By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[kanzz]

Because this injury was on the top of JB's head: A fall OFF of the stairs directly onto her head - maybe. But then we would also see neck injuries. So, no. Mechanism of injury dictates this was blunt force trauma, imo.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/m...e-fence-of-creative-license-and-exploitation/

Casting JonBenet straddles the fence of creative license and exploitation
30th January 2017

"The twist is that the largely amateur actors who try out for the parts of parents John and Patsy Ramsey, brother Burke and yes, JonBenet, as well other key characters in the case, don’t know it’s a fake movie, or at least didn’t know at the time their casting call interviews and rehearsals were being filmed.
Being from Boulder, the would-be actors have varying degrees of separations from the real-life Ramseys and seemingly all — or, at least the adults — have well-formed opinions as to what really happened Christmas Day 1996 when JonBenet was last seen alive.
Along the way these good folk of Boulder reveal deeply personal details on camera. One discloses he has just been diagnosed with cancer, another that she was sexually molested as a child and still another that she has lost three of her own children.
All of these tragedies are articulated in the hope that it will make them more qualified for the roles they hope to secure in the (fake) movie.
Perhaps the most disturbing scene is when the young boys trying out for the role of Burke, JonBenet’s only sibling who was nine years old at the time of her murder, are asked to test the theory as whether another child (like Burke) could have had enough strength to have caused the fracture of JonBenet’s skull, which contributed to her death.
The camera rolls as the young actors one after another go at it with a bat and a watermelon, most of them cracking the watermelon wide open, and one of them then taking a taste of the oozing red pulp.
Ok, there’s more to the film than mere shock value. To a degree, and through several dramatizations, it re-examines the key sequence of events in the murder, which, truth be told, casts further doubt on the denials by the Ramseys that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder.
On a broader level it explores Americans’ obsession with celebrity and our need for pop culture mythologies.
Casting JonBenet is like watching a car wreck. It’s horrifying at times but you just can’t take your eyes off of it."

 

[singularity]

Don't know really how to take your post but I assume you do know that a corner brick and angel ornaments from a Christmas tree were taken into evidence?

I always assumed the brick was taken in as a possible weapon she was bludgeoned with.

YOur theory was veering into brothermoon territory. Interesting though.

If memory serves, he and Jim Kolar did a blogtalkradio episode back in 2012, and he didn't back off then.

I doubt he's gonna back off now either.

He picked the right horse initially. Why change saddles now?

I'm wondering, could the skull fracture be caused by a fall? Like down the stairs or off the second floor or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely possible. In one of the interviews they even ask Patsy about a fall/push down the stairs but like everything else, she kindly informs them that they're going down the wrong path....

 

[icedtea4me]

When did Kolar ever get sued? Thomas did, and John recently said that they didn't sue Kolar because the book didn't do well and he didn't want to draw attention to it.

Did Kolar directly state in his book "X killed JonBenet"?

 

[BoldBear]

When did Kolar ever get sued? Thomas did, and John recently said that they didn't sue Kolar because the book didn't do well and he didn't want to draw attention to it.

So that's why Kolar didn't get sued. I'm glad John brought that to light. I guess there's no reason to suspect Burke.

 

[AndHence]

If we assume that Burke's DNA was not found on the ligature, it is fair to assert that one of the parents fashioned the toggle rope and performed the strangulation. This had to be done to not just hasten her death (she was dying from the head blow) but to explain her death in a manner suggesting an intruder. The head blow left no outward marks and with no sign of forced entry in the residence, the Ramseys faced two choices: 1) call an ambulance and face questioning about how this 'accident' occurred and who was responsible or 2) hasten her death and make it look like someone outside the family committed a vicious strangulation/assault/attempted kidnapping. It's even entirely possible that when Patsy and/or John found her they were unaware of the head injury altogether and possibly thought Burke had broken her neck somehow. This line of thinking works for PDI as well since it offers a rationale for the application of the ligature, regardless of who caused the head blow initially.

 

[UKGuy]

If we assume that Burke's DNA was not found on the ligature, it is fair to assert that one of the parents fashioned the toggle rope and performed the strangulation. This had to be done to not just hasten her death (she was dying from the head blow) but to explain her death in a manner suggesting an intruder. The head blow left no outward marks and with no sign of forced entry in the residence, the Ramseys faced two choices: 1) call an ambulance and face questioning about how this 'accident' occurred and who was responsible or 2) hasten her death and make it look like someone outside the family committed a vicious strangulation/assault/attempted kidnapping. It's even entirely possible that when Patsy and/or John found her they were unaware of the head injury altogether and possibly thought Burke had broken her neck somehow. This line of thinking works for PDI as well since it offers a rationale for the application of the ligature, regardless of who caused the head blow initially.

