That opens up a few questions.
IDI: Whats your problem?
- Thread starter Holdontoyourhat
- Start date
That opens up a few questions.
AbbieNormal
Runs With Scissors
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,350
- Reaction score
- 14
BBM
Real or simulated (penis or paintbrush) it matters not, it was sexual assault. Nevermind the mindset of the person using the paintbrush, whether it was a sexual thing, or it was done by a female who had no other way to stage the scene to look like JBR's murder was sexual in nature. It was a sexual assault. Period.
and JMO
abbie
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Yeah about the second the child's underwear got moved by whomever for purposes other than normal parental...it was sexual assault.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Well, perhaps you didn't read my post properly. Is sexual assault for the gratifiction of the attacker or the humiliation of the victim?
It wasn't a matter of wanting to redress her in those panties. It was a matter of those panties being right there in the basement, making it unnecessary to go upstairs to get another pair.
Here's another point that was discussed quite a while back- Christmas Day in 1996 was a Wednesday. The Bloomies panties JB was found in said "Wednesday" on the waistband. I simply do not believe Patsy bought only one set of those panties for her niece and did not buy a set for her own daughter in her proper size. There is a possibility that Patsy put a pair of JB's own Wednesday panties on JB that morning (because it WAS a Wednesday and Patsy is exactly the kind of person who would do that). If those original panties were stained with blood or otherwise compromised, there is a possibility that it was important to redress her in an identical pair in case someone at the White's that day had helped her in the bathroom (as we know, she'd ask anyone available to wipe her) and seen the Wednesday panties. As these were the kind of panties someone would remember (as opposed to plain, generic panties that had no day of the week on them), it might be the kind of thing that would be asked about if any of the guests that day had been asked or had become aware of her being found in a different pair. The Rs have always maintained that they pulled off JB's black velvet pants and pulled on the longjohns, leaving her white Gap shirt on. Patsy was specifically asked about whether JB was wearing panties that night, and I believe Patsy said she didn't remember, but she said it would have been unusual if she had NOT been wearing them under her pants.
I believe Patsy did not think anyone would notice that the panties on JB were too large. By her own words in her depo, she tried to infer that there is not much difference in the sizes of "these little panties" (her words). Of course, if any one here has ever had a little girl, you'd know there is a BIG difference between a size 6-8 and a size 12-14.
Zak
Active Member
I think the bigger question is why an intruder would bother to redress his victim at all? Why not just leave her naked from the waist down, blood and all? Why risk being caught and losing valuable escape time, especially after he murdered her? Afterall, this intruder was a heartless murderer. Why would he care enough about the little girl, since he had just brutally murdered her, to have not wanted to leave her just as she was? Why would this intruder care about her being found fully dressed and covered with a blanket rather than naked from the waist down?
Zak
Active Member
That's exactly what I think and one of the main reasons why I believe there was no intruder. It makes no sense to me why an intruder would have done the things that the IDI's want us to believe that he did. The intruder spends hours in a home and leaves nothing behind but a fake ransom note and some touch DNA? Not a fingerprint and not a hair. We have an intruder spending hours inside the home preparing for a kidnapping. He then kidnaps the little girl but doesn't take her out of the home? Don't kidnapper's want money? Aren't kidnapper's in and out? Isn't that the reason for the kidnapping and ransom note? Then he kills, molests, cleans and redresses her? He remembers to take with him his glove's, the broken piece of paintbrush, the leftover cord, tape and cloth he wiped her off with, but not the ransom note with his handwriting on it? These are the things about the crime scene that I just can't get past.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
Yes because if RDI the large bloomies tell me it was JR and not PR who redressed her.He would be the one thinking like deedee said,hey maybe someone saw that it was a wednesday pair so it has to be a wednesday pair.And re the size,as I said,a woman would notice that they are way too big,a man probably wouldn't.
IMO
And I am not a big RDI fibers fan but let's say the cops are right about JR's fibers found in her panties.Another thing that tells me it was rather him who redressed her.JB being covered in a blanket as well,he was the one talking so lovely about her,not PR.
Another thing,if the DNA belongs to an accomplice (cleaner) then I think he was helping JR to clean the crime scene not PR.(even IF PR killed her)
abbie, I'm not looking for a fight, okay? (At least not now.) All I'm saying is that there's a lot of loaded language around here. I'm just trying to keep it all straight.
I was about to suggest the same thing.
Okay, I get what you're saying. My point is this: if it were the attacker's gratification, the motive would be sex. If it was to humiliate the victim, it would be hatred. In either case, you would expect the damage to be far more extensive. I've been arguing that for some years now. And it's not just me. That was an element of the crime that the FBI studied closely, and they came to the same conclusion.
So did Nedra, incidentally. Her words were, "just a little bit molested."
Well said, maddy. As of this moment, that's what I figure happened.
madeleine,
Interesting points. Some items are usually glossed over whichever theory RDI, or IDI e.g. the blood-stained barbie nightgown, even the longjohns, and of course my favorite the red turtleneck.
