Forensic evidence

[BBB167893]

Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified."

Yes, extensive, but "no organization" or "inflammation". How can you say it was swollen?

To wit:

SuperDave is right, Rupert.

I think it is the flattening and and narrowing of the sulci/gyri which refers to swelling, to answer your question to SD your other post.

Wecht left out parts of the autopsy report which mentions more of JB's blood in her brain (for example, the extensive are of scalp hemorrhage measuring 7x4 inches).
I suppose he did this deliberately to support his (idiotic imo) "Erotic Asphyxiation" theory, in which logically the head bash could not have come first.
But if there was so much blood in JB's brain and also swelling, the wound was fully developed and therefore could not have been inflicted post-mortem.

It is, rashomon. The sulci are the folds, the gyri is the brain matter folded.

 

[rashomon]

In the autopsy report, Dr. Meyer mentions fresh hemorrhage in JB's brain "with no evidence of organization".
A poster on another forum (who claims to be an ER doctor and does indeed seem to have medical knowledge) wrote that 'organization' is a hematology term, and that the lack of organization would point to the strangulation having occurred imediately after he head blow, i. e. before the blood could organize itself.

From his post:

"Organization is a hematology term that refers to pooling, followed by the process of hemostasis (the biochemical process of clotting, which includes
platelet agregation, adherence,etc). Unless JB had a clotting disorder such as Hemophilia, then her blood begin the hemostatic process immediately after the injury was sustained. Because the autopsy report says that there was "no evidence of organization", that indicates that she was dead immediately after or upon receiving the headblow.
Again, since the cause of death was asphixia and it takes 5+ minutes to asphixiate a child with her lung capacity, there is no medical explanation for the fact that her blood would not have begun the clotting process unless she was dead (unless of course the killer injected her with heparin, which they surely would have tested for at autopsy). Patients with clotting disorders may take 5+ minutes (even hours) to begin the hemostasis cascade, but patients with healthy hemodynamics (such as Jonbenet) will always begin the coagulation process immediately."

Is there any substance to what this poster wrote?
I find it hard to believe that the (staged) strangulation immediately followed the head bash, but don't have enough medical knowledge in hematology. Any help from people with such knowledge would be much appreciated.

And how would the lack of organization of the scalp hemorrhage mesh with the swelling of JB's brain, since it takes some time for the brain to swell?

 

[julianne]

Well, I have SOME medical knowledge, although it's not akin to an ER doc. I do question the statement that it would take 5+ minutes to asphyxiate someone. I'm under the impression that it would take significantly less time than that.

 

[BBB167893]

There are differing factors involved, but yeah, not that long.

 

[rashomon]

UKGuy,
I just found something which might interest you (bold type mine):

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/...ey/0716jon.htm
Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault
Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says
By Charlie Brennan
%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer


BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.
The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.
"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.
"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''
Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.
That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.
"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.
"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''
Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.July 16, 1997

So JB's empty bladder might indicate that she did in fact shed urine before the head blow was delivered.
So maybe the toilet rage theory isn't so far-fetched after all?
I know that you argued "suppose JonBenet shed post-mortem urine, why would the Ramseys leave her in the urine-stained size 12-underwear if the cause of her death was toilet rage?
But perhaps the Ramseys, in their panic, didn't even realize that JB had shed some urine again?
Maybe we are attributing far too much logic and reasoning behind the panicked staging efforts of the Ramseys, while in reality it was all merely a jumbled mess?

Thus, although JB had obviously been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, still the rage attack on her could have been unconnected to that abuse.
JB's sexual abuser needn't automatically have been her killer.

But maybe JB's sexual abuser (I believe it was John) profited from the rage attack on JB; for Patsy (without realizing it), had forever silenced JB as a witness who might spill the beans.

 

[JMO8778]

My question is...what was JR (likely him,since it was his shirt),using the shirt to wipe off?Is there something being redacted..or was it urine,or something else that was totally wiped off and didn't show up for that reason?

 

[Solace]

I still keep thinking about the position of JonBenet's arms, over her head. I picture her being strung up, suspended from a ceiling, maybe even being tortured. But why? I don't know. If the ropes weren't secure, she could have fallen and struck her head then.

And the broken window with the suitcase underneath, could she have tried to climb up and escape through it because someone was chasing her? Maybe Burke ran after her because she broke one of his new toys? She certainly would have fit through the opening. She also could have lost her balance and fallen then. Patsy said she wrapped Christmas presents in the basement. The kids could have been playing down there while she was wrapping.

