Was BR involved? #2

[UKGuy]

RSBM
Wecht is NOT alone. Spitz also believed the abrasions and the "roughly triangular" bruise/abrasion (*whatever term you prefer*) came before the head blow was inflicted. ...as did Doberson.

One doesn't need to adopt Wecht's speculative, hypothetical EA scenario to accept the consistent analyses of three expert medical examiners. Spitz, Doberson, and Wecht found evidence of attempted strangulation occurring before the injuries sustained from the head blow.

Mama2JML,
BBM: ITA. The head bash is part of the staging, as is the ligature, so to confuse people about the origin of the bruising/abrasions, beneath the circumferential furrow too.

If the acute assault is confirmed, then it looks like JonBenet screamed and her assailant choked her to shut her up. The rest is along Beckners train of thought, i.e. the parents took over.

With no Intruder to be found, or even dna match, and only two suspects left to offer a confession then I know which one my money is on!

.

 

[otg]

Mama2JML,
BBM: ITA. The head bash is part of the staging, as is the ligature, so to confuse people about the origin of the bruising/abrasions, beneath the circumferential furrow too.

If the acute assault is confirmed, then it looks like JonBenet screamed and her assailant choked her to shut her up. The rest is along Beckners train of thought, i.e. the parents took over.

With no Intruder to be found, or even dna match, and only two suspects left to offer a confession then I know which one my money is on!

.

Wait a minute. D'you really mean to say that both the head bash and the ligature are both staging. Add to this that a lot of people believe the sexual assault was staged as well. So this whole thing was really just all staged! Nothing really happened that night other than someone decided to stage everything to make it look like she had been raped, kidnapped, and killed.


(Beam me up, Scotty.)
:ufo:

 

[BoldBear]

That's it? I read the whole thread and didn't get for find out who done it in the end? But Seriously...

I don't have a problem with the batteries not having finger prints. I've done cleaning professionally. Sometimes you slip on gloves because you're doing something unpleasant and you do mundane things like changing batteries in a flashlight when you're wearing them. With all of the feces in this home, I'd probably be wearing gloves all the time. It was also stated that there are certain rough textures where they couldn't get fingerprints. Then again, there are smooth surfaces on parts of a flashlight. No print there? Oh well. Maybe the flashlight was handled by the person who cleaned the kitchen counters.

The garland fragments in her hair: they do a search of the home, find feces on the wall of the basement but don't determine if the garland in her hair came from the spiral staircase or the christmas decorations on basement wall? Wouldn't that help to conclude if she was carried down the stairs or went to the first floor by herself now that BR established that she was awake when she arrived home?

I've also done more reading about a little girl's private areas and that's something I never wanted to think about. After a few weeks of this, I'm less horrified that an adult male would even have such a thing on his mind--thank god the shame went away and I'm able to approach it more clinically.

Forgive me for the question but for digital sexual abuse, how would only one location show signs of wear? If BR would have penetrated, it would have shown signs a abrasion everywhere? I can understand if was a small object or a digit was used, it wouldn't expand the opening as much if there was penetration, but the abrasion is limited to one part and not the other? I don't understand this. A single incident the day before could damage one area and not another, but wouldn't repeated abuse over time theoretically cause damage in different locations eventually showing wear and abrasions in multiple locations?

Playing Doctor: I view this as normal for children. I'm not talking about sex, but curiosity. "Oh, I've got this and you've got that." That happens usually briefly before the children get bored and go back to their toys. That's why I have a problem with the use of the term 'playing doctor' to describe repeated sexual abuse. I don't see them as the same thing.

What BR is being accused of is hard for me to understand. This would be a younger sister who trusts her older brother. And at the age of 9, this type of abuse isn't about sexual gratification. It would be a lot easier for me to understand if someone was advocating that BR was sexually molested too. The argument that he was attacking his sister out of jealousy seems weak without additional evidence. And even after all the years of digging, the other siblings, and BR growing up, there was never any evidence that JR or PR molested their other children including BR. There's no evidence of BR having any trouble with the law, drunk driving, drug abuse or any sexual crimes? To top all of that off, there's only 1 inadvertent quote from a 9 year old boy about the murder. This is because he was seeing a psychiatrist? A 9 year old by didn't confide in someone after all these years? At that age, I would have never been able to keep secrets no matter how much I tried. Somewhere, someway, he had to confide in someone who might blab.

 

[andreww]

Whether Burke did it or not, he has kept his mouth shut about other aspects of this crime. That he was awake that morning, the pineapple, whether JB was asleep when they got home, and a multitude of other things. He has never spoken about any of it, so what difference does that make?

Part of the problem with this case is people's perception of how a normal family would act. Many people, including LS and his pals in the DAs office, that the family could not have done this simply because members of her own family wouldn't have been so brutal. I can't begin to say how flawed that thinking is.

