The bed-wetting theory

[Bennettras]

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Are there any facts that you would like to provide that makes you think that she did not go to bed?

My statement doesn't require "facts" about whether or not she went to bed.
It is a personal opinion. I don't believe she wet the bed because I don't believe she slept in it. Actually, I did word that wrong. I don't believe she slept in her bed that night.

Lets say that I do believe in the Easter Bunny.
Here are the Facts:
A) When I go to bed the night before Easter, I wake up and there is a basket with candy and toys waiting for me. I think the Easter Bunny left it.
B)I have no Facts that have been provided to the contrary that the Easter Bunny does not exist, except for opinions by others.

The key words are fact(s), believe, think, opinion....

Roy, you even say it yourself in your question..."...facts that you would like to provide that makes you think..." Hmmm, facts that make you think......Please see examples for the Easter Bunny above for reference. :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

 

[UKGuy]

We have a clue, but there can be no proof. JB wet the bed most nights. But unless someone was there that morning to feel the sheets to see if they were wet, no one would be able to answer that. Even if they were wet, they'd be dry by the time LE came and surely by the time they were taken into evidence and tested. Dried urine WAS found, but it can't be determined by ANY testing method exactly when it was left. As with most forensic evidence, it can't be "dated" or proven when it was left. She could have wet the bed the night of the 23rd, or 24th and simply not had the sheets changed. If she wet Christmas Eve, with Christmas being what is usually is for most families and with a party that day and an extended trip planned for the next day, it wouldn't be surprising that Patsy didn't change the sheets.
JB's longjohns and panties both had dried urine on the anterior (front) surface. There was no corresponding urine stains on the white blanket (which probably came right out of the basement dryer) so it can be presumed that she did not release the urine after she was wrapped. Then, too, she was found on her back, and the urine stains indicate release while lying on her stomach.

DeeDee249,

I'm not certain what you are saying here, since as I have mentioned elsewhere, if JonBenet had wet the bed as described in Steve Thomas' Bedwetting Theory followed by corporal punishment thus inflicting the internal injuries then how come JonBenet then profusely wets not only her underwear but also her longjohns, but not the white blanket? All of which leads me to conclude that she never wet the bed upstairs, and that since her size-12 underwear was urine-stained, then her lower torso redressing e.g. longjohns and size-12 underwear preceded her death?

A timeline of sorts can be reconstructed independent of the actual physical injury sequence e.g.

Time Period 1.
Injury 1 then Cleanup and staging e.g. sexual assault and red turtleneck is added

Time Period 2.
re-staging e.g. wipedown and size-12's along with longjohns added

Time Period 3.
Injury 2. then JonBenet voids her bladder, followed by her death and the restraint and ligature staging?

Time Period 3. is constrained by the livor mortis pattern. And the white blanket with the absence of urine-staining.

So unless JonBenet was killed and assaulted entirely in the basement which is plausible then the bedwetting theory appears even less plausible, but the evidence is consistent with more than one staging event.

From memory, possibly the autopsy, material found on the soles of JonBenet's was described as lint which correctly or not, I assumed to imply cotton from bedsheets or blankets?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

I'm not certain what you are saying here, since as I have mentioned elsewhere, if JonBenet had wet the bed as described in Steve Thomas' Bedwetting Theory followed by corporal punishment thus inflicting the internal injuries then how come JonBenet then profusely wets not only her underwear but also her longjohns, but not the white blanket? All of which leads me to conclude that she never wet the bed upstairs, and that since her size-12 underwear was urine-stained, then her lower torso redressing e.g. longjohns and size-12 underwear preceded her death?

A timeline of sorts can be reconstructed independent of the actual physical injury sequence e.g.

Time Period 1.
Injury 1 then Cleanup and staging e.g. sexual assault and red turtleneck is added

Time Period 2.
re-staging e.g. wipedown and size-12's along with longjohns added

Time Period 3.
Injury 2. then JonBenet voids her bladder, followed by her death and the restraint and ligature staging?

Time Period 3. is constrained by the livor mortis pattern. And the white blanket with the absence of urine-staining.

