What's eating you alive re this case?

[CorallaroC]

The sad thing is, Tovarish, there was talk about exhuming JBR's body at some point fairly early on - ostensibly to re-examine wounds regarding "stun gun" but of course R's said NO WAY, which I don't blame them really.

However, the big lie (IMO) that occurred when BPD was accused of holding the body for ransom was such a detriment to the case. Much work needed to be done to help solve the case.

No sense in complaining, and no sense in trying to demand answers that can't be given. I still believe there is a lot of information on the case that has never been made public and was never "leaked" with inaccuracies. Truth has it's own way of preserving itself JMO

 

[tovarisch]

The sad thing is, Tovarish, there was talk about exhuming JBR's body at some point fairly early on - ostensibly to re-examine wounds regarding "stun gun" but of course R's said NO WAY, which I don't blame them really.

However, the big lie (IMO) that occurred when BPD was accused of holding the body for ransom was such a detriment to the case. Much work needed to be done to help solve the case.

No sense in complaining, and no sense in trying to demand answers that can't be given. I still believe there is a lot of information on the case that has never been made public and was never "leaked" with inaccuracies. Truth has it's own way of preserving itself JMO

No complaining, no demand for answers? You are really sweet person. I would like to demand if I could. I demand an answer why they spent tax money hunting down innocent Santa Bear for 2 years, and never cared about snaps? How expensive would be this task, to cut ,say, 20 buttons from Ramsey`s clothing? Ha-ha, it`s sounds like anecdote. Compare teddy -who just sat on the other bed and unique, one of the kind imprinted abrasion right on the face of the victim. Which one is more important ?

Dr did not ask for exhumation. He had a photo and magnifying glass. He was an expert.

About exhumation , I`ve read right here on this forum different reason for not exhume than Ramsey`s saying "no way" . So, I doubt.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

No complaining, no demand for answers? You are really sweet person. I would like to demand if I could. I demand an answer why they spent tax money hunting down innocent Santa Bear for 2 years, and never cared about snaps? How expensive would be this task, to cut ,say, 20 buttons from Ramsey`s clothing? Ha-ha, it`s sounds like anecdote. Compare teddy -who just sat on the other bed and unique, one of the kind imprinted abrasion right on the face of the victim. Which one is more important ?

Dr did not ask for exhumation. He had a photo and magnifying glass. He was an expert.

About exhumation , I`ve read right here on this forum different reason for not exhume than Ramsey`s saying "no way" . So, I doubt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-stun-gun-theory/

From the article (in reference to exhumation):

"We had buried our child, she was at peace, she was safe. That was just an abhorrent thought to me," he (John Ramsey) says. "We've got people that know what they're doing that say with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used, no question." Despite the uncertainty that leaves, he says he didn't want to disturb his child.
​

The DA could have gotten a court order for exhumation -- even without parental permission. But it would have been politically very unpopular. In the words of Ramsey attorney Hal Haddon, he called the possibility of exhuming the girl's body "monstrous", and you can be sure it would have been played that way if Hunter got the court order against the wishes of the Ramseys.


Also, from that same article, even though I don't necessarily agree with him (and loathe to even quote anything from him), Spitz and snaps are referenced in the following passage:

But the Boulder police are relying on another opinion, that of Dr. Werner Spitz. He thinks that pebbles or rocks on the floor caused the marks. Spitz has worked as a forensic pathologist in Michigan for nearly 50 years.

"A stun gun. Stun gun injury is an electrical burn, and these do not look like electrical burns," he says. Spitz believes the large, dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing.
​

(I only refer to Spitz because the snaps were discussed earlier.)

 

[inspector rex]

Regarding whether a stun gun was used or not, I really don't see what exhuming the body would achieve.

If the marks were a stun gun, then you need to find the stun gun.
The parents didn't own one.
We don't know if the intruder owned one as we don't know who this is.

If the marks were not a stun gun, then would they be any further advanced?
It would be a different matter if a stun gun was found in the house or in the possession of a suspect.

