I still have an open mind as to how this happened and who did it

[Mama2JML]

It is my understanding that the head bash came first and the strangulation came second. If that is the case, then I do not have an answer to your question. It has been suggested by some that the strangulation was staging to cover up for the head bash, but I find that to be inconceivable. I cannot see any parent, no matter how conniving, strangling their daughter to death as staging. To me, the answer lies elsewhere. The strangulation may have come first and the head bash second. If the head bash was staging for an accidental strangulation I could see that. But, if the head bash came first and the strangulation second, then it casts doubt on the entire theory that the head bash was accidental, as myself and many other RDI have come to believe. It would instead indicate that both the head bash and the strangulation were purposeful, with the intent and purpose to kill JBR.
To me that would add a whole new dimension to the case but would still fall under RDI.

BBM

These are two of my biggest "hang-ups" when I try to understand many RDI theories. Would you share your insight, research, etc. that has led you to believe, or at least understand the logic behind the beliefs, that the head injury was the result of an accident & that it occurred before the strangulation?...

 

[Anyhoo]

BBM

These are two of my biggest "hang-ups" when I try to understand many RDI theories. Would you share your insight, research, etc. that has led you to believe, or at least understand the logic behind the beliefs, that the head injury was the result of an accident & that it occurred before the strangulation?...

My impression that the head bash came first and the strangulation second is only from what I have seen summarized by other people who I assumed had studied it much more than me. When you see something stated enough times, you tend to believe it, but I do not know it for a fact. Outside of that, what I said in my last post in this thread is my own take on the subject. I just read ST's theory about it, where he surmises that PR bashed her daughter in the head out of rage over bed-wetting and thought she was dead. Then in the middle of staging, she discovered she wasn't dead and decided to finish off the job by strangulation. I can partially see that, but that would require a quite psychotic, deranged, and criminally minded PR. That is not the way I see PR.
I see PR as a very emotional woman who could very well do something she didn't mean to do in a fit of rage or emotion, or whatever, but it is the aftermath of it that does not fit PR at all. In the aftermath and staging, we see the work of a completely different personality than who I believe PR is.
So, while I am still RDI, here are my two takes on it, as I said in my earlier post:

If the head bash came first and strangulation second, I don't see the murder as being accidental. The head bash, yes. It is perfectly understandable to think the head bash was accidental, but if so, the strangulation afterwards was certainly no accident. No one could ever say that was accidental. The strangulation in that case would be purposeful and would be first degree murder.

If the strangulation came first, causing death, I could see that as being an accident. For example, if BR was playing a game with his sister and accidently strangled her to death. Then the head bash later (after she was dead) could be added staging.

I like to think that the death was accidental, but the strangulation makes me want to think that it was intentional.

 

[KoldKase]

Why oh why can't I quit this case? :notgood:

There are some others who are much better than I at explaining the science behind the physical details of the attack on Jonbenet, so I hope they'll chime in--DeeDee? Cynic? OTG? Others? The discussion here and at FFJ is long and detailed, so links to any are welcomed--it's been done ad nauseam, I know.

In the meantime, I'll do what I can to explain why it appears the head blow came first, the strangulation last.

The injury to the skull produced bleeding between the membranes separating the skull and brain...or something. Subdural hematomas, clotting on the brain, also swelling of the brain, as well as a contrecoup injury to the brain indicating the brain ricocheted off the skull from the force of the blow--am I misremembering this? It's in the autopsy and there are many graphics around to describe this damage, not to mention various medical experts who have explained it, if some have differing points of view--and who doesn't?

Not being a science or medical person of extensive experience, I get a loose grasp of this evidence bringing my understanding to this level: the swelling, bleeding, and clotting from the head blow, even though the skull damage was certainly life-ending, did take some time. So she couldn't have been strangled and then hit.

