Finding a focus to the constellation of lies

[BBB167893]

"RE: The enhanced 911 call. It has been reported numerous times in many media outlets that the so-called "enhanced" 911 call did not have Burkes voice on it at all, and the person who did the enhancements has since been discredited. True?"

Don't know. Best information says the tape heard publically was an edited multi-generation copy.

"I mean, thinking of all the "PR did it" theories, you have to wonder why JR would stick by her, particularly since he doesn't strike me as stupid. He'd have to know."

I've often thought that, for him NOT to stick by her, he'd have to admit that he screwed up his first marriage only to marry a monster.

"Were the abrasions old, fresh or both?"

BOTH.

"However, I have heard the garrote in the Jonbenet case wasn't a very practical one...in that, it didn't really perform that great. Perhaps it was only meant to look a certain part, pulled tight to give that impression."

That is correct.

"In reality, a real garrotte would strangulate a person like crazy.
I have an elaborate "John did it" theory, but since most people strongly
feel that either Patsy, Burke or an intruder killed Jonbenet, I'm reluctant
to expound upon it."

Lay it on me, man.

"The "garotte", which should never be called that imo, was not a garotte. It was a cord tied around her neck with 17 inches of length going to a handle that never would have served its purpose as a functioning garotte due to the incredible amount of length."

yeah, strangulation is all about power and leverage. How much could you get with this thing?

 

[Chrishope]

"In reality, a real garrotte would strangulate a person like crazy. I have an elaborate "John did it" theory, but since most people strongly feel that either Patsy, Burke or an intruder killed Jonbenet, I'm reluctantto expound upon it."

Yes, please do. A JDI theory is the only RDI theory that makes sense to me. I don't have a well developed theory of my own, but I'd really like to read yours.

 

[rashomon]

The knot was not a complicated knot. This piece of misinformation really boils my potatoes. It was a standard double knot, and anyone who can tie a shoelace can make one.

The "garotte", which should never be called that imo, was not a garotte. It was a cord tied around her neck with 17 inches of length going to a handle that never would have served its purpose as a functioning garotte due to the incredible amount of length.

I believe the head wound preceded the strangulation, and I think so because the head wound was developed, and her brain was swollen and pressed against her skull. That takes time to develop, at least ten minutes.

Also indicating this in my opinion is the complete lack of a struggle we see from JonBenet. She did not fight the person who put the cord around her neck, her hair is entwined in the knot (along with fibers from Patsy's jacket), and she did not claw at it in attempt to relieve the pressure. The interior of her neck was not as badly damaged as you would see if she was conscious and struggling with her assailant to get away and catch a breath. Usually choking victims end up biting the insides of their cheeks and tongue when being choked, and there's none of that in JB's mouth. Her wrists show no marks as if she was restrained and struggled against the restraints to try to free herself.

As for the 911 call, we aren't listening to the first generation tape, and we don't have near the level of sophisticated equipment that experts have. No offense, but if one of us listens and hears nothing, that doesn't mean anything.

I have a hard time believing Burke could have been the perp, because there is no evidence of him ever acting jealous or violent towards his sister before the murder (the golf club accident is, by all accounts, an accident), and there is no evidence of him acting jealous or violent like that towards anyone else. If he was the type of person who could do something so sinister as a nine year old boy, there would have been previous indications (cruelty towards pets comes to mind) and he certainly would not have stopped and never exhibited the ability to do such after he successfully got away with such a crime. I also do not believe he would have held up under questioning had he known what happened or been a party to it.

And pineapple - Steve Thomas says in his book that the material in JonBenet's intestine was examined and was pineapple consistent down to the rind with what was found in the bowl on the breakfast table. There's no question that JonBenet ate some of that pineapple, and she ate it after she ate the cracked crab at the White's, which was farther digested into her large intestine. The rate of digestion indicates that JonBenet ate it one to two hours before she died. Patsy tried to claim she didn't recognize the bowl and spoon and "set up", but both John and Burke said that they recognized that bowl as belonging to them. Patsy's and Burke's prints were on it, indicating Patsy did recognize it and n felt the need to lie.

