Happenings of December 26

[midwest mama]

Thank you Chrishope for your input. Your arguments are excellent and logical.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the theory that the Dec 25/26 abuse and head-whack happened in the basement rather than JB's bedroom. I missed in my reading that the package of size 12's was found by police in the basement. Was it a wrapped gift for Patsy's niece?

I going back to the drawing board. I'm sure you've stated the dozen or so reasons why the BDI theory is ridiculous. Would you mind stating them again? Otherwise, I'll scroll back and try to locate them.

Thanks for your courtesy. I appreciate that.
C.

Chelly - you are a welcome poster! If you don't mind, I'd like to provide some info about the size 12's, to save you having to backtrack.

There were NO OTHER size 12's found and taken into evidence by police. Sometime after the R's had been relocated to Georgia, they returned a package of the underwear, without the Wednesday pair, to police through their attorney - saying they were found in some of their things that had been shipped from the house after they vacated it completely.

Patsy was questioned about the size 12's and stated she purchased a package for her niece, during a trip she made to Bloomingdale's with JB while in NY prior to Christmas. Upon returning, Patsy was said to have conceded to JB's begging to let her keep the package of undies, saying she would grow into them. Patsy supposedly relented, and they were put into JB's underwear drawer in her bathroom.

There was also mention made of the gift for Jenny Davis (the niece) not having been shipped off in time, and PR was intending to do it when she returned from the Disney trip, along with some other items she wanted to send to Georgia as holiday items. Patsy claimed to have used a "wrapping station" in the basement, so speculation is that the underwear might actually have been laying there - maybe even wrapped, but not included with the other items in a shipping carton for later.

It does seem almost unbelievable that JB would "beg" to keep a package of underwear that were several sizes too large for her, when obviously they could have been purchased much closer to the time she would have really needed them. It has also been thought that perhaps JB wanted them, or Patsy purchased them to be used over a pull-up, as a 'camouflage' for times when wearing one was necessary. Possible - and that Patsy would not have wanted to disclose that vane action.

However, fact remains, a package that was supposedly the one that supplied the WED size 12's found on JB, was later sent to police, and since the R's were supplied with evidence lists, if any size 12's had been on it, they would have known, and NOT needed to send any others.

What is a puzzlement, as Chrishope has so well established, and also others along the way, is WHY would there be any need at all for ANY underwear to be placed on JB under her lj's if both the adult R's were colluding to cover for either BR or themselves if they had cleaned her up after a sexual attack? Why not just let her be found with the vaginal wounds (a fresh one in an attempt to mask the chronic?), since it might point even the more to an attack by an outside molester who probably would have kept a missing pair of underwear as a 'souvenir'.

IMO, the only reason for JB to be found dressed wearing a pair of undies with the lj's is because someone wanted someone to believe she was NOT sexually harmed at initial glance - that the neck ligature was the reason she was dead. This would have fulfilled the ransom note criteria of JB being killed for any number of reasons, and no reason for the 'kidnapper' to have been thought of as a sexual deviant.

As rational thinkers, it would be a given, of course, that everything that happened to JB that night would have been discovered forensically once the body was located in the house. However, if the body had been successfully removed from the house, while it makes most sense to NEVER have it found again, at least while it was intact, there would have been a chance it would be located. If it was, would it be a stretch to think that the killer wanted JB to look as if she had been strangled - in a 'beheading' sort of way - and with proper layers of clothing intact, no sexual attack?

In order for us to consider this, we must remember what several LE people commented: This was not done by professionals, there were amateur mistakes made. It was a night of horror in that household, and in that type of insanity, IMO, there might have been some very bad choices and mistakes made in assuming that the presentation of JB's body would fool someone if it was found before there was time for decomposition to take it's toll.

 

[Chrishope]

Chelly - you are a welcome poster! If you don't mind, I'd like to provide some info about the size 12's, to save you having to backtrack.

There were NO OTHER size 12's found and taken into evidence by police. Sometime after the R's had been relocated to Georgia, they returned a package of the underwear, without the Wednesday pair, to police through their attorney - saying they were found in some of their things that had been shipped from the house after they vacated it completely.

Patsy was questioned about the size 12's and stated she purchased a package for her niece, during a trip she made to Bloomingdale's with JB while in NY prior to Christmas. Upon returning, Patsy was said to have conceded to JB's begging to let her keep the package of undies, saying she would grow into them. Patsy supposedly relented, and they were put into JB's underwear drawer in her bathroom.

There was also mention made of the gift for Jenny Davis (the niece) not having been shipped off in time, and PR was intending to do it when she returned from the Disney trip, along with some other items she wanted to send to Georgia as holiday items. Patsy claimed to have used a "wrapping station" in the basement, so speculation is that the underwear might actually have been laying there - maybe even wrapped, but not included with the other items in a shipping carton for later.