There were three people, now two, that know what happened in this case and they all covered for each other, so any theory, whether it be BDI, PDI or JDI is simply that, a theory. Any evidence that would have helped determine which of them it was has been destroyed, altered or planted and all the witnesses have been silenced, so without a confession from one of them we'll never know the truth. That doesn't make the BDI theory any less plausible than the rest though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Wait a minute. D'you really mean to say that both the head bash and the ligature are both staging. Add to this that a lot of people believe the sexual assault was staged as well. So this whole thing was really just all staged! Nothing really happened that night other than someone decided to stage everything to make it look like she had been raped, kidnapped, and killed.


(Beam me up, Scotty.)
:ufo:

otg,
You seem to forget that there was a staged crime-scene, i.e. the wine-cellar. Yes the head bash and ligature can represent staging just as the paintbrush injury might represent a sexual assault as you suggest.

These things were done to JonBenet likely down in the basement so to mask other stuff, its that simple. Are you suggesting an Intruder decided a ligature asphyxiation was aesthetically more appropriate than a hand over her mouth, or that the size-12's were prettier than any of the size-6 pants in her underwear drawer?

It might all be staged because someone choked JonBenet manually, the rest is all in our imagination?

.

 

[887sMtreme]

Yes the head bash and ligature can represent staging just as the paintbrush injury might represent a sexual assault as you suggest.

It's my understanding that the term "staging" in criminal investigations means how a murder victim might have been displayed in certain ways for discovery, for some effect, AFTER death, not what means the murderer uses to commit the murder itself. Is that not the case?

 

[andreww]

It's my understanding that the term "staging" in criminal investigations means how a murder victim might have been displayed in certain ways for discovery, for some effect, AFTER death, not what means the murderer uses to commit the murder itself. Is that not the case?

No that is not the case. Staging is anything at the crime scene that was done to point investigators in a different direction. If the ligature actually killed JB, then it is evidence, however, if she was strangled by hand and the ligature was later applied to mask that fact, it is staging.

 

[tml]

"The garland fragments in her hair: they do a search of the home, find feces on the wall of the basement but don't determine if the garland in her hair came from the spiral staircase or the christmas decorations on basement wall?"

I have never heard this piece of information before. Can you verify this or point me to the source you found this at? Thank you.

 

[UKGuy]

It's my understanding that the term "staging" in criminal investigations means how a murder victim might have been displayed in certain ways for discovery, for some effect, AFTER death, not what means the murderer uses to commit the murder itself. Is that not the case?

887sMtreme,
Some crime-scenes exhibit this aspect, where the body is posed in a particular manner, sometimes described as a signature.

This was not done in JonBenet's case. She was cleaned up, redressed, wrapped in a blanket and hidden out of sight, the opposite of the above.

Nearly all her injuries might result from attempts at staging her death. There was no need to ligature asphyxiate her, that is part of the staging, that it killed her, may or may not have been intentional, the killer might have thought she was already dead from the head blow, there was a period of time between the head blow and the asphyxiation, plenty time to dial for medical assistance.

I reckon the staging confuses people, they take the staged elements and build theories, resulting in inconsistencies, just read Beckner's remarks to get a flavor of this.

.

 

[887sMtreme]

Thanks, UKGuy. I see what you're saying. While you're here, may I ask if the term "garrote" in this case is used in the sense I'm finding online; e.g., of the cord having been twisted tighter by means of the piece of paintbrush? People here keep referring to "pulling" the cord. Do we know what was actually done? Knowing this would help me better imagine who might have done that part of the staging.

 

[ModMaiden]

This case haunts me. One thing that always stood out regarding the 911 call and the ransom note is Victory. The note says Victory! S.B.T.C. but in the call she says S.B.T.C. Victory. Minor issue I know but just something I find interesting. Like it was an afterthought and realizing she needed to include that. Why even bother saying Victory in the call, it has nothing to do with whom the note was from. I read that as if someone would be cheering vs identifying themselves.

I don't think the son wrote the note unless he was coached. The words used are not typical words a young boy would know. Take the word 'Hence'. The way it is written in the note. "and, hence" It is not common and rarely used yet both John and Patsy used this word in their book "The Death of Innocence" and also on October 12, 2000, the Ramsey's did a webcast interview with Newseum (www.newsuem.org) where John uses the word in the same way. Even in their Christmas message it was written as and, hence.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

It is a very sad situation, this little girl deserves her time in court and she will never see it.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

Any physical act of violence can be claimed to be a staging act by a person who was not there but needs to label it as such to fit their theory.

If she was struck on the head accidentally and they wanted to stage it, it is a stretch to think they would strangle and sexually assault her also.

