Happenings of December 26

[Chrishope]

Does anyone know the temp in the basement of that house?

The house I grew up in had a very similar basement. It was not some place we would go to play. It was heated but it was still cold. We had the washer and dryer down there and an area we would play when it was warmer. If we were sent down to get something or get clothing from the dryer we would hurry back up to bring what ever or fold the clothes.

Of course we did not have the money that the R's did so they may have heated the basement the same as the rest of the house.

That is why a broken window never made sense to me. Would they not notice the draft?
Denver in Dec is cold. I just don't think the children would have been down there playing.JMO

There have sure been a lot of different opinions of things in the last few days. That is wonderful. I never even thought JB might not be JR daughter.

And yet we know they did play down there, and the train was set up near the broken window.

I agree with you -the broken window doesn't make sense. IMO it was not broken before the night of the 25th.

 

[otg]

otg,
Not certain what you are questioning, but historically one stages a crime-scene hoping that the original forensic evidence can be overlayed with the stagers representation, thus offering the stager an alternative interpretation and plausible deniability, an important consideration when faced with a possible jury trial.

.

It’s not that I question any of the vaginal injuries being staged -- it’s that I think it’s ludicrous to even suggest it when everything we know points to the fact that instead, every attempt was made to hide any signs of vaginal injuries. And after I thought you and I were making so much progress, I didn’t expect something like that from you, UKG. You’ve been around long enough that I would have thought you knew better.

If it had come from someone fairly new, I might have explained why it’s seems so silly to me. But all I could do is :sigh: when you said it, because I know you’re aware of all the evidence.

So for the benefit of anyone who wants to know, here goes...

If you think about what we know from the evidence and the AR, you know what the scene must have looked like after the sexual assault (excluding for the time being all the other injuries). There would have been blood, both internally and externally around her genitals. If she had any clothing on her lower torso at the time, it probably would have had some blood also (Keep in mind too that she was in white clothing when her body was carried out on a gurney.).

But this is not what the coroner found when she was examined. Instead, he found panties that didn’t fit with “red stains (that) appeared to be consistent with blood”. He couldn’t find where these stains coincided with the pubic area. Instead he found that the area was “consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth”. Also, blood had been wiped from “areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh,” which all showed up under a Wood’s lamp. But not all blood had been removed. There was “a small amount of dried blood along the edges of closure of the labia majora,” and “a similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule.” (IOW, there were small amounts of blood trapped in the folds of skin that didn’t get wiped by whatever was used to wipe the blood.) There was also a “minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid present in the vaginal vault.” (I know guys may have to think about this a little more, but hopefully the ladies here know what that means.)

The vaginal bruising, abrasion, and hyperemia could not be wiped away. But then, the person(s) doing the cleanup may not have been aware of these things because they didn’t do an internal exam like the coroner did. Maybe they thought that if they removed all the obvious evidence of a sexual assault that they were aware of, she wouldn’t be examined for it. Whatever it is that they thought, the fact remains that the person(s) who left her dead body in the basement made every attempt possible to hide the sexual assault.

None of the vaginal injuries are "staged", and none of them were added for the purpose of "masking" other injuries. They are what they are: evidence of the assault (singular) that happened just before she died, and evidence of the assaults (plural) that had occurred in the months leading up to her death.

 

[UKGuy]

It’s not that I question any of the vaginal injuries being staged -- it’s that I think it’s ludicrous to even suggest it when everything we know points to the fact that instead, every attempt was made to hide any signs of vaginal injuries. And after I thought you and I were making so much progress, I didn’t expect something like that from you, UKG. You’ve been around long enough that I would have thought you knew better.

If it had come from someone fairly new, I might have explained why it’s seems so silly to me. But all I could do is :sigh: when you said it, because I know you’re aware of all the evidence.

So for the benefit of anyone who wants to know, here goes...