It does seem almost unbelievable that JB would "beg" to keep a package of underwear that were several sizes too large for her, when obviously they could have been purchased much closer to the time she would have really needed them. It has also been thought that perhaps JB wanted them, or Patsy purchased them to be used over a pull-up, as a 'camouflage' for times when wearing one was necessary. Possible - and that Patsy would not have wanted to disclose that vane action.

However, fact remains, a package that was supposedly the one that supplied the WED size 12's found on JB, was later sent to police, and since the R's were supplied with evidence lists, if any size 12's had been on it, they would have known, and NOT needed to send any others.

What is a puzzlement, as Chrishope has so well established, and also others along the way, is WHY would there be any need at all for ANY underwear to be placed on JB under her lj's if both the adult R's were colluding to cover for either BR or themselves if they had cleaned her up after a sexual attack? Why not just let her be found with the vaginal wounds (a fresh one in an attempt to mask the chronic?), since it might point even the more to an attack by an outside molester who probably would have kept a missing pair of underwear as a 'souvenir'.

IMO, the only reason for JB to be found dressed wearing a pair of undies with the lj's is because someone wanted someone to believe she was NOT sexually harmed at initial glance - that the neck ligature was the reason she was dead. This would have fulfilled the ransom note criteria of JB being killed for any number of reasons, and no reason for the 'kidnapper' to have been thought of as a sexual deviant.

As rational thinkers, it would be a given, of course, that everything that happened to JB that night would have been discovered forensically once the body was located in the house. However, if the body had been successfully removed from the house, while it makes most sense to NEVER have it found again, at least while it was intact, there would have been a chance it would be located. If it was, would it be a stretch to think that the killer wanted JB to look as if she had been strangled - in a 'beheading' sort of way - and with proper layers of clothing intact, no sexual attack?

In order for us to consider this, we must remember what several LE people commented: This was not done by professionals, there were amateur mistakes made. It was a night of horror in that household, and in that type of insanity, IMO, there might have been some very bad choices and mistakes made in assuming that the presentation of JB's body would fool someone if it was found before there was time for decomposition to take it's toll.

Excellent post. I wanted to comment on the bolded part. I agree with what you said, I just want to add that if the goal was to conceal the sexual assault, the ljs did that all by themselves. If, for some reason, the ljs had been pulled down, then the size 12s were basically a neon sign saying - "Hey, look at this, something is terribly terribly wrong!".

 

[Chrishope]

Chelly,

I'll start to go through the troubles with BDI theory, limiting each post to a few points. I've been through all this with other posters, over and over, in the past. Therefore I'm not going to spend time defending my views. Consider any critiques and make your own determination.

There is less forensic evidence linking BR to the crime than there is to support an IDI theory. In this post I'd like to look at BR's touch-dna (tdna) on the nightgown found in the WC, and on the lack of fibers evidence.

TDNA, belonging to BR, is found on JB's nightgown. PR's tdna is found on the nightgown too. It's perfectly reasonable to say that BR's tdna is on the nightie because he was doing one or more of the following - Sexually molesting, bashing, strangling, and redressing.

While there is no logical problem with saying this, Kolar points out (I believe on p. 413 -I'm paraphrasing from a post by MWM which I'm too lazy to look up right now) that there is nothing surprising about finding BR's tdna on the nightie as he lives in the house, and has ample opportunity to touch the nightie. IOWs Kolar dismisses the significance of the tdna, and in my view, rightly so.

What I find interesting wrt tdna is that BDI is a subset of RDI, and RDI generally dismiss the significance of the 6 mystery tdna profiles found on JB. It seems to me some consistency is called for. If 6 unidentified tdna profiles don't prove intruder involvement, then surely 1 BR profile doesn't make for a very convincing "link" to the crime. OTOH, if BR's tdna "links" him, then how can the other 6 tdna profiles be dismissed so casually, especially since these 6 mystery people (5 men and a woman) do not live in the same house.

As for fiber evidence, there is of course none. Not linking BR anyway. PR's fibers are in the basement, JR's are in the basement, yet BRs aren't. There are also unsourced brown fibers, usually conveniently ignored by those who set great store by fiber evidence.

If you don't mind a slight digression, my view of the fiber evidence is that it is inconclusive. We can't know if the transfer of fibers from PR/JR clothing to the crime scene in the basement are from primary/secondary/tertiary, or combination of transfer methods. So while it's reasonable to say, for example, that Patsy was applying the garrote because her fibers are on the garrote, it is just as reasonable to say the killer transferred them from JB (who picked them up earlier from innocent contact with PR) to the garrote.

