Was Burke involved?

[Calcifer]

I have trouble believing BDI because I feel like would require the parents to react in an unnatural way to the situation.

From following the case, I believe the head injury and garotting happened in such rapid succession no one is sure which actually caused her death. This means that the staging must have started almost immediately after the head injury. If BDI, he clearly had help with the staging. I can't see him physically being able to drag JB down to the wine cellar and complete that scene. Besides from handwriting analysis, Patsy wrote the note. So if BDI, his parents (or at least Patsy) starting staging within a matter of minutes. At that point, JB may have looked dead, but she was still warm.

Now, I don't have children, but I think I can put myself in the shoes of a parent. I walk into my son's bedroom and see my daughter on the floor, apparently dead. Wouldn't the normal reaction be to call an ambulance/ take her to the ER/ see if a doctor can't do something to help her? She's still warm and medical science is pretty impressive. Maybe they can do something. So I call 911 or pick her up and take her to the car, telling my son "It was an accident. You were playing and she hit her head. Tell everyone it was an accident." Wouldn't the goal be to save both children, not just one? If I came home and my cat looked dead but was still warm, I'd be taking him to the vet. And he's a cat.

I just can't see a loving parent giving up so easily and writing off one child to save the other, when it might be possible to save both. Burke's just a kid and accidents happen. Surely they would be able to get him off the hook.

I don't think catching Burke molesting JB before killing her explains the reaction either. Kids play doctor, and he hasn't even hit puberty. That can be brushed under the rug fairly easily. It sounds like the family has had practice with that from Patsy's history. I always thought the signs of sexual contact came from JB's bed-wetting. I can see Patsy freaking out and deciding to clean her really thoroughly, inside and out, when she did it. Wouldn't regular scrubbing degrade the hymen in the same way?

If any of my facts are wrong, I apologize and am ready to be corrected. I've followed the case, but am not anywhere near the expert that many of you are.

 

[cynic]

Why would anyone put an UNopened package of panties in a drawer? Aside from that- I assume you have never seen these types of panties as they are sold. The Wednesday pair is always in the middle of the package. JB couldn't read. You'd have to pull out a few other pairs to get at the Wednesday pair. Christmas that year was a Wednesday. Someone had to choose them for her, whether it was a pair of size 6 when she was dressing that day, or a pair of size 12, after the original ones were ruined.
We cannot presume JB opened that package. There is nothing to suggest that. We have only Patsy's word that JB "must have" put them on herself, and it is very unlikely that happened.
Doesn't it seem much more likely that whoever redressed JB opened that package, removed it from the home (or had someone else remove them) before LE did a search?

The packaging was not “user friendly.” (Scissors would have been required.)
It would be very unlikely that they would have been placed in the drawer in that condition.

(Pictures below were taken by the poster Jayelles at Forums for Justice.)

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you for posting that, Cynic and thanks to Jayelles for doing that legwork!

As you can see, the panties are rolled into the pouch, and if you could read the waistbands, these little novelty sets are placed in order into their packaging. That means the "Wednesday" pair would be in the middle of the pack. To pull it out, you'd have to first pull out the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday pairs. So it wasn't a matter of just grabbing the first pair they found, the choice to use the Wednesday pair was deliberate. To me, there are only two reasons for this. They needed to replace a (never found?) pair of Wednesday panties in her own size (6). OR the stager (and this sounds like something Patsy would do) wanted the panties to say Wednesday because they wanted it to be believed that JB dressed herself in them and that day was actually a Wednesday.
Police had an interview with Patsy asking about the panties specifically, in which Patsy admitted she bought them for Jenny. She also said she "didn't remember" if she bought one set (for Jenny only) or two sets (one for JB as well). Now- that is something you'd remember. At that point, LE had already removed all of JB's panties that they were able to find and noted that all were size 4 or 6 and were fecal stained. (the size 12 she was found in had no fecal stains). They did not, however, mention whether any of them were Bloomies Day-Of-The-Week panties, and with Patsy claiming not to recall whether she bought a set in JB's size, I'd expect LE would mention that she obviously had, if they found them.
For those who would still (inexplicably) believe JB chose them herself and put them on herself, JB couldn't read yet. Someone had to choose them for her. And if you saw Jayelle's "model" of a child about JB's size wearing a size 12, you'd know exactly what we mean about a parent never allowing a child to wear such a huge, poorly fitting pair of panties. I mean, the areas of the body meant to be covered/protected by underwear in the first place is exposed because of the huge, gaping leg holes.

 

[UKGuy]

I never saw a list of what was in the partially opened boxes, so I have nothing to confirm that gifts other than Jenny's were opened. If there is such a list, please let me know where to see it.
As I said, we do not know for sure that there were name tags on the boxes. If there were no tags, that is certainly a reason why more than one box was opened. If there were tags, I have to assume only Jenny's were opened and I have never seen anything to the contrary.
We have no way to prove the panties were ever in her drawer. None were found in that size, and the panties on JB were new, unlaundered. The rest of the set was sent on years later, still in the package. That is all I need to know to be certain they were not taken from her drawer, but were taken from a gift box. There is simply no other reason to have opened them.

