Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[PrincessSezMe]

The fact that Patsy was said to have been wearing the same outfit she wore to the White's when the first officer arrived at the R's on Dec 26 and being in full makeup with coifed hair, makes me wonder about something.

If she had been the one wholly responsible for handling JB, carrying her from one location to another, changing bed linens, molesting her, changing clothing, scurrying around from one location to another picking up crime articles, going up and down full flights of stairs how many times, handling a linty white blanket to wrap up her dead daughter, and take time to write the ransom note, how in the world could she have appeared in the same clothing, fresh and clean enough at 6 am?

I would think her clothes would have shown distress, had lint on them, maybe even her pant knees full of dirt/fiber from kneeling over JB. She surely would have perspired during the physicality of some of the handling of JB - causing makeup and maybe even hair to be unkempt, not to speak of other places with sweat odor. Don't know about her manicure situation, but it could have also shown fresh signs of wear from what it was in the White party photos to what it was on the 26th.

Surely she would not have been wearing her party clothes as the crime unfolded, and have them be presentable on the morning of the 26th. So she would have had to change in and out of night clothes. And she would have had to spend time cleansing, also doing fresh hair and makeup. Did the police have any Patsy night clothes on the search warrants?

But JR was not in his party clothes, and Patsy said he was in the shower at about 5:30 am. And if he had not been clean shaven when the police arrived, that surely would have been noticed by them as well as the family friends called in. That indicates a "clean up" time to me in the early a.m. For the very reasons I stated above. He would have HAD to wash away the signs of the crime.

I am not sure about reports on anything Burke was or was not wearing from the time of the party until he was taken to the White's the next morning, but surely his clothing might also have reflected signs of the crime if he had been involved in any of the physicality of it? And there was no comment reported by Fleet to the public that Burke seemed unusually unkempt when he and John went to his bedroom to round him up.

It just seems to me that the crime against JB would have been messy, dirty, and left telltale physical signs on the perpetrator that would have been certainly incriminating: Fibers, blood, hair, lint, cellar mold dust, basement carpet debris, wood splinters, etc.etc. Patsy was accusued of NOT changing out of her party clothes, but JR was obviously well cleaned up.

Thoughts?

I think you make an excellent observation. I too have expressed suspicion over JR being in the shower when PR got up. Still, the timeline of events puzzles me. PR said she got up around 5:30 or 6:00. If that was the case how on earth did she get dressed, have all this activity around the ransom note, and still call 911 by 5:52 a.m.? It's pretty well impossible IMO. SOMETHING sure doesn't add up. :waitasec:

 

[midwest mama]

I think you make an excellent observation. I too have expressed suspicion over JR being in the shower when PR got up. Still, the timeline of events puzzles me. PR said she got up around 5:30 or 6:00. If that was the case how on earth did she get dressed, have all this activity around the ransom note, and still call 911 by 5:52 a.m.? It's pretty well impossible IMO. SOMETHING sure doesn't add up. :waitasec:

PrincessSezMe - We must remember that the timeline we have heard, prior to the recorded call and arrival of Officer French is out the mouths of the R's. And, given the lies that both told about so many things, why should we believe their reported time of 5:30-ish as an awakening time. Or even that Patsy was asleep in their bedroom at all during that night? Or that JR was? Just because the bedding was disturbed does not mean they used the bed that night, right? Especially since it was Christmas, and getting around to making up the bed Christmas day in the midst of celebrations sure would not have been on the top of Patsy's housekeeping list for that day. I probably would not have made the bed myself that day with it being 2 floors up away out of sight from all the Christmas celebrating.

I think it perfectly feasible that from midnite to the morning of the 26th, neither JR or Patsy made it into bed. And Patsy's involvement in the crime may have only required very minimal physical exertion, leaving her to have very little "touch up" work to do before the police arrived. For all we really know, JR could have had a long, leisurely hot shower and shave after telling Patsy to work on the ransom note they might have discussed writing. JR could have hit the shower 4:00 to 5:00 am or even earlier? Their reported awakening time simply cannot be taken as truth.