 

[UKGuy]

In keeping with the theme of this thread, let me say this:

When I found out that my predictions were right and that Alex Hunter had in fact decided not to go forward with the indictment, it just confirmed my thoughts on him even more. Even granting that a prosecutor should not be forced into making a case, the idea that they can just one because they think it's too much hard work is APPALLING to me.

God forbid an elected official getting rich on our tax money should have to do any work!

SuperDave,
Surely it was a strategic move rather that one based on a Ramsey face-saving exercise? According to the indictment the case is patently BDI, so someone will have whispered in Hunter's ear, Colorado law, statute xyz, we need to do something, I'll bet Hunter fished around for advice and was told dont present it and make stuff up for the public when interviewed?

One day one of those GJ jurors will speak publicly and tell us what they were told, charging the parents as accessories either means one or both of the parents avoided the murder in the first degree charge, or the case is BDI.

Kolar in his book has indirectly suggested that BR's behaviour was routine and systematic, along with big hints via the books purchased by the Paugh's as to what was going on?

So where did he learn such stuff and why was it allowed to continue, even escalate on the night of JonBenet's death, the violence inflicted on JonBenet appears deliberate and calculated.

Ted Bundy was the person who also seemed to have that not me look yet was capable of horrific violence.

.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

In keeping with the theme of this thread, let me say this:

When I found out that my predictions were right and that Alex Hunter had in fact decided not to go forward with the indictment, it just confirmed my thoughts on him even more. Even granting that a prosecutor should not be forced into making a case, the idea that they can just one because they think it's too much hard work is APPALLING to me.

God forbid an elected official getting rich on our tax money should have to do any work!

Yeah, That is it.. HE thought it was too much work..

If you don't have a case you don't move forward. If he knew he did not have the evidence to support the grand jury's finding he is still supposed to walk into court and say.. Well the GJ indicted them for this but I don't have the evidence that supports it.. so do your best??

You get one chance.

All RDI want to trash everyone and make everyone out to be an idiot or a conspirator.
How about a little reasonable thinking once in a while.
I think this case will be solved and people will be writing post mortem apologies.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
Surely it was a strategic move rather that one based on a Ramsey face-saving exercise? According to the indictment the case is patently BDI, so someone will have whispered in Hunter's ear, Colorado law, statute xyz, we need to do something, I'll bet Hunter fished around for advice and was told dont present it and make stuff up for the public when interviewed?

I get that feeling, too. But for different reasons. I keep coming back to what Henry Lee told him: "if you go forward with this, you will have to confess your sins."

What did you mean, Dr. Lee?

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, That is it.. HE thought it was too much work..

Take a look at his actual RECORD sometime and you'll see what I mean. Try being facetious about it, then.

And I was being VERY generous, Scarlett. I was merely making a statement about prosecutors in general. Far as Alex Hunter, permanent resident of the Great Society, is concerned, I think he was just plain scared. Scared that he'd lose. Scared that he'd crumble under pressure on worldwide television and that the media would hammer him as a damn fool for losing the case of the century. Scared that he'd have to go into his fast-approaching retirement in disgrace. (He DID, more or less, but at least now he's got something he can fool himself with.) And, perhaps, scared that the opposing attorneys would freeze him out of their society: no joining our reindeer games for you, Alex.

If you don't have a case you don't move forward. If he knew he did not have the evidence to support the grand jury's finding he is still supposed to walk into court and say.. Well the GJ indicted them for this but I don't have the evidence that supports it.. so do your best??

If he had taken the necessary steps BEFORE then, he wouldn't have needed to worry! Or have you forgotten what Mark Beckner said:

'DA involvement in this case was inappropriate,' he said. 'They interfered in the investigation by being roadblocks to getting things done.'

All RDI want to trash everyone and make everyone out to be an idiot or a conspirator.

Speaking purely for myself, if the shoe fits, I'm damn well gonna see that they wear it!