And yes, I actually AM suggesting they ignored crime scene evidence. They likely never considered the gift boxes to be part of the crime. I don't care whether they tool the toilets apart or not.
Patsy admitted to opening the boxes to "take a peek". I doubt she'd have bashed JB for opening a gift box. If they really were hidden in that room, JB couldn't have reached the latch anyway. If BR had stood on a chair to open the latch, well, he'd be to blame as well. He wasn't killed.
The only thing that makes sense to me as far as the gift boxes is that someone was looking specifically for those panties. There are two possible reasons- they needed a "Wednesday" pair or they just needed a clean pair and didn't want to chance going upstairs after the scream to get a pair of JB's own panties. Interesting that if all they needed was a clean pair that the stagers chose the correct day of the week for Christmas that year- Wednesday. That, to me, has Patsy's stamp on it.

DeeDee249,,

I never saw a list of what was in the partially opened boxes, so I have nothing to confirm that gifts other than Jenny's were opened. If there is such a list, please let me know where to see it.

mmm, well the list available simply states partially opened gifts. Now we have no evidence that the size-12's were ever gift wrapped. Also I do not expect the wine-cellar stager to leave either the gift-wrapping or the remaining size-12's in the wine-cellar. If there was a partially opened Christmas gift name tagged with Jenny Davis' then there is no need to open and peek at the gifts?

We have no way to prove the panties were ever in her drawer.

We don't need to, everyone, including the Ramsey's, know it is a ridiculous proposition.

None were found in that size, and the panties on JB were new, unlaundered. The rest of the set was sent on years later, still in the package. That is all I need to know to be certain they were not taken from her drawer, but were taken from a gift box. There is simply no other reason to have opened them.

There is no evidence to suggest the size-12's were in a gift box. But they may have been gift-wrapped by Bloomingdales or some other store, and surely name-tagged or marked with the contents, otherwise the contents would be unknown.

And yes, I actually AM suggesting they ignored crime scene evidence. They likely never considered the gift boxes to be part of the crime. I don't care whether they tool the toilets apart or not.

I doubt this, since the wine-cellar contents were itemized, and the pink nightgown was sent for dna testing.

Interesting that if all they needed was a clean pair that the stagers chose the correct day of the week for Christmas that year- Wednesday. That, to me, has Patsy's stamp on it.

Could be, we must be missing something because Patsy's story about the size-12's seems at variance with the evidence, whatever it is, it meant they had to return the remaining size-12's.

The only thing that makes sense to me as far as the gift boxes is that someone was looking specifically for those panties.

Maybe, but why does Jenny Davis' gifts need to be down in the basement? If you think Patsy redressed JonBenet in those size-12's or simply selected the Wednesday pair, then as the gift wrapper she does not need to open gifts to find the size-12's. The notion that the gifts were opened while looking for the size-12's is inconsistent with what we know.

I think those partially opened gifts played some other role. You know Patsy does not need to peek into those gifts, that answer is alike her story about placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer. Its intended to mask whatever role those partially opened gifts actually played.

Interesting that if all they needed was a clean pair that the stagers chose the correct day of the week for Christmas that year- Wednesday. That, to me, has Patsy's stamp on it.

It does appear the Wednesday feature was deliberately selected. You reckon Patsy simply forgot to place the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,,

mmm, well the list available simply states partially opened gifts. Now we have no evidence that the size-12's were ever gift wrapped. Also I do not expect the wine-cellar stager to leave either the gift-wrapping or the remaining size-12's in the wine-cellar. If there was a partially opened Christmas gift name tagged with Jenny Davis' then there is no need to open and peek at the gifts?


We don't need to, everyone, including the Ramsey's, know it is a ridiculous proposition.


There is no evidence to suggest the size-12's were in a gift box. But they may have been gift-wrapped by Bloomingdales or some other store, and surely name-tagged or marked with the contents, otherwise the contents would be unknown.


I doubt this, since the wine-cellar contents were itemized, and the pink nightgown was sent for dna testing.


Could be, we must be missing something because Patsy's story about the size-12's seems at variance with the evidence, whatever it is, it meant they had to return the remaining size-12's.


Maybe, but why does Jenny Davis' gifts need to be down in the basement? If you think Patsy redressed JonBenet in those size-12's or simply selected the Wednesday pair, then as the gift wrapper she does not need to open gifts to find the size-12's. The notion that the gifts were opened while looking for the size-12's is inconsistent with what we know.

I think those partially opened gifts played some other role. You know Patsy does not need to peek into those gifts, that answer is alike her story about placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer. Its intended to mask whatever role those partially opened gifts actually played.


It does appear the Wednesday feature was deliberately selected. You reckon Patsy simply forgot to place the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer?

.