There are several explanations for Patsy's jacket fibers having made it into the paint tray, tied into the garrote, and onto the duct tape. Since JB was wearing the same white shirt she had on at the White's earlier, Patsy's fibers could have gotten onto the shirt, into JB's hair (which was also tied into the garrote), and since JB might have been next to the paint tray (urine stains on the floor) when she died, fibers from her shirt or hair could have gotten into the paint tray. Or she might have fallen against it. As far as the duct tape with fibers, the duct tape was removed from JB's mouth and there again, if JB had been hosting those fibers on her body or clothing, possible for the fibers to have made it onto the sticky side even AFTER it was removed from her mouth.

So, can we even REALLY place Patsy in the position of doing the garrote work, or the wrapping up or taping? There again, no physical exertion that might have 'mussed her up'.

 

[OpenMind4U]

respectfully skip

There are several explanations for Patsy's jacket fibers having made it into the paint tray, tied into the garrote, and onto the duct tape. Since JB was wearing the same white shirt she had on at the White's earlier, Patsy's fibers could have gotten onto the shirt, into JB's hair (which was also tied into the garrote), and since JB might have been next to the paint tray (urine stains on the floor) when she died, fibers from her shirt or hair could have gotten into the paint tray. Or she might have fallen against it. As far as the duct tape with fibers, the duct tape was removed from JB's mouth and there again, if JB had been hosting those fibers on her body or clothing, possible for the fibers to have made it onto the sticky side even AFTER it was removed from her mouth.

So, can we even REALLY place Patsy in the position of doing the garrote work, or the wrapping up or taping? There again, no physical exertion that might have 'mussed her up'.

MM, looks like you has opened the 'can of worms' and I couldn't wait to jump right into it:great:...

Let's talk about your suggestion in regards of fibers from Patsy's jacket. But first, we need to clear certain things out.

- at FW party, Patsy was wearing the red/black jacket, the red turtleneck under jacket and black pants;
- next morning, Patsy was wearing the same red turtleneck with the same black pants. But NOT the red/black jacket! (This jacket LE get into evidence many months later);
- anyone who suggests that fibers from her jacket gets 'tied into the garrote' because Patsy lay down on JB's dead body after JR 'discovery' at 1:00pm - making huge mistake: PR wasn't wearing jacket at that time.

Now, let’s assume you’re correct: the fibers from Patsy’s jacket have been ‘transferred’ on JB’s white shirt and hair PRIOR THE MURDER. But can you answer please HOW these ‘transferred’ fibers jumped into the most critical places in such a random 'direction':

- INSIDE of garrote's tides but NOT outside of them?
- INSIDE of the paint tray but NOT on the paintbrush?
- INSIDE of the sticky tape. This one is the most interesting. As you remember, Kolar gives us the most fascinating details about these fibers on the tape: the quantity of these fibers was huge versa the number of the same fibers on the blanket in which JR’s body was found. How this could happen based on your suggestion? If you would be correct then it should be opposite…blanket should have a lot of these ‘transferred’ fibers from JB’s shirt….but not much was there…hmmmm…:banghead:

'So, can we even REALLY place Patsy in the position of doing the garrote work, or the wrapping up or taping?'...imo, ABSOLUTELY YES…and we should do so….again, jmo...

 

[Rashi'sDaughter]

It seems to me quite obvious... Patsy was involved in the garroting part of the staging while John took over the cleaning up of his daughter's body. This is what the evidence says loud and clear. Moo.

 

[OpenMind4U]

It seems to me quite obvious... Patsy was involved in the garroting part of the staging while John took over the cleaning up of his daughter's body. This is what the evidence says loud and clear. Moo.

Agree on the 'cleaning' part (but cannot say for sure BY WHOM). A lot of work has been done to 'clean-up' the evidences from OUTSIDE. Here what we know:

- flashlight (INSIDE and OUTSIDE);
- rope (OUTSIDE);
- paintbrush (OUTSIDE);
- crotch/vagina area (OUTSIDE);
- before strangulation, garment was changed (Bloomy's underware and possibly longjohn).

