Forensic evidence

[Chrishope]

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?


.

Maybe it would be best if you'd simply state -very plainly- what you're getting at.

 

[JMO8778]

UK,you are saying that maybe PR filtered money for herself via the pageants,which might be easy to do,as they tend to be expensive?(Through JR's income).Or do you mean something more?
I recall reading JR kept a tight rein on the money,and PR's comment that she only had a checkbook, and that was it.

 

[Chrishope]

UK,you are saying that maybe PR filtered money for herself via the pageants,which might be easy to do,as they tend to be expensive?(Through JR's income).Or do you mean something more?
I recall reading JR kept a tight rein on the money,and PR's comment that she only had a checkbook, and that was it.

I had the impression UKGuy was suggesting a little more, which is why I asked for clarification.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

You appear to adjusting the evidence to suit your theory.

UKGuy,
I would never do that. A theory has to follow the evidence, not vice versa.
BUT forensic evidence sometimes allows for more than one interpretation. That was my point.
Aside from that, I don't even have a definite theory as to what happened.
But I don't think a toilet rage theory can be ruled out.

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

You used the words 'organized and planned', and isn't logic an integral part of such an activity?
Where e. g. do you see any organization and planning in that silly ransom note, which is a wild concoction from movie dialogues interspersed with asinine comments from the "small foreign faction" like "we respect your business". Not to mention the phrasing "small foreign faction", which in itself borders on the comical, don't you think so?

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

Don't confuse 'proof' with speculation.
One can't 'prove' anything one wants from 'non'-sense.
But obvious 'non'-sense allows for speculation, and it was the nonsense in the ransom note and the ligature staging which led investigators to believe that it was a (very poorly) staged scene.

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

What revision? So the ransom note writer who staged the scene wants investigators to believe that the "small foreign faction" left the kidnapping victim behind in her own home, garroted, but cared enough to wrap her in a blanket??

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

It would help you to shift your attention to the Ramseys instead and ask yourself the tough question: how much 'common sense' is left in parents who know that their child is nearing death due to a head blow delivered by one of them?
The wiping down may have been done on impulse. We don't know what was wiped away: urine, blood or semen? Probably not semen, for no trace of it was found on JB's body.

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.

Toilet rage can't be ruled out.
A large part of your theory hinges on JB being wiped down, and you assume that the wiping down occurred for staging purposes.
But JB could have been wiped down way before the staging, i. e. after a (bed)wetting incident.
And of course the missing size 6 panties could have been urine-stained, which is why later the size 12 'Wednesday' panties were put on JB for staging purposes.
But keep in mind that the stager of the scene may not have 'chosen to ignore' her urine-soaked longjohns, but simply may not have noticed the urine shed post-mortem on JB's longjohns (who btw was probably lying face-down as this occurred).

Ah but two bladder evacuations accord with your theory, in the real world, there was the potential for three bladder evacuations.
...
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 think you wrongly interpreted what Dr. Wright stated. He spoke about JB releasing urine "at the time of death", and imo he meant "post-mortem release". [although 'post-mortem' - strictly speaking - means "after death"].

Maybe posters with medical knowledge can provide info here.

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!

Of course the Ramseys tried to stage a scene and remove some forensic evidence. They had to, because the wanted to save their hide. But the staging was so poorly done that the people most surprised that they got away with it were probably the Ramseys themselves.

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.

Manually strangled? Highly unlikely, for no damage to the larynx nor to the hyoid bone is mentioned in the autopsy report.
The 'sexual rage scenario' doesn't hold any water either imo.
For in order to inflict the paintbrush injury in the vestibulum area of JB's genitals, the perp would have had to manually separate the labia first (a doctor consulted on the case pointed this out). But this is not consistent with a rage attack at all.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
I would never do that. A theory has to follow the evidence, not vice versa.
BUT forensic evidence sometimes allows for more than one interpretation. That was my point.
Aside from that, I don't even have a definite theory as to what happened.
But I don't think a toilet rage theory can be ruled out.

