Abuse and JonBenet

[rashomon]

Its possible that the size-12's are urine stained by osmosis, or its a post-mortem release. Otherwise there is a case to argue that she was wearing them when she was killed?

Since JB obviously was redressed in size-12 underwear and longjohns, the fact that both garments are urine-stained points to post-mortem emptying of the bladder.
And weren't the longjohns stained on the front?
So maybe this happened while JB was lying face-down when the cord was tied around her neck?

 

[UKGuy]

Since JB obviously was redressed in size-12 underwear and longjohns, the fact that both garments are urine-stained points to post-mortem emptying of the bladder.
And weren't the longjohns stained on the front?
So maybe this happened while JB was lying face-down when the cord was tied around her neck?

rashomon,

And weren't the longjohns stained on the front?

Yes anterior means near the front.

Since JB obviously was redressed in size-12 underwear and longjohns, the fact that both garments are urine-stained points to post-mortem emptying of the bladder.

If we can determine this with some degree of certainty, then its highly probable that at some point prior to her death JonBenet was wearing her size-6 underwear and black velvet pants.

If the size-12 underwear and longjohns can be paired together then its possible she was redressed in those not long after her death. That is the post-mortem release has passed through both sets of underwear.

Also she was wiped down after being redressed since there was no corresponding blood stain on her skin to match the blood on her size-12 underwear?

The significance of this is that the redressing, wiping down, garrote, duct-tape, and wrist binding application, may not have taken place in the same timeframe?

Which points to two separate stagings, the first may have included the sexual assault, and the later wiping down could be to remove post-mortem blood release?

Could it be that John is responsible for JonBenet's death and first staging, but its Patsy who adds the realism to the wine-cellar staging, her fibers link to this staging, as does her persona in the ransom note, and some other sleuthers have remarked wiping down JonBenet was more likely to be done by Patsy?

So maybe this happened while JB was lying face-down when the cord was tied around her neck?

What happened, the post-mortem release?

We dont know when the cord was placed around her neck, it may have been upstairs. I reckon the first staging scenario was upstairs, possibly in a bedroom, and JonBenet may have been tied-up with the cord, sexually assaulted, and left in an undignified pose. Its at this point she is minus her size-6 underwear and black velvet pants.

If JonBenet was still wearing her size-6 underwear and black velvet pants when she was killed then the undressing of her corpse, its redressing, then relocation to the basement with her being wiped down, which means her corpse has to be turned over either to apply the garrote or wipe her down, at one of these points a post-mortem release may have occurred?

Another aspect to the urine staining is that if a bed-wetting contributed towards a toilet-rage incident, why did the Ramsey's go to the trouble of a complex cover up of an accidental death via rage, by staging a murder scene in the wine-cellar, but then leave the originating cause in place. Since they state, JonBenet dressed as discovered, is how they placed her in bed? Also if she did wet the bed, would her bladder not be empty?

So for me, the toilet rage does not quite fit, its plausible, but does not include all the evidence.


.

 

[rashomon]

Also she was wiped down after being redressed since there was no corresponding blood stain on her skin to match the blood on her size-12 underwear?

I think she was wiped down before being redressed. I believe Patsy wiped JB down to see if the vaginal injury she had inflicted on her would look 'convincing' enough, and in order to find that out, she had to wipe the blood from the wound off. When later the size 12 panties were put on JB, some blood kept trickling from this wound into the size 12 underwear, for JB was still alive (although probably in a coma nearing death) when this was done.

Also if she did wet the bed, would her bladder not be empty?

I don't think JB ever went to bed on that night, but had a wetting/soiling accident while being still up.
Urine starts collecting in the bladder again immediately after release, and what was emptied by post-mortem release could have been the small amount which had been accumulating in the bladder by the time of JB's death.

It is also possible that what enraged Patsy was not a wetting, but a soiling accident. While it is true that in a soiling accident, very often wetting happens simultaneously too, but this is not always the case.