If you think about what we know from the evidence and the AR, you know what the scene must have looked like after the sexual assault (excluding for the time being all the other injuries). There would have been blood, both internally and externally around her genitals. If she had any clothing on her lower torso at the time, it probably would have had some blood also (Keep in mind too that she was in white clothing when her body was carried out on a gurney.).

But this is not what the coroner found when she was examined. Instead, he found panties that didn’t fit with “red stains (that) appeared to be consistent with blood”. He couldn’t find where these stains coincided with the pubic area. Instead he found that the area was “consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth”. Also, blood had been wiped from “areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh,” which all showed up under a Wood’s lamp. But not all blood had been removed. There was “a small amount of dried blood along the edges of closure of the labia majora,” and “a similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule.” (IOW, there were small amounts of blood trapped in the folds of skin that didn’t get wiped by whatever was used to wipe the blood.) There was also a “minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid present in the vaginal vault.” (I know guys may have to think about this a little more, but hopefully the ladies here know what that means.)

The vaginal bruising, abrasion, and hyperemia could not be wiped away. But then, the person(s) doing the cleanup may not have been aware of these things because they didn’t do an internal exam like the coroner did. Maybe they thought that if they removed all the obvious evidence of a sexual assault that they were aware of, she wouldn’t be examined for it. Whatever it is that they thought, the fact remains that the person(s) who left her dead body in the basement made every attempt possible to hide the sexual assault.

None of the vaginal injuries are "staged", and none of them were added for the purpose of "masking" other injuries. They are what they are: evidence of the assault (singular) that happened just before she died, and evidence of the assaults (plural) that had occurred in the months leading up to her death.

otg,

You’ve been around long enough that I would have thought you knew better.

I always appreciate compliments regarding my cognitive abilities.

the fact remains that the person(s) who left her dead body in the basement made every attempt possible to hide the sexual assault.

Nobody is disputing this. I am on record promoting this very same point with regard to the size-12's and longjohns etc.

None of the vaginal injuries are "staged", and none of them were added for the purpose of "masking" other injuries. They are what they are: evidence of the assault (singular) that happened just before she died, and evidence of the assaults (plural) that had occurred in the months leading up to her death.

You cannot differentiate between any particular acute assault and any staged asault because you do not have access to the forensic evidence. How can you know none of her injuries are staged? You present no evidence to demonstrate your claims. I detect a desire not to relinquish a long held theory, when confronted with disconfirming evidence.

Your conclusion is a generalisation from the evidence, which is fine, but its just one of many and as we know only one is correct.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we have a staged crime-scene, which excepts her lower torso?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't believe police were ever meant to see JBs body - not that morning. They'd eventually find it in the woods, or at the bottom of a ravine. The work of the "kidnappers" of course.

I'm sorry- there is simply no way her parents, no matter how they were involved, would have tossed her body into a ravine or the woods.
The body was found in the only place they would have ever considered placing it- her own home.

 

[Chrishope]

I'm sorry- there is simply no way her parents, no matter how they were involved, would have tossed her body into a ravine or the woods.
The body was found in the only place they would have ever considered placing it- her own home.

What's your basis for saying that? You actually believe they'd molest, bash, and garrotte her, but would refuse to dump her body? Pretty hard to swallow.

I know, the note mentions denying the body for proper burial, but that doesn't even begin to prove they wouldn't dump the body. I would note that Christianity frowns on murder and molestation much more so than not burying a body.

 

[Chrishope]

It’s not that I question any of the vaginal injuries being staged -- it’s that I think it’s ludicrous to even suggest it when everything we know points to the fact that instead, every attempt was made to hide any signs of vaginal injuries. And after I thought you and I were making so much progress, I didn’t expect something like that from you, UKG. You’ve been around long enough that I would have thought you knew better.

Exactly. Imagine what the police would have seen had they opened the WC shortly after arrival - they'd have found a dead girl, wrapped in a blanket. They'd have seen nothing more, as they would not have touched the body. The scene would not look like a sex murder. The most that can be said for the vaginal injuries being staged is that the stager may have thought the acute injuries would obscure the chronic.

