No intruder?

[DeeDee249]

Well if the autopsy report said she had been digitally penetrated, this is unlikely to have occurred while she had her clothing on. Granted they may have just been pulled down, so they needed to be re-arranged (redressed), she was wrapped in a blanket, the wiping part I can't confirm. I was responding to Ukguy stating there had been 'staging', which goes with his RDI theory not my IDI.

None of US can confirm it, but the one man who CAN is the coroner, and he DID.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well if the autopsy report said she had been digitally penetrated, this is unlikely to have occurred while she had her clothing on. Granted they may have just been pulled down, so they needed to be re-arranged (redressed), she was wrapped in a blanket, the wiping part I can't confirm. I was responding to Ukguy stating there had been 'staging', which goes with his RDI theory not my IDI.

Why is it unlikely to have occurred with clothing on? If it was digital? Maybe that implies it was more likely her clothing was on.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jonaff7.htm

"Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina."

------------------

Far as I can tell, there are no injuries listed in the autopsy that would require her clothing to be removed.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Maybe this sadistic, maniacal pedophile just wanted to look at her naked. How about that? If you really believe IDI, you have to believe he removed her clothes. Why in the world would he not have and what are you trying to prove by saying he didn't have to remove her clothes? Have you realized how many lies Patsy Ramsey told about what JB was wearing that day/night? Is this a new way to cover for her lies? Do you really believe a murdered childs mother would forget one single detail about what her daughter wore that day/night? I bet you she could tell you every single word JonBenet uttered that day, if she wanted to tell the truth for once. Well, I guess not since she is no longer among the living. Her lies have taken on a life of their own though, and lots of people still believe them, no matter how rediculous. But when it comes to a LE officer reciting what the coroner said during the autopsy, it must be a lie. If we were to start a list of evidenciary comments made by LE, DA, and Ramseys, and then take a poll of who believes what are lies and what are truths, I already know exactly how it would go. We are all going round and round in circles now and getting absolutely nowhere.

 

[SunnieRN]

Yes, I seem to recall that hair. Interesting, that bat was a softball bat, and Patsy played softball with a women's softball team, though in interviews she denied knowing anything about softball.

Even if the flashlight was not also the murder weapon, I believe it was used to walk around the dark house (remember the sun room light was turned OFF, according to neighbors, for the first time they had ever seen). Also, a neighbor reported "strange moving lights" in the kitchen around midnight- this corresponds exactly with the estimated TOD and the location where the flashlight ended up. Using it to walk around after the crime would be reason enough to wipe it down.

Just more R lies and doublespeak. I honestly believe the softball bat was the weapon used. For some reason the R's couldn't tell the truth about owning anything on their property. Not recognizing a bowl, bat, tennis shoes, flashlight, book, etc, etc, etc.

If the flashlight was brought by an IDI, why would the R's flashlight be missing? Did they bring one, just to turn around and steal the R's from them? That makes NO sense at all. You IDI theorists tell us we are reaching, well I think your denial of the R's owning the flashlight on the sink, with the drawer being empty is preposterous.

 

[MurriFlower]

Just more R lies and doublespeak. I honestly believe the softball bat was the weapon used. For some reason the R's couldn't tell the truth about owning anything on their property. Not recognizing a bowl, bat, tennis shoes, flashlight, book, etc, etc, etc.

If the flashlight was brought by an IDI, why would the R's flashlight be missing? Did they bring one, just to turn around and steal the R's from them? That makes NO sense at all. You IDI theorists tell us we are reaching, well I think your denial of the R's owning the flashlight on the sink, with the drawer being empty is preposterous.

WAS the drawer empty?

 

[MurriFlower]

Right. During the commission of the crime. But who is to say they didn't go back down there after calling 911 that morning? And who is to say that Officer French is correct in his memory of the lights? After all, this is a man who couldn't figure out even to look UP at the wooden latch on the door that "wouldn't open".