 

[UKGuy]

I think she was wiped down before being redressed. I believe Patsy wiped JB down to see if the vaginal injury she had inflicted on her would look 'convincing' enough, and in order to find that out, she had to wipe the blood from the wound off. When later the size 12 panties were put on JB, some blood kept trickling from this wound into the size 12 underwear, for JB was still alive (although probably in a coma nearing death) when this was done.


I don't think JB ever went to bed on that night, but had a wetting/soiling accident while being still up.
Urine starts collecting in the bladder again immediately after release, and what was emptied by post-mortem release could have been the small amount which had been accumulating in the bladder by the time of JB's death.

It is also possible that what enraged Patsy was not a wetting, but a soiling accident. While it is true that in a soiling accident, very often wetting happens simultaneously too, but this is not always the case.

rashomon,

I think she was wiped down before being redressed. I believe Patsy wiped JB down to see if the vaginal injury she had inflicted on her would look 'convincing' enough, and in order to find that out, she had to wipe the blood from the wound off. When later the size 12 panties were put on JB, some blood kept trickling from this wound into the size 12 underwear, for JB was still alive (although probably in a coma nearing death) when this was done.

But the wine-cellar staging masks the sexual assault, with a wipe down and a redressing.

The Ramsey's do not want the initial focus to be a sexual assault within a domestic setting!

Would the blood flow from her vagina not be sufficient to indicate the required sexual injury had been accomplished?

When later the size 12 panties were put on JB, some blood kept trickling from this wound into the size 12 underwear, for JB was still alive (although probably in a coma nearing death) when this was done.

Blood may have kept trickling from this wound into the size 12 underwear, but there is no corresponding blood smear on her genitalia where you would expect it to be, hence Coroner Meyer suggested she had been not only wiped down, but digitally assaulted?

There was nothing to prevent the Ramsey's from removing the urine-stained long-underwear and size-12's and replacing these with similar, they had the time and the underwear to hand.




.

 

[Eagle1]

Quoting UKGuy by copy/paste of just one statement, "There was nothing to prevent the Ramsey's from removing the urine-stained long-underwear and size-12's and replacing these with similar, they had the time and the underwear to hand," I have to agree.

I don't think any mother would have put the oversize panties on her daughter, or put the wet longjohns back on her, as we've all discussed in other threads about the bloomies. And I certainly don't think JR would have thought of all this himself, acting alone. Or that any parents anywhere in the world, no matter what the provocation from a bratty child, which all parents are accustomed to, would kill their child so viciously. Overkill. And leave "evidence" all around.

 

[BBB167893]

"I don't think any mother would have put the oversize panties on her daughter,"

They were the only other ones with "Wednesday" on them, though.

"Or that any parents anywhere in the world, no matter what the provocation from a bratty child, which all parents are accustomed to, would kill their child so viciously. Overkill."

Happens all the time, unfortunately.

From FBI agent Ron Walker, who was at the Ramsey house on 12/26/96 from the A & E program "Anatomy of an Investigation": "Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

Plus, it really wasn't that vicious when you think about it. It was a single blow in a fit of anger (maybe) with the rest done to make it look like a sex-predator homicide. They just didn't know she wasn't dead. (My opinion)

"And leave 'evidence' all around."

That's just how it happens. Locard's Principle can explain it better than I can.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
There was nothing to prevent the Ramsey's from removing the urine-stained long-underwear and size-12's and replacing these with similar, they had the time and the underwear to hand.

I think that by the time JB shed her urine via post-mortem release in the dark basement, the Ramseys didn't notice this anymore.

Would the blood flow from her vagina not be sufficient to indicate the required sexual injury had been accomplished?

We don't know how much blood flow there was initially, maybe it was a relatively small amount, which is why the perp wanted to see if the wound inflicted would look convincing enough.

The Ramsey's do not want the initial focus to be a sexual assault within a domestic setting!

I think the Ramseys wanted to direct the attention away from
a) the head wound which was initially inflicted by an enraged Patsy and
b) from the fact that JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse by John.
and it was because of b) that they inflicted the injury to her vagina and constructed the bogus garrote.

