The Wine Cellar

[cynic]

Many of the things you cite as examples of undoing may simply be precautionary acts e.g cleaning and wiping down removes forensic evidence.

I don’t believe that wiping down JBR was a precautionary act.
As I have stated previously, there was no reason, whatsoever, for cleaning/wiping JBR and removing her panties, and even less reason to then redress her in new panties. The sole exception would be if semen was present on her panties or on her body. That would definitely need to be eliminated. (Even so, that would only require cleaning/wiping and removing the existing panties, it would not require new panties to then be placed on her body.)
As we know, semen was not found in the smeared blood that was discovered, it was just JBR’s blood.
Therefore, I believe that the wiping was for no other reason than to clean her up and make her “presentable,” a psychological act of undoing.

The wine-cellar is a secondary crime scene…

There is not enough evidence to definitively identify any room in that home as the point where the attack began; therefore, to apply this type of terminology is an exercise in futility.
I know that many posters have theories with respect to the sequence of events and those theories have a room or area where it all begins, but it can be no more than speculation.
There is not a single reference to the JonBenet case in any book, press release, LE interview, or anywhere that refers to primary and secondary crime scenes with respect to this case, it simply does not lend itself to that sort of description.
There are not multiple search warrants here for independent crime scenes. The search warrant encompasses the house, garage and some surrounding property. This is the crime scene, and references to this by profilers and others as a staged crime scene refer to the activities that occurred at 755 15th St.
This was a staged crime scene because the death of JonBenet was manipulated to take the appearance of a botched kidnapping and sexual assault at the hands of an intruder or intruders which ultimately ended as a homicide.
This affidavit clearly defined the entire residence as a crime scene.

Affidavit of Dec. 26, 1996
Your Affiant is Jim Byfield, a Detective with the Boulder Police Department After being duly sworn, Your Affiant states the following:
Through official police reports and conversations with other members of the Boulder Police Department, including commissioned officers Linda Arndt, Michael Everett, Rick French, Tom Trujillo and Larry Mason. Your Affiant personally learned the following from those officers:
On December 26, 1996, at approximately 5:52 am., Boulder Police Officers Karl Veitch and Rick French responded to 755 15th St, Boulder, Colorado, regarding a possible kidnapping.
…
The scene is currently being secured by members ofthe Boulder Police Department.
Your Affiant has investigated numerous crime scenes including at least ten homicide crime scenes. Your Affiant knows through personal experience, training, and the details stated within this affidavit that the following items may be found at this potential homicide crime scene and can be material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution;
Still and video photography, measurements, implements or articles of every kind that could have caused or contributed to the injuries of the victim, trace material of every kind such as clothing, fibers, hair, body fluids, latent prints and the objects on which they are found, documentary evidence tending to establish the motive, identity of the victim, any suspects or witnesses, the body of JonBenet Ramsey, any writing paper or pads lined and white in color, any examples of handwriting, any felt-type writing utensil with black ink (material blacked out) light colored cloth string type material including shoes or clothing missing drawstrings or shoestrings, and footprints or other physical evidence of intruders either inside or outside of the residence.
Your Affiant requests a search warrant for the premises, for a 1995 Jaguar 4 door with Colorado passenger license plate #MAN8301 which is in the garage of the premises, for a 1996 Jeep Cherokee utility vehicle with Colorado license plate #MAH5015 which is located in the garage of the premises, and for the curtilage of the premises which is located at 755 15th St., Boulder, Colorado to search for the items listed in Attachment B, which is attached and incorporated into this affidavit. Your Affiant believes that a search of these areas at 755 15th St, Boulder, Colorado, might lead to the discovery of items that would be material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The residence at 755 15th St, Boulder, Colorado is described by Detective Linda Arndt to Your Affiant as a multiple story wood frame house with an attached garage which has a brown brick exterior with tan siding and brown and white trim. The numbers "755" appear to the left (south) of the front door. It is the third house south of Cascade Street on the west side of 15th Street. The front door to the residence faces east, toward 15th Street.
…
ATTACHMENT B 1) All material evidence to be developed by a thorough scene investigation of the premises, including but not limited to: still and video photography, measurements, implements or articles of every kind that could have caused or contributed to the injuries of the victim; trace material of every kind such as clothing, fibers, hair, body fluids, latent prints and the objects on which they are found; documentary evidence tending to establish the motive, identity of the victim, any suspect or witnesses.
2) The body of JonBenet Ramsey
3) Any and all writing paper or pads, lined and white in color.
4) Any and all examples of handwriting found in the home.
5)Any felt-type writing utensil with black ink.
(Line blacked out)
5) Light colored cloth string type material
6)Shoes or clothing missing drawstrings or shoestring
7)The curtilage of the home including the garage, the vehicles in the garage and outbuildings for footprints and physical evidence of intruders.
(Attached was a copy of the handwritten note found by Mrs. Ramsey.
(Also attached was a list of items removed from the home, including the body, material found on the body, clothing and a blanket, fibers and objects from the room where the body was found and elsewhere in the basement, pads of paper, pens and markers, the note, hair and fibers from JonBenet's and her parents' rooms, bedding, pieces of a broken window, the note and many other household objects.)