So unless JonBenet was killed and assaulted entirely in the basement which is plausible then the bedwetting theory appears even less plausible, but the evidence is consistent with more than one staging event.

From memory, possibly the autopsy, material found on the soles of JonBenet's was described as lint which correctly or not, I assumed to imply cotton from bedsheets or blankets?


.

There are a few possibilities here. One, is that she may have wet the bed Christmas EVE, and Patsy didn't change the sheets Christmas morning. The sheets that were on JB's bed were taken into evidence, and creatinine was found (dried urine). By the time LE took them, the sheets were dry, not wet. Dried urine can't be "dated" as far as being able to determine when she wet them. This goes along with the theory that JB did not go to bed Christmas night.
Two- she MAY have gone to bed and wet the bed, but still had enough urine produced after that to be able to void her bladder at death. This would be especially true after eating the pineapple, and we don't know if she drank water or anything. But I tend to agree with your version, with her never going to bed that night, as I stated above.
My thoughts on why the white blanket was NOT urine stained is that she died in the basement, face DOWN on a carpeted area outside the wineceller. Then she was placed face UP on the blanket, which was pulled out of the dryer and placed in the wineceller for the purpose of placing her body on it.
And yes, the livor pattern indicated she was placed on her back and left there, within 15 minutes or so of her death. If you look at the autopsy photos of her bare back, you will see a thin white "stripes" effect on her back. This is how livor patterns look when there is pressure during the "blanching" stage. When livor is new, the body will "blanch" under pressure from anything. This is the blood moving aside under the skin when the skin is pressed or anything presses against it, even lightly. Live people "blanch", too- just press your finger into your leg or arm and you'll see it.
But when blanching is seen in a corpse whose livor is fixed (aka non-blanching), as noted in the autopsy report, those white stripes happened after death and came from the folds of her clothing or the blanket beneath her back as she lay there. In a live person, the blood will seep back into place when the pressure if removed. But after death, the blanched area will remain in place. After livor has progressed to the NON-blanching stage, nothing that presses in the flesh will make a white mark. So there is a short time frame for her to have been placed on her back and those marks to be made. If she'd been placed on that blanket after livor became fixed, there would not be those white marks on her.

 

[MurriFlower]

There are a few possibilities here. One, is that she may have wet the bed Christmas EVE, and Patsy didn't change the sheets Christmas morning. The sheets that were on JB's bed were taken into evidence, and creatinine was found (dried urine). By the time LE took them, the sheets were dry, not wet. Dried urine can't be "dated" as far as being able to determine when she wet them. This goes along with the theory that JB did not go to bed Christmas night.
Two- she MAY have gone to bed and wet the bed, but still had enough urine produced after that to be able to void her bladder at death. This would be especially true after eating the pineapple, and we don't know if she drank water or anything. But I tend to agree with your version, with her never going to bed that night, as I stated above.
My thoughts on why the white blanket was NOT urine stained is that she died in the basement, face DOWN on a carpeted area outside the wineceller. Then she was placed face UP on the blanket, which was pulled out of the dryer and placed in the wineceller for the purpose of placing her body on it.
And yes, the livor pattern indicated she was placed on her back and left there, within 15 minutes or so of her death. If you look at the autopsy photos of her bare back, you will see a thin white "stripes" effect on her back. This is how livor patterns look when there is pressure during the "blanching" stage. When livor is new, the body will "blanch" under pressure from anything. This is the blood moving aside under the skin when the skin is pressed or anything presses against it, even lightly. Live people "blanch", too- just press your finger into your leg or arm and you'll see it.
But when blanching is seen in a corpse whose livor is fixed (aka non-blanching), as noted in the autopsy report, those white stripes happened after death and came from the folds of her clothing or the blanket beneath her back as she lay there. In a live person, the blood will seep back into place when the pressure if removed. But after death, the blanched area will remain in place. After livor has progressed to the NON-blanching stage, nothing that presses in the flesh will make a white mark. So there is a short time frame for her to have been placed on her back and those marks to be made. If she'd been placed on that blanket after livor became fixed, there would not be those white marks on her.