AndHence,
BBM: Notably information never released by BPD!

if the case were JDI or PDI I would expect the staging to be more refined than it was.

I would not expect Patsy to present herself in the previous night's clothing, to redress JonBenet in BR's long johns, or the over sized underwear. There is no percentage in PR doing this it raises red flags that could easily be avoided. Also the breakfast bar could be cleaned up, along with JonBenet's bedroom, and dirty or soiled clothing could have been run through the washing machine and spin dried in less than an hour.

Although PR might have staged things differently, I would have expected it to be amateurish, but probably plausible, yet not pass the standard LEA smell tests?

Similar analysis applies to JR. The outlier RDI theory here is if the case is JDI or PDI, but staged to implicate BR, in the assumption, as a child, he would never face charges?

That's why knowing if any of BR's touch-dna is on the ligature or parts of JonBenet's body you would not expect, i.e. they did play doctor.

Negative's on these would blow the case open towards one of the parents?

.

 

[Userid]

^ For the ninth time: you don't know that such information (BR's prints on the ligature/garrotte) even exists at all. You are creating it out of thin air.

The staging was refined enough for two adults who had never done anything like this before.

 

[Annapurna]

^ For the ninth time: you don't know that such information (BR's prints on the ligature/garrotte) even exists at all. You are creating it out of thin air.

The staging was refined enough for two adults who had never done anything like this before.

We can't assume that the evidence doesn't exist just because we don't know about it though. This case is unusual with all the media leaks and stuff, but its normal for LE to hold back information. When you have the added complication of the CO Law preventing a child from being charged or implicated in the crime it makes sense that we wouldn't know everything if in fact, BDI.

I usually go back to Kolar. I trust his opinion because he saw the files in totality, after all the work had been done and without all the political dealings his predecessors had to deal with. He saw all the evidence, including what has not been released. He's made his opinion known, but unfortunately not with enough detail to satisfy us sleuths. JMO

 

[AndHence]

What makes PDI stronger is the available forensic evidence and the ease with which you can reverse engineer the staged elements of the crime (the note, the redressing/blanketing, the paint tote/brush). At best, you can conjecture that Burke was responsible for the head blow, but what really ties him to this act? The fact that he accidentally hit her with a golf club two years prior? The pineapple in JonBenet's stomach + Burke's fingerprints on the glass/bowl? The suspicious maglite that had no prints of any sort on it? Let's lump this with Burke's statement on Dr. Phil and say it's enough to posit that Burke hit JonBenet with an object (maybe the maglite?) in a rage but not necessarily a homicidal one, causing the head blow. What now?

Does Burke decide to go all MacGiver and fashion the toggle rope from his mother's paint tote? Why? Does he sexually assault JonBenet first and then decide to tromp upstairs in his Hi-Tec boots (not waking anyone) to fetch a change of underwear to redress her in? Is Burke a master of misdirection and criminal mastermind? Probably not. Burke's involvement is likely limited to the head blow.

The head blow caused no external damage which created a problem for anyone seeking to make the crime look like a vicious sexual assault/murder/attempted kidnapping. The strangulation and ransom note serve that very purpose -- pointing away from the person responsible for the head blow. The sexual assault element itself was believed to be superficial, either intended to cover up past abuse or to make it look like a fresh assault by an intruder pedophile.

 

[Pinkland]

What makes PDI stronger is the available forensic evidence and the ease with which you can reverse engineer the staged elements of the crime (the note, the redressing/blanketing, the paint tote/brush). At best, you can conjecture that Burke was responsible for the head blow, but what really ties him to this act? The fact that he accidentally hit her with a golf club two years prior? The pineapple in JonBenet's stomach + Burke's fingerprints on the glass/bowl? The suspicious maglite that had no prints of any sort on it? Let's lump this with Burke's statement on Dr. Phil and say it's enough to posit that Burke hit JonBenet with an object (maybe the maglite?) in a rage but not necessarily a homicidal one, causing the head blow. What now?

Does Burke decide to go all MacGiver and fashion the toggle rope from his mother's paint tote? Why? Does he sexually assault JonBenet first and then decide to tromp upstairs in his Hi-Tec boots (not waking anyone) to fetch a change of underwear to redress her in? Is Burke a master of misdirection and criminal mastermind? Probably not. Burke's involvement is likely limited to the head blow.

The head blow caused no external damage which created a problem for anyone seeking to make the crime look like a vicious sexual assault/murder/attempted kidnapping. The strangulation and ransom note serve that very purpose -- pointing away from the person responsible for the head blow. The sexual assault element itself was believed to be superficial, either intended to cover up past abuse or to make it look like a fresh assault by an intruder pedophile.

Finally...someone that makes sense.

What people do not realize is that it is OK to make *some assumptions*; however It is not ok to make a theory with no backbone.