Redressing JonBenet diverts attention away from the probable primary scene and masks any immediately observable physical signs of assault e.g. sexual molestation.

While I don’t believe the Ramseys were criminal masterminds, I don’t believe that they were naïve enough to think that there would be no autopsy, at which time the injuries would be quickly discovered.
I definitely believe that they thought a fresh injury would serve to mask previous trauma/molestation to the area, though.

All of which points to a prior secondary crime scene, where some elements of undoing may have occurred, this was then revised in favor of an abduction scenario, which required JonBenet to become invisible and not be dumped outdoors. So I am suggesting that the use of the wine-cellar is alike the garrote simply opportunistic, a pragmatic decision made in the panic to revise and clear up, possibly staged, signs of a homicide. This includes the removal of the pink nightgown and barbie doll, but not her size-6 underwear which I reckon was replaced with the size-12's, IMO this represents staging not undoing!

She could have dumped outside in a relatively secluded/obscured location on the property; I agree that the plan involved a delayed discovery of the body.
Your theory that a previously staged/undone scene was relocated to the wine cellar could be true, but unfortunately has no more evidence to support it than the theory of a one-time “assembly” at the wine cellar.
I don’t believe that the final events of the night began and ended within the wine cellar, probably few if any IDI or RDI do, however even that cannot be completely ruled out.
The question of where the incident involving the head injury happened remains unanswered, one of many, many, unanswered questions.
Even the final scene, the wine cellar, was disturbed by the actions of JR and as I suggested earlier, perhaps even Fleet White arrived in the wine cellar a bit too late to see what, if anything, was wrapped within the blanket along with JBR. If so, then JR would be the only one with the answer, for whatever that would be worth.
I believe that undoing was present in this case. Profilers and psychologists have interviewed people that have exhibited “undoing” behavior subsequent to being involved in the death of a loved one. Their actions have shown remarkable similarity to what we see in the JonBenet case. I, for one, don’t believe that it’s merely a coincidence.

 

[UKGuy]

Past tense phrasing.

There was ONLY one doll discovered, as far as I know. The photo I am referring to DOES also show the blanket and pink nightie. You would have seen this photo too, it wasn't that long ago. If anyone has that photo, or remembers which thread it is on, please post it.

DeeDee249,

Is this what Patsy would have seen at her interview, is this the doll from the waist up, and the blanket and nightgown, are they out of focus?

The doll surely cannot be an opened gift since, from memory, it was Burke's gifts that were left in the wine-cellar, any others would have been loaded onto the plane, or packed away in luggage etc.

Is is just coincidence that the doll is under the nightgown and John has thrown the blanket close to these items?

Does the doll appear to be clothed, I cannot make it out? I'm trying to make sense of John's remark perverted when asked about the nightgown and doll? I think there is some piece of information we are missing, since we have JonBenet wrapped in a white blanket and in the same location a barbie doll and barbie nightgown. If the doll and nightgown are foreign to the wine-cellar what can their intended purpose be?


.

 

[UKGuy]

I don’t believe that wiping down JBR was a precautionary act.
As I have stated previously, there was no reason, whatsoever, for cleaning/wiping JBR and removing her panties, and even less reason to then redress her in new panties. The sole exception would be if semen was present on her panties or on her body. That would definitely need to be eliminated. (Even so, that would only require cleaning/wiping and removing the existing panties, it would not require new panties to then be placed on her body.)
As we know, semen was not found in the smeared blood that was discovered, it was just JBR’s blood.
Therefore, I believe that the wiping was for no other reason than to clean her up and make her “presentable,” a psychological act of undoing.
There is not enough evidence to definitively identify any room in that home as the point where the attack began; therefore, to apply this type of terminology is an exercise in futility.
I know that many posters have theories with respect to the sequence of events and those theories have a room or area where it all begins, but it can be no more than speculation.
There is not a single reference to the JonBenet case in any book, press release, LE interview, or anywhere that refers to primary and secondary crime scenes with respect to this case, it simply does not lend itself to that sort of description.
There are not multiple search warrants here for independent crime scenes. The search warrant encompasses the house, garage and some surrounding property. This is the crime scene, and references to this by profilers and others as a staged crime scene refer to the activities that occurred at 755 15th St.
This was a staged crime scene because the death of JonBenet was manipulated to take the appearance of a botched kidnapping and sexual assault at the hands of an intruder or intruders which ultimately ended as a homicide.
This affidavit clearly defined the entire residence as a crime scene.