Was JR involved his fibers at the crime-scene suggest so, how about PR, well there is more crime-scene evidence to implicate her, how about BR and his fibers? Well he was ushered out of the house asap, and I've seen nothing reported regarding fiber analysis of his clothing.
Also the fibers from John's shirt are not any old generic fibers, such as PR's might be, no these are from an Israeli manufactured shirt, so that would be very strong evidence.
I reckon both PR and JR were involved, many of the tricky questions can be answered by assuming there was collusion between all parties in the house that night including BR. The thorniest question is motive, why kill your own daughter, under what circumstances would this occur? For me, certainly not an accident, since dialling 911 deflects a lot of blame, leaves little room for accusations, and potentially saves JonBenet's life.
If you remember back to PR's original statement, she stated she placed JonBenet to bed wearing the red-turtleneck. To me that is significant, since the last thing that should be on PR's mind is a red-turtleneck, since allegedly JonBenet's white gap-top was never removed. So why state such a thing? I reckon PR redressed JonBenet in the red-turtle-neck, or JonBenet was wearing it prior to her assault?
JonBenet's crime-scene is a tale of many redressings. We have PR saying she redressed JonBenet in longjohns. Now why do that, why not simply leave her in her underwear, why risk her awakening? Answer: that scenario never took place, the function of the longjohns is to obscure that any sexual assault took place. Her black velvet pants could play that role but then she would have had to be placed in bed wearing them.
So all night there was probably a sequence of interrelated redressings taking place, each one slowly moving towards one that appeared to suggest a bedtime abduction. Here the blood-stained barbie-nightgown was likely meant to replace her white-gap top, for some reason it never happened.
If you take into account Coroner Meyer's remarks that JonBenet had been subject to sexual contact then patently she was molested, and it is this that was the precursor to her death.
There are few attorney's who would argue in court that an intruder redressed JonBenet after sexually assaulting and killing JonBenet, how would the intruder know size-12's were close at hand, never mind that they might match her Wednesday pair of size-6's?
Most intruders would assault JonBenet in her bed, kill her and leave her naked under the covers, or for those on a mission, exposed to shock, some may remove a trophy item e.g. her underwear.
This is not what is occurs that fateful night. Instead the locus of events is the basement, why should that be, why transpose the expected to the wine-cellar? Because JonBenet was molested upstairs, and something went wrong, which meant dialling 911 was out of the question. Placing her in bed still left the sexual assault to be questioned, so it had to be obscured e.g. via a redressing. The wine-cellar represents an attempt to fake a kidnapping, and gain the time to fly interstate out of Colorado jurisdiction.
That PR and JR were involved suggests mutual collusion. That is for me PR was aware that JonBenet was being molested!
.
I want to know more about the (blood stained?) Barbie nightgown. I know it was found on the white blanket, I know JR (when shown a crime scene photo of it) said "that's wasn't supposed to be there". I feel JB wet her bed sometime before LHP was there for the last time. I think JB was wearing the Barbie nightie when she did this. I think LHP pulled off the wet sheets, white blanket and washed them, along with the Barbie nightie, in the basement laundry (because the blanket did not fit in the smaller washer/dryer outside JB's room). I think Patsy may have made up JB's bed with clean sheets (LHP said the sheets in the crime photo were not the ones she put on the bed) but Patsy was too busy to go to the basement to get the blanket, so she made the bed without the blanket (this point was discussed with her by police in one of her depos). I believe the pink nightie was stuck to the white blanket when it was pulled from the dryer, and it was not noticed until the photos. If there WAS blood on it, I want to know where. Was it in a place where whatever caused JB to bleed could have somehow splattered it? Or was there some event which led to bleeding in her bedroom? Patsy mentions (WITHOUT BEING ASKED) that there was NO blood on JB's pillow. Her words to LE "I don't see any blood, do you?"
Yet, I have not seen much about the pink nightie having blood on it. I do recall seeing way back where the pink nightie was said to have drops of blood, but nothing more was said about it from official sources. Certainly, if she wore it that night I'd expect to see that same male DNA on it if the male donor was a part of the crime. Was the nightie tested? They should still have it in evidence. If not, why not?
Yet, I have not seen much about the pink nightie having blood on it. I do recall seeing way back where the pink nightie was said to have drops of blood, but nothing more was said about it from official sources. Certainly, if she wore it that night I'd expect to see that same male DNA on it if the male donor was a part of the crime. Was the nightie tested? They should still have it in evidence. If not, why not?