But the wine-cellar staging masks the sexual assault, with a wipe down and a redressing.

But doesn't the garrote contraption the Ramseys constructed just scream 'sexual assault'?

Jmpo, but I doubt that what was found in the wine cellar had anything to do with staging anymore.
I think what was finally found in the wine cellar was the result of the Ramseys' inability to carry out their plans.
They had wanted to hide signs of chronic sexual abuse, which is why they inflicted the paintbrush injury.
And they had wanted to dump the body somewhere outside, which is why they wrote the ransom note.
But then they didn't dare to dump the body outside for fear of being seen, which is why they put it in the wine cellar.

Was JB 'lovingly' wrapped in a blanket by parents as an act of 'undoing' their crime? Possibly. But maybe the Ramseys had initially carried JB down into the basement in a blanket because they wanted to avoid fiber transfer? And once the blanket was down there, they wrapped JB in it?

 

[UKGuy]

rashomon,

I think that by the time JB shed her urine via post-mortem release in the dark basement, the Ramseys didn't notice this anymore.

Quite possibly, but in between being redressed in the size-12's and applying the garrote, she was wiped down, so someone noticed?

I think the Ramseys wanted to direct the attention away from
a) the head wound which was initially inflicted by an enraged Patsy and
b) from the fact that JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse by John.
and it was because of b) that they inflicted the injury to her vagina and constructed the bogus garrote.

but the head wound was not visible, only when Coroner Meyer did an internal examination did the extent of the fracture reveal itself.
b) seems to be a popular assumption.

But doesn't the garrote contraption the Ramseys constructed just scream 'sexual assault'?

Does it? That idea was first promoted by Lou Smit, it is linked with EA and a dysfunctional fetish attributed to Lou Smit's Intruder.

But I take your point since if a Ramsey constructed it, then maybe a Ramsey dropped that EA suggestion to Lou Smit?

I wonder if JonBenet may have been wrapped in those blankets because she had been cleaned in the bath, hence no socks. then carried somewhere else?

I still maintain that the toilet-rage theory is inconsistent due to JonBenet's killer(s) leaving her dressed in urine-stained long-underwear and the size-12's.

This completely invalidates constructing a murder staging to mask the consequences of the toilet-rage.



.

 

[Toltec]

What with Patsy's illness lasting quite awhile....seems like John wasn't getting any action. What with him cheating on his first wife, me thinks he went looking for sex elsewhere.

 

[UKGuy]

What with Patsy's illness lasting quite awhile....seems like John wasn't getting any action. What with him cheating on his first wife, me thinks he went looking for sex elsewhere.

Toltec,

Many think this already, for some its a backup theory in their mental toolbox.

It has a lot of circumstantial evidence, fibers, claims of prior sexual abuse, JonBenet's enlarged hymen etc.

Not to mention Patsy's less than convincing response when JonBenet's alleged chronic abuse was put to her during an interview.

The central question is:
1.) Did John kill JonBenet, then have Patsy assist in a cover up?

Or
2.) Did Patsy kill JonBenet, then have John assist in a cover up, which he engineeered as done by a sexually motivated intruder, thereby masking his own abuse?

Or
3.) Did John and Patsy collude in the death of JonBenet because they were both directly involved, e.g. We didn't mean for this to happen?

Or
4.) Did Burke at 9-years old whack JonBenet around the head many times, then manually strangled her, leaving her for dead. Possibly, its not beyond the bounds of reason.

And the parents response, Thats ok son, we'll construct a mess of staging, including a ransom-note so Burke goes back to bed, relieved his kind parents will resolve any issues surrounding his murder of his sister?


3.) Seems the most obvious theory, it also embraces Occam's Razor, e.g. One should not multiply concepts beyond necessity, other theories have get out clauses for the remaining Ramsey's, or modify the theory to suit the evidence.

Assuming 3.) Toltec is proposing that John was a situational pedophile, BPD issued search warrants for his Boulder and Atlanta homes to be searched for child , internet accounts, movies, tapes, photograph albums etc. They certainly considered they were dealing with a case that transcended murder and involved incest. Some of the interviews were based on this assumption.

