Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[inspector rex]

Much of it doesn't, rex. That's one reason why these creeps are so hard to catch.

I was referring to RDI assuming prior sexual assault would leave some evidence in the form of scarring or thickening.
McCann's findings were that in all but the severest of cases, traces had gone within days.
And only "petechiae and blood blisters proved to be “markers” for determining the approximate age of an injury" and according to the AR, neither of these were seen on her genitals.
So there was no way that the 'experts' who made this claims would have been able to tell, according to McCann's study.

 

[inspector rex]

I'll help:

"Finally, the detectives turned to the microscopic splinter of cellulose found in JonBenet's vagina, which looked like wood. The broken paintbrush that had been tied to the stick was splintered into shards." (PMPT, p 559.)

Yes, I think Schiller relied on what he was told by Detectives. And from the testimony of the "lead Detective', (ST), there was not much actual evidence to back this up.
What I was referring to was, if not an actual transcript of a forensic report, then a direct statement by the DA or Police Chief of the day.

OliviaG1996 already provided you with one other source, rex.

Yes, the Bonita papers. I've already addressed this source as unreliable.

 

[inspector rex]

As I said, I was reluctant and I didn't have much thinking time. Also, I wasn't sure what you meant. I assumed that you were asking for what sparked the decision to stage AFTER the head blow. Did I get you wrong?

Yes, I was asking if there was no prior sexual assault (by one of the three family in the house that night), then what, in the opinion of an RDI supporter, would have motivated what followed.

You said: "But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it's (the prior sexual assault) taken out of the equation. After the head injury, I guess one scenario (and it's a limited field) is PR's theatrical nature taking over, giving her daughter (and herself, by extension) one last big pageant as a tragic victim. "

I wasn't impressed. If in your opinion the motivation for incriminating yourself for murder, on account of an accident or unintentional event, was simply that Patsy was somewhat OTT, then this was not much motivation at all. To all intents and purposes, she adored her little daughter and I cannot see any actual evidence to the contrary.

So, I think that my original contention that without the prior sexual assault, theory RDI has no motivation for what followed (strangle with tourniquet/garrotte; long involved RN; sexual assault; yarda, yarda) still stands.
If:
There is no actual evidence for prior sexual assault.
Ergo, there is no motivation for the parent(s) to have committed the crime/cover up.
Therefore, RDI is redundant.

 

[Anti-K]

In these instances you mention, the Rs would have been constrained both by lack of experience and lack of time. Would you really expect perfection?

Meanwhile, what about all the IDI contradictions?



As can I.



They might have been counting on people to think like that.



Exactly what could they have said they saw or heard? Their story revolves around not knowing that anything was off-kilter until they "found" the note.



You bet I will.



I'm quite confident with the evidence.

Take the IDI contradictions to the Intruder thread and we’ll have a look at them.
.

Your claim that “their story revolves around not knowing that anything was off-kilter until they ‘found’ the note” is mere speculation. It is no more than opinion. It is also an example of rationalization instead of explanation.

In fact, there is no sound explanation for the Ramseys not providing investigators with some means of entry when their goal was to convince investigators of entry. Saying doors were locked, nothing was seen or heard, etc contradicts the goal. There is no reasonable explanation for this. You MUST rationalize it. Providing something to convince investigators of entry is too simple, too basic, too central to the claim of entry for them to have simply forgot, or hoped investigators would find something on their own, etc.

This is also problematic for those promoting the claim of a staged “failed kidnapping.” Why did the kidnapping fail? Because I heard a noise and called downstairs and went and looked and I must have scare the kidnapper off. He ran out leaving a door open. No I didn’t get a good look at him. Etc.

But, no. They (believed) the doors were locked, and they heard nothing and they saw nothing and slept through everything.

Hmmmm..
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

What's so odd about Meyer consulting other experts?

But you may have seized on something: "who was responsible." It would be one thing to arrest at the hospital. Afterwards, as what happened here, I don't think they could arrest for anything less than murder by the law.

Good question, even better one: who said it was odd that Meyer consulted other experts?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I don't think any RDIs think the reason that the accidental head blow was not reported was because of prior sexual activity. First, I really have a hard time believing that, given the severity of the wound, that this was an accident. It was probably more likely to have been a deliberate act of frustration or rage. But nonetheless, they could have lied and said JB fell down the stairs, but what if doctors were able to save her? The truth would have come out and the Rs would be disgraced. For me, that I the only logical explanation for not immediately calling for medical help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Ramseys did not report an accident (head blow) because they were afraid that the prior abuse would be discovered. This is a prominent, pervasive theory amongst RDI across all discussion groups that I have encountered these last 15+ years. As is the idea that the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death was an attempt to cover up that prior abuse.