Jenny's gifts don't "need" to be in the basement, but we know for a fact that at least one partially unwrapped gift was in the wineceller. Obviously the box or boxes could have been somewhere else and brought in the wineceller.
I don't think Patsy forgot anything. The panties were never given to JB. They remained a gift that was meant to be mailed out to Jenny (as Patsy said) when she returned from the trip.
In Patsy's interview, she mentions that the panties were placed in a gift box with other items that were intended for Jenny. I guess she forgot she said that, because in another part of the interview she mentions putting them in JB's drawer.
Even if the wrapped box had Jenny's name tag, her statement that the Bloomies panties were placed with other things meant the box would have had to be partially unwrapped to get the panty pouch out.
Patsy may not have been the redresser. JR's fibers inside those panties indicate he put them on her or handled them in some way. Patsy may have told him they were in one of the boxes.

 

[BabyB]

Bottom line. I don't think he was involved in the crime, because there has been no actual evidence to suggest that he was. I'm really uncomfortable with the idea to continue to suggest he did it, when his parents were as strange as all get out, and everything points to them, not to him.

 

[Alix]

I wasn't sure what you meant by "involved", so I assumed that this meant that Burke was involved in the murder itself. He bashed her in the head or strangled her or even sexually assualted her.

If that is the case, then no, I don't think he was involved. It's not that I can't believe that siblings will play doctor. Sure they do. They do it all the time. I remember a little brother and sister set that I babysat for years ago, and one night, I caught them in the same bed, playing around. When I told them to seperate, they screamed at me! I wasn't shocked at their playing doctor--I was shocked at their angered reaction. They were about the same age as the Ramsey children.

So, I can see the kids playing around. I just don't think Burke killed his sister, and definately don't see him sexually assualting her. I think that he would have shown his disturbed mind at some point in his life afterwards, but no one has heard a peep. Not a girlfriend, boyfriend, pal.

Even if, say, Burke had accidently bonked his sister on the head, it's insane to think a "normal" parent would then cover this accident by raping their dead or dying child.

I think Burke is a bit of a freak, but I don't see him killing his sister. I think Mommy did it, and I think she raped her daughter for the same reason all rapists rape: control.

 

[DeeDee249]

It may be "uncomfortable" to suggest the involvement by any of the family members, but as far as the forum goes, it is perfectly understandable to suggest it. That is the only way to have a dialog- to discuss everyone's often differing opinions.
The fact is that four people returned to that house Christmas night after a dinner at a friend's home. Only three people were alive the next morning. Any person in the home at the time one of the people also in that home is found dead becomes a suspect, like it or not, until the killer is identified BY NAME. Until that happens, the three people in the house at the time JB was killed remain suspects, regardless of what un-truth the former DA told. The truth? NO one in the family can be excluded as a suspect until the killer is named, and the DNA cannot rule anyone OUT or IN until it is sourced to a named person.

COULD BR have done it? Not all of it and not alone. Could he be the molester? Certainly. Their housekeeper caught them under the blankets in BR's room "playing" and interestingly, she got a very ANGRY response and was told to "get out" of the room.
We may never know who was molesting JB. We may never know for sure if it happened before that night. But we DO know FOR SURE that someone molested her that night with enough force to cause her to bleed. And, though it was only noted in the autopsy as "cellulose", other LE sources noted that wood shards consistent with the broken paintbrush handle were found in her vagina. That was NO accident. That was deliberate. That was molestation of the most vile nature. That wasn't from "bubble baths, wet panties, not wiping properly or masturbation" (all of which was suggested by IDI).
There were several things Meyer inexplicably chose not to enter in his written report: The shards, (he noted only "cellulose" aka wood), his comment on the erosion of the hymen being the result of digital penetration, and a partial fingerprint that was found ON THE BODY. To me, that last one was an astounding omission. A dead, molested child has a FINGERPRINT on the body and you don't try to match it (even a partial print can yield some info) and you do not note it in the report? Police present during the autopsy witnessed all these findings, yet there was not much done with the information.
It was Sgt. Trujillo who took the print from the body. He, along with Det. Linda Arndt, was present at the autopsy.

 

[UKGuy]

It may be "uncomfortable" to suggest the involvement by any of the family members, but as far as the forum goes, it is perfectly understandable to suggest it. That is the only way to have a dialog- to discuss everyone's often differing opinions.
The fact is that four people returned to that house Christmas night after a dinner at a friend's home. Only three people were alive the next morning. Any person in the home at the time one of the people also in that home is found dead becomes a suspect, like it or not, until the killer is identified BY NAME. Until that happens, the three people in the house at the time JB was killed remain suspects, regardless of what un-truth the former DA told. The truth? NO one in the family can be excluded as a suspect until the killer is named, and the DNA cannot rule anyone OUT or IN until it is sourced to a named person.