You might want to check out the second link in this post at FFJ for an excellent youtube demonstration, which is animation of how these injuries play out. (Sorry, but the first link doesn't work anymore.) You can note the time stamps and see that time elapses as they slowly bleed and swell: [ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=192590&postcount=56"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Weapon used on JonBenet's skull: golf club or flashlight?[/ame]


Another piece of evidence which is important, if it's accurate--it came from Lou Smit originally, but I think it has been confirmed by Kolar and other sources since: JonBenet's urine was located beside the cellar door near the paint tray. Remember she had urine on her longjohn bottoms in the front, as well, which probably became wet after she had been cleaned up and redressed, then laid on her stomach and strangled, releasing her bladder at the moment of her death. Along with the carpet fiber found stuck to the chin of the corpse, and which matched the basement carpet, was a tiny chip of green paint that matched a tube found in the paint tray, as well. The shards of splintered paintbrush from the breakage of the handle lying at the same location on the carpet beside the paint tray indicate that is where the paintbrush was broken. Logically that would indicate it was used to penetrate the vagina there--whatever purpose you attribute that awful action to serve--and then broken to tie onto the ligature to pull it tight.

With the child's blood found on the pillowcase on her bed, I'm simply following the evidence:

1. The child could have been bludgeoned in her bedroom or nearby, then laid onto the pillow, where her blood-tinged mucous dripped onto it. That same blood-tinged mucous was found on her upper right shirt-sleeve, as well. So she was bleeding from the head wound on those two items before she had duct tape placed on her mouth.

2. Since the paintbrush was a part of the murderous ligature, and since the evidence indicates that she was placed by the paint tray where it was located, on her face and stomach, with the evacuation of her bladder at that location it appears that is where she was strangled and died.

3. She did die from strangulation before the head injuries killed her--do we all agree on that?

4. So she was bleeding from the head injury upstairs, then over a period of time before she was strangled in the basement--or that's how I see the evidence.

From everything I've ever read or heard anyone who works with head injuries say, they are all different and individual. But JonBenet could not have survived hers, and most medical persons believe she would have become unconscious immediately after the blow.

So that brings me to my last piece of evidence which indicates to me that the head blow came first: NO DEFENSIVE WOUNDS on her hands, fingers, forearms, upper arms, legs, knees, shins, toes, feet, ankles, face, lips, mouth--nothing.

Even Nedra said JonBenet would have fought her attacker. Beyond personality and her small stature and young age, I believe any human being would react with great energy and violence to being strangled. Any parent who has tried to physically restrain a child who doesn't want to be restrained--like holding them when they want down, etc., knows they have plenty of strength when determined to thwart you. So where are the bruises and abrasions which should have been present in a fight for her life? There are none. Therefore she was already unconscious, IMO.

To address one last argument arising over the years and theories: I don't believe Smit's speculation that there were fingernail marks on the child's neck around the ligature where she clawed at it: she had no significant or fresh tissue or blood under her fingernails. There was no bloody scratching on her neck, only petechial hemorrhaging around the ligature. She certainly had no fresh blood or tissue from any assailant we've ever heard about, only 1 to 4 markers from several degraded unidentified DNA profiles not matching even each other.

For me this is sufficient evidence that she was first bludgeoned, then strangled after an unknown period of time.

I also believe the Ramseys did speak on a cell phone to legal and possibly medical assistance that night/morning before calling 911, but I can't prove it as the evidence is basically negative, or an absence of evidence--thanks to Hunter.

As my signature says--just my opinion.

 

[KoldKase]

If I may say one more thing, before I flounce off in my determination to never post on this case ever again...until...you know...the next time :hills:

We can and have speculated to death why anyone would do this or that.

But we can never, ever know.

Not unless they tell us.

All we have is evidence and what that tells us.

Interpretation of that is as arguable as why this child was so brutalized.

I honestly can't think of two people who agree on every element of this case, professional or amateur.

Just saying....

 

[gramcracker]

Why oh why can't I quit this case? :notgood:

I don't know why you can't quit. and I don't care why (< - - JK). but I'm very glad that you continue to post because you explain things so well. thank you!

 

[Anti-K]

New Year Greetings, Anti-K.




If true, I find this fact, that you refer to as a coincidence, to be highly significant.

The reference to 118 and S.B.T.C. could be right here in JD's book. Why didn't he figure that out when he was hired by the Ramsey's?

The writer enjoyed creating the fictitious RN.

This crime scene could have been weeks in the planning in order to create as many false clues as possible via the suitcase, the bloomers, the ransom amount, et al.

