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

[midwest mama]

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

:clap:CherCher! And, shall we agree, then, that PR was not the only adult in the house the night JB was killed that knew how to "write"? PR's journalism degree weighed heavily on opinions by many that she would have been the one to write the ransom note. But we have proof through JR's book writings that he also has the ability for literary composition.

 

[MaskedAvenger]

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.

Thanks Venom, would you mind elaborating on this for me please? I am just a bit confused as to how many pieces of glass there actually was and which one Fleet handled.
Steve Thomas said (in his book) that Fleet found a piece on the floor and put it on the ledge. The police crime scene video shows a piece of glass on the outer ledge of the window so not sure if that is the piece Fleet picked up or its just an assumption made by Thomas and it's not that piece at all, or if it was that piece and someone else moved it afterward? Geez lol too many options!

Also, Smit (I think) says there was a tiny piece found on the suitcase which he theorises was transported on the shoe of the intruder. This sounds different to the piece seen on the ledge as that is a pretty big shard of glass.

 

[gramcracker]

I couldn't remember, so I looked and found this in Kolar's Foreign Faction/kindle location 1156

He found himself looking at a broken window pane in a series of three windows that opened to a subterranean window well. The window was closed, but not latched, and he observed a hard-sided Samsonite suitcase standing flush against the wall directly beneath the window. He spent some time inspecting the area for signs of freshly broken glass and moved the suitcase to get a better look at the floor.

White told investigators that he only found a "small kernel" of glass on the floor and placed it on the windowsill before leaving the room.

kindle location 6445

The kernel of glass on the top of the suitcase was about the size of a pea, and should not be confused with the rectangular shaped piece of glass located on the outside sill of the window. This piece of glass was not photographed with a scale, but looked to be approximately one half to three inches in length.

Steve Thomas said they locked PR into stating five times that she vacuumed the glass when *cough* JR broke the window. but other times she said she told LHP to vacuum the glass, and LHP did so. but, when asked, LHP swore she didn know nuthin 'bout no glass

PMPT says FW found/moved pieces of glass. the Thomas/Kolar books say one piece (inside)

 

[CherCher]

:clap:CherCher! And, shall we agree, then, that PR was not the only adult in the house the night JB was killed that knew how to "write"? PR's journalism degree weighed heavily on opinions by many that she would have been the one to write the ransom note. But we have proof through JR's book writings that he also has the ability for literary composition.

Could be MM, although I am much of the opinion that JR gets others to do his "writing" for him.

 

[Nom de plume]

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

BBM
No, they're not contradictory.

If there had NOT been a RN, the Rs would have both been arrested immediately after the discovery of JB's body. Because there WAS a RN it left just enough doubt (for the powers that be) that the parents had killed her. That RN kept them out of jail, at least in the beginning of the investigation. That is a benefit to them.

Because the writing, style, linguistics, etc. sounded and looked so much like PR's, she was/is suspected of writing it. This obviously is damning, and makes her look very guilty. At least guilty of writing the RN, if nothing else.

So in the end, even though it was damning evidence of PR's involvement, it wasn't damning enough (to the powers that be) to land her in jail. Therefore it was damning, and also beneficial. IOW, damning in the "court of public opinion", but "proof" of an intruder to LS, etc. and therefore kept her out of jail. I'd call that beneficial! It was a double edged sword, so to speak.

 

[Darlene733510]

If the white blanket that JB was wrapped in was in the basement dryer, I doubt that an IDI would know this. PR would most likely know where the blanket was. I believe she was the one who wrapped JB in the blanket, or retrieved the blanket from the drier. Perhaps she told JR to wrap JB in the blanket.
My point is that there is NO WAY an IDI would know where this blanket was. We know it did not come from JB's bed because pictures of the bed showed the lower part of the bed covers intact. They would have been loosened if the blanket had been removed from the bed.

