Molested with the handle?

[DeeDee249]

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?


.

Of course, these things could have happened- and it could also be that they just did not see the nightgown, period.
I have had experiences with exactly that kind of nylon kids' nightgown. They pick up a lot of static cling, not just from a dryer, but even sleeping on certain sheets can cause it, or walking across certain carpets while wearing it can cause it. It could have been stuck to a blanket when pulled out of the dryer. There is one other scenario:
The nightie is tangled up with the blanket as it is pulled from the dryer, and ends up on the floor of the wineceller. The Rs DO notice it, but in their rush and panicked state, simply forget to remove it, and when confronted with the photo of it later by LE, JR pops out with his slip up "That's not supposed to be there". The bkankets and the dead little girl aren't supposed to be there either.
OR they notice it, or place it there deliberately, thinking it will give support to the theory they push forward about her being "taken from her bed". They intend to have it believed that she was possinbly wearing the nightie. But PR admits to LE that she was the one who put the longjohns on JBR that night, leaving the white Gap shirt she wore to the White's on her to sleep in. So that blows the theory that she wore the pink nightie.

 

[UKGuy]

Of course, these things could have happened- and it could also be that they just did not see the nightgown, period.
I have had experiences with exactly that kind of nylon kids' nightgown. They pick up a lot of static cling, not just from a dryer, but even sleeping on certain sheets can cause it, or walking across certain carpets while wearing it can cause it. It could have been stuck to a blanket when pulled out of the dryer. There is one other scenario:
The nightie is tangled up with the blanket as it is pulled from the dryer, and ends up on the floor of the wineceller. The Rs DO notice it, but in their rush and panicked state, simply forget to remove it, and when confronted with the photo of it later by LE, JR pops out with his slip up "That's not supposed to be there". The bkankets and the dead little girl aren't supposed to be there either.
OR they notice it, or place it there deliberately, thinking it will give support to the theory they push forward about her being "taken from her bed". They intend to have it believed that she was possinbly wearing the nightie. But PR admits to LE that she was the one who put the longjohns on JBR that night, leaving the white Gap shirt she wore to the White's on her to sleep in. So that blows the theory that she wore the pink nightie.

DeeDee249, Sure I appreciate all that, but for the barbie-gown to arrive in the wine-cellar means it was on the outside of the blankets not the inside? But JonBenet was carefully wrapped in those blankets, how come the barbie-gown was missed, since there was more than one opportunity to note it was sticking to the blankets, particularly if JonBenet was wiped down in the basement? .

 

[Solace]

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.

I do not mean to be maudlin here, but can you describe the injury. Was the skin broken?

 

[JMO8778]

I do not mean to be maudlin here, but can you describe the injury. Was the skin broken?

no,not at all,and although my skull wasn't fractured,I still had the resulting internal head injury on the opposite side,where the brain strikes the opposite side of the skull when it hits.

 

[Solace]

no,not at all,and although my skull wasn't fractured,I still had the resulting internal head injury on the opposite side,where the brain strikes the opposite side of the skull when it hits.

Thanks JMO and glad you are fine.

Cyrill Wecht says their was bruising on both sides of the brain as if someone had been shaking her - shaking her to wake up? Sounds right to me.

Holdon,

Do you think an intruder would be trying to shake JB so that she would wake up. Or do you think it more likely that her mother would be shaking her to wake up after she knocked her out?

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249, Sure I appreciate all that, but for the barbie-gown to arrive in the wine-cellar means it was on the outside of the blankets not the inside? But JonBenet was carefully wrapped in those blankets, how come the barbie-gown was missed, since there was more than one opportunity to note it was sticking to the blankets, particularly if JonBenet was wiped down in the basement? .

