LIfe as a fence sitter

[JMO8778]

BOESP,

OK you are thinking out aloud. I do not have any problem with Steve Thomas, just his Toilet Rage theory, which I am certain, now there is more evidence available, he would probably discount?


.

I'm not sure he would discount it,but he would probably revise the timeline as to when JR first became involved in the coverup.He may have suspected it was sooner,but just didn't have any solid proof of it.
But when I see things in DOI like JR trying to account for his underwear fibers near JB's bed...WELLLL....I think there might be more to this story as to the reason why JB was killed.Add to that the findings of digital penetration,JB's soiling issues and behavior,Patsy's answers about who could touch JB and help her,her ODD response when past sexual abuse was revealed,and her odd response when asked if JR could have been abusing JB,and I think it adds up to more than just Patsy corporally cleaning her.
As for the pageants and Patsy 'pimping' JB up for JR,well,I am suspect of those BECAUSE Patsy patently downplayed their involvement in them,saying it was just 'a few Sunday afternoons'.Since pageants themselves aren't illegal,then WHY would she feel the need to LIE and downplay the amt of time spent on them??? She wouldn't have to,therefore that leads me to believe she was fixing JB up for more than one reason,and to deny the amt of time spent on them also denies whatever other reason she is really trying to downplay them for.

 

[JMO8778]

I'm not sure he would discount it,but he would probably revise the timeline as to when JR first became involved in the coverup.He may have suspected it was sooner,but just didn't have any solid proof of it.
But when I see things in DOI like JR trying to account for his underwear fibers near JB's bed...WELLLL....I think there might be more to this story as to the reason why JB was killed.Add to that the findings of digital penetration,JB's soiling issues and behavior,Patsy's answers about who could touch JB and help her,her ODD response when past sexual abuse was revealed,and her odd response when asked if JR could have been abusing JB,and I think it adds up to more than just Patsy corporally cleaning her.
As for the pageants and Patsy 'pimping' JB up for JR,well,I am suspect of those BECAUSE Patsy patently downplayed their involvement in them,saying it was just 'a few Sunday afternoons'.Since pageants themselves aren't illegal,then WHY would she feel the need to LIE and downplay the amt of time spent on them??? She wouldn't have to,therefore that leads me to believe she was fixing JB up for more than one reason,and to deny the amt of time spent on them also denies whatever other reason she is really trying to downplay them for.

sometimes it's the little clues that give the biggest hints,so I can't ignore the above in bold,and who was it that said "THINK, THINK!!" (?)
Because I think that might be a good thing to do in this instance.

 

[JMO8778]

BOESP - just at thought - could the acute vaginal wound have been inflicted with the douche nozzle? I have just googled around since I didn't even know how exactly a douche looks like, but I've seen some pictures now - suppose Patsy, in anger, jabbed the douche nozzle inside her so vigorously that it started to bleed? For THEN it would make sense for Patsy to wipe JonBenet down afterward and put fresh underwer on her - because she wanted to hide this assault.
UKGuy used to bring up this point often, and I do think it is a valid point: why would parents who staged a sexual assault then wipe the child down at all and put clothing back on her? (My explanation was that Patsy just could not proceed with this part of the staging and abruptly stopped).
But if it was actually Patsy who 'assaulted' JonBenet physically, so to speak, then she would have had every reason to hide this later.

If memory serves, Steve Thomas never thought the vaginal wound was inflicted for staging purposes either - his theory was that Patsy inflicted this wound in a rage.

jmo

good thoughts.
the only thing I would add is that the underwear wasn't just fresh...it was NEW.I think it was put on her b/c it lacked any of the R's DNA.why else put such a large pair on her? I think the fact they said Wed. on them was just considered a bonus to the stager.what was important was the fact they were NEW.to me,that indicates someone trying to hide more than just corporal cleaning.

 

[rashomon]

BOESP
...
The difference between your speculation and mine is that mine is based upon forensic evidence!

The problem is that this forensic evidence seems to allow for more than one interpretation. Not even the pediatric medical experts were of the same opinon regarding the cause of JonBenet's genital injuries.

 

[rashomon]

Rash those fibers are very incriminating as to John being involved with the staging. Do you think they indicate he was a participant in the crime or just the staging or both?

I used to believe that John was merely involved in the staging of the scene, but I have just read in another post (#141 on the 'fence sitter' thread) that in DOI he was trying to account for his underwear fibers near JonBenet's bed - that's a bit strange. I've continually been wavering re the sexual abuse issue and John's possible involvement ever since I started studying this case.

 

[rashomon]

But when I see things in DOI like JR trying to account for his underwear fibers near JB's bed...WELLLL....I think there might be more to this story as to the reason why JB was killed..

That's interesting. Do you know on which page this is in DOI?