Ok, looks like Officer French was there later on. FW was first on the scene, and this is what was reported:

"At 6:06 – 6:15 on the morning of 26 December, 1996 FW searched the basement alone. He did not report the presence of a chair anywhere in the basement. He noted that the lights in the basement were on."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Maybe this sadistic, maniacal pedophile just wanted to look at her naked. How about that? If you really believe IDI, you have to believe he removed her clothes. Why in the world would he not have and what are you trying to prove by saying he didn't have to remove her clothes?

I'm trying to figure out what happened, and it helps to figure out what didn't necessarily happen. Undressing and redressing appear to be just a claim or myth because there's no injury that requires it, and no evidence it ever happened.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I'm trying to figure out what happened, and it helps to figure out what didn't necessarily happen. Undressing and redressing appear to be just a claim or myth because there's no injury that requires it, and no evidence it ever happened.

HOTYH, she had on size 12 panties that did not belong to her no matter whether or not you believe it. Nobody else could have known where those panties were except Patsy Ramsey. She even turned the rest of them in several years later. Right there is one reason we KNOW she was redressed. I don't know if all of her clothes were changed, but her panties were; therefore at some point, JonBenet had no clothes on below her waist. I would bet that was when she was molested. Just makes good sense to me. I would like to ask you once again why you have determined that it might be possible she was not undressed or redressed that night? Have you finally read some of Patsy's own words that made her the liar that she was?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, she had on size 12 panties that did not belong to her no matter whether or not you believe it. Nobody else could have known where those panties were except Patsy Ramsey. She even turned the rest of them in several years later. Right there is one reason we KNOW she was redressed. I don't know if all of her clothes were changed, but her panties were; therefore at some point, JonBenet had no clothes on below her waist. I would bet that was when she was molested. Just makes good sense to me. I would like to ask you once again why you have determined that it might be possible she was not undressed or redressed that night? Have you finally read some of Patsy's own words that made her the liar that she was?

I find it hard to believe the coroner would not make a remark about oversize underwear because they would not fit correctly and might affect conclusions and observations. The reader of the autopsy report should know this detail.

I also find it hard to believe so-called 'facts' derived from interviews of suspects. Things they tell PR assumed to be fact. I've read elsewhere that LE will sometimes lie to elicit testimony.

Autopsy report:

Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

You're telling me that the coroner thought the word 'Wednesday' was somehow a more appropriate or significant observation to include on the autopsy than the fact that they were twice her size? Nah.

 

[UKGuy]

It was thoroughly cleaned inside and out by the Rs after it being used in conjunction with the crime and then it was left on the kitchen bench rather than being returned to it's usual place -- why??

MurriFlower,

I do not need to answer that one again: e.g. to remove transferred forensic traces.

Still waiting to hear why the intruder wiped his own flashlight clean then deliberately left it at the crime-scene?

Still waiting to hear why the intruder staged a crime scene in the wine-cellar?

IDI theories are incoherent and lack consistency. They all seem to rely on the absence of evidence flagged up in some RDI, so once again what is your IDI theory, not some fanciful narrative, but a theory that employs published, sourced evidence?

.

 

[UKGuy]

HOTYH, she had on size 12 panties that did not belong to her no matter whether or not you believe it. Nobody else could have known where those panties were except Patsy Ramsey. She even turned the rest of them in several years later. Right there is one reason we KNOW she was redressed. I don't know if all of her clothes were changed, but her panties were; therefore at some point, JonBenet had no clothes on below her waist. I would bet that was when she was molested. Just makes good sense to me. I would like to ask you once again why you have determined that it might be possible she was not undressed or redressed that night? Have you finally read some of Patsy's own words that made her the liar that she was?

joeskidbeck,
Evidence is the one thing IDI theories lack. They all repeatedly refer to an absence of evidence with respect to some feature in any RDI theory and conclude that this is evidence of absence.

