Happenings of December 26

[midwest mama]

I would say in general that's a very reasonable way to look at it. I have one small problem with it and here it is - if they were staging a "perverted intruder" scenario, why mix it with a kidnapping scenario?

IMO, no one was ever supposed to think that an intruder came in, wrote a ransom note, then molested JB, then killed her then left the body behind so he couldn't collect the ransom. It's not a scenario that makes sense, imo.

Someone wrote a RN, and that someone did it, imo, to stage a kidnapping. It wasn't supposed to be seen as any other type of crime, just a kidnapping.

But I do agree that the clean up may have simply been a response that happened before a plan was formulated. Which would mean that while the clean up alters the evidence, it isn't really staging - at least not to the extent is was deliberately thought out to fool the authorities.

I think it's quite possible the molester/killer cleaned up just to hide the fact of sexual assault from others in the house, as you suggest. And I agree the killer may not have been thinking about what the coroner could/couldn't determine.

So, simply put?: JB is sexually assaulted, during which she is killed. Killer cleans up JB first, feeling the best thing to do first is the hide the sexual assault.

Then - what to do, what to do? Get rid of the dead body by setting up a kidnapping, fix it so the kidnappers "kill" her instead of returning her alive, with a method that would be in keeping with her wearing a garrote, which is left in place in case someone finds the body.

Wrap up the body to prepare it for disposal, stash it away out of sight until it can be removed. Write the RN, set it out, but before body can be taken out of the house, the complete plan is interrupted by a call to the police by mother who is frantic that her daughter is missing.

Am I reading you correctly?

 

[Chrishope]

So, simply put?: JB is sexually assaulted, during which she is killed. Killer cleans up JB first, feeling the best thing to do first is the hide the sexual assault.

Then - what to do, what to do? Get rid of the dead body by setting up a kidnapping, fix it so the kidnappers "kill" her instead of returning her alive, with a method that would be in keeping with her wearing a garrote, which is left in place in case someone finds the body.

Wrap up the body to prepare it for disposal, stash it away out of sight until it can be removed. Write the RN, set it out, but before body can be taken out of the house, the complete plan is interrupted by a call to the police by mother who is frantic that her daughter is missing.

Am I reading you correctly?

Pretty much. It could have happened that way. I tend to think the killing was intentional - at least the garrotte was intentional, but of course, the evidence allows for different scenarios with different intentions.

Mainly I'm agreeing with questfortrue that the clean up of the sexual assault MAY have been done prior to (or during) formulation of an overall plan. Cleaning up would have been a natural instinct, and of course what if someone got up and came wandering around?

Though otg's theory (essentially a hanging) is possible, I don't believe it's what happened. I believe the knot would not have been that tight at the back of the neck if she had fallen. So, I suspect the garrotting is intentional.

That still doesn't mean the clean up was done as part of an overall master plan. It may simply have been the "obvious" thing to do before thinking up a plan. IOWs the decision to kill may have occurred close in time to the actual killing, rather than days/weeks ahead.

 

[otg]

So, simply put?: JB is sexually assaulted, during which she is killed. Killer cleans up JB first, feeling the best thing to do first is the hide the sexual assault.

Then - what to do, what to do? Get rid of the dead body by setting up a kidnapping, fix it so the kidnappers "kill" her instead of returning her alive, with a method that would be in keeping with her wearing a garrote, which is left in place in case someone finds the body.

Wrap up the body to prepare it for disposal, stash it away out of sight until it can be removed. Write the RN, set it out, but before body can be taken out of the house, the complete plan is interrupted by a call to the police by mother who is frantic that her daughter is missing.

Am I reading you correctly?

I know you're just theorizing here based on what Chrishope had suggested, but keep in mind that all of the assaults (chronic and acute vaginal, head blow, and ligature strangulation) had to have happened while she was still alive. And isn't that what makes this so perplexing?

 

[Chrishope]

So, simply put?: JB is sexually assaulted, during which she is killed. Killer cleans up JB first, feeling the best thing to do first is the hide the sexual assault.

Then - what to do, what to do? Get rid of the dead body by setting up a kidnapping, fix it so the kidnappers "kill" her instead of returning her alive, with a method that would be in keeping with her wearing a garrote, which is left in place in case someone finds the body.

Wrap up the body to prepare it for disposal, stash it away out of sight until it can be removed. Write the RN, set it out, but before body can be taken out of the house, the complete plan is interrupted by a call to the police by mother who is frantic that her daughter is missing.

Am I reading you correctly?

Just so there is no confusion, the part in red -probably. It's possible she was killed after the sexual assault was over.

The part in green - could be. No reason it couldn't, but no reason it had to be. I think questforture is on to something when he says that the cleanup may have been done before there was a complete plan of action.

The part in Bold yes, that's what I think happened.

 

[DeeDee249]

Just so there is no confusion, the part in red -probably. It's possible she was killed after the sexual assault was over.

The part in green - could be. No reason it couldn't, but no reason it had to be. I think questforture is on to something when he says that the cleanup may have been done before there was a complete plan of action.

The part in Bold yes, that's what I think happened.