But if you want to play the generalization game, I got one for YOUR side, Scarlett. To slightly paraphrase George Orwell in 1984:

In the end the IDI would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy.

How about a little reasonable thinking once in a while.

That WOULD be nice!

Let me leave you with Johnny Cash:

Well, you still can hear me talking to the people who don't listen
to the things that I am saying, hoping someone's gonna hear
And I guess I'll die explaining how the things that they complain about
are things they could be changing, praying someone's gonna care
I was born a lonely singer and I'm bound to die the same
but I've gotta feed the hunger in my soul
And if I never have a nickel, I won't ever die ashamed
'cause I don't believe that no one wants to know.

 

[Intheamadhouse]

I have another question. It seems to be generally agreed upon that the head blow happened first, which I agree with. I've also heard from multiple sources that the head blow itself would have been fatal. But does that mean that the blow would have been fatal if her unconscious little body had just been left in the WC, or would it have been fatal even if 911 was called immediately? The autopsy picture was horrendous, but people, especially children, have survived some pretty nasty head injuries, sometimes even with minor or no long term damage.

Something happened last week that made me think of this case. I was working with my dog on walking at heel. He was being stubborn and yanking on the leash. We'd been at this for weeks, and we weren't making progress. It was late. Every time he yanked, I stopped and waited for him to quit pulling. It went on and on, and I should have stopped the session, because I was getting more and more pissed off with him.

Finally, he jumped forward and I pulled him back. I intended it to be a gentle tug back to my side. I would have bed money that I was pulling him back to me. But I was so irritated that I ended up yanking him and he hit the wall behind me. It was less then two feet from where he started, but I heard him hit it.

I love this dog. I have had him almost 5 years, and I have worked incredibly hard with him and all of his issues But, in that one second, I could have hurt him. If something had been sticking out of the wall, if he had landed on his head or neck instead of his butt, I could have inflicted serious injury on him. I had no intention of doing it, but I did.

So I can easily see how Patsy could have lost it, and not even intended to injure the daughter she loved so much. It's Christmas, a trip is planned, she's in the bathroom with her overtired, squirming, wet daughter. She grabs JB by the arm, maybe intending to sit her down in the tub, maybe to put her over a knee, and instead of pulling her down, she yanks and her daughters head hits something. Then panic sets in.

 

[UKGuy]

I have another question. It seems to be generally agreed upon that the head blow happened first, which I agree with. I've also heard from multiple sources that the head blow itself would have been fatal. But does that mean that the blow would have been fatal if her unconscious little body had just been left in the WC, or would it have been fatal even if 911 was called immediately? The autopsy picture was horrendous, but people, especially children, have survived some pretty nasty head injuries, sometimes even with minor or no long term damage.

Something happened last week that made me think of this case. I was working with my dog on walking at heel. He was being stubborn and yanking on the leash. We'd been at this for weeks, and we weren't making progress. It was late. Every time he yanked, I stopped and waited for him to quit pulling. It went on and on, and I should have stopped the session, because I was getting more and more pissed off with him.

Finally, he jumped forward and I pulled him back. I intended it to be a gentle tug back to my side. I would have bed money that I was pulling him back to me. But I was so irritated that I ended up yanking him and he hit the wall behind me. It was less then two feet from where he started, but I heard him hit it.

I love this dog. I have had him almost 5 years, and I have worked incredibly hard with him and all of his issues But, in that one second, I could have hurt him. If something had been sticking out of the wall, if he had landed on his head or neck instead of his butt, I could have inflicted serious injury on him. I had no intention of doing it, but I did.

So I can easily see how Patsy could have lost it, and not even intended to injure the daughter she loved so much. It's Christmas, a trip is planned, she's in the bathroom with her overtired, squirming, wet daughter. She grabs JB by the arm, maybe intending to sit her down in the tub, maybe to put her over a knee, and instead of pulling her down, she yanks and her daughters head hits something. Then panic sets in.

