Molested with the handle?

[JMO8778]

DeeDee249,
JonBenet was also redressed not simply wrapped. There was no need for clean size-12's or urine-soaked longjohns, the latter could have been removed to break any link with a toileting incident.

The presentation was that of an unmolested asphyxiated victim, who someone had wrapped in blankets then carried to the wine-cellar.

So we have a kidnapper who decides at the last minute to asphyxiate his intended source of revenue, and dump the body in the wine-cellar, whilst advertising his own existence by continuing to leave the ransom note behind?

Although you may be correct about the wrapping I continue to think it served a staging purpose and not some sort of comfort to her killer?


.

could be,I also wonder if JR did it so it would appear to be something a mother would do...I do think he was directing evidence in her direction,that is not to say he's innocent or guilty of anything,I just think Patsy let him take over at some point,and she trusted him and did whatever he told her to do.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, I am aware of the damage inflicted by the blunt force trauma. I am talking about a second area of damage. JonBenet's brain also showed signs that are distinctly found in shaken baby syndrome, in a region of the brain that was not at the blunt-force trauma site or linear fracture. In other words, if you closely read the autopsy, you'll see mention of some brain damage that doesn't seem to be accounted for by the blunt force trauma; it is damage that is consistent with shaken baby syndrome.

I think it oversteps what can be proved to say someone "deliberately whacked" JonBenet and "sexually assaulted" can mean more than one thing.

BOESP,

I think it oversteps what can be proved to say someone "deliberately whacked" JonBenet and "sexually assaulted" can mean more than one thing.

Well its not rocket science. JonBenet's skull injury is of the most severe type e.g. very uncommon in domestic accidents, but very common in road traffic accidents or falls from heights. Nobody dialled 911 for medical assistance, so it was no accident that JonBenet's life eventually expired. JonBenet has multiple injuries to her head as she does to her neck, so these are not accidental, they have been deliberately inflicted. JonBenet's sexual assault is unambiguous Coroner Meyer considers she was digitally penetrated and subjected to sexual contact.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I think her head blow was accidental. She was carelessly grabbed by the neck in my theory, which is just that, a theory, like yours is a theory. Digital penetration is sexual contact of course. I never said it wasn't. It does not have to be for gratification if a cleansing procedure was done, particularly a procedure inflicted for punishment. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

BOESP,

I think her head blow was accidental.

Thats fine, it is your personal opinion. It is not a theory though since you offer no evidence to support your position. Similarly for your view that a cleansing procedure was undertaken for the purposes of punishment. Again where is the evidence, not even Steve Thomas, its main advocate offered any. I would take it seriously if there was some evidence on the table, to date neither the BPD nor the Coroner have indicated JonBenet had been subjected to some kind of corporal cleansing.


I reckon a theory that cannot be disproved is not a theory, but as you suggest thats possibly something else to agree to disagree about?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, I am aware of the damage inflicted by the blunt force trauma. I am talking about a second area of damage. JonBenet's brain also showed signs that are distinctly found in shaken baby syndrome, in a region of the brain that was not at the blunt-force trauma site or linear fracture. In other words, if you closely read the autopsy, you'll see mention of some brain damage that doesn't seem to be accounted for by the blunt force trauma; it is damage that is consistent with shaken baby syndrome.

I think it oversteps what can be proved to say someone "deliberately whacked" JonBenet and "sexually assaulted" can mean more than one thing.

Those injuries, while consistant with "shaken baby syndrome", could have come from the severe blow that caused the fracture. A blow that hard would not only fracture the skull, but anything hard enough to knock out a piece of the skull would certainly cause the brain to slam against the skull.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
JonBenet was also redressed not simply wrapped. There was no need for clean size-12's or urine-soaked longjohns, the latter could have been removed to break any link with a toileting incident.

The presentation was that of an unmolested asphyxiated victim, who someone had wrapped in blankets then carried to the wine-cellar.

So we have a kidnapper who decides at the last minute to asphyxiate his intended source of revenue, and dump the body in the wine-cellar, whilst advertising his own existence by continuing to leave the ransom note behind?

Although you may be correct about the wrapping I continue to think it served a staging purpose and not some sort of comfort to her killer?