I tend to think the SBTC to be coincidental. I can’t even remember how I first noticed it; but, the 118? That really piqued my interest. I could go on about this MIndhunter “connection” at length; there is more...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, but could have they known all of that when they were writing the note? They weren't the experienced criminals nor the experienced cops. They were just a middle aged couple, getting their limited knowledge from the tv and books, and they were in an emotional turmoil and most probably also panic. I don't think they were thinking very clearly that night. And if you are dumb enough to not destroy your pen and your paper you used to write a note from the alleged intruder, well, you are certainly dumb enough to make many other blunders.

Anyway I think they assumed that the police would not stay in their house for long, chasing imaginary kidnappers, and allowing them to smuggle JonBenet's body out.

I found an interesting tidbit on the ACandyRose page:

NE Book Page 128:

Steve Thomas: "So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors, and they were locked?"

John Ramsey: "I believe I checked all the first-floor doors, yeah. I did go out once. I went out to the door that leads into the garage to see if it was locked becaue there's a bunch of boxes piled in front of it and you couldn't get to it from the inside of the garage. So I did, infact, go out of the house once, which would have been for, you know, half a minute."

Aaaawwkay. Someone tells me why John Ramsey was checking the garage door from the outside, if there were the boxes piled up on the inside of them? It would be enough to pop into the garage and check f these boxes were undisturbed. If yes nobody got through it. So what actually was he doing there?



By the way, someone was asking about the lights in the Ramseys house that night, here's what I found on ACandyRose site
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-discovery.htm

04-18-2000 Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation"

Page 45:

"While the house search went on, other cops fanned out to canvass the neighborhood and conduct more interviews. A resident directly to the south reported that the light was off in the southeast corner sunroom of the Ramsey home and thought that was odd because it was the only time she was aware in th3e past few years that it did not burn all night. A neighbor to the north would say that the butler kitchen lights were on around midnight and considered that unsual since it was the first time he had noticed that light being on in the Ramsey home. A third neighbor, to the west, said that her dogs, who barked at anyone walking in the alley, just as they did when the police officer came to question her, made no noise Wednesday night."

I can’t imagine how anyone could think that the police would come and go. Especially if they got their knowledge from movies and books
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The note is contradictory no matter who wrote it. The fact remains that no one other than the Ramsey's needed to make up a reason why JonBenet was no longer alive.




Oh, I am incredulous, as I'm unwilling to believe that just because something can be thought up, it merits serious consideration. One can theorize that the gunman from the grassy knoll committed this crime and left no evidence at either crime scene, doesn't mean I'll consider it an actual possibility.




and we're back where we started from...

I see no reason to believe that the Ramsey's would be good at committing a crime, then staging the scene to make it look like someone else did it; so the fact that the cover up was poorly done doesn't change the fact that practically every single bit of evidence points toward RDI, including the cover up itself. They didn't have a lot of time, and as a result, hastily threw together and carried out a plan. We could go on forever about how bad of a plan it was, but we're sitting here 17 years later and no one has been charged, so whether good, bad or in-between, it has proven effective.

EDIT to add: how can you say the note doesn't benefit the Ramsey's? Take the note out of the equation. The Ramsey's wake up the morning of the 26th and JonBenet is inexplicably missing. Once she's found murdered in the basement with no sign that anyone else was in the house that night, the Ramsey's will be placed under arrest. The note is the only thing that implies anyone else was in the house. That's why it benefits the Ramsey's, it provides them with a suspect that isn't them.



Exactly, I agree 100%. There was no kidnapper. It was a poorly designed ruse to attempt to deflect attention from the real perpetrators of the crime...but again, it worked on enough people to keep the criminal(s) from being prosecuted.

The note is contradictory no matter what, but the contradiction might not have mattered to an intruder, and that’s the difference.

Your rejection of the gunman on the grassy knoll is evidence (or lack thereof) based. Your rejection of an intruder-written ransom note seems to be based on the fact that it doesn’t make sense to you; you can’t think of a reason that an intruder would want to do this. The former reasoning is sound, but the latter commits the fallacy of Personal Incredulity. You might still be right, but not for your stated reason.