So, while there are 6 mystery tdna profiles and unsourced brown fibers to lay a foundation for IDI, this evidence is dismissed by RDIs, rightly I think. In contrast, there is one sample of BR's tdna on a nightie that he had ample opportunity to touch, possibly days before the murder which is regarded as significant, and no fiber evidence at all linking BR to the crime.

 

[midwest mama]

Excellent post. I wanted to comment on the bolded part. I agree with what you said, I just want to add that if the goal was to conceal the sexual assault, the ljs did that all by themselves. If, for some reason, the ljs had been pulled down, then the size 12s were basically a neon sign saying - "Hey, look at this, something is terribly terribly wrong!".

But we were supposed to believe, as the ransom note said, this was an abduction of JB by kidnappers, not think it was a sexual assault. If JB was put to bed with lj's over underwear (Patsy said she did not change her undies), then she should have been found that way: Undies still on, Wednesday waistbands, killer not realizing size 12's (even if they were squished up under lj's) would be a problem.

I must believe JB was wearing another pair of Wednesdays earlier that day, and the killer wanted to replicate that without giving much thought that the size would be a problem.

 

[madeleine]

number of reasons, and no reason for the 'kidnapper' to have been thought of as a sexual deviant.

yep,and once it got out they switched to "it was a pedo INTRUDER"
that's when the intruder scenario became really important and they began promoting it (with the help of others like LS)
why would they believe it was a pedo if the RN said it was a kidnapping?they even say they never read the autopsy report and they say on LKL that there's no evidence she was sexually abused LOL...complicated huh..then how come you think it was a sadistic pedo

 

[madeleine]

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.


http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

is this about fibers from the cloth she was wiped off with or fibers from JR's shirt?

 

[Chrishope]

But we were supposed to believe, as the ransom note said, this was an abduction of JB by kidnappers, not think it was a sexual assault. If JB was put to bed with lj's over underwear (Patsy said she did not change her undies), then she should have been found that way: Undies still on, Wednesday waistbands, killer not realizing size 12's (even if they were squished up under lj's) would be a problem.

I must believe JB was wearing another pair of Wednesdays earlier that day, and the killer wanted to replicate that without giving much thought that the size would be a problem.

Right, I agree. The staging does not suggest a sex killing, and it isn't supposed to do so. She should be found, in case she is found, wearing what she supposedly wore to bed.

If both the adult Rs are involved in the coverup, they are in complete control not only of what they put on her after the wiping of the body, but also in complete control of what they tell police JB wore to bed. Why do they want to suggest she was put to bed in Wed panties, when there is no real reason to do so? And why would they suggest she'd been wearing size 12s to bed?

One problem might be BR. If he knows what she wore to bed, then he could slip up and tell, therefore JR/PR must redress her as she actually was a bedtime? Alternatively, only one parent did the crime, and the other knows what JB wore to bed, again requiring redressing in what she actually did wear to bed.

So, I think you are right, she probably wore Wed panties and ljs to bed. And the panties she wore were probably the right size. But how would anyone know she wore Wed panties? I have trouble seeing how this could be of any importance. I lean towards the idea that the importance was imagined by someone not very familiar with JBs dressing habits. IMO it is a further indication that PR is not involved - at least not with the redressing.

 

[madeleine]

Right, I agree. The staging does not suggest a sex killing, and it isn't supposed to do so. She should be found, in case she is found, wearing what she supposedly wore to bed.

If both the adult Rs are involved in the coverup, they are in complete control not only of what they put on her after the wiping of the body, but also in complete control of what they tell police JB wore to bed. Why do they want to suggest she was put to bed in Wed panties, when there is no real reason to do so? And why would they suggest she'd been wearing size 12s to bed?

One problem might be BR. If he knows what she wore to bed, then he could slip up and tell, therefore JR/PR must redress her as she actually was a bedtime? Alternatively, only one parent did the crime, and the other knows what JB wore to bed, again requiring redressing in what she actually did wear to bed.

So, I think you are right, she probably wore Wed panties and ljs to bed. And the panties she wore were probably the right size. But how would anyone know she wore Wed panties? I have trouble seeing how this could be of any importance. I lean towards the idea that the importance was imagined by someone not very familiar with JBs dressing habits. IMO it is a further indication that PR is not involved - at least not with the redressing.

@bold

JR admitted to LE at first that he read to JB then he retracted it,I wonder why
if he read to her than we can assume he was the one tucking her in
then he has a tiny problem with the pink nightgown found in the basement,why is that,and we have JB's blood on it

 

[madeleine]

JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't be, no,
6 it would be unusual for her to have those on.
7 Leggings, kind of just a regular nightgown. She
8 didn't always wear a nightgown to bed. If she
9 was awake when she went to bed, she got into a
10 nightgown and brushed her teeth, got into bed.
11 But if she was asleep, we usually just tried to
12 make her comfortable, make sure she was warm.
13 Didn't go into the trouble of getting her into a
14 nightgown, necessarily. Sometimes she had a tee
15 shirt on.