Try to envision this scene: the white blanket from JBR's bed (the one that housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh mentioned as being JBR's "special blanket". was reported by LH-P as being washed daily (as a result of the bedwetting). She also said that it did not fit in the small washer/dryer right outside JBR's bedroom. So the sheets and blanket were washed every day, and the blanket was always washed in the basement full-size washer/dryer. Housekeeper LH-P also said that the sheets on JBR's bed in the crime scene photos were NOT the same sheets she last put on the bed on Dec.23. LH-P was at the R party on the 23rd, but did not come to clean Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. The crime scene shots of the bed show a bed that was unmade, but also showed NO blanket visible, and the bottom half of the bed was still very neat, with the bedspread still neatly in place. There was NO way that anyone pulled a blanket off that bed without disturbing the bedspread.
So this what I think- either (or both) Dec.24th or 25th JBR wet the bed as usual, with PR herself changing the sheets and washing the blanket in the basement washer/dryer. I believe it was the 24th and here's why- The Barbie nightgown was supposedly JBR's favorite and maybe she wore it the night of the R party on the 23. She wets the bed and when PR gets up on the 24th, the blanket, sheets and the nightie go into the basement washer-dryer. There are surely spare sheets for the bed, but maybe not a spare "special" blanket, so while PR puts clean sheets on the bed that morning, the blanket is still in the washer/dryer, so she makes the bed without the blanket. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are busy days for any family, so PR does not have time to get the blanket from the basement. With no housekeeper coming those 2 days, she doesn't bother. We know JBR woke up Christmas morning wearing pink 2-piece pjs.
So lets imagine the white blanket and Barbie nightie are still in the dryer on Christmas night when the family returns from the White's. PR, with all she had to do to get ready for the 2 trips the next day, was NOT going to get the blanket and remake the bed that night.
So the blanket was right there in the basement dryer when JBR was killed, and pulled out to wrap her in it. Trust me- I've done laundry for 35 years, there is a LOT of static cling in blankets and nylon nighties. Usually when I take a blanket or sheet from the dryer, whatever nylon garment was dried with it is not just stuck to it, it is hidden inside it, usually all tangled up inside the blanket. I think the nightie came out of the dryer with the blanket, but not necessarily visibly. It dropped away as soon as the static cling was released.
Maybe you are thinking the nightie "arrived" in the basement on the outside of the blanket, which you are maybe thinking came from the bedroom or the washer dryer on the second floor. In reality, the blanket did not come from the bed (the crime photos indicate this), and both the blanket and the nightie were already in the basement dryer- they did not arrive there after the murder.
Here's another thought- in the crime photos of the R master bedroom, the bottom corner of the R bed shows the comforter curiously pulled up on one of the corners to expose a neatly tucked blanket on the bed. The bed was unmade, but looked suspiciously unslept in, just like JBR's bed. Possibly indicating they were looking for a blanket-and the one from JBR's bed was not in place. Then PR remembers that JBR's blanket was in the basement.
Needless to say, no "intruder" would look for a blanket on the parent's bed while the parents were supposed to be sleeping in it. (though it wouldn't surprise me to hear the R say that very thing)

 

[UKGuy]