.

The wrapping (in her own blanket) could have been done to make it appear she was taken from her bed. That is, after all, what the Rs maintained all along; they claimed not to have seen her again after JR carried her up to bed. Of course, we know there is some discrepency as to whether JR DID carry her that night, as even his own son disputed that.
Anyone who took a look at the pics of JBR's bedroom can see clearly that the bottom of the bed shows the top comforter/spread still neatly in place. There was no way anyone pulled a child, sleeping, struggling, unconscious or any other way, from that bed wrapped in a blanket that had been ON the bed, under the top cover. The white blanket was taken from the dryer, where it probably was since the previous day, when she wet the bed as she usually did. Christmas Eve was a busy night, Christmas day busy too. With housekeeper LHP, by PR's own admission, off for those days, PR wouldn't be bothered remaking her bed to put the blanket back on. She left it where it was (the basement dryer, which was the only one of the 2 dryers in the house that fit the blanket) and made the bed without it. LHP said that the sheets on the bed in the crime scene photos were not the same ones she put on the last day she worked.

 

[JMO8778]

Those injuries, while consistant with "shaken baby syndrome", could have come from the severe blow that caused the fracture. A blow that hard would not only fracture the skull, but anything hard enough to knock out a piece of the skull would certainly cause the brain to slam against the skull.

good point...I know when I was in a car wreck,I hit my head (hard enough to break the windshield) and there isn't just a point of impact injury,there is also an injury that occurs directly on the opposite side of the brain,where it strikes the other side of the skull.

 

[UKGuy]

FYI - from American Heritage Dictionary, one definition of theory: Abstract reasoning; speculation.

I don't believe you exactly offered any evidence along with your "opinion" either and I'm not asking you for evidence. Just making a statement. Any time some one starts preaching, I run.

BOESP,

Any time some one starts preaching, I run.

Dont look back, since I'm sure others will take note of your ad-hominem remarks.


.

 

[UKGuy]

The wrapping (in her own blanket) could have been done to make it appear she was taken from her bed. That is, after all, what the Rs maintained all along; they claimed not to have seen her again after JR carried her up to bed. Of course, we know there is some discrepency as to whether JR DID carry her that night, as even his own son disputed that.
Anyone who took a look at the pics of JBR's bedroom can see clearly that the bottom of the bed shows the top comforter/spread still neatly in place. There was no way anyone pulled a child, sleeping, struggling, unconscious or any other way, from that bed wrapped in a blanket that had been ON the bed, under the top cover. The white blanket was taken from the dryer, where it probably was since the previous day, when she wet the bed as she usually did. Christmas Eve was a busy night, Christmas day busy too. With housekeeper LHP, by PR's own admission, off for those days, PR wouldn't be bothered remaking her bed to put the blanket back on. She left it where it was (the basement dryer, which was the only one of the 2 dryers in the house that fit the blanket) and made the bed without it. LHP said that the sheets on the bed in the crime scene photos were not the same ones she put on the last day she worked.

DeeDee249,

The wrapping (in her own blanket) could have been done to make it appear she was taken from her bed.

Yes and her size-12's and longjohns. If this were the case why were actual blankets from her bed not used. Since if the the sheets had been changed, surely the blankets to be used should be the ones on the bed, and it was blankets! Also the same reasoning applies to the barbie-gown found located next to JonBenet's body, but for some reason alike her death many think its arrival there was accidental?

From your account of the bed, its sheets etc, no attempt was made to make the blankets wrapped around JonBenet consistent with the final state of the bed. So I would assume the case for making it appear she was taken from her bed is weakened?

If JonBenet had not been wiped down and redressed then the bedtime abduction staging would be compelling, and although the fact that it was blankets that were wrapped around her, might not have been lost on whomever did it, I reckon the primary purpose was to hide the hideously large size-12's and any remaining evidence of a sexual assault?

After the violence inflicted upon JonBenet I have always thought that the FBI's remarks regarding the blankets were inconsistent.

There is also the possibility that John added or removed forensic evidence during the period whe he went missing in the morning. e.g. the blankets, the barbie-gown, and the size-12's, recognizing that a sexually assaulted victim increased the probability of being arrested. This might explain some of the crime-scene inconsistencies, since it appears they were really last minute additions, and ones that Patsy had no control over?

