Questions you'd like answers to...

[UKGuy]

I'm interested to know, from BDI'ers, how you think the R's behaved right when they discovered JBR.

Let's assume BR woke them up and told them: one or both goes to the body (wherever it is, at this point). They see her. What do you think their immediate reaction was?

Now, let's assume that one or both of them discovered JBR without BR telling them anything at all. They (or one of the R's) see her. What do you think the immediate reaction was?

Did they immediately know, in either scenario, that she was dead? Did they immediately know, in either scenario, that a sexual assault took place? Did they, without touching the body at all, immediately run away, put on gloves, begin writing the ransom note?

I'm just curious about the immediate chain of events. To me, the first thing to do would be to tend immediately to my child, in either scenario, and perform CPR; or scream to the heavens to call 911 -- even if my own son had told me "I did something to JBR." It would be a natural immediate reaction, as opposed to a reaction of (without touching the body at all) "I need to cover this up; I need to grab some gloves."

To me, that's why I believe one of the parents did it. One of them already knew she was dead -- because in either case (whether BR told them or not), even if it was their own son, the immediate natural reaction would be too automatic to suppress in such a situation. You would still do everything you could to save your little girl and you would worry about an excuse/cover-up for your son later.

Userid,

To me, the first thing to do would be to tend immediately to my child, in either scenario, and perform CPR; or scream to the heavens to call 911

This never happened precisely because the parents would have been arrested.

They must have know she was dead or beyond the point of recovery, since irrespective of which RDI you support, the parents patently staged and subsequently enacted a homicide crime-scene.

Technically JonBenet may have still been alive but functionally brain dead, so Patsy applying the ligature plus paintbrush might be a moot point?

Everything that happened to JonBenet could have been done by a nine-year old boy. There were no adult skills required to assault JonBenet in the manner she was.

BR's touch dna was recovered from the pink nightgown dumped into the wine-cellar, BR's footprint was left on the wine-cellar floor, as was his pen-knife. JonBenet was found dead in the wine-cellar wearing BR's long johns, and over sized underwear.

BPD have never revealed if BR's touch dna was ever recovered from her body or clothing, or if that is a zero hit?

With the GJ declining to indict the parents on murder 1 charges that leaves BR as the person referenced in the True Bills.

The case is patently BDI personally I cannot divine a motive though.

.

 

[kanzz]

I'm interested to know, from BDI'ers, how you think the R's behaved right when they discovered JBR.

Let's assume BR woke them up and told them: one or both goes to the body (wherever it is, at this point). They see her. What do you think their immediate reaction was?

Now, let's assume that one or both of them discovered JBR without BR telling them anything at all. They (or one of the R's) see her. What do you think the immediate reaction was?

Did they immediately know, in either scenario, that she was dead? Did they immediately know, in either scenario, that a sexual assault took place? Did they, without touching the body at all, immediately run away, put on gloves, begin writing the ransom note?

I'm just curious about the immediate chain of events. To me, the first thing to do would be to tend immediately to my child, in either scenario, and perform CPR; or scream to the heavens to call 911 -- even if my own son had told me "I did something to JBR." It would be a natural immediate reaction, as opposed to a reaction of (without touching the body at all) "I need to cover this up; I need to grab some gloves."

To me, that's why I believe one of the parents did it. One of them already knew she was dead -- because in either case (whether BR told them or not), even if it was their own son, the immediate natural reaction would be too automatic to suppress in such a situation. You would still do everything you could to save your little girl and you would worry about an excuse/cover-up for your son later.

I'm not married to any particular theory RE: BDI, but I do have some speculation about the course of events that night. JMO:
JR went to bed
PR never went to bed and was busy packing
BR never went to bed
JB never went to bed
PR knew the children were up and playing
BDI all
BR was either caught immediately after by PR, or
BR went to bed immediately after, and then
PR found JB
Her probable immediate reaction was one of denial, but
PR knew JB was obviously dead and beyond recovery
And she knew who had done this
So, she decided right away to protect her only living child
As soon as she gathered her thoughts together and developed the IDI theory,
PR placed the body in the WR, placed the remaining cord around the wrists, and the tape over the mouth,
Then she went upstairs and wrote the RN.
When she knew JR was out of the shower, she screamed out to him.