DD, can you look again at that photo of her back:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetbackmarks-x.jpg

Do you notice how the three white stripes look like they were made by something (cord/rope) tied around her? Is that the area of her waist?

 

[DeeDee249]

DD, can you look again at that photo of her back:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetbackmarks-x.jpg

Do you notice how the three white stripes look like they were made by something (cord/rope) tied around her? Is that the area of her waist?

Yes, that is her waist. I have thought those marks were made by the waistbands of her panties and longjohns. Let me take a closer look on ACR where I can see a bigger pic, and I'll let you know.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes, that is her waist. I have thought those marks were made by the waistbands of her panties and longjohns. Let me take a closer look on ACR where I can see a bigger pic, and I'll let you know.

This one might be clearer:

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

 

[UKGuy]

This one might be clearer:

MurriFlower,

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

Those circumferential marks aka stripes do appear more like restraint marks since should there only be two e.g. one for the size-12's and longjohns or is the third mark that of the size-6 underwear?

If so does that alter anyones theory?
.

 

[MurriFlower]

Those circumferential marks aka stripes do appear more like restraint marks since should there only be two e.g. one for the size-12's and longjohns or is the third mark that of the size-6 underwear?

If so does that alter anyones theory?
.

Not alter, but just reinforce. I think the one on the left is thicker and could be from clothing also perhaps the middle one. But the right one looks very 'sharp' on the edges, as if it could have been from cord.

Remember, I suggested that her hands were tied across her and behind her back, (like a straight jacket), but perhaps they were tied lower than I originally thought, ie around her waist.

PS, if they were oversized knickers, then the elastic would have been made for a larger circumference, so probably would have been quite loose.

 

[UKGuy]

Not alter, but just reinforce. I think the one on the left is thicker and could be from clothing also perhaps the middle one. But the right one looks very 'sharp' on the edges, as if it could have been from cord.

Remember, I suggested that her hands were tied across her and behind her back, (like a straight jacket), but perhaps they were tied lower than I originally thought, ie around her waist.

PS, if they were oversized knickers, then the elastic would have been made for a larger circumference, so probably would have been quite loose.

MurriFlower,

Probably, but there were three items of clothing on her lower torso, we await DD's verdict!

.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Probably, but there were three items of clothing on her lower torso, we await DD's verdict!

.

Three?

 

[UKGuy]

Three?

MurriFlower,

Sure:

1. Her original size-6 underwear.
2. The redressed size-12 underwear
3. The longjohns


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Sure:

1. Her original size-6 underwear.
2. The redressed size-12 underwear
3. The longjohns


.

I think DDs point was that there is a small window of time following death when this blanching occurrs. My understanding of sexual abuse would be that it would be usually performed without knickers. Therefore, if she was re-dressed in 'oversized' knickers as you are assuming, her normal knickers would not be there. So that makes two marks.

1. Size 12 knickers
2. Longjohns

Actually, that just reminds me. The size 6 knickers!!

There's another item that RDI has to explain the absence of.

Any takers??

 

[DeeDee249]

The size 6 panties (knickers to you Brits) could have been taken out of the house in any number of ways. I believe they were bloodied, and that is why replacement panties were needed. Neither parent was searched when they left, they wore winter coats, Patsy carried a purse, they also packed items to take to the friends' home they were staying in.

I have looked at the photos of JB's back (thank you for posting the larger pics). I don't think it was a cord or restraint. One reason is that there is no furrow or indentation in the flesh, as would be the case if it were a restraint, and especially from a cord. We all see the horrible ugliness of the red ligature furrow. Also, the marks on her back are white, indicating postmortem pressure during the blanching stage of livor mortis, so that would mean that any cord wrapped there would have had to been placed after she was already dead.
I feel the marks are from the waistbands of her clothing. The panties (size 12) and the longjohns.
Unfortunately, we cannot see the FRONT of the same area to see if the white stripes are circumferential. We see only the back, not her stomach.