.
.

 

[JMO8778]

Yes and her size-12's and longjohns. If this were the case why were actual blankets from her bed not used.

I would venture to say for the same reason the brand new underwear was put on her...so that hopefully,it being a clean blanket right out of the dryer,no R dna would be on it.

Since if the the sheets had been changed, surely the blankets to be used should be the ones on the bed, and it was blankets!

not if they hoped to drastically reduce the amt of chances of R dna being on them.

Also the same reasoning applies to the barbie-gown found located next to JonBenet's body, but for some reason alike her death many think its arrival there was accidental?

I don't get your point here...I do think it was just as JR admitted...'that shouldn't be there'.

From your account of the bed, its sheets etc, no attempt was made to make the blankets wrapped around JonBenet consistent with the final state of the bed. So I would assume the case for making it appear she was taken from her bed is weakened?

for sure.

If JonBenet had not been wiped down and redressed then the bedtime abduction staging would be compelling, and although the fact that it was blankets that were wrapped around her, might not have been lost on whomever did it, I reckon the primary purpose was to hide the hideously large size-12's and any remaining evidence of a sexual assault?

could be,or just to clean her up,period? although I do lean twds sexual assualt,esp. with JR trying to account for his underwear fibers in JB's room, NEAR HER BED at that, in DOI.

After the violence inflicted upon JonBenet I have always thought that the FBI's remarks regarding the blankets were inconsistent.

how so?

There is also the possibility that John added or removed forensic evidence during the period whe he went missing in the morning. e.g. the blankets, the barbie-gown, and the size-12's, recognizing that a sexually assaulted victim increased the probability of being arrested. This might explain some of the crime-scene inconsistencies, since it appears they were really last minute additions, and ones that Patsy had no control over?

good point,for one I think he wrapped her like a mother would,so as to point to Patsy,should suspicion fall on him.

 

[DeeDee249]

I was under the impression there was only ONE blanket wrapped around JBR, the white one from her bed. This was the one LHP spoke about, as being washed (usually daily) along with the wet sheets from her bed. She also said that it was always washed and dried in the basement dryer. The basement washer-dryer was a full size set, whereas the set outside JBR's room was a small, apartment size set, and the blanket only fit in the basement set.

What was the second blanket? In the crime photos, in the pic where the blanket is shown on the wineceller floor, and the piece of tape from JBR's mouth lay where it was thrown after being removed from her mouth- it looks like there is just one blanket- a white one.
In LA's account of JR bringing JBR's body up from the basement, she makes no mention of there being a blanket around her. She decribes JR holding her upright like a doll, away from his body, with her arms up straight over her head in full rigor.
Later, a blanket from a chair in the living room is placed over her, along with a sweatshirt. Is that blanket the second one you are referring to, UKGuy?

 

[UKGuy]

I was under the impression there was only ONE blanket wrapped around JBR, the white one from her bed. This was the one LHP spoke about, as being washed (usually daily) along with the wet sheets from her bed. She also said that it was always washed and dried in the basement dryer. The basement washer-dryer was a full size set, whereas the set outside JBR's room was a small, apartment size set, and the blanket only fit in the basement set.

What was the second blanket? In the crime photos, in the pic where the blanket is shown on the wineceller floor, and the piece of tape from JBR's mouth lay where it was thrown after being removed from her mouth- it looks like there is just one blanket- a white one.
In LA's account of JR bringing JBR's body up from the basement, she makes no mention of there being a blanket around her. She decribes JR holding her upright like a doll, away from his body, with her arms up straight over her head in full rigor.
Later, a blanket from a chair in the living room is placed over her, along with a sweatshirt. Is that blanket the second one you are referring to, UKGuy?

DeeDee249,
Sure I had the same impression, or at least thought it was not very significant.

Source:http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

Det. Michael Everett informed Your Affiant that after the discovery of the girl's body that he walked through the basement area of the house to attempt to determine if any persons were present in the basement. In the area where Det. Arndt had told Det. Everett that the decedent had been found by her father he observed two blankets on the floor in the center of the room.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I would venture to say for the same reason the brand new underwear was put on her...so that hopefully,it being a clean blanket right out of the dryer,no R dna would be on it.

not if they hoped to drastically reduce the amt of chances of R dna being on them.