Why? Why all the lies? Why all the conflicting stories and staged evidence? The Ramseys know who did this, and are covering for that person - and in my opinion, the only person they would cover for this hard and this long is one of their own.

My thoughts exactly. I could have written that post myself.

 

[rashomon]

I like the way you think. I have gone over every possible scenario, and the only two theories that seem plausible to me are that Burke killed Jonbenet,
and both parents are covering for him, or that John killed her, and Patsy
was covering for him.

Why would patsy cover for John?
No one may ever know the answer to that, but if I were to
speculate, it could be that she depended on John for financial stability,
social status and she didn't want Burke to suffer through an ugly divorce.

Also, many women stay with their husbands after they find out that the
husband molested their daughter. It's awful, but it happens.

I have an elaborate "John did it" theory, but since most people strongly
feel that either Patsy, Burke or an intruder killed Jonbenet, I'm reluctant
to expound upon it.

But would parents covering up for Burke create such a cruel scenario? Jab a paintbrush into their dead child's vagina, tie a cord around her neck, or bash her head in? Even if they thought JB was already dead, doing this points to the parents as being total sociopaths. Imo no one would do this to their child for staging purposes unless they themselves had something to do with her deadly injuries inflicted before.

Tristan, I'm really curious to hear about your elaborate "John did it" theory. Dont hesitate to post it - even if the majority of us may not agree with it, this forum is about discussing a crime, and your opinion has the same weight as anyone else's.
I'm very interested in other posters' theories, which is why I'd like to discuss your "John did it" theory with you.

 

[Betsy]

No one would need a garrotte to strangle a child. It would be overkill on a 6 year old little girl.

Remember how many of us argued against the "cord around the neck" theory when Baby Conner was found? How Geragos tried to convince us that he had been killed with this cord (or tape, or whatever it was finally agreed to be)? And of course it was just debris tangled around his little neck--we knew that--because who on earth wraps anything around a baby's neck to kill it???

The garrotte is a prop.

 

[rashomon]

I just thought of something. What if "the practice note" was not at all a practice note but the brother's first attempt at such a note? And what if, the parents or maybe just one, in a state of panic simply thought to elaborate on a cover-up with more sophistication?

JMO

Imo no way would a nine-year-old child have the sophistication even to think about concocting a ransom note which should direct the intention away from him.
I don't think the reason why the parents covered up the crime was Burke being involved in it - I believe that both parents had to do something with JB's death, and that this common guilt tied them together for all the years to come.

 

[MysteryAddict]

Even if a 9 year old thought of covering it up by making a garrotte - which I don't buy for a minute- why would he take a piece of paintbrush and make abrassions in her vagina? Just doesn't add up - IMO.

Also how did he manage to entwine fibers from his
Mother's sweater in the garrotte??

 

[Hyatt]

The knot was not a complicated knot. This piece of misinformation really boils my potatoes. It was a standard double knot, and anyone who can tie a shoelace can make one.

The "garotte", which should never be called that imo, was not a garotte. It was a cord tied around her neck with 17 inches of length going to a handle that never would have served its purpose as a functioning garotte due to the incredible amount of length.

I believe the head wound preceded the strangulation, and I think so because the head wound was developed, and her brain was swollen and pressed against her skull. That takes time to develop, at least ten minutes.

Also indicating this in my opinion is the complete lack of a struggle we see from JonBenet. She did not fight the person who put the cord around her neck, her hair is entwined in the knot (along with fibers from Patsy's jacket), and she did not claw at it in attempt to relieve the pressure. The interior of her neck was not as badly damaged as you would see if she was conscious and struggling with her assailant to get away and catch a breath. Usually choking victims end up biting the insides of their cheeks and tongue when being choked, and there's none of that in JB's mouth. Her wrists show no marks as if she was restrained and struggled against the restraints to try to free herself.