 

[UKGuy]

Lou Smit's intruder theory completely disregards the forensic evidence, therefore it is not "just as good too". Smit's theory is a joke.

And where was the remaining set of the too large size 12 Bloomies underwear? Did the police find them in their house search? No, they didn't, although these Bloomies had to have been there - I suppose you would agree on that. Why do you think the police didn't find them?

jmo

rashomon,
You rush in too fast.

Lou Smit's intruder theory completely disregards the forensic evidence, therefore it is not "just as good too". Smit's theory is a joke.

Exactly the emphasis I was seeking to underline.

And where was the remaining set of the too large size 12 Bloomies underwear? Did the police find them in their house search? No, they didn't, although these Bloomies had to have been there - I suppose you would agree on that. Why do you think the police didn't find them?

We have JonBenet wearing a pair of size-12's, we have Patsy stating she purchased a set of seven bloomingdales size-12's, so the forensic evidence exists. With respect to the douching packs, to my knowledge none exist, if and when their existence is displayed, any theory that assumes JonBenet was assaulted by douching will be merit more serious consideration.

Why do you think the police didn't find them?

There are potentially four possible answers:

1. They were not in JonBenet's bedroom.

2. They found them in Patsy's room, and were discounted as adult underwear.

3. They were removed from the house, as clothing required for personal use, when the BPD let them do an undercover raid.

4. The police messed up on searching JonBenet's bedroom.

I reckon (4.) is unlikely since everything in that room would have been turned over, and any underwear, even size-12 would have been itemized.

And of course the calvary comes riding to the rescue, in the form of the Ramsey's discovering a pack of size-12's, and sending them to the BPD, with some lame story that after all this time, we just found these, and thought they might be important, duh!

The latter story by the Ramsey's suggests 1. and 3. is correct.

In late 2006, Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, visited JBR's bedroom on the third day of the investigation. "Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."
http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

So here was a trained sexual abuse investigator, explicitly looking for evidential material, did she miss the size-12's also?


.

 

[UKGuy]

I see where you are coming from on that.

I didn't see it so much as collusion as just a frantic father trying to figure out the note and what was happening and more or less telling Burke he didn't have time for Burke at the moment, i.e. "get out of my hair, kid, I'm busy."

BOESP,

After arriving back from the White's JonBenet consumed some pineapple, and on the same table was a tea-glass holding a teabag, Burke was the resident tea drinker.

John's account on returning from the White's is that he spent some time with Burke.

OK fine, Burke is the independent witness to all these alleged events, he alone can confirm, which are correct, bear in mind he stated that JonBenet walked into the house that night, his account is consistent with the pineapple residue, the parents is not, since they allege they placed a sleeping JonBenet to bed.

So Burke has colluded to maintain a particular version of events.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not sure he would discount it,but he would probably revise the timeline as to when JR first became involved in the coverup.He may have suspected it was sooner,but just didn't have any solid proof of it.
But when I see things in DOI like JR trying to account for his underwear fibers near JB's bed...WELLLL....I think there might be more to this story as to the reason why JB was killed.Add to that the findings of digital penetration,JB's soiling issues and behavior,Patsy's answers about who could touch JB and help her,her ODD response when past sexual abuse was revealed,and her odd response when asked if JR could have been abusing JB,and I think it adds up to more than just Patsy corporally cleaning her.
As for the pageants and Patsy 'pimping' JB up for JR,well,I am suspect of those BECAUSE Patsy patently downplayed their involvement in them,saying it was just 'a few Sunday afternoons'.Since pageants themselves aren't illegal,then WHY would she feel the need to LIE and downplay the amt of time spent on them??? She wouldn't have to,therefore that leads me to believe she was fixing JB up for more than one reason,and to deny the amt of time spent on them also denies whatever other reason she is really trying to downplay them for.

JMO8778,
Exactly, there are too many red flags, to quote and amend, Its the sexual abuse Stupid!.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Let's face it, most of anything anyone (other than the Rs) say is theory- we weren't there.
But one theory is right. We just don't know for sure yet which one.
Yes, a douche used on a 6-year old COULD cause unjuries, but I have to tell you that I can't see a child standing still for that type of cleansing for long. Also, PR is said to have discussed or at least mentioned douching her daughter to friends. She probably didn't mention it to the pediatrician, as even in adult women, repeated douching can alter the chemical balance and cause infection. And JBR was brought many times to the doctor for vaginal infections. If he'd known of the douching, Dr. Boef should have told PR to stop, as it may have been contributing to her vaginal irritations. So there is conflicting reasoning about why there was a vaginal wound in the staging. If the purpose was to hide the douching, some people allegedly already knew about it.
Now about the splinter in the vagina....wasn't it also reported that "cellulose" was found in there? I would take "cellulose" to indicate a piece from the broken paintbrush rather than "birefringent" matter. I always inferred that as meaning something refractive, like silica (from talc or baby powder)- which is usually found on latex gloves. Weren't there latex gloves photographed in a bathroom drawer?
However- the paintbrush handle is described in the autopsy as having layers of paint and varnish on it. I suppose paint or varnish flecks could also be "birefringent".
Boy, if that missing piece of the paintbrush handle ever turns up...though for all we know, the coroner and LE could already know where it is. Funny we've never seen anyone ask about it in any of the interviews.