If you think about what we know from the evidence and the AR, you know what the scene must have looked like after the sexual assault (excluding for the time being all the other injuries). There would have been blood, both internally and externally around her genitals. If she had any clothing on her lower torso at the time, it probably would have had some blood also (Keep in mind too that she was in white clothing when her body was carried out on a gurney.).

But this is not what the coroner found when she was examined. Instead, he found panties that didn’t fit with “red stains (that) appeared to be consistent with blood”. He couldn’t find where these stains coincided with the pubic area. Instead he found that the area was “consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth”. Also, blood had been wiped from “areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh,” which all showed up under a Wood’s lamp. But not all blood had been removed. There was “a small amount of dried blood along the edges of closure of the labia majora,” and “a similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule.” (IOW, there were small amounts of blood trapped in the folds of skin that didn’t get wiped by whatever was used to wipe the blood.) There was also a “minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid present in the vaginal vault.” (I know guys may have to think about this a little more, but hopefully the ladies here know what that means.)

The vaginal bruising, abrasion, and hyperemia could not be wiped away. But then, the person(s) doing the cleanup may not have been aware of these things because they didn’t do an internal exam like the coroner did. Maybe they thought that if they removed all the obvious evidence of a sexual assault that they were aware of, she wouldn’t be examined for it. Whatever it is that they thought, the fact remains that the person(s) who left her dead body in the basement made every attempt possible to hide the sexual assault.

Hide from whom? If the body were meant for the police/coroner to find (which is imo silly) then the hiding would be for naught. It would only delay discovery for a day or so. It must have been to hide it from someone else in the house.

None of the vaginal injuries are "staged", and none of them were added for the purpose of "masking" other injuries. They are what they are: evidence of the assault (singular) that happened just before she died, and evidence of the assaults (plural) that had occurred in the months leading up to her death.

This is quite possible.

 

[midwest mama]

I don't believe police were ever meant to see JBs body - not that morning. They'd eventually find it in the woods, or at the bottom of a ravine. The work of the "kidnappers" of course.

And hence, the need for the garrote to be in place - nasty old kidnappers anyway.

BTW, otg , I always find your posts interesting, usually very, very informative, and very thought provoking. Hunter's signed document is in the back of Kolar's book, so I had seen it. My mind still won't go around seeing Hunter doing all that he did because he knew Burke was guilty.

One day, I almost hope we will learn for sure that it was BDI. It would relieve me of thinking that adult humanity involved in that type of crime is something in this world that we are forced to acknowledge far more often than we should.

And, respectfully, (I think to ozazure ) if it was me who thought JR dictated the RN to Patsy, it would have only been if he had to enlist PR's help to stash JB, after telling her it was BR who killed JB because BR went screaming to Patsy when accidentally coming upon JR working with her during the aftermath of having killed her. I really do not think Patsy knew the truth about JB's death, ever. I think she was a pawn for RST, with JR working always (even now) to convince whoever he had to that he had nothing to do with it. If there was any reason for PR to think anyone other that someone out to get JR killed JB, then it was because she was led to believe BR did it.

I really believe JR wrote the RN - intended for it to look like Patsy wrote it, did a great job of pulling it off, because he had to have a backup plan of pinning JB's death on her if his original plan went haywire for some reason, which it did. IMO, JR was a fake loving husband. He had his own behind to protect after the murder, so it became very easy for him to hang tight to Patsy as long as he needed to. Hmm....let's see, death penalty or smiling as you sit next to your wife in front of cameras - pretty easy choice. It was the smiling at her funeral that was so sickening.

 

[madeleine]

What's your basis for saying that? You actually believe they'd molest, bash, and garrotte her, but would refuse to dump her body? Pretty hard to swallow.