COULD BR have done it? Not all of it and not alone. Could he be the molester? Certainly. Their housekeeper caught them under the blankets in BR's room "playing" and interestingly, she got a very ANGRY response and was told to "get out" of the room.
We may never know who was molesting JB. We may never know for sure if it happened before that night. But we DO know FOR SURE that someone molested her that night with enough force to cause her to bleed. And, though it was only noted in the autopsy as "cellulose", other LE sources noted that wood shards consistent with the broken paintbrush handle were found in her vagina. That was NO accident. That was deliberate. That was molestation of the most vile nature. That wasn't from "bubble baths, wet panties, not wiping properly or masturbation" (all of which was suggested by IDI).
There were several things Meyer inexplicably chose not to enter in his written report: The shards, (he noted only "cellulose" aka wood), his comment on the erosion of the hymen being the result of digital penetration, and a partial fingerprint that was found ON THE BODY. To me, that last one was an astounding omission. A dead, molested child has a FINGERPRINT on the body and you don't try to match it (even a partial print can yield some info) and you do not note it in the report? Police present during the autopsy witnessed all these findings, yet there was not much done with the information.
It was Sgt. Trujillo who took the print from the body. He, along with Det. Linda Arndt, was present at the autopsy.

DeeDee249,
I think there was stuff redacted from the Autopsy Report. To back this up I'll cite the Coroners use of scientific language that obscures what he talking about, see emphasis below, and his verbatim report to autopsy attendees relating sexual contact and digital penetration. Obviously we do not know if he had anything else pertinent to say?

Excerpt from JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.

The shards of wood were found outside the wine-cellar door and the cellulose arises from Steve Thomas' observation that splinters were found inside JonBenet.

You can infer that these three items e.g. birefringent material, splinters, and shards of wood, arise from a common source e.g. the paintbrush handle.

And because Coroner Meyer used the terminology birefringent foreign material this suggests he had employed spectral analysis to arrive at this result. So common sense tells us applying the same procedure to shards of wood will allow BPD to eliminate or match the paintbrush handle as their origin?

I reckon they have these results, that Steve Thomas knows whether the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was left inside JonBenet?

Personally I think it was since it fits with the violent profile and with the notion that chronic abuse was being masked?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I am not positive, but the birefringent material could be a different substance from the cellulose that was described. I had read the birefringent material could have been fragments of talc, or if it was the paintbrush splinters, could represent fragments of dried paint that had been on the paintbrush.
Whoever was present at that autopsy knows whether there were paintbrush fragments, or even the missing part of the paintbrush, in her vagina. I feel the missing piece is still missing, though, because if the paintbrush was pushed in her vagina, it would have been bloodied, and likely removed from the house along with whatever panties she may have been wearing originally.
There were at least four other people watching the autopsy besides the coroner. The photographer (there always is one), a female medical examiner, and officers Arndt and Trujillo.

As far as those original panties...there is a gray area there. She was alive at the time of a sexual assault- we know that by the bruising and bleeding. However, her original panties may have been removed completely and never bloodied at all. She may have been naked, at least from the waist down. Or she may have been wearing that pink Barbie nightie, and only the panties removed. BTW, this would certainly explain the blood on the nightie. But it doesn't explain why she was redressed in the longjohns instead of the nightie, or why the nightie wasn't just left on her if it wasn't removed. If it was removed because of the blood splatters, why leave it there? Oversight? Remember JR's words when shown a photo of the pink nightie on the white blanket- "that wasn't supposed to be there". What a slip-up that was- and LE just let it go....
So many unknowns, so many variables. So many secrets.

 

[UKGuy]

I am not positive, but the birefringent material could be a different substance from the cellulose that was described. I had read the birefringent material could have been fragments of talc, or if it was the paintbrush splinters, could represent fragments of dried paint that had been on the paintbrush.
Whoever was present at that autopsy knows whether there were paintbrush fragments, or even the missing part of the paintbrush, in her vagina. I feel the missing piece is still missing, though, because if the paintbrush was pushed in her vagina, it would have been bloodied, and likely removed from the house along with whatever panties she may have been wearing originally.
There were at least four other people watching the autopsy besides the coroner. The photographer (there always is one), a female medical examiner, and officers Arndt and Trujillo.

As far as those original panties...there is a gray area there. She was alive at the time of a sexual assault- we know that by the bruising and bleeding. However, her original panties may have been removed completely and never bloodied at all. She may have been naked, at least from the waist down. Or she may have been wearing that pink Barbie nightie, and only the panties removed. BTW, this would certainly explain the blood on the nightie. But it doesn't explain why she was redressed in the longjohns instead of the nightie, or why the nightie wasn't just left on her if it wasn't removed. If it was removed because of the blood splatters, why leave it there? Oversight? Remember JR's words when shown a photo of the pink nightie on the white blanket- "that wasn't supposed to be there". What a slip-up that was- and LE just let it go....
So many unknowns, so many variables. So many secrets.

DeeDee249,

I am not positive, but the birefringent material could be a different substance from the cellulose that was described. I had read the birefringent material could have been fragments of talc, or if it was the paintbrush splinters, could represent fragments of dried paint that had been on the paintbrush.

I am not positive either, but we know there is a scientific procedure to determine if those three items cited arise from a common scource.

Maybe both are true e.g. the splinters and shards of wood originate from the painbrush, including additionally dried flakes of paint? Alternatively the additional component might be talcum powder, importantly it can be tested!

Yet Coroner Meyer declined to be specific in his Autopsy Report, why so? Because , I reckon, there was already an agreement to redact the missing piece of the paintbrush handle.