Let's face it, most of anything anyone (other than the Rs) say is theory- we weren't there.

Not quite true.

FACT:
We know JonBenet was awake and walking about the Ramsey kitchen after retruning from the White's, the pineapple residue tells us this.

FACT:
We know JonBenet was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, and on prior occassions, her enlarged hymen, and Coroner Meyers remarks regarding digital penetration, tells us this, and although we weren't there, Coroner Meyer was!

FACT:
JonBenet was wiped down and redressed in those size-12's, since there are blood smears on her thighs, and none on her genitalia to match those blood smears on her underwear.

Some things are not an interpretation, they are facts, and sometimes contradict the Ramseys alleged sequence of events.

I would take "cellulose" to indicate a piece from the broken paintbrush rather than "birefringent" matter. I always inferred that as meaning something refractive, like silica (from talc or baby powder)- which is usually found on latex gloves. Weren't there latex gloves photographed in a bathroom drawer?

It is probable that the splinter refered to in Steve Thomas' book is from the broken paintbrush handle. Possibly some attempt was made to obsfucate her prior sexual assault using the paintbrush handle, or it was simply inserted as part of some ritualistic theme e.g. the garrote?

refractive and birefringent are different but related properties of materials, which can tell you exactly what it is made from, more so if you have an example to test against e.g paintbrush handle in the garrote.

.

 

[UKGuy]

The problem is that this forensic evidence seems to allow for more than one interpretation. Not even the pediatric medical experts were of the same opinon regarding the cause of JonBenet's genital injuries.

rashomon,

Sure but not all interpretations are equally probable, so you pick the most probable one, and try and knock it down.

Selecting one of the least probable, then looking for confirming evidence, seems a questionable procedure?

To rephrase President Clinton's remark: Its the sexual abuse Stupid!

.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Sure but not all interpretations are equally probable, so you pick the most probable one, and try and knock it down.

Selecting one of the least probable, then looking for confirming evidence, seems a questionable procedure?

UKGuy,

I'm not trying to knock it down. In fact I have a second theory (not yet posted) where the possibility of sexual abuse is taken into account. I have been wavering re the sexual abuse isssue ever since I started studying this case. The discussion here on WS about this issue is very interesting, and I think both sides have valuabe arguments.
I'm not saying "John Ramsey could never have been abusing his daughter".
But suppose JonBenet told him she was going to tell Patsy about it and John in a panic whacked her on the head to silence her for good,then Patsy's involvement in the staging of the scene makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, if John was the killer, what are the possibilities:

1) He told Patsy same cockamamie story about Burke havig killed JonBenet (as has been theorized, i. e. in Sandraladeda's theory she has just posted here), persuading her to cover up for Burke, or

2) Patsy not only knew about the abuse, but even had pimped her daughter to John (your theory).

In your theory, the vaginal wound was inflicted for sexual gratification with the perp using a broken paintbrush. But the person who did this must have been downright sadistic, and I just can't see John as being such a person. His children said he never hurt them physically in any way, never even raised his voice to them.
So according to your theory, John not only had been sexually abusing his daughter, he also sexually assaulted her with a broken paintbrush.
All our theories are speculation. I think this is a very unlikely scenario, but then this is jmo.

To rephrase President Clinton's remark: Its the sexual abuse Stupid!

What was Clinton's original remark?

 

[rashomon]

Not quite true.

FACT:
We know JonBenet was awake and walking about the Ramsey kitchen after retruning from the White's, the pineapple residue tells us this.

FACT:
We know JonBenet was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, and on prior occassions, her enlarged hymen, and Coroner Meyers remarks regarding digital penetration, tells us this, and although we weren't there, Coroner Meyer was!

FACT:
JonBenet was wiped down and redressed in those size-12's, since there are blood smears on her thighs, and none on her genitalia to match those blood smears on her underwear.

Some things are not an interpretation, they are facts, and sometimes contradict the Ramseys alleged sequence of events.


It is probable that the splinter refered to in Steve Thomas' book is from the broken paintbrush handle. Possibly some attempt was made to obsfucate her prior sexual assault using the paintbrush handle, or it was simply inserted as part of some ritualistic theme e.g. the garrote?

refractive and birefringent are different but related properties of materials, which can tell you exactly what it is made from, more so if you have an example to test against e.g paintbrush handle in the garrote.