Yep. Yep. That is exactly what I think happened too, and I think the sexual assault definitely happened before she was killed. But that doesn't meant there couldn't have been an attempt to mask that assault by inflicting an injury after her death.

 

[Chrishope]

Yep. Yep. That is exactly what I think happened too, and I think the sexual assault definitely happened before she was killed. But that doesn't meant there couldn't have been an attempt to mask that assault by inflicting an injury after her death.

You agree? You realize this is a very rough sketch of the DocG theory, right? I didn't know you were on board.

You're right that an attempt to mask could still be done after death.

I think there is no question the assault happened while she was alive.

 

[midwest mama]

Chrishope and otg--
Your comments are appreciated, and I will agree that it does seem that the intent to kill JB came about during the process of the attack that night, though I do believe the killer had thought through the idea previously, suspecting the time may come when it might have to happen. And might have had a "draft" copy in his head which then had to be gelled up.

For what it's worth, this is what JR himself had to say about JB's death, as is written in Death of Innocence. It is sickening to me that he would have wanted to get his own version of her death in print, and felt it necessary to impose his viewpoint on the public. But to me, that is so JR: "I want everyone to see it like I do". All this does, for me, is show that he has no sense of dignity when it comes to keeping his daughter's grisly demise protected.

Anyway, pg 403 lays out some of the forensic evidence, then pg 404, DOI:
"That evidence causes me to believe that JonBenet must have been garroted, assaulted, screamed, and finally strangled to death,. The head blow was to make sure she was dead. A medical fact that substantiates this chain of events is that JonBenet's eyes were discovered to have petechiae, small pinpoint hemorrhages that occur in strangulation. She would have to be alive for this condition to have developed. Her scream must have frightened the killer into believing that he was about to be discovered, so he pulled the garrote too tight so she wouldn't scream again, and she died.
Perhaps JonBenet's scream is what changed the sexual assault/kidnapping into a murder. Conceivably, this pedophile's bizarre lusts and masochistic tendencies prompted him to attempt one last brutal act. In the ransom note, the killer betrayed a personal preoccupation with death and referred in a number of places to fiendish acts that would mutilate and destroy JonBenet. He may have slammed JonBenet's head against the floor after he strangled her, to make sure she was dead. Such an action would account for the fracture without the usual massive amount of internal bleeding. Because her heart had already stopped, the hemmorrhage wouldn't have followed.
As best I can reconstruct it, using the information I have access to, that is what happened the night our daughter was murdered."

Note: JR says that in the ransom note "the killer betrayed a personal preoccuptation with death". Here I have to point out it was JR who was not dealing well with Beth's death. He was on anti-depressant medications because of it at the time of JB's death. He brought up Beth's death first and numerous times in the writing of DOI. Why would JR say the killer had a "personal preoccupation" with death - how could he ever know that about a complete stranger, and that the killer not only had "bizarre lusts, but masochistic tendencies". All of a sudden, he was a trained psychiatrist?

What also seems unusual to me is that though there was every effort by the RST to dispel the reality of the scream, JR most certainly considers it key in bringing about her death. He mentions is several times - no doubt he believed she screamed. Also, just to let you all know, since otg has posted the photo of the boiler room, hinting at the dirt leg being involved in the bash, that on pg. 403, as the details of JB's death are being laid out prior to JR's summation, he writes out the details of the neighbor hearing a "bloodcurdling scream" - then says this: The old part of our Boulder house had operated off steam heat from a boiler in the basement. From this boiler room, which was immediately adjacent to the doorway into the concrete-walled room where I found JonBenet's body, a ten- to twelve-inch open ventilation pipe ran through the wall and out the front of the house, aimed roughly in the direction of the neighbor's home. It was very possible to hear a scream from across the street but not three floors up in our bedroom because of the megaphone effect this pipe had on sounds coming from that corner of the basement. Either from the pain of the attack or waking up while being assaulted, JonBenet must have screamed out of sheer terror."

So, even JR points out the involvement of the boiler room in that night's happenings.

By the way, with regard to the water heater, dirt leg and pail contents:
http://mobiledistributorsupply.com/.../ca4f303bc0fac7461b701f13f8b52ee8/P/W/PW8.jpg
Is this something to be looked at as a possible weapon?

 

[UKGuy]

With due respect to the many ideas surrounding the staging - and be easy on me other ‘sleuthers, I’m still a newbie - isn’t it possible that a very naïve person (s) might initially want to diminish the appearance of an acute sexual assault – cleaning up all the blood, the horror of what was discovered, and wanting to hope the truth is never discovered and revealed, especially to family and friends?

At that point in time a plan might not have been developed.

And perhaps one of them comes up with ”a story line”, after JB had been cleaned up A perverted intruder did this to JB, making the assumption that JB would be examined (after being found) and an acute sexual assault might be revealed. Is it possible at that point that person figured maybe a paintbrush injury would provide evidence of the perverted intruder if she is found and examined? The whole idea is to conceal the actions of the perpetrator of the assault. That person might not realize or even have thought that one doesn’t necessarily hide chronic sexual abuse from the coroner/experts. None of the adults in the family were accomplished in any of this diversionary “staging”.
‘Course all these ideas don’t even touch what was in their mind about having her body found in the house or somewhere else

questfortrue,
It looks to me as if something like this happened. If its BDI then BR most likely cleaned up JonBenet and probably said she had an accident?