JOHN RAMSEY: I laid her on the
21 bed. I didn't -- I don't remember the cover,
22 if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on
23 the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up
24 to put her nightgown on and get her ready for
25 bed.


maybe Patsy was busy with something else





LOU SMIT: We have heard
16 that a Barbie nightgown was one of her
17 favorite nightgowns. What can you tell us
18 about that?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think she had a
20 Barbie nightgown, yeah, as I recall. Pink,
21 maybe.
22 LOU SMIT: The night you put
23 her in bed, do you remember anything about
24 a Barbie nightgown?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: When I put
0686
1 her to bed she had on, when I laid her
2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
4 shirt on when I found her.


that's a big fat lie IMO
she was wearing the pink nightgown when something happened imo and I think they are both lying re how she was put to bed that night and by whom

 

[Chrishope]

Chelly,

I'm having browser issues. Hope to get them resolved later today.

 

[Chelly]

Chelly,

I'm having browser issues. Hope to get them resolved later today.

Thank you, but I hate to put you to to the trouble of backtracking. I am digesting the last several posts on this thread, catching up, making notes and referring to Kolar's tome.

Some theories at WS seem wild beyond imagination and I still abide by Occam's Razor, factual evidence and logic thrown in for good measure.

 

[Chrishope]

The enhanced 911 tape.
I have a few minor quibbles with the enhanced tape (which I’ll go into at the end of the post) but generally speaking I accept it’s existence, and what BR/JR are supposed to have said after PR thought the phone was hung up. This is one of BDI’s better pieces of evidence and I don’t mind saying it has some substance. Let’s lay out the case, as it supports BDI. The Ramsey version of events, as told to the police, was that BR was not up when the 911 call was made; he was asleep in bed until he was rousted by his parents sometime after the police and others had begun arriving.

The fact that BR and JR are heard on the tape shows us the Rs are lying about BR being up. He apparently went back to bed.

So how does this support BDI? Well, because if the Rs are going to lie to the police, about BR being up, then they’ll need BR to keep up his end of the charade. He can’t slip up and say that he was up when the call was made w/o revealing that his parents were lying. There would be no reason to enlist BR in this scheme if he were not involved somehow. IOWs, he must be involved in more than just the coverup, otherwise why include him in the cover up?

Of course the enhanced tape does exactly what BR was not supposed to do – it shows us that BR was up at the time the 911 call was placed. So yes, the Rs were lying, and yes, it may be because BR did it, and therefore has to be up receiving instructions on what to do and what not to do.

What exactly was said? This, and please pay attention to the order, as it’s one of the things I have a quibble with, later.

PR: “Help me Jesus” “Help me Jesus”
BR: “Please, what do I do?”
JR: “We’re not speaking to you”
PR: “Help me Jesus” “Help me Jesus”
BR: “What did you find?” with the emphasis on the word “did”.

There is certainly reason for suspicion. But here are what I think are two problems.




First, why does it matter if BR is up, as far as the story the Ramseys would like the police to believe? The part of the story we are concerned with is where PR finds the RN, yells for JR, she goes off to check on JB, JR comes running, at some point he checks on BR. There is yelling, running, and it’s obvious something is wrong. Why wouldn’t BR wake up during this? Whether or not the story is true, what is there about this aspect of the story that makes it logically necessary that BR should be in bed? Nothing, as far as I can see. Why did the Rs lie about it then? I don’t know. It seems they lied, but I don’t see the necessity of the lie. It would be natural and understandable for BR to have woken up with his mom and dad running around yelling. There would be nothing suspicious at all about him waking up between 05:45 and 05:52.

The second problem is what he says. He says;

[FONT=&quot]- [/FONT]“Please, what do I do?” My take is that he’s asking what he’s supposed to do. This could be a request for instructions with regard to the coverup. Or it could just be a question as to how he can help. I really could go either way on this. To try to be fair, let’s go with the damaging interpretation – what are my instructions. What is my role in this coverup?

[FONT=&quot]- [/FONT]“What did you find?” If BR whacked JB on the head, then he very well knows the body has already been found, so he’s not asking about that? If his parents are passing a RN back and forth reading from it, might he be asking about that? What is it? What’s that there in your hand? What did you find? I can’t see that he’s asking about finding anything pertaining to evidence in the WC because he’d either already know of it, or the Rs would have handled that part of staging and would not be discussing it in front of him. IMO his question sounds rooted in ignorance, which is the main reason we ask questions. If he’s involved, he already knows what’s been found and what’s worth finding.