So could it be that JonBenet was being punished not for wetting the bed, but for declining to join in some incestuous activity?

Rather than a case of Toilet Rage do we have a case of Sexual Rage?

After all: We didn't mean for this to happen?



.

 

[Eagle1]

.................So could it be that JonBenet was being punished not for wetting the bed, but for declining to join in some incestuous activity?

Rather than a case of Toilet Rage do we have a case of Sexual Rage?

After all: We didn't mean for this to happen?

Bingo, I really think that's it, her declining to join in sexual, (either intruder /party guest or possibly incest) with no sperm in semen, and attempting to call police, when the molester no doubt wanted to think she was in love with him for telling her she was so pretty and like that. Watched a rape case on Nightline Saturday night where the victim was infuriated by the perp's turning to say Thank you, that was good, as if she'd given it. When he was finally sentenced, he told the judge he was incarcerating an innocent man "just because you can".

Somehow I don't think a "situational" perp father would do it when they were having a party. He'd have had too many other opportunities, situations, and privacy times when no guests or even family were around. I don't think it was the father because something happened to make her cry and attempt a 911 call on the 23rd, and coroners said she had a wound approximately that age, which was healing at the time of the new fatal assault.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

I still maintain that the toilet-rage theory is inconsistent due to JonBenet's killer(s) leaving her dressed in urine-stained long-underwear and the size-12's.

This completely invalidates constructing a murder staging to mask the consequences of the toilet-rage. .

But suppose JB was wiped down before being put in the size 12s and long underwear, and when she finally shed some urine via post-mortem release, the parents might not have noticed this anymore.

but the head wound was not visible, only when Coroner Meyer did an internal examination did the extent of the fracture reveal itself.

It is true that it was not visible, but I think the strangling was done to mask (in the Ramseys' opinion) the original cause of death: the head bash.

[rashomon]But doesn't the garrote contraption the Ramseys constructed just scream 'sexual assault'?

[UKGuy]Does it? That idea was first promoted by Lou Smit, it is linked with EA and a dysfunctional fetish attributed to Lou Smit's Intruder.

But I take your point since if a Ramsey constructed it, then maybe a Ramsey dropped that EA suggestion to Lou Smit?

At least the garrote contraption suggests some bizarre activity, and the Ramseys obviously wanted JB's dead body to be found with the garrote around her neck.
What was their motive for doing so? To make people think that "no parents could do this to their child".

And I vaguely recall that it was actually John Ramsey who first brought up the EA suggestion, but I'm not sure.
Does anyone know who first suggested that the garrote might be an EA device?

 

[BBB167893]

"But I take your point since if a Ramsey constructed it, then maybe a Ramsey dropped that EA suggestion to Lou Smit?"

He seems to have a fertile imagination.

 

[UKGuy]

rashomon,

Still worth emphasizing:

I still maintain that the toilet-rage theory is inconsistent due to JonBenet's killer(s) leaving her dressed in urine-stained long-underwear and the size-12's.

This completely invalidates constructing a murder staging to mask the consequences of the toilet-rage.

But suppose JB was wiped down before being put in the size 12s and long underwear, and when she finally shed some urine via post-mortem release, the parents might not have noticed this anymore.

But JonBenet's size-12 underwear has blood stains, and the corresponding area of her skin in the pubic area, shows no matching stains!

So this suggests she was wiped down after being redressed in the size-12 underwear.

Also if the post-mortem release had occurred after she had been redressed, even after being wiped-down, then either the blankets she was wrapped in, or the floor upon which she lay should display evidence of urine-contamination, and as far as I am aware neither do?

I reckon the long-underwear and size-12's were already urine-soaked, prior to JonBenet being relocated to the wine-cellar.

So why go to all the bother of attempting to hide the genesis of JonBenet's death e.g. Toilet Rage with extensive and complex staging that includes a sexual assault.

Only to leave her lying in urine-stained underwear, so that Steve Thomas can deduce hey its a Toilet Rage case?