I know, the note mentions denying the body for proper burial, but that doesn't even begin to prove they wouldn't dump the body. I would note that Christianity frowns on murder and molestation much more so than not burying a body.

what totally screwed up his original plan was:
PR called 911 (the lawyers coached her well to keep saying it was HIS idea but I am not sure I buy it)
the RN was meant to explain why JB (dead or alive) is MISSING,so IMO whoever wrote it didn't have in mind to leave the body in the house

MAYBE she told the truth when saying she didn't read the whole thing (threats)....maybe this is what the writer (JR in this scenario) wanted....an excuse "honey,we can't call the cops,look what the note says,they will kill her!"...of course a mom would be afraid and agree

with no cops around and no one knowing (except some friends maybe,easy to fool those too) it wouldn't have been that hard for him to get rid of the body...just send BR and PR away (for their own "safety")
honey,I dropped the money off but I didn't get her back....what to do,what to do,okay,NOW we can call the cops.of course the cops would have asked,why didn't you call us?well,the note said she'll die if we do that...no one would ever blame a parent for this

 

[madeleine]

IF the note was written to fool and scare off PR it makes sense why it's so silly and dramatic (he knew her well)...you wouldn't write such a stupid note and hope the cops will buy it AND leave the body in the house...doesn't make ANY sense to me at all...

 

[Chrishope]

IF the note was written to fool and scare off PR it makes sense why it's so silly and dramatic (he knew her well)...you wouldn't write such a stupid note and hope the cops will buy it AND leave the body in the house...doesn't make ANY sense to me at all...

Absolutely!

 

[otg]

Whatever it is that they thought, the fact remains that the person(s) who left her dead body in the basement made every attempt possible to hide the sexual assault.

Nobody is disputing this. I am on record promoting this very same point with regard to the size-12's and longjohns etc.

If you have promoted the idea that the attempt was made to hide the sexual assault, how can you now say that the sexual assault was done for staging to mask another sexual assault? Don’t you see the conflict in your reasoning here? And this of course has nothing to do with the size-12’s and the longjohns, since we were talking about the vaginal injuries which you had suggested were done to “mask” previous vaginal injuries.

No, come to think about it, you didn’t “suggest” this -- you said:

But I do think that the paintbrush was used to stage an internal injury with the intent on masking the prior acute injury and possibly any chronic abuse.

None of the vaginal injuries are "staged", and none of them were added for the purpose of "masking" other injuries. They are what they are: evidence of the assault (singular) that happened just before she died, and evidence of the assaults (plural) that had occurred in the months leading up to her death.

You cannot differentiate between any particular acute assault and any staged asault because you do not have access to the forensic evidence. How can you know none of her injuries are staged? You present no evidence to demonstrate your claims. I detect a desire not to relinquish a long held theory, when confronted with disconfirming evidence.

Your conclusion is a generalisation from the evidence, which is fine, but its just one of many and as we know only one is correct.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we have a staged crime-scene, which excepts her lower torso?

I (we all) have access to the results of some of the evidence that was examined. I quoted only what was written in the AR and the search warrants, which are part of the official records. From that information there are some things that can be deduced. For instance, if you know that blood was wiped clean to the naked eye from the skin surface, you know the person who did it was not trying to call attention to it. If they were trying to hide it, it wasn’t put there to make the victim look bloodied. If you still fail to see this, I can’t help you. But I would appreciate it if you would point me to the “disconfirming evidence” that you confronted me with. I admit my failure to see it.

 

[Chrishope]

If you have promoted the idea that the attempt was made to hide the sexual assault, how can you now say that the sexual assault was done for staging to mask another sexual assault? Don’t you see the conflict in your reasoning here? And this of course has nothing to do with the size-12’s and the longjohns, since we were talking about the vaginal injuries which you had suggested were done to “mask” previous vaginal injuries.