[quote=DeeDee249;5562500]I want to know more about the (blood stained?) Barbie nightgown. I know it was found on the white blanket, I know JR (when shown a crime scene photo of it) said "that's wasn't supposed to be there". I feel JB wet her bed sometime before LHP was there for the last time. I think JB was wearing the Barbie nightie when she did this. I think LHP pulled off the wet sheets, white blanket and washed them, along with the Barbie nightie, in the basement laundry (because the blanket did not fit in the smaller washer/dryer outside JB's room). I think Patsy may have made up JB's bed with clean sheets (LHP said the sheets in the crime photo were not the ones she put on the bed) but Patsy was too busy to go to the basement to get the blanket, so she made the bed without the blanket (this point was discussed with her by police in one of her depos). I believe the pink nightie was stuck to the white blanket when it was pulled from the dryer, and it was not noticed until the photos. If there WAS blood on it, I want to know where. Was it in a place where whatever caused JB to bleed could have somehow splattered it? Or was there some event which led to bleeding in her bedroom? Patsy mentions (WITHOUT BEING ASKED) that there was NO blood on JB's pillow. Her words to LE "I don't see any blood, do you?"
Yet, I have not seen much about the pink nightie having blood on it. I do recall seeing way back where the pink nightie was said to have drops of blood, but nothing more was said about it from official sources. Certainly, if she wore it that night I'd expect to see that same male DNA on it if the male donor was a part of the crime. Was the nightie tested? They should still have it in evidence. If not, why not?[/quote]
DeeDee249,
The blood on the nightgown matched that from JonBenet. So as per your scenario e.g PR, was it just dumped into the wine-cellar, to isolate it from its origin.
p.s. I dont have the 48 Hours program extant but assume its credibility, possibly it may be available coutesy of youtube?
.
Yet, I have not seen much about the pink nightie having blood on it. I do recall seeing way back where the pink nightie was said to have drops of blood, but nothing more was said about it from official sources. Certainly, if she wore it that night I'd expect to see that same male DNA on it if the male donor was a part of the crime. Was the nightie tested? They should still have it in evidence. If not, why not?[/quote]
DeeDee249,
The blood on the nightgown matched that from JonBenet. So as per your scenario e.g PR, was it just dumped into the wine-cellar, to isolate it from its origin.
p.s. I dont have the 48 Hours program extant but assume its credibility, possibly it may be available coutesy of youtube?
.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/DNA-Evidence
Where Blood Found
5.the nightgown found next to JBR (samples #17A & #17C).
I always wondered whether she actually wore the nightgown to bed that night.
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.0498
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.
Thank you. Maddie for posting that. But the info there comes from Wiki and Jameson's site Webbsleuths, and so I can't really consider it as official. They are still talking about things we now KNOW are false, such as the fingernail DNA and pubic hair on the blanket. I was hoping for either a mention in an interview transcript or some type of official evidence list.
DD
The blood spots on the night gown were tested, and according to the lab report that was revealed briefly on 48 Hours Mystery, they produced unmixed profiles matching JBR. (I am making the assumption that “17A” was cut off on the left edge of the screen shot, as we only have the reference to “17C.”
We do not know if any other areas on the nightgown were ever tested.
To the best of my knowledge, the only DNA references from official sources are those which refer to the DNA from JBR's panties, long johns or fingernails. The only other reference is to "DNA-X" which is not from her clothing or body.
Screen shots from "48 Hours Mystery."
Two lines BLACKED OUT
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B#(?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L,#14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A,#15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A,#17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
#13A,#13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey
__________fold in page??)
LABORATORY REPORT
BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
??????? Section Testing WB
BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WB WB
BB AB BB AA AC 24,26
WA WB WB W18 (?)
THE DNA PROFILES DEVELOPED FROM EXHIBITS #5A, 5B, AND 17C MATCHED THE PROFILE FROM JONBENET RAMSEY.
(the left side of the page seems to be cut off and starts with)
FED FROM EXHIBITS #7, 14L AND 14M REVEALED A MIX-
(left side cut off) COMPONENT MATCHED JONBENET RAMSEY. IF THE MINOR
(left side cut off) 5 (or S or?)#7, 14L AND 14M WERE CONTRIBUTED BY A SINGLE
(JOHN is cut off) ANDREW RAMSEY, MELINDA RAMSEY, JOHN B. RAMSEY, JEFF
RAMSEY (blacked out)
(cut off??) EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE DNA ANALYZED.
According to one poster who saw the broadcast, the complete text is as follows:
Based on these results, the DNA profiles developed from exhibits #5A, 5B, 14I, 15A, 15B, 17A, and 17C matched the profile from Jonbenet Ramsey.
The DNA profiles developed from exhibits #7, 14L and 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched Jonbenet Ramsey. If the minor components from exhibits #7, 14L and 14 M were contributed by a single individual then John Andrew Ramsey, Melinda Ramsey, John B. Ramsey, Patricia Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, Jeff Ramsey, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX, would be excluded as a source of the DNA analyzed on those exhibits.
Thanks, Cynic. That's what I was looking for. I would LOVE to know whose names were X'd out, wouldn't you? My guess is FW and his wife, PW. As all the Ramseys are mentined by name, I assume there would be legal ramifications to listing (on a TV show) the names of people other than JB's family.
As there was a much longer list of original suspects, I'd expect to see more either mentioned or X'd out.
As there was a much longer list of original suspects, I'd expect to see more either mentioned or X'd out.
Similar threads
- Poll
Online statistics
- Members online
- 227
- Guests online
- 469
- Total visitors
- 696