Affidavit of Dec. 26, 1996
Your Affiant is Jim Byfield, a Detective with the Boulder Police Department After being duly sworn, Your Affiant states the following:
Through official police reports and conversations with other members of the Boulder Police Department, including commissioned officers Linda Arndt, Michael Everett, Rick French, Tom Trujillo and Larry Mason. Your Affiant personally learned the following from those officers:
On December 26, 1996, at approximately 5:52 am., Boulder Police Officers Karl Veitch and Rick French responded to 755 15th St, Boulder, Colorado, regarding a possible kidnapping.
…
The scene is currently being secured by members ofthe Boulder Police Department.
Your Affiant has investigated numerous crime scenes including at least ten homicide crime scenes. Your Affiant knows through personal experience, training, and the details stated within this affidavit that the following items may be found at this potential homicide crime scene and can be material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution;
Still and video photography, measurements, implements or articles of every kind that could have caused or contributed to the injuries of the victim, trace material of every kind such as clothing, fibers, hair, body fluids, latent prints and the objects on which they are found, documentary evidence tending to establish the motive, identity of the victim, any suspects or witnesses, the body of JonBenet Ramsey, any writing paper or pads lined and white in color, any examples of handwriting, any felt-type writing utensil with black ink (material blacked out) light colored cloth string type material including shoes or clothing missing drawstrings or shoestrings, and footprints or other physical evidence of intruders either inside or outside of the residence.
Your Affiant requests a search warrant for the premises, for a 1995 Jaguar 4 door with Colorado passenger license plate #MAN8301 which is in the garage of the premises, for a 1996 Jeep Cherokee utility vehicle with Colorado license plate #MAH5015 which is located in the garage of the premises, and for the curtilage of the premises which is located at 755 15th St., Boulder, Colorado to search for the items listed in Attachment B, which is attached and incorporated into this affidavit. Your Affiant believes that a search of these areas at 755 15th St, Boulder, Colorado, might lead to the discovery of items that would be material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The residence at 755 15th St, Boulder, Colorado is described by Detective Linda Arndt to Your Affiant as a multiple story wood frame house with an attached garage which has a brown brick exterior with tan siding and brown and white trim. The numbers "755" appear to the left (south) of the front door. It is the third house south of Cascade Street on the west side of 15th Street. The front door to the residence faces east, toward 15th Street.
…
ATTACHMENT B 1) All material evidence to be developed by a thorough scene investigation of the premises, including but not limited to: still and video photography, measurements, implements or articles of every kind that could have caused or contributed to the injuries of the victim; trace material of every kind such as clothing, fibers, hair, body fluids, latent prints and the objects on which they are found; documentary evidence tending to establish the motive, identity of the victim, any suspect or witnesses.
2) The body of JonBenet Ramsey
3) Any and all writing paper or pads, lined and white in color.
4) Any and all examples of handwriting found in the home.
5)Any felt-type writing utensil with black ink.
(Line blacked out)
5) Light colored cloth string type material
6)Shoes or clothing missing drawstrings or shoestring
7)The curtilage of the home including the garage, the vehicles in the garage and outbuildings for footprints and physical evidence of intruders.
(Attached was a copy of the handwritten note found by Mrs. Ramsey.
(Also attached was a list of items removed from the home, including the body, material found on the body, clothing and a blanket, fibers and objects from the room where the body was found and elsewhere in the basement, pads of paper, pens and markers, the note, hair and fibers from JonBenet's and her parents' rooms, bedding, pieces of a broken window, the note and many other household objects.)
While I don’t believe the Ramseys were criminal masterminds, I don’t believe that they were naïve enough to think that there would be no autopsy, at which time the injuries would be quickly discovered.
I definitely believe that they thought a fresh injury would serve to mask previous trauma/molestation to the area, though.
She could have dumped outside in a relatively secluded/obscured location on the property; I agree that the plan involved a delayed discovery of the body.
Your theory that a previously staged/undone scene was relocated to the wine cellar could be true, but unfortunately has no more evidence to support it than the theory of a one-time “assembly” at the wine cellar.
I don’t believe that the final events of the night began and ended within the wine cellar, probably few if any IDI or RDI do, however even that cannot be completely ruled out.
The question of where the incident involving the head injury happened remains unanswered, one of many, many, unanswered questions.
Even the final scene, the wine cellar, was disturbed by the actions of JR and as I suggested earlier, perhaps even Fleet White arrived in the wine cellar a bit too late to see what, if anything, was wrapped within the blanket along with JBR. If so, then JR would be the only one with the answer, for whatever that would be worth.
I believe that undoing was present in this case. Profilers and psychologists have interviewed people that have exhibited “undoing” behavior subsequent to being involved in the death of a loved one. Their actions have shown remarkable similarity to what we see in the JonBenet case. I, for one, don’t believe that it’s merely a coincidence.

cynic,

Therefore, I believe that the wiping was for no other reason than to clean her up and make her “presentable,” a psychological act of undoing.

Presentable to who? The wiping and size-12's are invisible beneath the longjohns.

The wine-cellar was patently not the primary crime-scene hence it is labeled secondary.

Lets assume it was not Burke who was undoing particular features. Who do you think applied the undoing by redressing JonBenet in the size-12's?

I don’t believe that wiping down JBR was a precautionary act.

Fine but without confirming evidence I cannot eliminate this as a possibility.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Is this what Patsy would have seen at her interview, is this the doll from the waist up, and the blanket and nightgown, are they out of focus?