But, yes, there is a diversity of opinion. Of course.

BTW, I agree, this head blow was probably a deliberate act and not at all consistent with any explanation of an accident.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Take the IDI contradictions to the Intruder thread and we’ll have a look at them.
.

Your claim that “their story revolves around not knowing that anything was off-kilter until they ‘found’ the note” is mere speculation. It is no more than opinion. It is also an example of rationalization instead of explanation.

In fact, there is no sound explanation for the Ramseys not providing investigators with some means of entry when their goal was to convince investigators of entry. Saying doors were locked, nothing was seen or heard, etc contradicts the goal. There is no reasonable explanation for this. You MUST rationalize it. Providing something to convince investigators of entry is too simple, too basic, too central to the claim of entry for them to have simply forgot, or hoped investigators would find something on their own, etc.

This is also problematic for those promoting the claim of a staged “failed kidnapping.” Why did the kidnapping fail? Because I heard a noise and called downstairs and went and looked and I must have scare the kidnapper off. He ran out leaving a door open. No I didn’t get a good look at him. Etc.

But, no. They (believed) the doors were locked, and they heard nothing and they saw nothing and slept through everything.

Hmmmm..
...

AK

You forget about the broken window with the suitcase under it. I find that whole "John broke the window last summer" story to be very suspicious. Why was it never fixed? Why did John later tell investigators that he locked the window that morning? And did he ever tell anybody else about breaking the window, stripping down to his skivvies and crawling in? Seems like that is just the kind of anecdote you'd tell at a get together with friends.

You can't have it both ways. Your hero LS said there was access, so don't come here and pretend the Ramsey's are innocent because John said the main floor doors were locked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

The Ramseys did not report an accident (head blow) because they were afraid that the prior abuse would be discovered. This is a prominent, pervasive theory amongst RDI across all discussion groups that I have encountered these last 15+ years. As is the idea that the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death was an attempt to cover up that prior abuse.

But, yes, there is a diversity of opinion. Of course.

BTW, I agree, this head blow was probably a deliberate act and not at all consistent with any explanation of an accident.
...

AK

Please don't paint all people with the same brush. I don't try to pin every silly intruder notion on you do I?

I actually agree with you that the paintbrush attack may have been done for other reasons, possibly just for shock value. Although I have no doubt that someone was abusing that child, her virginity was intact and I don't believe that the Ramsey's would have assumed that previous digital abuse would have been present in an autopsy anyway. So either the assault was staging or the final assault was an effort to remove evidence of a more recent assault. An internal wiping in other words.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

You forget about the broken window with the suitcase under it. I find that whole "John broke the window last summer" story to be very suspicious. Why was it never fixed? Why did John later tell investigators that he locked the window that morning? And did he ever tell anybody else about breaking the window, stripping down to his skivvies and crawling in? Seems like that is just the kind of anecdote you'd tell at a get together with friends.

You can't have it both ways. Your hero LS said there was access, so don't come here and pretend the Ramsey's are innocent because John said the main floor doors were locked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I have not forgotten the basement window; however, it is a fact that the Ramseys did not draw investigator’s attention to that window, and in fact, MR Ramsey claimed to have broken it himself. So, once again, the Ramseys did nothing to promote an intruder entry/exit point in contradiction to their supposed intent of having investigators believe in an intruder.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Please don't paint all people with the same brush. I don't try to pin every silly intruder notion on you do I?

I actually agree with you that the paintbrush attack may have been done for other reasons, possibly just for shock value. Although I have no doubt that someone was abusing that child, her virginity was intact and I don't believe that the Ramsey's would have assumed that previous digital abuse would have been present in an autopsy anyway. So either the assault was staging or the final assault was an effort to remove evidence of a more recent assault. An internal wiping in other words.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wrote, “But, yes, there is a diversity of opinion. Of course.”