Counterfactuals can be a lot of fun. What if there had been no ransom note?
Well, if we’re going to remove the note than we might as well remove the wrist ligatures and the tape because these IMO are all of a piece: fake kidnapping. Do we stop there?

Why? Why not say, no ransom note, no wrist ligatures, no tape, and no garrote?

Why not take it all the way back until we’ve found our way to whatever the initial incident was that RDI thinks brought all this on. A head blow, perhaps? Why not start there and see where your counterfactual takes you...

You say that the ransom note was “a poorly designed ruse to attempt to deflect attention from the real perpetrators of the crime...” I say it could have been a very successful and well-designed ruse to deflect attention from the real perpetrator (an intruder) of the crime; or, a very successful and well-designed ruse to deflect attention from the perpetrator’s “true” motivation for the crime (or, something else entirely).

Hey! At least we agree that the note was a fake, and that there never was an attempted kidnapping. And, we agree that a great injustice has been done; right?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

And how would they explain a skull fracture the length of her skull? They'd be able to tell if the fracture came from a blow or a fall.
They likely were in a panic that night and didn't have the time/mental state to do a better job.

They would lie and say that she fell down the stairs or whatever. Then, they would lawyer up, refuse to cooperate and get outta dodge. Maybe the autopsy would reveal the lie and then maybe they would be charged with a crime.

Why should we think that the Ramseys would know that the autopsy would reveal an injury that could not be explained by an accident? People die from accidental head blows all the time, why not this time?

I don’t think there is any evidence that shows that anything was done in panic. People act without thinking when they are panicked. If responsible, a panicked parent would likely call for immediate medical assistance. Taking the time out to consider consequences is not a sign of panic.
...

AK

 

[claudicici]

I agree with you on that point.I always thought this murder was premeditated and not an accident......by PR

 

[questfortrue]

Why oh why can't I quit this case? :notgood:

{SNIP}

Not sure why any of us are here. But then one comes across a statement like the following:

JR (LKL, March 28, 2000): “But I picked December 25th because I wanted the world to remember what happened to my daughter on Christmas day. I can't imagine a more horrible crime than a child being murdered on Christmas night. That was the main reason I picked December 25th. . .{snip}. . . We were making a statement. The world went mad on December 25th, 1996.”

OK, I don’t have words for the above claim, but I do have a point here. Even though we only have broken pieces of the truth, if it weren’t for the contributions of our long-time posters, so much would be lost in the morass of misinformation. Since JB’s own family strewed “untruths” all over the crime, imo, the last people standing up for this child are a few honorable reporters, LE, and forum posters. . .still here. JMHO

 

[FreeSafety36]

The note is contradictory no matter what, but the contradiction might not have mattered to an intruder, and that’s the difference.

Your rejection of the gunman on the grassy knoll is evidence (or lack thereof) based. Your rejection of an intruder-written ransom note seems to be based on the fact that it doesn’t make sense to you; you can’t think of a reason that an intruder would want to do this. The former reasoning is sound, but the latter commits the fallacy of Personal Incredulity. You might still be right, but not for your stated reason.

Counterfactuals can be a lot of fun. What if there had been no ransom note?
Well, if we’re going to remove the note than we might as well remove the wrist ligatures and the tape because these IMO are all of a piece: fake kidnapping. Do we stop there?

Why? Why not say, no ransom note, no wrist ligatures, no tape, and no garrote?

Why not take it all the way back until we’ve found our way to whatever the initial incident was that RDI thinks brought all this on. A head blow, perhaps? Why not start there and see where your counterfactual takes you...

You say that the ransom note was “a poorly designed ruse to attempt to deflect attention from the real perpetrators of the crime...” I say it could have been a very successful and well-designed ruse to deflect attention from the real perpetrator (an intruder) of the crime; or, a very successful and well-designed ruse to deflect attention from the perpetrator’s “true” motivation for the crime (or, something else entirely).

Hey! At least we agree that the note was a fake, and that there never was an attempted kidnapping. And, we agree that a great injustice has been done; right?
...

AK

AK, this is going to be the last time I reply, as I feel we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point, and that can continue for as long as both of us allow it to. After this post, I'll no longer allow it to.