I don't get your point here...I do think it was just as JR admitted...'that shouldn't be there'.

for sure.

could be,or just to clean her up,period? although I do lean twds sexual assualt,esp. with JR trying to account for his underwear fibers in JB's room, NEAR HER BED at that, in DOI.

how so?

good point,for one I think he wrapped her like a mother would,so as to point to Patsy,should suspicion fall on him.

JMO8778,

I don't get your point here...I do think it was just as JR admitted...'that shouldn't be there'.

What JR said was an obvious statement of fact e.g. the barbie-gown should be elsewhere. We use this ourselves to make it significant, so JR is not saying anything we do not say either. In the majority of staged crime-scenes items are there for a particular reason, they do not arrive accidentally, and if it did the stager would have removed the barbie-gown, recognizing it might point to a location other than her bedroom?

could be,or just to clean her up,period? although I do lean twds sexual assualt,esp. with JR trying to account for his underwear fibers in JB's room, NEAR HER BED at that, in DOI.

The point was that the blankets and longjohns hide the oversized underwear and any residual assault evidence. Otherwise the blankets, the longjohns , the size-12's are redundant. Why not leave JonBenet naked from the waist down, or wearing her blood-stained size-6's, dead in the wine-cellar. Dead is dead! His underwear fibers, if accurate, place him in her bedroom.

After the violence inflicted upon JonBenet I have always thought that the FBI's remarks regarding the blankets were inconsistent.
...
how so?

Because of the amount of violence applied, why bother with blankets for a dead child after all that cynical staging and mindless violence? JonBenet's killer(s) had their own survival in mind not the decedents!

.

 

[JMO8778]

In the majority of staged crime-scenes items are there for a particular reason, they do not arrive accidentally, and if it did the stager would have removed the barbie-gown

I think the WC staging was down with the nightvision goggles JR was questioned about..and I think as it was a light color,just like the blanket,it just wasn't noticed.

The point was that the blankets and longjohns hide the oversized underwear and any residual assault evidence. Otherwise the blankets, the longjohns , the size-12's are redundant. Why not leave JonBenet naked from the waist down, or wearing her blood-stained size-6's, dead in the wine-cellar. Dead is dead

I agree,but it only hides it for so long;the R's didn't know what,if anything,might still show up at autopsy,just as with the head wound they appear to have tried to hide,what with the hair restyling..it appears to me JR wanted to hide it at least long enough to make his getaway out of town.
But I do think the new underwear and clean from the dryer blanket and LJ's indicate someone attempting to limit Ramsey dna on her.

His underwear fibers, if accurate, place him in her bedroom.

yes,it doesn't necessarily mean from that same night,but it's a pretty good indication of so,IMO.

Because of the amount of violence applied, why bother with blankets for a dead child after all that cynical staging and mindless violence? JonBenet's killer(s) had their own survival in mind not the decedents!

.

of course.

 

[DeeDee249]

I also think the Barbie nightgowm was simply not noticed in the dark basement. They were panicked. It was dark, even with night goggles and a flashlight. That, to me, was major slip-up when JR said "that shouldn't be there". It took him by surprise.

 

[BOESP]

DeeDee, I replied to your post in the "skull fracture question" topic.

 

[rashomon]

DeeDee249,

Yes and her size-12's and longjohns. If this were the case why were actual blankets from her bed not used. Since if the the sheets had been changed, surely the blankets to be used should be the ones on the bed, and it was blankets! Also the same reasoning applies to the barbie-gown found located next to JonBenet's body, but for some reason alike her death many think its arrival there was accidental?

From your account of the bed, its sheets etc, no attempt was made to make the blankets wrapped around JonBenet consistent with the final state of the bed. So I would assume the case for making it appear she was taken from her bed is weakened?

If JonBenet had not been wiped down and redressed then the bedtime abduction staging would be compelling, and although the fact that it was blankets that were wrapped around her, might not have been lost on whomever did it, I reckon the primary purpose was to hide the hideously large size-12's and any remaining evidence of a sexual assault?