You do need evidence to make a
sound educated theory. The philosophy of "I think" without something to forensically back it up is nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

What makes PDI stronger is the available forensic evidence and the ease with which you can reverse engineer the staged elements of the crime (the note, the redressing/blanketing, the paint tote/brush). At best, you can conjecture that Burke was responsible for the head blow, but what really ties him to this act? The fact that he accidentally hit her with a golf club two years prior? The pineapple in JonBenet's stomach + Burke's fingerprints on the glass/bowl? The suspicious maglite that had no prints of any sort on it? Let's lump this with Burke's statement on Dr. Phil and say it's enough to posit that Burke hit JonBenet with an object (maybe the maglite?) in a rage but not necessarily a homicidal one, causing the head blow. What now?

Does Burke decide to go all MacGiver and fashion the toggle rope from his mother's paint tote? Why? Does he sexually assault JonBenet first and then decide to tromp upstairs in his Hi-Tec boots (not waking anyone) to fetch a change of underwear to redress her in? Is Burke a master of misdirection and criminal mastermind? Probably not. Burke's involvement is likely limited to the head blow.

The head blow caused no external damage which created a problem for anyone seeking to make the crime look like a vicious sexual assault/murder/attempted kidnapping. The strangulation and ransom note serve that very purpose -- pointing away from the person responsible for the head blow. The sexual assault element itself was believed to be superficial, either intended to cover up past abuse or to make it look like a fresh assault by an intruder pedophile.

bbm
With the exception of the redressing - all could be explained as post-mortem activities, even the paintbrush. Making it strong evidence for cover-up, but not for the murder, imo. His past behavior does have credence, imo: the golf club, inappropriate sexual behavior, scatolia. His interview responses at the Child Advocacy Center in Niwot were very telling. jmo

 

[Userid]

We can't assume that the evidence doesn't exist just because we don't know about it though. This case is unusual with all the media leaks and stuff, but its normal for LE to hold back information. When you have the added complication of the CO Law preventing a child from being charged or implicated in the crime it makes sense that we wouldn't know everything if in fact, BDI.

I usually go back to Kolar. I trust his opinion because he saw the files in totality, after all the work had been done and without all the political dealings his predecessors had to deal with. He saw all the evidence, including what has not been released. He's made his opinion known, but unfortunately not with enough detail to satisfy us sleuths. JMO

I'm sorry but I just find that too convenient. Police hold on to evidence not only if it's a child that's the perp; the holding of evidence can be strategic no matter who the perp is. What if the police are sitting on evidence that points directly to PR that we've never heard about? Or one of the maids? Or one BR's friends? Are they simply sitting on evidence because BR is a child, as you seem to be implying, how come the prints on the glass of iced tea and bowl got out? How come it got out that the long-johns were BR's? That his knife was found in a room close to the crime scene? etc.etc.etc.

 

[andreww]

I'm sorry but I just find that too convenient. Police hold on to evidence not only if it's a child that's the perp; the holding of evidence can be strategic no matter who the perp is. What if the police are sitting on evidence that points directly to PR that we've never heard about? Or one of the maids? Or one BR's friends? Are they simply sitting on evidence because BR is a child, as you seem to be implying, how come the prints on the glass of iced tea and bowl got out? How come it got out that the long-johns were BR's? That his knife was found in a room close to the crime scene? etc.etc.etc.

Personally I think that most of the evidence is out there. I believe Kolar said as much. There are some pieces that only the killer would know that have been kept secret for obvious reasons, however I don't think those things point to one person or another, they are simply things that only the killer would know.

 

[andreww]

What makes PDI stronger is the available forensic evidence and the ease with which you can reverse engineer the staged elements of the crime (the note, the redressing/blanketing, the paint tote/brush). At best, you can conjecture that Burke was responsible for the head blow, but what really ties him to this act? The fact that he accidentally hit her with a golf club two years prior? The pineapple in JonBenet's stomach + Burke's fingerprints on the glass/bowl? The suspicious maglite that had no prints of any sort on it? Let's lump this with Burke's statement on Dr. Phil and say it's enough to posit that Burke hit JonBenet with an object (maybe the maglite?) in a rage but not necessarily a homicidal one, causing the head blow. What now?

Does Burke decide to go all MacGiver and fashion the toggle rope from his mother's paint tote? Why? Does he sexually assault JonBenet first and then decide to tromp upstairs in his Hi-Tec boots (not waking anyone) to fetch a change of underwear to redress her in? Is Burke a master of misdirection and criminal mastermind? Probably not. Burke's involvement is likely limited to the head blow.

The head blow caused no external damage which created a problem for anyone seeking to make the crime look like a vicious sexual assault/murder/attempted kidnapping. The strangulation and ransom note serve that very purpose -- pointing away from the person responsible for the head blow. The sexual assault element itself was believed to be superficial, either intended to cover up past abuse or to make it look like a fresh assault by an intruder pedophile.