You used the words 'organized and planned', and isn't logic an integral part of such an activity?
Where e. g. do you see any organization and planning in that silly ransom note, which is a wild concoction from movie dialogues interspersed with asinine comments from the "small foreign faction" like "we respect your business". Not to mention the phrasing "small foreign faction", which in itself borders on the comical, don't you think so?


Don't confuse 'proof' with speculation.
One can't 'prove' anything one wants from 'non'-sense.
But obvious 'non'-sense allows for speculation, and it was the nonsense in the ransom note and the ligature staging which led investigators to believe that it was a (very poorly) staged scene.


What revision? So the ransom note writer who staged the scene wants investigators to believe that the "small foreign faction" left the kidnapping victim behind in her own home, garroted, but cared enough to wrap her in a blanket??


It would help you to shift your attention to the Ramseys instead and ask yourself the tough question: how much 'common sense' is left in parents who know that their child is nearing death due to a head blow delivered by one of them?
The wiping down may have been done on impulse. We don't know what was wiped away: urine, blood or semen? Probably not semen, for no trace of it was found on JB's body.


Toilet rage can't be ruled out.
A large part of your theory hinges on JB being wiped down, and you assume that the wiping down occurred for staging purposes.
But JB could have been wiped down way before the staging, i. e. after a (bed)wetting incident.
And of course the missing size 6 panties could have been urine-stained, which is why later the size 12 'Wednesday' panties were put on JB for staging purposes.
But keep in mind that the stager of the scene may not have 'chosen to ignore' her urine-soaked longjohns, but simply may not have noticed the urine shed post-mortem on JB's longjohns (who btw was probably lying face-down as this occurred).

I think you wrongly interpreted what Dr. Wright stated. He spoke about JB releasing urine "at the time of death", and imo he meant "post-mortem release". [although 'post-mortem' - strictly speaking - means "after death"].

Maybe posters with medical knowledge can provide info here.


Of course the Ramseys tried to stage a scene and remove some forensic evidence. They had to, because the wanted to save their hide. But the staging was so poorly done that the people most surprised that they got away with it were probably the Ramseys themselves.


Manually strangled? Highly unlikely, for no damage to the larynx nor to the hyoid bone is mentioned in the autopsy report.
The 'sexual rage scenario' doesn't hold any water either imo.
For in order to inflict the paintbrush injury in the vestibulum area of JB's genitals, the perp would have had to manually separate the labia first (a doctor consulted on the case pointed this out). But this is not consistent with a rage attack at all.

rashomon,
Although the forensic evidence allows for many interpretations, only one is correct, and the evidence is used to disprove those that are incorrect. So the Toilet Rage theory which has an inherent inconsistency is pretty low on the credibilty scales, as is the Intruder Theory with zero forensic evidence and no linkage.

The ransom note was well thought out and did exactly the job it was intended, I neither think it was silly or comical.

Revision:
We know the staging was revised, unless you think JonBenet was killed outside the wine-cellar? She was redressed, wiped down, hair-restyled etc, then a fake garroting was applied, and a sexual assault. The blankets may have nothing to do with caring and more to do with either avoiding forensic transfer or preparing her body for deposit elsewhere, the latter is the most obvious motive. So patently there was a revision and so the ransom note was constructed, why, because they decided not to dump JonBenet outdoors, and they needed time.

The wiping down may have been done on impulse. We don't know what was wiped away: urine, blood or semen? Probably not semen, for no trace of it was found on JB's body.

We don't know what was wiped away Probably not semen, for no trace of it was found on JB's body. ?

Toilet rage can't be ruled out.
A large part of your theory hinges on JB being wiped down, and you assume that the wiping down occurred for staging purposes.
But JB could have been wiped down way before the staging, i. e. after a (bed)wetting incident.
And of course the missing size 6 panties could have been urine-stained, which is why later the size 12 'Wednesday' panties were put on JB for staging purposes.
But keep in mind that the stager of the scene may not have 'chosen to ignore' her urine-soaked longjohns, but simply may not have noticed the urine shed post-mortem on JB's longjohns (who btw was probably lying face-down as this occurred).