That means that I am not painting all people with the same brush. So, your accusation, as many of your accusations do, rings false.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think any RDIs think the reason that the accidental head blow was not reported was because of prior sexual activity. First, I really have a hard time believing that, given the severity of the wound, that this was an accident. It was probably more likely to have been a deliberate act of frustration or rage. But nonetheless, they could have lied and said JB fell down the stairs, but what if doctors were able to save her? The truth would have come out and the Rs would be disgraced. For me, that I the only logical explanation for not immediately calling for medical help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many parents who have beaten their kids to death have used the "they fell down the stairs" excuse in the hospital. They ALWAYS get caught because the doctors can always tell whether the child has the injuries consistent with really falling down the stairs. In JB's case, the skull fracture was a displaced fracture (where a rather large piece of the skull was actually "punched out" and into the brain. This is consistent with blunt force trauma, and a skull injury from falling down stairs would be different, although a skull fracture could certainly occur that way. It would just be a different kind. In addition, JB did not exhibit the bruising that certainly occurs with a fall down the stairs. She had only one bruise on her shoulder (which may be consistent with someone kneeling or pressing into it while the garrote was applied) and a small bruise on her labia (other vaginal bruising was internal). The few scratches and "abrasions" on her back and legs were nothing like what a fall down stairs would produce, especially a fall that would produce unconsciousness and/or coma. I think even then the parents knew the "she fell down the stairs" excuse wasn't going to work.

 

[BoldBear]

I'm a little amused with the "Graphic Content" warning in the title. There's very little about this murder that isn't graphic. It took me a while to get over the horror that I would even think about a 6 year old girl's vaginal area. The more I've learned about this case, the more clinically I've been able to approach that taboo. If I'm not careful when talking with friends, I might say something about this case that would make the whole room blush.

As for the garrote (I don't like to call it that), my opinion is that the paint brush handle was used for leverage. But there is another angle that I haven't seen anyone express (but I'm sure they have). I've had to pull on clothesline with force. It can cause pain and with enough force bruising on the hands. I'd be worried about that bruising being used as evidence so a handle would make sense. That would only be after trying to do it with my hands first.

Of course if I had cloth gloves on, then the line would slip through my fingers. I'd have to tie a knot at the end or get a handle.

So? Was the twisting of the clothesline around the handle used to remove the slack from the line? (It's easier to pull upward when something is below the waist than when it's above.) Or was it some type of padding to protect the hand that may have already been hurt by pulling on the line without the handle? It could even be a little of both. I don't know. I get buried in details.

 

[Teresa]

I'm a little amused with the "Graphic Content" warning in the title. There's very little about this murder that isn't graphic. It took me a while to get over the horror that I would even think about a 6 year old girl's vaginal area. The more I've learned about this case, the more clinically I've been able to approach that taboo. If I'm not careful when talking with friends, I might say something about this case that would make the whole room blush.

As for the garrote (I don't like to call it that), my opinion is that the paint brush handle was used for leverage. But there is another angle that I haven't seen anyone express (but I'm sure they have). I've had to pull on clothesline with force. It can cause pain and with enough force bruising on the hands. I'd be worried about that bruising being used as evidence so a handle would make sense. That would only be after trying to do it with my hands first.

Of course if I had cloth gloves on, then the line would slip through my fingers. I'd have to tie a knot at the end or get a handle.

So? Was the twisting of the clothesline around the handle used to remove the slack from the line? (It's easier to pull upward when something is below the waist than when it's above.) Or was it some type of padding to protect the hand that may have already been hurt by pulling on the line without the handle? It could even be a little of both. I don't know. I get buried in details.

Best idea Ive read on this. Made me think hard.

 

[elannia]

Is it known if JB was hit from the front or behind? I wonder if she was seated(possibly during the pineapple snack) when she was hit?

 

[Teresa]

Best idea Ive read on this. Made me think hard.

I wonder of the police looked at the Ramseys hands?

 

[UKGuy]

I'm a little amused with the "Graphic Content" warning in the title. There's very little about this murder that isn't graphic. It took me a while to get over the horror that I would even think about a 6 year old girl's vaginal area. The more I've learned about this case, the more clinically I've been able to approach that taboo. If I'm not careful when talking with friends, I might say something about this case that would make the whole room blush.

As for the garrote (I don't like to call it that), my opinion is that the paint brush handle was used for leverage. But there is another angle that I haven't seen anyone express (but I'm sure they have). I've had to pull on clothesline with force. It can cause pain and with enough force bruising on the hands. I'd be worried about that bruising being used as evidence so a handle would make sense. That would only be after trying to do it with my hands first.

Of course if I had cloth gloves on, then the line would slip through my fingers. I'd have to tie a knot at the end or get a handle.