As for the 911 call, we aren't listening to the first generation tape, and we don't have near the level of sophisticated equipment that experts have. No offense, but if one of us listens and hears nothing, that doesn't mean anything.

I have a hard time believing Burke could have been the perp, because there is no evidence of him ever acting jealous or violent towards his sister before the murder (the golf club accident is, by all accounts, an accident), and there is no evidence of him acting jealous or violent like that towards anyone else. If he was the type of person who could do something so sinister as a nine year old boy, there would have been previous indications (cruelty towards pets comes to mind) and he certainly would not have stopped and never exhibited the ability to do such after he successfully got away with such a crime. I also do not believe he would have held up under questioning had he known what happened or been a party to it.

And pineapple - Steve Thomas says in his book that the material in JonBenet's intestine was examined and was pineapple consistent down to the rind with what was found in the bowl on the breakfast table. There's no question that JonBenet ate some of that pineapple, and she ate it after she ate the cracked crab at the White's, which was farther digested into her large intestine. The rate of digestion indicates that JonBenet ate it one to two hours before she died. Patsy tried to claim she didn't recognize the bowl and spoon and "set up", but both John and Burke said that they recognized that bowl as belonging to them. Patsy's and Burke's prints were on it, indicating Patsy did recognize it and n felt the need to lie.

Why? Why all the lies? Why all the conflicting stories and staged evidence? The Ramseys know who did this, and are covering for that person - and in my opinion, the only person they would cover for this hard and this long is one of their own.

That's a good post with much good information and you make a lot of points with which I agree. I have always wished that the Whites had come forth and given some information about the family dynamics, the characters, psychology of all the Ramseys. But I certainly can understand them not having done so. It is just my selfish curiosity and also my interest in psychology. I didn't know whether the golf incident had been an accident but how can we really know about that? Not only that but the fact that Burke never did anything like that before doesn't mean that he couldn't have done it a first time at one point. After all, the same is true about the adult Ramseys who never tired of emphasizing that they had no history of such things. Whenever I would hear this, I always thought - well for any criminal, there was always a first time.

As for jealousy etc., how do we know there wasn't any? Certainly it would seem to me that the mother sounds like she devoted an enormous amount of time with the daughter. Okay, those are just questions because frankly in the scenario that I imagine, they aren't even really that pertinent.

You are asking these questions because you are imagining premeditation whereas I don't think that there was any of that here. In fact, the scenario that I would imagine with Burke would be something much simpler like: (for example) a struggle for a toy - the Nintendo - whatever and the older child feeling enraged for something as insignificant as that and then BANG a swing at the younger child's head with something heavy that just happened to be closey by. That's how I see this having happened, IF IT was the brother. It's not particularly sensational nor interesting but you know what? I think that even if it was one of the parents - it probably will also be similar - a burst of anger - a wrong move with too much force and an ensuing tragedy. After that moves to cover guilt.

JMO

 

[angelwngs]

Well, if an intruder had used a real garrotte on Jonbenet, and knew what he was doing...there'd be no need to bash her head in. You could get a garrotte around a grown man and kill him easily if the you know what you're doing. Pretty much, a garrotte is meant to more than you could with just your hands.

If the garrotte on Jonbenet was not hugely effective...it means it was made by someone who did know much about such items.

~~~~~Could it be plausable, that in transport, that JBR's head was accidently slammed into a doorframe or if she fell when the 'intruder' tried to stuff her out the window hitting her head on the concrete floor, the already present garrotte, which had been made originally as a means of control, may have been successfully used to finish off the 'accident'....~~~~~?????~~~~

-Quote earlier post Under Thread named Head Blow dated 2001-
"JonBenet was struck hard on the side of her head. Dr. Meyer stated during the autopsy that her head injuries were consistent with a "blow to the head".
What position must JonBenet have been in to have recieved this blow to her head? To try and strike a blow on the side of the head to someone lying down would have been very awkward - like golfing. Not very likely at all. She must have been upright then.
Which means she had to have been STRUCK first - and then strangled.
Because she could not have been in an upright position to have that object swung to the side of her head - had she been strangled and unconscious/near death.
It makes no sense that someone struck her head when she was lying down.
And supposedly dead from being strangled."