 

[MurriFlower]

The size 6 panties (knickers to you Brits) could have been taken out of the house in any number of ways. I believe they were bloodied, and that is why replacement panties were needed. Neither parent was searched when they left, they wore winter coats, Patsy carried a purse, they also packed items to take to the friends' home they were staying in.

I have looked at the photos of JB's back (thank you for posting the larger pics). I don't think it was a cord or restraint. One reason is that there is no furrow or indentation in the flesh, as would be the case if it were a restraint, and especially from a cord. We all see the horrible ugliness of the red ligature furrow. Also, the marks on her back are white, indicating postmortem pressure during the blanching stage of livor mortis, so that would mean that any cord wrapped there would have had to been placed after she was already dead.
I feel the marks are from the waistbands of her clothing. The panties (size 12) and the longjohns.
Unfortunately, we cannot see the FRONT of the same area to see if the white stripes are circumferential. We see only the back, not her stomach.

Do you see that some of the marks do not go all around as you would expect from elastic. Why would it leave a mark on her back and not equally on her front? What caused the third mark?

 

[UKGuy]

I think DDs point was that there is a small window of time following death when this blanching occurrs. My understanding of sexual abuse would be that it would be usually performed without knickers. Therefore, if she was re-dressed in 'oversized' knickers as you are assuming, her normal knickers would not be there. So that makes two marks.

1. Size 12 knickers
2. Longjohns

Actually, that just reminds me. The size 6 knickers!!

There's another item that RDI has to explain the absence of.

Any takers??

MurriFlower,

Thats an easy one. Someone was sexually abusing JonBenet e.g. prior to her death, this someone realized had to be covered up, hence the Vaginal Trauma, then someone else realized this was not a good idea, since the blame would go to one of two people, guess who? So another staging was required with a wipedown and clean size-12 underwear, remember fibers from John's expensive black Israeli manufactured shirt were found on JonBenet's genital area, so the size-6's had to be removed.

Otherwise the perverted intruder did it all removing the size-6's as a trophy of sorts?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The size 6 panties (knickers to you Brits) could have been taken out of the house in any number of ways. I believe they were bloodied, and that is why replacement panties were needed. Neither parent was searched when they left, they wore winter coats, Patsy carried a purse, they also packed items to take to the friends' home they were staying in.

I have looked at the photos of JB's back (thank you for posting the larger pics). I don't think it was a cord or restraint. One reason is that there is no furrow or indentation in the flesh, as would be the case if it were a restraint, and especially from a cord. We all see the horrible ugliness of the red ligature furrow. Also, the marks on her back are white, indicating postmortem pressure during the blanching stage of livor mortis, so that would mean that any cord wrapped there would have had to been placed after she was already dead.
I feel the marks are from the waistbands of her clothing. The panties (size 12) and the longjohns.
Unfortunately, we cannot see the FRONT of the same area to see if the white stripes are circumferential. We see only the back, not her stomach.

You account for two marks but there are clearly three with two intersecting. The simple answer is that the higher up one is from her White Gap Top. Still it is a curious one.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

You account for two marks but there are clearly three with two intersecting. The simple answer is that the higher up one is from her White Gap Top. Still it is a curious one.


.

Yes, there are clearly THREE. One for the size 12s, one for the waistband of the longjohns, and the third would have to be from either the original size 6 panties or the shirt, or if the shirt was pushed up in the back, it could be from the folds of the white blanket underneath. What is clear to me is that the marks do not seem to go all the way around her (circumferential), unlike the ligature furrow. And their color (white) indicated postmortem pressure during UNfixed lividity. (closer to the TOD rather than later). Because no one saw the body in situ except JR and FW, we do not know the exact position of the blanket around her. We know the exact position of the BODY because she was in full rigor when found and brought up, remaining that way until the autopsy on the 27th, at which time rigor was beginning to dissipate or was "broken" by the coroner.
Keep in mind that although the waistbands of her clothing DO go all the way around her, death relaxes then hardens the flesh, and pressure on JB's corpse lying supine (on her back) is not equally distributed. The weight and gravity presses to the floor, or lowest point the body touches. Had JB been lying prone (on her stomach) the marks would be on her stomach and not her back. A LIVE person would not show such marks, even sleeping wearing the same clothing. For one, the flesh is soft and yielding in life, and also the garments would have to be fairly tight to make any mark, which would be red in a live person. Similar to a blouse with elastic at the wrist or pants with a snug elastic waist.

