Questions you'd like answers to...

[Userid]

I don't even take the kitchen pillow into account as it doesn't really convey anything except in the imagination of theories. The only thing interesting about it is how its hopping all over the place and as you know, its not the only item in the house that was doing that. Its main problem is that its doing this in heavy traffic. How early in the timeline did it show up in a photograph? If its before the house turned into grand central station, then MAYBE it might mean something but even then...it doesn't tell us much. One of the kids could've been carrying it but dropped or threw it down for whatever reason and then later on, someone picked it up. Did these kids watch wrestling? Little kids would sometimes "wrestle" their pillows. Another thing...anything concerning this pillow could've happened before that night.

The fact that some theories use the pillow as a building block is laughable. One of many things that show how thin BDI really is.

It means less than nothing if it wasn't photographed before every Tom, Dick, and Sheila showed up.

Fair enough. I agree that if it wasn't photographed before the house was turned upside down (by all the guests), then yes, it's irrelevant.

But if it was photographed before that, it may be substantial. I mean, I can't really think of an odder place to find a pillow than a kitchen, but then again, these were the (very messy) R's.

 

[otg]

I wonder if any of her injuries could have been made by a carabiner or something usually kept with one. Or if it was used in any way really. Hi Tek hiking boots (complete with compass) and a carabiner, some rope, I wonder if there is a theme or it's a coincidence. It is Colorado after all.

An array of climbing equipment (note that many of the crabs have pre-manufactured lengths of flat cord):

 

[icedtea4me]

Do you think it was wise for Kolar to have mentioned the candy box and pajama pants in his book when he knew that neither item had been collected into evidence and, therefore, could never be tested?

 

[AlGx]

AlGx,
Not that I'm aware of. I favor her being restrained by her shirt collar which then causes her to fall unconcious to floor hitting her head on the way down?
.

Hm, that could be true- but what would cause the gap in her skull? What would she fall against?

 

[Userid]

All due respect, but the "pulled shirt" theory is utterly bunk in my view. Nothing about those markings indicate they came from a shirt. If a shirt was pulled with that amount of force, there would have been at least some tearing or stretching exhibited in the child's shirt; there was nothing of the sort (that was ever reported). Also, it just doesn't make much sense. If she was pulled by someone from behind, she would have fallen into that person directly behind her (into that person's lower body). Otherwise, whoever pulled the shirt would have then had to simultaneously jump out of the way for the back of her head to hit the ground.

 

[otg]

Was JB strangled twice?

It’s interesting you would ask that question, AlGx. It has been stated by many, and several “experts” have incorporated it into their theories of what happened without explaining why.

Dr. Cyril Wecht theorized that JonBenet had the cord tightened several times while she was alive before it was unintentionally tightened too much causing her death. It is his expressed belief that this was some kind of an “erotic asphyxia” scenario implicating John Ramsey. His words were that she died from a “sex game gone awry.” According to Wecht, “The garrote had been just tight enough to perform its role in this sex game -- to decrease the oxygen to JonBenet's brain and provide a perverse thrill for the molester through vicarious autoerotic asphyxiation.”
(I would want to ask him how he thinks the tight knot at her neck with a paintbrush handle at only one end would allow this tightening and loosening of the cord.)

Det. Linda Arndt told Elizabeth Vargas on GMA that the cord had been wrapped around her neck twice. (I can’t find the interview for her exact words, but I remember at the time that it was a startling “revelation” that caused a lot of speculation.) There was no explanation about her exact meaning. Did she mean there was evidence that it had been wrapped in two separate events, or did she mean the cord was wrapped twice around her neck as it was found during the autopsy?
(If you look at the autopsy photos of the cord which was cut from around her neck, it’s obvious it was only wrapped once in situ because of the diameter of the loop.)

Anyone ever notice a subtle little hint at how Lawrence Schiller thought the cord was wrapped in the movie PMPT? In addition to writing the book, Schiller also directed the movie and tried to make it as accurate as he could with what he understood about the facts. Watch the movie starting at the link below where Smit (Kris Kristofferson) asks one of the investigators to place the noose around his neck and then make a garrote:

https://youtu.be/6eC_EyIEOuI?t=2h13m17s

Did you notice that when the detective constructs the “garrote” while Smit is getting down on his knees, he doubles the loop (or as Smit calls it in the movie, the “noose&#8221? Watch it again if you missed it.
(On a side-note, notice where they are when Schiller has Smit demonstrating where JonBenet was strangled to death.)

Some “expert” (I don’t even remember which one right now) theorized that she had been initially strangled by her shirt collar before the ligature was placed on her causing her death. His theory was that as the collar was twisted, one of the assailant’s bent finger and knuckle caused the triangular mark on her neck. (I think this triangular mark resulted from a completely different reason, but I won’t bore everyone with that right now.)