~~~~This would be typical of someone quickly and carelessly carrying a child from point A to point B and ramming their head accidently into a doorjam...would it not???

 

[Hyatt]

I don't think that there would have been enough strength in a blow caused by her head being inadvertently hit on a door etc while someone carried her. The two scenarios in which I see enough strength to cause that fracture would be: she could have been sitting on a couch or standing and the blow came down on her head from someone who was very angry (so she would have been vertical) and who used a hard object to swing down at her or someone got angry and swung at her very hard sideways, causing her to fall and hit her head on a hard surface like marble or hard porcelain - a bathtub or a toilet base or something of the sort.

In the first instance, I imagine the brother and in the second, an adult. These images are the ones that come to my mind, though I'm sure that there are many others. I don't think that at that point, anyone was trying to shove her outside of the house, but that's probably because I don't believe in any IDI theory because of the lies that came from the family. I think that for the second instance, I imagine more or less what Steve Thomas did and in the first instance I imagine a row about a toy or something like that and a very angry brother. In neither instance do I think that someone WANTED to kill her but in both I imagine someone simply losing their temper. That's why I would really like to know who had a bad temper in that family.

JMO

 

[aussiesheila]

Incidentally...here's an example of a real garrotte:

Pretty different than the one in this case.

Maybe the difference is because the one you have posted the link to is a garrote designed to kill and the one that was used on JonBenet was a garrote designed for breath control ie tightening sufficiently to cause momentary unconciousness, followed by loosening that allowed a return to conciousness accompanied body paroxysms that approximated a female orgasmic response which is a real turn on for pedophiles standing around watching the application of the garrote on the victim.

 

[Betsy]

Forgive me if this has already been answered, but why couldn't she have been in bed and lying on her side when she was hit in the head?

 

[Hyatt]

Well, I don't think that is likely either from a physical or psychological perspective. From a physical perspective that would mean a blow to the side of the head, perhaps the ear lobe etc. which IMO would probably have caused some external bleeding since that entire area - side of the head - is so tender. The fracture was huge and its length suggests a blow to the top of the head, I think.

From a scenario-oriented or psychological perspective this would probably involve a sexual scenario - which your signature suggests that you believe in whereas I don't. As I have said on several occasions, I think that someone lost their temper with JonBenet, which would not make sense if she was lying in bed sleeping or generally not interacting.

JMO

 

[Hyatt]

(snipped for brevity) ...

Why? Why all the lies? Why all the conflicting stories and staged evidence? The Ramseys know who did this, and are covering for that person - and in my opinion, the only person they would cover for this hard and this long is one of their own.

Nuisanceposter, I think that the way to get closest to solving this is to take each particular lie and ask "why lie about THIS?". What does anyone gain by a particular lie? So I'm still on the lie of Burke being asleep when he was not. Why lie about that?

I agree that one would think that during interviews, one would think a child of 9 would give themselves away - UNLESS he had been coached to simply say - over and over again "I don't know, I was asleep." THAT is a very good reason to lie and say "He slept through the whole thing."

Another thing: the reason why JR staying up with Burke doing a project after 10:00 p.m. on that night strikes me as strange is that, by their own admission, they had to be up at something like 6:30 a.m. the next day. This has not been proven to have been a lie - but it seems unlikely to me, given their schedule.

As for Patsy being in the same clothes the next day: this suggests to me one of two possible scenarios (or maybe both). She was either up all night or she was tired and immediately fell asleep on a couch or something, soon after getting in so her statements that she went to bed don't make sense to me.

It's kind of strange, that when you combine those two issues together the Ramseys convey a picture that prior to midnight - BOTH females were asleep in their beds whereas BOTH males stayed up. Whereas, the PR-did-it theorists (and that was and is the majority opinion of the then-investigators) believe that both males were asleep and clueless whereas both females were up and it is between them that the events unfolded. I find that interesting.