 

[claudicici]

I can't believe the size 12 panties would have left a mark...

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes, there are clearly THREE. One for the size 12s, one for the waistband of the longjohns, and the third would have to be from either the original size 6 panties or the shirt, or if the shirt was pushed up in the back, it could be from the folds of the white blanket underneath. What is clear to me is that the marks do not seem to go all the way around her (circumferential), unlike the ligature furrow. And their color (white) indicated postmortem pressure during UNfixed lividity. (closer to the TOD rather than later). Because no one saw the body in situ except JR and FW, we do not know the exact position of the blanket around her. We know the exact position of the BODY because she was in full rigor when found and brought up, remaining that way until the autopsy on the 27th, at which time rigor was beginning to dissipate or was "broken" by the coroner.
Keep in mind that although the waistbands of her clothing DO go all the way around her, death relaxes then hardens the flesh, and pressure on JB's corpse lying supine (on her back) is not equally distributed. The weight and gravity presses to the floor, or lowest point the body touches. Had JB been lying prone (on her stomach) the marks would be on her stomach and not her back. A LIVE person would not show such marks, even sleeping wearing the same clothing. For one, the flesh is soft and yielding in life, and also the garments would have to be fairly tight to make any mark, which would be red in a live person. Similar to a blouse with elastic at the wrist or pants with a snug elastic waist.

How did you post that picture on the list UK?

DD thanks for looking. The first mark (left hs) is quite broad and indistinct and goes only part way. The middle mark is sharp and seems to go all round. The third (right hs) is the one that interests me, as it has very distinct edges. It does not look like a mark made by something wrapped in fabric as elastic inside panties or the longjohns would. That's why I believe this may be from another length of cord. I suggested that the reason for the length (15"?) between the wrist ties was that her arms were crossed in front and tied to each other behind her back, (like a straight jacket). So I feel that this picture tends to support my theory.

Just on this and while we are looking closely at that picture, can you also comment on the marks that were unidentified, but that some people thought might be stun gun burns?

This picture is much clearer than the ones on ACR and you can see what appears to be swelling or puffiness of the skin around these two marks. It's more noticeable toward the side closest to the table. It seems to extend 1.2 - 2 cm around the smaller mark and about 2.5 - 3cm around the larger one. I'm trying to think what would make marks like this that causes swelling around it to this extent. When you look at these marks closely the larger mark appears as if it could be a burn with a lighter area in the centre, but they are both definitely rectangular/square not round. It's a mystery to me.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, first her arms...they were not tied behind her back. This has been explained before, but rigor mortis freezes the body in position, and if her arms had been tied behind her back, they would still have been there when she was brought up. We know for a FACT that her arms were up in front of her, bent in an approx. right angle at the elbow. We can see that in the crime photo I posted awhile back.

The small, round abrasions vex me. (love that word- vex). They look like cigarette burns by their shape and size, but a coroner should have been able to identify them as such, as the skin would be burned, which would look different (especially to a coroner) than an abrasion.
I have to say that they also DO look like stun gun marks, especially the ones on her back. The mark on her cheek does, too, but there is only one. Long ago I saw it discussed that possibly the second prong of the stun gun had been placed on the tape over her mouth and that's why there was only one mark. And if I look at that photo of her with a partial view of her chin and mouth I sometimes think I do see a much fainter mark on her cheek parallel to the first one.
How I wish the coroner had done more to determine whether the flesh was burned. Or maybe he did, and simply found that the skin was abraded, as he said. I would have wanted to know for sure, if I were the parent. I'd have had the body exhumed.
I have seen it suggested that the marks came from a ring Patsy may have worn- she is seen wearing a rather large cocktail ring with several small diamonds. The ring is top-heavy and is seen on her finger (during a TV appearance) as having slipped around to the palm side of her hand. I just don't know about those marks...