Its not my theory its belongs to those that think PDI and that Toilet Rage was the original causal factor. So after killing JonBenet she was wiped down and redressed in Wednesday size-12's and the longjohns. Thats all fine until you ask then, why was she discovered wearing urine-soaked longjohns down in the wine-cellar, long after all the staging had been completed?

JonBenet may have been face down for certain aspects of her staging, but then she would have to be turned over to be either wiped down, sexually assaulted, or placed onto the blankets before being deposited into the wine-cellar, so if its important enough to clean her up, then its going to be difficult not to notice she is soaked through with urine?

I think you wrongly interpreted what Dr. Wright stated.

No just exactly what he said and no more, plus I allowed for a 3rd. post-mortem evacuation, yet arrive at the same conclusion.

e.g. The Toilet Rage Theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.


.

 

[UKGuy]

UK,you are saying that maybe PR filtered money for herself via the pageants,which might be easy to do,as they tend to be expensive?(Through JR's income).Or do you mean something more?
I recall reading JR kept a tight rein on the money,and PR's comment that she only had a checkbook, and that was it.

JMO8778,
Possibly, also other members of the Paughs may have helped Patsy make purchases, pay for traveling, costumes and sundry expenses etc.

What is the rationale for encouraging JonBenet from the age of 4 through to 6, to adopt explicitly adult poses and dress etc?

Who is benefiting from this? Possibly Patsy and the Paughs financially. Did the Grandfather build JonBenet's Shirley Temple themed float because they were strapped for cash or some other reason?

John and JonBenet where do they figure?

John never says no to funding pageant activity, in the house someone is regularly snapping pictures of JonBenet, possibly even using the camcorder, from which there is a missing tape, so was JonBenet repeating her pageant walk by's and waves, with her suggestive wiggles at home? Do you reckon JonBenet was the victim of prior sexual abuse, is it possible that JonBenet was groomed to play the part of Shirley Temple in another adult's fantasy?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Possibly, also other members of the Paughs may have helped Patsy make purchases, pay for traveling, costumes and sundry expenses etc.

What is the rationale for encouraging JonBenet from the age of 4 through to 6, to adopt explicitly adult poses and dress etc?

Who is benefiting from this? Possibly Patsy and the Paughs financially. Did the Grandfather build JonBenet's Shirley Temple themed float because they were strapped for cash or some other reason?

John and JonBenet where do they figure?

John never says no to funding pageant activity, in the house someone is regularly snapping pictures of JonBenet, possibly even using the camcorder, from which there is a missing tape, so was JonBenet repeating her pageant walk by's and waves, with her suggestive wiggles at home? Do you reckon JonBenet was the victim of prior sexual abuse, is it possible that JonBenet was groomed to play the part of Shirley Temple in another adult's fantasy?


.

I'm not so sure they were strapped for cash,from the sound of it.As far as anything else..since the evidence points to the parents,I think anything is possible.JB sure did look like a miniature adult,esp in the face when she had all that makeup on.Not to mention some of the outfits as well.

 

[rashomon]

I'm not so sure they were strapped for cash,from the sound of it.As far as anything else..since the evidence points to the parents,I think anything is possible.JB sure did look like a miniature adult,esp in the face when she had all that makeup on.Not to mention some of the outfits as well.

The Ramseys as multimillionaires were certainly not strapped for cash.
And John Ramsey does not come across as being a tightwad at all - quite the contrary, he seems to have been very generous with money: for example, Patsy went on veritable decorating and remodeling sprees in the numerous Ramsey homes, and although he once remarked that she was spending more on decorating that he was earning, this sounded more like a humorous comment on his part.
John denied Patsy nothing money-wise, Steve Thomas wrote. And remember that (pretty callous) comment by Nedra: "As long as John brings the money in, we're going to spend it."
So for Patsy and the Paugh clan, John seems have been more, as we say in German, 'the goose who lays golden eggs'.
The Ramseys were no poor trailer park people whose only hope was a daughter whose beauty might earn the family a lot of money and free them of their financial misery.
I think those pageants were just another a luxury Patsy indulged in - a luxury which fulfilled her own emotional needs. That JB might one day become a future Miss America (a title her mother had not won) may have played a role too.
Patsy (having grown up as a pageant child herself) was so emotional about those pageants that JonBenet's dance instructor Kit Andre said (PMPT, p. 99) that the pageants were Patsy's gig, and JonBenet was her 'alter ego'.

