Questions you'd like answers to...

[Userid]

^ I don't disagree with the R's bit about them being connected, etc. I disagree that a kid could have done all this. He would have had to have been a mastermind because he would have fooled the detectives who immediately talked to him, the psychologists in subsequent interviews, etc. Also, even with his parents help, you would have to think that he left absolutely zero evidence behind when he committed this crime, other than the prints on the glass next to the bowl of pineapple. A child, if he committed this crime in the house, would have left an absolute blood bath wherever it was perpetrated (from the sexual assault that took place) and an insurmountable amount of evidence that even his parents most likely couldn't account/cover for, simply from the time he committed the murder to when he returned to bed (and evidently washed up). He would have had to have traveled all throughout the house: from the dining table, to the basement (where the crime would have occurred), back upstairs, past JBR's bedroom, through the play area, and back to his bed (visiting a shower/bathroom along the way).

 

[UKGuy]

Then how was the chord actually used? It just seems somewhat unnecessary to create the "garrote" if she was strangled all the same. I'd also assume that there was no evidence the paint brush was used in the assault and that police would have found such evidence, even if the knot was still in tact, but I could be wrong.

Userid,
There is no garrote it is a figment of your imagination. There is a ligature with a piece of paintbrush attached to it, that's it.

The garrote thing was promoted by Lou Smit as a torture device used by a psychopath.

.

 

[Tortoise]

Userid,
There is no garrote it is a figment of your imagination. There is a ligature with a piece of paintbrush attached to it, that's it.

The garrote thing was promoted by Lou Smit as a torture device used by a psychopath.

.

I don't think it's been suggested it was used like one. It's the concept of adding something like that to a cord that a child would probably not have ever heard of.

 

[UKGuy]

^ I don't disagree with the R's bit about them being connected, etc. I disagree that a kid could have done all this. He would have had to have been a mastermind because he would have fooled the detectives who immediately talked to him, the psychologists in subsequent interviews, etc. Also, even with his parents help, you would have to think that he left absolutely zero evidence behind when he committed this crime, other than the prints on the glass next to the bowl of pineapple. A child, if he committed this crime in the house, would have left an absolute blood bath wherever it was perpetrated (from the sexual assault that took place) and an insurmountable amount of evidence that even his parents most likely couldn't account/cover for, simply from the time he committed the murder to when he returned to bed (and evidently washed up). He would have had to have traveled all throughout the house: from the dining table, to the basement (where the crime would have occurred), back upstairs, past JBR's bedroom, through the play area, and back to his bed (visiting a shower/bathroom along the way).

Userid,
There is evidence he was in JonBenet's bedroom. They shared bedrooms regularly, the most recent on Christmas Eve.

Wherever the primary crime-scene was, I think it was JonBenet's bedroom, either/or BR and the parents would have attempted to clean it up.

The only bleeding we know about was from an internal injury sustained by JonBenet. We know from the Coroner that Jonbenet was wiped down, so most of the blood was removed.

So most of your objections to a BDI theory have answers, just because you think a child could not have killed JonBenet does not mean it never happened that way!

.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think it's been suggested it was used like one. It's the concept of adding something like that to a cord that a child would probably not have ever heard of.

Tortoise,
Its the parents who added the paintbrush not BR!

.

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,
Its the parents who added the paintbrush not BR!

.

I know that, you know that, but the posters who were saying BR did that don't agree!

 

[UKGuy]

I know that, you know that, but the posters who were saying BR did that don't agree!

Tortoise,
OK, I apologize, looks like they need to amend their theory. Although given the amateur fabrication of the ligature and paintbrush, you could make a case that he did that also.

Yet I would not go that far.

.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

I don't have an opinion as to who made the "ligature on a stick" but I do not view it as being sophisticated. I've even considered it was made by someone who was was familiar with the concept of garrotes but not the specifics of how they were used. Because I cannot imagine why they'd bother to attach a stick that's functionally useless unless they were trying to make it look like something more complicated than it was. My understanding is that the knot was basically tied right close to her neck, it was not like a slipknot that could be moved or adjusted like Lou Smit used to claim.

I'm going to reread Delmar England's analysis of the knots again, it's here if anyone is interested:
http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

All this talk about whether or not it was, technically, a garrote or not is splitting hairs in all honesty.

Whether you want to call it "a garrote" or not, it was a sophisticated "object" nonetheless, and the fact the ligature was knotted around her neck is also a "sophisticated" way to strangle someone. If a child was going to kill another child, he wouldn't have thought to knot the ligature around the neck; he would simply wrap the ligature around and pull.

I guess that's the one thing I don't get about BDI'ers. You'd pretty much have to assume that this child was essentially a mastermind who got away with murder with just a minimal amount of help (tying the other end of the garrote and writing the note) scott free. I simply don't believe that. I don't discount the theory that he was somewhat involved (i.e. the head blow) or that he knew more than he has ever let on, but to assume he was involved to this degree in far-fetched for me.

There's nothing sophisticated about that cord, imo. It's a plain old slip-knot of some sort. I could round up a hundred kids by noon tomorrow that could rig up something better than that to catch a critter. And they wouldn't be masterminds either. They'd be ordinary kids.

[video]https://youtu.be/9YJZjJkKO9g[/video]

 

[Tortoise]

Q. What is the truth about the Ramsey flight to Atlanta for the funeral? Did John pilot the plane (as I have read somewhere but can't remember where) with casket on board, or did they travel on a plane organised for them by Lockheed?