After the violence inflicted upon JonBenet I have always thought that the FBI's remarks regarding the blankets were inconsistent.

There is also the possibility that John added or removed forensic evidence during the period whe he went missing in the morning. e.g. the blankets, the barbie-gown, and the size-12's, recognizing that a sexually assaulted victim increased the probability of being arrested. This might explain some of the crime-scene inconsistencies, since it appears they were really last minute additions, and ones that Patsy had no control over?

Imo you are interpreting way too much logic and reasoning into a crime scene staging which was disorganized from start to finish. This disorganzation is very evident and imo is the key to analyzing the scnenario.
The Ramseys tried to stage a crime scene, but due to their panicked state of mind were unable to

a) think it through

and

b) carry it through to a point where what they staged would look convincing.

That's why we have those elemens which don't seem to fit together.

The Ramseys were no professional killers, but frantic parents, pressed for time, who threw whatever they could think of into the mix. Whether what they did was guided by reason is another question. I don't think it was guided by reason at all.

Who says JonBenet was wiped down to 'hide' sexual assault? While this may sound like a rational explanation, other explanations exist too. Suppose a parent wanted to inflict this vaginal wound to, for whatever reasons, stage it as a sex crime. But who says the parent was able to carry it through to the end? The parent could have stopped abruptly after the first jab because he/she just couldn't bring herself to do more. So the child was wiped down in an impulsive act, and fresh underwear was put on the body.

Or take the blanket: why did they feel the need to put one or two balnkes on the body if they wanted to stage a sex crime - that was your rational question.
But they were also JonBenet's parents, so despite their staging attemps, the Ramseys' parental feelings were also there, running parallel to all their other actions. They were not just eliminated. So this would explain their covering JonBenet in blankets.

The nightgown - they could simply have overlooked it in that dark basement: for example, it could have adhered to the blankets by static cling.

The same goes for the post-mortem urine relaase which wet the size 12 underwear and the loingjohns.
You theorize they put wet underwear back on her, but who says the underwear was already wet? Remember the child was obviously redressed in size 12 underwear fresh out of a new package, therefore it is technically impossible for this underwear to have already been urine-soaked. So the urine release had to have occurred after they put the size 12s on JonBenet's unconscious body, right? And when was that? In all probablility, when JonBenet had already been carried down to the basement. I think she was put down there very soon after the head blow because the Ramseys did not want to Burke to notice anything.
Now in that dark basement, with the body lying face-down on the floor while the garrote and ligatures were fumblingly applied (again, by panicked parents, keep that in mind!). I think it is perfectly conceivable that they would not have noticed the post-mortem release of urine. For example, they didn't even notice that one ligature had already come off her wrist when they put Jonbenet down on the wine cellar floor! This just shows once more their overall confusion.
So after the garrote and ligature staging in front of the wine cellar door, they probably got the blankets, scooped the body up in them, and finally put it down on the wine cellar floor.

In short, the whole the crime scene was staged amateurishly in a very disorganized way. This btw was also the FBI's CASKU experts' conclusion.

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

Imo you are interpreting way too much logic and reasoning into a crime scene staging which was disorganized from start to finish. This disorganzation is very evident and imo is the key to analyzing the scnenario.
The Ramseys tried to stage a crime scene, but due to their panicked state of mind were unable to

a) think it through

and

b) carry it through to a point where what they staged would look convincing.

That's why we have those elemens which don't seem to fit together.

The Ramseys were no professional killers, but frantic parents, pressed for time, who threw whatever they could think of into the mix. Whether what they did was guided by reason is another question. I don't think it was guided by reason at all.

Who says JonBenet was wiped down to 'hide' sexual assault? While this may sound like a rational explanation, other explanations exist too. Suppose a parent wanted to inflict this vaginal wound to, for whatever reasons, stage it as a sex crime. But who says the parent was able to carry it through to the end? The parent could have stopped abruptly after the first jab because he/she just couldn't bring herself to do more. So the child was wiped down in an impulsive act, and fresh underwear was put on the body.