 

[Anyhoo]

If the white blanket that JB was wrapped in was in the basement dryer, I doubt that an IDI would know this. PR would most likely know where the blanket was. I believe she was the one who wrapped JB in the blanket, or retrieved the blanket from the drier. Perhaps she told JR to wrap JB in the blanket.
My point is that there is NO WAY an IDI would know where this blanket was. We know it did not come from JB's bed because pictures of the bed showed the lower part of the bed covers intact. They would have been loosened if the blanket had been removed from the bed.

Obviously. I don't understand why we are still seriously discussing IDI when there is such a mountain of evidence pointing to RDI or at least Ramsey's know what happened. If we want to discuss IDI at all, I think we should restrict it to evidence that appears to point to IDI, such as the DNA.

 

[Tawny]

My biggest hang up on the blanket is why an intruder would even bother to wrap her little body up in it. That's personal and it shows that whoever wrapped her up still cared whether or not she was laying on a cold, hard surface.

 

[dazeerae]

My biggest hang up on the blanket is why an intruder would even bother to wrap her little body up in it. That's personal and it shows that whoever wrapped her up still cared whether or not she was laying on a cold, hard surface.

I agree with you, but I also can't understand the sick mind that would tightly wrap a child's neck & wrists with a cord.

I try not to look at the autopsy photos, but sometimes when I research the case, I can't help but stumble across them, and I find the photos horrifying.

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

I appreciate your honesty. It seems this is often the case, and it makes me cringe.

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.

I do not believe the evidence suggests anything less than a deliberate murder. I will try to explain my reasoning in a new post.

Thank you, again...

 

[Mama2JML]

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?

From the autopsy report:

"Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 x 4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization. At the superior extension of this area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward to the right frontal area across the parietal portion of the skull. the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline of the occipital area of the skull. This fracture measures approximately 8.5 inches in length. On removal of the skull cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere. The 1450 gm brain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified. There is a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere. On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The cerebral vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple coronal sections of the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and cerebullum disclose no additional abnormalities. The areas of previously described contusion are characterized by purple linear streak-like discolorations of the gray matter perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex. These extend approximately 6 mm into the cerebral cortex. Examination of the base of the brain discloses no additional fractures."

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: Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Weapon used on JonBenet's skull: golf club or flashlight?


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.

No doubt.

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.

*SNIPPED RESPECTFULLY*

I disagree.

 

[Anyhoo]

I appreciate your honesty. It seems this is often the case, and it makes me cringe. I do not believe the evidence suggests anything less than a deliberate murder. I will try to explain my reasoning in a new post.

Thank you, again...

M2M, see my other post that I just made ('A New Thought') for a new take on this. When you think about the possibility that PR inflicted the head wound in a fit of rage and then a different person (John Ramsey) came in afterwards and committed the actual murder by strangling his daughter to death, then it seems to make more sense (at least to me). I cannot see PR inflicting both the head bash and doing the strangulation, but I can see her inflicting the head bash and JR doing the strangulation. Just think about that and let it soak in and hopefully you will realize (as I did) that this easy to envision.

 

[ZBob]

Hi, this is my first post here. I must open by saying say that I am unbelievably impressed and amazed at the level of interest, detail, insight, and passion that is shared and offered by many of you that have been posting to this and other information sources for many years. Clearly the twists and turns of this case and the way the investigation unfolded create for many scenarios which are the basis for much of the discussion and passion. I am certain that the thoughts I will include later in this post are not new ones, but I don’t believe I have seen them shared in a sequence as outlined below, or at least not in a consolidated way.

Some brief background for context. After the most recent Grand Jury documents about the potential indictments were released, I started looking into more details of this case. I have reviewed a great deal of the materials available on the internet through forums, blogs, and websites and I have read the books by both Steve Thomas and James Kolar. There are many times when I read a new post and feel that it makes logical sense as to what might have happened. Many times these contradict what I will suggest as a potential event sequence. As my review of the many pieces of information and opinions have progressed, I have also captured key thoughts that stood out for me as a basis for my suggestions.