So, IMO, the fact that BR is on the tape would not be a problem as far as the scenario the Rs are trying to sell. The only problem with BR being up is that the Rs told the police he was asleep. But why did they do that when it doesn’t damage their scenario? I confess I don’t know what else to make of this; An apparent lie that doesn’t seem at all necessary. That BR seems to have been in on the lie certainly seems to suggest he’s in on the coverup. So I guess I have to give this point to the BDIs, but with the question of why they didn’t just say the commotion woke him up?

His questions, imo, pose a bigger problem. Please, what do I do, as noted above can be interpreted in at least two ways. One way suggests guilt, the other innocence. The second question seems, at least to me, oddly out of place. He very well knows, if he’s involved, what there is to find and where to find it.

Now, to quibble with the enhanced tape.





The FBI and Secret Service could not find additional dialogue on the tape. One might suspect they’d have fairly sophisticated audio equipment, but not sophisticated enough, apparently, to bring out JR/BR talking in the background. Well, OK, someone in the country has the most sophisticated audio equipment, and that “someone” is Aerospace Corp. OK, I’ll buy that, corporations sometimes have better equipment than the government. But note, that it takes the best equipment available.

Tricia, who owns this website, commissioned a study by PAL (Professional Audio Laboratories) They could not bring out the dialogue of BR/JR. The problem, reportedly, is what one might call copy error. It’s akin to making a photocopy, of a photocopy (as opposed to making multiple copies from the same original) PAL was working with a copy.

There is a version widely available, http://www.acandyrose.com/patsy911-FFJ.mp3 on which we can hear PR saying “Help me Jesus” 4 times, but not the words of BR/JR.

Look back at the order of conversation. It goes PR/BR/JR/PR/BR. On tapes available on the internet, PR can be heard to say “Help me Jesus”. She says that both before and after BR/JR have their exchange. BR then has the last word with his question. The point being, PR’s words remain w/o copy error, while BR/JR’s words are lost. I’m not sure what version of the tape this is.

I think there is some reasonable doubt that the enhanced tape says what is claimed. But I merely have some reservations about it. On the whole, I’ll accept it.

A few more posts on the problems with BDI to follow.

 

[Chrishope]

JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't be, no,
6 it would be unusual for her to have those on.
7 Leggings, kind of just a regular nightgown. She
8 didn't always wear a nightgown to bed. If she
9 was awake when she went to bed, she got into a
10 nightgown and brushed her teeth, got into bed.
11 But if she was asleep, we usually just tried to
12 make her comfortable, make sure she was warm.
13 Didn't go into the trouble of getting her into a
14 nightgown, necessarily. Sometimes she had a tee
15 shirt on.


JOHN RAMSEY: I laid her on the
21 bed. I didn't -- I don't remember the cover,
22 if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on
23 the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up
24 to put her nightgown on and get her ready for
25 bed.


maybe Patsy was busy with something else





LOU SMIT: We have heard
16 that a Barbie nightgown was one of her
17 favorite nightgowns. What can you tell us
18 about that?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think she had a
20 Barbie nightgown, yeah, as I recall. Pink,
21 maybe.
22 LOU SMIT: The night you put
23 her in bed, do you remember anything about
24 a Barbie nightgown?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: When I put
0686
1 her to bed she had on, when I laid her
2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
4 shirt on when I found her.


that's a big fat lie IMO
she was wearing the pink nightgown when something happened imo and I think they are both lying re how she was put to bed that night and by whom

It might very well be a lie. I can accept that. Makes all the sense in the world. I don't have this redressing issue figured out by an means.

May I suggest some further complications? We seem to have extra clothing. Either the ljs are not needed on the body, or the nightie is not needed in the WC. Yet we have both. I can go along with the idea that she was in the nightie at bed time. Makes perfect sense. Then, after molestation and redressing, in the nightie, the blood spots are discovered. This necessitates a change of clothes. (Or does it, given that she's wrapped in a blanky) But why ljs? Why not another nightie? Surely she had several. I've never dressed a young girl, living or dead, but I'd guess a nightie would be much easier to put on a dead body than ljs. So if PR/JR are working together, why ljs? They have complete freedom to dress her as they wish then claim that's what she wore to bed. And why the 12s? If it was JR working alone, the same questions. I don't really see a necessity, or even a benefit, to using the ljs unless someone saw her put to be wearing ljs. IOWs the outward appearance, as far as how she's dressed, can't be altered from what someone in the household knows to be the truth? Just a thought. The bloodstained nightie was doubtlessly involved, but at what stage? What order? I'm getting a headache.

 

[UKGuy]

The enhanced 911 tape.
I have a few minor quibbles with the enhanced tape (which I’ll go into at the end of the post) but generally speaking I accept it’s existence, and what BR/JR are supposed to have said after PR thought the phone was hung up. This is one of BDI’s better pieces of evidence and I don’t mind saying it has some substance. Let’s lay out the case, as it supports BDI. The Ramsey version of events, as told to the police, was that BR was not up when the 911 call was made; he was asleep in bed until he was rousted by his parents sometime after the police and others had begun arriving.