The doll surely cannot be an opened gift since, from memory, it was Burke's gifts that were left in the wine-cellar, any others would have been loaded onto the plane, or packed away in luggage etc.

Is is just coincidence that the doll is under the nightgown and John has thrown the blanket close to these items?

Does the doll appear to be clothed, I cannot make it out? I'm trying to make sense of John's remark perverted when asked about the nightgown and doll? I think there is some piece of information we are missing, since we have JonBenet wrapped in a white blanket and in the same location a barbie doll and barbie nightgown. If the doll and nightgown are foreign to the wine-cellar what can their intended purpose be?


.

The doll is small, just under a foot. Look down in the lower right corner. The doll is wearing a burgundy long gown with a trim that appears whiteish in the photo and loops up and down the front of the gown. The doll has long blonde hair. UKGuy, just try to view the doll on eBay- you do not need to be a member, you can log in as a guest. Then, search for 1996 Holiday Barbie. Or just try to Google it. I realize if you are in the UK the chances of seeing one at a flea market, etc. are slim, but I think you would have an easier time if you actually saw a picture of the doll.
The Barbie doll, nightgown, dead JB and white blanket are ALL foreign to the WC. The intended purpose of the dead child and white blanket is obvious. They are there to be hidden - not permanently, but possibly until LE left the house. Then, she'd have been "returned" to them, Dead, of course, just as the RN claimed she would be if they called anyone. A perfect explanation for the dead child, isn't it? Write a RN saying she'll be killed if you call police- then call police! No one would wonder why she was dead, would they?

The intended purpose of the pink nightie and Barbie doll is unknown. Was the doll a cherished gift that year? It was a 1996 Holiday doll- possibly she collected the Holiday Barbies from all the years since her birth. We know the blanket was her favorite blanket, we know the nightie was said to be her favorite nightie- one she always brought to pageants with her. Was the nightie/doll/blanket put there because it was important to have JB with her favorite things in death? Maybe. Did she carry the doll downstairs? This implies she walked to the basement (but not necessarily the WC).

NO intruder would feel the need to place their victim's favorite doll/nightie/blanket with their body. Nor would they even be aware of what was a favorite item. Just as in intruder would not need to redress her.
A PARENT would, though. No parent would leave their own murdered, sexually assaulted child naked and exposed to view. And putting such items with the body of their murdered child (whether they killed her or were covering for someone else) is a pretty transparent act.

 

[cynic]

Presentable to who?

Presentable to the person who was troubled by the blood from the vaginal injury to Jonbenet.

The wiping and size-12's are invisible beneath the longjohns.

Whoever inflicted the injury knew what was there, and undoing strives among other things to return the victim to the state they were in prior to the criminal activity – “undoing” what was done.

The wine-cellar was patently not the primary crime-scene hence it is labeled secondary.

Regardless of whether you assume the head injury occurred first, as I do, or whether some type of strangulation event occurred first, there is no way to place either event in any one particular area or room within the home with any degree of certainty. Even though I don’t believe it, the possibility exists that a family member managed to get JBR into the wine cellar on some pretext and everything from the head injury to the final scene with her wrapped in the blanket occurred in that room. (I am excluding leaving the room to obtain certain things such as the paintbrush etc.)
Again, not that I believe it, but there is no way to disprove that, and that is only one example.
As I said, the BPD didn’t categorize the case into primary and secondary crime scenes as per the search warrants that were issued, nor do I believe that it’s necessary, productive or possible for us to try to do so.

Lets assume it was not Burke who was undoing particular features. Who do you think applied the undoing by redressing JonBenet in the size-12's?

It could be either PR or JR, there's not enough evidence to tell. The fiber evidence linking JR to the wiping is incriminating, though.

Fine but without confirming evidence I cannot eliminate this as a possibility.

Your premise does require that you find the answer as to what this was presumably a precaution against?
Wiping and redressing takes time and risks leaving forensic evidence such as hair and fiber, for example; therefore, since the evidence shows that there was no semen present to be removed, what was it that was being removed by way of precaution?
(As I stated previously, nothing was found other than JBR’s smeared blood.)

 

[Toltec]

There is what looks like a stuffed dog there. If you look to the right of the white blanket, near the top of the blanket, you can make out the dog face.

You mean the white paint on the floor??? Looks like a whole litter of bischon frise's.

 

[Toltec]

The dolls look like they are lying next to a box in the wc...not anywhere near the white blanket???

 

[UKGuy]

The dolls look like they are lying next to a box in the wc...not anywhere near the white blanket???