That Steve Thomas references splinters still does not tell anyone that there may have been a piece of the paintbrush handle left inside JonBenet?

An assault using the paintbrush handle seems entirely in profile with the application of the ligature and other piece of the paintbrush handle.

However, her original panties may have been removed completely and never bloodied at all. She may have been naked, at least from the waist down. Or she may have been wearing that pink Barbie nightie, and only the panties removed. BTW, this would certainly explain the blood on the nightie. But it doesn't explain why she was redressed in the longjohns instead of the nightie, or why the nightie wasn't just left on her if it wasn't removed. If it was removed because of the blood splatters, why leave it there? Oversight?

I do not know why. But it might be someone, after Patsy did her staging, then assaulted JonBenet with the remander of the paintbrush then redressed her in the size-12's all to suggest that there had been a bedtime assault.

We have Christmas gifts, which I am not convinced should be in the wine-cellar, along with the barbie-doll and barbie nightgown, and JonBenet wrapped in the white blanket. All these items are out of context.

I think it more helpful not to consider the wine-cellar as a fake crime-scene, but more as a location to hide stuff. This would offer an explanation as to why disparate items were found there.

Because if you are going to construct a fake crime-scene, you are not going to leave unrelated items there, especially ones that blow a hole in your original staging e.g. the bloodstained barbie nightgown.

Not unless you wish to say the intruder wanted to redress JonBenet and remove her size-12's and size-6 underwear as trophies etc?

Basically the Ramsey's were creating a false forensic trail and likely destroyed or removed other evidence. Apart from dumping JonBenet outdors this is the most the Ramsey's could do.

The 911 call and RN, simply buy time, with the intention of fleeing Colorado interstate. In a sense the wine-cellar is part of the damage limitation exercise, because they knew they would become prime suspects.

The presence of the barbie nightgown suggest that this was either part of a prior staging or her original bedtime clothing? Since the use of the longjohns appears to be to hold her underwear up. If she was wearing the nighgown, we could speculate, why did they not fall down when the intruder struck?

So wearing the nightgown JonBenet arrives in the basement is internally assaulted , has the ligature applied, is then wiped down, and redressed in the size-12's, followed by the longjohns, then wrapped in the blanket, placed into the wine-cellar. Then after reviewing the basement they decide to place the Christmas gifts, barbie nightgown, and anything else that has been redacted e.g. dolls, into the wine-cellar. The logic is simple: if any of this is found, then we are in trouble anyway, otherwise it will avoid obvious questions from curious lea.

As a sort of Columbesque touch of irony. It might be that as you suggest her size-6 underwear was removed prior to whatever occured upstairs. But because they were not a Wednesday pair, someone decided we need a Wenesday pair to suggest when she died or to make her underwear consistent with clothing for that day?

How can John Ramsey know thats not meant to be there? It might be part of the intruders MO. IMO you cannot make the mistake of oversight since if this is a crime-scene staging, then you make certain that everything looks the part before you dial 911.

If it is oversight on John's part, then it reflects the haste and panic that the wine-cellar crime-scene was constructed under?

But for all the reasons above, I do not think this was a crime-scene construction, it was a removal of prior evidence, and the relocation of suspicious items, including JonBenet, into the wine-cellar, and out of sight.

Otherwise why not dump her anywhere else in the basement e.g. beneath the broken window, suggesting the intruder had dropped JonBenet there, and climbed out the basement window, making his escape?



.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

If I understand you, you feel the entire wineceller is more a hiding place to keep elements of the crime, including the body of the victim, out of sight until some other plan could be executed.
Interesting premise, and it does explain some things.
We do know that the size 12 panties were not taken ( to infer an intruder/trophy scenario) but left on her. The fate of the size 6 is uncertain.
But JR's comment about the pink nightie (i.e. "that wasn't supposed to be there") of course indicate that he had knowledge of, and participation in, what was put into the wineceller.
So...hiding place for later staging or staged crime itself (LE favors this one). We don't know. Either way, parental involvement is all over it. NO intruder would leave her THERE- inside the house, where fibers and/or other evidence may surface to link them to the crime. They'd take her with them, dead or alive, and hide or dump her elsewhere, to be found or not.
The fact that she was left in the house proves to ME, anyway, that her killer couldn't bear to dump the body or felt it was too risky to remove her. An intruder had to remove themself (or selves) and leave the house regardless of the risk, so taking her along was certainly something they would have done. Doors locked from the inside may keep people OUT, but they certainly can never keep people IN. Locked or not, all the intruder(s) had to do was open a door, not make that ridiculous escape out a basement window, all the while never disturbing the debris in the windowwell.