At least the garrote contraption suggests some bizarre activity, and the Ramseys obviously wanted JB's dead body to be found with the garrote around her neck.
What was their motive for doing so? To make people think that "no parents could do this to their child".

I think the motive was to mask the circumstances in which she was killed. The EA stuff is from Lou Smit, he toured the media with his theory of a psychopathic intruder wielding a sexual device being responsible for Jonbenet's death.

Found this quote:

About the way JonBenet was murdered, by a garrote, Smit said, “This is one of the best clues left behind by the killer. This shows what’s going on in his mind. This is a sexual device. It’s a strangulation device. He’s a sexual sadist. I’m looking for a pedophile that’s a sexual sadist. That’s what Lou Smit’s looking for,” he says.

In the New York Times on June 29, 2006, a review of JonBenet , Anatomy of a Cold Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/a...1dc7a7b05&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Mr. Schiller has assembled a gang of police officers and prosecutors, and they’re still an exhaustively stumped bunch. Who can blame them? Clearly they were interviewed before Patsy Ramsey’s death, and their response to that death might make a useful addition to the program. But it’s also interesting simply to observe so many successful mid-career professionals whose authority and problem-solving capacities have been so publicly and irrevocably confounded. There’s Alex Hunter, the embattled Boulder district attorney; Mark Beckner, who replaced John Eller as the lead investigator; and Lou Smit, the supposedly infallible Colorado Springs police investigator who was brought to Boulder to show everyone the truth and the way… And Lou Smit he is still on the case, as yet unsolved!

Perfect Murder Perfect Town Page 43

At Boulder Community Hospital, John Myer concluded his autopsy at 2:20 pm.
...

There was a linear fracture on the right side of the child's skull.
...

During the autopsy Myer had told Arndt and Trujillo that JonBenét had suffered an injury consistent with vaginal penetration- digital or otherwise. In his opinion, she'd sustained some kind of genital trauma that could be consistent with sexual contact.

Page 46 PMPT

That night John Myer returned to the morgue. With the coroner was Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, an assistant professor of Pediatrics at the University of Colorado's Health Sciences Center. The two men reexamined JonBenét's genitals and confirmed Myer's earlier findings that there was evidence of vaginal injury. Myer knew that JonBenét's death could be traced to strangulation and a blow to the head, but the facts surrounding the sexual assault of the child were unclear. In the event of a trial, the physical evidence about that would be open to interpretation.

Coroner Meyer was uncertain regarding how to interpret JonBenet's sexual assault, so he asked Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, an award winning child abuse Professor his opinion.

Given Coroner Meyer's remarks to Det. Arndt regarding the enlargement of JonBenet's hymen, and the internal injury that caused the blood flow, its unlikely that Coroner Meyer's problem was, had JonBenet been sexually assaulted, no the issue was had there been prior chronic abuse, as well as her acute injury?




.

 

[BBB167893]

But JonBenet's size-12 underwear has blood stains, and the corresponding area of her skin in the pubic area, shows no matching stains!

So this suggests she was wiped down after being redressed in the size-12 underwear.

Also if the post-mortem release had occurred after she had been redressed, even after being wiped-down, then either the blankets she was wrapped in, or the floor upon which she lay should display evidence of urine-contamination, and as far as I am aware neither do?

I reckon the long-underwear and size-12's were already urine-soaked, prior to JonBenet being relocated to the wine-cellar.

I'll buy that, for now. But I think Kane said that she sheets were tested for urine and did come back positive.

 

[UKGuy]

I'll buy that, for now. But I think Kane said that she sheets were tested for urine and did come back positive.

SuperDave,

But that does not give you a timeframe within which the sheets acquired the urine.

But we not only have a timeframe with respect to her long and size-12 underwear, we have forensic evidence, and autopsy findings stating they were urine-stained, blood-stained, and contained fibers suggesting she had been wiped down, this was Coroner Meyer's findings.

the small spots of blood were in the crotch of her size-12 underwear, but not on her skin. And there were dark fibers on her skin, in the vaginal area, that also caused police to believe her body had been wiped down with a cloth.