 

[icedtea4me]

Userid,

This never happened precisely because the parents would have been arrested.

They must have know she was dead or beyond the point of recovery, since irrespective of which RDI you support, the parents patently staged and subsequently enacted a homicide crime-scene.

Technically JonBenet may have still been alive but functionally brain dead, so Patsy applying the ligature plus paintbrush might be a moot point?

Everything that happened to JonBenet could have been done by a nine-year old boy. There were no adult skills required to assault JonBenet in the manner she was.

BR's touch dna was recovered from the pink nightgown dumped into the wine-cellar, BR's footprint was left on the wine-cellar floor, as was his pen-knife. JonBenet was found dead in the wine-cellar wearing BR's long johns, and over sized underwear.

BPD have never revealed if BR's touch dna was ever recovered from her body or clothing, or if that is a zero hit?

With the GJ declining to indict the parents on murder 1 charges that leaves BR as the person referenced in the True Bills.

The case is patently BDI personally I cannot divine a motive though.

.

If counts IV(a) and VII were the only counts against each John and Patsy, then they would have been labeled as counts I and II. As it is, this is not the case.

John
Count I (0-8 votes received)
Count II (0-8 votes received)
Count III (0-8 votes received)
Count IV (0-8 votes received)
Count IVa (9 votes minimum received)
Count IVb (0-8 votes received)
Count V (0-8 votes received)
Count VI (0-8 votes received)
Count VII (9 votes minimum received)

The same applies to Patsy.

Just because the other counts didn't receive the minimum number of nine votes doesn't mean that those counts don't exist.

 

[I Grok It]

Been lurking awhile, but have had a burning question and can't seem to find an answer. Does anyone know at what point the ligature around JB's neck was first called a garrotte, and by whom?

 

[kanzz]

Been lurking awhile, but have had a burning question and can't seem to find an answer. Does anyone know at what point the ligature around JB's neck was first called a garrotte, and by whom?

Welcome, I Grok It. That's a very good question. I'd like to know the answer, too.

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

I'm just curious about the immediate chain of events. To me, the first thing to do would be to tend immediately to my child, in either scenario, and perform CPR; or scream to the heavens to call 911 -- even if my own son had told me "I did something to JBR." It would be a natural immediate reaction, as opposed to a reaction of (without touching the body at all) "I need to cover this up; I need to grab some gloves."

To me, that's why I believe one of the parents did it. One of them already knew she was dead -- because in either case (whether BR told them or not), even if it was their own son, the immediate natural reaction would be too automatic to suppress in such a situation. You would still do everything you could to save your little girl and you would worry about an excuse/cover-up for your son later.

I wouldn't say I am a hard BDI, but I no longer believe an intruder did it which I did for years. We all know that someone in that house killed JB. IMO Burke was the one who caused the blow (accidently).

I struggle because this is how I would react if one of my kids was laying unconcious. I would go into panic mode. Call 000. Scream for my husband. I find it hard to understand why any parent wouldn't call for an ambulance. So I find it even harder to understand how a parent could go on to stage such a horrific crime.

I think Burke caused the blow. Tried waking JB up (possibly poking her with his train track, tied something around her neck to drag her) but couldn't so he snuck to bed. Patsy went down to the basement to tell the kids it was tims to go to bed and saw JB laying unconcious, maybe convulsing. She then screamed (which is what the neighbour heard) ran to get John. I'm guessing they went into panic mode. Waited to see if JB would come to. They paced back and forth for ages trying to figure out what to do (any normal parent would call 000 and do CPR). And this where I get stuck. I sense there was a lot of panic and distress that night. No doubt in my mind.