Or take the blanket: why did they feel the need to put one or two balnkes on the body if they wanted to stage a sex crime - that was your rational question.
But they were also JonBenet's parents, so despite their staging attemps, the Ramseys' parental feelings were also there, running parallel to all their other actions. They were not just eliminated. So this would explain their covering JonBenet in blankets.

The nightgown - they could simply have overlooked it in that dark basement: for example, it could have adhered to the blankets by static cling.

The same goes for the post-mortem urine relaase which wet the size 12 underwear and the loingjohns.
You theorize they put wet underwear back on her, but who says the underwear was already wet? Remember the child was obviously redressed in size 12 underwear fresh out of a new package, therefore it is technically impossible for this underwear to have already been urine-soaked. So the urine release had to have occurred after they put the size 12s on JonBenet's unconscious body, right? And when was that? In all probablility, when JonBenet had already been carried down to the basement. I think she was put down there very soon after the head blow because the Ramseys did not want to Burke to notice anything.
Now in that dark basement, with the body lying face-down on the floor while the garrote and ligatures were fumblingly applied (again, by panicked parents, keep that in mind!). I think it is perfectly conceivable that they would not have noticed the post-mortem release of urine. For example, they didn't even notice that one ligature had already come off her wrist when they put Jonbenet down on the wine cellar floor! This just shows once more their overall confusion.
So after the garrote and ligature staging in front of the wine cellar door, they probably got the blankets, scooped the body up in them, and finally put it down on the wine cellar floor.

In short, the whole the crime scene was staged amateurishly in a very disorganized way. This btw was also the FBI's CASKU experts' conclusion.

jmo

rashomon,

Imo you are interpreting way too much logic and reasoning into a crime scene staging which was disorganized from start to finish. This disorganzation is very evident and imo is the key to analyzing the scnenario.
The Ramseys tried to stage a crime scene, but due to their panicked state of mind were unable to

a) think it through

and

b) carry it through to a point where what they staged would look convincing.

I disagree, the removal of forensic evidence, the authoring of the ransom note, and construction of a staged crime-scene, are hardly the hallmark of disorganzation?

That's why we have those elemens which don't seem to fit together.

We have elements that do not seem to fit because, we were not there, and the crime-scene was staged, imputing a state of mind to JonBenet's killer(s) may be pshychologicaly interesting, but cannot be verified.

Who says JonBenet was wiped down to 'hide' sexual assault? While this may sound like a rational explanation, other explanations exist too. Suppose a parent wanted to inflict this vaginal wound to, for whatever reasons, stage it as a sex crime. But who says the parent was able to carry it through to the end? The parent could have stopped abruptly after the first jab because he/she just couldn't bring herself to do more. So the child was wiped down in an impulsive act, and fresh underwear was put on the body.

The forensic evidence and the Coroner Meyer says that JonBenet was wiped down, blood was wiped from her thighs, and there were mismatching blood-stains on her size-12's. Any subsequent vaginal wound does not rule out a prior sexual assault. The parent could have stopped abruptly could is the operative word, since if you consider the violence inflicted upon JonBenet her asphyxiation, neck injuries, and skull fracture, why would her killer(s) belatedly decide to stop at a sexual assault, there was no holding back on the other physical assaults?

Or take the blanket: why did they feel the need to put one or two balnkes on the body if they wanted to stage a sex crime - that was your rational question.
But they were also JonBenet's parents, so despite their staging attemps, the Ramseys' parental feelings were also there, running parallel to all their other actions. They were not just eliminated. So this would explain their covering JonBenet in blankets.

Sure that is a rationale couched in psychological terms, it may be correct, again you are imputing a state of mind to explain physical evidence. I prefer to explain it as a means of hiding evidence, not accomodating some unknown mind, and escaping guaranteed arrest, that is the blankets served to obscure her longjohns and any signs of sexual assault, for all you know her killer(s) may have suspected JonBenet might continue to bleed from her vaginal wound, hence the blankets?

The nightgown - they could simply have overlooked it in that dark basement: for example, it could have adhered to the blankets by static cling.

Sure so why was the flashlight not left in the wine-cellar? I am certain that the nightgown was not left there by accident.