In terms of John Ramsey's role in all this:
One of his ex-mistresses (I think her name is Kimberly Ballard) made a very disturbing comment about John wanting her to dress as a little girl.
I have no idea how reliable a witness that woman is, nor do I remember on which JBR forum I have read about it. So if anyone knows more about this issue, TIA for any info on Kimberly Ballard and her relationship with John.

 

[LionRun]

I joined WS within the last week; but, I have been interested in this case from the beginning. I can't find anyplace where the son, Burke, was ruled out. I hate to even think it was remotely possible. Are there any posts or media reports on this?


The DNA in two places (underwear, under nails) was very scant correct? Could it be that errors were made in the testing of that DNA? I read that there may have very well been contamination (nail clippers not cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails, etc..). But, that wouldn't explain that the two DNA's match. The ransom note seems to have been written by someone with a very immature mind. Perhaps either a young person or an adult who was emotionally immature.

Whomever killed JBR seemed to feel, "comfortable" killing her in her home. This does not necessarily mean it was someone who lived there. I have felt comfortable in various relative's homes and friend's homes over the years to make myself quite at home. I do believe that it was someone who was comfortable in that home. I am under the impression that the Ramseys invited people to their home fairly often. That may be a long list; but, I have heard that 83% of the time, the killer's name is in police reports within the first month of the murder.

I would love to learn all names of people, questioned or not, who had reason to feel comfortable in the home(spent time there, felt, "welcomed" there, etc..), then learn more about that person (s), and get a writing sample from said person (s) for not only handwriting; but, for style and content.

I am sorry if I am talking about things that have already been hashed and re-hashed.

 

[JMO8778]

The Ramseys as multimillionaires were certainly not strapped for cash.
And John Ramsey does not come across as being a tightwad at all - quite the contrary, he seems to have been very generous with money: for example, Patsy went on veritable decorating and remodeling sprees in the numerous Ramsey homes, and although he once remarked that she was spending more on decorating that he was earning, this sounded more like a humorous comment on his part.
John denied Patsy nothing money-wise, Steve Thomas wrote. And remember that (pretty callous) comment by Nedra: "As long as John brings the money in, we're going to spend it."
So for Patsy and the Paugh clan, John seems have been more, as we say in German, 'the goose who lays golden eggs'.
The Ramseys were no poor trailer park people whose only hope was a daughter whose beauty might earn the family a lot of money and free them of their financial misery.
I think those pageants were just another a luxury Patsy indulged in - a luxury which fulfilled her own emotional needs. That JB might one day become a future Miss America (a title her mother had not won) may have played a role too.
Patsy (having grown up as a pageant child herself) was so emotional about those pageants that JonBenet's dance instructor Kit Andre said (PMPT, p. 99) that the pageants were Patsy's gig, and JonBenet was her 'alter ego'.

In terms of John Ramsey's role in all this:
One of his ex-mistresses (I think her name is Kimberly Ballard) made a very disturbing comment about John wanting her to dress as a little girl.
I have no idea how reliable a witness that woman is, nor do I remember on which JBR forum I have read about it. So if anyone knows more about this issue, TIA for any info on Kimberly Ballard and her relationship with John.

She's the one in DOI that JR says he doesn't know or never met..I don't recall where,but rem. reading that wasn't true.. he did indeed know her and have an affair with her.

 

[UKGuy]

I joined WS within the last week; but, I have been interested in this case from the beginning. I can't find anyplace where the son, Burke, was ruled out. I hate to even think it was remotely possible. Are there any posts or media reports on this?