No, come to think about it, you didn’t “suggest” this -- you said:




I (we all) have access to the results of some of the evidence that was examined. I quoted only what was written in the AR and the search warrants, which are part of the official records. From that information there are some things that can be deduced. For instance, if you know that blood was wiped clean to the naked eye from the skin surface, you know the person who did it was not trying to call attention to it. If they were trying to hide it, it wasn’t put there to make the victim look bloodied. If you still fail to see this, I can’t help you. But I would appreciate it if you would point me to the “disconfirming evidence” that you confronted me with. I admit my failure to see it.

I believe the idea of the staging/masking of sexual assault is that the acute injuries would obscure the chronic, at least the stager may have thought so. The stager may not have been aware of what the coroner could and couldn't determine from the injuries. IOWs the staging was for the coroner's benefit only This would be in keeping with the boogeyman intruder theory.

The problem, imo, is that if the killer and/or stager wanted police to think there was an acute sexual assault, why go to the trouble of hiding it? It's a given that if the body were found the coroner would be involved and the corner would be aware that there was an acute sexual assault, so the hiding - from authorities seems to make no sense.

IMO, the "hiding" must have been to prevent other family members from realizing there was a sexual assault.

I agree with you that the evidence suggests hiding. Since I regard it as ridiculous that the body was intended to be discovered I would agree that it's unlikely the acute sexual assault was staged. The killer would have had to be quite ignorant of the coroner's ability - which is possible.

 

[UKGuy]

If you have promoted the idea that the attempt was made to hide the sexual assault, how can you now say that the sexual assault was done for staging to mask another sexual assault? Don’t you see the conflict in your reasoning here? And this of course has nothing to do with the size-12’s and the longjohns, since we were talking about the vaginal injuries which you had suggested were done to “mask” previous vaginal injuries.

No, come to think about it, you didn’t “suggest” this -- you said:




I (we all) have access to the results of some of the evidence that was examined. I quoted only what was written in the AR and the search warrants, which are part of the official records. From that information there are some things that can be deduced. For instance, if you know that blood was wiped clean to the naked eye from the skin surface, you know the person who did it was not trying to call attention to it. If they were trying to hide it, it wasn’t put there to make the victim look bloodied. If you still fail to see this, I can’t help you. But I would appreciate it if you would point me to the “disconfirming evidence” that you confronted me with. I admit my failure to see it.

otg,

If you have promoted the idea that the attempt was made to hide the sexual assault, how can you now say that the sexual assault was done for staging to mask another sexual assault? Don’t you see the conflict in your reasoning here? And this of course has nothing to do with the size-12’s and the longjohns, since we were talking about the vaginal injuries which you had suggested were done to “mask” previous vaginal injuries.

Since I have not posted any RDI to the Members Theories thread you might not be familiar with how I arrive at such conclusions, basically I think that there was more than one staging.

Now this is for everyone, and is something we can all agree on, but it seems to missed all the time. The majority of the staging is not done with some particular endpoint in view, i.e. JR dumping the body, but is undertaken to corroborate the R's version of events, which is minimal, i.e. We arrived home, placed a redressed JonBenet to bed, then went to bed, and awoke to a Ransom Note

The redressing explains away the longjohns and size-12's, and of course it does not! Does anyone agree that the R's version of events must arise after prior staging since the R's can choose not to redress JonBenet? This is a subtle suggestion that other complex JDI theories cannot be correct?

But I do think that the paintbrush was used to stage an internal injury with the intent on masking the prior acute injury and possibly any chronic abuse.

That seems entirely credible to me. Then of course I wrote it. Thats what we are dealing with here, i.e. a staged crime-scene. The R's wanted to create plausible deniability, they knew short of dumping JonBenet outdoors, they were going to be the prime suspects. So they staged a crime-scene hoping to swing the odds.

The disconfirming evidence lies in the fact that JonBenet's homicide was staged, and staged for a particular purpose, what many people do is attach far too much importance to the staged forensic evidence, they even make inferences from it, which is all fine and dandy, but any conclusions thus reached are redundant.

