To misdirect the investigation? To "save face"? To disguise the underlying motive? Your guess is as good as mine.
Given I do basically the same thing on my side of it, I dig.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To misdirect the investigation? To "save face"? To disguise the underlying motive? Your guess is as good as mine.
Jonbenet was found wearing over-sized panties, but they had blood and urine on them. This strongly suggests that these are the panties that she was wearing when assaulted.
So, I find the claim that someone changed her panties to be unconvincing
Salem,
BBM: No, in Steve Thomas' book he tells us that a splinter was found inside JonBenet. i.e. a splinter of wood. birefringent is a property of many materials when light is shined on them, i.e. a laser, this yields a number which allows the material to be identified. Wood or cellulose is a birefringent material which has a specific known index or number.
birefringent foreign material is the phrase used by Coroner Meyer, which tells us the material underwent a particular procedure, yet the Coroner does not identify the material which could be code for a technical redaction. i.e. the missing piece of the painbrush handle may have been left inside JonBenet?
.
Not necessarily. Moving the body could account for it.
I'm convinced, whatever that does for you.
To misdirect the investigation? To "save face"? To disguise the underlying motive? Your guess is as good as mine.
The same logic applies; to evade LE, to avoid being labeled a sexual predator/child molestor, to remain free, etc.All of which would be logical reasons for a Ramsey to conceal it. Why does an unkown intruder bother?
Actually, Delmar Englands knot is not supposed to slide at all. He claimed that the loop around the victims neck was of a fixed size. Despite this he does describe a knot which does slide. His description lacks some clarity and so can be tied more than one way. Ive done this, and posted instructions and photographs and video of it. Ive corresponded with Delmar, and Ive taken up all his challenges and have disproved virtually all of his claims regarding knots and the, as he called it, physics, physics, physics (of which he knew little). I posted much of this in video from, somewhere.
.
The paintbrush was a handle. No force was applied with it, it was simply held onto while pulling the cord tight. Shortening it by breaking it would have had no effect on its use as a handle. Ive done these experiments, too!!
...
AK
Jonbenet was found wearing over-sized panties, but they had blood and urine on them. This strongly suggests that these are the panties that she was wearing when assaulted. So, I find the claim that someone changed her panties to be unconvincing.
IMO, this means that the only redressing that occurred was to pull the victims panties and leggings back up after the molestation and wiping. I dont see anything mysterious or revealing in this act.
...
AK
What are the "agreed upon facts" to which you refer and which elements of the crime do you consider to be red herrings? (Genuinely interested.)
Chrishope,
No, some theories are immediately testable, others such as DocG's are not, since it relies on events in the future, this does not mean DocG's theory is incorrect, only that it cannot be verified.
Any hypothesis or combination thereof along with evidence, in the R's case, e.g. forensic evidence constitutes a theory. As in a jury trial we at websleuths can apply our minds and weigh up the proposed evidence and come to a decision as to whether any particular theory has legs.
As I mentioned before DocG's theory has no basis as a prosecution case, it lies more in the realm of Rudyard Kipling's Just So stories.
.
Moving the body would account for what? The blood and the urine? The blood, perhaps, but not the urine. The evidence shows that was alive when she urinated, there is urine through two layers of clothing and onto the carpet. She may have been at point of death, but she was not dead.
The killer wiped the pubic area. The panties were down when he did this. After he did this, he pulled the panties up. If he – or, whoever – changed the panties, then surely they would have changed them during this process and while Jonbenet was alive because she urinated in the new panties.
Because there are blood spots, suggesting that the blood was not washed away or diffused by the urination, I think that we can say that the blood was likely deposited after the urination. We already know that the sexual assault occurred at or near point of death.
So, we have urine while alive, and blood after death. The panties, if changed, were changed before the urine, so they would have to have been changed before death.
If the wiping came after the sexual assault, then the panties had to have been changed before the wiping – once again, while Jonbenet was still alive. This would mean changing the panties, Jonbenet urinates, pulling down the changed panties for the assault and the wiping, and then pulling the changed panties back up. None of this makes sense. And, there is no evidence that supports any of it.
...