The DNA in two places (underwear, under nails) was very scant correct? Could it be that errors were made in the testing of that DNA? I read that there may have very well been contamination (nail clippers not cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails, etc..). But, that wouldn't explain that the two DNA's match. The ransom note seems to have been written by someone with a very immature mind. Perhaps either a young person or an adult who was emotionally immature.

Whomever killed JBR seemed to feel, "comfortable" killing her in her home. This does not necessarily mean it was someone who lived there. I have felt comfortable in various relative's homes and friend's homes over the years to make myself quite at home. I do believe that it was someone who was comfortable in that home. I am under the impression that the Ramseys invited people to their home fairly often. That may be a long list; but, I have heard that 83% of the time, the killer's name is in police reports within the first month of the murder.

I would love to learn all names of people, questioned or not, who had reason to feel comfortable in the home(spent time there, felt, "welcomed" there, etc..), then learn more about that person (s), and get a writing sample from said person (s) for not only handwriting; but, for style and content.

I am sorry if I am talking about things that have already been hashed and re-hashed.

LionRun,
Hello and welcome,

I can't find anyplace where the son, Burke, was ruled out. I hate to even think it was remotely possible. Are there any posts or media reports on this?

Burke was not ruled out, he was cleared as a suspect, after the Grand Jury hearing, but not many think it was him. BlueCrab has a BDI theory that attempts to account for a lot of the evidence, including Burke receiving a Get Out Of Jail Card based upon Colorado Statutes relating to the reporting and protection of children, e.g. Burke was beneath the age of criminal responsibility. A synopsis might be, BDI, Patsy and John staged the wine-cellar crime-scene to protect Burke, as BlueCrab asks, who else would the parents cover up for?

Not only is there a list of people linked to the Ramsey's , access to the house was poorly monitored, with spare keys being handed out and keys hidden under stones etc.

An introductory list of Ramsey friends and aquaintances can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer1_fam.html

Bear in mind that the wine-cellar crime-scene and the ransom-note may be explicitly staged forensic evidence designed to confuse and mislead you?


.

 

[LionRun]

Thank you UKguy. And, thank you for the link; I'll check it out. I have always thought that the ransom note was an afterthought to focus attention away from the true motive. And, that the true motive might lead to the killer. Had kidnapping for ransom been the true motive, I think JBR would have been taken from the home, the, "ransom" note would have been more to the point, and the kidnapper would have called with further instructions among other things.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
The ransom note was well thought out and did exactly the job it was intended, I neither think it was silly or comical.

UKGuy,
imo the note was totally absurd. Just think of "We respect your business" - give me a break!
Aside from that, the note with its political 'small foreign faction' nonsense totally contradicts a sexual assault scenario by a lone sexual predator.
And the Ramseys themselves later had also forgotten about their small foreign faction lie, lol, when they suddenly spoke of JB's killer as 'he':
"He was an evil, evil person." Too bad the interviewer didn't react by telling them: "But what about the small foreign faction, Patsy? So you don't think it was a real ransom note but that it was faked?
Just imagine the Ramseys' facial expressions after that ...!

If the note did the job for what it was intended, then certainly not because it was well thought out, but because the police failed to arrest the Ramseys on the spot as soon as the the child's dead body was discovered in the home, i. e. when the kidnapping scene had abruptly changed ot homicide.

We would not be discussing this case tody if the Ramseys had been arrested. Sure they could have chosen not to talk, but how would that have looked under the circumstances?

[rashomon]
We don't know what was wiped away Probably not semen, for no trace of it was found on JB's body.

[UKGuy]
?

Sorry UKGuy, for having been too unclear about this: My thought was that in case semen had been wiped off JB's body, traces might still have been found in JB's vagina.

We know the staging was revised, unless you think JonBenet was killed outside the wine-cellar?

What do you mean by 'outside' the wine cellar? JB's body was deposited in the wine cellar, but the garrote was most likely put around her neck right outside the wine cellar door, where Patsy's paint tote was kept and where also the urine stains were found.