Try to envision this scene: the white blanket from JBR's bed (the one that housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh mentioned as being JBR's "special blanket". was reported by LH-P as being washed daily (as a result of the bedwetting). She also said that it did not fit in the small washer/dryer right outside JBR's bedroom. So the sheets and blanket were washed every day, and the blanket was always washed in the basement full-size washer/dryer. Housekeeper LH-P also said that the sheets on JBR's bed in the crime scene photos were NOT the same sheets she last put on the bed on Dec.23. LH-P was at the R party on the 23rd, but did not come to clean Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. The crime scene shots of the bed show a bed that was unmade, but also showed NO blanket visible, and the bottom half of the bed was still very neat, with the bedspread still neatly in place. There was NO way that anyone pulled a blanket off that bed without disturbing the bedspread.
So this what I think- either (or both) Dec.24th or 25th JBR wet the bed as usual, with PR herself changing the sheets and washing the blanket in the basement washer/dryer. I believe it was the 24th and here's why- The Barbie nightgown was supposedly JBR's favorite and maybe she wore it the night of the R party on the 23. She wets the bed and when PR gets up on the 24th, the blanket, sheets and the nightie go into the basement washer-dryer. There are surely spare sheets for the bed, but maybe not a spare "special" blanket, so while PR puts clean sheets on the bed that morning, the blanket is still in the washer/dryer, so she makes the bed without the blanket. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are busy days for any family, so PR does not have time to get the blanket from the basement. With no housekeeper coming those 2 days, she doesn't bother. We know JBR woke up Christmas morning wearing pink 2-piece pjs.
So lets imagine the white blanket and Barbie nightie are still in the dryer on Christmas night when the family returns from the White's. PR, with all she had to do to get ready for the 2 trips the next day, was NOT going to get the blanket and remake the bed that night.
So the blanket was right there in the basement dryer when JBR was killed, and pulled out to wrap her in it. Trust me- I've done laundry for 35 years, there is a LOT of static cling in blankets and nylon nighties. Usually when I take a blanket or sheet from the dryer, whatever nylon garment was dried with it is not just stuck to it, it is hidden inside it, usually all tangled up inside the blanket. I think the nightie came out of the dryer with the blanket, but not necessarily visibly. It dropped away as soon as the static cling was released.
Maybe you are thinking the nightie "arrived" in the basement on the outside of the blanket, which you are maybe thinking came from the bedroom or the washer dryer on the second floor. In reality, the blanket did not come from the bed (the crime photos indicate this), and both the blanket and the nightie were already in the basement dryer- they did not arrive there after the murder.
Here's another thought- in the crime photos of the R master bedroom, the bottom corner of the R bed shows the comforter curiously pulled up on one of the corners to expose a neatly tucked blanket on the bed. The bed was unmade, but looked suspiciously unslept in, just like JBR's bed. Possibly indicating they were looking for a blanket-and the one from JBR's bed was not in place. Then PR remembers that JBR's blanket was in the basement.
Needless to say, no "intruder" would look for a blanket on the parent's bed while the parents were supposed to be sleeping in it. (though it wouldn't surprise me to hear the R say that very thing)

DeeDee249, All of what you suggest may have occured with respect to that particular blanket, this is not in dispute. Has anyone confirmed that the blanket you are referring to is the same as one wrapped around JonBenet? Also there was not just one blanket, special or not, wrapped around JonBenet, there were two blankets e.g. 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.

Now two blankets require similar explaining as one, with the proviso that if the barbie-gown arrived by static transfer, how come it was not noticed when the blankets were applied? .

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249, All of what you suggest may have occured with respect to that particular blanket, this is not in dispute. Has anyone confirmed that the blanket you are referring to is the same as one wrapped around JonBenet? Also there was not just one blanket, special or not, wrapped around JonBenet, there were two blankets e.g. http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm Now two blankets require similar explaining as one, with the proviso that if the barbie-gown arrived by static transfer, how come it was not noticed when the blankets were applied? .

As I see it, the nightie fell off the blanket(s) after they were pulled from the dryer and before they were wrapped around the body. It was dark, and I basically believe they just did not notice it. I have no way of knowing WHY they did not see it. Nor does anyone else know why. I would venture that if asked that question, even they would not know WHY. But even JR said, when it was pointed out to him, "That's not supposed to be there." It's just one of those things. They simply did not notice it. There's not much more to say about it.

 

[UKGuy]

As I see it, the nightie fell off the blanket(s) after they were pulled from the dryer and before they were wrapped around the body. It was dark, and I basically believe they just did not notice it. I have no way of knowing WHY they did not see it. Nor does anyone else know why. I would venture that if asked that question, even they would not know WHY. But even JR said, when it was pointed out to him, "That's not supposed to be there." It's just one of those things. They simply did not notice it. There's not much more to say about it.

DeeDee249,

As I see it, the nightie fell off the blanket(s) after they were pulled from the dryer and before they were wrapped around the body.

Maybe depends if the blankets were applied in the wine-cellar or out? .

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249, Maybe depends if the blankets were applied in the wine-cellar or out? .

Don't know. Don't think it makes much difference. It was pitch black in the entire basement, and they were using the flashlight to get around. You, I am sure, have used a flashlight in a dark place. I know I have, the power goes out frequently in my town. The large 9-volt lantern-type flashlights throw a lot of light. This flashlight was not that type. It is the traditional type, though it was a very large one. But even a strong flashlight illuminates a small area. The beam goes straight out in a kind of cone-shape. As the beam goes out further, the pool of light gets bigger, but also gets dimmer. If the nightie fell as they carried the blankets in such a way as to fall behind them or to the side or anywhere out of the area that the beam of light hits, they just wouldn't see it. And if they didn't know it had come out of the dryer...they wouldn't know to look for it with the flashlight. That's why it was such a surprise to JR when he was shown the photos.