What I don't understand is, and maybe I haven't read enough about the forensic evidence, but if JonBenet was struck on the head with the flashlight, baseball bat, or fireplace brick, wouldn't something from her body be on one of them?

Are you okay?

 

[Nova]

Maybe we are attributing far too much logic and reasoning behind the panicked staging efforts of the Ramseys, while in reality it was all merely a jumbled mess...

Truer words were ne'er spoken.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
I just found something which might interest you (bold type mine):





So JB's empty bladder might indicate that she did in fact shed urine before the head blow was delivered.
So maybe the toilet rage theory isn't so far-fetched after all?
I know that you argued "suppose JonBenet shed post-mortem urine, why would the Ramseys leave her in the urine-stained size 12-underwear if the cause of her death was toilet rage?
But perhaps the Ramseys, in their panic, didn't even realize that JB had shed some urine again?
Maybe we are attributing far too much logic and reasoning behind the panicked staging efforts of the Ramseys, while in reality it was all merely a jumbled mess?

Thus, although JB had obviously been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, still the rage attack on her could have been unconnected to that abuse.
JB's sexual abuser needn't automatically have been her killer.

But maybe JB's sexual abuser (I believe it was John) profited from the rage attack on JB; for Patsy (without realizing it), had forever silenced JB as a witness who might spill the beans.

rashomon,

Thanks for posting it. Now there are some tangled statements in the above article.

As you know I hold the opinion that JonBenet was intentionally killed, e.g. it was not an accident. And the above interpretation confirms this, a head bash followed by an asphyxiation.

So JB's empty bladder might indicate that she did in fact shed urine before the head blow was delivered.
So maybe the toilet rage theory isn't so far-fetched after all?
I know that you argued "suppose JonBenet shed post-mortem urine, why would the Ramseys leave her in the urine-stained size 12-underwear if the cause of her death was toilet rage?
But perhaps the Ramseys, in their panic, didn't even realize that JB had shed some urine again?

This is old ground, and I covered it exhaustively on another thread. What I maintained was that it was impossible for the Ramsey's not to be aware that JonBenet had soiled her pants and longjohns.

There were two main opportunies for bladder evacuation either upon death or post-mortem or both. Now as her bladder was empty, it was either exclusively one of the above or a combination.

Now if Toilet Rage was the causal factor in her death, then the consequent staging should at least attempt to conceal this. Without re-iterating the wine-cellar staging and its assumed purpose, that this planned activity took place at all, suggests panic mode had been replaced with a more contemplative one.

That is the Toilet Rage theory argues for the possibility of at least three bladder evacuations e.g. one prior to her head bash, potentially one on being asphyxiated, and again one post-mortem?

Assuming the Toilet Rage is correct then we know JonBenet was cleaned up, and redressed in the size-12's, now that potentially conceals the first two bladder evacuations, but we can infer there was a third post-mortem soaking of both her longjohns and size-12 underwear!


Now the contradiction is this: assuming the forensic evidence is valid and it is Patsy's fibers on the paintbrush handle, under the duct-tape etc, and she was the one to place JonBenet into the wine-cellar. Then if she faked a sexual assault at this point, using the paintbrush handle, or her finger, she had to notice that JonBenet was again urine soaked? Similarly if it was John, then he had to notice. Similarly as you have asserted she was only checking the wound?

Another weakness is the assumption of three bladder evacuations, once as bedwetting should nearly empty her bladder, and upon death I would expect it to be emptied, for there to be a substantial amount remaining, soaking both her longjohns and size-12's, whilst not impossible, starts to seem like adjusting the evidence to fit the theory?


Another aspect is where and when did this crucial post-mortem release take place, patently after being cleaned up, was she wrapped in blankets, were these too soaked with urine, if not why not?

Lastly

Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.July 16, 1997

So if it is complete there can be no post-mortem release, and whomever placed JonBenet into the wine-cellar knew that she was urine-soaked, and did not consider this a feature of any significance? The contradictions start to spill out here, so I will not itemize them.


The Toilet Rage theory isn't so far-fetched, its not fully supported by the forensic evidence, not least of which is the deliberate staging, so why go to all this inordinate trouble to stage a homicide to hide a Toilet Rage death, only to leave JonBenet soaked through with urine, and her genitalia neatly wiped down?