Frankly, as I wrote this all down I still can’t get my head 100% around this scenario, but it does continue to be the base position that I feel is most possible. I have also called out a few things at the end which don’t make sense with what I describe. However, perhaps the comments and thoughts of others will help in some way as it is maddening to me that this is still an unsolved crime.

Observation Concepts:

• The parents had knowledge of what occurred in the house overnight.
• The books in the house about children’s behavior issues and the suppression of medical records for JBR and BR have a correlation to the actual events.
• There was something unrelated to the actual events of that night that also guided the behavior of the parents.
• Intruder theories don’t make sense when you factor in the behavior of the parents which I have outlined below.

JR and PR behaviors that defy logical explanation:

• Not involving/waking/asking BR about what he might know is an indication that all of them know what has occurred or at least know the critical events that took place. If there was not pre-existing knowledge, this behavior makes absolutely no sense. First, you would want him with you to protect him. Second, you would question and re-question him (and encourage others to do so) about anything he might have heard or seen during the night or beforehand that could possibly be related. If he said he didn’t hear anything you would ask him repeatedly “are you sure”.
• When JR finds the body and brings it up the stairs, both he and FW are making a significant and emotional commotion. PR whose child is missing does not run to the location like everyone else does to see what is going on, which includes here friends who are right with her. This is extremely unusual behavior. What mother in this situation would not immediately jump up to find out what is going on?
• Suppressing the doctor’s records on both JBR and BR would only be important if it were to prevent revealing abnormal behaviors pre-existing in the household.
• Obtaining counsel in this situation can be understood, the speed with which this happened is highly unusual and implies to me knowledge of the events and thus a need for legal protection not just representation.

Possible Sequence of Events:

• After returning home from the Christmas day party, JBR eats a snack of pineapple prepared by PR.
• JBR then goes to find BR to play for a while with their new toys.
• While playing together, something occurs which causes BR to hit JBR over the head. This could be her taking or touching his things or possibly sexual exploration where she reacts to what he is doing. I find the latter unlikely given their ages and the fact that it is Christmas and the distraction new toys would most likely provide to both of them.
• After waiting a while hoping she wakes up, he gets his parents. The scream heard by the neighbor is PR when she sees what has happened to JBR. JR and PR both think JBR is dead.
• JR, who has previously been abusing JBR (and possibly BR) now needs to figure out how to cover this up to protect himself.
• Under the guise of protecting BR, he conspires to create a kidnapping scenario as a way to protect BR. This is how he gets PR to buy into this plan. This approach, also gives him the means to cover up for his prior abuse as part of a plan to dispose of the body.
• JR finds out as he is preparing to dispose of JBR that she is still alive. He makes the garrote and strangles her. PR doesn’t know she was still alive and believes that the BR head blow killed JBR and that the garrotee is part of the kidnapping staging.
• JR uses the paintbrush to sexually abuse her in an attempt to hide prior sexual abuse and make it seem as if the kidnapper did this.
• JR and PR write the ransom note, JR dictating the basic content and PR writing it.
• JR plans to get the body out of the house the next morning based on the RN content.

Two of many problems that I am sure will be highlighted in the above sequence:

• John seems far too smart to leave the pad and pen used for the RN sitting in their normal places. Perhaps in the crazy sequence of how this might evolve he just missed this. Same with the pineapple in the bowl.
• Given the RN note contents and the seemingly logical need to remove the body from the house, why does PR call 911? Perhaps she just freaked out and called. They were going to have to call others soon as the flight to Michigan was planned and they would need to explain some reasons for a delay.

Thanks for your review and I look forward to the comments and thoughts of others.