In addition, IMO, the following could be part of the 'cleaning' as well:

- JB's face was cleaned before (and, possibly, after!) strangulation due to the fact that minimum amount of mucus was found under the tape, on the carpet, on her shirt and on the blanket. IMO, after the head blow, the amount of mucus/discharge should be present in much larger quantity;
- JB's neck was cleaned, especially in round abrasion area, close to her right ear. I'm not in medical field, but I cannot believe that such an abrasion wouldn't bleed at all. But according to AR, no dry blood was found there. It was found on other parts of her body where much smaller scratches were presents, but not on her cheek. This is pretty strange to me. But I can be wrong... DeeDee, would appreciate your opinion on this!

jmo

 

[DeeDee249]

Agree on the 'cleaning' part (but cannot say for sure BY WHOM). A lot of work has been done to 'clean-up' the evidences from OUTSIDE. Here what we know:

- flashlight (INSIDE and OUTSIDE);
- rope (OUTSIDE);
- paintbrush (OUTSIDE);
- crotch/vagina area (OUTSIDE);
- before strangulation, garment was changed (Bloomy's underware and possibly longjohn).

In addition, IMO, the following could be part of the 'cleaning' as well:

- JB's face was cleaned before (and, possibly, after!) strangulation due to the fact that minimum amount of mucus was found under the tape, on the carpet, on her shirt and on the blanket. IMO, after the head blow, the amount of mucus/discharge should be present in much larger quantity;
- JB's neck was cleaned, especially in round abrasion area, close to her right ear. I'm not in medical field, but I cannot believe that such an abrasion wouldn't bleed at all. But according to AR, no dry blood was found there. It was found on other parts of her body where much smaller scratches were presents, but not on her cheek. This is pretty strange to me. But I can be wrong... DeeDee, would appreciate your opinion on this!

jmo

I see no evidence at all that her face or neck were cleaned. The coroner did not see any evidence of this either, or he would have noted it as he did with the wiping of her thighs and pubic area.
There is mucus streaking her cheek. That definitely shows her face was not cleaned. She was examined under a fluoroscope- a black light that shows proteins in body fluids, like blood, urine semen and saliva. Had there been blood on her face, that would have shown up. Her mouth and nasal passages as well as her ears were swabbed and tested for blood, etc. There is NO evidence her neck was wiped at all- just because there is no fluid there does not mean there ever WAS any to begin with.
As for her cheek abrasion- abrasions in most cases do NOT bleed- or they would be described as wounds or cuts. There is no scabbing as there would be if a would that had bled had scabbed over. As mysterious as the mark on her cheek is, her cheek was not cleaned.
Not every scratch bleeds either.

 

[midwest mama]

MM, looks like you has opened the 'can of worms' and I couldn't wait to jump right into it:great:...

Let's talk about your suggestion in regards of fibers from Patsy's jacket. But first, we need to clear certain things out.

- at FW party, Patsy was wearing the red/black jacket, the red turtleneck under jacket and black pants;
- next morning, Patsy was wearing the same red turtleneck with the same black pants. But NOT the red/black jacket! (This jacket LE get into evidence many months later);
- anyone who suggests that fibers from her jacket gets 'tied into the garrote' because Patsy lay down on JB's dead body after JR 'discovery' at 1:00pm - making huge mistake: PR wasn't wearing jacket at that time.

Now, let’s assume you’re correct: the fibers from Patsy’s jacket have been ‘transferred’ on JB’s white shirt and hair PRIOR THE MURDER. But can you answer please HOW these ‘transferred’ fibers jumped into the most critical places in such a random 'direction':

- INSIDE of garrote's tides but NOT outside of them?
- INSIDE of the paint tray but NOT on the paintbrush?
- INSIDE of the sticky tape. This one is the most interesting. As you remember, Kolar gives us the most fascinating details about these fibers on the tape: the quantity of these fibers was huge versa the number of the same fibers on the blanket in which JR’s body was found. How this could happen based on your suggestion? If you would be correct then it should be opposite…blanket should have a lot of these ‘transferred’ fibers from JB’s shirt….but not much was there…hmmmm…:banghead:

'So, can we even REALLY place Patsy in the position of doing the garrote work, or the wrapping up or taping?'...imo, ABSOLUTELY YES…and we should do so….again, jmo...