.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

As you know I hold the opinion that JonBenet was intentionally killed, e.g. it was not an accident. And the above interpretation confirms this, a head bash followed by an asphyxiation.

I believe the initial head blow was a rage attack (i. e. neither an accident nor someting planned beforeheand).

This is old ground, and I covered it exhaustively on another thread. What I maintained was that it was impossible for the Ramsey's not to be aware that JonBenet had soiled her pants and longjohns.

That is the big question, UKGuy. Perhaps it was not impossible at all.

UKGuy, maybe we are attributing far too much logic and reasoning to the panicked staging efforts of the Ramseys, while in reality it was all merely a jumbled mess?
At least that's what Delmar England (who analyzed the so-called 'garrote' on the ACandyRose site) pointed out in one of his e-mails to me.

For example, that ridiculous 17-inch cord space between the wrist ligatures, combined with those clumsily tied loops around her wrists: one so loose that it had already come off, and the other tied on top of her sleeve like a shoelace. Where is the 'logic' in such a scenario?
Nothing there points to sophisticated staging guided by reason, UKGuy. Nothing whatsoever.
Keep in mind that the Ramseys were no sophisticated criminals knowing how to stage a scene convincingly. They were bungling amateurs, and also in a panic.
And those bungling amateurs may very well have overlooked the fact that JB shed post-mortem urine, or in case they did notice it, not have realized the implications for their staged scene.

Also, when staging the scene, the person who had wiped down JB before may not even have remembered the wiping.
And even if the stager of the scene did remember it, (s)he may have had no idea of a possible fiber transfer.
For unless the Ramseys were avid readers of true crime books, chances are that they (unlike us posters here) knew next to nothing about such things.

That is the Toilet Rage theory argues for the possibility of at least three bladder evacuations e.g. one prior to her head bash, potentially one on being asphyxiated, and again one post-mortem?

Assuming the Toilet Rage is correct then we know JonBenet was cleaned up, and redressed in the size-12's, now that potentially conceals the first two bladder evacuations, but we can infer there was a third post-mortem soaking of both her longjohns and size-12 underwear!

Not three bladder evacuations: two.
One prior to the head bash,and the other post-mortem, i. e. after JB had drawn her last breath (after the ligature around her neck had cut off the oxygen supply).

rashomon,

As you know I hold the opinion that JonBenet was intentionally killed, e.g. it was not an accident. And the above interpretation confirms this, a head bash followed by an asphyxiation.

I believe the initial head blow was a rage attack (i. e. neither an accident nor someting planned beforeheand).

This is old ground, and I covered it exhaustively on another thread. What I maintained was that it was impossible for the Ramsey's not to be aware that JonBenet had soiled her pants and longjohns.

That is the big question, UKGuy. Perhaps it was not impossible at all.

UKGuy, maybe we are attributing far too much logic and reasoning behind the panicked staging efforts of the Ramseys, while in reality it was all merely a jumbled mess?
At least that's what Delmar England (who analyzed the so-called 'garrote' on the ACandyRose site) pointed out in one of his e-mails to me.

For example, that ridiculous 17-inch cord space between the wrist ligatures, combined with those clumsily tied loops around her wrists: one so loose that it had already come off, and the other tied on top of her sleeve like a shoelace. Where is the 'logic' in such a scenario?
Nothing there points to sophisticated staging guided by reason, UKGuy. Nothing whatsoever.
Keep in mind that the Ramseys were no sophisticated criminals knowing how to stage a scene convincingly. They were bungling amateurs, and also in a panic.
And those bungling amateurs may very well have overlooked the fact that JB shed post-mortem urine, or in case they did notice it, not have realized the implications for their staged scene.

Also, when staging the scene, the person who had wiped up JB's body before may not even have remembered the wiping.
And even if the stager of the scene did remember it, (s)he may have had no idea of a possible fiber transfer.
For unless the Ramseys were avid readers of true crime books, chances are that they (unlike us posters here) knew next to nothing about such things.

That is the Toilet Rage theory argues for the possibility of at least three bladder evacuations e.g. one prior to her head bash, potentially one on being asphyxiated, and again one post-mortem?

Assuming the Toilet Rage is correct then we know JonBenet was cleaned up, and redressed in the size-12's, now that potentially conceals the first two bladder evacuations, but we can infer there was a third post-mortem soaking of both her longjohns and size-12 underwear!