To explain the head injury I have suggested that this may have been an attempt at staging her death, when this failed the R's moved onto the ligature/asphyxiation phase.

Nearly everything about JonBenet's person has been staged, and in the context of a staged crime-scene, is it not reasonable to consider the head injury as a staged event?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe the idea of the staging/masking of sexual assault is that the acute injuries would obscure the chronic, at least the stager may have thought so. The stager may not have been aware of what the coroner could and couldn't determine from the injuries. IOWs the staging was for the coroner's benefit only This would be in keeping with the boogeyman intruder theory.

The problem, imo, is that if the killer and/or stager wanted police to think there was an acute sexual assault, why go to the trouble of hiding it? It's a given that if the body were found the coroner would be involved and the corner would be aware that there was an acute sexual assault, so the hiding - from authorities seems to make no sense.

IMO, the "hiding" must have been to prevent other family members from realizing there was a sexual assault.

I agree with you that the evidence suggests hiding. Since I regard it as ridiculous that the body was intended to be discovered I would agree that it's unlikely the acute sexual assault was staged. The killer would have had to be quite ignorant of the coroner's ability - which is possible.

Chrishope,
The R's collectively are hiding the assault so that JonBenet matches their description of her, as per their version of events.

But this is not a version of events any JDI theory might wish to entertain since some features which can be airbrushed to remove JR have been left in.

At some point all the R's knew JonBenet was dead, so hiding must become a redundant exercise. I think masking a better term to describe this.

.

 

[Chrishope]

otg,

Since I have not posted any RDI to the Members Theories thread you might not be familiar with how I arrive at such conclusions, basically I think that there was more than one staging.

Now this is for everyone, and is something we can all agree on, but it seems to missed all the time. The majority of the staging is not done with some particular endpoint in view, i.e. JR dumping the body, but is undertaken to corroborate the R's version of events, which is minimal, i.e. We arrived home, placed a redressed JonBenet to bed, then went to bed, and awoke to a Ransom Note

I, for one, do not agree. IMO the staging consists of writing a phoney ransom note, breaking the window, and placing things (including the body) in the WC were they will not be seen until they can be dealt with. None of the "staging" or "masking" with respect to the body is done with the intent the police should see it.

The redressing explains away the longjohns and size-12's, and of course it does not! Does anyone agree that the R's version of events must arise after prior staging since the R's can choose not to redress JonBenet? This is a subtle suggestion that other complex JDI theories cannot be correct?

If there is only one killer/stager then the story -we redressed her in longjohns, put her to bed, etc. -may have to conform to what the innocent parent knows to be true. There may not be any opportunity here at all to choose an alternate version of events.

That seems entirely credible to me. Then of course I wrote it. Thats what we are dealing with here, i.e. a staged crime-scene. The R's wanted to create plausible deniability, they knew short of dumping JonBenet outdoors, they were going to be the prime suspects. So they staged a crime-scene hoping to swing the odds.

There is no plausible deniability when there is a body and a RN at the same time. Everyone but LS, and internet sleuths who can't let go of theories that make no sense, suspects at least one parent is involved in the killing/staging. The Rs would be prime suspects whether the body was found or not.

The disconfirming evidence lies in the fact that JonBenet's homicide was staged, and staged for a particular purpose, what many people do is attach far too much importance to the staged forensic evidence, they even make inferences from it, which is all fine and dandy, but any conclusions thus reached are redundant.

To explain the head injury I have suggested that this may have been an attempt at staging her death, when this failed the R's moved onto the ligature/asphyxiation phase.

Nearly everything about JonBenet's person has been staged, and in the context of a staged crime-scene, is it not reasonable to consider the head injury as a staged event?

.

 

[otg]

(snipped)

Nearly everything about JonBenet's person has been staged, and in the context of a staged crime-scene, is it not reasonable to consider the head injury as a staged event?