Tristan - I agree that if JR had been responsible, PR could well have burried her head in the sand, in the hopes that her life would not change anymore than it had (financially, socially etc.) and thus stuck by him. The JR did it theory largely relies on the hypothesis of sexual abuse. Now to complicate matters further, one reaction on the part of PR which DID seem authentic to me (but I only read it on paper so my judgment is based on a partial view) was that when she was informed of chronic vaginal interference prior to that night, she immediately turned to her lawyers and said "Were you aware of this?" That question somehow seemed like a likely reaction. And I found it interesting that the lawyer did not show surprise - he as much as said that he was aware of it. Why hadn't she been told that?

It seemed to me that Patsy said at one point that she looked for JonBenet in Burke's room because she sometimes slept there. Is there any possibility that there could have been some sexual contact between brother and sister - of what nature, I don't know and I also don't know if there has ever been cases of sexual contact between children that age that could leave traces as found on JonBenet. Does someone know if that is even a possibility?

JMO

 

[Maybe So]

I just want to ask why some think the garotte was an ineffective tool? I have seen the autopsy photo of JBR's neck and it looks like it was a pretty nasty and effective tool to choke someone to death with to me. He neck is badly abraded and the cord is sunk into the flesh of her neck deeply. I thought it so horrible that I felt most parents could not have done it to their child even for "staging"

 

[BBB167893]

"Also how did he manage to entwine fibers from her Mother's sweater in the garrotte??"

Good question.

"I just want to ask why some think the garotte was an ineffective tool?"

I'll tell you why: Because the way it was constructed would give the person no leverage. NP, you want to help me out here?

"I have seen the autopsy photo of JBR's neck and it looks like it was a pretty nasty and effective tool to choke someone to death with to me."

Anyone can do that to someone who's already knocked out, Maybe So.

"He neck is badly abraded and the cord is sunk into the flesh of her neck deeply."

Proving what, exactly? Norm Early said it best: when you have someone you think is dead with no outward sign, you don't want the coroner to come back and say this strangulation couldn't have killed someone. So you pull it tighter and deeper.

"I thought it so horrible that I felt most parents could not have done it to their child even for "staging""

Well, the FBI says that idea is wrong. Besides, if you think a person is dead, you don't know you're hurting them, savvy?

 

[Chrishope]

" I'll tell you why: Because the way it was constructed would give the person no leverage. NP, you want to help me out here? "

I think we may be looking at this wrong. It's being called an ineffective tool, because it isn't very well contructed from the point of view of someone knowledgable about knots, and more specifically, about the bizzaro world of errotic asphyxiation. In other words, this is not a very "professionally" constructed garrotte.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have been used for strangulation. It wouldn't be an "efficient" tool, but when one is strangling a 6 year old, how "efficient" do you have to be? Especially is she's already unconscious.

Pretty much any length of rope long enough to circle the neck and leave enough to hang onto to pull will do the job.

I think it's quite possible this was a first expirement in garrotting - whether by a Ramsey, or an intruder.

 

[BBB167893]

"That doesn't mean it couldn't have been used for strangulation. It wouldn't be an "efficient" tool, but when one is strangling a 6 year old, how "efficient" do you have to be? Especially is she's already unconscious."

That's what I'm saying! How are you supposed to hold a live, fighting child down with one hand while trying to pull this one over your head?

 

[Chrishope]

"That doesn't mean it couldn't have been used for strangulation. It wouldn't be an "efficient" tool, but when one is strangling a 6 year old, how "efficient" do you have to be? Especially is she's already unconscious."

That's what I'm saying! How are you supposed to hold a live, fighting child down with one hand while trying to pull this one over your head?

You can't. The tail would have had to be wrapped around the hand a couple of times.

 

[BBB167893]

Right, and if that had happened, there would be clothing fibers on it.

There were fibers tied into the knots. Guess whose?