Not three bladder evacuations: two.
One prior to the head bash,and the other post-mortem, i. e. after JB had drawn her last breath (after the ligature around her neck had cut off the oxygen supply).

Look at the concocted ransom note, UKGuy: it is a totally jumbled mess lacking reasoning and basic logic.
And still the Ramseys left that note there to be found.

Nothing in the ransom note makes sense.
Nothing in the staged scene makes sense either.

Which is why I believe that both the ransom note and what was finally found in the wine cellar were the results of miserably failed attempts by perps (being bungling amateurs) to stage a scene.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe the initial head blow was a rage attack (i. e. neither an accident nor someting planned beforeheand).

That is the big question, UKGuy. Perhaps it was not impossible at all.

UKGuy, maybe we are attributing far too much logic and reasoning to the panicked staging efforts of the Ramseys, while in reality it was all merely a jumbled mess?
At least that's what Delmar England (who analyzed the so-called 'garrote' on the ACandyRose site) pointed out in one of his e-mails to me.

For example, that ridiculous 17-inch cord space between the wrist ligatures, combined with those clumsily tied loops around her wrists: one so loose that it had already come off, and the other tied on top of her sleeve like a shoelace. Where is the 'logic' in such a scenario?
Nothing there points to sophisticated staging guided by reason, UKGuy. Nothing whatsoever.
Keep in mind that the Ramseys were no sophisticated criminals knowing how to stage a scene convincingly. They were bungling amateurs, and also in a panic.
And those bungling amateurs may very well have overlooked the fact that JB shed post-mortem urine, or in case they did notice it, not have realized the implications for their staged scene.

Also, when staging the scene, the person who had wiped down JB before may not even have remembered the wiping.
And even if the stager of the scene did remember it, (s)he may have had no idea of a possible fiber transfer.
For unless the Ramseys were avid readers of true crime books, chances are that they (unlike us posters here) knew next to nothing about such things.


Not three bladder evacuations: two.
One prior to the head bash,and the other post-mortem, i. e. after JB had drawn her last breath (after the ligature around her neck had cut off the oxygen supply).
I believe the initial head blow was a rage attack (i. e. neither an accident nor someting planned beforeheand).

That is the big question, UKGuy. Perhaps it was not impossible at all.

UKGuy, maybe we are attributing far too much logic and reasoning behind the panicked staging efforts of the Ramseys, while in reality it was all merely a jumbled mess?
At least that's what Delmar England (who analyzed the so-called 'garrote' on the ACandyRose site) pointed out in one of his e-mails to me.

For example, that ridiculous 17-inch cord space between the wrist ligatures, combined with those clumsily tied loops around her wrists: one so loose that it had already come off, and the other tied on top of her sleeve like a shoelace. Where is the 'logic' in such a scenario?
Nothing there points to sophisticated staging guided by reason, UKGuy. Nothing whatsoever.
Keep in mind that the Ramseys were no sophisticated criminals knowing how to stage a scene convincingly. They were bungling amateurs, and also in a panic.
And those bungling amateurs may very well have overlooked the fact that JB shed post-mortem urine, or in case they did notice it, not have realized the implications for their staged scene.

Also, when staging the scene, the person who had wiped up JB's body before may not even have remembered the wiping.
And even if the stager of the scene did remember it, (s)he may have had no idea of a possible fiber transfer.
For unless the Ramseys were avid readers of true crime books, chances are that they (unlike us posters here) knew next to nothing about such things.


Not three bladder evacuations: two.
One prior to the head bash,and the other post-mortem, i. e. after JB had drawn her last breath (after the ligature around her neck had cut off the oxygen supply).

Look at the concocted ransom note, UKGuy: it is a totally jumbled mess lacking reasoning and basic logic.
And still the Ramseys left that note there to be found.

Nothing in the ransom note makes sense.
Nothing in the staged scene makes sense either.

Which is why I believe that both the ransom note and what was finally found in the wine cellar were the results of miserably failed attempts by perps (being bungling amateurs) to stage a scene.

rashomon,

You appear to adjusting the evidence to suit your theory.

I never used the word logic in association with the staging.

Nothing in the ransom note makes sense.
Nothing in the staged scene makes sense either.

From nonsense you can prove anything you want, if nothing makes sense then you are at liberty to construct whatever makes sense for you.