 

[otg]

Thanks, UKGuy. I see what you're saying. While you're here, may I ask if the term "garrote" in this case is used in the sense I'm finding online; e.g., of the cord having been twisted tighter by means of the piece of paintbrush? People here keep referring to "pulling" the cord. Do we know what was actually done? Knowing this would help me better imagine who might have done that part of the staging.

The word garrote is used (and misused) in different ways. For a little history on the two traditional types of garrotes, you might find this post helpful:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-Strangulation-Devices&p=5721057#post5721057

Because of how an assassin would use this device (sneaking up from behind and strangling), it has become common for people to refer to the act as "garroting", or to say that someone had been "garroted", regardless of how the device was constructed but simply because the victim was strangled from behind.

Look at the device that was found on JonBenet's neck and try to imagine how it might have been used. I don't believe it could have been used effectively as it was found on her neck. I think the paintbrush was broken after she was dead and tied to the cord to obscure what it had actually been used for previously (the sexual assault). The piece of paintbrush handle that would have held evidence of this was broken off and disposed of. Doing this accomplished two things: 1) It made the object used in the sexual assault less obvious; and 2) It changed the apparent way the cord was used to strangle her.

 

[otg]

"The garland fragments in her hair: they do a search of the home, find feces on the wall of the basement but don't determine if the garland in her hair came from the spiral staircase or the christmas decorations on basement wall?"

I have never heard this piece of information before. Can you verify this or point me to the source you found this at? Thank you.

The feces smeared on the wall of the basement is not specifically stated. It comes from questioning of Patsy about conditions in the basement that were documented. Burke was known to have smeared feces on the bathroom wall when Patsy was undergoing chemo. It was assumed that he had at some point stopped. But if you think about what is being looked at in photos and what is being asked of Patsy (and her reactions) by investigators in the June 23, 1998 interview, it seems a pretty safe conclusion (IMO) that someone had smeared feces on the wall around the toilet in the basement. You can read the interview and comments here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey&p=10589180#post10589180

 

[otg]

otg,
You seem to forget that there was a staged crime-scene, i.e. the wine-cellar. Yes the head bash and ligature can represent staging just as the paintbrush injury might represent a sexual assault as you suggest.

These things were done to JonBenet likely down in the basement so to mask other stuff, its that simple. Are you suggesting an Intruder decided a ligature asphyxiation was aesthetically more appropriate than a hand over her mouth, or that the size-12's were prettier than any of the size-6 pants in her underwear drawer?

It might all be staged because someone choked JonBenet manually, the rest is all in our imagination?

There is no evidence that she was strangled manually. The cord used is too thin to have covered evidence of manual strangulation. There is no evidence that she was smothered with a hand (or anything else) over her mouth. In fact, on this Meyer specifically mentions in the AR things being absent that would address the question of smothering and therefore disputes the possibility.

 

[BoldBear]

"The garland fragments in her hair: they do a search of the home, find feces on the wall of the basement but don't determine if the garland in her hair came from the spiral staircase or the christmas decorations on basement wall?"

I have never heard this piece of information before. Can you verify this or point me to the source you found this at? Thank you.

Posting #358 of this thread is where they discussed this. It was also listed on other discussion lists. Some have used it as evidence that JBR was carried down the spiral staircase.

 

[questfortrue]

The feces smeared on the wall of the basement is not specifically stated. It comes from questioning of Patsy about conditions in the basement that were documented. Burke was known to have smeared feces on the bathroom wall when Patsy was undergoing chemo. It was assumed that he had at some point stopped. But if you think about what is being looked at in photos and what is being asked of Patsy (and her reactions) by investigators in the June 23, 1998 interview, it seems a pretty safe conclusion (IMO) that someone had smeared feces on the wall around the toilet in the basement. You can read the interview and comments here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey&p=10589180#post10589180

Some may also recall that Kolar brought out that JB’s box of candy had been smeared with feces and that there were pajamas in JB's bedroom thought to belong to BR which contained fecal matter. In a podcast interview sometime in the past couple years (apologies I don’t recall who interviewed him – Levi Page, perhaps) the comment was made that he (the interviewer) had sibling rivalry with his brothers, but nothing as over the top as smearing feces on a box of candy.

For those who haven’t read Kolar’s book, he summarizes some of the information he learned from Sharon Araji, author of a book titled Sexually Aggressive Children. One of the signs of SBP is disturbed bodily functions related to urination and elimination.

And even though PR seems dismissive of any of these disturbed signs in BR – thanks for the link to the interview, otg - there was one interesting story reported by a woman who had been a friend to PR through the beauty pageants. She visited PR in Charlevoix and Boulder. (Since Boulder was mentioned it was likely pre-homicide.) The woman spent about a week with PR, and said that PR was quite garrulous and spoke about the members of her family. However, in that entire week PR never mentioned anything about BR. The woman felt PR had some kind of embarrassment about BR.