Perhaps some might even be confused by the wording in the AR where it says:

Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior neck is a length of white cord similar to that described as being tied around the right wrist.
​

Could some be confusing that the “double knot” implies a double loop?
(I don’t know.)

So why do so many “experts” incorporate two (or more) strangulations into their theories and why do many posters accept that JonBenet was strangled twice without even questioning it and often state it as if it is fact? Thank you, AlGx, for questioning this. I’d be interested in hearing from other posters why they think she was. I have an idea why, but I’d really like to hear others’ reasoning.

 

[OliviaG1996]

All due respect, but the "pulled shirt" theory is utterly bunk in my view. Nothing about those markings indicate they came from a shirt. If a shirt was pulled with that amount of force, there would have been at least some tearing or stretching exhibited in the child's shirt; there was nothing of the sort (that was ever reported). Also, it just doesn't make much sense. If she was pulled by someone from behind, she would have fallen into that person directly behind her (into that person's lower body). Otherwise, whoever pulled the shirt would have then had to simultaneously jump out of the way for the back of her head to hit the ground.

You don't think it's possible JBR was grabbed by the shirt collar (perhaps of the Barbie nightgown) from the front, let go, JBR runs, and then she is hit on the head with a blunt object?

 

[Userid]

^ I'm unsure exactly why, OTG. One observation I do recall is seeing a lot of BDI'ers claim the "strangled twice" theory. It seems like BDI believe she was stranged by BR some other (less "complicated," for lack of a better word) way (hence the "shirt theory," etc.); and that the 2nd strangulation (with the "garrote") was for staging purposes. There's nothing wrong in believing that necessarily, although I'd disagree. I believe there was just one strangulation. That said, I do understand why BDI believe that. I'm more of a PDI than anything, and I mirror such thinking to why some PDI'ers believe that the paintbrush was used to cover up prior sexual abuse (that may have occurred that very night).

 

[Userid]

You don't think it's possible JBR was grabbed by the shirt collar (perhaps of the Barbie nightgown) from the front, let go, JBR runs, and then she is hit on the head with a blunt object?

I'm unsure on that; it's a different scenario than if she were pulled from behind and she either hit her head and/or was strangled from her shirt. I'd have to give it more thought before answering. Technically, your scenario seems more plausible, but unproven in many facets. I don't think there was ever any indication that she was wearing the barbie nightgown at all; nor that there was any stress on the nightgown. All we know in your scenario, definitively, is that she was hit on the head.

The nightgown is a big question mark, though. If I remember correctly, there was a description of the kids' playroom by one of the detectives called to the scene, and they described the surreal feeling of seeing a life-sized naked barbie in the playroom. Many believe the nightgown clung to the blanket while both were in the dryer, but I always wondered if the nightgown was from (i.e. worn by) the life-sized barbie and removed that night. It's something we will never know, unfortunately.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm unsure on that; it's a different scenario than if she were pulled from behind and she either hit her head and/or was strangled from her shirt. I'd have to give it more thought before answering. Technically, your scenario seems more plausible, but unproven in many facets. I don't think there was ever any indication that she was wearing the barbie nightgown at all; nor that there was any stress on the nightgown. All we know in your scenario, definitively, is that she was hit on the head.

The nightgown is a big question mark, though. If I remember correctly, there was a description of the kids' playroom by one of the detectives called to the scene, and they described the surreal feeling of seeing a life-sized naked barbie in the playroom. Many believe the nightgown clung to the blanket while both were in the dryer, but I always wondered if the nightgown was from (i.e. worn by) the life-sized barbie and removed that night. It's something we will never know, unfortunately.

Userid,

Many believe the nightgown clung to the blanket while both were in the dryer,

What if it did. Please explain how after JonBenet was wrapped in the blanket, anyone failed to notice it, like its a homicide staging not an interlude to a shower?

Then there is the question of bloodstains, JonBenet's in particular deposited on the blanket, how come, when JonBenet is nicely dressed in Burke Ramsey's long johns and Patsy's niece's oversized size-12 underwear?

Patsy identified the nightgown as JonBenet's in one of her interviews. From memory JR said something along the lines that it should not be there?

Also we can skip over Burke Ramsey's touch-dna being present on the nightgown!


.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*Then there is the question of bloodstains, JonBenet's in particular deposited on the blanket, how come, when JonBenet is nicely dressed in Burke Ramsey's long johns and Patsy's niece's oversized size-12 underwear?*snip*

The bloodstains on the blanket, imo, could have come from the abrasions.

 

[Userid]

^ Only after you explain what's conjecture and what's fact in your post, UKGuy.