I disagree. If the sexual assault was a red herring, why wipe her down? Why change her underwear? In my opinion the sexual assault is what lead to the head blow. My reasoning here is that after the head blow Burke doesn't want to touch her as evidenced by him poking her with the train track. Logic tells me that "if" Patsy finds her unconscious, she immediately calls 911. Easier to explain it as an accident. The golf club incident shows that she isn't adverse to covering up for Burke. But she doesn't call 911. There has to be a reason for this. People will always follow the path of least resistance, and explaining a head injury as an accident is a far easier path than staging a psychotic kidnapping/murder. There is a reason she decided to put John and herself at risk that night rather than taking that path of least resistance and for the life of me I can't figure out what else it could be.

 

[UKGuy]

What makes PDI stronger is the available forensic evidence and the ease with which you can reverse engineer the staged elements of the crime (the note, the redressing/blanketing, the paint tote/brush). At best, you can conjecture that Burke was responsible for the head blow, but what really ties him to this act? The fact that he accidentally hit her with a golf club two years prior? The pineapple in JonBenet's stomach + Burke's fingerprints on the glass/bowl? The suspicious maglite that had no prints of any sort on it? Let's lump this with Burke's statement on Dr. Phil and say it's enough to posit that Burke hit JonBenet with an object (maybe the maglite?) in a rage but not necessarily a homicidal one, causing the head blow. What now?

Does Burke decide to go all MacGiver and fashion the toggle rope from his mother's paint tote? Why? Does he sexually assault JonBenet first and then decide to tromp upstairs in his Hi-Tec boots (not waking anyone) to fetch a change of underwear to redress her in? Is Burke a master of misdirection and criminal mastermind? Probably not. Burke's involvement is likely limited to the head blow.

The head blow caused no external damage which created a problem for anyone seeking to make the crime look like a vicious sexual assault/murder/attempted kidnapping. The strangulation and ransom note serve that very purpose -- pointing away from the person responsible for the head blow. The sexual assault element itself was believed to be superficial, either intended to cover up past abuse or to make it look like a fresh assault by an intruder pedophile.

AndHence,

So BR whacks JonBenet on the head and PR stages the rest?

Is Burke a master of misdirection and criminal mastermind? Probably not. Burke's involvement is likely limited to the head blow.

How about Patsy redressing JonBenet in over sized under wear and Burke Ramsey's long johns? Hello yes the intention was to point away from Burke.

The head blow caused no external damage which created a problem for anyone seeking to make the crime look like a vicious sexual assault/murder/attempted kidnapping.

So how did the parents know there had been a head blow and not a falling downstairs , why should BR advance any incriminating information? He might be a child but he is not entirely stupid.

The strangulation and ransom note serve that very purpose -- pointing away from the person responsible for the head blow.

Possibly.

The sexual assault element itself was believed to be superficial, either intended to cover up past abuse or to make it look like a fresh assault by an intruder pedophile.

BBM: Fresh as in acute? Sounds plausible, does this mean no real sexual assault just a simulated one? This subject needs some expansion and light shone on it.

So if BR simply whacked JonBenet on the head to her severe injury, why not dial 911 for medical assistance, why proceed to kill your own daughter?


.

 

[BoldBear]

Yeah, if you look at it the wrong way, the whole 'parents strangled their daughter to protect their son' thing falls apart. Go figure. Maybe the focus on who the murderer was trying to protect is someone else.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*So if BR simply whacked JonBenet on the head to her severe injury, why not dial 911 for medical assistance, why proceed to kill your own daughter?

I don't recall hearing that John's hands fell off of his body that night and Patsy's fell off of hers.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't recall hearing that John's hands fell off of his body that night and Patsy's fell off of hers.

icedtea4me,
I'll assume the emphasis intended is irony, since I'm obviously missing something.

Sure JR and PR were patently all hands to staging. Burke Ramsey's hands, well that's another story.

The sequence of events look like BDI with JR and PR staging the wine-cellar crime-scene.

I do not fully understand the why, but the forensic evidence suggests PR asphyxiated JonBenet?

Patsy might even have faked a sexual assault, but JR says no and cleans JonBenet up, or it was BR who was responsible, who knows, maybe its really JDI, and he has being playing smoke and mirrors for years?

.

 

[AndHence]

I have a few open questions for the BDI-all folks (I'm a RDI with PDI leanings): What purpose could the toggle rope serve if Burke fashioned it? Was it made before the head blow as part of some sex game? Was it made to drag JonBenet? Was it fashioned post-head blow and if so, why would Burke do this? Who did the re-dressing and why re-dress her in Burke's own longjohns?