Well it was not quite a jumbled mess it was organised and planned, with probably a revision to account for the ransom note?

Also, when staging the scene, the person who had wiped down JB before may not even have remembered the wiping.

Well why wipe her down, why redress her in size-12's, where has your common sense gone?

Not three bladder evacuations: two.
One prior to the head bash,and the other post-mortem, i. e. after JB had drawn her last breath (after the ligature around her neck had cut off the oxygen supply).

Ah but two bladder evacuations accord with your theory, in the real world, there was the potential for three bladder evacuations.

Lets run over this again, JonBenet wets the bed ok, so she has discharged a sizeable amount of urine, next she is killed, and this head injury may have been concurrent with a manual strangulation, so shortly afterwards she is asphyxiated to death.

Now from your own quote:

Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.July 16, 1997

Wright is arguing two options, one a normal death where there is a partial evacuation, and 2nd a complete emptying would indicate a bedwetting event, since the remainder is released upon death.

This is why I allowed for a third post-mortem evacuation.

I'm not saying that what you propose could never have happened, just that applying the current forensic evidence suggests that Toilet Rage was not the original causal factor since we know she was cleaned up, and redressed, yet the stager chose to ignore her urine-soaked longjohns, which seems inconsistent with the former assumption.

I could tweak your current theory to rid it of this inconsistency, but I feel I would be stretching the evidence, rather than considering if the theory is invalid?

We all know that the Ramsey's were not professional criminals, yet as I have pointed out on another thread the killer(s) of JonBenet undertook to remove forensic evidence from the crime-scene e.g. JonBenet's corpse then clean both it, and JonBenet's body! Later the flashlight was wiped clean including the batteries, so whilst they made some stupid errors, JonBenet's killer(s) were forensically aware, this and the ransom note, however confusing it may appear, do demonstrate planning and organisation, but not of the highest degree, but enough to avoid prosecution!

The Toilet Rage Theory and the current forensic evidence are inconsistent, and if you consider the forensic evidence to be sound, then either all or part of the theory must be invalid?

Bear in mind its perfectly possible for JonBenet to have been manually strangled and concurrently had her head/face bashed onto some household object, then upon death partially evacuated her bladder, followed by a post-mortem release to account for the soaked-longjohns etc. And the rage here may have been a sexual rage.


A curious feature to some of the theories allow for John taking over from Patsy and amending various aspects, thereby making a prosecution less likely.

But if you are guided by the forensic evidence its possible the reverse may be true, that is, it is John who kills JonBenet, and is then unsure what to do so sets up some scenario, which includes wiping JonBenet down using his shirt, this all takes place upstairs, later Patsy takes over, and downstairs its her that applies the garrote, ties the shoelace knot on the wrist, indicative of a woman, adds the duct-tape to the mouth etc, then penetrates JonBenet with some object, later she retires to construct the ransom note?

It maybe that the above is all speculation and fantasy but it conforms with the forensic evidence!




.

 

[JMO8778]

But if you are guided by the forensic evidence its possible the reverse may be true, that is, it is John who kills JonBenet, and is then unsure what to do so sets up some scenario, which includes wiping JonBenet down using his shirt, this all takes place upstairs, later Patsy takes over, and downstairs its her that applies the garrote, ties the shoelace knot on the wrist, indicative of a woman, adds the duct-tape to the mouth etc, then penetrates JonBenet with some object, later she retires to construct the ransom note?

It maybe that the above is all speculation and fantasy but it conforms with the forensic evidence!




.

But then we have the question..why would PR do this? Why wouldn't she be mad enough to turn JR in at some point?She could have pretended to go along with it until it would be safe for her to tell LE what really happened,if she was afraid of JR.(Not that it's not possible for JR to have done it though).If not then it was her ego that wouldnt allow anyone to know she married someone that would do these things?Or she was worried about their fortune..or both?Or him turning on her and accusing her of doing it??
I can't figure out why there was a scream heard in the basement that ended suddenly,if she wasn't killed there.

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe I should start a new thread,but thought I'd ask here since it came to mind..does anyone think the fact FW still isn't talking after PR's death,indicative of him suspecting JR of being the killer? After all,as was said before,you can't libel/slander a dead person.

 

[coloradokares]

Maybe I should start a new thread,but thought I'd ask here since it came to mind..does anyone think the fact FW still isn't talking after PR's death,indicative of him suspecting JR of being the killer? After all,as was said before,you can't libel/slander a dead person.

