation, neural adaptation, habituation, smell saturation) and the cause can be searched if you care to understand it. There is a simple explanation of why our sense of smell is more apt to be affected by this than our other senses here, as well as an explanation about how a rabbit is able to avoid being affected by it.

Me:
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.

Just to be clear, the Dec. 23 impetus was not my suggestion but my response to another's suggestion.

Your response BBM:

I cannot agree. If someone was hired, they were admitted into the home making it unnecessary to have a forced entry. There was the rumor of a "secret Santa" visit, with JR making a public statement about JB's trust and love of Santa. "His" so-called Santa suit was taken into evidence. Could it have been worn by someone easily let in and out of the house?
As much as we want to dispel the unidentified tDNA as being meaningless, it could also be meaningful. After all, it's the only thing that helps keep the IDI theory somewhat afloat.

I do find it difficult to believe someone hired a killer for the murder of this 6yo child.

However, in searching for an item listed in the search warrants, I noticed cotton was taken into evidence from the wine cellar.

Then, I remembered reading Patsy being questioned about the cotton while been shown CS photo #400.

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth (Cotton in Wine Cellar)

0465
3 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. 400 we've looked at
4 before, a different angle.
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Right. That is down in the
6 basement. It is like cotton or something.
7 TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know what that is?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know why cotton would
9 be there.
10 TRIP DEMUTH: You don't recognize it?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: It doesn't mean anything to
13 you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
15 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. Tom.
16 TOM HANEY: Do you ever remember seeing it in
17 there?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
19 TOM HANEY: Could it have come off of
20 something?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: It could have come off -- well
22 the Christmas tree is in there, but I don't know if
23 they had cotton on them.
24 TOM HANEY: Did you use any kind of cotton
25 batting like, or it appears to be a fairly big piece,
0466
1 not a real small piece like an Aspirin bottle.
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I don't know. I can't
3 think of.
4 TOM HANEY: Anywhere, any decorating or
5 crafts or --
6 PATSY RAMSEY: I can't think of any.
7 TRIP DEMUTH: Did you have any Santa suits?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: I had Santas. I did have a
9 Santa suit. I stuffed the Santa sometimes.
10 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. Where was that?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: That should have been back in
12 the Christmas room back, you know, in the shower back
13 in there.
14 TRIP DEMUTH: If you walked past the laundry
15 room, the shower to the storage room is at the end of
16 that hallway, the room it would be in.
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Right there would be kind of a
18 beard, but I don't know it was made out of cotton. It
19 was kind of more like synthetic.
20 TRIP DEMUTH: That was -- the Santa suit was
21 never in the window sill.
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my knowledge.

Neighbor Barbara Kostanick's statement RE: JonBenet's Santa visit from their conversation that took place on Dec. 24:

PMPT ppbk p50

[JonBenet] said "oh, Santa was at our Christmas party the other night." Megan had seen Santa at the Pearl Street Mall, so we talked about that.

Then JonBenet said, "Santa Claus promised that he would make a secret visit after Christmas."

I thought she was confused. "Christmas is tonight," I told her. "And Santa will be coming tonight."

"No, no," JonBenet insisted. "He said this would be after Christmas. And it's a secret."

This leaves little doubt that Santa Claus, on December 23, told JonBenet that he would secretly visit her after Christmas. December 25 is Christmas until midnight. Santa came to visit around midnight and she dies within the next two hours.


Hopefully, with your approval, I brought a post from 12/12, respectfully snipped and BBM:

<snip>
IIRC, the Suit that was taken was claimed to be a Ramsey suit by one of the Ramseys. You know, the ones who lie, get confused, can't remember, etc.

So, if it WAS theirs, does anyone recall any supporting information from another source about when a Ramsey might have used it? You know, the same Ramsey family that hired someone to be their party Santa over the years? How about tests of the fibers?

Most feel the Ramseys were at least involved in the cover-up of JB's murder. There is corroboration of JB expecting a SECRET visit from Santa, from the statement of Kostaniak, and adding in the torn note found in her trash as discussed in this thread, along with the murder occurring on Christmas night, the inclusion of the Suit taken into evidence just chills me.
I wonder if it was checked for DNA that might match the other DNA they are so convinced is key in the case.

If JR did not have hands on participation in JB's death, as I suspect, and believing that the R's were involved in a cover-up, the only option left for me to consider is that they were covering for someone important enough that their family would be under threat forever. <snip> No signs of forced entry, to have a non-family member involved would = Ramsey Acquaintance.

Janet McReynolds attended the 2006 Rs Christmas party with her husband Bill on Dec. 23, due to his health issues. This was the 3rd year he played Santa at the Ramsey party. Bill McReynolds had his own Santa suits, didn't he?

This is an image of JBR when JonBenet attended the White's Christmas party in 1995 but I cannot tell if it is Bill McReynolds or not.

Wonder if the doggie belonged to the White's? It's too big to be Jacques.

 

[midwest mama]

Thank you, midwest mama.




The artifact was the tip of her tongue not an artifact on the tongue as otg kindly posted earlier today.