So? Was the twisting of the clothesline around the handle used to remove the slack from the line? (It's easier to pull upward when something is below the waist than when it's above.) Or was it some type of padding to protect the hand that may have already been hurt by pulling on the line without the handle? It could even be a little of both. I don't know. I get buried in details.

BoldBear,
The debate regarding the ligature/garrote is interesting since some regard it as bona fide credential of an asphyxiation, and others of a staged crime scene?

Personally I think the near perfect circumferentrial ligature furrow on JonBenet's neck is inidicative of deliberate staging.

I reckon the ligature/paintbrush exists to trip you up, to indicate the COD as strangulation via the ligature.

When really it was manual asphyxiation from the start.

.

 

[BBB167893]

I was referring to RDI assuming prior sexual assault would leave some evidence in the form of scarring or thickening.

Well, it's one thing to assume that, rex. And in that regard, you're right. In fact, for the sake of argument, let's say that tovarisch is right and that the blood came from a tear in the hymen (which some have claimed). Even if we allow that, that still doesn't mean that JB was only penetrated one time. Indeed, one of the purposes of digital penetration is to stretch out the vagina. (I apologize for being graphic.)

McCann's findings were that in all but the severest of cases, traces had gone within days.
And only "petechiae and blood blisters proved to be “markers” for determining the approximate age of an injury" and according to the AR, neither of these were seen on her genitals.
So there was no way that the 'experts' who made this claims would have been able to tell, according to McCann's study.

Actually, McCann limited himself to ten days prior. Anything other than that, he couldn't say for sure.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, I was asking if there was no prior sexual assault (by one of the three family in the house that night), then what, in the opinion of an RDI supporter, would have motivated what followed.

I should have asked that first.

You said: "But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it's (the prior sexual assault) taken out of the equation. After the head injury, I guess one scenario (and it's a limited field) is PR's theatrical nature taking over, giving her daughter (and herself, by extension) one last big pageant as a tragic victim. "

I wasn't impressed. If in your opinion the motivation for incriminating yourself for murder, on account of an accident or unintentional event, was simply that Patsy was somewhat OTT, then this was not much motivation at all. To all intents and purposes, she adored her little daughter and I cannot see any actual evidence to the contrary.

Well, until I find out what "OTT" means, let me say this: I don't doubt that PR loved her daughter and wanted the best for her. Including, if the reason I laid out holds true, death. There's a thread devoted to this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?96736-Loved-to-Death&p=4863970#post4863970

So, I think that my original contention that without the prior sexual assault, theory RDI has no motivation for what followed (strangle with tourniquet/garrotte; long involved RN; sexual assault; yarda, yarda) still stands.

I'm sure you'd think that no matter what. Just because I couldn't come up with an alternate explanation on the spur of the moment doesn't mean no one else could. Not that it matters to me, anyway.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, I think Schiller relied on what he was told by Detectives. And from the testimony of the "lead Detective', (ST), there was not much actual evidence to back this up.
What I was referring to was, if not an actual transcript of a forensic report, then a direct statement by the DA or Police Chief of the day.

I know it was in the Carnes report, too.

Yes, the Bonita papers. I've already addressed this source as unreliable.

Etched in stone, no doubt! No deal, rex.

 

[BBB167893]

Take the IDI contradictions to the Intruder thread and we’ll have a look at them.

No way. They've made it clear they don't want "my kind" around there, and after getting chased off twice, I'm content to leave it be.

Your claim that “their story revolves around not knowing that anything was off-kilter until they ‘found’ the note” is mere speculation. It is no more than opinion. It is also an example of rationalization instead of explanation.

In fact, there is no sound explanation for the Ramseys not providing investigators with some means of entry when their goal was to convince investigators of entry. Saying doors were locked, nothing was seen or heard, etc contradicts the goal. There is no reasonable explanation for this. You MUST rationalize it. Providing something to convince investigators of entry is too simple, too basic, too central to the claim of entry for them to have simply forgot, or hoped investigators would find something on their own, etc.

This is also problematic for those promoting the claim of a staged “failed kidnapping.” Why did the kidnapping fail? Because I heard a noise and called downstairs and went and looked and I must have scare the kidnapper off. He ran out leaving a door open. No I didn’t get a good look at him. Etc.

But, no. They (believed) the doors were locked, and they heard nothing and they saw nothing and slept through everything.

I already addressed this once today. If you want to bring it over here, that's fine, but only if you say so.