The really big clue lies in the redressing of JonBenet. Because if the redressing was done by JR or PR can you see either adding the size-12's or the longjohns? Not simply because they are red flags, but also because they have to invent and remember a version of events that includes redressing. All of which suggests they were late to the table, otherwise they could have mandated a particular dress code?

Where did JonBenet's pajama bottoms go, or were these the ones attributed to BR, found in her bedroom, as alleged by Kolar? Patsy said she redressed JonBenet in the longjohns because nothing else was to hand, but why did she need to be dressed in longjohns?

Did BR attempt a staging by whacking JonBenet on the head? With no visible sign to explain her listless body, someone cooked up the ligature paintbrush, now its obvious why she is dead.

John Douglas has a new book out: Law and Disorder available in the all the digital formats. Some of the promotional text cites the Ramsey's.

Here also are Douglas' personal reflections on his ongoing search for the truth, from painful lessons learned early in his career to his controversial findings in the West Memphis Three and JonBenet Ramsey investigations.

.

 

[Chrishope]

questfortrue,
It looks to me as if something like this happened. If its BDI then BR most likely cleaned up JonBenet and probably said she had an accident?

The really big clue lies in the redressing of JonBenet. Because if the redressing was done by JR or PR can you see either adding the size-12's or the longjohns?

I can't see PR doing it (One more reason to doubt PR was a co-conspirator?) unless there were some "outside" reason which placed a premium on the Wednesday markings.

With both adults being in on it I doubt the "Wed." marking would have been of great importance. They could say she was wearing anything at bedtime and there would be no way to prove otherwise.

A male who has had little involvement in rearing a girl might not realize the size was absurdly big. I can see either JR or BR doing it.

Not simply because they are red flags, but also because they have to invent and remember a version of events that includes redressing.

A further suggestion that a JR/PR co-conspiracy makes little sense? They could have made up any story they wanted.

All of which suggests they were late to the table, otherwise they could have mandated a particular dress code?

Why does being late to the table negate their ability to alter the dress code? If JR/PR were co-conspirators they could have decided on any manner of dress. BR would know she had been redressed in alternate clothing, but BDI depends on BR remaining silent for years/decades anyway.

Where did JonBenet's pajama bottoms go, or were these the ones attributed to BR, found in her bedroom, as alleged by Kolar? Patsy said she redressed JonBenet in the longjohns because nothing else was to hand, but why did she need to be dressed in longjohns?

It's hard to say why. It seems odd, yet I know -because I live in a cold part of the US- that sometimes, during the winter, people will wear LJs to bed to keep warm. What seems likely to me is that she was in fact dressed in LJs, otherwise, as you point out, why make up a story like that?

Did BR attempt a staging by whacking JonBenet on the head? With no visible sign to explain her listless body, someone cooked up the ligature paintbrush, now its obvious why she is dead.

If this happened, then it must have been apparent that JB was still alive? If they thought she was already dead, then they must have been quite ignorant of medical matters. It would have been obvious to the coroner that the garrotte was placed after death. Is it more likely the killer(s) knew she was alive and wanted to finish her off?

John Douglas has a new book out: Law and Disorder available in the all the digital formats. Some of the promotional text cites the Ramsey's.



.

 

[questfortrue]

Chrishope and otg--
Your comments are appreciated, and I will agree that it does seem that the intent to kill JB came about during the process of the attack that night, though I do believe the killer had thought through the idea previously, suspecting the time may come when it might have to happen. And might have had a "draft" copy in his head which then had to be gelled up.

For what it's worth, this is what JR himself had to say about JB's death, as is written in Death of Innocence. It is sickening to me that he would have wanted to get his own version of her death in print, and felt it necessary to impose his viewpoint on the public. But to me, that is so JR: "I want everyone to see it like I do". All this does, for me, is show that he has no sense of dignity when it comes to keeping his daughter's grisly demise protected.

Anyway, pg 403 lays out some of the forensic evidence, then pg 404, DOI:
"That evidence causes me to believe that JonBenet must have been garroted, assaulted, screamed, and finally strangled to death,. The head blow was to make sure she was dead. A medical fact that substantiates this chain of events is that JonBenet's eyes were discovered to have petechiae, small pinpoint hemorrhages that occur in strangulation. She would have to be alive for this condition to have developed. Her scream must have frightened the killer into believing that he was about to be discovered, so he pulled the garrote too tight so she wouldn't scream again, and she died.
Perhaps JonBenet's scream is what changed the sexual assault/kidnapping into a murder. Conceivably, this pedophile's bizarre lusts and masochistic tendencies prompted him to attempt one last brutal act. In the ransom note, the killer betrayed a personal preoccupation with death and referred in a number of places to fiendish acts that would mutilate and destroy JonBenet. He may have slammed JonBenet's head against the floor after he strangled her, to make sure she was dead. Such an action would account for the fracture without the usual massive amount of internal bleeding. Because her heart had already stopped, the hemmorrhage wouldn't have followed.
As best I can reconstruct it, using the information I have access to, that is what happened the night our daughter was murdered."