Also when you say sheets did you mean blankets?

The central point being there was more than one opportunity to note that JonBenet's long and size-12 underwear was urine-soaked, and if the object of the staging was to mask the consequences of a Toilet Rage, why is JonBenet left lying in urine-soaked underwear, this seems to defeat the purpose of the staging?



.

 

[rashomon]

SuperDave,

But that does not give you a timeframe within which the sheets acquired the urine.

But we not only have a timeframe with respect to her long and size-12 underwear, we have forensic evidence, and autopsy findings stating they were urine-stained, blood-stained, and contained fibers suggesting she had been wiped down, this was Coroner Meyer's findings.

the small spots of blood were in the crotch of her size-12 underwear, but not on her skin. And there were dark fibers on her skin, in the vaginal area, that also caused police to believe her body had been wiped down with a cloth.

Also when you say sheets did you mean blankets?

The central point being there was more than one opportunity to note that JonBenet's long and size-12 underwear was urine-soaked, and if the object of the staging was to mask the consequences of a Toilet Rage, why is JonBenet left lying in urine-soaked underwear, this seems to defeat the purpose of the staging?

What is your source which states that the underwear was actually urine-soaked? Maybe there was only a relatively small amount of urine on the underwear, shed by post-mortem release? An amount so small that it wouldn't have stained the blanket JB was wrapped in?

 

[UKGuy]

What is your source which states that the underwear was actually urine-soaked? Maybe there was only a relatively small amount of urine on the underwear, shed by post-mortem release? An amount so small that it wouldn't have stained the blanket JB was wrapped in?

rashomon,

OK possibly soaked is too strong a description, but from the source I quoted before I include the relevant extract below. The point being what was evident to Coroner Meyer would have been evident to yourself or anyone else observing JonBenet's corpse?

EXTERNAL EXAM:

The decedent is clothed in a long sleeved whit knit collarless shirt, the mid anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorate with silver sequins. Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop knot. This end of the cord is also frayed. There are no defects noted in the shirt but the upper anterior right sleeve contains a dried brown-tan stain measuring 2.5x1.5 inches, consistent with mucous from the nose or mouth. There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

If both the size-12's and the long-underwear have been wet with urine, including part of the legs of the long-underwear, then I think its fair to describe that as being soaked.

In fact I consider Coroner Meyer's description urine-stained to reflect that it was visible to the naked eye since she may have had wet or soaked underwear but this may not be visible!


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

OK possibly soaked is too strong a description, but from the source I quoted before I include the relevant extract below. The point being what was evident to Coroner Meyer would have been evident to yourself or anyone else observing JonBenet's corpse?

If both the size-12's and the long-underwear have been wet with urine, including part of the legs of the long-underwear, then I think its fair to describe that as being soaked.

In fact I consider Coroner Meyer's description urine-stained to reflect that it was visible to the naked eye since she may have had wet or soaked underwear but this may not be visible!

Thanks UKGuy for quoting the source. So if the urine was even over the anterior legs, I would agree that 'soaked' is a fitting description.
The urine issue is very important in terms of what might have caused the rage and also in terms of the time line.

But what I find puzzling: how could JB's urine get over the anterior legs if the child was in horizontal position (already dead or nearing death)?
Getting one's legs urine-stained would be more consistent with the body in an upright position imo. Could she still have been alive in a standing position when this occurred?
But what about the 'Wednesday' panties she was already wearing then? This wouldn't fit together with the perp wanting to put on these panties on an already dead body for staging purposes.
I agree with you that had the cause been toilet-rage, the Ramseys would have made sure in their staging that the child would be wearing dry underwear.

 

[rashomon]

Sounds logical and reasonable but if the garrotte wasn't really used, what about the deep furrows in her neck and the fingernail marks from trying to claw it away?

If those marks had been from JB's fingernails trying to claw the ligature away, her own skin debris would have been found under her fingernails. But this was not the case.
We don't even know if these marks were from fingernails at all.