I also wanted to add that I think all theories have flaws and that I don't think anyone will ever know for certain what went on it that house that night. I do hope that JB gets justice one day.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I'm interested to know, from BDI'ers, how you think the R's behaved right when they discovered JBR.

Let's assume BR woke them up and told them: one or both goes to the body (wherever it is, at this point). They see her. What do you think their immediate reaction was?

Now, let's assume that one or both of them discovered JBR without BR telling them anything at all. They (or one of the R's) see her. What do you think the immediate reaction was?

Did they immediately know, in either scenario, that she was dead? Did they immediately know, in either scenario, that a sexual assault took place? Did they, without touching the body at all, immediately run away, put on gloves, begin writing the ransom note?

I'm just curious about the immediate chain of events. To me, the first thing to do would be to tend immediately to my child, in either scenario, and perform CPR; or scream to the heavens to call 911 -- even if my own son had told me "I did something to JBR." It would be a natural immediate reaction, as opposed to a reaction of (without touching the body at all) "I need to cover this up; I need to grab some gloves."

To me, that's why I believe one of the parents did it. One of them already knew she was dead -- because in either case (whether BR told them or not), even if it was their own son, the immediate natural reaction would be too automatic to suppress in such a situation. You would still do everything you could to save your little girl and you would worry about an excuse/cover-up for your son later.

I totally agree with all of that.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Userid,

This never happened precisely because the parents would have been arrested.

.

Would parents really get arrested if they called 911 because they discovered their child with a head injury?

I'm certain that an inquiry would have taken place once the full extent of the injury was known but I think that the skull fracture could probably have been explained away as an accidental fall, or something. The Ramseys, with the help of their lawyers, could have come up with a convincing story.

 

[andreww]

Would parents really get arrested if they called 911 because they discovered their child with a head injury?

I'm certain that an inquiry would have taken place once the full extent of the injury was known but I think that the skull fracture could probably have been explained away as an accidental fall, or something. The Ramseys, with the help of their lawyers, could have come up with a convincing story.

You are right. I think the problem was that there was something else wrong with her by the time they found her, either strangulation or bleeding from the vagina. Add either of those two circumstances and calling 911 would mean someone was going to jail.

 

[Cranberry]

Been lurking awhile, but have had a burning question and can't seem to find an answer. Does anyone know at what point the ligature around JB's neck was first called a garrotte, and by whom?

Hello, I'm not certain when the term "garrotte" was first used, I know it was early on. For starters, here is a Daily Camera article from 1/12/97, although it doesn't have a source:

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/01/12-2.html

(snip)
The crime scene and autopsy photos depict the murdered Little Miss Colorado wrapped in a blanket, sources said. "There are others showing the garrote used to strangle JonBenet, another one with rope marks on her wrist, and one with her hand and a coroner's tag," a source said.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

This never happened precisely because the parents would have been arrested.

They must have know she was dead or beyond the point of recovery, since irrespective of which RDI you support, the parents patently staged and subsequently enacted a homicide crime-scene.

Technically JonBenet may have still been alive but functionally brain dead, so Patsy applying the ligature plus paintbrush might be a moot point?

Everything that happened to JonBenet could have been done by a nine-year old boy. There were no adult skills required to assault JonBenet in the manner she was.

BR's touch dna was recovered from the pink nightgown dumped into the wine-cellar, BR's footprint was left on the wine-cellar floor, as was his pen-knife. JonBenet was found dead in the wine-cellar wearing BR's long johns, and over sized underwear.

BPD have never revealed if BR's touch dna was ever recovered from her body or clothing, or if that is a zero hit?

With the GJ declining to indict the parents on murder 1 charges that leaves BR as the person referenced in the True Bills.

The case is patently BDI personally I cannot divine a motive though.

.

In other words, they made zero attempt to save her. They walked into the room, saw her lying there, and said, "well, she's dead. Let's start the cover-up." Makes no sense to me.