ZBob

 

[DeeDee249]

Welcome to the Forum! And I pretty much agree with everything you said... with the exception of the parts about JR "finishing her off". This is certainly a possibility, but I haven't worked out exactly how the garrote came into play. The way I have read it, the head bash itself was forceful enough to certainly knock her out instantly, and may have been severe enough to put her in a coma. With breathing so shallow as to be unnoticed and body temp dropping because she was in shock- she may have appeared dead. The only way I can make the garrote fit is if they noticed she was, in fact, still alive...and maybe realized she beyond help and would never come all the way back, in that case the garrote may have made it seem more like an intruder. However, what they really needed to do was make it seem more like a kidnapping. And I can't see the garrote being needed for that. I think at that point, they really didn't know WHAT to do, but one thing they couldn't bring themselves to do was dump her outside. So they put it all together in a way that made sense to THEM.
The only other way the garrote makes sense is if it was being used in a game. sexual or otherwise. And I just can't make that damn garrote fit in the events of that night in a way that makes sense to me.

 

[Anti-K]

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?

Much simpler and safer to just say the doors weren’t locked; right? Or, that one was open when you came downstairs...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The Inventory of Property Removed lists “four pieces of broken window.” http://tinyurl.com/ke5ao56

From the Steve Thomas book (emphasis added); p. 37: “Downstairs in the basement, another technician examined the broken window. Three windows, each eighteen-by-twenty-inch rectangles were in a row. The top of the pane in the center window was broken, and the screen was off. The tech noticed pieces of glass outside the window and a scuff mark on the wall.”

I think it’s safe to assume that the pieces listed in the inventory and those that the Technician noticed outside the window are the same pieces.

You can see what I think is one of those pieces at 1:57 in the dailybeast video: http://tinyurl.com/8x5cp5a

Supposedly, White found a piece of glass on the floor and he put it on the window ledge (Thomas; p. 20. Kolar; p. 28). The window was supposedly closed, but not latched.

Go to 1:30 in the video.

Here you can see that when the window is closed it is flush with the trim that runs around it. This means that if the window was closed, or even only slightly ajar there would be no ledge for White to use. Also, glass on the ledge should not be able to move from one side to the other unless someone picks it up and moves it because there is a lip, or ridge that divides the inner and outer window ledge. For these reasons I think that White may have moved the “kernel” of glass that he found to the top of the suitcase, and not the window ledge.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It is not reasonable to believe that Mrs Ramsey would UNNECESSARILY include a non-conspirator or a non-accomplice in a lie; especially, if she had already cast suspicion on that person!

Regardless, Mrs Ramsey doesn’t actually say that she and LHP cleaned up the glass together, and, she doesn’t actually say that she asked LHP to clean up any glass. Mrs Ramsey said that SHE (Mrs Ramsey) “cleaned [the glass up] thoroughly;” that SHE “picked up every chunk;” that SHE “scoured that place;” that SHE “cleaned all that up;” and then she asked LHP “to go behind [her] and vacuum.”

Mrs Ramsey said that LHP “vacuumed a couple of times down there.” But we don’t know if LHP knew why she was being asked to do that and we don’t know that LHP actually did it. She might not have, considering the appearance of the floor as we see it in the dailybeast video and since she claims to have not known about the window.

If Mrs Ramsey was lying about the event, then she would not need to mention LHP. She could stop with, I cleaned that thoroughly; I picked up every chunk. If she was lying, she could have said, “John broke the window, I cleaned it up, it was never repaired, I have no idea if anyone else knew anything about it.”

“When the police asked [LHP] if she’d seen a broken window in the basement or had ever cleaned up broken glass from a broken window, she said she couldn’t recall anything like that.” PMPT; p. 181

She couldn’t recall.

Later, after LHP “turned on” Mrs Ramsey she denied knowing anything about the broken window.

Unlike Mrs Ramsey, LHP did have a reason to dispute Mrs Ramsey’s claim. LHP was named a suspect by Mrs Ramsey and LHP was subsequently investigated and harassed by media and such. Her life was detrimentally affected and it could be said that she was hurt and felt turned upon. To this day there are people theorizing about her involvement in this crime. So, it could be argued that LHP had motive to dispute Mrs Ramsey’s version of the clean-up.

However it is possible that both Ramsey and LHP were telling the truth as each knew it.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM
No, they're not contradictory.