Intheamadhouse,
Take a look at the autopsy photos which show injuries beneath the ligature furrow suggesting prior manual asphyxiation.

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, including the ligature, so regardless of prior asphyxiation, why the need for a head injury, who mandates broken skulls when staging a crime-scene?

The way I read is failed asphyxiation followed by head injury, followed by ligature asphyxiation, its all there in photos!

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Intheamadhouse,
Take a look at the autopsy photos which show injuries beneath the ligature furrow suggesting prior manual asphyxiation.

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, including the ligature, so regardless of prior asphyxiation, why the need for a head injury, who mandates broken skulls when staging a crime-scene?

The way I read is failed asphyxiation followed by head injury, followed by ligature asphyxiation, its all there in photos!

.

Sorry- I know you & I have a difference of opinion on this. I see NO evidence of manual strangulation on the autopsy photos. I do see the deep red ligature furrow, and I see petechiae above and below it. Both were noted by the coroner. He noted NO evidence of manual strangulation. Also noted by the coroner, there is also the tell-tale large red triangular "abrasion" often seen in victims of ligature strangulation. This occurs from bleeding under the skin a a pressure point. It is commonly seen in ligature strangulation victims and looks pretty much the same in all of them. In acandyrose, under Ruthee's Pages, she shows a side-by-side photo of other victims bearing the exact same mark. Ruthee has been dead some years now, so I do not know if her photos or pages are still there to be seen.
A manual strangulation to me, means the use oh hands to strangle, and that leaves bruises unlike what is seen on JB. I also do not see any evidence of strangulation using something soft (like a scarf). I only see the narrow, angry red furrow left by the cord that was found around her neck. Although JB's neck shows the bruising that is expected with the manner of death, there are no tell-tale finger mark bruises that would indicate someone had their hands on her throat. If you meant something other than this, my apologies.

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry- I know you & I have a difference of opinion on this. I see NO evidence of manual strangulation on the autopsy photos. I do see the deep red ligature furrow, and I see petechiae above and below it. Both were noted by the coroner. He noted NO evidence of manual strangulation. Also noted by the coroner, there is also the tell-tale large red triangular "abrasion" often seen in victims of ligature strangulation. This occurs from bleeding under the skin a a pressure point. It is commonly seen in ligature strangulation victims and looks pretty much the same in all of them. In acandyrose, under Ruthee's Pages, she shows a side-by-side photo of other victims bearing the exact same mark. Ruthee has been dead some years now, so I do not know if her photos or pages are still there to be seen.
A manual strangulation to me, means the use oh hands to strangle, and that leaves bruises unlike what is seen on JB. I also do not see any evidence of strangulation using something soft (like a scarf). I only see the narrow, angry red furrow left by the cord that was found around her neck. Although JB's neck shows the bruising that is expected with the manner of death, there are no tell-tale finger mark bruises that would indicate someone had their hands on her throat. If you meant something other than this, my apologies.

DeeDee249,
When did the red triangular abrasion arrive, before or after the ligature strangulation? Does Coroner Meyer explicitly reference the triangular abrasion, or alike the Birefringent Material left undefined?

You are more likely to be correct than me, you have apparently consistent evidence to backup your theory, yet I am aware of many sexual homicides where manual strangulation is substituted with a staged asphyxiation, this is what I think happened in the JonBenet case.

.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Jonbenet was bashed, assaulted, strangled then laid and died.

Her body was not found until rigor had set in.

Bodies bear marks. Strangled individuals do not look as though they've just fallen asleep.

Suggest that any marks on JB could well be part of the Natural Decomp beginning, and that Only an expert could differentiate between Strangle Marks or those naturally occurring on a corpse that has begun to decompose.

Ditto Stun Gun Marks. There was exactly zero reason for a stun gun to be used - JB was tiny and easily controlled. Suggest these may not be stun marks but natural decomp.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Here's what Eats a Hole in me -

John Ramsey STILL shoving his face on tv and gloating over his daughters murder.