I think it is perfectly conceivable that they would not have noticed the post-mortem release of urine. For example, they didn't even notice that one ligature had already come off her wrist when they put Jonbenet down on the wine cellar floor! This just shows once more their overall confusion.

Not really it shows your desire to paint a picture of confusion. Lets get real, whether JonBenet was vaginally assaulted by a finger or a painbrush handle or both, is a moot point, but for it to occur her assailant had to pull down her urine-soaked longjohns and size-12 underwear, and they could hardly miss her post-mortem urine release, or even its smell in such a confined space?

So after the garrote and ligature staging in front of the wine cellar door, they probably got the blankets, scooped the body up in them, and finally put it down on the wine cellar floor.

In short, the whole the crime scene was staged amateurishly in a very disorganized way. This btw was also the FBI's CASKU experts' conclusion.

Really? So when did her acute vaginal wounding occur, when was the blood wiped away, and how did the birefringement material arrive in her vagina?

I agree the crime scene was staged amateurishly, JonBenet's killer(s) were not professional killer(s), imo the impression of the crime-scene being disorganized arises due to the probability of multiple stagings.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I also think the Barbie nightgowm was simply not noticed in the dark basement. They were panicked. It was dark, even with night goggles and a flashlight. That, to me, was major slip-up when JR said "that shouldn't be there". It took him by surprise.

DeeDee249,
Its a staged crime-scene, nearly sanitized of forensic evidence, how could they miss the barbie-gown, remember its likely JonBenet was garroted outside the wine-cellar not inside, and that as rashomon concedes she may have been wrapped in blankets just outside the wine-cellar door, then placed inside?

That, to me, was major slip-up when JR said "that shouldn't be there". It took him by surprise.

Thats no slip up, because what John states is consistent. imo the barbie-gown was intended to serve a purpose, and for some unknown reason Jonbenet was never redressed in it. If she had been the RDI case would have been harder to prosecute.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Its a staged crime-scene, nearly sanitized of forensic evidence, how could they miss the barbie-gown, remember its likely JonBenet was garroted outside the wine-cellar not inside, and that as rashomon concedes she may have been wrapped in blankets just outside the wine-cellar door, then placed inside?


Thats no slip up, because what John states is consistent. imo the barbie-gown was intended to serve a purpose, and for some unknown reason Jonbenet was never redressed in it. If she had been the RDI case would have been harder to prosecute.


.

Even with the staging of the crime scene, in the panic of the moment, the nightgown could have been overlooked. It was pitch- dark- which is also the reason why the flashlight was not left in the basement. They used the flashlight to get out of the basement without turning on any lights.
The Rs seemed to be concerned with lights that night- the usual sunroom light was NOT on, as it always was. This to me, shows a desire to make it look like the entire house was asleep. But even when they WERE asleep, the sunroom light was left on all night. Except that night. A neighbor reported seeing "strange moving lights" in the home that night and specifically mentioned the kitchen. THAT was someone walking around in a dark house holding a flashlight.

 

[UKGuy]

Even with the staging of the crime scene, in the panic of the moment, the nightgown could have been overlooked. It was pitch- dark- which is also the reason why the flashlight was not left in the basement. They used the flashlight to get out of the basement without turning on any lights.
The Rs seemed to be concerned with lights that night- the usual sunroom light was NOT on, as it always was. This to me, shows a desire to make it look like the entire house was asleep. But even when they WERE asleep, the sunroom light was left on all night. Except that night. A neighbor reported seeing "strange moving lights" in the home that night and specifically mentioned the kitchen. THAT was someone walking around in a dark house holding a flashlight.

DeeDee249,
Sure there was panic etc, but how come they missed a barbie-gown its not exactly a hankie or a bow-tie, where were the blankets wrapped around JonBenet? If it was outside the wine-cellar door how did they miss the nightgown, even with a flashlight it should stand out. I reckon it was intended as part of her bedtime staging scenario, and was for some reason not accomplished.

Some think its possible that it arrived mid-morning when John vanished for a long period of time. It may have been him who extended the cord to create the fake wrist restraints, him who intended to redress her in the barbie-gown, he may even have moved her from another location in the basement after wrapping her in the blankets?


.