Hi OM4U - Glad to see you posting again: you are always so passionate and have challenging thoughts! :rocker:

I'm sure Patsy slipped off her jacket at some point after arriving home from the Party and before she met French on the 26th. She would have been busy either just as she stated, or as some suspect, in the staging, and could have easily gotten too warm being so busy in layered winter tops. So, it's possible she even had some of those jacket fibers on her hands and they got transferred that way, rather than JB being up against her jacket at times earlier on Christmas.

As for the white blanket, it might have been on JB's bed that Christmas evening, and if Patsy was wearing the jacket and put JB to bed, her jacket fibers could have transferred directly to the blanket at that time. If the blanket had been in the dryer and Patsy retrieved it either to put on JB's bed or for the staging before she might have taken her jacket off, fibers would have gotten directly on the blanket. Is there anywhere that it has been proved the white blanket was NOT on JB's bed between Christmas morning and the time it was found wrapped around her? Yes, the bed seemed to be made up without it being on, but maybe Patsy got it out of the dryer and added it as another loose covering. If it was then taken off JB's bed sometime later, it wouldn't have disturbed the other layers.

Could the paintbrush have been removed from the tray by someone other than Patsy before JB might have been placed near the tray? If you think JB was redressed after the molestation, and there are opinions that there might have been a wood particle found in her vagina which was linked to the paintbrush, then wouldn't it be possible the brush was taken from the tray and used in a location away from the paint tray? Either for the molestation itself, or for penetration to cover up the molestation?

Then, after JB was redressed, perhaps the brush was picked up and taken to the sight at the tray where it is suspected the cord was tied around her neck, knotted at the back, and the paintbrush handle could have been snapped leaving the splinters, then tied into the cord. I suspect the perp at least had gloves on by the time JB was being redressed. And there could have been wiping or cleaning of the paintbrush - in fact I believe there must have been if it was used in the molestation. Also, the ligature cord was a nylon type - slick texture, so perhaps none of the fibers would have adhered to it well on the outside, and could have loosened off when JB was moved, whereas the ones tied into the cord would have remained there.

Now, has it been determined there were no jacket fibers in the immediate area of the paint tray? Was the carpet tested for those fibers as well as for the urine stain? I can't recall reading anything about that, but welcome the information.

And, here's something from http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence
Henry Lee Comments. In December 2006, ït was reported that "several fibers were found on the duct tape covering JonBenet's mouth that were microscopically similar to a jacket worn by Patsy on Christmas night. Police considered that to be significant, but forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee has concluded that the fibers could have ended up there if "a mother kissed her child good night" and the fibers were transferred."

OpenMind, I would LOVE to be convinced Patsy had everything to do with JB's final breaths. Then I could stop being revolted by seeing JR trying to look so sickeningly innocent every time he gets into the limelight for one promotion or another of his wonderful life these days. If only he could stop licking his lips like a lizard.

But I have to say I could even imagine JR using Patsy's jacket to incriminate her if he thought it would save his * from going to prison. Anyone sick enough and heinous enough to commit the crime against JB could have been capable of anything, as I see it. :furious:

 

[ozazure]

How about this scenario - Patsy does not do the garotting, but she collects together the things John needs, and she places a coil of cord under her arm to carry other items such as the flashlight, blanket, barbie etc ... she would be well practised in making her trips up and down stairs count I dare say. I can see a lot of fibres being transferred this way versus how many you'd expect when your hands are in contact with the cord.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Forensic psychologists say the garrote implies a woman.

It meant she didn't have to use her hands, which a man would automatically do if he were to try to strangle someone.

 

[midwest mama]

Forensic psychologists say the garrote implies a woman.

It meant she didn't have to use her hands, which a man would automatically do if he were to try to strangle someone.

Can you provide a link or reference tor the statement I bolded above? I haven't read any of these kinds of reports or comments with regard to the JB crime that I can remember, and I would like to have this information.

Agree that the ligature strangulation would have been easier for a woman (Patsy?) or a child (Burke?), especially if the stick handle was tied on before the strangulation was complete, rather than afterward in an attempt to make the ligature appear as a sexual garrote. But, if we look at the crime as a sexually motivated homicide, can't we consider the ligature played a part in a sex game (probably perpetrated by an adult male) gone awry? Wecht made this declaration, and while some may not agree, it is a possibility.

 

[madeleine]

Forensic psychologists say the garrote implies a woman.