I reject IDI because the evidence doesn't support it, which is the same reason the police rejected it. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

I stated "remove the note" to simply point out to you that the existence of the note is beneficial to the Ramsey's, because you claimed it wasn't. Of course we can't actually remove it, as it is part of the evidence in the case. I'll take your tangential argument focusing on other evidence and away from the existence of the note itself and how it does benefit the Ramsey family- which was the entirety of the point we were debating- as your acceptance that the existence of the note does indeed benefit the Ramsey's. No cogent argument has been to the contrary.

Best of luck with your continuing investigations.

 

[Venom]

They would lie and say that she fell down the stairs or whatever. Then, they would lawyer up, refuse to cooperate and get outta dodge. Maybe the autopsy would reveal the lie and then maybe they would be charged with a crime.

Why should we think that the Ramseys would know that the autopsy would reveal an injury that could not be explained by an accident? People die from accidental head blows all the time, why not this time?

I don’t think there is any evidence that shows that anything was done in panic. People act without thinking when they are panicked. If responsible, a panicked parent would likely call for immediate medical assistance. Taking the time out to consider consequences is not a sign of panic.
...

AK

BBM- That is essentially what they did do. IMO, they lied with the RN, lawyered up, refused to cooperate, and tried to get out of dodge within hours after JB was "found."

Panic? What about a novel of a RN written out to explain a dead child in the house? There are plenty of examples where someone has panicked and not called police.

I'm with FreeSafety, not going to do this dance anymore.

 

[Hexe]

I can’t imagine how anyone could think that the police would come and go. Especially if they got their knowledge from movies and books

John Ramsey thought he would be able to leave Boulder the very same day his daughter was reported missing and found dead. He should have known from the books and movies that it was impossible, no?

 

[CherCher]

John Ramsey thought he would be able to leave Boulder the very same day his daughter was reported missing and found dead. He should have known from the books and movies that it was impossible, no?

No. Mr. Ramsey still "writes" books because he can't believe that there are still people who doubt his story. How dare they?

 

[Anti-K]

AK, this is going to be the last time I reply, as I feel we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point, and that can continue for as long as both of us allow it to. After this post, I'll no longer allow it to.

I reject IDI because the evidence doesn't support it, which is the same reason the police rejected it. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

I stated "remove the note" to simply point out to you that the existence of the note is beneficial to the Ramsey's, because you claimed it wasn't. Of course we can't actually remove it, as it is part of the evidence in the case. I'll take your tangential argument focusing on other evidence and away from the existence of the note itself and how it does benefit the Ramsey family- which was the entirety of the point we were debating- as your acceptance that the existence of the note does indeed benefit the Ramsey's. No cogent argument has been to the contrary.

Best of luck with your continuing investigations.

Okay, no worries. And, no need to respond to the following but I need to clear something up:

I’ve not made any “tangential argument focusing on other evidence on other evidence and away from the existence of the note itself and how it does benefit the Ramsey family,” and I certainly have not “accepted that the existence of the note does indeed benefit the Ramsey's.” This is a gross misinterpretation of what I did say.

The “argument” that I made (post 92, this thread) was that the note did not benefit the Ramseys because, “It cast suspicion upon them because 1) there was no kidnapping, 2) the note is written using Ramsey materials 3), the note seems to have been written in the house, and 4) the suspicious nature of the note (unusual demand, unusual length, etc). some might include as 5) linguistics, etc...”

Further, I add: in my experience there are NO RDI, not any, not a single one, who does not believe that the Ramseys wrote the ransom note, either one or the other or both together. All RDI arguments include the ransom note as damning evidence against the Ramseys. How can damning evidence be seen as beneficial? These are contradictory claims.

There is a poll here, on one of the threads here (I forget which one) that shows 91% of respondents think that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note. How can that be a benefit to her?

As I said, no need to respond.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM- That is essentially what they did do. IMO, they lied with the RN, lawyered up, refused to cooperate, and tried to get out of dodge within hours after JB was "found."

Panic? What about a novel of a RN written out to explain a dead child in the house? There are plenty of examples where someone has panicked and not called police.

I'm with FreeSafety, not going to do this dance anymore.