The fact that BR and JR are heard on the tape shows us the Rs are lying about BR being up. He apparently went back to bed.

So how does this support BDI? Well, because if the Rs are going to lie to the police, about BR being up, then they’ll need BR to keep up his end of the charade. He can’t slip up and say that he was up when the call was made w/o revealing that his parents were lying. There would be no reason to enlist BR in this scheme if he were not involved somehow. IOWs, he must be involved in more than just the coverup, otherwise why include him in the cover up?

Of course the enhanced tape does exactly what BR was not supposed to do – it shows us that BR was up at the time the 911 call was placed. So yes, the Rs were lying, and yes, it may be because BR did it, and therefore has to be up receiving instructions on what to do and what not to do.

What exactly was said? This, and please pay attention to the order, as it’s one of the things I have a quibble with, later.

PR: “Help me Jesus” “Help me Jesus”
BR: “Please, what do I do?”
JR: “We’re not speaking to you”
PR: “Help me Jesus” “Help me Jesus”
BR: “What did you find?” with the emphasis on the word “did”.

There is certainly reason for suspicion. But here are what I think are two problems.




First, why does it matter if BR is up, as far as the story the Ramseys would like the police to believe? The part of the story we are concerned with is where PR finds the RN, yells for JR, she goes off to check on JB, JR comes running, at some point he checks on BR. There is yelling, running, and it’s obvious something is wrong. Why wouldn’t BR wake up during this? Whether or not the story is true, what is there about this aspect of the story that makes it logically necessary that BR should be in bed? Nothing, as far as I can see. Why did the Rs lie about it then? I don’t know. It seems they lied, but I don’t see the necessity of the lie. It would be natural and understandable for BR to have woken up with his mom and dad running around yelling. There would be nothing suspicious at all about him waking up between 05:45 and 05:52.

The second problem is what he says. He says;

[FONT=&quot]- [/FONT]“Please, what do I do?” My take is that he’s asking what he’s supposed to do. This could be a request for instructions with regard to the coverup. Or it could just be a question as to how he can help. I really could go either way on this. To try to be fair, let’s go with the damaging interpretation – what are my instructions. What is my role in this coverup?

[FONT=&quot]- [/FONT]“What did you find?” If BR whacked JB on the head, then he very well knows the body has already been found, so he’s not asking about that? If his parents are passing a RN back and forth reading from it, might he be asking about that? What is it? What’s that there in your hand? What did you find? I can’t see that he’s asking about finding anything pertaining to evidence in the WC because he’d either already know of it, or the Rs would have handled that part of staging and would not be discussing it in front of him. IMO his question sounds rooted in ignorance, which is the main reason we ask questions. If he’s involved, he already knows what’s been found and what’s worth finding.

So, IMO, the fact that BR is on the tape would not be a problem as far as the scenario the Rs are trying to sell. The only problem with BR being up is that the Rs told the police he was asleep. But why did they do that when it doesn’t damage their scenario? I confess I don’t know what else to make of this; An apparent lie that doesn’t seem at all necessary. That BR seems to have been in on the lie certainly seems to suggest he’s in on the coverup. So I guess I have to give this point to the BDIs, but with the question of why they didn’t just say the commotion woke him up?

His questions, imo, pose a bigger problem. Please, what do I do, as noted above can be interpreted in at least two ways. One way suggests guilt, the other innocence. The second question seems, at least to me, oddly out of place. He very well knows, if he’s involved, what there is to find and where to find it.

Now, to quibble with the enhanced tape.





The FBI and Secret Service could not find additional dialogue on the tape. One might suspect they’d have fairly sophisticated audio equipment, but not sophisticated enough, apparently, to bring out JR/BR talking in the background. Well, OK, someone in the country has the most sophisticated audio equipment, and that “someone” is Aerospace Corp. OK, I’ll buy that, corporations sometimes have better equipment than the government. But note, that it takes the best equipment available.

Tricia, who owns this website, commissioned a study by PAL (Professional Audio Laboratories) They could not bring out the dialogue of BR/JR. The problem, reportedly, is what one might call copy error. It’s akin to making a photocopy, of a photocopy (as opposed to making multiple copies from the same original) PAL was working with a copy.

There is a version widely available, http://www.acandyrose.com/patsy911-FFJ.mp3 on which we can hear PR saying “Help me Jesus” 4 times, but not the words of BR/JR.