Toltec,
Thats what I thought. Maybe the blanket and nightgown have been moved to allow a clearer picture?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Presentable to the person who was troubled by the blood from the vaginal injury to Jonbenet.
Whoever inflicted the injury knew what was there, and undoing strives among other things to return the victim to the state they were in prior to the criminal activity – “undoing” what was done.
Regardless of whether you assume the head injury occurred first, as I do, or whether some type of strangulation event occurred first, there is no way to place either event in any one particular area or room within the home with any degree of certainty. Even though I don’t believe it, the possibility exists that a family member managed to get JBR into the wine cellar on some pretext and everything from the head injury to the final scene with her wrapped in the blanket occurred in that room. (I am excluding leaving the room to obtain certain things such as the paintbrush etc.)
Again, not that I believe it, but there is no way to disprove that, and that is only one example.
As I said, the BPD didn’t categorize the case into primary and secondary crime scenes as per the search warrants that were issued, nor do I believe that it’s necessary, productive or possible for us to try to do so.

It could be either PR or JR, there's not enough evidence to tell. The fiber evidence linking JR to the wiping is incriminating, though.

Your premise does require that you find the answer as to what this was presumably a precaution against?
Wiping and redressing takes time and risks leaving forensic evidence such as hair and fiber, for example; therefore, since the evidence shows that there was no semen present to be removed, what was it that was being removed by way of precaution?
(As I stated previously, nothing was found other than JBR’s smeared blood.)

cynic,

Presentable to the person who was troubled by the blood from the vaginal injury to Jonbenet.

Whoever inflicted the injury knew what was there, and undoing strives among other things to return the victim to the state they were in prior to the criminal activity – “undoing” what was done.

It does not follow that this was some kind of psychologically therapeutic act. The returning to a prior state may be a precautionary act.

It could be either PR or JR, there's not enough evidence to tell. The fiber evidence linking JR to the wiping is incriminating, though.

Well I reckon Patsy, prior to the tabloids revealing it, never knew about JonBenet wearing size-12's, she was caught out lying, so it appears she was covering for John?

As I said, the BPD didn’t categorize the case into primary and secondary crime scenes as per the search warrants that were issued, nor do I believe that it’s necessary, productive or possible for us to try to do so.

Well it is for me. And in modern homicide investigations this is how multiple crime-scene locations are described.

what was it that was being removed by way of precaution?

Anything that referred back to a staged/actual sexual assault, since JonBenet, as per the Ransom Note, was now to be seen as abducted!

Your premise does require that you find the answer as to what this was presumably a precaution against?

The discovery of prior staging or actual assault.

.

 

[UKGuy]

The doll is small, just under a foot. Look down in the lower right corner. The doll is wearing a burgundy long gown with a trim that appears whiteish in the photo and loops up and down the front of the gown. The doll has long blonde hair. UKGuy, just try to view the doll on eBay- you do not need to be a member, you can log in as a guest. Then, search for 1996 Holiday Barbie. Or just try to Google it. I realize if you are in the UK the chances of seeing one at a flea market, etc. are slim, but I think you would have an easier time if you actually saw a picture of the doll.
The Barbie doll, nightgown, dead JB and white blanket are ALL foreign to the WC. The intended purpose of the dead child and white blanket is obvious. They are there to be hidden - not permanently, but possibly until LE left the house. Then, she'd have been "returned" to them, Dead, of course, just as the RN claimed she would be if they called anyone. A perfect explanation for the dead child, isn't it? Write a RN saying she'll be killed if you call police- then call police! No one would wonder why she was dead, would they?

The intended purpose of the pink nightie and Barbie doll is unknown. Was the doll a cherished gift that year? It was a 1996 Holiday doll- possibly she collected the Holiday Barbies from all the years since her birth. We know the blanket was her favorite blanket, we know the nightie was said to be her favorite nightie- one she always brought to pageants with her. Was the nightie/doll/blanket put there because it was important to have JB with her favorite things in death? Maybe. Did she carry the doll downstairs? This implies she walked to the basement (but not necessarily the WC).

NO intruder would feel the need to place their victim's favorite doll/nightie/blanket with their body. Nor would they even be aware of what was a favorite item. Just as in intruder would not need to redress her.
A PARENT would, though. No parent would leave their own murdered, sexually assaulted child naked and exposed to view. And putting such items with the body of their murdered child (whether they killed her or were covering for someone else) is a pretty transparent act.

DeeDee249,
Thanks for your thoughts. Well I take the view if a parent was choosing to hide JonBenet wrapped in the blanket then the same must apply to the doll and nightgown.

.

 

[mcsmom]

Wouldn't we see evidence of the pink color of the nightgown, tinting the white blanket pink if they were washed and then dried together? (Or some other color from the Barbie decal on the front of the nightgown)
The white of the blanket looks so white in the photo.

I don't think static cling would have occurred, if that's the case.

Separate colors from whites is laundry lesson number one.

 

[cynic]

cynic,
It does not follow that this was some kind of psychologically therapeutic act.

Not according to profilers.
John Douglas addresses this behavior here:
The following case exemplifies undoing. A son stabbed his mother to death during a fierce argument. After calming down, the son realized the full impact of his actions. First, he changed the victim’s bloodied shirt and then placed her body on the couch with her head on a pillow. He covered her with a blanket and folded her hands over her chest so she appeared to be sleeping peacefully. This behavior indicated his remorse by attempting to emotionally undo the murder. Other forms of undoing may include the offender’s washing up, cleaning the body, covering the victim’s face, or completely covering the body. The offender engages in these activities not because he is attempting to hide the victim but because he may be feeling some degree of remorse.
Crime Classification Manual, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, page 34

Also

There are often indicators of undoing. This is the killer’s way of expressing remorse or the desire to undo the murder. Undoing is demonstrated by the offender’s washing of the victim ...
Crime Classification Manual, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, pages 155 - 156

The returning to a prior state may be a precautionary act.

