Questions I Have Not Found Answers To

[Nom de plume]

If you haven't taken time to read the thread, "Why a Scarf" now might be a good time. The scarf bugs the cr*p out of me too.

Because the autopsy photos show the possibility of two other lines where the ligature might have been, and that JB's gold chain is tangled up in it at the final position, I am sticking to my thought she was a victim of a 3 fold assault on her upper body.

I think there could have been a scarf used as padding under the ligature, which might have been part of a choking process. I hate having to think it was a sexual game possibly perpetrated by more than one person, but at this point nothing is impossible, especially after reading Wecht's theory.

If JB screamed out in pain during a sexual attack, and the padded ligature was in place for the choking, the blow to her head might have been a knee-jerk reaction from a perpetrator to quiet her.

At this point we can speculate that another person(s) heard the scream and came to the scene, only to realize the horror.

JB probably appeared to be dying, so those in attendance then tried to get the ligature undone, found out it was only getting worse, but could pull the scarf free from underneath. Once the ligature was rolled up to get the scarf out (catching JB's necklace), there was no way it was going to come undone.

I do think the broken brush handle could have easily been tied in after the fact, to assist in making the crime look as if it was committed by a lunatic.

Of course, that scarf would have gone the way of the other things missing from the scene.

But who's to say there might not have been a few more new scarves kept at the ready? It was said JR purchased the one he placed over JB, so JR might have kept a few on hand to be able to give as gifts to employees, or other females who deserved a token of appreciation. He might have asked Pam to retrieve scarves for him so he could "gift" those who helped them so much on the 26th, or he might have kept some at his office, in the Michigan house, or even in Atlanta. I can think of several places he might have extras tucked away. And I can think of a couple of other reasons why he might have kept scarves on hand. Just saying............

Great answer MM! I think you may very well be onto something there. Seems quite reasonable that the scarf could have been under the cord, and like you said, removing the scarf caused the necklace to become entangled in the cord.

Yes...I can just imagine why JR might have kept scarves, and God knows what else, on hand. :sick:

 

[SunnieRN]

Great answer MM! I think you may very well be onto something there. Seems quite reasonable that the scarf could have been under the cord, and like you said, removing the scarf caused the necklace to become entangled in the cord.

Yes...I can just imagine why JR might have kept scarves, and God knows what else, on hand. :sick:

I would think if it had been under the cord, it would have left silk fibers on the garrote? I was wondering if scarves had been used another time or place.

jmo

 

[midwest mama]

I would think if it had been under the cord, it would have left silk fibers on the garrote? I was wondering if scarves had been used another time or place.

jmo

Perhaps - to both thoughts. But we don't know that fibers were NOT identified as being on the cord. There is speculation that some details of the crime have been withheld from the public for the police to be able to use in interviewing suspects.

FFJ has some very good autopsy photos in their archive files that KK worked on posting. There is one with the ligature cord showing what looks like a spot of blood, (JonBenet Ramsey autopsy photos - CAUTION GRAPHIC!, post #10) and I can't recall ever seeing that photo before. I caution you, if you go to the site and look that thread, be prepared to look at graphic photos.

I have no doubt there is still evidence not shared with the public.

 

[Whaleshark]

There is speculation that some details of the crime have been withheld from the police to be able to used in interviewing suspects.

Not just speculation...

According to Prosecutor Michael Kane, "There remain "dozens" of secrets. Absolutely. Dozens. And a lot of what the public thinks is fact is simply not fact."

So, we need to all keep in mind that we do not have all the pieces to the puzzle -- not just a few, but at least 'a few dozen'....

 

[wengr]

Not just speculation...

According to Prosecutor Michael Kane, "There remain "dozens" of secrets. Absolutely. Dozens. And a lot of what the public thinks is fact is simply not fact."

So, we need to all keep in mind that we do not have all the pieces to the puzzle -- not just a few, but at least 'a few dozen'....