If there had NOT been a RN, the Rs would have both been arrested immediately after the discovery of JB's body. Because there WAS a RN it left just enough doubt (for the powers that be) that the parents had killed her. That RN kept them out of jail, at least in the beginning of the investigation. That is a benefit to them.

Because the writing, style, linguistics, etc. sounded and looked so much like PR's, she was/is suspected of writing it. This obviously is damning, and makes her look very guilty. At least guilty of writing the RN, if nothing else.

So in the end, even though it was damning evidence of PR's involvement, it wasn't damning enough (to the powers that be) to land her in jail. Therefore it was damning, and also beneficial. IOW, damning in the "court of public opinion", but "proof" of an intruder to LS, etc. and therefore kept her out of jail. I'd call that beneficial! It was a double edged sword, so to speak.

To properly consider the “No Ransom Note” counterfactual we should consider two different contexts: IDI and RDI.

In the IDI context we can remove the ransom note and leave everything else the same. In the RDI context if we remove the note than we remove the Ramsey plan to fake and report a kidnapping. In this context everything can and probably would change.

In the context of IDI we have to ask ourselves what the Ramseys would have done if they got up that morning and discovered that Jonbenet was missing. Would they find her on their own? Upon discovery would shock, panic, disbelief cause them to call an ambulance instead of the police? Etc...

In the RDI context, if the Ramseys never decided to write a ransom note than who knows what they might have done instead? Because they would have done something, it would just be something else, something different.

In the RDI context we cannot say that the Ramseys would have been immediately arrested because we don’t know what that “something else” would have been. However, in the IDI context, you may be right.

Regardless, any benefit that the ransom note may have given the Ramseys vanished with the discovery of the practice note and the discovery of the body. Thus I would argue that any benefit was virtually negligible. However, I do think that if the Ramseys had disposed of the body, then the note could have been beneficial, but even in such a case the benefit would be short lived because of the aforementioned duel discoveries.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

IMO, without the ransom note, finding JBR's body in the house would have led to immediate or at least imminent arrest of one or both parents.

ETA: I should add, the ransom note should not have prevented that from occurring, IMO.

 

[DeDee]

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?...

I realize this was not addressed to me; however, you may find this information beneficial.


[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=191652&postcount=2"]http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=191652&postcount=2[/ame]



Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by A. James Kolar


Page 60:

Dr. Meyer told the investigators that it would have taken some
time for the brain swelling to develop, and there likely had been
a period of JonBenét’s survival from the time she received the blow
to her head and when she was eventually strangled. He reported
that this would have been a lethal blow, and that he did not think
it likely that she regained consciousness.

Page 64-5:

Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia
Children’s Hospital, helped explain the timing of some of the
injuries sustained by JonBenét. She told investigators that the blow
to the skull had immediately begun to hemorrhage, and it was
not likely that she would have regained consciousness after
receiving this injury. The blow to the head, if left untreated, would
have been fatal.

The presence of cerebral edema, swelling of the brain,
suggested that JonBenét had survived for some period of time after
receiving the blow to her head. Blood from the injury slowly began
to fill the cavity of the skull and began to build up pressure on her
brain. As pressure increased, swelling was causing the medulla
of the brain to push through the foramen magnum, the narrow
opening at the base of the skull.

Dr. Rorke estimated that it would have taken an hour or so
for the cerebral edema to develop, but that this swelling had not
yet caused JonBenét’s death. “Necrosis,” neurological changes to
the brain cells, indicated a period of survival after the blow that
could have ranged from between forty-five (45) minutes and two
(2) hours.

As pressure in her skull increased, JonBenét was beginning to
experience the effects of “brain death.” Her neurological and
biological systems were beginning to shut down, and she may
have been exhibiting signs of cheyne-stokes breathing. These are
short, gasping breaths that may be present as the body struggles to
satisfy its need for oxygen in the final stages of death.

The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenét’s
skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death
by strangulation. The bruising beneath the garrote and the
petechial hemorrhaging in her face and eyes were conclusive
evidence that she was still alive when the tightening of the ligature
ended her life.