You say that this may be a precautionary act without stating what, specifically, it is a precaution against, given the evidence:

Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenét’s upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenét’s body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the flourescent light at the autopsy.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 172

As the passage above states, the area that was wiped was sampled and tested; nothing other than the smeared blood of JonBenet was found.
Why attempt to wipe away JBR’s blood? Wiping her blood away serves no purpose, whatsoever, from a precautionary standpoint.
Undoing provides an answer, and reflects the behavior of others who have been involved in the death of a loved one.

Well it is for me. And in modern homicide investigations this is how multiple crime-scene locations are described.

The BPD didn’t categorize this case into primary and secondary crime scenes.

Anything that referred back to a staged/actual sexual assault, since JonBenet, as per the Ransom Note, was now to be seen as abducted!

The discovery of prior staging or actual assault.

That's not what I meant with respect to questioning what was being removed by way of precaution.
Certain areas of JonBenet showed evidence of being wiped.
If your premise is correct, IOW, this was a precautionary act by which incriminating forensic evidence from the perpetrator was removed, then you will need to tell us what it is that the perpetrator was looking to remove, are you suggesting that it was semen, for example? Once you have answered that question, you will need to consider that since the cleaning was relatively incomplete, and residue was found and sampled, why was no trace whatsoever of whatever you suggest was being removed by way of precaution found?
As I have said, only JBR’s blood was found.

 

[DeeDee249]

Wouldn't we see evidence of the pink color of the nightgown, tinting the white blanket pink if they were washed and then dried together? (Or some other color from the Barbie decal on the front of the nightgown)
The white of the blanket looks so white in the photo.

I don't think static cling would have occurred, if that's the case.

Separate colors from whites is laundry lesson number one.

If you have ever seen that kind of nightie- they are made of polyester or nylon and do not bleed. Nylon is notorious for static cling. Polyester, too.

I never separate whites from colors. I just use a Color Catcher in the wash.

 

[Toltec]

Wouldn't we see evidence of the pink color of the nightgown, tinting the white blanket pink if they were washed and then dried together? (Or some other color from the Barbie decal on the front of the nightgown)
The white of the blanket looks so white in the photo.

I don't think static cling would have occurred, if that's the case.

Separate colors from whites is laundry lesson number one.

My daughter is six years old and still wets the bed. I place her polyester or nylon pajamas in with her soiled sheet to get the smell out. I use clorox and never had bleeding.

 

[mcsmom]

I was thinking that the blanket looks like chenille, a somewhat expensive soft fragile fabric, that wouldn't hold up well being washed in with the general laundry. I don' t believe it's common to dry this type of blanket in the dryer, because it would unravel.

Likely Jonbenet had high end bedding, custom bedding requires special laundry care, or it's ruined after the first wash.

 

[DeeDee249]

I was thinking that the blanket looks like chenille, a somewhat expensive soft fragile fabric, that wouldn't hold up well being washed in with the general laundry. I don' t believe it's common to dry this type of blanket in the dryer, because it would unravel.

Likely Jonbenet had high end bedding, custom bedding requires special laundry care, or it's ruined after the first wash.

It is not chenille. It is a cotton thermal-weave blanket, similar to the kind found in hospitals. I use those, too, i fact the cotton thermal blankets are the only kind I use. They wash so nicely. They come in many weaves and thicknesses. JB's looks thicker than most. The R's housekeeper LHP described JB's blanket when police interviewed her.

 

[UKGuy]

Not according to profilers.
John Douglas addresses this behavior here:
The following case exemplifies undoing. A son stabbed his mother to death during a fierce argument. After calming down, the son realized the full impact of his actions. First, he changed the victim’s bloodied shirt and then placed her body on the couch with her head on a pillow. He covered her with a blanket and folded her hands over her chest so she appeared to be sleeping peacefully. This behavior indicated his remorse by attempting to emotionally undo the murder. Other forms of undoing may include the offender’s washing up, cleaning the body, covering the victim’s face, or completely covering the body. The offender engages in these activities not because he is attempting to hide the victim but because he may be feeling some degree of remorse.
Crime Classification Manual, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, page 34

Also

There are often indicators of undoing. This is the killer’s way of expressing remorse or the desire to undo the murder. Undoing is demonstrated by the offender’s washing of the victim ...
Crime Classification Manual, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, pages 155 - 156
You say that this may be a precautionary act without stating what, specifically, it is a precaution against, given the evidence:

Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenét’s upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenét’s body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the flourescent light at the autopsy.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 172