Who said anything about calling the police? Not me; I said, “call for immediate medical assistance.”

Some IDI have argued that the intruder panicked and ran off, because the victim screamed or whatever; and, I know some RDI who say that the Ramseys panicked, or one of them anyway. I don’t see it. I see deliberate acts that appear to have been thought out and planned to some degree. This is the opposite of panic, when people panic they act without thinking. Not just without thinking, but BEFORE thinking. They just act. That’s panic.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

John Ramsey thought he would be able to leave Boulder the very same day his daughter was reported missing and found dead. He should have known from the books and movies that it was impossible, no?

I don’t know. I’m not the one who said that Mr Ramseys got anything from books and movies.
...

AK

 

[MaskedAvenger]

I am not sure whether many people have looked closely at the photos of that broken window. For one..the hole in the glass itself is much too small for a person to fit through. And it is not in a place where it might be easy to reach the latch, and struggling to do so would have likely resulted in a cut with possible bleeding- NO blood was found in or near that window.
The other FACT that seems to be dismissed by the RST is that JR himself admitted that HE broke that window himself months before. There was some uncertainty as to whether the glass was ever cleaned up. Add this to the FACT that FW admitted HE was the one who put the suitcase under the window and you can see why I believe the broken window played no part in the crime. Yet, idiots like Lou Smit saw that and stuck to that theory like white on rice. He jumped on the "intruder got in through the broken window" bandwagon, and then all of a sudden, JR "forgets" he said he broke the window and jumps on too. So now you end up with a donkey cart of idiots all claiming someone got in through that window - without breaking that spider web, to boot!

I should probably clarify my stance on the window. Firstly I don’t think it was a point of entry for pretty much the same reasons as you have stated. What I am trying to say (probably rather poorly lol) is that if it was used in a staging then I can see how the power of suggestion could reinforce that idea (in the minds of others) without having to say it outright. In this respect, statements such as “all the doors were locked” and “it [suitcase] looked out of the ordinary” or “very out of place” could be viewed as attempts to put that location as the forerunner of entry/exit possibilities. Likewise statements such as “people had keys” and “maybe that person did it” could be seen as attempts to reinforce the notion an intruder still exists, without committing exclusively to the window (in the case that proves futile) and thus everyone is left scratching their heads as to how they got in and running around in circles after a list of ‘potential’ suspects to boot.

Might sound a little far fetched to some, but if the objective is to protect yourself then it makes sense to want to try and control the situation as much as humanely possible. Given, it would take a very manipulative person to pull all that off but who is to say they weren’t up to the task? I mean if it was RDI then all this “I’m not sure” and “I don’t know or can’t remember” (on top of everything else) is enough to generate confusion as to what happened and if you can’t prove what happened, you have reasonable doubt which is kind of exactly why they were never prosecuted I thought? That is why I am inclined to believe statements like these don’t necessarily go against the grain for it to have been used in any staging.

As for admissions regarding how the window was broken (well kind of an admission anyway) it really depends on the underlying purpose as to why it was said. Again if the kidnapping was staged, then I can see why that would be an important thing to admit especially if you feared that trace evidence could be found in places it shouldn’t like inside the frame etc. Additionally the mere mention of having climbed through that window is enough to plant a seed in the minds of some (like Lou Smit for example) that it is a viable point of entry (hence his ridiculous demonstration haha) and what’s more is they didn’t necessarily need to break the glass themselves in order to unlatch it from outside because it was already broken. Go figure.

As for the location of the suitcase, I was of the impression it was underneath the window when Fleet first entered the basement and was moved during the search for glass? If that is true, then someone had to have put it there which takes me back to consider the RDI possibility. What I am not sure about however is exactly how the piece of glass that Fleet found came to rest on the ledge as told by Steve Thomas. In order for that to be done wouldn’t the window have needed to have been already open or at least opened by Fleet himself? Or is it a different piece of glass as seen in the police video?

Also, as a side note anyone know what the story is regarding the fragment of glass found on the suitcase? Like as to who found it and when?

 

[Venom]

I think the piece of glass was picked up by FW and placed on the suitcase, and he's the one who put the suitcase under the window.