AK
It only seems odd that Mr Ramsey would allow the 911 call if one presupposes that Mr Ramsey is guilty.
.
Its fine to say that Mr Ramsey would have to be within arms length of PR at all times. But, this isnt true. He would only need to be near the telephone or be near her when she discovered the note. And that should have been easily accomplished. Or, as mentioned before, he could have discovered the note himself. Look at these threats. We cant call the police.
Nothing could have been more important, and nothing could have been easier.
In the 97 and 98 interviews Mrs Ramsey states that Mr Ramsey told her to call 911. Indeed, most accounts tell us this. There are no accounts in which Mr Ramsey tries to stop or delay the call, and no accounts in which the matter is even discussed.
There simply is no evidence or fact to show that Mr Ramsey was concerned with preventing the 911 call. Mr Ramsey, at minimum, allowed that call to be made and he may have actually instigated the call.
...
AK
Mr Ramsey would not have had to guard every phone and he would not have had to hang onto Mrs Ramsey at all times, or follow her around every minute, everywhere she went. All he had to do was make sure he was present when she found the note (or, find it himself). It would be that easy, and it would take that little time. As soon as the note is found, he points out the threats and discourages Mrs Ramsey from calling 911. So simple, so easy. Let’s at least wait until the kidnappers call, he could say – between 8 and 10. Nothing could have been more important to him than preventing that call. Nothing.He couldn't be near every phone, they had more than one. He could, I suppose, hang on to her at all times, though that might have been slightly suspicious.
It really comes down to this - what is more convincing, that JR would have prevented the call in all possible situations at all possible cost, or that they ginned up a phoney kidnapping to cover a murder ? (Of course this presupposes an RDI outlook) For me, the idea that the kidnapping is even remotely believable with the body in the house is ludicrous, so anything else is relatively easy to believe.
There wouldn't be any evidence that JR tried to prevent the call if PR dialed 911 before he could do anything about it. It's possible he wasn't even in the room at the moment, coming in as she was talking to the operator. He'd be quite foolish to tell the police he'd tried to prevent the call at that point.
Well, here we are largely in agreement, Delmar largely didn't know what he was talking about. Tied as per his instructions, using 1/4" nylon line, the knot slips, in the direction of tightening, but does not loosen easily. That's a major reason that I doubt it was used as an EA device - too great a danger of strangulation. (I had a hard time removing my "test garrotte" from my arm)
If the paintbrush was held onto while pulling, force was applied to the handle - namely pulling force.
I do not believe it was used as an EA device.
.
Yes, some force is applied to the handle, but the length of it isn’t going to have an impact on that. It just has to be long enough to fit in the palm of your hand. Additional length isn’t going to provide and advantage, and it isn’t going to be detrimental. Try it.
...
AK
Mr Ramsey would not have had to guard every phone and he would not have had to hang onto Mrs Ramsey at all times, or follow her around every minute, everywhere she went. All he had to do was make sure he was present when she found the note (or, find it himself). It would be that easy, and it would take that little time. As soon as the note is found, he points out the threats and discourages Mrs Ramsey from calling 911. So simple, so easy. Let’s at least wait until the kidnappers call, he could say – between 8 and 10. Nothing could have been more important to him than preventing that call. Nothing.
If Mr Ramsey had attempted to delay the call than we could expect this to be evidenced by an actual delay between the time an unsuspecting and innocent Mrs Ramsey rises from sleep, and the when the call was made. Instead of a call at – iirc – 5:52, we’d see a call at 6:20, or 6:30, or 7:00, or... and, instead of Mrs Ramsey saying that her husband told her to call 911, we’d have her telling us about the discussion had, and why they didn’t call right away, etc... instead, the evidence that we have is that the call was made immediately upon discovery of the note, most likely at Mr Ramsey’s instigation, and without disagreement or discussion.
.
I completely agree that “the idea that the kidnapping is even remotely believable with the body in the house is ludicrous.” This is just one (of many) reasons why I reject RDI.
...
AK
Please give an example of a theory immediately testable which does not rely on conjecture, and is therefore objectively testable. BBM is all we can do with any theory.