She was redressed, wiped down, hair-restyled etc, then a fake garroting was applied, and a sexual assault.

We don't know when JB was wiped down. For example, theoretically, the wiping down could have happened way before the head bash.

The sexual assault (paintbrush injury) had to have come before her oxygen supply was cut off, for the wound bled, which means the child was still alive (although probably already in a deep coma from the head blow).

And why would the Ramseys "re"dress JB in the sequined shirt which she had been wearing to the Whites' party? This redressing would contradict an abduction from bed.
Even if they later realized this error and went down to put the nightgown on JB, but saw it couldn't be done anymore because of rigor mortis, please explain why they would have redressed JonBenet in that sequined shirt in the first place?

My guess is that JB was not "redressed" in the sequined shirt, but never went to bed on that fatal night, which is why she still had her Christmas party shirt on when she was killed.

JonBenet may have been face down for certain aspects of her staging, but then she would have to be turned over to be either wiped down, sexually assaulted, or placed onto the blankets before being deposited into the wine-cellar, so if its important enough to clean her up, then its going to be difficult not to notice she is soaked through with urine?

Suppose the basement (where the staging took place) was not fully lit, and the Ramseys then threw a blanket over JB, picked her up and put her in the wine cellar, they might have overlooked that JB had shed post-mortem urine.

Later the flashlight was wiped clean including the batteries

Where does it say that the batteries were actually 'wiped' clean?
Delmar England said that when he lived in a cold climate, he often changed batteries with cotton gloves on, and that he doesn't attach importance to the batteries.
But if they were in fact wiped clean, then imo it is clear that John and Patsy wanted to remove all Ramsey fingerprints from the flashlight, to give the impression that the intruder had brought it with him and left it behind.
But why did they leave it on the kitchen table and not down in the basement?
Forgetfulness or intention? This is another example of forensic evidence which allows for more than one interpretation, and the JBR case is full of that.

Another question in that context: if the flashlight indeed belonged to the Ramseys, wouldn't there have been the risk of Burke telling this to the police when questioned?

 

[LionRun]

Wow, so may possibilities. I don't rule out anyone. Not the Ramsey's (though I've always had a gut feeling they did not kill her), not Burke, not a stranger, and not the long list of people who have ever come in contact with any of the Ramseys. Since I don't know HOW some people were ruled out, then to me they are not ruled out unless I know more.

Does anyone know more about the neighbor who heard screams and then what sounded like metal grinding on concrete? What could the metal grinding on concrete be?

There is soooo much involved with case.

 

[LionRun]

Can someone tell me exactly what she was wearing when she was found. Is the sequened blouse from the night before included? What else? What exactly did the Ramsey's say they put JonBennet to bed in the night before?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
imo the note was totally absurd. Just think of "We respect your business" - give me a break!
Aside from that, the note with its political 'small foreign faction' nonsense totally contradicts a sexual assault scenario by a lone sexual predator.
And the Ramseys themselves later had also forgotten about their small foreign faction lie, lol, when they suddenly spoke of JB's killer as 'he':
"He was an evil, evil person." Too bad the interviewer didn't react by telling them: "But what about the small foreign faction, Patsy? So you don't think it was a real ransom note but that it was faked?
Just imagine the Ramseys' facial expressions after that ...!

If the note did the job for what it was intended, then certainly not because it was well thought out, but because the police failed to arrest the Ramseys on the spot as soon as the the child's dead body was discovered in the home, i. e. when the kidnapping scene had abruptly changed ot homicide.

We would not be discussing this case tody if the Ramseys had been arrested. Sure they could have chosen not to talk, but how would that have looked under the circumstances?



Sorry UKGuy, for having been too unclear about this: My thought was that in case semen had been wiped off JB's body, traces might still have been found in JB's vagina.

What do you mean by 'outside' the wine cellar? JB's body was deposited in the wine cellar, but the garrote was most likely put around her neck right outside the wine cellar door, where Patsy's paint tote was kept and where also the urine stains were found.