20 years later and hes still desperate for Relevancy.

Yet everyones supposed to listen to the vile murderer like he's a grieving father. Oh and vote for him in some instances.

What in the....????

 

[genius7]

Hello everyone,

I've been watching this forum for quite some time. This case has intrigued me so much that I even read the book by Steve Thomas, which is something for which I normally don't have time to do. This is one of my few posts so I am not sure if I'm posting it in the correct thread or whether I shouldn't have created a separate thread for it.
Anyway, I would like to ask you a very hypothetical question about the case. It's just a hypothetical conjecture about which I have been wondering. If you were able to travel back in time and return back to your original timeline without altering it by your actions during the back-in-time journey, do you think you would be able to solve this case? If so, how? Let's suppose you could take anything with you for the journey back in time and bring anything with you when coming back to your original timeline. However, you can't tell anyone about your possibility of travelling back in time! What evidence would you bring with you in order to be able to take this case to court and finally solve it once and for all?

Thank you in advance for your reactions to my question. Looking forward to them!

 

[SapphireSteel]

Hello everyone,

I've been watching this forum for quite some time. This case has intrigued me so much that I even read the book by Steve Thomas, which is something for which I normally don't have time to do. This is one of my few posts so I am not sure if I'm posting it in the correct thread or whether I shouldn't have created a separate thread for it.
Anyway, I would like to ask you a very hypothetical question about the case. It's just a hypothetical conjecture about which I have been wondering. If you were able to travel back in time and return back to your original timeline without altering it by your actions during the back-in-time journey, do you think you would be able to solve this case? If so, how? Let's suppose you could take anything with you for the journey back in time and bring anything with you when coming back to your original timeline. However, you can't tell anyone about your possibility of travelling back in time! What evidence would you bring with you in order to be able to take this case to court and finally solve it once and for all?
Thank you in advance for your reactions to my question. Looking forward to them!

No one needs to Bring Evidence; we have mountains of it, all pointing One Way.

All that is needed is for the GJ Indictment to be acted upon.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I get that feeling, too. But for different reasons. I keep coming back to what Henry Lee told him: "if you go forward with this, you will have to confess your sins."

What did you mean, Dr. Lee?

Oh Henry Lee

A bottom feeder if ever I've seen one

pay him enough and he will Swear the Moon is Made of Cheese, on the Stand.

Belongs in jail imo.

 

[genius7]

No one needs to Bring Evidence; we have mountains of it, all pointing One Way.

All that is needed is for the GJ Indictment to be acted upon.

I knew there would be a bright spark around that would ruin it for me. Ok then, let me rephrase my question: "What evidence would you bring with you in order to be able to make the grand jury indictment to be definitely acted upon and finally solve the case once and for all?"

 

[Ellie9]

I knew there would be a bright spark around that would ruin it for me. Ok then, let me rephrase my question: "What evidence would you bring with you in order to be able to make the grand jury indictment to be definitely acted upon and finally solve the case once and for all?"

If I could go back in time I'd set up a video camera from our own time period (super high quality for zooming in if needed in playback) facing near the basement windows and I think this would be by the kitchen, then too. It's creepy as hell but I'd focus it on some kinda bird nest or something else and have the R house just to the side. Then I'd have video proof of who didn't enter this house, that no one was in there but the R's. Hopefully through the windows people could see who played what roles in that house, who joined in on the staging, etc. The video camera could pick up sounds, to say if that scream happened, when, the metal sound someone supposedly heard and when, and anything else that could be in there.

I am assuming that I'd be forced to not help. If I was able to I'd try to stop it and save her, of course! But for this I'm assuming I'm not allowed to interact with the people of this time period or change major events.

 

[genius7]

thank you very much Ellie9 for such a comprehensive answer. I was thinking of the same thing. And yes, I should have probably stated that you're not allowed to interact with the Ramseys in any way. I'm wondering what would the Ramseys and their defense lawyers say if you just pulled out such a footage out of nowhere