This is what otg posted when asked how could the family tolerate the ammonia odor of urine and other such bodily functions on a regular basis:





Just to be clear, the Dec. 23 impetus was not my suggestion but my response to another's suggestion.

Your response BBM:



I do find it difficult to believe someone hired a killer for the murder of this 6yo child.

However, in searching for an item listed in the search warrants, I noticed cotton was taken into evidence from the wine cellar.

Then, I remembered reading Patsy being questioned about the cotton while been shown CS photo #400.



Neighbor Barbara Kostanick's statement RE: JonBenet's Santa visit from their conversation that took place on Dec. 24:




This leaves little doubt that Santa Claus, on December 23, told JonBenet that he would secretly visit her after Christmas. December 25 is Christmas until midnight. Santa came to visit around midnight and she dies within the next two hours.


Hopefully, with your approval, I brought a post from 12/12, respectfully snipped and BBM:



Janet McReynolds attended the 2006 Rs Christmas party with her husband Bill on Dec. 23, due to his health issues. This was the 3rd year he played Santa at the Ramsey party. Bill McReynolds had his own Santa suits, didn't he?

This is an image of JBR when JonBenet attended the White's Christmas party in 1995 but I cannot tell if it is Bill McReynolds or not.

Wonder if the doggie belonged to the White's? It's too big to be Jacques.

Yes, I would think McReynolds had his own suits. He also had his own beard, which bears a very strong resemblance to the one in the photo you posted, according to other comparisons with the other photos posted of him online.

I disagree that the dog on Santa's lap would be too big. I think it is Jacques, especially after seeing a photo of JB taken with Jacques:
http://www.geocities.ws/jonbenet_1990/jacques.jpg

What I wonder is why would Jacques be over at the White's for that
Christmas photo? Could the photo you posted have been taken at the Ramsey's instead of the White's?

The line of questioning of Patsy clearly indicates the police wanted to know more about white cotton they found along with the Santa Suit (perhaps in the window sill?) which perhaps was trying to be connected as additional "Santa" costuming?

 

[DeDee]

Yes, I would think McReynolds had his own suits. He also had his own beard, which bears a very strong resemblance to the one in the photo you posted, according to other comparisons with the other photos posted of him online.

I disagree that the dog on Santa's lap would be too big. I think it is Jacques, especially after seeing a photo of JB taken with Jacques:
http://www.geocities.ws/jonbenet_1990/jacques.jpg

What I wonder is why would Jacques be over at the White's for that
Christmas photo? Could the photo you posted have been taken at the Ramsey's instead of the White's?

The line of questioning of Patsy clearly indicates the police wanted to know more about white cotton they found along with the Santa Suit (perhaps in the window sill?) which perhaps was trying to be connected as additional "Santa" costuming?

Thank you for providing the image of JBR with her dog, Jacques. It appears that it is the same dog as the one in the image I posted of her with Santa came from acandyrose website where it was listed as a photo from the White's 2005 Christmas party.

The large size piece of white cotton was found in the wine cellar, according to the search warrants. The Santa suit location is undetermined.

However, I recall JR being asked about photo taken with JRs camera, the one taken before the children's pics on Christmas morning, and he said it appeared to be a Santa suit in one location of the photo.


13 LOU SMIT: So that could be

14 the actual pad of a picture taken prior to

15 what happened?

16 JOHN RAMSEY: That's possible.

17 LOU SMIT: What else do you

18 notice?

19 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, this bag is

20 still there, the school bag in the corner. The

21 toy is still roughly where it was. There is a,

22 I think that was a Santa Claus or something that

23 was --

24 LOU SMIT: Santa Claus suit?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Suit, yeah, or

0510

1 something, likes look. I don't remember what it

2 was. But that's there. Looks like it's still

3 in this picture. This red present is still

4 there. Day-Timer is not there in this picture.

5 LOU SMIT: What?

6 JOHN RAMSEY: The Day-Timer

7 doesn't look like it's there in this picture.


OMO

 

[Tawny]

Wasn't the Barbie nightgown literally a nightgown for a Barbie?

 

[questfortrue]

Wasn't the Barbie nightgown literally a nightgown for a Barbie?

ON ACR is a dialogue between the R's and Barbara Walters:

BARBARA WALTERS: When Jon Benet's body was found there was one of her favorite nightgown's next to her. Her so-called Barbie nightgown.

PATSY RAMSEY: Um hum.

BARBARA WALTERS: And so there was the impression that whoever did this cared about this child. Left the nightgown. Left the blanket.

PATSY RAMSEY: Um hum.