Weird,it implies direct contact with the victim,this is usually a man's MO.
This is why women prefer guns or poison,they don't have to TOUCH the victim.

 

[Patriciao]

I think a younger person (14 or under) did this crime. A garrote would be something a young teen boy might like to try. He's heard about them in some way that boys learn about these things, online, video games, whatever. He plays sexually with Jon Benet and he needs to kill her so she does not tell on him. It could have been Burke or someone Burke was friends with who lived close to them. He snuck out his bedroom window when he saw the Ramseys come home. How closely were the neighbors investigated? Possibly this boy was already in the Ramsey home when they got home. Maybe that is when he had the time to pen the note. He knew the house and its layout. JB knew him which is why she didn't raise a fuss. I bet Burke knows who did it and that is the reason he has been so quiet all of these years.

 

[Patriciao]

Do they have dna from JB's vaginal area that is not hers? If they do one of these days the killer will be caught.

 

[DeeDee249]

Do they have dna from JB's vaginal area that is not hers? If they do one of these days the killer will be caught.

No they do not. There is NO DNA from anyone other than herself in or on her body. There is unknown male DNA from skin cells (aka "touch DNA" on the waistbands of her longjohns and panties. This "touch DNA" has not been sourced to a real person, nor has it been proven to be connected to the crime. Her parents were at a party that day- they picked up lots of skin cells from other people. So do you- every day. JB touched a lot of things that day too, that were touched by other people. These cells are in the exact place they'd be expected to be if JB pulled her pants up or down to use the toilet, or if her parents pulled the clothing on or off. BOTH parents admitted touching the longjohns. Patsy admitted dressing her in them, and JR was SEEN to be touching them when he carried her up from the basement- he was holding her upright around the waist, like a mannequin. She was in full rigor mortis, stiff as a board.
Skin cells are easily transferrable, so until that male DNA can be traced to an actual person- it is useless in solving the crime, and until it can be traced to a person who was Boulder that day/night, it can't be said to belong to the killer. This is how the real world works, a real judicial system- not the fantasy land of the Boulder DA's office and ML's wishful thinking. The DNA is useless without a named donor.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Can you provide a link or reference tor the statement I bolded above? I haven't read any of these kinds of reports or comments with regard to the JB crime that I can remember, and I would like to have this information.

Agree that the ligature strangulation would have been easier for a woman (Patsy?) or a child (Burke?), especially if the stick handle was tied on before the strangulation was complete, rather than afterward in an attempt to make the ligature appear as a sexual garrote. But, if we look at the crime as a sexually motivated homicide, can't we consider the ligature played a part in a sex game (probably perpetrated by an adult male) gone awry? Wecht made this declaration, and while some may not agree, it is a possibility.

Sorry, but I can't.

I don't even know where I heard it, I'm thinking on tv, but some expert said that men in general are far more likely to use their hands to strangle than a tool to strangle.

Even if it's sexually based, they get more satisfaction from using their bare hands. It's a psychological thing to do with being a man. Not that it necessarily implies to every single man I guess. I just recall hearing that psychologically and statistically, a garrote indicates a woman or a weak person instead of a grown man.

When you think about it, most times you do hear "raped and strangled" in the news, when a murdered female is found.

:dunno:

 

[SapphireSteel]

Weird,it implies direct contact with the victim,this is usually a man's MO.
This is why women prefer guns or poison,they don't have to TOUCH the victim.

This is a staged coverup for an unplanned murder. Guns and poison imply planning.

Patsy wouldn't have had to touch Jonbenet if she used a garrote.

She could just slip it over her head and twist.

 

[madeleine]

This is a staged coverup for an unplanned murder.

we don't know that
the evidence (autopsy report and I also believe what Wecht is saying re the wounds) shows JB was alive when strangled
re the other evidence- we can't know for sure what was cover-up and what was real
same re planned or not planned,we can't know until we know who did it and why

 

[deca]

I'm a fairly recent newcomer to this case and there is one thing I just can't get past: one of the parents covering for the other. If JRkilled her, I don't see Patsy covering. If Patsy killed her, I don't see JR covering for her. I just can't see it.
So far for me, that means either BDI (with JR and PR stage) or both JR and PR were abusing her/aware of the abuse before her death and felt the need to stage in CYA mode.