You're all over the place here. Like I said, many believe like you do (the nightgown clung to the blanket via static electricity); and that's fine -- I wasn't criticizing that particular element. With that said, what you fail to realize is, I can ask you the exact same question you just asked me: how did the stager(s) fail to notice the nightgown? Particularly, when they were the ones that wrapped JBR up "like a papoose." We can play this game for ages, and we'll still get nowhere.

 

[UKGuy]

You don't think it's possible JBR was grabbed by the shirt collar (perhaps of the Barbie nightgown) from the front, let go, JBR runs, and then she is hit on the head with a blunt object?

OliviaG1996,
Its physically and medically possible. Don't let the PDI folks bamboozle you with their narrative.

Someone could have compressed JonBenet's vagus nerve causing her to fall unconcious, then hit her head somewhere on the path to the floor.

Alternatively someone was manually restraining JonBenet by the shirt collar, she breaks free, is chased, then whacked on the head.

The ligature device, IMO, is pure staging, all intended to explain away the presence of the paintbrush, and any prior marking to JonBenet's neck, its part of the fake MO implied by the ligature device.

The ligature never mind the paintbrush is completely redundant, what intruder needs to ligature asphyxiate JonBenet, also delivering blunt force as a precursor, come on?

JonBenet could simply have been manually asphyxiated or by placing a pillow over her face, simples.

The rest is staging.

 

[UKGuy]

^ Only after you explain what's conjecture and what's fact in your post, UKGuy.

You're all over the place here. Like I said, many believe like you do (the nightgown clung to the blanket via static electricity); and that's fine -- I wasn't criticizing that particular element. With that said, what you fail to realize is, I can ask you the exact same question you just asked me: how did the stager(s) fail to notice the nightgown? Particularly, when they were the ones that wrapped JBR up "like a papoose." We can play this game for ages, and we'll still get nowhere.

Userid,

You're all over the place here. Like I said, many believe like you do (the nightgown clung to the blanket via static electricity);

For the readers benefit thats todays Fake News direct from the horses mouth!

I have never proposed the static electricity explanation, but I will defend those that wish to do so.

how did the stager(s) fail to notice the nightgown?

They never, the nightgown might be part of the primary crime-scene, so alike JonBenet had to hidden from view?

JR found the nightgown on his travels that morning and tossed it into the wine-cellar?

Where we get to is that the nightgown should not be there, particularly stained with JonBenet's blood and Burke Ramsey's touch-dna.

It does not admit of a just so explanation like static electricity!

.

 

[UKGuy]

The bloodstains on the blanket, imo, could have come from the abrasions.

icedtea4me,
You could be correct, although I'm not certain that any of the abrasions drew blood, would Coroner Meyer not have itemized that in the autopsy report?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
You could be correct, although I'm not certain that any of the abrasions drew blood, would Coroner Meyer not have itemized that in the autopsy report?

.

The abrasions were noted as being rust-colored.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996autopsy.htm

 

[UKGuy]

The abrasions were noted as being rust-colored.

http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996autopsy.htm

icedtea4me,
OK, not sure of the specific location, but the source being an abrasion is an option?

.

 

[BBB167893]

OliviaG1996,
Its physically and medically possible. Don't let the PDI folks bamboozle you with their narrative.

I didn't know we had a "narrative," UKGuy. There's something like 750 variations on PDI. (Let me know if I'm lowballing that number!)

 

[UKGuy]

I didn't know we had a "narrative," UKGuy. There's something like 750 variations on PDI. (Let me know if I'm lowballing that number!)

Oh I'm sure, that's definitely highball, especially when compared to these guys:

PDI has the bedwetting narrative, which drags in Burke Ramsey. Then as you suggest there are all the varieties which incorporate punishment routines, douching, etc. A maternal routine gone wrong is how I might characterize this as a narrative.

BDI has its narrative, its focus is not bedwetting, more brother on sister gone wrong.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

For the readers benefit thats todays Fake News direct from the horses mouth!

I have never proposed the static electricity explanation, but I will defend those that wish to do so.


They never, the nightgown might be part of the primary crime-scene, so alike JonBenet had to hidden from view?

JR found the nightgown on his travels that morning and tossed it into the wine-cellar?

Where we get to is that the nightgown should not be there, particularly stained with JonBenet's blood and Burke Ramsey's touch-dna.

It does not admit of a just so explanation like static electricity!

.

To the bolded -- this is what happens when you "let the reader disambiguate what you say" instead of simply and clearly illustrating your exact point. So don't blame me for misinterpreting your stance, due to you not being clear enough and ambiguous (by your very own admission) with your posts. You clearly said, in your prior post, "What if it did," with regard to whether the nightgown clung to the blanket.

Why don't you just say what your exact theory is regarding the barbie nightgown, as opposed to jumping all over the place with multiple subjects and questions (half of which rhetorical).