Also, I disagree that everything that was performed that night could have been done by a nine year old. Strangling a person in general would have been difficult (physically, if not emotionally) for another child to perform, for starters. Completely disagree, actually, but I know we'll just get in a circular argument.

 

[Userid]

I'm not married to any particular theory RE: BDI, but I do have some speculation about the course of events that night. JMO:
JR went to bed
PR never went to bed and was busy packing
BR never went to bed
JB never went to bed
PR knew the children were up and playing
BDI all
BR was either caught immediately after by PR, or
BR went to bed immediately after, and then
PR found JB
Her probable immediate reaction was one of denial, but
PR knew JB was obviously dead and beyond recovery
And she knew who had done this
So, she decided right away to protect her only living child
As soon as she gathered her thoughts together and developed the IDI theory,
PR placed the body in the WR, placed the remaining cord around the wrists, and the tape over the mouth,
Then she went upstairs and wrote the RN.
When she knew JR was out of the shower, she screamed out to him.

Why would PR let the children stay up when she knew they were leaving early the next morning?

And again, I just don't understand: PR knew by simply looking at her? She didn't touch her; didn't attempt CPR; didn't completely freak the F... out; didn't immediately call 911 even if there was no pulse or no breath. This is her daughter we're talking about. If she was completely innocent before the attack ever occurred, she would have done all of these things.

 

[Userid]

Would parents really get arrested if they called 911 because they discovered their child with a head injury?

I'm certain that an inquiry would have taken place once the full extent of the injury was known but I think that the skull fracture could probably have been explained away as an accidental fall, or something. The Ramseys, with the help of their lawyers, could have come up with a convincing story.

Thank you -- no, they wouldn't. And also, they wouldn't get arrested if they found their daughter with a cord around her neck and sexually assaulted -- it still would have looked like IDI either way. Staging would have been an after-thought to saving your child's life; not a forethought. They could have still very easily asserted that IDI it after calling police and without staging anything -- all they would have to do is clean-up (BR, etc.), not stage.

 

[andreww]

I'm not married to any particular theory RE: BDI, but I do have some speculation about the course of events that night. JMO:
JR went to bed
PR never went to bed and was busy packing
BR never went to bed
JB never went to bed
PR knew the children were up and playing
BDI all
BR was either caught immediately after by PR, or
BR went to bed immediately after, and then
PR found JB
Her probable immediate reaction was one of denial, but
PR knew JB was obviously dead and beyond recovery
And she knew who had done this
So, she decided right away to protect her only living child
As soon as she gathered her thoughts together and developed the IDI theory,
PR placed the body in the WR, placed the remaining cord around the wrists, and the tape over the mouth,
Then she went upstairs and wrote the RN.
When she knew JR was out of the shower, she screamed out to him.

I can't say that I disagree with any of this. My question then becomes; when did John become aware of what had happened? Some have theorized that it happened when he discovered the body at about 11:00 am. What puzzles me is that the ransom note states that they will be called between 8:00 & 10:00. John is designated as the person that will field the call. At precisely 10:00 John disappears for about 80 minutes. In my opinion this shows that John knew damned well that there would be no call. He dutifully waited those two hours, then disappeared. I don't know about you but if my daughter had been kidnapped you would have had to pry me away from that phone.

So was John already aware of JBs death or was he simply clueing in on things like the bizarre ransom note, Patsy's over the top acting, or possibly lies that she was already telling detectives? By 10:00 was he convinced that the whole kidnapping was a charade and he decided to go on a fact finding mission?