There is no published IDI that is coherent or consistent. They all rely on the above semantic trick, and the invention of factoids.

No IDI can prove she was not redressed. RDI has evidence that she was redressed once and circumstantial evidence she was redressed more than once e.g. Patsy stated that JonBenet was put to bed wearing her red turtleneck.

Then we have a bloodstained barbie nightgown left in the wine-cellar, get that, not the basement, but the wine-cellar, so whats that doing there if JonBenet was not wearing it prior to being redressed in her white gap top, which then matches the R's initial version of events.

A barbie nightgown means either JonBenet or someone else placed the nightgown on her prior to going to bed.

Then there is the barbie doll left at the crime-scene, and where is JonBenet's missing size-6 underwear that she wore to the White's party?

why you have determined that it might be possible she was not undressed or redressed that night? Have you finally read some of Patsy's own words that made her the liar that she was?

Utter nonsense spoken by these IDI. Of course it might be possible but the evidence does not support this view. Challenge the IDI for evidence to support their theory, not a percieved absence of evidence in any particular RDI.

If the IDI theory is correct then the available evidence should substantiate this.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

I do not need to answer that one again: e.g. to remove transferred forensic
traces.

Ok, I'll ask it in big letters this time, so you can't possibly misunderstand what I am asking: Why was it left on the bench?

Still waiting to hear why the intruder wiped his own flashlight clean then deliberately left it at the crime-scene?

Well, assuming that the flashlight was brought by an IDI and was wiped clean as you say, then it was probably not deliberately left, but merely forgotten.

Still waiting to hear why the intruder staged a crime scene in the wine-cellar?

Answered already. No crime scene was staged in the wine-cellar by an intruder. The body was left there, period.

IDI theories are incoherent and lack consistency. They all seem to rely on the absence of evidence flagged up in some RDI, so once again what is your IDI theory, not some fanciful narrative, but a theory that employs published, sourced evidence?

Well, theories proposed by RDI such as 'evidence' of the flashlight, can only be described as extremely fanciful. Firstly you say it was 'wiped clean inside and outside', apparently the Rs needed it because they didn't want to turn on lights in their own house, this was purportedly because they were killing their daughter in the basement and didn't want to alert the neighbours. So when I ask why, these clever and devious parents would clean the incriminating flashlight outside and inside (so as to leave no trace), and then leave it on the kitchen bench, rather than replace it in it's usual place, you give no answer.
[/QUOTE]

 

[UKGuy]

Ok, I'll ask it in big letters this time, so you can't possibly misunderstand what I am asking: Why was it left on the bench?



Well, assuming that the flashlight was brought by an IDI and was wiped clean as you say, then it was probably not deliberately left, but merely forgotten.



Answered already. No crime scene was staged in the wine-cellar by an intruder. The body was left there, period.



Well, theories proposed by RDI such as 'evidence' of the flashlight, can only be described as extremely fanciful. Firstly you say it was 'wiped clean inside and outside', apparently the Rs needed it because they didn't want to turn on lights in their own house, this was purportedly because they were killing their daughter in the basement and didn't want to alert the neighbours. So when I ask why, these clever and devious parents would clean the incriminating flashlight outside and inside (so as to leave no trace), and then leave it on the kitchen bench, rather than replace it in it's usual place, you give no answer.

MurriFlower,

Ok, I'll ask it in big letters this time, so you can't possibly misunderstand what I am asking: Why was it left on the bench?

Because thats where the intruder placed it, deliberately, prior to leaving the Ramsey household.

Well, assuming that the flashlight was brought by an IDI and was wiped clean as you say, then it was probably not deliberately left, but merely forgotten.

You do not wipe a crime-scene object clean, then gather everything else up, including your victim's size-6 underwear, and forget the last item you just wiped clean, but hey why wipe it clean if you intend to take it with you?