Note: JR says that in the ransom note "the killer betrayed a personal preoccuptation with death". Here I have to point out it was JR who was not dealing well with Beth's death. He was on anti-depressant medications because of it at the time of JB's death. He brought up Beth's death first and numerous times in the writing of DOI. Why would JR say the killer had a "personal preoccupation" with death - how could he ever know that about a complete stranger, and that the killer not only had "bizarre lusts, but masochistic tendencies". All of a sudden, he was a trained psychiatrist?

What also seems unusual to me is that though there was every effort by the RST to dispel the reality of the scream, JR most certainly considers it key in bringing about her death. He mentions is several times - no doubt he believed she screamed. Also, just to let you all know, since otg has posted the photo of the boiler room, hinting at the dirt leg being involved in the bash, that on pg. 403, as the details of JB's death are being laid out prior to JR's summation, he writes out the details of the neighbor hearing a "bloodcurdling scream" - then says this: The old part of our Boulder house had operated off steam heat from a boiler in the basement. From this boiler room, which was immediately adjacent to the doorway into the concrete-walled room where I found JonBenet's body, a ten- to twelve-inch open ventilation pipe ran through the wall and out the front of the house, aimed roughly in the direction of the neighbor's home. It was very possible to hear a scream from across the street but not three floors up in our bedroom because of the megaphone effect this pipe had on sounds coming from that corner of the basement. Either from the pain of the attack or waking up while being assaulted, JonBenet must have screamed out of sheer terror."

So, even JR points out the involvement of the boiler room in that night's happenings.

By the way, with regard to the water heater, dirt leg and pail contents:
http://mobiledistributorsupply.com/.../ca4f303bc0fac7461b701f13f8b52ee8/P/W/PW8.jpg
Is this something to be looked at as a possible weapon?

Excellent post of JR’s book, and it’s appreciated since I have avoided purchasing this book to read his “fantasies.” JR here is promoting LS’s intruder theory. (And, I might add, a pervert intruder theory) He had to switch from the kidnapping because of 1) the coroner discovery of the sexual assault and 2) the body being found in the house. As I noted in an earlier post, Delmar England quotes JR in an interview with LS and in that interview JR wonders whether the head blow didn’t kill her first and after that she was strangled. LS quickly diverts JR from this line of thinking, since it undermines the LS intruder theory.

What I wonder, since this is all a grand fiction on the part of JR (moo), whether the boiler room is really the site of the killing. Why throw something “possibly true” (a killing in the boiler room) into the rest of the fiction. No one (except for the killer) knows for sure where JB was assaulted and killed. I guess if JR promotes the boiler room, it makes me question it more.

IDK who would have dressed JB in the size 12 bloomies . PR claimed that the bloomies she bought for her niece, she gave to JB and kept them in JB’s bathroom upstairs. Truth or fiction? Since JR’s shirt fibers were found in the panties, makes me think he chose them and redressed her with them. Also, if BDI, I have doubts he would have paid much attention to the “day” of the week noted on the panties.

 

[Darlene733510]

No size 12 panties were found in JB's drawers in the bathroom. I thought they were wrapped by PR and left in the wc, to be sent to her niece. PR either got them out herself, or told someone else to open the pkg to get the size 12's. The pkg was opened like it had been slit with a knife, and a knife was found nearby. Was this knife BR's?
After they moved to Atlanta, it seems I remember that they sent clothing to BPD for testing.
Some of the clothing looked like it was new, and never worn. Did they send the panties, minus the pair for Wednesday?

 

[UKGuy]

I can't see PR doing it (One more reason to doubt PR was a co-conspirator?) unless there were some "outside" reason which placed a premium on the Wednesday markings.

With both adults being in on it I doubt the "Wed." marking would have been of great importance. They could say she was wearing anything at bedtime and there would be no way to prove otherwise.

A male who has had little involvement in rearing a girl might not realize the size was absurdly big. I can see either JR or BR doing it.

A further suggestion that a JR/PR co-conspiracy makes little sense? They could have made up any story they wanted.

Why does being late to the table negate their ability to alter the dress code? If JR/PR were co-conspirators they could have decided on any manner of dress. BR would know she had been redressed in alternate clothing, but BDI depends on BR remaining silent for years/decades anyway.

It's hard to say why. It seems odd, yet I know -because I live in a cold part of the US- that sometimes, during the winter, people will wear LJs to bed to keep warm. What seems likely to me is that she was in fact dressed in LJs, otherwise, as you point out, why make up a story like that?

If this happened, then it must have been apparent that JB was still alive? If they thought she was already dead, then they must have been quite ignorant of medical matters. It would have been obvious to the coroner that the garrotte was placed after death. Is it more likely the killer(s) knew she was alive and wanted to finish her off?

Chrishope,

I can't see PR doing it (One more reason to doubt PR was a co-conspirator?) unless there were some "outside" reason which placed a premium on the Wednesday markings.