 

[JMO8778]

I think he used the night vision goggles he was questioned about in the interviews.He may have used the flashlight as well (or Patsy),but I tend to think the gown would have gone more unnoticed by using the goggles.
JR was trying to account for his prints on a pair of binoculars in DOI.I don't know if those were also usable as night vision goggles,but it seems he sure was trying to account for them.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think he used the night vision goggles he was questioned about in the interviews.He may have used the flashlight as well (or Patsy),but I tend to think the gown would have gone more unnoticed by using the goggles.
JR was trying to account for his prints on a pair of binoculars in DOI.I don't know if those were also usable as night vision goggles,but it seems he sure was trying to account for them.

The way I see it...it is not suspicious that the R's fingerprints should be found on things that belong to them, whether it's the binoculars, spoon, pineapple bowl, whatever.
But it IS suspicious that they deny owning them. OR if they are found completely devoid of prints. (I'm not talking about that flashlight. I'd expect the perp, no matter how amateur, to wipe that down- but the BATTERIES are another matter.) Even an intruder wouldn't wipe those down. Actually, they'd WANT the R prints found.

 

[Ames]

The way I see it...it is not suspicious that the R's fingerprints should be found on things that belong to them, whether it's the binoculars, spoon, pineapple bowl, whatever.
But it IS suspicious that they deny owning them. OR if they are found completely devoid of prints. (I'm not talking about that flashlight. I'd expect the perp, no matter how amateur, to wipe that down- but the BATTERIES are another matter.) Even an intruder wouldn't wipe those down. Actually, they'd WANT the R prints found.

I know, that makes NO sense to me either. What sort of perp would wipe off the batteries? Why would HIS prints be on the batteries anyway? Of course, they wouldn't be. (This is funny...some IDI's actually believe that the intruder found the flashlight, but that the batteries were dead, and that he found the drawer where some new ones were kept and he put the new ones in). I would imagine that a REAL PERP would have used gloves...and wouldn't have had the need to wipe down the flashlight (because, as you said, he would have wanted the Rams prints on it). I think that the Rams were trying to make it look like an intruder used it, but they got just a tad bit carried away, by wiping off prints....when they wiped down the batteries.

 

[JMO8778]

The way I see it...it is not suspicious that the R's fingerprints should be found on things that belong to them, whether it's the binoculars, spoon, pineapple bowl, whatever.

right,they may have just been out and he was trying to account for them being there;that was the time he said he was watching a 'strange vehicle' at the Barnhill's house wit them (but yet he didn't bother to report it to LE ..go figure !)

But it IS suspicious that they deny owning them. OR if they are found completely devoid of prints. (I'm not talking about that flashlight. I'd expect the perp, no matter how amateur, to wipe that down- but the BATTERIES are another matter.) Even an intruder wouldn't wipe those down. Actually, they'd WANT the R prints found.

yes,and it's like watching 'Cops'.Denial of objects found in their possession is a common theme.

 

[JMO8778]

I know, that makes NO sense to me either. What sort of perp would wipe off the batteries? Why would HIS prints be on the batteries anyway? Of course, they wouldn't be. (This is funny...some IDI's actually believe that the intruder found the flashlight, but that the batteries were dead, and that he found the drawer where some new ones were kept and he put the new ones in). I would imagine that a REAL PERP would have used gloves...and wouldn't have had the need to wipe down the flashlight (because, as you said, he would have wanted the Rams prints on it). I think that the Rams were trying to make it look like an intruder used it, but they got just a tad bit carried away, by wiping off prints....when they wiped down the batteries.

yes it does seem to be overdone,doesn't it?! desperation is a good indication of parental involvement.

 

[UKGuy]

yes it does seem to be overdone,doesn't it?! desperation is a good indication of parental involvement.