Is this splinter mentioned in the autopsy report?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
I'm not trying to knock it down. In fact I have a second theory (not yet posted) where the possibility of sexual abuse is taken into account. I have been wavering re the sexual abuse isssue ever since I started studying this case. The discussion here on WS about this issue is very interesting, and I think both sides have valuabe arguments.
I'm not saying "John Ramsey could never have been abusing his daughter".
But suppose JonBenet told him she was going to tell Patsy about it and John in a panic whacked her on the head to silence her for good,then Patsy's involvement in the staging of the scene makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, if John was the killer, what are the possibilities:

1) He told Patsy same cockamamie story about Burke havig killed JonBenet (as has been theorized, i. e. in Sandraladeda's theory she has just posted here), persuading her to cover up for Burke, or

2) Patsy not only knew about the abuse, but even had pimped her daughter to John (your theory).

In your theory, the vaginal wound was inflicted for sexual gratification with the perp using a broken paintbrush. But the person who did this must have been downright sadistic, and I just can't see John as being such a person. His children said he never hurt them physically in any way, never even raised his voice to them.
So according to your theory, John not only had been sexually abusing his daughter, he also sexually assaulted her with a broken paintbrush.
All our theories are speculation. I think this is a very unlikely scenario, but then this is jmo.


What was Clinton's original remark?

rashomon,

Sure but not all interpretations are equally probable, so you pick the most probable one, and try and knock it down.

Selecting one of the least probable, then looking for confirming evidence, seems a questionable procedure?

I'm not trying to knock it down.
But you should, that is the point about the first phrase.

It was not aimed at you personally.

Considering JDI there are other variations on the above, and just how sadistic her killer was has been demonstrated by the violence inflicted upon JonBenet, never mind any post-mortem injuries.

Its fairly safe to assume Patsy knew all about JonBenet's abuse, even if she was never present, her silence would have sanctioned it, never mind any pageant routines designed to groom JonBenet.

In fact it follows from a lot of the evidence that either Patsy or John, were individually or collectively abusing JonBenet, the collective part is difficult to demonstrate, but since they both defended each other after her death, including Patsy who had nothing to say when told JonBenet had been sexually abused.

President Clinton famously remarked about winning an election, Its the economy Stupid! , he was right.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Is this splinter mentioned in the autopsy report?

rashomon,
It masquerades as birefringent material in the autopsy report.


.

 

[Albert18]

If the staging was to direct attention away from the real reason JonBenet died, and a sexual assault was part of the staging, how can sexual abuse be a part of the real reason JonBenet died?

 

[BOESP]

rashomon,
It masquerades as birefringent material in the autopsy report.


.

UKGuy, how do you know that birefringent material = broken paintbrush handle? That's a mighty big inference. We might assume that since Thomas mentioned a "splinter" and Meyer mentioned a birefringent fragment they are one and the same but that is purely speculation, just as it is speculation the paintbrush was inserted vaginally into JonBenet. If you have a source to prove your statement, please share it with us.

 

[BOESP]

If the staging was to direct attention away from the real reason JonBenet died, and a sexual assault was part of the staging, how can sexual abuse be a part of the real reason JonBenet died?

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, how do you know that birefringent material = broken paintbrush handle? That's a mighty big inference. We might assume that since Thomas mentioned a "splinter" and Meyer mentioned a birefringent fragment they are one and the same but that is purely speculation, just as it is speculation the paintbrush was inserted vaginally into JonBenet. If you have a source to prove your statement, please share it with us.

BOESP,

how do you know that birefringent material = broken paintbrush handle? That's a mighty big inference.

No its a logical inference, some might say a conclusion based upon the forensic evidence.

AFAIK only one foreign item was discovered inside JonBenet, itemized in the Autopsy Report by Coroner Meyer as birefringent material.

Steve Thomas in his book Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, tells us that

we had experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina.

The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote.

So we know it is a splinter, we know it is cellulose, and likely originates from the paintbrush, Coroner Meyer describes it as as birefringent material.

Beacause it is birefringent Coroner Meyer knows exactly what it is composed of but at the point in time of the release of the autopsy, there was an embargo on releasing particular information, birefringent material nicely hides the potential source of the material.

So since there is only one item inside JonBenet and we have two separate references, the conclusion follows.

To demonstrate I have it all wrong all you need to do is show that cellulose is not birefringent ?


.

 

[UKGuy]

If the staging was to direct attention away from the real reason JonBenet died, and a sexual assault was part of the staging, how can sexual abuse be a part of the real reason JonBenet died?

Albert18,
The sexual assault was real and occurred prior to her death, later she was wiped down and redressed to hide this.

What is the point in staging a sexual assault then hiding it beneath clothing and blankets?


.