I have thought alot about that statement. I have come believe that the websleuth level of awareness was not what Kane was likely referring to, when using the word "public". It may be that most of it is out there.

 

[Whaleshark]

I have thought alot about that statement. I have come believe that the websleuth level of awareness was not what Kane was likely referring to, when using the word "public". It may be that most of it is out there.

Perhaps... but not all -- we have had some revelations just over the past six months not previously known or believed:

- With James Kolar's book: the information about the fecal smearing of Burke, the feces on the candy box, the train tracks - marks that lined up, his long powerpoint presentation trying to convince evidence against family, the video evidence, and just this week: that the grand jury did, in fact, vote to indict after all...

- How many is that so far? 1/2 dozen and counting...?

 

[BOESP]

Touch DNA, for one example, could be that which might have been found on Patsy's hands or garments then transferred to JonBenet. It works a lot like secondary fiber transfer may act.

[Touch DNA] is not evidence of an Intruder unless and until it can be identified and belonging to someone who was at the crime scene. Coming to a decision on only one piece of evidence is risky business.

Corrected my above post (brackets and boldface). Never post when under the influence of Nyquil. :drink:

 

[midwest mama]

Corrected my above post (brackets and boldface). Never post when under the influence of Nyquil. :drink:

:giggle: Poor Silly BOESP - Hope the Nyquil helps and you :getwell:

 

[DeeDee249]

The scarf was not under the cord. The cord was actually digging into the front of her neck to the point where it was almost hidden in the folds of skin. The coroner removed it himself by cutting it off (and marking the ends that he cut), There was simply no room for a scarf to have been pulled out from under that cord. If the scarf was used that way, it would have to be still under there when she was found.
The cord was wound around her throat more than once during the strangulation, and that is what entangled the necklace chain. There are multiple ligature furrows.
If you look at the photo, you'll see just how deep the ligature furrow dug.

 

[wengr]

Is the ligature furrow in the photo exactly as it was at the time it was applied? Or, is the tightness of the ligature in the photo exaggerated by swelling or bloating in any way?

 

[DeeDee249]

Is the ligature furrow in the photo exactly as it was at the time it was applied? Or, is the tightness of the ligature in the photo exaggerated by swelling or bloating in any way?

There doesn't seem to be bloating at all, and very little swelling, The coroner did not note swelling anywhere but mild swelling in her brain. If you look at her neck, you can see how the skin folds over the ligature in the front. When there is swelling or bloat in a corpse, it is usually from decomposition gases forming. Hanging victims will show swelling in the tongue and/or head.
No swelling of the tongue/head was noted. This is also another indication that she wasn't hung.
I know the autopsy photos are cropped, but you can still see her chin/mouth/tongue in one of them and there does not appear to be any swelling.

 

[midwest mama]

The scarf was not under the cord. The cord was actually digging into the front of her neck to the point where it was almost hidden in the folds of skin. The coroner removed it himself by cutting it off (and marking the ends that he cut), There was simply no room for a scarf to have been pulled out from under that cord. If the scarf was used that way, it would have to be still under there when she was found.
The cord was wound around her throat more than once during the strangulation, and that is what entangled the necklace chain. There are multiple ligature furrows.
If you look at the photo, you'll see just how deep the ligature furrow dug.

In a photo that clearly shows a lower line of bruising around JB's neck, as well as an area of blanching, it appears to me that something could have been tightened there. I think it is possible a scarf could have been used as a pad at that position under the ligature, which initially might have been constructed as a choking tool.

In that scenario, a scarf could have been removed before the ligature was moved higher into the final strangulation position.

 

[BOESP]

The scarf was not under the cord. The cord was actually digging into the front of her neck to the point where it was almost hidden in the folds of skin. The coroner removed it himself by cutting it off (and marking the ends that he cut), There was simply no room for a scarf to have been pulled out from under that cord. If the scarf was used that way, it would have to be still under there when she was found.
The cord was wound around her throat more than once during the strangulation, and that is what entangled the necklace chain. There are multiple ligature furrows.
If you look at the photo, you'll see just how deep the ligature furrow dug.