But most importantly, I don't believe that anybody but John went to bed when they got home at about 9:00. Logic tells me that because of the early morning departure, Patsy would not have let the kids stay up late either, so whatever happened happened quickly. Because JB obviously had a full bladder at the time of death, and because we know that she had bed wetting issues, Logically if she were readied for bed she would have been made to use the toilet first. So more than likely when they got home, Burke and JB got into their pyjamas then went downstairs to play for a bit. Patsy went to pack in JARs room. John went to bed (according to LHP John never helped with the children). I believe, after a quick snack, that JB was lured to the basement by Burke with the flashlight, possibly on the premise of finding the gifts in the WC (Could Burke have been the secret Santa that JB talked about?).

From there the order of events are anyone's guess and the evidence simply isn't strong enough to put together anything more than a guess.

 

[andreww]

Thank you -- no, they wouldn't. And also, they wouldn't get arrested if they found their daughter with a cord around her neck and sexually assaulted -- it still would have looked like IDI either way. Staging would have been an after-thought to saving your child's life; not a forethought. They could have still very easily asserted that IDI it after calling police and without staging anything -- all they would have to do is clean-up (BR, etc.), not stage.

A ransom note is generally brief and succinct. A mother will not generally look to the skies and beg Lazarus to raise her daughter from the dead. Patsy was overdramatic to the nth degree. Did they have to stage? Maybe not, but that is obviously not Patsy's style. Everything that woman does is a big production. Can we agree on that?

 

[andreww]

Why would PR let the children stay up when she knew they were leaving early the next morning?

And again, I just don't understand: PR knew by simply looking at her? She didn't touch her; didn't attempt CPR; didn't completely freak the F... out; didn't immediately call 911 even if there was no pulse or no breath. This is her daughter we're talking about. If she was completely innocent before the attack ever occurred, she would have done all of these things.

Who said the kids stayed up late? The R's got home just after 9:00. Kids could easily have been granted half an hour playtime and still been in bed at a reasonable hour. Its also quite likely that Patsy would have needed access to their rooms to finish packing, so it would be understandable if she let them play downstairs.

 

[Userid]

A ransom note is generally brief and succinct. A mother will not generally look to the skies and beg Lazarus to raise her daughter from the dead. Patsy was overdramatic to the nth degree. Did they have to stage? Maybe not, but that is obviously not Patsy's style. Everything that woman does is a big production. Can we agree on that?

Being over-dramatic after the fact -- yes. Being over-dramatic before the fact, before your own dying child's life at stake -- no.

 

[andreww]

Being over-dramatic after the fact -- yes. Being over-dramatic before the fact, before your own dying child's life at stake -- no.

Who says she was dying when Patsy got to her? Could have already been dead.

 

[Userid]

Who says she was dying when Patsy got to her? Could have already been dead.

She wouldn't know without touching/tending to her. Even if BR said, "I killed her," she wouldn't simply just take his word for it and immediately begin staging.

 

[UKGuy]

Been lurking awhile, but have had a burning question and can't seem to find an answer. Does anyone know at what point the ligature around JB's neck was first called a garrotte, and by whom?

Grok It,
Pretty soon after the autopsy report was released. The National Enquirer speculated how the cord and paintbrush were used to asphyxiate JonBenet.

Garrote as a term was likely used to sensationalize the case, it's a standard term in media crime reporting even if it's not accurate.

You will find Lawrence Schiller referring to garrotes in his book PMPT in the context of Jeff Shapiro's interest in this topic, visiting Boulder public library to research the subject of garrotes, this is mid 1977.


The term made its way into the Carne's documents. Lou Smit was quoted after interviewing JR in 1998:

"She did have her own DNA under her fingernails. She was struggling with that garrote. Whoever was there with her knew that she was struggling. This is a very vicious strangulation."

Lou Smit 48 Hours

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "JonBenét was strangled not once, says Smit, but twice, with this
intricately made device known as a garrote that had to be made by the killer during the murder."

Lou Smit: "You see hair right inside the windings of that cord. That's JonBenét's hair."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "It's a device, says Smit, that was not left there for show. Whoever killed JonBenét used the garrote to strangle her."

Lets just say Lou Smit popularized the use of the term garrote, thereafter it stuck.

.