~snip~

 

[otg]

(bbm)

One thing about the tape - we don't know for SURE whether it was placed on her still body right after unconsciousness, right after death, when she was placed in the wine cellar, or when JR possibly may have gone down to the wine cellar during his missing 2 hours.
We don't know for sure whether the afghan thrown over her body was left there until the coroner got there that night. (I assume it was).
My thought as to the exact position of her body as it was wrapped in the blanket is that the blanket was under her body and the sides of the blanket were pulled around her torso, with legs and head exposed. FW would know, he saw her right when JR did. He knows which of the several versions of how her body was positioned and covered is the correct one. Of course, his knowledge is based on how she was at the time JR found her. Her tongue may have been exposed for hours before it was covered with the tape. Interesting- LE noted a "perfect set of lip prints" on the tape (indicating she was not moving when it was put there, and did not struggle against it. However, I see no mention that evidence of a tongue print or her tongue touching the tape at all. To me, this could possibly mean that the tip of her tongue may have already begun to dry out when the tape was placed. Also, in her autopsy photos where you can see her chin and open mouth, her tongue doesn't look as dark as the tongue in the link above.

I agree with all you said, DD. It's the fact that we don't know when the tape was placed over her mouth that makes the drying important. I haven't been able to find anything about how long it is before this begins occurring. But as I said, I think experienced medical examiners should have an idea of exactly what the indications noted in the AR would mean. I didn't mean to give the idea that I thought the linked photo was representative of the amount of drying described by Meyer. And in fact, the description in that photo doesn't even state how long the victim's body was exposed before that photo was taken. I only linked it to show what the effect looks like. Meyer only noted a "slight" amount of drying artifact.

Also, if you notice the section where this is written in the AR, he mentions several other things that (in addition to this) would address possible questions that might be raised about her being "smothered" (she wasn't, UKG). And since the darkness of the tip of the tongue can be mistaken for bruising (sometimes happening when the tongue is caught between the teeth and the lip during smothering), he later notes that, "Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no hemorrhage or traumatic injury."

 

[otg]

I think it is just because of the time between discovery and examination. I don't think it is anything more than that IMO.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

Her autopsy was about 16 hours after discovery... I can not think of anything that would make this odd if it is about exposure to the air. That seems like it would be normal.. JMO

But it doesn't occur in all deaths. It's an indication of the fact that her tongue was exposed to the air for some period of time. That period of time is not something we know, but it is something that might tell a medical examiner that the tape was not placed over her mouth before she died. Failure to see or acknowledge that is simply denial (IMO).

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But it doesn't occur in all deaths. It's an indication of the fact that her tongue was exposed to the air for some period of time. That period of time is not something we know, but it is something that might tell a medical examiner that the tape was not placed over her mouth before she died. Failure to see or acknowledge that is simply denial (IMO).

I am not denying anything.. I just have been doing some research and see many instances where it occurs. I just don't think it means anything to the case. It just seems to me that it is just what it is, The time between the tape was removed when she was discovered and when the autopsy occurred.

JMO

 

[DeeDee249]

Wasn't the Barbie nightgown literally a nightgown for a Barbie?

No. It was a pink nylon nightie with a picture of Barbie on it. Those of us who had little girls are very familiar with this type of garment. Barbie has been such a popular doll for so long that clothing for kids bearing her likeness has been available for quite a while. The nightie found in the basement was said to be one of JB's favorites, one that she liked to bring to overnight stays when she was in a pageant. I have to say that I have seen that same kind of nightie on my little nieces over the years.

I will also add that some "Barbie" clothing made for children also had matching items for the dolls, in particular the "My Size" Barbie, which JB was said to have. This doll was at least 2 feet tall. Those of us "of a certain age" may remember the Patty Play Pal doll. The "My Size" Barbie wasn't quite as tall (they were about 36") and had a "teen" type body (with smaller waist and a hint of a bustline) as opposed to the Play Pal dolls which had a toddler body type. The My Size Barbies were said to be able to wear a child's clothes, but at age 6 JB's personal clothing would be too large for the doll. I know for a fact that some My Size Barbie outfits could be bought with matching clothes for a child and some children could also fit into the doll's clothes.

 

[Tawny]

No. It was a pink nylon nightie with a picture of Barbie on it. Those of us who had little girls are very familiar with this type of garment. Barbie has been such a popular doll for so long that clothing for kids bearing her likeness has been available for quite a while. The nightie found in the basement was said to be one of JB's favorites, one that she liked to bring to overnight stays when she was in a pageant. I have to say that I have seen that same kind of nightie on my little nieces over the years.

Yes, I realize now it was a nightgown for a girl. I asked to clear up my own confusion. I have a daughter as well.

 

[2 percent]

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:

I know. I share your frustration. I've never been able to find anything in Colorado statutes that explicitly says 9year olds and younger can get away with murder. Such a cut-and-dried rule/law should be easy to find.

What I have found is CO juvenile detention facility websites that say they don't take children under 10 and the statute I linked before that says children under 10 can't testify (with exceptions as you noted). If you follow the logic, if a child under 10 can't testify then they can't participate in their defense which pretty much means they are constitutionally unprosecutable.

There's a huge hole in the law, though, right? The law is implying the children are mentally incompetent. But the adults who have committed murder and are mentally incompetent are still legally responsible....but the children 9 and younger walk away?

I highly doubt it. Not if we're talking about a deliberate sexual assault and, at the very least, aggravated assault if not one of the manslaughters. I think cases like this are still handled legally but the precedence is not easily found because it's a cps type office or family court under seal.