One thing I've always questioned about the ligature furrow is how much postmortem swelling is involved in making the furrow look deeper than it was while JonBenet was yet alive or perimortem. Look at the autopsy photo showing her little hands, with the ring on her finger. Her hands are quite swollen.

Edited to add: I see I'm a day late and a dollar short on this comment. I'm still confused though. Her hands are definitely swollen yet no comments about that in the autopsy photos. If the ligature cut off circulation it would prevent the ebb and flow of blood to and from the heart, which would cause some swelling (or edema). I realize that after death there wouldn't be any flow anyway but ....

 

[Matt21]

Nom de plume

Matt, Tricia Griffith owns WS. She also has a great radio show called "Tricia's True Crime" that's on Sunday nights at 8 pm ET.

Oh wow...cool, I didn’t know that, haha...small world. Thanks for letting me know.



UKGuy

Its not DNA, its touch-dna, i.e. its not semen, or saliva, or blood, or a hair sample, all of which can prove IDI. The touch-dna could have arrived anyhow, more or less anywhere between the White's house and the Ramsey house. It only becomes important if you can identify it, then you can eliminate or not, the owner.

This touch-dna is only important to the R's since they spuriously wish to claim that it represents absolute evidence of an intruder, in a sense, its their fig leaf!

Wait! So, none of the DNA found was blood, semen, etc.? There was a web in the window. Plus the hand print, wasn't that a family member? And the pubic hair was Patsy's arm hair, right? So then, doesn't that leave ZERO evidence of an intruder? That can't be right. Was there anything else, because I just remembered some shoe prints, but wasn't that also figured out to be nothing?



SunnieRN

Matt21, if you don't mind too much, I would like to add a question, with part A and part B.

No, that's fine. If you guys would rather just post new questions here instead of starting new threads, I don't have a problem with it.

It has always struck me as VERY odd, that JR put a silk scarf in JonBenets coffin, blanketed around her. It was a new scarf, not one she used for dress up or pageants. Why not a book, as he stated he would read to her. A favorite toy? A familial piece of jewelry, that would one day be hers? Why the silk scarf and why did JonBenet have the triangle shaped red mark, that is often seen in people who have been choked with a soft object.

I've never heard anything about this scarf, but that does sound very strange to me.

 

[UKGuy]

Nom de plume


Oh wow...cool, I didn’t know that, haha...small world. Thanks for letting me know.



UKGuy


Wait! So, none of the DNA found was blood, semen, etc.? There was a web in the window. Plus the hand print, wasn't that a family member? And the pubic hair was Patsy's arm hair, right? So then, doesn't that leave ZERO evidence of an intruder? That can't be right. Was there anything else, because I just remembered some shoe prints, but wasn't that also figured out to be nothing?



SunnieRN

No, that's fine. If you guys would rather just post new questions here instead of starting new threads, I don't have a problem with it.



I've never heard anything about this scarf, but that does sound very strange to me.

Matt21,
Correct, this is what I always tell IDI proponents, and why they like to emphasise the DNA.

Consider the we in the FF, then the house should have been crawling with unidentified touch-dna, in multiple locations, was it no!

The hand print and pubic hair, from memory, were both linked to the Ramsey's. Nothing special there, except, again, there is no evidence of an intruder.

So the JonBenet case boils down to which R(s) you think did it, and why? Everyone talks about Patsy's dramatic skills and her ability to project, now we know the GJ voted to indict, just what has John Ramsey being doing over the years with his books and interviews, will he be doing anymore?


.

 

[Nom de plume]

Nom de plume


Oh wow...cool, I didn’t know that, haha...small world. Thanks for letting me know.