MOO

 

[azwriter]

This is a staged coverup for an unplanned murder. Guns and poison imply planning.

Patsy wouldn't have had to touch Jonbenet if she used a garrote.

She could just slip it over her head and twist.

Garrote - what a term. I first head it used on the Larry King show when John referred to it as a "professional" garrote. What is that? Pro versus amatuer? And how does John know what made it professional.

I do believe the cord or rope or whatever it's called was put there not just to strangle her but for effect. Patsy and John used whatever they could to add outrageous outward evidence. They wanted it to look like their daughter died at the hands of a monster. They knew the world would never believe or think a parent could do that to their own child; especially these parents - rich, active in the community, well known, former beauty queen; Miss America contestant for God's sake. These types of people don't kill their own child.

However, I do believe she wasn't dead when the cord was applied. JonBenet probably appeared to her parents to be dead from the head blow, which they knew happened but they had to add some other method of death in the set of staging activities they did. John and Patsy knew the police would look for a cause of death and the appearance of the cord around her neck when she was discovered (which is a strange word to use since I believe John knew right where to look) would be the most visible cause of death. But, since these parents were not trained killers, I think they didn't have time to be concerned with what the autospy would show.

Yes indeed the Ramseys took steps to control all the outward evidence LE would immediately find. The ransom "letter" as I have said before was a blueprint, a hands on piece of evidence that was to help explain why their 6-year-old daughter's dead body was in their cellar.

I think the fact that we are still discussing this case and trying to uncover the truth after all these years shows that John and Patsy did whatever they could to cover up the initial injuries caused by their son, Burke.

All of course, just my opinion.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Garrote - what a term. I first head it used on the Larry King show when John referred to it as a "professional" garrote. What is that? Pro versus amatuer? And how does John know what made it professional.

I do believe the cord or rope or whatever it's called was put there not just to strangle her but for effect. Patsy and John used whatever they could to add outrageous outward evidence. They wanted it to look like their daughter died at the hands of a monster. They knew the world would never believe or think a parent could do that to their own child; especially these parents - rich, active in the community, well known, former beauty queen; Miss America contestant for God's sake. These types of people don't kill their own child.

However, I do believe she wasn't dead when the cord was applied. JonBenet probably appeared to her parents to be dead from the head blow, which they knew happened but they had to add some other method of death in the set of staging activities they did. John and Patsy knew the police would look for a cause of death and the appearance of the cord around her neck when she was discovered (which is a strange word to use since I believe John knew right where to look) would be the most visible cause of death. But, since these parents were not trained killers, I think they didn't have time to be concerned with what the autospy would show.

Yes indeed the Ramseys took steps to control all the outward evidence LE would immediately find. The ransom "letter" as I have said before was a blueprint, a hands on piece of evidence that was to help explain why their 6-year-old daughter's dead body was in their cellar.

I think the fact that we are still discussing this case and trying to uncover the truth after all these years shows that John and Patsy did whatever they could to cover up the initial injuries caused by their son, Burke.

All of course, just my opinion.

Thank you azwriter!!!! I do agree with you almost 100%.......

I do believe the cord or rope or whatever it's called was put there not just to strangle her but for effect....JonBenet probably appeared to her parents to be dead from the head blow, which they knew happened but they had to add some other method of death

I believe the 'garrotte' element - WOOD PAINTBRUSH - was added for effect, but not the rope. And here is why...

Strangulation and Kidnapping.
The use of 'strangulation' is not kidnappers common 'method of death' on their victims. You cannot find such an association not in the fictional literature, not in an actual criminal history. Therefore, Ramsey had no reason to 'stage' strangulation method of death to convince others that kidnappers 'did it'. So, why use the strangulation? Just to add more gruesome effects?! I don't think so.

Why use the rope?
I don't believe that Ramsey JUST randomly choosed to use rope for 'staging' and I don't believe in 'mercy' killing reason. I believe the rope was on JB already. The 'method of death' was right there, up-front of Ramsey. The same as the paintbrush, Ramsey have simply used elements from an actual assult for the 'staging'....jmo

Like you, all of course, just my opinion...Again, GREAT POST azwriter, thank you!!!!