As the passage above states, the area that was wiped was sampled and tested; nothing other than the smeared blood of JonBenet was found.
Why attempt to wipe away JBR’s blood? Wiping her blood away serves no purpose, whatsoever, from a precautionary standpoint.
Undoing provides an answer, and reflects the behavior of others who have been involved in the death of a loved one.
The BPD didn’t categorize this case into primary and secondary crime scenes.
That's not what I meant with respect to questioning what was being removed by way of precaution.
Certain areas of JonBenet showed evidence of being wiped.
If your premise is correct, IOW, this was a precautionary act by which incriminating forensic evidence from the perpetrator was removed, then you will need to tell us what it is that the perpetrator was looking to remove, are you suggesting that it was semen, for example? Once you have answered that question, you will need to consider that since the cleaning was relatively incomplete, and residue was found and sampled, why was no trace whatsoever of whatever you suggest was being removed by way of precaution found?
As I have said, only JBR’s blood was found.

cynic,

Not according to profilers.
John Douglas addresses this behavior here:

I have no problem with the concept of undoing where its application is straight forward and uncomplicated. This is not the case with JonBenet's homicide. Your interpretation of particular behaviour as representing an act of undoing does not follow directly from the evidence since another interpretation is available e.g. that of a precautionary act. Note: in 2000, John Douglas offered an intruder theory for the death of JonBenet.

The BPD didn’t categorize this case into primary and secondary crime scenes.

So you have access to BPD homicide records?

You say that this may be a precautionary act without stating what, specifically, it is a precaution against, given the evidence:

I did, I offered you two examples. Naturally these may not be consistent with your undoing theory?

If your premise is correct, IOW, this was a precautionary act by which incriminating forensic evidence from the perpetrator was removed

I might be helpful to review the definition:

Precautionary Acts:

Precautionary acts are behaviors committed by an offender before, during, or after an offense that are consciously intended to confuse, hamper, or defeat investigative or forensic efforts for the purposes of concealing their identity, their connection to the crime, or the crime itself.

In the same context I'll mention Precautionary Force: which is similar to the above except that it focuses upon the resulting wound patterns. e.g. JonBenet's circumferential furrow, and other marks on her body that have been the subject of various speculation. Stun Gun, Jewellry etc etc.

So as you suggest

If your premise is correct

then either of these precautionary behaviours do not lend themselves exclusively to the removal of forensic evidence.

That is within the context of JonBenet's homicide, undoing, which may have some role to play, appears rather restricted in its scope.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Wouldn't we see evidence of the pink color of the nightgown, tinting the white blanket pink if they were washed and then dried together? (Or some other color from the Barbie decal on the front of the nightgown)
The white of the blanket looks so white in the photo.

I don't think static cling would have occurred, if that's the case.

Separate colors from whites is laundry lesson number one.

mcsmom,

Interesting thoughts. The size of the nightgown, and the fact that the blanket was wrapped around JonBenet, not simply tossed over her, which might suggest the person doing it would have ample opportunity to note the nightgown clinging to the blanket?

I cannot rule static cling out, but now, to accompany the barbie nightgown, we have a barbie doll included, so in a homicide investigation, may I suggest this is one static cling too many, e.g. its not coincidental?

.

 

[cynic]

cynic,
I have no problem with the concept of undoing where its application is straight forward and uncomplicated. This is not the case with JonBenet's homicide.

I’m not sure why you would find it to be complicated, and even if for the sake of argument it was, it doesn’t make it less likely. There are examples of people taking considerable time to engage in acts of undoing.

Your interpretation of particular behaviour as representing an act of undoing does not follow directly from the evidence since another interpretation is available e.g. that of a precautionary act.

Yes, but we need to determine what it was a precaution against, before it can be labeled as such.

Note: in 2000, John Douglas offered an intruder theory for the death of JonBenet.

The opinion shared by Douglas was based on misinformation fed to him by JR’s investigators and lawyers. I commented on that on another thread.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6103352&postcount=35"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - If JonBenet's death was an accident...[/ame]

So you have access to BPD homicide records?

I was referring to the publically available search warrants (that I quoted in post #161,) which referred to the entire home as a crime scene, coupled with the complete absence of any reference to primary and secondary crime scenes by anyone in LE or the DA’s office connected with the case during the course of nearly 15 years.

I did, I offered you two examples. Naturally these may not be consistent with your undoing theory?

Which two examples were those, UK?
Was it this?
Many of the things you cite as examples of undoing may simply be precautionary acts e.g cleaning and wiping down removes forensic evidence. Redressing JonBenet diverts attention away from the probable primary scene and masks any immediately observable physical signs of assault e.g. sexual molestation.
If so, I did respond. However, I’ll comment here.
As I indicated previously, I doubt that the Ramseys were naïve enough to believe there would be no autopsy; a child has apparently been strangled to death, an autopsy would be automatic, and regardless of superficial appearance, all injuries would come to light.
See also below.

I might be helpful to review the definition:
Precautionary Acts:
Precautionary acts are behaviors committed by an offender before, during, or after an offense that are consciously intended to confuse, hamper, or defeat investigative or forensic efforts for the purposes of concealing their identity, their connection to the crime, or the crime itself.