We don't know when JB was wiped down. For example, theoretically, the wiping down could have happened way before the head bash.

The sexual assault (paintbrush injury) had to have come before her oxygen supply was cut off, for the wound bled, which means the child was still alive (although probably already in a deep coma from the head blow).

And why would the Ramseys "re"dress JB in the sequined shirt which she had been wearing to the Whites' party? This redressing would contradict an abduction from bed.
Even if they later realized this error and went down to put the nightgown on JB, but saw it couldn't be done anymore because of rigor mortis, please explain why they would have redressed JonBenet in that sequined shirt in the first place?

My guess is that JB was not "redressed" in the sequined shirt, but never went to bed on that fatal night, which is why she still had her Christmas party shirt on when she was killed.


Suppose the basement (where the staging took place) was not fully lit, and the Ramseys then threw a blanket over JB, picked her up and put her in the wine cellar, they might have overlooked that JB had shed post-mortem urine.


Where does it say that the batteries were actually 'wiped' clean?
Delmar England said that when he lived in a cold climate, he often changed batteries with cotton gloves on, and that he doesn't attach importance to the batteries.
But if they were in fact wiped clean, then imo it is clear that John and Patsy wanted to remove all Ramsey fingerprints from the flashlight, to give the impression that the intruder had brought it with him and left it behind.
But why did they leave it on the kitchen table and not down in the basement?
Forgetfulness or intention? This is another example of forensic evidence which allows for more than one interpretation, and the JBR case is full of that.

Another question in that context: if the flashlight indeed belonged to the Ramseys, wouldn't there have been the risk of Burke telling this to the police when questioned?

rashomon,

Since the wine-cellar and the ransom note are imo staging its simply not productive to analyse all the possible interpretations.


Wiped Down:
Depending on your favorite WDI theory, JonBenet may have had blood, semen, or urine or some combination thereof cleaned from her body. e.g. Semen favors a sexual assault, urine a Toilet Rage assault, and blood a possible staging.

But the forensic evidence strongly suggests she was wiped down, possibly by John's woolen shirt? That this occurred after the sexual assault/staging is indicated by the remains of blood stains on her underwear that have no matching stains on her genitalia.

JonBenet may have been alive when she lay on the floor outside the wine-cellar, she may have been garroted here, or this was done upstairs simply using ligature?


I have never suggested JonBenet was redressed in the sequined shirt, only that the rigor-mortis prevented its removal, thereby allowing the barbie-gown to be placed on her?

If you think that the Ramsey's overlooked JonBenet's post-mortem release fine, possibly like the fresh pineapple its a mistake?

An interpretation I currently favor is that there had been a prior staging which included a sexual asault as staging, when the crime-scene was revised and relocated to the wine-cellar, JonBenet was wiped down, to remove the blood stains, so that initially it would appear she had been abducted from her bed, as per the ransom note, this was a diversionary tactic designed to gain time and imo it succeeded?

That there was no fingerprints on the batteries or casing of the flashlight is contained in the last pages of Steve Thomas' book, chapter: Not So Grand Jury.

There are references to Kimberly Ballard here: http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/11062000kimballardonwebbsleuths.htm


.

 

[JMO8778]

Does anyone know more about the neighbor who heard screams and then what sounded like metal grinding on concrete? What could the metal grinding on concrete be?

There is soooo much involved with case.

I think most RDI's believe it was paint cans in the wine cellar being moved.If you watch the movie 'Perfect Murder,Perfect Town',it was recreated as closely as possible to the actual house and rooms,inc. the basement area.And there were paint cans shown against the wall(s) in the wine cellar.
John Ramsey wrote in DOI(Death of Innocence),that he thought it might the metal grate being moved when the 'intruder' left.The problem with that is we are expected to beleive that: an ear-piercing scream was heard,JB was then killed shortly after that,and not only did the killer take the time to wipe her down,redress her and wrap her in a blanket w. her fav gown,he also relatched the lock on the wine cellar door,moved chairs in front of the door of the room where he escaped,and climbed out the window,putting the grate back as it was,all without fear of getting caught.I have a huge problem thinking it would actually happen that way.It just doesn't add up ...none of it.