I think all three R's contributed different things to the staging and at different times. It looks like either BR and/or JR redressed JonBenet before Patsy arrived. That is Patsy can still be a co-conspirator, but just not know every detail?

With both adults being in on it I doubt the "Wed." marking would have been of great importance. They could say she was wearing anything at bedtime and there would be no way to prove otherwise.

The Wednesday feature is of prime importance to one Ramsey, and likely chosen to match the same feature on the size-6 underwear. BPD have never told us if there is a missing pair of size-6 underwear, a telling fact in itself, since as you say, she could have been wearing anything and nobody could say otherwise. Except for Patsy who probably assisted JonBenet with her bath and dressing for the White's, remember that argument about what to wear?

A male who has had little involvement in rearing a girl might not realize the size was absurdly big. I can see either JR or BR doing it.

Agreed. I think the redresser was focussed on the Wednesday feature being visible at the front, with the size hopefully being masked by the longjohns. This is why I think she is wearing longjohns and not her pink barbie nightgown which probably what she dressed in after undressing in her bedroom and placing her black velvet pants on the spare bed?

A further suggestion that a JR/PR co-conspiracy makes little sense? They could have made up any story they wanted.

No they had to create a version of events that explains why JonBenet has been redressed, i.e. longjohns, JonBenet does not need those to sleep in bed.

Why does being late to the table negate their ability to alter the dress code? If JR/PR were co-conspirators they could have decided on any manner of dress. BR would know she had been redressed in alternate clothing, but BDI depends on BR remaining silent for years/decades anyway.

As Dr Henry Lee suggested rice already cooked? Put another way That the version of events chosen corresponds to JonBenet wearing the longjohns suggests both parents knew JonBenet had been redressed, but then tossing her pink barbie nightgown into the wine-cellar must be a big hint to all involved?

It's hard to say why. It seems odd, yet I know -because I live in a cold part of the US- that sometimes, during the winter, people will wear LJs to bed to keep warm. What seems likely to me is that she was in fact dressed in LJs, otherwise, as you point out, why make up a story like that?

In the context of the R's version of events, the longjohns are redundant, all PR wanted to do was lay a sleeping JonBenet to bed with minimal fuss! JonBenet's bedroom was warm as was most of the house, cold was not an issue.

If this happened, then it must have been apparent that JB was still alive?

Not quite, simply that the desired result had not been achieved, i.e. visible staged cause of death. There is the time gap between the head injury and the asphyxiation, so the head injury could have been inflicted by a separate R, or both the head injury and asphyxiation may have been undertaken by the same R?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Excellent post of JR’s book, and it’s appreciated since I have avoided purchasing this book to read his “fantasies.” JR here is promoting LS’s intruder theory. (And, I might add, a pervert intruder theory) He had to switch from the kidnapping because of 1) the coroner discovery of the sexual assault and 2) the body being found in the house. As I noted in an earlier post, Delmar England quotes JR in an interview with LS and in that interview JR wonders whether the head blow didn’t kill her first and after that she was strangled. LS quickly diverts JR from this line of thinking, since it undermines the LS intruder theory.

What I wonder, since this is all a grand fiction on the part of JR (moo), whether the boiler room is really the site of the killing. Why throw something “possibly true” (a killing in the boiler room) into the rest of the fiction. No one (except for the killer) knows for sure where JB was assaulted and killed. I guess if JR promotes the boiler room, it makes me question it more.

IDK who would have dressed JB in the size 12 bloomies . PR claimed that the bloomies she bought for her niece, she gave to JB and kept them in JB’s bathroom upstairs. Truth or fiction? Since JR’s shirt fibers were found in the panties, makes me think he chose them and redressed her with them. Also, if BDI, I have doubts he would have paid much attention to the “day” of the week noted on the panties.

questfortrue,
Due to the sexual nature of the homicide I give Patsy a pass on this aspect. That leaves JR or BR as alleged suspects. Now it gets a bit complicated from hereon, due to the staging.

Is it BDI with JR taking over and as you suggest wiping down JonBenet, and redressing her in those size-12's? This was very amateurish staging because we all know, no intruder would bother who knew he had assaulted JonBenet.

With the blood being wiped away and and the size-6 underwear spirited away, its the sexual assault that is being hidden, patently not from any pathologist, so presumably the target audience might another R or the police?

One thing is certain JR is not going to divulge the location where JonBenet was assaulted, he might offer some prior location which had been intended to be staged, so everyone can go goose hunting!


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

I think all three R's contributed different things to the staging and at different times. It looks like either BR and/or JR redressed JonBenet before Patsy arrived. That is Patsy can still be a co-conspirator, but just not know every detail?

Certainly possible. But I have a hard time seeing JR just letting everyone else do some staging w/o directing the operation. I can believe PR might not have known every detail, but JR certainly would want to know and approve everything. S

The Wednesday feature is of prime importance to one Ramsey, and likely chosen to match the same feature on the size-6 underwear. BPD have never told us if there is a missing pair of size-6 underwear, a telling fact in itself, since as you say, she could have been wearing anything and nobody could say otherwise. Except for Patsy who probably assisted JonBenet with her bath and dressing for the White's, remember that argument about what to wear?