As I said your position as an IDI is totally incoherent, you still have not explained why the intruder staged a crime-scene, you have to do this since JonBenet was redressed and the ligature and paintbrush handle never functioned as a garrote.

The evidence supports this, IDI have no evidence to support an intruder scenario, this is why they pick holes in the RDI, with their absence of evidence and invented factoids.

Tell us how your IDI theory matches the available forensic evidence failure to do this must mean you have no theory and are merely a Ramsey apologist sniping away!


.

 

[claudicici]

...if the flashlight was the murder weapon and if PR was in a psychosis it would make sense again that her action was only for herself,it made sense to herself to wipe away the prints .
Holy Bible, 27:24, 25: "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere [that is, he could not persuade "the Jews" that Christ was "innocent"], but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man’s blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!'

"All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'"

 

[BBB167893]

So again, the R's are attributed with amazing foresight by RDI, anticipating what the neighbours might think, but these very actions bring more suspicion on them not less.

Exactly the kind of things an amateur might do, wouldn't you say?

We actually have no evidence that it was used to bash her, it is just an RDI theory.

That's a fair point. Not all RDIs accept it, either. I have my doubts.

As far as I can see, there was no staged crime-scene in the wine cellar. This is where her body was left, but I can see no evidence of staging,

It's there.

unless you are talking about her being wiped, redressed and wrapped in a blanket?

That's part of it, far as I go.

 

[BBB167893]

Her lies have taken on a life of their own though, and lots of people still believe them, no matter how rediculous. But when it comes to a LE officer reciting what the coroner said during the autopsy, it must be a lie.

Yeah, that would seem to be it!

If we were to start a list of evidenciary comments made by LE, DA, and Ramseys, and then take a poll of who believes what are lies and what are truths, I already know exactly how it would go.

I think I do, too.

 

[BBB167893]

Have you finally read some of Patsy's own words that made her the liar that she was?

I doubt it, Beck!

I also find it hard to believe so-called 'facts' derived from interviews of suspects.

If it were ONLY her interviews, HOTYH, you might have a good point.

Things they tell PR assumed to be fact. I've read elsewhere that LE will sometimes lie to elicit testimony.

It's far MORE common that suspects will lie to the police. Given the choice...

 

[BBB167893]

So when I ask why, these clever and devious parents would clean the incriminating flashlight outside and inside (so as to leave no trace), and then leave it on the kitchen bench, rather than replace it in it's usual place, you give no answer.

I could swear we've been over this issue: they weren't clever so much as lucky.

 

[BBB167893]

The evidence supports this, IDI have no evidence to support an intruder scenario, this is why they pick holes in the RDI, with their absence of evidence and invented factoids.

Tell us how your IDI theory matches the available forensic evidence failure to do this must mean you have no theory and are merely a Ramsey apologist sniping away!


.

Harsh, UKGuy. And I'm lovin' it.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Because thats where the intruder placed it, deliberately, prior to leaving the Ramsey household.



You do not wipe a crime-scene object clean, then gather everything else up, including your victim's size-6 underwear, and forget the last item you just wiped clean, but hey why wipe it clean if you intend to take it with you?

As I said your position as an IDI is totally incoherent, you still have not explained why the intruder staged a crime-scene, you have to do this since JonBenet was redressed and the ligature and paintbrush handle never functioned as a garrote.

The evidence supports this, IDI have no evidence to support an intruder scenario, this is why they pick holes in the RDI, with their absence of evidence and invented factoids.

Tell us how your IDI theory matches the available forensic evidence failure to do this must mean you have no theory and are merely a Ramsey apologist sniping away!


.

I'll ask this question of you one more time, as I can see you are having difficulty interpreting what I am asking YOU.

You have stated that the flashlight was cleaned inside and outside by the Rs to remove evidence. That is your theory, not mine.

Then you say it was left on the kitchen bench.

What I am asking you is:

Why would the R's leave it on the bench rather than replace the flashlight in it's original place?