UKGuy


Wait! So, none of the DNA found was blood, semen, etc.? There was a web in the window. Plus the hand print, wasn't that a family member? And the pubic hair was Patsy's arm hair, right? So then, doesn't that leave ZERO evidence of an intruder? That can't be right. Was there anything else, because I just remembered some shoe prints, but wasn't that also figured out to be nothing

SunnieRN

No, that's fine. If you guys would rather just post new questions here instead of starting new threads, I don't have a problem with it.



I've never heard anything about this scarf, but that does sound very strange to me.

None of the DNA was blood or semen. Only JBR's blood was found. Yes web in the window. Hand prints were PR & JAR. The hair was PR's arm hair. The shoe print was thought to come from LE or possibly BR.

BBM That's right! NO evidence of an intruder!!

 

[BOESP]

The stun gun marks ... pure, primary evidence of an Intruder. Never forget that. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[M.James]

No, that's fine. If you guys would rather just post new questions here instead of starting new threads, I don't have a problem with it.

*Thank you, Matt21. I hope that includes those of us who aren’t quite regulars, and are slowly struggling through information to try to come to some/any conclusions?
I’d been debating on whether to drag up the ‘SuperDave’ thread again – where I’m allowed to ask offbeat questions.
I have a couple of opinion questions I’d like to ask. I usually don’t get many replies to them, but I’ll accept what I get:

*How long do you think it took to cogitate and write the ransom note?
*How long from beginning to end do you think this crime took the Ramseys?
*How long from beginning to end do you think this crime took an intruder?

Crime scene questions, out of curiosity:

There are two (that I know of) pictures of JonBenet on Christmas morning (not crime scene, but). There is a picture of her bed that has what appears to be a pink pajama top. Is the top the same as the one she’s wearing in the pictures? I believe it is, but wanted to see what others think.

This one will seem stranger, but will help me to identify better with the scenes. There appear to be windows behind Jonbenet’s beds (headboards). After studying those pictures, I believe the windows may be dummies. Anyone know?

I realize that if I read around I might find answers. But, it is really hard to track down definitive answers by searching in this forum.

 

[UKGuy]

*Thank you, Matt21. I hope that includes those of us who aren’t quite regulars, and are slowly struggling through information to try to come to some/any conclusions?
I’d been debating on whether to drag up the ‘SuperDave’ thread again – where I’m allowed to ask offbeat questions.
I have a couple of opinion questions I’d like to ask. I usually don’t get many replies to them, but I’ll accept what I get:

*How long do you think it took to cogitate and write the ransom note?
*How long from beginning to end do you think this crime took the Ramseys?
*How long from beginning to end do you think this crime took an intruder?

Crime scene questions, out of curiosity:

There are two (that I know of) pictures of JonBenet on Christmas morning (not crime scene, but). There is a picture of her bed that has what appears to be a pink pajama top. Is the top the same as the one she’s wearing in the pictures? I believe it is, but wanted to see what others think.

This one will seem stranger, but will help me to identify better with the scenes. There appear to be windows behind Jonbenet’s beds. After studying those pictures, I believe the windows may be dummies. Anyone know?

I realize that if I read around I might find answers. But, it is really hard to track down definitive answers by searching in this forum.

M.James,

How long do you think it took to cogitate and write the ransom note?

About an hour or so.

How long from beginning to end do you think this crime took the Ramseys?

Two hours maximum.

How long from beginning to end do you think this crime took an intruder?

Zero hours. There is no evidence to demonstrate the existence of an intruder.

There is a picture of her bed that has what appears to be a pink pajama top. Is the top the same as the one she’s wearing in the pictures?

From memory, I think its a different one.

There appear to be windows behind Jonbenet’s beds.

Again, from memory, the window leads to a balcony, sometimes JonBenet slept with the window open, as the house was warm.


.

 

[M.James]

Thanks, Ukguy. I'd like to comment later, but realized that I wasn't clear. I've added a picture of the bedroom. I am talking about the curtains/windows behind the beds, There is a window beside the extra bed that I assumed led to the balcony you're speaking of.
I'm curious if there are windows behind the headboards.
Sorry I wasn't clear to start with.