One, is the key word. If it had been a co-conspiracy there would be no reason to be concerned with the Wednesday feature. They both simply agree to put something on her, Monday, Tuesday...... doesn't matter. Even if someone at the party had helped JB with her toileting, and had seen the Wed. feature, they could just say she changed when she got home.

Agreed. I think the redresser was focussed on the Wednesday feature being visible at the front, with the size hopefully being masked by the longjohns. This is why I think she is wearing longjohns and not her pink barbie nightgown which probably what she dressed in after undressing in her bedroom and placing her black velvet pants on the spare bed?

Again, if a joint venture, there would be no reason to bother about the Wed. feature. She may well have put the barbie nightgown on, but we simply don't know. She may also have been dressed in longjohns.

In a theory where JR/PR are co-operators, especially if one imagines that the police were intended to find the body (which is ridiculous in a kidnap scenario) there would be no reason to worry about the Wed. panties. The police don't know what she wore to bed. They can put her in any clothing they choose and say that's what she was wearing when she went to sleep.

The longjohns would be totally unnecessary for staging. She must have had several other nighties, besides the barbie one. Why would JR/PR decide on longjohns and Wed. panties - that are way too big- if they were working together? There is no need at all for either garment, in a joint operation.

Even if there were a division of labor, with PR off writing the RN and JR doing the redressing, why would JR bother about the Wed. panties, and putting on longjohns?

To me it makes more sense that the longjohns really were worn to bed (pretty common practice in the winter) and the innocent parent knew that. The guilty parent had no choice but to put them back on.

No they had to create a version of events that explains why JonBenet has been redressed, i.e. longjohns, JonBenet does not need those to sleep in bed.

I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Are you saying they needed to explain why the intruder redressed her? If so, the "intruder" would probably use what JB had on when she went to bed. But again, the Rs, if working together, can put anything on her and claim that is what she wore to bed.

As Dr Henry Lee suggested rice already cooked? Put another way That the version of events chosen corresponds to JonBenet wearing the longjohns suggests both parents knew JonBenet had been redressed, but then tossing her pink barbie nightgown into the wine-cellar must be a big hint to all involved?

Quite the opposite. If both parents were in on it, they needn't have chosen a version of events that includes longjohns. They could have, of course, but there is no necessity. They could have put her in any garments they wished. Even if BR put the ljs on her, this does not bind the adult Rs to a version including ljs. The clothing can be changed.

As far as I can see, the only thing needed is to say "we put her to bed wearing "X" and then we woke up and found the note, blah blah blah. " If JR/PR are both in on it, there is no need for Wed. panties, or longjohns.

In the context of the R's version of events, the longjohns are redundant, all PR wanted to do was lay a sleeping JonBenet to bed with minimal fuss! JonBenet's bedroom was warm as was most of the house, cold was not an issue.

Cold may well have been an issue. It's very common in cold places to wear ljs to bed, despite the house being warm.

There is basically no reason to make up a story about longjohns as there was no need to redress her in them. They could have made up any version of events they liked. They could have put her in one of her other nighties, or they could have put her in pajamas, or.....etc.

Some BDI theories have PR helping to "protect" BR (form nothing) but unaware of the sexual assault. In such a scenario, PR doesn't know JB has been redressed (because she doesn't know JB was ever undressed) but in that case, JB must have been put to bed in longjohns. In an alternate BDI, PR thinks BR did the acute assault, in which case she knows about the redressing. Here, the Rs, having agreed to conspire to protect BR, are free to dress her in anything they like. They needn't use the longjohns even if BR put them on her.

Not quite, simply that the desired result had not been achieved, i.e. visible staged cause of death. There is the time gap between the head injury and the asphyxiation, so the head injury could have been inflicted by a separate R, or both the head injury and asphyxiation may have been undertaken by the same R?


.

The point is that putting a garrotte on her after death would only fool another person in the household. It wouldn't fool the coroner, so if the plan was to allow the police to find a RN and a body (and there is no way there was such an absurd plan) they'd have to know she was still alive.

 

[midwest mama]

In the redressing issue, the hardest aspect for me to figure out is the initial report from one of the officers that Patsy said she put JB down in the red turtleneck, but then later changed her statement to the white shirt with the star, which JB was wearing when found.

The only reason the white shirt would have to be part of the story is in keeping with the fact they laid a sleeping JB down to bed. Changing a sleeping child out of the white shirt and into a turtleneck, of all things, would be a challenge.

But, if Patsy had really been able to get an awake JB ready for bed, the red turtleneck wouldn't have been impossible - nor the pineapple snack she might have readied. When were the police first told that JB was brought home asleep and put to bed - that morning or later in the day?

If she or Burke (with her covering for him) had caused any harm to JB during the night and she was aware of what JB had been changed into before seeing JB in the living room that next morning, why wouldn't she have told police when they arrived that JB was wearing the white shirt?

:banghead:

 

[Chrishope]

In the redressing issue, the hardest aspect for me to figure out is the initial report from one of the officers that Patsy said she put JB down in the red turtleneck, but then later changed her statement to the white shirt with the star, which JB was wearing when found.