 

[UKGuy]

If I understand you, you feel the entire wineceller is more a hiding place to keep elements of the crime, including the body of the victim, out of sight until some other plan could be executed.
Interesting premise, and it does explain some things.
We do know that the size 12 panties were not taken ( to infer an intruder/trophy scenario) but left on her. The fate of the size 6 is uncertain.
But JR's comment about the pink nightie (i.e. "that wasn't supposed to be there") of course indicate that he had knowledge of, and participation in, what was put into the wineceller.
So...hiding place for later staging or staged crime itself (LE favors this one). We don't know. Either way, parental involvement is all over it. NO intruder would leave her THERE- inside the house, where fibers and/or other evidence may surface to link them to the crime. They'd take her with them, dead or alive, and hide or dump her elsewhere, to be found or not.
The fact that she was left in the house proves to ME, anyway, that her killer couldn't bear to dump the body or felt it was too risky to remove her. An intruder had to remove themself (or selves) and leave the house regardless of the risk, so taking her along was certainly something they would have done. Doors locked from the inside may keep people OUT, but they certainly can never keep people IN. Locked or not, all the intruder(s) had to do was open a door, not make that ridiculous escape out a basement window, all the while never disturbing the debris in the windowwell.

DeeDee249,

If I understand you, you feel the entire wineceller is more a hiding place to keep elements of the crime, including the body of the victim, out of sight until some other plan could be executed.

More or less.

We do know that the size 12 panties were not taken ( to infer an intruder/trophy scenario) but left on her. The fate of the size 6 is uncertain.

This is why it is not a classic crime-scene staging.

But JR's comment about the pink nightie (i.e. "that wasn't supposed to be there") of course indicate that he had knowledge of, and participation in, what was put into the wineceller.

We can think that. But he might just be vocalizing what he considers to be an obvious fact, e.g. the nightgown should be in her bedroom? We know this too, and this allows us to doubt that the wine-cellar is actually a fake crime-scene, but simply a secondary crime-scene, much in the same sense that when the body of a homicide victim is discovered outdoors that is referred to as the crime-scene, but the actual primary crime-scene may have occured anywhere else.

So...hiding place for later staging or staged crime itself (LE favors this one). We don't know. Either way, parental involvement is all over it. NO intruder would leave her THERE- inside the house, where fibers and/or other evidence may surface to link them to the crime. They'd take her with them, dead or alive, and hide or dump her elsewhere, to be found or not.

Partially both, e.g. JonBenet's person was staged in that she was garroted, wiped down, redressed, and wrapped in a blanket. But given the contents of the wine-cellar there is nothing present to suggest that this was the actual primary crime-scene, after all she was supposed to be in bed? There might be no intended later staging, the Ramsey's wanted to leave Boulder ASAP. The crime of homicide was not staged to appear as if it all took place in the wine-cellar. JonBenet's person was staged then hidden away in the wine-cellar, remember the stager had the option of leaving JonBenet out in the open, or visible to the naked eye.

I think it is an error to think of the wine-cellar as a fabricated crime-scene. It is simply the location the Ramsey's considered the best location to hide whatever they thought was damning evidence including JonBenet. Some of what we think as staged elements may be remnants from a prior staging?

The fact that she was left in the house proves to ME, anyway, that her killer couldn't bear to dump the body or felt it was too risky to remove her.

I agree. It might be that was the intention if the police left them alone to search for JonBenet. Consider they also had the option of leaving JonBenet dead in her bed and faking some crime-scene, this would have been a staged crime-scene, as would leaving her body minus the white blanket, beneath the basement window.

But placing her and those artifacts into the wine-cellar should suggest to you that the Ramsey's really hoped nobody would find her. This was more important than any staging, evidence they could not hide or remove in the time-frame allowed they just dumped into the wine-cellar along with JonBenet. The partially opened Christmas gifts are a give away. So much so Patsy has a story to explain why they are there!

The partially opened Christmas gifts should simply not be in the wine-cellar.
The pink barbie nightgown should simply not be in the wine-cellar.
The barbie doll should simply not be in the wine-cellar.
JonBenet should simply not be in the wine-cellar.

Given that they actually are present then they do not form part of any coherent staged crime-scene. e.g. the elements are unrelated to each other. Why because that is not the motive for them being in that loacation, concealment is!