Look back at the order of conversation. It goes PR/BR/JR/PR/BR. On tapes available on the internet, PR can be heard to say “Help me Jesus”. She says that both before and after BR/JR have their exchange. BR then has the last word with his question. The point being, PR’s words remain w/o copy error, while BR/JR’s words are lost. I’m not sure what version of the tape this is.

I think there is some reasonable doubt that the enhanced tape says what is claimed. But I merely have some reservations about it. On the whole, I’ll accept it.

A few more posts on the problems with BDI to follow.

Chrishope,
BDI does not rely on anything said in the 911 call. Simply that the R's version of events, specifically as it applies to BR, is contradictory and inconsistent.

The R's admitted so, and offered up a rehashed version of events as pertains to BR.

Conclusion: BR colluded in staging a fake kidnapping of JonBenet.

If you don't mind a slight digression, my view of the fiber evidence is that it is inconclusive. We can't know if the transfer of fibers from PR/JR clothing to the crime scene in the basement are from primary/secondary/tertiary, or combination of transfer methods. So while it's reasonable to say, for example, that Patsy was applying the garrote because her fibers are on the garrote, it is just as reasonable to say the killer transferred them from JB (who picked them up earlier from innocent contact with PR) to the garrote.

So, while there are 6 mystery tdna profiles and unsourced brown fibers to lay a foundation for IDI, this evidence is dismissed by RDIs, rightly I think. In contrast, there is one sample of BR's tdna on a nightie that he had ample opportunity to touch, possibly days before the murder which is regarded as significant, and no fiber evidence at all linking BR to the crime.

The point about the fibers is not that they are inconclusive but that they link the R's to the crime-scene. The six unknown touch dna samples, not only suggest, as Kolar does, that this is the Foreign Faction, but where is the rest of these suspects forensic evidence?

Similarly BR is linked to the crime-scene by his touch dna being on JonBenet's blood-stained nightgown. Is it relevant, maybe , maybe not, as for his fibers they should also be on JonBenet.

The correct conclusion to draw is that all three Ramsey's are linked to the fake wine-cellar crime-scene.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Jekyll and Hyde.

Take this particular criticism of BDI slowly, and don’t read into it.

BDI –typically - holds that BR did at least the blow to the head, then the parents discovered the problem. Perhaps shortly after the mishap, perhaps after a couple hours. JR and PR then decide that the best thing to do is stage a phony kidnapping scenario. (Or is it supposed to be a kidnapping/sex murder/revenge/jealousy scenario?) To this end, they wrap cord around JB’s neck and squeeze the remaining breath out of her, jab her vagina with a paintbrush to cause damage that will hopefully obscure the prior molestation, redress her, and put her in the WC. I suggest that if both adult Rs are normal loving parents, then this amounts to a Jekyll and Hyde transformation in a fairly short amount of time. To me, that seems quite unlikely. I would think normal innocent parents would respond by calling an ambulance.
BDI gets around this by suggesting one or both parents were not “normal”. That one or both were involved in long term molestation, with participation or acquiescence of the other. We can look at the various theories of parental involvement in something dark and deep, but for now I just want to point out that w/o attributing some ulterior motive to one or both parents, we have a Jekyll and Hyde transformation that is implausible on the face of it.

 

[UKGuy]

It might very well be a lie. I can accept that. Makes all the sense in the world. I don't have this redressing issue figured out by an means.

May I suggest some further complications? We seem to have extra clothing. Either the ljs are not needed on the body, or the nightie is not needed in the WC. Yet we have both. I can go along with the idea that she was in the nightie at bed time. Makes perfect sense. Then, after molestation and redressing, in the nightie, the blood spots are discovered. This necessitates a change of clothes. (Or does it, given that she's wrapped in a blanky) But why ljs? Why not another nightie? Surely she had several. I've never dressed a young girl, living or dead, but I'd guess a nightie would be much easier to put on a dead body than ljs. So if PR/JR are working together, why ljs? They have complete freedom to dress her as they wish then claim that's what she wore to bed. And why the 12s? If it was JR working alone, the same questions. I don't really see a necessity, or even a benefit, to using the ljs unless someone saw her put to be wearing ljs. IOWs the outward appearance, as far as how she's dressed, can't be altered from what someone in the household knows to be the truth? Just a thought. The bloodstained nightie was doubtlessly involved, but at what stage? What order? I'm getting a headache.

Chrishope,
Its elementary my dear Chrishope the Nightgown must precede the longjohns.

The R's version of events, as we know from the the R's themselves, is suspect.

So did PR place the longjohns on JonBenet as stated or did someone else?

All the evidence including PR's, points to the longjohns being placed onto JonBenet down in the basement?

.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
BDI does not rely on anything said in the 911 call. Simply that the R's version of events, specifically as it applies to BR, is contradictory and inconsistent.

The R's admitted so, and offered up a rehashed version of events as pertains to BR.