The only reason the white shirt would have to be part of the story is in keeping with the fact they laid a sleeping JB down to bed. Changing a sleeping child out of the white shirt and into a turtleneck, of all things, would be a challenge.

But, if Patsy had really been able to get an awake JB ready for bed, the red turtleneck wouldn't have been impossible - nor the pineapple snack she might have readied. When were the police first told that JB was brought home asleep and put to bed - that morning or later in the day?

If she or Burke (with her covering for him) had caused any harm to JB during the night and she was aware of what JB had been changed into before seeing JB in the living room that next morning, why wouldn't she have told police when they arrived that JB was wearing the white shirt?

:banghead:

How much later ? How long did it take for the story to change?

Yes, it does seem that PR should have told police she was put to bed in the white shirt. Or at least that she was put to bed wearing what she was found in.

 

[midwest mama]

How much later ? How long did it take for the story to change?

Yes, it does seem that PR should have told police she was put to bed in the white shirt. Or at least that she was put to bed wearing what she was found in.

She changed her story during the police interview in April 1997.

Plenty of time for the R's to get their story straight after consulting with lawyers, and also interesting that by that time JR had been judged "not responsible" for writing the RN by his hired examiners, but Patsy was not given a green light. She might have been thinking she was going to become incriminated, so had to go along with whatever scenario was being prepared for the interview.

If she was truly innocent, and did not think JR the perp since he was cleared by handwriting, she could have then suspected BR did have something to do with JB's death. It would have been her only recourse if she knew nothing of the happenings of that night, unless she was talked into believing the intruder story. I doubt Patsy would have believed that, so as a JDI theorist, it leaves me to believe that JR told her he had to cover up for Burke.

Interesting that LE would have spent 5 months thinking JB wore the red turtleneck to bed. And, the Ramseys discredited a lot that BPD did, but never discredited any of the information which was reported by them regarding the morning of the 26th.

 

[Nom de plume]

IIRC, PR said that JB insisted on wearing the white star shirt to the party at the Whites. Also IIRC, we don't know whether she wore the white star shirt or the red turtleneck.

Maybe she was put to bed in the Barbie nightgown. It could be that the white star shirt and the white long johns just happened to be in the basement dryer with the white blanket. Maybe she was redressed in these clothes simply because they were convienently close by. If none of JB's underwear were in the dryer the size 12s could have been used because they also were close by. I would guess that the person redressing her did not want to go up to her room for other clothes.

 

[UKGuy]

Certainly possible. But I have a hard time seeing JR just letting everyone else do some staging w/o directing the operation. I can believe PR might not have known every detail, but JR certainly would want to know and approve everything. S



One, is the key word. If it had been a co-conspiracy there would be no reason to be concerned with the Wednesday feature. They both simply agree to put something on her, Monday, Tuesday...... doesn't matter. Even if someone at the party had helped JB with her toileting, and had seen the Wed. feature, they could just say she changed when she got home.





Again, if a joint venture, there would be no reason to bother about the Wed. feature. She may well have put the barbie nightgown on, but we simply don't know. She may also have been dressed in longjohns.

In a theory where JR/PR are co-operators, especially if one imagines that the police were intended to find the body (which is ridiculous in a kidnap scenario) there would be no reason to worry about the Wed. panties. The police don't know what she wore to bed. They can put her in any clothing they choose and say that's what she was wearing when she went to sleep.

The longjohns would be totally unnecessary for staging. She must have had several other nighties, besides the barbie one. Why would JR/PR decide on longjohns and Wed. panties - that are way too big- if they were working together? There is no need at all for either garment, in a joint operation.

Even if there were a division of labor, with PR off writing the RN and JR doing the redressing, why would JR bother about the Wed. panties, and putting on longjohns?

To me it makes more sense that the longjohns really were worn to bed (pretty common practice in the winter) and the innocent parent knew that. The guilty parent had no choice but to put them back on.



I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Are you saying they needed to explain why the intruder redressed her? If so, the "intruder" would probably use what JB had on when she went to bed. But again, the Rs, if working together, can put anything on her and claim that is what she wore to bed.



Quite the opposite. If both parents were in on it, they needn't have chosen a version of events that includes longjohns. They could have, of course, but there is no necessity. They could have put her in any garments they wished. Even if BR put the ljs on her, this does not bind the adult Rs to a version including ljs. The clothing can be changed.

As far as I can see, the only thing needed is to say "we put her to bed wearing "X" and then we woke up and found the note, blah blah blah. " If JR/PR are both in on it, there is no need for Wed. panties, or longjohns.



Cold may well have been an issue. It's very common in cold places to wear ljs to bed, despite the house being warm.

There is basically no reason to make up a story about longjohns as there was no need to redress her in them. They could have made up any version of events they liked. They could have put her in one of her other nighties, or they could have put her in pajamas, or.....etc.