You of course realize that for as disturbed as Fleet appeared to be at the Ramseys. He is even more distrubed with the Boulder DA the GJ and the state of Colorado regarding JonBenet's Murder Investigation. IMO He will talk when it can be in a court that intends to find guilt or innocence.

 

[JMO8778]

You of course realize that for as disturbed as Fleet appeared to be at the Ramseys. He is even more distrubed with the Boulder DA the GJ and the state of Colorado regarding JonBenet's Murder Investigation. IMO He will talk when it can be in a court that intends to find guilt or innocence.

good idea imo.I don't blame him for being disturbed..he realized the R's were involved/ guilty,and it's hard to believe they expect the public to think that they don't understand why FW was so upset...I'd be more than frantic in that case.And trying to get ppl to think the White's are guilty...I believe FW would have laid low,very low, quite unspoken and very quiet,had he or PW been involved.Instead,he was just the opposite.

 

[UKGuy]

But then we have the question..why would PR do this? Why wouldn't she be mad enough to turn JR in at some point?She could have pretended to go along with it until it would be safe for her to tell LE what really happened,if she was afraid of JR.(Not that it's not possible for JR to have done it though).If not then it was her ego that wouldnt allow anyone to know she married someone that would do these things?Or she was worried about their fortune..or both?Or him turning on her and accusing her of doing it??
I can't figure out why there was a scream heard in the basement that ended suddenly,if she wasn't killed there.

JMO8778,

The KISS answer is that she was involved, ie that she colluded knowingly in JonBenet's abuse, either by neglect to act, or aware that by grooming JonBenet from the age of 4-years through to 6-years, not only was she repeating what had happened to her, but if the Ramsey relations were seriously dysfunctional, then JonBenet may have also had to play a surrogate role with John. Along with the Paugh encouragement to emulate Shirley Temple she may have been a source of income, since if there was a dysfunctional relationship, then the pageant funding is a nice cover for reciept and expenditure of funds. The significance of the sum of money demanded in the ransom note may be linked to this?


.

 

[Chrishope]

JMO8778,

The KISS answer is that she was involved, ie that she colluded knowingly in JonBenet's abuse, either by neglect to act, or aware that by grooming JonBenet from the age of 4-years through to 6-years, not only was she repeating what had happened to her, but if the Ramsey relations were seriously dysfunctional, then JonBenet may have also had to play a surrogate role with John. Along with the Paugh encouragement to emulate Shirley Temple she may have been a source of income, since if there was a dysfunctional relationship, then the pageant funding is a nice cover for reciept and expenditure of funds. The significance of the sum of money demanded in the ransom note may be linked to this?


.

Am I to understand you are suggesting PR may have been pimping her daughter for income?

I don't see any reason to suspect that PR didn't have access to plenty of JR's money.

 

[UKGuy]

Am I to understand you are suggesting PR may have been pimping her daughter for income?

I don't see any reason to suspect that PR didn't have access to plenty of JR's money.

Chrishope,

That not precisely the language I would use, but you get the idea, its the nexus of relationships surrounding pageant activities that require access and a rationale to JR's income, JonBenet may have provided just that?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

The KISS answer is that she was involved, ie that she colluded knowingly in JonBenet's abuse, either by neglect to act, or aware that by grooming JonBenet from the age of 4-years through to 6-years, not only was she repeating what had happened to her, but if the Ramsey relations were seriously dysfunctional, then JonBenet may have also had to play a surrogate role with John.

very possible,I don't rule that out.Maybe she felt better 'keeping him at home',so to speak?Then she didn't have to worry he might leave her for someone else.

The significance of the sum of money demanded in the ransom note may be linked to this?


.

Have you ever heard jeff merrick's comments on the RN? He felt the '2 gentlemen' comment was to throw suspicion on him and a friend,as JR very well did name him right away as a suspect.That sounds like what JR implied in the note.So, IMO,the $118,000 was to point the finger at him,as he was a former disgruntled employee.
Then JR's comment when he found the body "this had to be an inside job" makes sense.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

The KISS answer is that she was involved,


.

Sure,but maybe she wasn't involved in JB's actual death,if JR was the one that killed her?Maybe just the cover up? I'm just considering all possiblities, by looking at the evidence and letting it lead,and trying not to assume any one thing.(Which all leads back to the RDI theory, IMO).