Conclusion: BR colluded in staging a fake kidnapping of JonBenet.



The point about the fibers is not that they are inconclusive but that they link the R's to the crime-scene. The six unknown touch dna samples, not only suggest, as Kolar does, that this is the Foreign Faction, but where is the rest of these suspects forensic evidence?

Similarly BR is linked to the crime-scene by his touch dna being on JonBenet's blood-stained nightgown. Is it relevant, maybe , maybe not, as for his fibers they should also be on JonBenet.

The correct conclusion to draw is that all three Ramsey's are linked to the fake wine-cellar crime-scene.


.

That would be a faulty conclusion. Some fibers could be there from secondary transfer, meaning that person needn't have been involved in the crime, but you well know that, as we've been over this many times.

In a broader sense, all Rs are "linked" as the entire house and grounds are a crime scene and they all live there - which is to say absolutely nothing about who did it.

 

[UKGuy]

Jekyll and Hyde.

Take this particular criticism of BDI slowly, and don’t read into it.

BDI –typically - holds that BR did at least the blow to the head, then the parents discovered the problem. Perhaps shortly after the mishap, perhaps after a couple hours. JR and PR then decide that the best thing to do is stage a phony kidnapping scenario. (Or is it supposed to be a kidnapping/sex murder/revenge/jealousy scenario?) To this end, they wrap cord around JB’s neck and squeeze the remaining breath out of her, jab her vagina with a paintbrush to cause damage that will hopefully obscure the prior molestation, redress her, and put her in the WC. I suggest that if both adult Rs are normal loving parents, then this amounts to a Jekyll and Hyde transformation in a fairly short amount of time. To me, that seems quite unlikely. I would think normal innocent parents would respond by calling an ambulance.
BDI gets around this by suggesting one or both parents were not “normal”. That one or both were involved in long term molestation, with participation or acquiescence of the other. We can look at the various theories of parental involvement in something dark and deep, but for now I just want to point out that w/o attributing some ulterior motive to one or both parents, we have a Jekyll and Hyde transformation that is implausible on the face of it.

Chrishope,
Well, have you considered this was the purpose of the wine-cellar staging?

BDI –typically - holds that BR did at least the blow to the head,

I guess my BDI is atypical then.

For your delectation: one R sexually assaulted JonBenet, one R whacked JonBenet on the head, one R asphyxiated JonBenet.

All those R's need not the same person, and the events need not be coincident.

Your characterisation of these events as a Jekyll and Hyde transformation, although colorful and imaginative, is I think correct!


.

 

[UKGuy]

That would be a faulty conclusion. Some fibers could be there from secondary transfer, meaning that person needn't have been involved in the crime, but you well know that, as we've been over this many times.

In a broader sense, all Rs are "linked" as the entire house and grounds are a crime scene and they all live there - which is to say absolutely nothing about who did it.

Chrishope,
You must desist generalising so to obscure stuff. We are not concerned so much with all of the house just the wine-cellar in the context of a fake crime-scene.

I repeat all three R's are linked to the crime-scene.

The source of the fibers is a secondary consideration. As when Patsy was asked when she last visited the wine-cellar.

.

 

[questfortrue]

Chrishope,
Well, have you considered this was the purpose of the wine-cellar staging?


I guess my BDI is atypical then.

For your delectation: one R sexually assaulted JonBenet, one R whacked JonBenet on the head, one R asphyxiated JonBenet.

All those R's need not the same person, and the events need not be coincident.

Your characterisation of these events as a Jekyll and Hyde transformation, although colorful and imaginative, is I think correct!


.

UKGuy, would you explain this further as to your BDI theory. I’m not sure I understand, do you believe there could have been 3 separate events perpetrated by 3 separate R’s - ie, a sexual assault, a head bash and an asphysiation? So, if it is a BDI, are you assuming the sexual assault came first and thereby he was responsible for the initiation of all the rest of what happened? Certainly, a violent encounter between JB and BR fits the Kolar theory. But I’ve never considered 2 people responsible for the sexual assault and the head strike before. Certainly adds to some other scenarios.

I also grasp Chrishope’s version of the “Jekyll and Hyde” transformation , though. I can’t see PR and JR suddenly having, as loving parents, an inspiration (like in the old movies with Mickey Rooney: “Hey kids let’s put on a show”) hey, mom, dad, let’s do a cover-up. After cleaning her up, the cover-up itself was disturbed and ugly. One can possibly consider that at least one of the adult R’s was in a demented state from having bashed JB’s head and able to continue on with a cover-up involving a strangulation and paint brush jab. All JMHO.

There is one of two reasons PR and JR lie about BR being asleep, they really don’t want him questioned because they aren’t sure if he heard something. Or, if one is of the BDI mindset, they weren’t sure he wouldn’t spill something.