Some BDI theories have PR helping to "protect" BR (form nothing) but unaware of the sexual assault. In such a scenario, PR doesn't know JB has been redressed (because she doesn't know JB was ever undressed) but in that case, JB must have been put to bed in longjohns. In an alternate BDI, PR thinks BR did the acute assault, in which case she knows about the redressing. Here, the Rs, having agreed to conspire to protect BR, are free to dress her in anything they like. They needn't use the longjohns even if BR put them on her.





The point is that putting a garrotte on her after death would only fool another person in the household. It wouldn't fool the coroner, so if the plan was to allow the police to find a RN and a body (and there is no way there was such an absurd plan) they'd have to know she was still alive.

Chrishope,

One, is the key word. If it had been a co-conspiracy there would be no reason to be concerned with the Wednesday feature. They both simply agree to put something on her, Monday, Tuesday...... doesn't matter. Even if someone at the party had helped JB with her toileting, and had seen the Wed. feature, they could just say she changed when she got home.

Agreed, and my thoughts on the Wednesday might be completely wrong and the size-12's were chosen at random.

To me it makes more sense that the longjohns really were worn to bed (pretty common practice in the winter) and the innocent parent knew that. The guilty parent had no choice but to put them back on.

I disagree. You have the pink barbie nightgown in the wine-cellar, what does that tell you: it was not warm enough for JonBenet so she changed into the longjohns?

I wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Are you saying they needed to explain why the intruder redressed her? If so, the "intruder" would probably use what JB had on when she went to bed. But again, the Rs, if working together, can put anything on her and claim that is what she wore to bed.

You said A further suggestion that a JR/PR co-conspiracy makes little sense? They could have made up any story they wanted.
What I am saying is that the R's version of events was determined by the staging, so they could not make anything up, i.e. Patsy knew about the longjohns, she and JR had story about placing her to bed. Patsy stated she redressed JonBenet in the longjohns. We know Patsy's version is inconsistent with the forensic evidence. Shortly after arriving home JonBenet was up and walking about snacking pineapple. I repeat JonBenet does not need the longjohns, she had a perfectly acceptable pink barbie nightgown available.
Then there is the issue surrounding Patsy's claim that JonBenet was wearing a red turtleneck to bed, again whats going on?

I reckon this can be explained away by Patsy having undertaken some prior staging, but later , another revision sees another R redressing JonBenet, with Patsy being updated later and possibly not at all with regard to the size-12's, hence her claims to BPD that she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer?

So was Patsy deliberately misled by another R, or is it all down the confusion and chaos of staging a homicide?

Quite the opposite. If both parents were in on it, they needn't have chosen a version of events that includes longjohns. They could have, of course, but there is no necessity. They could have put her in any garments they wished. Even if BR put the ljs on her, this does not bind the adult Rs to a version including ljs. The clothing can be changed.

Patsy goes out of her way to explain away the longjohns, she does not attribute them to JonBenet as she does with the size-12's, she could have said JonBenet dressed herself in the longjohns. JonBenet was wiped clean of blood and redressed in the size-12's, so some clothing was changed. Presumably you are suggesting only the longjohns were never replaced? Consider Patsy's stated knowledge on this subject: she never knew what underwear JonBenet wore to the White's, she never noticed what underwear JonBenet was wearing when she redressed her in the longjohns, and of course she never knew that there were no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, discrediting her claim that JonBenet dressed herself in the size-12's!

You have to wonder why Patsy is claiming to redress JonBenet in those longjohns when her pink barbie nightgown is found beside her in the wine-cellar, or is that the clever part a switch back to her longjohns away from the pink barbie nightgown, making JonBenet appear consistent with what might be Patsy's version of events wrt the longjohns?

Maybe they did know she was still alive, no medical assistance called for though. Staged or not they reckoned the whack on the head had not produced any visible sign of death so they proceeded with the asphyxiation.

Another way to view the head injury is as a failed attempt to kill JonBenet, followed up with the asphyxiation, now as you have pointed out before, is that not an incongruous scenario for a kidnapping that has elicited a ransom demand?

That is, the kidnapper not only sexually assaulted JonBenet, she was also whacked on the head and cruelly asphyxiated, and just to underline how inept this kidnapper was he left JonBenet's dead corpse behind.




.

 

[UKGuy]

IIRC, PR said that JB insisted on wearing the white star shirt to the party at the Whites. Also IIRC, we don't know whether she wore the white star shirt or the red turtleneck.

Maybe she was put to bed in the Barbie nightgown. It could be that the white star shirt and the white long johns just happened to be in the basement dryer with the white blanket. Maybe she was redressed in these clothes simply because they were convienently close by. If none of JB's underwear were in the dryer the size 12s could have been used because they also were close by. I would guess that the person redressing her did not want to go up to her room for other clothes.

Nom de plume,
From memory she wore the White Gap top, Steve Thomas confirmed this some time in the past. He had access to the photographs taken at the White's Christmas party.

Maybe she was put to bed in the Barbie nightgown.

That or her missing pajama bottoms? Again from memory JonBenet's hair had been tied up, as if she had been dressed for bed?

the size-12's are a mystery because neither BR or JR should have known much about them?

there are so many elementary facts we do not know, like, is there a missing pair of Wednesday size-6 ?


.