JMO8778, Except that the flashlight was not discovered at the crime-scene. It was removed from the crime-scene, if it was intended to indicate it belonged to the intruder or was used by the intruder, why bother removing it? Even more bizarre is that the intruder removes JonBenet's size-6 underwear, missing piece of paintbrush, remaining cord etc, but leaves his flashlight, after taking some quality time to wipe it clean, does all that make sense? The flashlight may have been part of a prior staging and was wiped clean to remove any forensic links. Note the difference in thinking here between the evidence left in the kitchen e.g. pineapple bowl etc, and items such as the size-12's and the flashlight?

 

[UKGuy]

Don't know. Don't think it makes much difference. It was pitch black in the entire basement, and they were using the flashlight to get around. You, I am sure, have used a flashlight in a dark place. I know I have, the power goes out frequently in my town. The large 9-volt lantern-type flashlights throw a lot of light. This flashlight was not that type. It is the traditional type, though it was a very large one. But even a strong flashlight illuminates a small area. The beam goes straight out in a kind of cone-shape. As the beam goes out further, the pool of light gets bigger, but also gets dimmer. If the nightie fell as they carried the blankets in such a way as to fall behind them or to the side or anywhere out of the area that the beam of light hits, they just wouldn't see it. And if they didn't know it had come out of the dryer...they wouldn't know to look for it with the flashlight. That's why it was such a surprise to JR when he was shown the photos.

DeeDee249, Well it must make a difference since the garrote was created outside the wine-cellar not inside it? It may have arrived there accidentally, but I doubt it, possibly two pairs of eyes at the crime-scene, JonBenet may have been wrapped or unwrapped to allow for a fake assault, or had the size-12's placed on her, she had to be turned over to place the garrote on her, then turned back again to be placed into the wine-cellar, all these operation allow plenty opportunity for two pairs of eyes to note there is a Barbie-Gown present? .

 

[Ames]

JMO8778, Except that the flashlight was not discovered at the crime-scene. It was removed from the crime-scene, if it was intended to indicate it belonged to the intruder or was used by the intruder, why bother removing it? Even more bizarre is that the intruder removes JonBenet's size-6 underwear, missing piece of paintbrush, remaining cord etc, but leaves his flashlight, after taking some quality time to wipe it clean, does all that make sense? The flashlight may have been part of a prior staging and was wiped clean to remove any forensic links. Note the difference in thinking here between the evidence left in the kitchen e.g. pineapple bowl etc, and items such as the size-12's and the flashlight?

If the "intruder" had of left it at the crime scene...then how would he have been able to see to get out of the WC and that messy basement? My guess is that the Ramseys, placed it on the counter on purpose...as part of the staging. They took the flashlight, and wiped it down...(because the only prints on it was their own)...to make it look like the intruder did it. And that would have been VERY suspicious...if the flashlight had of been left in the WC, because it was very dark...and its farfetched to think that the intruder turned on the lights to find his way out, because they all would have had to have been left on all night, if he had of went back to turn them off, it would have been dark again, and he then he wouldn't have been able to see (yet again)...and he wouldn't have wanted to draw attention from the neighbors, you know. I think that they got carried away, when they wiped the batteries clean. That was meaningless because an intruder's prints would not have been on the batteries in the first place.

 

[BOESP]

... Even more bizarre is that the intruder removes JonBenet's size-6 underwear, missing piece of paintbrush, remaining cord etc, ....

I don't mean to step on your toes UKGuy but your statement seems to be a personal hypothesis. Is there proof of a missing piece of paintbrush, "dirty" size-6 panties worn during the crime, or remaining unused cord? TIA - just want to separate facts from speculation here.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't mean to step on your toes UKGuy but your statement seems to be a personal hypothesis. Is there proof of a missing piece of paintbrush, "dirty" size-6 panties worn during the crime, or remaining unused cord? TIA - just want to separate facts from speculation here.

BOESP,

your statement seems to be a personal hypothesis.

Really, have you read much on the JonBenet case? The missing items are inferences generated by adoption of the intruder theory, over the years various people have assumed them to be true. So within this context that is why I refer to them.