A couple of other salient points of SBP also caught my eye:
• Offenders lack compassion, empathy, and exhibit inadequate social skills. And ---
• Co-morbidity: SBP patients have a higher incidence of psychiatric disorders that include, but are not limited to, attachment disorder and separation anxiety.

The reason co-morbidity (the presence of two disorders) caught my eye was because of certain childhood disorders that can cause harm to others. One such behavior disorder is called oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) which can morph into the more serious conduct disorder. The issue with both of those disorders is the various aggressive tendencies which can occur in their relationships with others.

Since we don't know who BR was as a child, hard to make any conclusions. However, flags were raised for me, especially with conduct disorder thought to be present in about 2% to 16% of children. Conduct disorder includes behaviors that threaten or cause physical harm. It may include fighting, bullying, being cruel to others or animals, using weapons, and forcing another into sexual activity. Children with conduct disorder often are unable to appreciate how their behavior can hurt others. They also generally have little guilt or remorse about hurting others. (http://www.ohelfamily.org/?q=mental...defiant-disorder_odd_children_and_adolescents)

Also, to be fair, none of us have knowledge whether BR manifested any of the above. The head strike with a weapon to shut someone up may seem strange, but it could have happened. Or a parent may have lashed out in a violent domestic event. IDK. But Kolar was on the right track indicating that a subpoena for BR’s medical records might bring about more understanding and perhaps even some resolution in the case. Strictly mho.

 

[tml]

The feces smeared on the wall of the basement is not specifically stated. It comes from questioning of Patsy about conditions in the basement that were documented. Burke was known to have smeared feces on the bathroom wall when Patsy was undergoing chemo. It was assumed that he had at some point stopped. But if you think about what is being looked at in photos and what is being asked of Patsy (and her reactions) by investigators in the June 23, 1998 interview, it seems a pretty safe conclusion (IMO) that someone had smeared feces on the wall around the toilet in the basement. You can read the interview and comments here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey&p=10589180#post10589180

Gotcha, thanks. I see how it can be inferred that feces was smeared on the wall. That could very well be a piece of evidence that was withheld from the public...I think that whether it was feces or not, the investigators clearly saw something worth questioning. That could be because it was in fact feces, or because they might have thought it was and this played into a BDI theory, so they pursued. In light of the fact that up until Kolar's book, I personally had never heard about the feces smeared candy box - not sure if it came out before that or not - indicates that several important facts were kept secret for many years.

 

[icedtea4me]

Some may also recall that Kolar brought out that JB’s box of candy had been smeared with feces and that there were pajamas in JB's bedroom thought to belong to BR which contained fecal matter. In a podcast interview sometime in the past couple years (apologies I don’t recall who interviewed him – Levi Page, perhaps) the comment was made that he (the interviewer) had sibling rivalry with his brothers, but nothing as over the top as smearing feces on a box of candy. *snip*

1. Was the fecal matter in the pajama bottoms quantified (i.e. skid marks from not wiping well to stool/s)?
2. Was the fecal matter in the pajama bottoms tested to determine whose it was?
3. Was the amount of the fecal smear on the box of candy quantified (i.e. a minuscule amount from handling the box after not having washed hands thoroughly after defecating or an entire stool)?
4. Was the fecal matter on the box of candy tested to determine whose it was?

 

[questfortrue]

1. Was the fecal matter in the pajama bottoms quantified (i.e. skid marks from not wiping well to stool/s)?
2. Was the fecal matter in the pajama bottoms tested to determine whose it was?
3. Was the amount of the fecal smear on the box of candy quantified (i.e. a minuscule amount from handling the box after not having washed hands thoroughly after defecating or an entire stool)?
4. Was the fecal matter on the box of candy tested to determine whose it was?

The National Institute of Justice claims that samples such as feces, fecal stains, and vomit can potentially be tested, but are not routinely accepted by most laboratories for testing. Maybe someone else knows whether such forensic testing was even done in the mid-90s, or if such testing was confined to medical diagnostics. Good question for Dan Krane.

I can only draw my own conclusions that Kolar’s selection of terminology meant what is commonly understood – e.g., a “ fecal smear” on a box is different than leaving a “fecal mark” from unwashed hands. Same with “fecal material” vs. “fecal stains” like skidmarks. But these are questions best posed to Kolar, not me.

The suggestion that the pajama bottoms were thought to belong to BR because of their size also came from investigators’ reports which Kolar reviewed. From one of the photos released by the Ws for publishing in Westword BR was notably taller than JB, maybe by a foot. Imo, the photo looks to have been taken in the fall of 1996, because of the presence of pumpkins. (It does not appear that JonBenet and DW were kneeling in the photo or FWIII would be seen towering above his sister.)