 

[BBB167893]

The DNA in two places (underwear, under nails) was very scant correct?

Yup

Could it be that errors were made in the testing of that DNA? I read that there may have very well been contamination (nail clippers not cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails, etc..).

Possible.

But, that wouldn't explain that the two DNA's match.

Except that they don't. Not with any sort of scientific basis, anyway.

imo the note was totally absurd. Just think of "We respect your business" - give me a break!
Aside from that, the note with its political 'small foreign faction' nonsense totally contradicts a sexual assault scenario by a lone sexual predator.
And the Ramseys themselves later had also forgotten about their small foreign faction lie, lol, when they suddenly spoke of JB's killer as 'he':
"He was an evil, evil person." Too bad the interviewer didn't react by telling them: "But what about the small foreign faction, Patsy? So you don't think it was a real ransom note but that it was faked?
Just imagine the Ramseys' facial expressions after that ...!

He was a lone sex predator...no, he was a kidnapper for money...no, he was an Islamic terrorist...no, he was an environmentalist whack-job, and on and on.

Can someone tell me exactly what she was wearing when she was found. Is the sequened blouse from the night before included? What else?

Hair ties, sequinned blouse, long johns, a bracelet.

What exactly did the Ramsey's say they put JonBennet to bed in the night before?

We don't know. They couldn't keep it straight!

 

[LionRun]

Thank you JMO, SuperDave, and each of the posters that are helping catch me up to speed on this very involved case.

SuperDave, I think you said that the Ramseys couldn't keep straight what they put their daughter to bed in? Did they change stories? I hadn't heard that before. BTW, are there links to actual words spoken in interviews? I recall seeing PR questioned shortly after the murder; but, that was it.

The note: It seems like the hand that wrote it was shaky. Perhaps because the person was not using his/her dominant hand to write it? Perhaps because the writer was under the influence of a drug (s) that caused trembling? Or perhaps the writer intentionally tried to write that way (but, it is consistent so I don't lean towards that). Or perhaps the person was so full of adrenalin after the murder?

I have a couple of the links now; what other links are there where I can get the full facts of the case? Thanks so much to all of you.

 

[Chrishope]

...

Where does it say that the batteries were actually 'wiped' clean?
Delmar England said that when he lived in a cold climate, he often changed batteries with cotton gloves on, and that he doesn't attach importance to the batteries.
But if they were in fact wiped clean, then imo it is clear that John and Patsy wanted to remove all Ramsey fingerprints from the flashlight, to give the impression that the intruder had brought it with him and left it behind.
But why did they leave it on the kitchen table and not down in the basement?
Forgetfulness or intention? This is another example of forensic evidence which allows for more than one interpretation, and the JBR case is full of that.

Another question in that context: if the flashlight indeed belonged to the Ramseys, wouldn't there have been the risk of Burke telling this to the police when questioned?

I live in a cold climate and I rarely replace flashlight batteries with gloves on. I usually replace batteries indoors. I keep my batteries indoors, as do most people, so it makes more sense to take the flashlight inside, rather than take the batteries outdoors to replace them. Indoors there isn't a need for gloves.

As far as I know, the Rs flashlight - you know the one that looked exactly like the "intruder's" flashlight, the one JAR gave them for Christmas a year or two prior, the one that couldn't be "found" after the murder - was kept indoors. There'd be no reason for the batteries to have been replaced while wearing gloves.

It might not be correct to say they were wiped down, but it is correct to say they have no prints, and IMO that's important. I believe the flashlight belongs to the Rs, and it had no prints on the case, or batteries because they wiped it down.

Yes, Burke might have said it was theirs, but the Rs would just say - as in fact they did- that they had one identical to it, which they can't find, but that one found in the kitchen definitely isn't theirs (yeah, that's the ticket).