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't feel she was killed in the wineceller. I feel she died in the basement and the garroting was made and took place there as well, culminating with her dying as the garrote was tightened, and released her urine at the moment of death. As far as the head bash...it could have happened elsewhere- in her bedroom or bathroom, or in the basement as well. The green fake "needles" with LE mentioned looked like the artificial garland wrapped along the spiral stair rails would indicate an unconscious/dying JB was carried down those stairs. This is a very real possibility. But those fake green needles could have gotten in her hair in the basement as well. The wineceller was used to store artificial Christmas trees and other decorations, and there is a photo of the closed wineceller door showing a decoration (it looked like a spray, not a wreath) made of artificial green needles hanging on the wall right outside the door. So there were plenty of ways for those needles to be all over the basement floors and carpeting. Many of the rooms, of course the living room among them, had artificial trees as well. The only way to try to prove where those needles came from would have been to test them against all the artificial greens in the house- garland, trees, etc. and that was not done. Because the tiny green bits LOOKED like the garland on the stairs doesn't prove they came from there.
As far as leaving JB in her bed- too risky with BR's room right down the hall. Obviously an intruder, planning to leave her anyway, would just as easily have left her dead in her bed as anywhere else.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't feel she was killed in the wineceller. I feel she died in the basement and the garroting was made and took place there as well, culminating with her dying as the garrote was tightened, and released her urine at the moment of death. As far as the head bash...it could have happened elsewhere- in her bedroom or bathroom, or in the basement as well. The green fake "needles" with LE mentioned looked like the artificial garland wrapped along the spiral stair rails would indicate an unconscious/dying JB was carried down those stairs. This is a very real possibility. But those fake green needles could have gotten in her hair in the basement as well. The wineceller was used to store artificial Christmas trees and other decorations, and there is a photo of the closed wineceller door showing a decoration (it looked like a spray, not a wreath) made of artificial green needles hanging on the wall right outside the door. So there were plenty of ways for those needles to be all over the basement floors and carpeting. Many of the rooms, of course the living room among them, had artificial trees as well. The only way to try to prove where those needles came from would have been to test them against all the artificial greens in the house- garland, trees, etc. and that was not done. Because the tiny green bits LOOKED like the garland on the stairs doesn't prove they came from there.
As far as leaving JB in her bed- too risky with BR's room right down the hall. Obviously an intruder, planning to leave her anyway, would just as easily have left her dead in her bed as anywhere else.

DeeDee249,

Obviously an intruder, planning to leave her anyway, would just as easily have left her dead in her bed as anywhere else.

Sure, so you have to ask yourself, why did the Ramsey's not pursue this as the obvious staging scenario?

But those fake green needles could have gotten in her hair in the basement as well.

I agree. They need testing, alike the wood shards, and splinter etc?

I feel she died in the basement and the garroting was made and took place there as well, culminating with her dying as the garrote was tightened, and released her urine at the moment of death. As far as the head bash...it could have happened elsewhere- in her bedroom or bathroom, or in the basement as well.

This scenario has the highest probability. Along with the head bash possibly being the result of JonBenet screaming during a sexual assault or a neck compression follwed by JonBenet falling to the floor resulting in her head bash?

As an aside, neck compression seems to be the most common response by assailants, if their victim screams.

The bedwetting theory is also possible but given the acute sexual contact and the assumed genital assault staging then it ranks lower for me.

At this stage all remaining three R's are all prime suspects in the death of JonBenet, except they are rated JR, BR, PR.

The pink barbie nightgown suggests this is what JonBenet was wearing when she was taken down to the basement. So we can infer someone went back upstairs to fetch the longjohns, gap-top, and possibly the size-12's? Where this occured in the timeline is not as important as that it happened. Since it is at this point the R's redressed JonBenet to match a future version of events. And it does appear, as you have stated before, that the size-12's were selected for the Wednesday feature.

Alternatively JonBenet was redressed upstairs, including the size-12's. We have no direct evidence to suggest otherwise. The R's faced three choices: dump a redressed JonBenet outdoors, stage a crime-scene indoors, say her bedroom, or conceal her body somewhere.

It is possible they started with a dumping scenario, rejected this, then moved onto a bedroom staging, consider the blood on the pillow, then decided to move all the questionable evidence, including JonBenet down to the basement, and hide it all out of sight. Then claim she had been kidnapped.

The ligature/garrote is one of those staging devices that give the game away. Partially because it is so excessive, but also ineffective. It also does not really add much to the staging, except possibly as a final cause of death. If it was not present, we would still be debating the how, when who etc.

We know John was involved in the staging as was Patsy, who is prime suspect for the actual cause of death. This suggests Patsy had prior knowledge of JonBenet's abuse and may have even been complicit?

So as usual without knowing the actual details it looks like JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide?

 

[DeeDee249]

There is no way that hole in her skull resulted from her falling to the floor. She'd have to fall from 4 stories high. Even an adult (being heavier) falling on a marble floor would not get a depressed skull fracture like that. There are different types of skull fractures and a coroner can tell how they were caused. The rectangular piece was punched inwards into her skull, and the blow was forceful enough to also cause the linear fracture half-way around her skull. The depressed portion is the point of first impact and tells the coroner where the bludgeon made contact with her skull. The "blunt" part is the reason her scalp was not cut as the hair can cushion the skin. Even if she fell against a faucet or edge of a sink, tub, or toilet, while there might be a fracture, it wouldn't be that kind of a fracture. The laws of physics are pretty absolute. She simply didn't weigh enough or fall from a great enough height to cause that kind of fracture.
The coroners got that right- blunt force trauma. "Force" being the operative word. She was bashed WITH something. Something hit her head- not the other way around.

I also hold the view that she screamed during the sexual assault, and the flashlight may have been handy as the assault was possibly done in a darkened room. It was possible even being held as she was assaulted. When she screamed, she was bashed to shut her up. It did. Immediately.