 

[andreww]

Q. What is the truth about the Ramsey flight to Atlanta for the funeral? Did John pilot the plane (as I have read somewhere but can't remember where) with casket on board, or did they travel on a plane organised for them by Lockheed?

I'm pretty sure he didn't pilot that flight. He might have sat up there but my memory says he didn't fly. Someone else will give a more decisive answer I'm sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

DFF, Without the stick the user would have to wrap the cord around their hand to get any kind of tension. I suppose they may have been worried about it leaving a rope burn mark on their hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

I've read an account somewhere by John Ramsey explaining why he asked for his golf clubs. He said a friend was staying and he offered to lend them to him. Now I'm searching everywhere and can't find where I read it. It doesn't come up in a google search of acandyrose and I think I'm going mad. Was it in DOI? Can anyone help me out? Pretty please.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I've read an account somewhere by John Ramsey explaining why he asked for his golf clubs. He said a friend was staying and he offered to lend them to him. Now I'm searching everywhere and can't find where I read it. It doesn't come up in a google search of acandyrose and I think I'm going mad. Was it in DOI? Can anyone help me out? Pretty please.

When I read your post all I could think of was - Wow - isn't it amazing that they had an answer for everything? He had probably already thought that one up knowing he might be asked.

The most bizarre thing JR ever stated was that he felt "relief" when he found his daughter's body. Really? His beloved child was was lying there lifeless with a ligature around her neck and he felt 'relief'?

Strange people indeed.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
There is no garrote it is a figment of your imagination. There is a ligature with a piece of paintbrush attached to it, that's it.

The garrote thing was promoted by Lou Smit as a torture device used by a psychopath.

.

Again, can we stop splitting hairs here? I put garrote in quotes in the post you quoted for a reason, thinking it would prevent a post like this, to no avail obviously. Whatever you want to call it, "garrote," "piece of string with a stick," etc. I will continue to call it a garrote for both convenience and due to the fact that is what investigators refer to is as also.

Tortoise,
OK, I apologize, looks like they need to amend their theory. Although given the amateur fabrication of the ligature and paintbrush, you could make a case that he did that also.

Yet I would not go that far.

.

As Tortoise explained, others think he did fashion it. You say "I would not go that far," which is exactly what I was saying on the page prior.

The pee stain on the rug in the boiler room pretty much disproves that the crime scene was the bedroom and that is where the final act occurred.

 

[Userid]

Userid,


Nope this is your misapprehension. BR allegedly sexually assaulted JonBenet, whacked her on the head and asphyxiated her, then cleaned her up, redressing her in the size-12's and his long johns.

Along came the parents who added the paintbrush and fashioned the ligature with knotting, allegedly assaulted JonBenet internally with the paintbrush to mask what went before, possibly leaving the missing piece inside her? Then she was redressed in the white gap top, wrapped in the white blanket and placed in the wine-cellar, following which the RN was authored.

No mastermind required for that sequence of events, other than Patsy covering for BR over the size-12's and his long johns.

BDI is simple, Burke killed JonBenet and the parents staged it to look like an Intruder Did it.

Simples.

.

(To the bolded) So a nine year old is capable of thoroughly cleaning her, redressing her, etc. all without leaving a trace of evidence (hair, fingerprint, etc.) behind on any single item? Not buying it, sorry.

Why would a nine year old "clean" her? Why would he care enough to do that?

If the missing piece was left inside her, it would have been recovered.

 

[Miz Adventure]

(To the bolded) So a nine year old is capable of thoroughly cleaning her, redressing her, etc. all without leaving a trace of evidence (hair, fingerprint, etc.) behind on any single item? Not buying it, sorry.

Why would a nine year old "clean" her? Why would he care enough to do that?

If the missing piece was left inside her, it would have been recovered.

I believe Burke did both parts of the assault - the head bashing AND the strangulation.

The rest was staging by the parents.

Although...it is highly possible that BR did all that stuff with the paintbrush. Boys of that age are sexually curious.

He may have wiped her after he saw the blood and panicked. Or it may have been one of the parents.

I suspect the parents inserted the paintbrush handle into the tape around JBR's neck, just to look more like an outsider did it.

 

[Userid]

I don't really understand how inserting a stick at the end of the noose would be indicative that a stranger did the crime. Why would that be indicative of such? It just seems completely pointless, time consuming, and unnecessary.

 

[UKGuy]

(To the bolded) So a nine year old is capable of thoroughly cleaning her, redressing her, etc. all without leaving a trace of evidence (hair, fingerprint, etc.) behind on any single item? Not buying it, sorry.

Why would a nine year old "clean" her? Why would he care enough to do that?

If the missing piece was left inside her, it would have been recovered.

Userid,
BBM: Because he is attempting to hide whatever took place. Wiping a body clean is pretty simple stuff. Leaving behind forensic evidence, well that would be minimal given the circumstances, its not a Freddy Kreuger bloodbath.

If the missing piece was left inside her, it would have been recovered.

Sure, that might be why Coroner Meyer refers to Birefringent foreign Material in his autopsy report?

If it was found , then it's standard protocol not to make it public knowledge.

it's not a big deal more a detail in a staged homicide.


.

 

[Userid]

^ I'm confused. He had the foresight to clean her up, but left the noose around her neck? He wanted to hide the assault, but not hide the fact she was dead? Whether there was a lot of blood or not, I still feel a child in particular would have left something behind.

That material you speak of, I assume, are the shards of wood that were left inside; not the whole, thick piece of the brush that is still missing.