Yes, I am aware of that definition, but how does wiping only JonBenet’s blood away serve to confuse, hamper or defeat investigative or forensic efforts for the purpose of concealing the perpetrators identity or the crime itself.
Whether or not blood was there in significant quantities or trace quantities, it says nothing about the specific identity of the perpetrator.
Furthermore, it does not serve to conceal the crime since the injuries to the vaginal area were significant enough to be instantly obvious during an autopsy examination. The quantity of blood hides nothing related to the assault.

In the same context I'll mention Precautionary Force: which is similar to the above except that it focuses upon the resulting wound patterns. e.g. JonBenet's circumferential furrow, and other marks on her body that have been the subject of various speculation. Stun Gun, Jewellry etc etc.

We are already far afield, so I won’t comment.

…either of these precautionary behaviours do not lend themselves exclusively to the removal of forensic evidence.

You will still need to explain what the purpose was for wiping blood away, specifically, in your opinion.

That is within the context of JonBenet's homicide, undoing, which may have some role to play, appears rather restricted in its scope.

I offered the explanation of undoing to explain only those elements that have been identified in other crime scenes as undoing according to psychologists and profilers.
There are a number of things that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with undoing and would be classified as general staging or in some cases as a precautionary act.
The ransom note, for example is staging.
The paintbrush handle tied into the ligature is staging.
Removing fingerprints from the batteries in the flashlight is a precautionary act.
Etc.

BTW, just curious, how would classify the presence of a doll near the body?

 

[UKGuy]

I’m not sure why you would find it to be complicated, and even if for the sake of argument it was, it doesn’t make it less likely. There are examples of people taking considerable time to engage in acts of undoing.
Yes, but we need to determine what it was a precaution against, before it can be labeled as such.
The opinion shared by Douglas was based on misinformation fed to him by JR’s investigators and lawyers. I commented on that on another thread.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - If JonBenet's death was an accident...
I was referring to the publically available search warrants (that I quoted in post #161,) which referred to the entire home as a crime scene, coupled with the complete absence of any reference to primary and secondary crime scenes by anyone in LE or the DA’s office connected with the case during the course of nearly 15 years.
Which two examples were those, UK?
Was it this?
Many of the things you cite as examples of undoing may simply be precautionary acts e.g cleaning and wiping down removes forensic evidence. Redressing JonBenet diverts attention away from the probable primary scene and masks any immediately observable physical signs of assault e.g. sexual molestation.
If so, I did respond. However, I’ll comment here.
As I indicated previously, I doubt that the Ramseys were naïve enough to believe there would be no autopsy; a child has apparently been strangled to death, an autopsy would be automatic, and regardless of superficial appearance, all injuries would come to light.
See also below.
Yes, I am aware of that definition, but how does wiping only JonBenet’s blood away serve to confuse, hamper or defeat investigative or forensic efforts for the purpose of concealing the perpetrators identity or the crime itself.
Whether or not blood was there in significant quantities or trace quantities, it says nothing about the specific identity of the perpetrator.
Furthermore, it does not serve to conceal the crime since the injuries to the vaginal area were significant enough to be instantly obvious during an autopsy examination. The quantity of blood hides nothing related to the assault.
We are already far afield, so I won’t comment.
You will still need to explain what the purpose was for wiping blood away, specifically, in your opinion.
I offered the explanation of undoing to explain only those elements that have been identified in other crime scenes as undoing according to psychologists and profilers.
There are a number of things that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with undoing and would be classified as general staging or in some cases as a precautionary act.
The ransom note, for example is staging.
The paintbrush handle tied into the ligature is staging.
Removing fingerprints from the batteries in the flashlight is a precautionary act.
Etc.

BTW, just curious, how would classify the presence of a doll near the body?

cynic,
I have posted exhaustively on the questions that you put. I consider that the precuationary acts are mainly, but not exclusively, related to staging.

Whether or not blood was there in significant quantities or trace quantities, it says nothing about the specific identity of the perpetrator.

The removal of the blood may form part of a staging scenario. There may have been fiber residue from JonBenet's assailant on her body mixed with the blood. The wound patterns are as yet, largely unexplained. There may have been semen and/or blood on her size-6 underwear. Who knows, currently I find the staging theory the most consistent explanation.

BTW, just curious, how would classify the presence of a doll near the body?

Without being able to eliminate some obvious reasons for its presence e.g. an opened gift intended for Jenny etc. This makes classification contentious.

If you like the ordered/disordered classification then I would opt for disordered.

If the doll is out of its box, then it might form part of a prior staging event, or be intended to lend credence to a failed abduction from JonBenet's bed.

The pink barbie nightgown and the barbie doll are the big clues, assuming they are related then they will either provide evidence for prior staging or some other theory.

Then again some may view the wine-cellar as akin to an Egyptian pyramid, with JonBenet being prepared via some cleansing ritual, esconced with suitable funerary items, finally to be wrapped in a white blanket, not dissimilar from the act of mummification?

.