 

[pistolina]

IMO The head bash + sexual assault + staging don’t equal BDI. If BR was sexually assaulting his sister and bashed her head in because of a scream then he (IMO) would have tried to hide the sexual assault from his parents. If he was in the basement doing “secret” things to his sister, he would have wanted them to remain secret. And I don’t think innocent parents would have had the presence of mind to add the sexual assault aspect to the crime. I think if BDI then there might have been a staged accident but more likely the parents would have called 911 to try to get help for JB. Along the same lines I think if an adult was engaged in a sexual assault the adult would have simply put his/her hand over JB’s mouth to quiet her. I think JB was hit because the killer was angry at her, not necessarily to shut her up.
I would be curious to know if a 9 year old is even strong enough to deliver a blow that would do that much damage.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no way that hole in her skull resulted from her falling to the floor. She'd have to fall from 4 stories high. Even an adult (being heavier) falling on a marble floor would not get a depressed skull fracture like that. There are different types of skull fractures and a coroner can tell how they were caused. The rectangular piece was punched inwards into her skull, and the blow was forceful enough to also cause the linear fracture half-way around her skull. The depressed portion is the point of first impact and tells the coroner where the bludgeon made contact with her skull. The "blunt" part is the reason her scalp was not cut as the hair can cushion the skin. Even if she fell against a faucet or edge of a sink, tub, or toilet, while there might be a fracture, it wouldn't be that kind of a fracture. The laws of physics are pretty absolute. She simply didn't weigh enough or fall from a great enough height to cause that kind of fracture.
The coroners got that right- blunt force trauma. "Force" being the operative word. She was bashed WITH something. Something hit her head- not the other way around.

I also hold the view that she screamed during the sexual assault, and the flashlight may have been handy as the assault was possibly done in a darkened room. It was possible even being held as she was assaulted. When she screamed, she was bashed to shut her up. It did. Immediately.

DeeDee249,
Well it definitely looks like some permutation of sexual assault, head bash, neck compression, took place.

Some think the head bash is accidental, some think the garrote was applied to mask the neck compression, and some think there was no abuse, it was a bedwetting. So since websleuths is a liberal institution, you can select your own interpretation.

Due to JonBenet being relocated and redressed we may never know. But I reckon we have the major phases of JonBenet's homicide well delineated, and although not everyone agrees on the interpretation, e.g. consider BDI, we are on the right track?

For me Patsy overplayed her hand, she is the weak link. Her explanation for the size-12's and the partially opened Christmas gifts, just do not stack up. When you add in the pageants and the distinct possibility of prior chronic abuse, along with the picture of Patsy garroting her own child, then evidently something much more darker than we might imagine was taking place in the Ramsey household!


.

 

[UKGuy]

IMO The head bash + sexual assault + staging don’t equal BDI. If BR was sexually assaulting his sister and bashed her head in because of a scream then he (IMO) would have tried to hide the sexual assault from his parents. If he was in the basement doing “secret” things to his sister, he would have wanted them to remain secret. And I don’t think innocent parents would have had the presence of mind to add the sexual assault aspect to the crime. I think if BDI then there might have been a staged accident but more likely the parents would have called 911 to try to get help for JB. Along the same lines I think if an adult was engaged in a sexual assault the adult would have simply put his/her hand over JB’s mouth to quiet her. I think JB was hit because the killer was angry at her, not necessarily to shut her up.
I would be curious to know if a 9 year old is even strong enough to deliver a blow that would do that much damage.

pistolina,
It might just be BDI. This offers a rationale for John and Patsy to cooperate in cleaning up the primary crime-scene and relocating its evidence and JonBenet down to the basement. For all we know other evidence was relocated to other parts of the basement.

Placing a hand over the mouth or neck compression is the most common response, when a victim cries out. But any one of the Ramsey's could have done that.

I would be curious to know if a 9 year old is even strong enough to deliver a blow that would do that much damage.

With the right tool I see no reason to discount this as a possibility. JonBenet was only six and still growing.

What is certain is that one of the remaining Ramsey's sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death. And similarly a Ramsey had likely abused her just days before.

I accept a BDI is a possibility, but one of the two parents seems an even bigger possibility. Factor in the Pageants and the possibility that John and Patsy had drifted apart due to either age, medication, or boredom. Maybe there is a recipe there for a dysfunctional family.

.

 

[madeleine]

I was thinking,if PDI we may actually never know the whole truth ,I actually start to believe that they told the truth re "not speaking to each other about it".

The more I think about it the more I believe that IF PDI it's possible that JR never knew the whole truth.The staging is chaotic,JR was and is a very calm and calculated man.The staging elements are totally contradicting each other,another thing that makes me think it wasn't him.

All we have that points to JR being involved are the fibers in JB's pants but this could also point to him being involved in the assault,not necessarily in a cover-up.Doesn't mean that whoever assaulted her also killed her and staged the scene.(maybe PR got help from someone else?)

Maybe he had a gut feeling that morning,maybe he went to the basement because according to PMPT Patsy always said about the things she wanted to get rid of,take it down to the basement I don't wanna see it anymore.And yes,in this case ITA with you Ukguy,the cellar was a dump site AND the body was meant to be hidden from JR not from police (it was JR who wanted the cops over NOT PR,she conveniently called her friends).

Still,the huge element which will always keep me from being a PDI is the sexual abuse (acute and possibly chronic)