Oh, no, UKG. Are we now going to consider whether the head blow was a staged injury or not? ullhair:

Actually, your explanation makes enough sense that I think I understand what you're saying. I still vehemently disagree with it, but I think I understand it. But by the same token as you are taking each of the injuries as possibly being part of the staging, we could say everything there was staged. And in the sense that the body was ever touched after she was dead, you could say that there is no evidence that isn't part of the staging. I know that some people still think that the acute vaginal injuries were inflicted to "mask" other prior injuries, but I still think the notion is preposterous and I was disappointed that you thought it. :sigh:

 

[midwest mama]

Chrishope;9526572I believe the idea of the staging/masking of sexual assault is that the acute injuries would obscure the chronic, at least the stager may have thought so. The stager may not have been aware of what the coroner could and couldn't determine from the injuries. IOWs the staging was for the coroner's benefit only This would be in keeping with the boogeyman intruder theory.

This is why I believe that initially the R's did not intend to have the kidnappers panic and leave the body behind in the house. IF, and for me it's a questionable IF, the intent was for JB's body to be found, I agree totally that there should not have been an attempt to hide the sexual attack if the intruder (even with a key) was going to take the fall. All the more reason to leave any signs of a sexual attack remain obvious. If the killer did not know the chronic signs would show up in an autopsy, all the more reason for the attack to be left uncleaned. Cops recover a body that is clearly points to pedophile kidnapper, no suspicion on R's.

The problem, imo, is that if the killer and/or stager wanted police to think there was an acute sexual assault, why go to the trouble of hiding it? It's a given that if the body were found the coroner would be involved and the corner would be aware that there was an acute sexual assault, so the hiding - from authorities seems to make no sense.

IMO, the "hiding" must have been to prevent other family members from realizing there was a sexual assault.

Who is the most likely, statistically and realistically, to know they should hide a sexual attack against JB from other family members - to transfer black wool fibers from a shirt to the body and underpants, the same underpants that reflected the correct Christmas day of the week (which I think might have been selected to replace the original day of the week pair she could have actually been wearing when attacked), who also was able to physically wrap her papoose style in her favorite blanket.

I agree with you that the evidence suggests hiding. Since I regard it as ridiculous that the body was intended to be discovered I would agree that it's unlikely the acute sexual assault was staged. The killer would have had to be quite ignorant of the coroner's ability - which is possible.

Or, the killer might have considered this in thinking through all aspects for being able to remove the body from the house: IF the body was actually discovered, there should be enough time having passed for decomposition to take care of any signs of a sexual attack, except for the clothing left behind which should then add to the fact that she was not sexually molested. OR, having done such a good cleanup job, with the ligature left in place, it would provide an obvious answer of how she was killed, never having to look beyond that for a sexual attack. The kidnappers would have simply killed JB because they "monitored" JR doing something wrong along the way until delivering the ransom money, putting all blame on them. No sexual attack detected or presumed, and no R is ever fingered for the death. No R ever realizes there was a sexual molestation done by a family member during which precious JB was horribly murdered.

 

[UKGuy]

(snipped)

Oh, no, UKG. Are we now going to consider whether the head blow was a staged injury or not? ullhair:

Actually, your explanation makes enough sense that I think I understand what you're saying. I still vehemently disagree with it, but I think I understand it. But by the same token as you are taking each of the injuries as possibly being part of the staging, we could say everything there was staged. And in the sense that the body was ever touched after she was dead, you could say that there is no evidence that isn't part of the staging. I know that some people still think that the acute vaginal injuries were inflicted to "mask" other prior injuries, but I still think the notion is preposterous and I was disappointed that you thought it. :sigh:

otg,
Absolutely. Disconfirming evidence always is.

I think I understand what you're saying.

Is that a statement regarding your cognitive ability?

Your everything is staged claim is a bit overdone. One must proceed with the evidence and not simply any particular theory.

Time and time again demonstrates that theory led investigation leads to the wrong result.

.

 

[questfortrue]

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

 

[Chrishope]

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

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.